Wednesday, November 22, 2017

President Trump's "No More Gun-Free Zones" Promise © 2017 Phillip Evans

During his presidential campaign, President Trump promised to get rid of gun-free zones at schools and military bases his first day in office. Actually, the way his speech sounded, it certainly seemed he understood that ANY "gun-free" zone is a killing field, with schools and military bases mentioned as examples. So let's see if he's serious about saving lives by restoring liberty.

Photo by Associated Press

He later clarified he meant that only resource officers and trained teachers would carry at schools. 

Well, that's better than nothing. Although, I'd like to ask President Trump if the lives of "regular" folks - you know, free American adult citizens, are important enough to be worthy of exercising their Second Amendment Rights even in schools, in case one of the few "only ones" aren't around to save them when a bad guy opens fire.

Lest anyone think I've given up on President Trump... Not a chance!

He's about a million times better than HiLiary would have been. He will hopefully have the opportunity to put two or three more pro-gun-rights Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, which should change the game considerably.

What I'd like to see is for him to press Speaker Paul (RINO) Ryan hard to get some pro-gun-rights bills out of their places of languish and onto the House floor for an honest vote.

How about State Reciprocity, for example, with H.R.38? Speaker Ryan stated this was not the time. What?! Rights delayed is rights DENIED. Someone needs to jerk a knot in the chain of this double-talker and remind him he once said:

Well, it's about time free Americans licensed to carry a firearm in one state should be able to cross any state line and do the same, without the threat of being locked behind bars like an animal, just for wanting to be able to protect themselves and their families from predators!

Some would argue, and I agree, that even having to apply and pay for a license (permission slip from the government) is itself an infringement. So if you do have a license to carry, why should it be deemed nothing more than a piece of paper when you want to see another part of your own country? Even a drivers license is treated better than that. 

I'd like to remind folks that there are many other "gun-free" zones such as unsecured Federal buildings like park visitor centers, libraries, museums, etc. Not to mention post offices

President Trump needs to get on the ball and start hammering Congress to get in gear to deal with these infringements of our God-given right to protect our lives from evil people. We're waiting on those promises...

Monday, November 20, 2017

Anti-Gunners Want A Dialogue...Yeah Right © 2017 Phillip Evans

I just ran across an interesting article that makes some excellent points. However, I'd like to add another perspective, though one which does not necessarily contradict the original article linked below:

The anti-gun-rights "progressives" are NOT interested in winning us over. They are NOT interested in having a heart to heart conversation with us. Their entire M.O. has been to demonize us by claiming that we are part of the problem of "gun violence". 

They demonize us indirectly by calling the NRA, "the enemy", all the while knowing that the NRA is composed of regular Janes and Joes across the country who just want their voices to be heard and have their rights upheld and protected.

They demonize us directly, like HiLiary Clinton did when she called us "deplorables". 

Battle of Guiliford Courthouse March 15th 1781

When these "progressives" claim to want a dialogue with us, it is merely a ruse to try and trick us into agreeing to further incremental infringements on our rights, while at the same time using the fake attempt at dialogue as a club to beat us with when we don't want to hear their nonsense.

Whenever they use the word "conversation", what they really have in mind is confiscation.

Oh, sometimes their politicians will soften the blow by offering a "grandfather clause" when offering bills that ban "dangerous assault weapons", so that those who already own them can keep them. 

How hypocritical! If these weapons were truly the root cause of "gun violence", letting them remain in non-government hands is contrary to what they are supposedly trying to accomplish, which supposedly is reducing crimes committed with them, right?

It's that slippery slope that Nancy Pelosi recently admitted to. All the while they laughed at us for our concern over confiscation, that's exactly what they were scheming to do. They want to make us into Great Britain. It's a goal they will not deviate from.

For that reason alone, they are evil. They are the enemies of liberty. The freedom fighters of the American Revolutionary War lost much blood repelling British tyranny. Now their modern day cronies are attempting the same thing bit by bit.

When one particular type of weapon is "reasonably" banned, it will be another, then another. And then you can forget about being able to get a license to carry even a single-shot muzzle-loading pistol in public. Your rights will be gone. Oh, you can still do some recreational shooting like they do in Britain. You'll just have to leave your approved firearm at the shooting range until next time.

