Several of the blogs I read on a fairly regular basis are “gunblogs,” blogs whose authors often speak out and/or stand up for their second amendment right to keep and bear arms.

As I’ve remarked a few times recently, these bloggers are, in most cases, very good at making their point. It’s rare that I read a long post by Kevin Baker and don’t feel either stupid or guilty (usually a combination of the two) for my failure to exercise my Second Amendment rights on a regular basis. Though, other posts of Kevin’s, as well as most posts over at Publicola, just serve to make me angry about the state of things in our nation (and our world) today.

While I’m mainly going to comment on the second post here, titled “Workplace Violence vs. Workplace Defense” the top post on the page, “Don’t Start None, Won’t Be None“. (I can’t really determine why it’s the top post on the page titled “Workplace Violence v. Workplace Defense Archives“, but the links above should point to the correct posts…)

Go. Read. I’ll be here when you get back. (If you come back. Really, his blog’s better reading than this one. I won’t be upset if you stay.)

The main post that I referenced, Workplace Violence vs. Workplace Defense, Publicola’s conclusion is that, while the government shouldn’t ban the carrying of handguns on private property, the owner of that property should be allowed to do so. However, they should do so with the knowledge that if a crime is committed, and someone who would ordinarily have had the means with which to defend themselves doesn’t have those means because of the ban, the property owner is liable.

Smallest Minority has a set of posts (check out the Dangerous Victims trilogy of posts on his sidebar) that cover the fact that the government is not required to protect you. There are rulings that (rightly) say you cannot hold the state (read: police) liable if it fails to protect you. So, whose responsibility is it? Yours. Others (agents of the state, or other civilians) might very well step up to protect you, but ultimately, if you have no protection, it’s your failure.

As Publicola says, a private company should be allowed to forbid you to carry your weapon onto their premises. (I feel obligated to note here that I’m also in support of a company’s right to allow or ban smoking as they wish, and that I feel that city/state bans on indoor smoking are also in violation of property rights.) In doing so, however, they are essentially saying that they are taking the self-protection responsibility from you.

Of course, it’s possible that what they’re saying is that they would prefer that you remain unarmed, and that if any hooligans wish to disobey the law (and most criminals preparing to commit a robbery or murder will disregard store policy, I’d wager), well, you’d best start praying. In fact, maybe that’s the whole goal — to get people closer to God.

I doubt it, though.