Diplomatic Carry

Dave29461

Active Member
1- Diplomatic Carry



Discretionary carry

May issue carry

Shall issue carry

Right to Carry

Discreet Carry

Freedom to Carry

Constitutional Carry

Diplomatic Carry


The Second Second Amendment


by Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman


Officials travel armed. When a contingent of our officials visits any other country, they bring armed personnel in classic right-to-bear-arms manner. Life is dangerous and the ability to protect yourself is a reasonable and prudent thing, a fundamental human right of existence, a moral imperative. So they go armed. It's only rational. Hillary and similar bring along enough firepower that if some of their group go one way while some head off in another, they're both covered.

The same is true in reverse. When an ambassador from Trashcanistan comes to the United States, discreetly armed bodyguards accompany the party at all times, "laws to the contrary notwithstanding." That's lawyer-speak for "their right to carry supersedes any other rules," or in plainer English, "We're above those laws." The ambassador might decide to personally carry too. I'm guessing Hillary does not.

There's this whole "second system" of gun possession and carry here domestically, another layer of rules on top of the common ones you must follow, operating quietly with people in the know cooperating.

Where are the laws for this exception to every gun law on the U.S. books? How does this special class of people exempt themselves from laws controlling the rest of us?

No one is harmed by their exemption. In fact, community safety increases, because assaults on those armed people are naturally deterred, even defensible if needed. Should we the people maybe have Diplomatic Carry too? Is a diplomat's life truly at more risk -- or worth more -- than any "commoner"? How does this comply with equal protection under the law?

Local authorities understand implicitly that these armed folks aren't going to randomly shoot people, or settle arguments with gunfire, the same as you and me when we're armed. They enjoy proper respect (even if they come from regimes that don't deserve it). We on the other hand have rights denied haphazardly, even with Constitutional Carry. As good as it is, Constitutional Carry is not enough.

Americans need and deserve the next step, Diplomatic Carry.

The body politic moves slowly. After several decades of experience, police nationwide understand and operate just fine within a framework of millions of people traveling armed. As the number of people carrying arms for crime control has increased, assaultive crimes have decreased. The media generally calls this "a surprising decrease in crime that has the experts baffled." All these people are walking around armed, expressly to forestall crime, and the media can't understand why crime has dropped. But I digress.

Oh sure, armed forces within the U.S. -- from local police to secretive agents our government is now filled with -- keep a watchful eye on the armed diplomats, as well they should. They also provide backup in the event of need. The same as for us.

But in the big picture, diplomats have less need for an ever-present armed escort than the public. A rare few diplomats face death at the hands of the mobs. Thousands of citizens are murdered each year. Who needs protection more?

The freedom of Diplomatic Carry, a concept many of us can easily grasp, is mind boggling to the great unwashed. So insulated from any truth about firearms, victims of television and the government-run school system, they have imbedded ignorance that is hard to shake. Destructively misinformed kids and teachers compound the problem. I digress again.

Now, Diplomatic Carry is not going to happen overnight. Many voices will be raised in objection to such freedom.
And unfortunately, some opposition will come from people who consider themselves firearms enthusiasts. Establishing everyone's uninfringed freedom to carry is scary, at least to some. But that's OK. Real freedom is a house high on a hill.

Diplomatic Carry is a paradigm shift. A window into a world that could be, and ought to be, a lofty goal. Your right to your life and its protection cannot morally be denied. It is denied only by force, and there is only one viable countermeasure to force unfortunately, in this best of all possible worlds, and that's countervailing force. I don't like it, but there it is.

Diplomatic Carry is a new level of autonomy, of personal sovereignty. It raises the bar. In this country, the people are the sovereigns and the government is the servant. How do you justify the servants carrying arms if the masters cannot?
The only consistent position for free people to take is this:

Anything short of Diplomatic Carry is infringement.

I am in the process of dissecting the legal framework that enables Diplomatic Carry, and modeling an approach for extending those principles to the public. Conceptually this is sound. Pragmatically it is an uphill climb, but as Americans we know that anything can be climbed. I'll have early results soon in my blog, PageNine.org. Sign up to stay informed.

Copyright 2012 Alan Korwin
http://www.gunlaws.com
Permission to circulate granted
 

Tigerstripe

Active Member
Our diplomatic congress and house are also above the insider trading laws.

they can be in on a bill which would give them insider info and can legally use it to make millions.

to relate to your post, should we be able to use insider info or should they not be able to?
 

Dave29461

Active Member
A Constitutional right is a far cry from criminal activity. I believe insider trading , vote selling, influence peddling and unethical /immoral behavior of any kind should apply to all. Of course many of them fall back on the argument that if you are amoral (having no moral standards, restraints, or principles) then you can't be breaking any laws. :roll: To answer your question. No one is to be above the law. We have seen how power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 

Enjay

New Member
Thanks for sharing this! :)
I hadn't really thought about Diplomatic Carry any further than it makes sense because while there are far fewer Diplomats than there are citizens, they appear to be attacked at a higher percentage than citizens are so they should have special allowances. Yeah, I know, shame on me, thinking their lives are more important than those of my family.
As for political corruption, I've long felt that the weasels are in charge of the hen house.
 
Personally, I think that non-US citizens should enjoy a substantially lower allowance of behavior within the American territories than citizens.

I also think that the 2nd Amendment was not written in hieroglyphics and is easy to understand to anyone that is 1) English-speaking and 2) Not retarded. The American public has the absolute and incontrovertible right to own and carry weapons of any and all types without any kind of restriction.

This is not debatable. This is documented fact per the US Constitution. The only debate comes from people thinking which illegal behavior (i.e. regulation, restriction, registration, taxation, et al.) of any weapon is "reasonable." This is akin to debating whether or not certain sex acts are "reasonable" during the course of a forcible rape. The act is still illegal, so what is the point in semantic argument about which behaviors during the crime are "reasonable" or not?

All American laws on weaponry are illegal as a matter of course.
 
Assuming you are talking about owning and carrying guns, why should non-US citizens in the US (legally) be deprived of the rights they were born with?
 
John Canuck said:
Assuming you are talking about owning and carrying guns, why should non-US citizens in the US (legally) be deprived of the rights they were born with?
It's not that they should be denied. I merely don't think that the US Constitution should be applied to them in any form.
 
Avtomat-Acolyte said:
John Canuck said:
Assuming you are talking about owning and carrying guns, why should non-US citizens in the US (legally) be deprived of the rights they were born with?
It's not that they should be denied. I merely don't think that the US Constitution should be applied to them in any form.
The constitution defines and limits the government. It does not give a person their human rights. Regardless of the logo on a person's passport, we are all born with the same rights.
 

Dave29461

Active Member
The constitution defines and limits the government. It does not give a person their human rights. Regardless of the logo on a person's passport, we are all born with the same rights.[/quote]

Well said.
 

jmt2566

New Member
Dave29461 said:
The constitution defines and limits the government. It does not give a person their human rights. Regardless of the logo on a person's passport, we are all born with the same rights.
Well said.[/quote]
+1
 
Top