Demonizing CCW Holders

[kenhwind]

Well I guess we have all heard about the shooting in PA, but it seems like all of us that conceal carry are to be blamed.
Hogwash I say. If guns cause these travesties, how come its more dangerous to drive to the gun range than shoot there.
There's no mass shootings at gun shows or gun ranges, but gun owners are put to blame.
Enough I say enough of this garbage.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d7-New-antigun-strategy-Demonize-CCW-holders

[DoubleTap45]

AND permitees. Obama has gone on record as hating CCW and wants to start REPEALING CCW all over the country. We have started a snowball rolling that they really CAN'T stop and they are SEETHING with rage.

Look at the things that symbolize libery: Guns, cars, private property ownership, small business (source of 78% of all new jobs), living out of the cities, hunting, ranching, small farming and so forth. At some point expect an assault on any or all of them. Look at his abomination of a speech on 9/11. He went off on "community service". His original speech was all about "helping the state". WHAT!!!!? The inculcation of duty to the state is a baby step toward totalitarianism and a basic part of that is disarming the public as they have in Europe. :butthead:

-Ray

[Patriotic]

I think it is a great idea Obama has; community service. Let all CCW holders be deputized as US Marshalls and have the ability to travel in any state with their concealed weapon. The bad guys would have no where to turn, their next victim may just be carrying heat. Great idea Obama.

Think it would ever happen?

[DoubleTap45]

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (may his tribe increase) has already trained, sworn and deputized 100 average citizens in Maricopa County AZ as "special deputes". They ride with the regular LEOs as a force multiplier. They are a volunteer force. :appld: They get 100 hrs. training in gun handling, shooting, civil rights, basic self-defense and enforcement procedures. The rest they get "on the job". THIS is why I keep praying we can clone Old Joe and put HIM in charge of the NYPD!! The ACLU would die of exploded intestines!!! :lm:

-Ray

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Well I guess we have all heard about the shooting in PA, but it seems like all of us that conceal carry are to be blamed.
Hogwash I say. If guns cause these travesties, how come its more dangerous to drive to the gun range than shoot there.
There's no mass shootings at gun shows or gun ranges, but gun owners are put to blame.
Enough I say enough of this garbage.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d7-New-antigun-strategy-Demonize-CCW-holders
I can understand their discomfort, so in the spirit of bipartisanship, I'll go along. Abolish concealed carry permits!

[Old Fashioned]

:D :D Dial 1911 for Help says "Abolish concealed carry permits". I read that and thought hmmmm, wellllll, then thought about it a little. I believe you are right. In almost every state that passed shall issue conceal carry laws, the violent crime rate dropped significantly. That means that the gun control (control) people (nuts) have benifitted from those of us that went to the expense and time of obtaining required training and equipment and background checks for a conceal carry permit. They benifit because the criminal does not know who is armed and who is not. Get rid of conceal carry and replace it with open carry. Let there be no doubt. The criminals will then know who is armed and who is a defenseless victim. Now of course this will also apply to Mr. Bloomberg's body guard, the Secret Service, etc. This way anti gun people will not benefit from those of us that choose to carry a firearm for self defense. I am sure they would not want to benefit from something that they detest. And, I would point out that there is nothing about conceal carry in the 2nd Amendment. However, I would also point out that the words of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment have not changed. The words are exactly the same today as they were at the time of ratification. Some claim the Constitution is a living document that changes with time. Not so. Not one word has changed in the 2nd Amendment since it was ratified. The words "keep", "bear", and "arms" mean exactly the same today as they did at the time of ratification. The only way the Constitution changes is by an Amendment. People (lawyers, judges) may choose to interpet it differently at vaious times but that does not change the wording or meaning. Then again, maybe instead of eliminating conceal carry, gun rights, etc., maybe we should just give these anti gun people a one way ticket to some country that prohibits private ownership of firearms. I am sure they would feel more comfortable and safe in one of those countries. :D :D :D

[Dial 1911 for Help]

:D :D Dial 1911 for Help says "Abolish concealed carry permits". I read that and thought hmmmm, wellllll, then thought about it a little. I believe you are right....Get rid of conceal carry and replace it with open carry. :D
I didn't say "abolish concealed carry". I said "abolish concealed carry permits". (One's reaction says something about his mindset -- why would one assume that in the absence of a permit we're not allowed to do something? The default is freedom, not tyranny.) Why should you have to submit to putting your name on a list for the government to have and resent to exercise a right you already had? Or pay a fee?