In the meantime, you'll have to be content with your fists, feet, and walking cane to repel gangs of thugs with knives, clubs, and yes, even guns, who would rape, rob, beat, stab, shoot, and murder you and your family, like how happens so often in Britain.

They will get whatever infringements into law and erode the meaning of the U.S. Constitution by means of legislation and corrupt judges little by little, until the frog is slowly boiled by the gradual increase of the water temperature.

That's why we should never want nor attempt to engage them in any "dialogue". General George Washington's dialogue with the British were some well placed lead shot.

Right now we have the ballot box, but if that fails, we may need another General George Washington. Perhaps we should be glad the Federal Government still officially calls his birthday by his name, instead of "President's Day".

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Armed Robbery - Victim Feels Sorry For Attackers © Phillip Evans

Home Park Neighborhood
 Photo by Andrew Guyton

Ms. Kamen recounts:

"The taller man stood over me while I wrestled myself free of my purse strap, half of me struck with how helpless I was on the ground with a weapon pointed at me and the other half eerily calm, reasoning that he didn’t want to shoot me — he just wanted my stuff. The shorter man nabbed Sam’s wallet and they bolted for their car and sped off. I pulled myself to my feet. It was all over in seconds."

There are some striking things about her report. First of all, she was practically fighting with her purse strap in her eagerness to give up her "stuff" to the robbers. Second, was her keen awareness that she was indeed helpless. Third, is her concentrated self-assurance that she would be alright, which lulled her into an "eerie calm". What else could a helpless sheep do? 

Just give up your property and hope for the best, placing your trust in your attacker to not injure or kill you.

The general consensus of police across the country would be that she handled the situation well, and would receive an "A+" if this were a school assignment. But of course, we know that the situation handled her, for she had no other options available to her at the time of the robbery.

If she is 21 and otherwise qualifies, she can apply for and obtain a Georgia Weapons Carry License, so that in the future she will have the option to not be helpless while on the street or in class at Georgia Tech.

Or she could just bury her head further in the sand and count this incident as her one and only time she will ever face a criminal attack, and therefore be forever happy being an unarmed sheep.

After discovering that she did make it through, she now has the luxury of warm fuzzy feelings for her attackers. One might wonder if Ms. Kamen would "feel sorry" for her attackers if she had been raped or had received a cracked skull. Sometimes the "stuff" they want is your body. Remember that if you decide in advance that you will eagerly "just give it up", when they demand it.

Perhaps Ms. Kamen is destined to always be victim material. Some people are, and they like it that way. Getting to be a victim survivor and emoting compassion for your attackers can be a heady thing for some folks. She can now be a spokesperson for something or other now.

She reported that she had tried to run, but tripped and fell. Ah, so things like this is where the movies got that idea! The "empowerment" feminists could be right - women are just too clutsy to handle a firearm and defend themselves. 

Guns are just meant to be handled by men, some of which are bad guys that prey upon women. But women can comply and live to fight for "gun control". 

Hey, anyone got any advice for women being raped, robbed, and murdered in Great Britain by thugs with knives?

You can read the Clery Act Safety Alert report here: 

Disarmament Crowd Twists Bible © 2017 Phillip Evans

A mass shooting happens in a Texas Baptist church and out from the woodwork they come - all kinds.

The Hollywood clueless continue to line up to mock Christians for calling for prayer in the aftermath of these murders. I presume they would rather we call for "gun control". You know, be willing to lose our liberties as punishment for the acts of evil doers.

Sorry, not sorry. I will always be armed with my gun when in church, or anywhere else it's legal to carry. I am armed for the safety of myself, my family, and to whatever extent possible, for the safety of others around me.

A commentator (and I have no idea if this person is pro-gun-rights or not) mocks in an online comment"If one believes in God -- what's the point of security measures in a church? I mean, think it through." - The Pale Orc

I replied to The Pale Orc: "One believes in God and has security measures because God, in His sovereignty, does not provide blanket protections for believers in this world, otherwise people would be clamoring to come to Him for the wrong reasons. 

He works through both divine intervention at times and also allows us to have a part in both our physical safety against crime and accidents, as well as our health. Believers are even subject to physical death, yet we still believe because the One who rose from the dead, the Lord Jesus Christ, will one day resurrect our physical bodies to be made new like His, to never die again."

Not all anti-self-defense proponents are leftist "progressives". Some can be actual Christians who handle the Bible like a five year old child handles a sharp knife - very carelessly.

