Oh, the terror...

In a sign that it is clearly the end of the world, legally-armed law-abiding citizens are going to be able to carry their weapons in the parks and pools of Charleston, WV.  Run for the hills (as long as they are not in a park)!

Gee - look at this - I bet this citizen wishes she had been carrying a firearm in this park a year ago.  Now why would anyone want to carry a firearm in a park?  Absurd!

Do these people really think that a criminal, intent on committing a crime at a park or a pool, would choose to not do so because it was against the law to carry a firearm there?  That prohibiting guns means preventing crime.  I know this is complicated, so I will try to go slowly:  The truly vast majority of gun-related crime is committed by those who cannot or do not legally possess a firearm at all - anywhere - so they have already made the decision to break the law.  If one is intent on committing murder, a fine or whatever for a small infraction for carrying a weapon illegally means nothing (please read the FBI Violent Encounters publications)!

Do they really believe that the criminal who was intent on shooting up the park would be concerned that he may get arrested for having an illegal firearm there?  How do you define "criminal" if you believe that?  This is the foolishness people engage in as a way of justifying their intentions to restrict the individual freedoms of law-abiding people.  This is superstitious behavior and nothing more.  It is willful blindness.  Crime is behavior.  The problem is behavior.

People who get all up in arms (pun intended) over this kind of thing obviously do not understand the reason for pre-emption at the state level.  One can only assume it is because they have no need to and, thus, it is a selfish lack of understanding.  But for the law-abiding and legally-armed citizen it is important.  I know - those who do not care to carry a weapon do not see any reason that those who do should not be inconvenienced.  Well, if we want to think that way then those who want to have an abortion should be required to have that ultrasound vaginal probe - what's the problem with a little inconvenience and a violation of rights?  And, btw, there is no constitutional right that specifically notes that the "Right to Abortion shall not be infringed".

To have to know the idiosyncrasies of the law in each little municipality one may enter (often without knowing they have entered it) is absurd.  It would be like each city or suburb having its own driving laws, like having the speed limit change from one block to the next but with no signs to tell you it had or having green mean stop in Podunkville and "Oh, you didn't know!?!?! - well ignorance of the law is no excuse!", so that you are entrapped into breaking the law.

If only people would think...if only.