In 2001, a group called “The Free State Project” began, which selected New Hampshire as a place for libertarians and Constitutional minded people in America to migrate to. The movement was scoffed at when it started, with even “big names” like Harry Browne only getting about 1% or less in the presidential elections. However, from this came a liberty movement that helped propel not only the Tea Party and names like Ron/Rand Paul, but even that had the strength to survive the pillaging of the movement by people like Boehner, who were dreadful for the movement.
It seems that those once laughed at as “idealists” have really shown that they have seen success in that New Hampshire today is one of the most Constitutionally sound states in the union, topic depending. This is apparent for all to see in the fact that, as Fox News has reported, those in N.H. no longer have to have a permit to legally carry a concealed weapon, as the Constitution clearly says. This will likely get a wide range of squeals from the cribs of many a social justice warrior, but the fact is that if history is any indication, there will be far less problems than what we see with Chicago which has both tough gun laws and horrible crime rates. History tells us that America can expect crime rates to nosedive with this new respect for protection, not increase.
The right of open, loaded protection was recognized as the first official bill that Gov. Chris Sununu signed once elected to office. “It is common-sense legislation,” the Second Amendment respecting Sununu said, adding “This is about making sure that our laws on our books are keeping people safe while remaining true to the live-free-or-die spirit.” With bold words such as these that stand with great conviction being spoken about our gun rights from a sitting governor, it is safe to deduce that those who scoffed at the Free Thought Project are now no longer laughing.
— Chris Sununu (@GovChrisSununu) February 22, 2017
So why is it that crime rates fall when more guns are extant? Well, for one thing, guns get rid of a criminal’s first target by getting rid of the criminal’s primary mindset, which is pretty much “survival of the fittest.” If a six-foot man sees a four-foot, ten-inch female getting off work at a local bar, his ability to defeat her is all but unquestioned. However, if that six-foot man is in a state where that same female may have in her apron a .357, the odds of that attack happening go down greatly because now, the definition of “fittest” has changed with a more level playing field.
Some will ask why this does not work in, to stay with the analogy, Chicago? After all, the windy city has gangs with access to more guns than brains. The fact is that this WOULD work in Chicago! The problem here is twofold because on one hand, there is the thug gang culture, and on the other hand, unarmed innocents. This is not new, only the hip-hop soundtrack is. There have been gangs in America since the days of World War II and flapper girls. Allowing guns to the average citizen of Chicago is not going to stop the gang violence that the media love to sell as a lifestyle choice, but it will go a long way towards making sure that the gang element stays far away from the average man or women. When the average person can shoot back, violence upon innocents goes down.
As for the gangs and those that bring misery to others, we already have laws against murder. If someone disobeys a law, it does not matter if the gun was “legal” or not, a crime has been committed and we have a legal system to deal with it. Why should we risk MORE innocent deaths by having LESS guns? There is no logic in such a thought process.
The other thing that would go a long way, perhaps even further than conceal carry laws for all, is ending the flawed and failed “War on Drugs.” Ronald Reagan did a lot of wonderful things, if there was any justice in the world he would see his face on Mr. Rushmore from heaven, but he was as wrong as he could be regarding the 4th Amendment killing, “War on Drugs.” It is safe to say that he could not have been more wrong, perhaps due to his experience in Hollywood, where he saw drug use kill careers, marriages, and lives.
Still, personal experience and witnessing the outcomes of bad choices as an actor does not mean that the 4th Amendment no longer is in effect or that we in 2017 need to suffer the aftermath of the “War on Drugs” with things like for-profit prisons. Locking people up has become big business in America, something that even Bernie Sanders had wisely pointed out to all that would hear. “The War on Drugs” to gangs is like the oil money is for ISIS. This is because by keeping drugs profitable, gangs can rake in small fortunes doing very little in almost no time at all. By ending the battle against people 4th Amendment rights, we would not only return to the ideals that have kept Americans safe since John Hancock signed his name with immaculate, haughty strokes, but also would end the free access to money that happens every time someone lights a joint.
This can be proven, unless someone thinks that pot and drugs do not exist in New Hampshire. Unless one thinks that NH is somehow immune to the problems that befall every other state in the union and that are faced by every other state with an ocean border, then NH is doing something right and Illinois is doing something terribly, terribly wrong. As the violence drops in New Hampshire over the coming months due to Gov Sununu and his brave actions, hopefully someone will make sure that Chicago officials get the statistics fact sheet.