The following is two comments and my replies posted at:


For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
As to protecting God's people, it's God's duty.."

That is a gross mishandling of the Word of God. God allows us to play a part in our own protection as well as that of our brothers and sisters, and neighbors. Who is our neighbor? Anyone we have the opportunity to show mercy to.

If you saw a lady being punched by a purse grabber, are you just going to watch her get pummeled and say it's God's duty to help her? Do you lock your doors? Why so, isn't it God's duty to protect you?

If I was in church with my pistol, wouldn't you want me to use it to stop an armed criminal who comes in shooting? Or would you tell me to put it away, because it's God's duty to do something? 


"Carlos Santiago 

All things are worked according to our God's plan. Consider Matthew 25 :Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? Jesus the Savior did not use violence as a tool of Evangelistic followers. Many Old Testament warriors accomplished the Lord's purpose with the Law and with Battle. I think things have changed with the New Covenant. We should instead spend our focus on being prayer warriors."

Jesus told Peter that, because Peter was operating outside the will of God. Peter had already been told Jesus would be betrayed and would give His life as a ransom. Prior to this, Jesus told His disciples to make provision for their physical safety with a sword, because He would no longer be with them in the flesh.

Of course neither Jesus nor His disciples needed any weapons at all during Jesus' earthly ministry. His divine power kept them all safe from all harm in His direct presence. God allows us to be subject to calamities in this life, and gives us the responsibility to do our own due diligence to make provisions for health, safety, food, etc. 

If you see an elderly person being assaulted by a criminal, are you just going to offer up prayers instead of coming to their aid? Really? Folks, please have some common sense here.

Fervent prayer by God's people is real and is powerful, but it is never a substitute for taking action when we are able to. You don't pray for money to buy food when you have no plans to get a job, for example.

Likewise, you don't pray for divine protection when you don't take at least some personal responsibility for your safety and that of your family knowing that evil people exist in this world, and knowing that when they strike you will need to have an effective means to stop them.

That doesn't mean you have to always go about heavily armed. A small pocket pistol is far better than nothing. Mass murderers have always stopped their attacks and either fled or committed suicide at the first instance of armed resistance. They are cowards.

When you get a chance google "Saint James Church massacre". Briefly:

In 1993, in a church in Cape Town, South Africa, one member of the congregation, Charl van Wyk armed only with a 5 or 6 shot revolver repelled multiple heavily armed terrorists after they had killed eleven people, saving many other lives. 

Will you be prepared? It doesn't always happen to other people.

Monday, November 6, 2017

Texas Church Massacre © 2017 Phillip Evans

Sunday morning November 5th, 2017, Devin Patrick Kelley entered First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs in Texas and opened fire with a rifle killing 26 people and injuring 24.

Neither the shepherd nor the flock had any means of effective defense available to them. I'm fairly positive several had cell phones, and probably at least one person was able to dial 911 to summon the police. After that, their only defense was to try and hide and wait for the police to arrive.

Suggested Church Carry Anti-threat Tool

Was it their fault they were murdered and wounded that day? Certainly not. All of the moral fault goes to the murderer. Were they willfully unarmed? Yes, but that is the prerogative of every human being to not be armed. Why should they have been armed? Massacres are thankfully rare, and besides, the readers of this article are not likely to be involved in one. They usually happen to other folks.

Unfortunately that day, it happened to them. So what sort of "blame" should they have for not being prepared to save their own lives? Honestly none. It's their lives and the lives of their children. It was their right to place whatever value they had on them and to act or not act accordingly. Could one imagine that if they had valued their lives a little more that they would have been prepared to defend those lives? Well, that contemplation would just be begging the question, wouldn't it?

A neighbor got involved and shot the murderer as he was fleeing, then pursued him along with another neighbor driving his personal vehicle. And the armed neighbor and driver wore no uniform nor badge but were there on the scene as first responders before the badged and uniformed second responders arrived.

Oh that there would have been such neighbors INSIDE the church that morning! Don't you agree? But I'm just wishing that because of the value I place on human life. Don't let anyone think I am judging the victims. As I said before, victims have the right to place whatever value they have on their own lives.

A couple of neighbors inside the church with holstered pistols under their coats would have meant far less victims yesterday. I don't care if you disagree. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.

Just who is our neighbor? Our Lord Jesus, in Luke 10:37, shows us that our neighbor is anyone we have the opportunity to show mercy to.

