I was recently quoted in the Palm Beach Post as insinuating that the permitless carry bills do “a poor job of promoting more gun sales.” To read the full article, visit here.
Unfortunately for the columnist, my direct quote was, “Our organization has the vision of normalizing and destigmatizing firearms and the gun-buying process.” These are two radically different statements.
See Sherrie and Nicholas’ Full Speeches:
Sherrie McKnight & Nicholas Lahera Speak at FL Senate Committee on Constitutional Carry
Right now, the firearms industry is grouped in with vices, like drug use, pornography, and other forms of promiscuity. Understanding this, we look to educate the general public on the useful nature and importance of owning a firearm for protection and seeking the proper education to be proficient with that tool.
Frank Cerabino thinks he has a “gotcha” moment, but his piece is dangerously deceitful. While he is correct that the bill does not affect firearms sales. He paints our organization as ignorant for believing or wanting that. The fact of the matter is, the bill does nothing for firearms ownership. Even with the passage of the bill, those ineligible from owning a firearm now, will still be ineligible.
Let me educate the author quickly. HB 543 and SB 150 each, similarly, allow Florida residents, and visitors, who are legally permitted to own a firearm, to carry said firearm on their person without a permit.
I want to reemphasize one point there: those who are legally permitted to own a firearm. He then goes on to say that more guns lead to more unnecessary death. While he makes no validating or quantifying claim to back this up, I won’t address that. I will, however, mention, once again, that the bill makes no changes for ownership or possession of a firearm.
The ad hominem attacks on the firearms industry and gun owners are old, and, quite frankly, a bit desperate. Being called a “terrorist” just doesn’t have the same je ne sais quoi that it used to. So, let’s break down the myths of the article.
Claim #1: “The term ‘constitutional carry’ is a political fiction meant to confer bedrock rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, rights that aren’t there.”
Besides comparing it to rape, which was extremely low class, the Founders provided an abundance of evidence to support the notion that the right is for personal possession. A few are listed below:
- “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18
- “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution
- “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention
- “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention
Need we say more?
You carry on to blame “activist judges” for conferring individual rights of gun ownership. I’m trying to follow the mental gymnastics you used to get there. The right to keep and bear arms is “imaginary” because you perceive the 2008 makeup of the Supreme Court as illegitimate. Am I following correctly?
Claim #2: Even in the heyday of the “Wild West,” during the 1880s, towns such as Tombstone, Dodge City, and Deadwood, required visitors in town to hand over their guns to the local lawman while they remained inside town limits.
This fun fact is actually true. Your omission of information is what truly shocked me. If Tombstone was this progressive town with gun control measures that were decades ahead of their time, why did the shootout at the O.K. Corral happen? You go as far as to say that there was more gun control then, than there is now in the same city. I thought gun control prevented shootings. It was you who said, “more guns lead to more unnecessary deaths”.
If nobody could even bring a gun into town limits, why was there a shooting? Oh, that’s right, criminals don’t follow the law. Innocent, law-abiding people die when left defenseless by their government.
Claim #3: what’s the point of being a gunslinger if you can’t show off your lethal power in the dairy aisle of the supermarket?
You are presenting open carry as though it is commonplace anywhere. I said this before the legislature, but you seemed to have missed it when you quoted me, “If this is permitted in 47 other states without issue, it shouldn’t be one here.”
Open carry is not a common practice, nor would it become one, but it should be a protection we have. You continue on to fear-monger saying, “[this] would also allow them to walk around in public with weapons too big to conceal, such as military-style mass casualty weapons like the AR-15, which fires projectiles capable of liquifying body organs and passing through metal.”
First of all, this has not proven to be a problem in the 47 states which allow open carry. Second, SBRs which shoot the same, or a similar round, as an AR-15 are permitted with a payment of a tax stamp, and those firearms can be concealed. Third, and once again, criminals don’t follow laws. If criminals don’t carry through with their heinous activities because they see an AR-15, is that not a good thing?
Interestingly, open carry would aid women significantly, but nobody wants to have that conversation. Dianna Muller, of the DC Project, stated at that very committee meeting that it is much harder for small-framed women to conceal their firearms in an acceptable manner. Additionally, Sherrie McKnight, co-founder of Big Daddy Unlimited and Big Daddy Guns, argued, “Open carry is an option that some law-abiding citizens may choose to exercise that shows criminals they are not going to become their victim.”
Ultimately, pass Constitutional Carry…
When there are no facts to be had, the anti-gun crowd is only left with fallacy-filled arguments and begging to get supporters. The only imaginary thing is your grasp on journalism; the article was rhetoric and propaganda used to line the pockets of anti-freedom organizations.
Big Daddy Unlimited advocates strongly for Second Amendment rights because we believe that the right to keep and bear arms exists to protect all of the other God-given rights of American citizens. Become a member today to join our community of freedom-loving Americans, and let’s work together to support and defend our Second Amendment rights.