Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just because they carved out an exception for carriers of large amounts of case does not mean it is reasonable ar that the exception should be applied to everyone. In areas with no ccw is someone more likely to use a gun to rob someone carrying a large amount of cash or to rob you and your family in your home or on the street?
More to the point, do you want to raise the ante to a gun battle around your family or just give up the cash? Or, do you want your family to be shot by a mis-aimed bullet fired by someone who thought he was protecting his car?
By the way, taggants do not make explosives unstable and the second amendment does not apply to possession of explosives. The bill of rights also applies to the states through the 14th amendment.
More to the point, do you want to raise the ante to a gun battle around your family or just give up the cash? Or, do you want your family to be shot by a mis-aimed bullet fired by someone who thought he was protecting his car?
Yes - to the point
As someone who has PERSONALLY experienced protecting my family with a firearm (and the "bad guy" died) I advocate, if one is comfortable with it, the carrying of, and access to, a firearm.
The problem is not guns or decent law-abiding citizens, the problem is voilent criminals. They're been around since the beginning of time, long before guns were invented, and if you took every gun in the world and melted them down, you're not going to eliminate voilence. When a community college district has to consider allowing professors to carry handguns on them (as mentioned by one of the posters) then you know we have a problem in society with voilent individuals, not guns.
Evlvo - There's nothing wrong with training individuals on the proper and safe use of firearms, in fact it is required in all states that give CCWs. But the problem is, that doesn't address the real problem, which again is voilent criminals. When was the last time you saw somebody with a serious criminal history apply for a CCW permit and take classes? The NICS is good to have, but we all know that the majority of criminals don't get their guns the same way you and I do by walking into a sporting goods store. There is a big black market for guns out there, which definitely needs to be addressed. When you have the majority of crime committed by individuals who have a criminal background, yet they were still able to have guns, you know the problem is not with legitimate dealers, law-abiding citizens, or gun manufacturers.
We have many laws out there that are supposed to "protect" the public from criminals, but if they're not enforced, then that'll only force clueless law-makers to create more laws that don't work, and they'll eventually end up taking guns away from all law-abiding citizens. We don't need laws, we have plenty of them, we need enforcements of current laws. There's only one way to protect us from criminals - Don't Take Out Guns Away From Us!, and don't create laws that cannot be enforced.
I am one of those people that just wants guns to shoot paper targets on the weekend at a local shooting range, it's a hobby that I enjoy, and I wouldn't even think of using any of my guns harm anybody.
Just because they carved out an exception for carriers of large amounts of case does not mean it is reasonable ar that the exception should be applied to everyone. In areas with no ccw is someone more likely to use a gun to rob someone carrying a large amount of cash or to rob you and your family in your home or on the street?
More to the point, do you want to raise the ante to a gun battle around your family or just give up the cash? Or, do you want your family to be shot by a mis-aimed bullet fired by someone who thought he was protecting his car?
By the way, taggants do not make explosives unstable and the second amendment does not apply to possession of explosives. The bill of rights also applies to the states through the 14th amendment.
I'm not talking about just a robbery. Many times money is given over and the perp continues the assault and either beats or kills his victim. That's what I'm talking about. Yes, I'd hand over money but if the perp didn't walk away then I'd have to defend myself and/or my family.
Taggants absolutely DO make gunpowder unstable, that's why it was dropped. The makers of gunpowder appeared before congress and testified to the affect.
The 14th Ammendment refers to states but does not give them any rights.It requires the states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons within their jurisdictions.
As one of thie resident liberals I would like to say that gun control is absolutely necessary.
If you cannot control the gun you are using you are a danger to yourself and anyone around you. The essence of gun control is simply having the judgment to select a legitimate target and the skill to hit it with the first shot.
I believe that a well-armed and trained (shooting lessons and shooting sports should be taught in high school) society is a safer society even counting the accidents and domestic violence casualties associated with owning firearms. For instance random robberies, car jacking and home break in are greatly reduced in places where the criminals have a reasonable expectation that they might get shot and killed for their criminality. A judge may be lenient but a .45 cal bullet is not and the armed homeowner or mugging or rape victim is not likely to have much sympathy for his assailant.
We have been taught that killing another human is a grave sin and must be surrounded with much ritual and allowable only by government execution. Experiencing a war will teach you otherwise and let you realize that anyone threatening your life has surrendered his or her right to remain alive. The fundamental and brutal truth of defending yourself and anyone you are responsible for.
This is why I really don't like the term "gun control" even though I do use it. The real term is "Victim Disarmament".
Not all states. In Washington State you just need to sign up and pass a background check.
California required quite a bit of training (and re-training)... so much so that I didn't think it was worth the hassle and didn't apply.
California is a MAY issue state. This means it's up to usually a local police chief or county official to decide who gets a permit. Given the anti-gun atmosphere in CA I doubt many permits are allocated.NY is the same and it's almost impossible to get a full carry permit. Target and premises permits are not too hard to get. California has laws that force you to keep your gun locked up or disabled in some way at all times even in your own home. Not much use in case of a home invasion which is happening more and more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