This is why I will always be armed with my pistol in church. Not just to save my own life and family, but to also show mercy to my neighbors if and when necessary.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Philips Arena in Atlanta - Security Theater

Want to see a big name music concert, comedy act, Hawks basketball game, or Disney on Ice? Well then, Philips Arena is your go-to spot in Atlanta.

It's owned by the Atlanta-Fulton County Recreation Authority, in other words, it's city owned property.

Per Georgia state law (HB 60 from 2014), this public property is legally open to licensed carriers of firearms, even though it qualifies as a "government building" under OCGA 16-11-127. However, since they have weapons screening at their events, they can prohibit armed citizens (
licensed or not) from entering the building.

There's a catch, though. Their "security screening" is far less thorough than TSA style security screenings, and you know even the TSA misses stuff. One man even mistakenly flew on an airline recently with a loaded pistol in his carry-on baggage, on a domestic flight from Atlanta to Chicago.

And another case where a police officer mistakenly flies with her pistol on an international flight:

If you are a good guy and want to attend an event at Philips Arena, but prefer to remain armed for your safety and that of your family, here's how you can get around their metal detectors:

Wear a large belt buckle and use a sticky type holster inside your pants. I have knowledge that this has worked rather well. Wear pants a little bit larger so you won't be bulging. Also, you could wear your pistol in an ankle holster. As of the date of this article, they are not wanding ankles. 

You will need to wear some metal item not easily removed as a decoy for your gun beeping the metal detectors, even with ankle carry. They do not require folks to remove articles of clothing at this time, at least not belts or shoes.

Don't think I'm giving bad guys any ideas. All of this is pretty elementary stuff on how to bypass metal detectors. This is all public info, and believe me, Philips Arena security and the APD there ALL know about it. Yet, their desire to get people in quickly overrides any security concerns over firearms getting in.

Why would they want to hold up the lines any more than they already do? Time is money, and this proves: 1. This is Security Theater (appearances to pacify the sheep that something is being done) 2. Money is more important than actual security.

If they really wanted to keep out weapons, they would at least have TSA style screening. Though that would not be 100%, it would be several times more effective than what they have now. Currently, at least half a dozen guns are getting in at each and every large event there. Don't doubt me!

Thursday, August 17, 2017

X-Factor Style "Entertainment" © 2017 Phillip Evans

Since there is no way I can avoid appearing to be an old curmudgeon while opining on this topic, I may as well go all out and relish and roll around in it, and make the pleasure of writing this article a savored experience.

Trust me, I will eventually get to the X-Factor stuff and even talk about Simon Cowell, but it will take a little while, but not too long for those who worship instant gratification. 

Photo by See Li

Warning: Brash Opinions Up Ahead! Please take a detour if any criticism of pop culture tends to trigger you, LOL!

First, a little history as a backdrop to help provide some illustration. Of what exactly, I'm not sure, but it is something.

Elvis Presley. Need I say more? He was truly one of the greatest entertainment stars that ever lived.

That is not because he was one of the greatest vocalists in the world. He was not. He was, however, the complete package. He was good looking, had some great dance moves, loads of charisma, and he could actually sing on pitch most of the time without help from modern gimmicks such as Auto-Tune that today's singers often rely heavily on.

And the natural quality of his voice had a pleasantness to it, combined with his vocal skill to produce pure sounding notes.

One reason I admire both Elvis' and Michael Jackson's vocal ability is that they could scream or growl a note, while still maintaining the ability to make pure vocal sounds whenever they wanted. And were able to do so throughout their entire careers - not an easy feat, apparently.

Singers like Joe Cocker, Rod Stewart, Neil Diamond, and Kenny Rogers sounded pretty good with their gravel voices early in their careers, but by depending almost solely on that to bring emotion to their songs, and by not doing it carefully with an eye to their vocal health, they wore down their voices to a caricature of what they once were. 

But kudos to Kenny Rogers for once publicly admitting to singing too throaty and hurting his voice. Most such singers try to pretend this hasn't happened to them and still belt it out trying to regain the lost magic that obviously left the building a long time ago.

Not all overly rough voices sound awful. I enjoyed listening to Bonnie Tyler years ago even when she had vocal issues, and could not sing a clear note at that time for all the tea in China. Sure, it was a shock when I first heard her, but she was so good I couldn't help but enjoy her singing. Once her vocal chords healed, she was even better with Eclipse Of The Heart in later years.

