Laws that allow people to use guns to defend themselves are called stand your ground laws. They overturn the threat of prosecution based on “flight, if possible” laws. These laws are spreading. A majority of male voters want them. Gun control advocates resist them.
Iowa is considering such legislation. One opponent is Rev. Jayne. He wrote this letter to the local Des Moines Register.
It is clear that current gun laws are what helped Jay Lewis in his unfortunate altercation with two men in October where he found it necessary to use his weapon to defend himself. The jury declared him innocent after hearing the 911 tape. The law said Lewis was right. . . .
It is my contention that if House File 2215 had been in effect, with its inherent encouragement of carrying to protect yourself on a “shoot first, ask questions later” basis, the other individuals in the altercation might also very well have been armed, resulting in a real shoot-out.
Lewis was carrying and gave fair warning that he was going to defend himself. There are plenty of hotheads or persons affected by drinking (as the others were in this instance, it seems) who could escalate similar situations into real gun battles or massacres.
We employ law enforcement to protect the public and that should be our thrust. Provide them what they need to protect us. “Stand your ground” legislation is not the answer.
He worries about massacres. I don’t. I worry about thugs who are armed and who threaten my life. I worry that I may not have time to call the police. I worry about a 20-minute delay after the call. Most of all, I worry about a police state that disarms the law-abiding population.
He writes: “Provide them what they need to protect us.” We know where this concept leads: to a police state.
Freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment. Liberals defend this. Freedom of carrying weapons is defended by the second amendment. Liberals do whatever they can to keep this from being enforced by the courts.
The second amendment supports the first amendment, not because it foments revolution, but because it reduces the voters’ call to provide the police with what they need to protect us when we are unarmed. When people are unwilling or unable by law to defend themselves, they will call for ever-stronger police forces.
An armed citizenry is a citizenry that is not easily pushed around by thugs. That attitude and that ability is political protection against voters who are so fearful that they consent to a police state.