Imagine this:
What if one day someone was to exercise their First Amendment rights to speech and it killed someone (maybe they said to someone jokingly, “go ahead and jump see if I care”). What if, because of that person’s speech the government decided to start issuing permits to make sure people used their speech responsibly. In order to get this speech permit, you must be at least 21 years of age and have no felony convictions on your record. You must fill out an application attesting to the fact that you have passed various courses to prove that you can use your speech in a safe manner. You must provide previous employment information, as well as information about your relatives. Also you will be fingerprinted for your background investigation, as if you were a criminal. After this process is completed you must wait 8 weeks for the FBI to finish processing your background investigation in order to obtain your permit. Once you have obtained your permit, you are free to speak your mind, except of course in government buildings (schools, post offices, etc.), some public parks, some municipalities, and by the way this permit is only valid in the state that granted it to you.  Don’t even think of speaking freely once you have crossed state lines, if caught using your free speech in another state, you could be thrown in jail and charged with a felony.  Also, you are not able to speak on behalf of anyone who does not have a speech permit, and they may not use your permit in order to freely speak their mind.

You may be thinking right now that this guy is nuts. It is impossible for the government to put such harsh restrictions upon rights granted to you by the First Amendment.  I would agree.

That is until I considered the very next Amendment to our Constitution.  It reads “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.  Who is the militia that this Amendment talks about?  It is you and I.  Consider 10 USC § 311 (a), which says “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and...under 45 years of age who are...citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”  And § 311 (b) “The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”

Why then, did I have to wait until I was 21 to obtain my State Permit to carry a concealed pistol/revolver? Why did I have to go through the 8 week long application process to obtain the permit? Why was I fingerprinted as if I were a criminal? I don’t even have a speeding ticket on my record! Most importantly though, why can’t I carry my gun outside of the state that issued the permit?  Just because I live in State ‘A', does that mean that I won’t ever have the need to defend myself in State 'B', 'C', or 'D'?  It seems like my right to keep andbear arms has been infringed.

To explain, consider the following situation:
A businessman is traveling from Boston to New York City. The man owns several firearms for self defense that are registered in Massachusetts, but is unable to bring his protection with him since he will be crossing state lines. When he arrives in New York City, he parks his car and gets out to find that a man with a knife has snuck up on him.  Thinking that the man only wants money, the businessman reaches for his wallet.  After he hands the thief the money, the thief kindly thanks the businessman with several stabs to the chest. The thief walks away from the situation unharmed while the businessman lay next to his car bleeding to death.  Not only isn’t the thief harmed, he most likely won’t even be caught.  All for a few dollars.

James Madison once said, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” Indeed, this is what we are seeing here. Local governments have the sole authority to grant/deny concealed carry permits, and in most cases without one of these permits you can’t be in possession of a firearm within that territory. They claim that it is for safety that they don’t want unregistered people carrying firearms in their territory. Who is protected by this? Is it the law abiding gunowner, who only wants to carry a gun to defend himself, or is it the criminals who will use a gun against an unarmed citizen? It seems to me as if the criminals, who are going to carry a weapon regardless of what the law says, receive the most protection from this law (just a few paragraphs earlier I was the one who was nuts!).

The thing that lawmakers have to understand is that guns are not dangerous by themselves. It is always the operator, the person in possession of the gun, who will determine if a gun will be dangerous or not. If the FBI has determined in my background investigation that I am not a threat to society when I am armed in my home state, how then am I a threat to society once I cross state lines? And if I’m not then why am I not allowed to be in possession of a firearm elsewhere?

If you agree, contact your lawmakers, and be sure to cast your vote in this year’s election for  someone who recognizes your right to keep and bear arms.

Read more from Scott at ConservativePosts.us.