I have no idea what happened to golden-voiced Anne Murray. The lovely Canadian songbird early in her career always sang pure notes. She never pushed her voice hard that I could tell, but now she can't help but growl when she sings, and it is not easy on the ears like a vocally injured Bonnie Tyler was.

I recall hearing a live album or recording of a live show many years ago by Contemporary Christian Artist Sandi Patty, who talked about trying to emulate singer Karen Carpenter when she was young. She then gave the audience an imitation of Karen Carpenter singing, going out of her way to sound gravely. Sorry Sandi, but Karen did not sound like that at all. Karen had one of the most pure vocal sounds there ever was in recorded music.

Now on to shows like X-Factor. I get it. They are there to make shows to make money, and do so on the backs of kids and young adults dreaming to make it big. It's a willing exploitation on both sides, but the kids seem to get the shortest end of the stick.

Most of them are destined to grow old talking about how they sang a few times in front of millions, with little else to show for it.

Simon Cowell, out of all judges on any of these type shows I've seen gets it right more times than anyone else gets it right. He gently slaps dreamers out of their starry visions of splendor back down to reality, and the ones this happens to badly need it. 

They desperately need to get their heads back down in order to plan out a realistic future in medicine, law, engineering, aviation, etc, because they simply can't cut it as a singer no matter how much their moms and dads tell them they can, who glare at the judges when they don't appreciate their baby's star potential.

But it's not all rosy for Simon. Just because he has first place in getting things right doesn't mean he misses. And he misses quite a bit, gushing over young ones who don't stand a chance, merely because the present audience hoots and hollers for them. At least that's the only reason apparent to me.

Yes, it is show business, so Mr. Cowell can't shoot down too many of them, or that would not be sporting. It would make for gloomy TV. So some tender dreams must unfortunately be strung along for a time, only to come crashing down later, taking an even greater toll on those who wanted it so badly. 

I suppose the earlier history lesson should really be a lesson to the gravely-voiced young wannabe singers of today, whose overly-affected voices strainingly growl out "note" after "note" egged on by an audience that wouldn't know pure singing if it bit them on their derriere. 

For if these "singers" do somehow make it on the strength of their looks and booty-shaking or an overly produced electronic wonder song, their careers will be short-lived from vocal abuse.

But I believe this is in large part because most people these days are generally deaf. As in cannot hear at all, unless the volume is cranked up so high as to have their knees knocking together much less the anvil, stirrup, and hammer bones in their inner ears.

Case in point: Everywhere there is any sort of public address system or intercom in any theme park or other public attraction, it always annoyingly blasts someone's exaggerated vocal inflections describing what you're seeing or providing some little known facts into the ear-bleed decibel range.

This usually happens when you're a captive audience and can't flee, such as in a box three-hundred feet in the air with thirty other people pressing the wind out of you.

All, and I mean all, music concerts or festivals are the same way volume-wise. Finally, there are the plentiful boorish yahoos in crowds that always want to have a screaming contest between them, especially when they are right behind or next to you.

The only thing I can conclude is that the general public simply cannot hear the gravel or screaming in a singer's voice, far as I can surmise. If they see a good looking "singer" with lips moving, they just assume it's good and fall all over themselves.

What got me thinking about all this is the poor little blond girl on a new X-Factor show who got showered with all sorts of applause and praise, even from Simon Cowell, but who seemed convinced that screeching was identical to singing. 

When they start out that young deliberately trying to damage their voices for a million-to-one shot at fame and fortune, that's just pathetic. And it's borderline criminal when big money making shows aid and abet them in doing so.

Just once, instead of Simon lavishing praise on one like that, or Mel B. drawing out a long over-the-top British accent to do the same, I'd like to hear them say this:

"Come back and sing for us again when you are recovered from your cold or sore throat, and if you're not ill, then please get a vocal coach to help you produce actual singing notes instead of gravely screeches. Do that and you might go far, just like Elvis."

Note: This is a departure from my usual line of topics. Sometimes it's good to take a break. Let there be liberty for real singing! ;-)

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Georgia Campus Carry Bill HB 280 Signed © 2017 Phillip Evans

Your pistol (no long guns allowed) must be substantially covered so as not to draw the attention of another person. In other words, basically concealed. No open carry allowed.