And it's illogical anyway, at least in open carry states. The same person who is assumed to be perfectly safe carrying on their belt must demonstrate handgun proficiency and submit fingerprints if they want to put it in their pocket. But the most fundamental reason is just the hardcore belief that it's none of their business, nor none of their business to be telling US what their business is. We pay them. They're supposed to ask US what their business consists of. I'm even a little uneasy about car registration and the right to own and drive a car isn't as firmly recognized in the Constitution as the RKBA.

I do believe open carry should be the law of the land, but if a person elects to carry concealed that's OK and none of the government's beeswax.

And yes, I phrased it the way I did just for fun, to see if you were paying attention! :D

[Old Fashioned]

I figured you were having some fun and I was having some fun in return but I did get serious towards the end of the post. If "these people" disagree so strongly with what the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment say then I say let them go to a country where they do not have that concern. I am not knocking any other country, just saying let these people go to a place where they do not have that concern. Then see how long before they want to come back to this Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Exactly. There are already so many more countries that implement their values, wouldn't it make more sense for them to move there than to mess with one of the few countries which (theoretically) governs by the citizens' consent?

And I did find the humorous part to my liking as well.

[Patriotic]

I kind of look at it this way. The 2A protects your right to have and carry a firearm no matter if it is worn in the open or concealed. I also feel that since a firearm is dangerous to the owner and others that a requirement for a safety class is necessary. I also feel that there are people who no longer should have their 2A rights such as convicted felons and those involved in domestic violence. The only way to do this is with some form of checking when you purchase a firearm.

As far as driving is concerned, I feel the same way that in order to drive you need some assurance that this person knows how to drive and what the traffic laws are. Again for their protection as well as others. If they are a chronic drunk then they should be banned from driving.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

I kind of look at it this way. The 2A protects your right to have and carry a firearm no matter if it is worn in the open or concealed. I also feel that since a firearm is dangerous to the owner and others that a requirement for a safety class is necessary. I also feel that there are people who no longer should have their 2A rights such as convicted felons and those involved in domestic violence. The only way to do this is with some form of checking when you purchase a firearm.

As far as driving is concerned, I feel the same way that in order to drive you need some assurance that this person knows how to drive and what the traffic laws are. Again for their protection as well as others. If they are a chronic drunk then they should be banned from driving.
I have so many thoughts on your post, both differing and concurring, that it would probably take me half an hour to get them all down and then to organize them into some kind of coherent post. If I get a while, I'll do so.

A quick point though, while I posted a thought on vehicle registration, you responded as if I were writing about licensing of drivers.

[DoubleTap45]

The reason your marriage certificate, birth certificate, driver's license and adoption papers are valid in all 50 (57 for the "messiah") states is in the Constitution. It's called the "full faith and credit" clause. It's in the main body NOT an Amendment. If they apply it as it was intended then ANY state would be required to accept the CCW from any OTHER state.

-Ray

[Patriotic]

Dial 911, Yes I did make that mistake reading your post as drivers licenses. I do see vehicle registration in a positive light in so far as the vehicle being used on public roads. For example I feel it is necessary for registration to ensure a level of liability insurance is maintained for the protection of property. Revenue from vehicle registration to be used to maintain roads etc.

Regarding firearms, and here I have mixed emotions, on one side I see a need for instruction on safe firearm usage, a need to be aware of legal issues, a need for some type of proficiency evaluation and a need for an agency to issue a document stating that these issues have been addressed. On the other hand, I can see these things as a means of infringement. For example: firearms training costing a prohibiting amount, having to have a law degree, being able to put 10 rounds in a single hole at 50 yards.

I would tend to think the 2A is one of our prime freedoms or rights. Without it we have no means to protect our God given right to life, liberty and pursuit of possessions or happiness. I would say with the right to bear arms comes an individual responsibility to know the safe handling of the weapon and how to use it effectively and in a lawful manner which negates everything I said above. I also feel that as I have a right to walk any street in any state in the US, I also have the right to carry, concealed or otherwise, a means of personal protection.

[Tedzo]

As far as driving is concerned, I feel the same way that in order to drive you need some assurance that this person knows how to drive and what the traffic laws are. Again for their protection as well as others. If they are a chronic drunk then they should be banned from driving.If 'they' are so concerned that allowing people to carry guns will lead to more armed assault and crime why don't 'they' want to ban cars too. Cars are used to flee crime scenes therefore they contribute to crime too. Right?

[Dial 1911 for Help]

And bread! Read the following to learn how this insidious food puts us all at risk:

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low occurrence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after only two days.
8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

In light of these frightening statistics, we propose the following bread restrictions:

1. No sale of bread to minors.
2. No advertising of bread within 1000 feet of a school.
3. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
5. A $4.2 zillion fine on the three biggest bread manufacturers. Please send this e-mail on to everyone you know who cares about this crucial issue.

(Making your point, Tedzo, in a little lighter vein for Friday! Welcome aboard!)