Alright, so I was reading up about Canada's decision to make hard-drug use at public playgrounds a constitutional right today, and as I was reading more about that, I came across another story from Slate about allowing guns in public parks in California.

At first, this confused me, because I live in a free state where I can legally and responsibly conceal a weapon on my person. Apparently, those of you living in blue states don't realize that criminals ignore gun laws and murderers pick soft targets.

But Slate, an outlet filled with people who have likely never touched a gun in their lives, is terrified at the idea that California residents might be able to legally exercise their God-given rights to self-defense.

THE "darkest decision"? Really? Y'all can't think of ANYTHING else??

Last month, in Carralero v. Bonta, a federal judge in Orange County declared it unconstitutional to prohibit guns in a host of places California had designated gun-free. Those spaces include not just quintessentially sensitive places like banks, playgrounds, and hospitals, but also the parking lots of schools and government buildings, even particularly sensitive ones like police stations, prisons, and primary and secondary schools. Perhaps most shockingly, the court ruled that the Second Amendment does not even permit the state to ban guns in the parking lots of facilities storing nuclear weapons. Yes, nuclear weapons.

I mean, bro, if someone is rolling up with a small army to take on a military facility that houses nukes, I don't think they're going to listen to a piece of paper that says they can't have guns in the parking lot.

At schools, said the Carralero court, children are entrusted to the protection of school officials, but "at playgrounds parents and caregivers remain responsible for their children's safety without any immediate support." And schools are often restricted areas, whereas playgrounds are often open and freely accessible. Because of those differences, the state's ban could not be justified. The court even suggested that the law is not just unconstitutional but misguided. The prohibition "eviscerates [licensed gun carriers'] ability to defend themselves and their children against attack" on the playground.

They literally just wrote the entire point and didn't understand it.

Do they realize that there are tens of millions of armed parents (like me) who carry guns to protect their families?

"But now people will carry guns at California playgrounds!"

SLATE, DON'T YOUR PEOPLE READ THE NEWS?

Talk about being oblivious.

But Slate isn't done. They circled back, like Jen Psaki, to the parking lots again.

The decision also invalidated the parking lot restrictions for all of the locations in California law, even for places that no one disputed were correctly classified as sensitive. In other words, even in those places where the challengers acknowledged that guns could be banned — like in jails, airports, and courthouses — California now cannot keep guns out of the parking lots adjacent to those spaces.

Yeah, so I legally carry a gun e'ry day. It is on my person when I roll up to school drop-off. If I have to go into the school, I take it off, because carry isn't permitted inside the school itself (I don't live in that free of a state, unfortunately).

But guess where the gun has to stay while I'm in the school?

IN THE FREAKIN' PARKING LOT!

I guess Slate wants me to drive home, lock that puppy up, then return to the school, then be helpless when that gangbanger down the street decides he wants to murder a few kids.

The irony here is that the great weight of empirical evidence suggests that the proliferation of guns in public places makes them less safe, not more. So, in an important sense, the ruling creates its own reality. If it stands, we will indeed live in more dangerous times.

I'm with you guys: Having everybody carry guns in public all the time is probably going to lead to some accidental discharges from dummies who don't know how to buy a proper holster, and there are some men who can't control their temper and would most definitely use a 9mm bullet instead of their fists.

In a moral and virtuous society, we wouldn't need to exercise the right to carry as the best possible defense against criminals.

But we now live in Gotham, where weapons pour freely over the border, along with terrorists and cartel members to use them. We've got cities like Chiraq where 13-year-olds are roaming the streets looking for victims.

Y'all can't put a thousand years of firearms technology back in Pandora's box, just like you can't wish away the fact that we live in a nuclear age. Plus, I think y'all are forgetting that criminals don't have to use guns to massacre little kids:

If we get to the point where Soros DA's are letting criminals go and people get back into church and the Batman appears to clean up all the bad guys, then I might relax my desire to carry an uncomfortable piece of metal jammed inside my belt against my appendix.

But until that time, the best defense my kids have from psychos at the playground is me.

P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