About the only reasons allowed were for target shooting or hunting and you had to be able to prove to any officer you were doing one or the other if challenged. At that time defensive guns were not real high on most people’s agenda. Crime rates were much lower and most really didn’t feel the need for such a weapon. Virtually nobody carried: It was very unusual for other than law enforcement or someone who had to carry a lot of money.
“If I were in the same situation today, my actions probably would be about the same. I would certainly work to try to rectify the situation and fight gun control, but otherwise keep my nose to the grindstone until I could afford a reasonable change. Everybody has their personal priorities and nobody else can speak for them. Obviously, when personal safety becomes a prevalent concern, priorities would probably change.”
DEFEND YOUR HOMELAND!
“I read with interest your article regarding states that are hostile to the Second Amendment and whether it makes sense to move from those states to one with a more firearms-friendly environment,” John responded.
“As far as voting with your feet and moving, I’ve always thought that a valid expression of patriotism is defending your homeland, and the literal interpretation of homeland is the land on which you reside. If less people pulled up stakes and ran from problems, the problems could more easily be overcome.
“A case in point is my neighborhood of big, old houses with outstanding architecture. After the city tore down a decrepit public housing project, the residents brought a lawsuit against the local county government, alleging ‘historic and systematic racial segregation in the county’s public housing communities.’ A requirement in the resulting consent decree stipulated that the county set aside 25 percent of CDBG (community development block grant) funds for economic/community development and housing programs.
What these geniuses did with this money was to buy available houses in nice neighborhoods for the mostly non-working residents of the former public housing. When they started moving into working class neighborhoods, the responsible people started moving out, which left more houses for the county to buy for the societal leeches. The local government destroyed many nice neighborhoods this way, but the government was assisted by the ‘run away’ mentality of people not willing to defend their homeland.
“I stayed put, buying one of the great old houses and restoring it. Now, my neighborhood is building back up, since people can better see past the scum and recognize the potential of these historic houses and people willing to stay and fight rather than cut and run. I never served in the military and have great respect for those that do serve and have served. However, there is more than one way to defend your country and we need more people willing to do so in their own neighborhoods.
“I don’t mean to suggest that it’s a decision that will work everywhere and for everyone, but it’s one that I wish more would consider. The improvement here in my neighborhood certainly didn’t happen overnight – it’s actually taken 15 years in my case, during which time my wife and I raised two boys in this neighborhood. I’ve often second-guessed my decision during the past 15 years, seeing that I potentially increased the risk to my sons. However, they’re good young adults now and have plenty of street smarts to carry with them through their adult lives. Sometimes I think that perhaps I did it as a way of compensating for not having served in the military, although that wasn’t a conscious thought then.
“For me, the situation I described above serves as a good analog for NOT running from a Second Amendment hostile state. I’d like to think that I’d stay and fight with my votes, but a lot depends on just how hostile the state government is and the current state of societal affairs.