Off shoot of "Some Should Carry"
This is a discussion on Off shoot of "Some Should Carry" within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Your question makes my really consider my personal values, sir. Six months ago I would have agreed with more regulation and redtape. Now, with no ...
November 30th, 2005 10:32 PM
Your question makes my really consider my personal values, sir. Six months ago I would have agreed with more regulation and redtape. Now, with no specific "incident" to "blame", I agree with QKShooter. I've seen too many slippery slopes in my life, and just don't think this is an argument we want to allow to begin.
Everyone appears to be thinking about their values - good question.
Originally Posted by QKShooter
"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."
November 30th, 2005 11:23 PM
This is simply untrue -- and it's the sort of misinformation the firearms prohibitionists love to see us propagating amongst ourselves.
There is a LOT of people who carry that are a mentally unstable.
Legal analysis of Florida after the institution of its Shall Issue carry law, for example, showed us a couple of very eye-opening facts. Not only did violent crime in Florida decrease (the anti-gunners were going on about blood in the streets), but holders of legal permits (thus the only people legally carrying in Florida) were found to commit crimes at a fraction of the rate of the population at large. This means that those carrying in Florida were, compared to the general public, less likley to be "mentally unstable."
Certainly, there are mentally unstable people who carry guns. They are the exception, not the rule. I am not willing to grant my government the power to decide who is worthy and who is not in the absence of some crime or other substantial evidence of mental illness.
November 30th, 2005 11:28 PM
Originally Posted by rstickle
"The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century
November 30th, 2005 11:36 PM
I am pretty much with srfl. As too with automobiles there will always be those who finish up not ideally suited to ownership and use but first we have our rights and second is what we might call the ''for the greater good'' approach. That means, why punish the many for the sins/failings of the few.
I think the free states of Vermont and Alaska got this whole gun thing down pat.
Slippery slopes concern me a lot - I have seen too many. My only caveat really is a wish that folks who decide to carry should know certain things and have certain skills. The better to help themselves and others - safely. They have the right to bear arms but - logically IMO some semblance of competance is useful.
Then tho is the problem - is this voluntary or mandated! In PA folks who do this do so voluntarily which in essence is fine but I'll bet there are some folks with a carry permit who really could do with some help!! Other extreme tho is a state that mandates training - sometimes almost to excess with time and cost - as if hoping to dissuade folks from going that route.
Overall, more control is just that - more control - in essence the anti's main mantra - control.
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
- a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
November 30th, 2005 11:40 PM
Exactly. Any time one group of people presumes to tell another group of people who is "worthy" according to their arbitrary standards, the seeds of tyranny are sown.
November 30th, 2005 11:53 PM
I'm with P95Carry and Phil. I recently got out of one of the most controlling organizations on earth, the US Army. One of my main problems with military life was the restrictions placed on my ability to own and use my own weaponry. Technically, I was permitted to keep firearms and other deadly weapons (like my knife collection) in the unit arms room. Practically speaking, when they were in the arms room they were of absolutely no use to me. The red tape involved with accessing them was tremendous and greatly discouraged weapons ownership among those who lived in the barracks. I ended up moving off post on my own dime to regain the freedom to do as I wished on my free time. It was costly, but allowed me to buy a revolver and shoot with it frequently. That was only one of many restrictive policies I had to deal with. My experience with regulation and red tape of this type is that it effectively takes away your freedom. I passed on re-enlistment for that and other reasons, and I was offered a five-figure bonus to stay in. It still wasn't enough to make me put up with that BS anymore. If the government ever gets as restrictive as the Army, something has gone seriously wrong.
“Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.” ~Pericles of Athens
Primary Carry - Colt Commander .45 in a Brommeland Max-Con V
December 1st, 2005 12:02 AM
We shouldn't even need permits.
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper
"Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow. End the cycle of hatred, don’t give them a tomorrow."
December 1st, 2005 12:06 AM
The only kind of gun law I would be comfortable with is one that every adult be required to own and be competant with a military type rifle
December 1st, 2005 12:38 AM
I'm in agreement with many of you, but especially raevan. They should require every household to at least own and be competant with a firearm, whether it be rifle, pistol or shotgun. Then they should reduce the amount of grief someone has to suffer with the law should they ever have to actually use it to defend themselves....
Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.
December 1st, 2005 01:03 AM
You want annual testing for an activity that has too many people who don't know what they are doing or are mentally unstable? Good, let's start with car drivers - they kill tens of thousands every year.
Let's go to married couples next. We should really do something about those people having and raising children willy-nilly.
And I can't begin to describe the damage done to society by people who are allowed to warp others' minds with religion. Preists, ministers, etc., all should have their belief systems approved.
As far as that goes, you should need training and licensing to publicly speak or publish. Just so proper English is used and no one is offended.
See where this goes? And not only do the CCW holders have a lower incidence per capita of criminal acts than the general population, they have a lower incidence of criminal acts per capita than LEO's!
Until I see evidence pointing otherwise, I have faith in my fellow American. Sort of the "innocent until proven guilty" principle applied to life in general.
December 1st, 2005 02:51 AM
You may desire to have "permission" from your state to carry.
A Democrat legislator from Alaska, Eric Croft, while addressing a group celebrating 10 years of Shall issue in Arizona said it well: “…why is it that we should have to get a government permit to exercise a constitutional right?"
I desire to live with my God given right to self preservation-it is so important our founding fathers even wrote a bit about it in the Bill of Rights.
Yep, freedom can be sticky, sweaty and uncomfortable. I will wager we are far more danger from idiots with cars that non quals with guns.
It is a personal responsibility issue, not a legal matter.
(Live From the Relatively Free State of Alaska)
Get Trained Go Armed.
“Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”
December 1st, 2005 04:11 AM
Well said. I certainly agree. I don't even like the idea of a CCW permit requirement in order to exercise a constitutional (and I think God given) right.
Originally Posted by Phil Elmore
December 1st, 2005 07:50 AM
Thats is a excellent idea but i think we should throw in rifle and handgun
Originally Posted by raevan
December 1st, 2005 07:57 AM
I agree with Phil Elmore. Well said! Can I quote you?
"So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."
- Senator Padmé Amidala, "Revenge of the Sith"
December 1st, 2005 08:06 AM
By paramedic70002 in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: February 18th, 2011, 01:15 AM
By RR9501 in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: October 9th, 2010, 02:48 PM
By JonInNY in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: October 15th, 2008, 11:45 AM
By buckeye .45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: January 4th, 2007, 10:43 PM
By profshadow in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: June 28th, 2006, 03:21 PM