Minnesota passed what is called the personal protection law.  It has also been called the “conceal and carry” law.  Because it was attached to another bill at the time of its passing in 2003, the law was determined to be “unconstitutional” by a Minnesota judge.  It has now been passed again, by a wide margin, in both the State Senate and the State House of Representatives.  The Governor is expected to sign.  Even after its second passage, ongoing lawsuits are expected.

So what is the problem?  The extreme left will ALWAYS use the courts to create law.  This is especially true when the majority of voters is for or against a particular initiative.  The votes of the majority can always be trumped by the act of one activist judge.  In this case, the majority supported the enactment of the law.  The law did not pass muster with the left.  The constitutionality of the law itself could not be challenged, so an activist judge ruled the law unconstitutional based on HOW the law was enacted.  This tack was taken despite the fact that hundreds of laws have been enacted in Minnesota as attachments to other bills.

The real question here is exactly WHY the personal protection law is perceived as so reprehensible by the left.  After all, the Constitution is exceptionally clear on the issue.  Amendment II states “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.”  There can be no question about the constitutionality of any law that simply reaffirms what is already a constitutional right.  Well, apparently, the Constitution can be an unnecessary encumbrance for the left when the founding document doesn’t support leftist goals.

The left views guns as the enemy.  Despite the fact that hundreds of people are killed daily, across the country, by people who are carrying a gun illegally, new articles NEVER begin with “Victim killed by man carrying a gun illegally.  The shooter had no permit to carry a gun.  He did not go through extensive gun training.  He did not pass a test on weapons safety and firing.  He did not obtain a license to carry a weapon.  The perpetrator simply bought a gun (or stole it) and put it in his waist band and pulled it out when he wanted to kill the victim.” 

However, the one time in Minnesota that a person who was legally carrying a gun killed someone, the newspaper article and most television and radio coverage lead with the fact that the perpetrator had a gun permit. 

So, why does the left view the legal carrying of a gun as a bad thing while it does not view the illegal carrying of gun as bad?   I can only guess since the logic of the left is so psychotic that it is nonexistent.  It might be about “classism” and/or racism. 

I know it sounds strange.  But here is the possible “logic”.  The left can never do anything overt that would negatively impact the poor or minorities (other than enforce their dependence upon the government for their wellbeing in order to guarantee their servitude and, thus, their loyalty).  Among those who are shooting people with illegal weapons are people of color and/or people of lower income.  People who are obtaining permits legally tend to be working class or middle class men and women who want to protect themselves.  The people they are trying to protect themselves against are the people who are carrying illegally.  If the law-abiding among us arm ourselves, then we are somehow discriminating against the rights of the poor and the rights of those of color. 

Of course the logic falls apart when we consider that no one has the  “right” to kill the rest of us.  But logic has never stood in the way of the left.

If that logic makes no sense, here is another attempt to decipher the thinking of the left.  This one is even more sinister.

The left clearly wants big government.  It wants to make the masses dependent upon that government.  It wants collectivism as opposed to individualism.  Of course, all of that is diametrically opposed to what America stands for.  If the left gets its way, government will have to quash those who oppose government restriction of personal freedom.  While the left is slowly taking away our individual freedoms piece by piece (e.g., smoking bans, helmet laws, seat belt laws, attempted taxation of fast food), the process has not yet hit the radar screen of the average person.  Once the reality hits, there will be an uprising.  If the “masses” are armed, it will be harder for the leftist government to control us.  Therefore, it is in their interest to get rid of all weapons except for those that they control.

Okay, so that one sounds like the ravings of a paranoid schizophrenic.  Except…that is what happened in Nazi Germany which was ruled by the National Socialist Party.

Are those on the left protecting perpetrators against those of us who are trying to defend ourselves because some of the perpetrators are poor or people of color?  Or are they preparing for the day when they will have to protect themselves against the “masses”?

Obviously, this is a question that only the left can answer.  In the meantime, it is in our best interest to prevent the left from taking even more control of America.  That is the only way we will be able to uphold the Constitution and guarantee our individual freedoms.