Chicago gun control activist Camiella Williams justifies her concealed weapons permit and gun ownership by stating that her South Side Chicago neighborhood is too dangerous to live without one.

Camiella documents a long history of violence in her neighborhood that affected her starting at age nine. It was at nine that she was assaulted in her neighborhood with a brick. By age 12 she had become involved in gang activity and acquired her first gun. The cycle of violence continued as she grew up until the age of 18 when she gave birth to her son.

After the birth of her child she left the South Side neighborhood, she grew up in and became an advocate for gun control policies lobbying as far as Washington D.C. Not only does she continue to possess her gun and concealed weapons permit, but she also seems to be more than willing to use it if necessary. She was quoted as saying, “I mean I just know that I would probably retaliate.”

While she advocates others not to retaliate or to not bring a weapon to a hostile situation, she admits that she had considered grabbing her weapon when she went to confront the mother of an 18-year-old who had shot her 11-year-old child with a BB gun.

When asked about the inconsistency in her message and actions, she claimed that people don’t understand how dangerous the neighborhood is and how she needs the gun for protection. But isn’t that what many gun owners who are against gun control laws want as well?

Unfortunately, Williams is not the first in the line of activists who preach, lobby and support control, while enjoying the protections that gun ownership present. Another example was the recent women’s march which showed gun control activists funded by Michael Bloomberg flanked by armed security for protection.

Bloomberg was called out by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson who called the fact that gun controllers who wish to remove the rights of the common man to bear arms yet arm themselves with armed security details, hypocritical. He claims that they are utilizing the same rights and protections that everyone should have. He was quoted as saying, “If guns are so bad, then why does he surround himself with them. And again, people who are at real risk — like delivery guys — can’t have them?” So why should those who lobby against the right to bear arms enjoy the freedoms and protections that they allow?

Even Gun Control Activists See the Value of Gun Ownership

As this case and many others have shown, the use of gun ownership as a means for self-defense, or the protection of others seems to be a valid ideal across most groups. Do activists realize that they are fighting to remove the right to protect themselves that they are claiming to need?

Unfortunately as many neighborhoods have shown, that even with gun control laws, the violence and crime do not recede when we remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens who obtain their weapons legally. No matter whether you live in a peaceful, safe neighborhood, or a neighborhood that is considered dangerous, all citizens should be able to exercise the right to arm themselves for personal protection or as a crime deterrent.

If Williams feels that her neighborhood is too dangerous to travel without a weapon, maybe her efforts could be put to better use through support of other Chicago South Side women, who are saying yes to the right to protect themselves and exercising their right to carry by obtaining concealed weapon permits and training in gun safety and use.

Will Cases Like This Show Activists the Importance of the Right to Carry

While situations like this can prove the importance of the right to carry for all citizens, it is not likely to change many gun activists views overnight. By showing the value of protective weapons even to the point that active anti-gun enthusiasts begin to carry them should help the public realize that without the protection of the second amendment right to carry, citizens may not have the means to protect themselves in high crime or dangerous areas.