There are several restrictions regarding carry. I suppose citizens can't expect to get back too much liberty at one time. It's not politically expedient. This news article sums them up pretty well:

Georgia HB 280 Campus Carry

If you have any questions about the law, there are some helpful folks at more than willing to try and answer them.

Private colleges and universities will still be off limits under state law. However, private post-secondary schools still have the authority to authorize licensed adults (both students and staff) to carry a pistol on campus. A signed agreement between campus admin and licensed student is required detailing what model gun will be carried, what areas it can be carried in and when, and include an expiration date for the agreement.

However, don't hold your breath they will do so. Instead, they will tell their sitting ducks, I mean students and staff, that current security measures in place are good enough for them.

"Good for the public colleges. Not so good for the private colleges, as they will now be perceived as a much softer target by criminals, crazies, and terrorists.

If I were a student at a private college, I'd be wanting to see a MUCH greater presence of armed security on campus to keep me safe. I hope the private schools have the $$$ to spend on upgrading their security, and I'm not talking about more cameras to capture the carnage, but more armed police and armed private security personnel."

In the world outside of campus, there are police officers, but citizens in most states thankfully are not forced to rely only on police guns to defend themselves against armed criminals. They have the choice to be armed when police are not around to save them when criminals strike.

On campus, while there's a certain amount of government provided security, even college campus admin, staff, professors, and security personnel know that such security will not be able to save everyone from rape, robbery, and murder. 

Why should those on any campus property be denied the ability to provide for their own protection like people outside the campus world have as an option? Does that make any sense?

Is it just because colleges are suppose to be safe places, that disarming law-abiding adult citizens is somehow supposed to keep them safe? Isn't that like banning umbrellas on the weekend because we want Saturdays and Sundays to always be sunny?

The same argument has been used to ban citizens from carrying firearms in churches. "Churches are supposed to be places of safety" goes the disarmament argument. But that doesn't always mean they are. Waving one's hand about while saying something doesn't make it so. Signs that ban firearms don't imbue the location with a magic aura of protection.

Evil people intent on doing the greatest harm will seek out the least protected targets. So let's stop using the threat of jail and fines against people who merely wish to have the ability to save their lives and those of others when evil strikes. "Gun-free" zones are victim-rich zones, as has been proven over and over again.

Being armed is not an evil thing. Only being armed for the purpose of doing evil is an evil thing. Being armed for the purpose of stopping evil is a good thing indeed. One not need a badge to have this ability. It's that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing. You know, freedom.

Join to help us continue the fight to continue to restore our carry rights in our state.

Monday, July 10, 2017

May It Please The Crown? Florida's Open Carry Ban Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court © 2017 by Phillip Evans

Monday, July 10th, 2017 has appealed the Norman case to the U.S. Supreme Court asking for a writ of certiorari to affirm the right of open carry. I applaud the decision to appeal this case.

Photo by ABC News

In the state of Florida, the Republican Legislature and Republican Governor for years has been content to let stand the Democrat ban on the open carry of firearms, which began in 1987.

Ever loving to talk a good game of "supporting" our Second Amendment Rights, ever loving to get A+ ratings from the NRA, ever loving to get re-election votes while promising to honor liberty, yet only delivering us crumbs once in a while, these RINO hypocrites must think highly of themselves.

Yes, in Florida, you can openly carry a rifle or shotgun while hunting, target shooting, fishing, or camping, or going to or from such activities. However, you are forbidden to carry a long gun otherwise, even if you have a weapons license.

You have a little more liberty with pistols, in that you may carry them concealed with a weapons license, and openly only under the list of activities mentioned above.

Where in the Second Amendment does it state, "keep and bear arms concealed"? At the time the Constitution was written, citizens generally carried their firearms openly, and even the modern U.S. Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller has the Court affirming that open carry is the embodiment of the Second Amendment.

If the carrying of firearms is done for the purpose of self-defense, being visibly armed is part of one's defense. Most criminals pick victims perceived to be unable to put up a fight. Why should an armed person be forced to appear to be unarmed?

Is not deterrence, where one need not shoot, better than having to open fire on an armed criminal who unwisely miscalculates whether you are armed?

Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will finally hear a significant individual case regarding the carry of firearms outside the home, and will rule correctly in favor of freedom.

Then, the Court will have succeeded in actually supporting and upholding our Second Amendment Rights rather than just giving us lip service like the politicians do.