Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 08/14/2016 8:31:19 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Oldpuppymax

Back in the “Good old days” of the Wild Wild West when everyone was packin’ there was a lot more law abiding and a lot fewer random shoot ‘em ups.


2 posted on 08/14/2016 8:35:12 AM PDT by Don Corleone (Oil the gun, eat the cannolis, take it to the mattress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

if you have a ccw...ignore the unconstitutional laws such as a gun free zone.


4 posted on 08/14/2016 8:43:54 AM PDT by davidb56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

A good guy with a gun is no guarantee of a better outcome, but without one, the bad guy has an absolute guarantee he will have his way until cops show up with their chalk.


5 posted on 08/14/2016 8:50:02 AM PDT by umgud (ban all infidelaphobics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

It should be noted that while training is a good thing, and to be encouraged by the gun carrying public, it is not as essential as you might think.

That is, he cited that the number of permitted concealed carry owners with training who commit crimes is extremely low. But there is no appreciable difference between them and those members of the public *without* training, who also don’t commit crimes, in those states with constitutional carry.

It should also be noted that there is no “crowded theater effect”, in that legal gun carriers everywhere are *very* judicious in firing their weapon. They seek out a clear field of fire, *and* they pay attention to both the foreground and the background of their target.

Finally, gun liberty has restored something that should now be obvious: that “the citizenry *are* the police”.

The uniformed police are just a convenience. There are always too few of them to maintain law and order in society. But the armed citizenry can be *everywhere*, and they are willing to maintain order and *prevent* crime; something the police can only rarely do.

Police are the day and night watch, the gatherers of evidence, the dogged pursuers of those wanted by the courts, and the keepers of order in crowd events and traffic. And with an armed society, this is enough.


8 posted on 08/14/2016 9:06:19 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

Doesn’t it occur to anyone else that before there were gun free zones such as ‘gun free school zone’ that there was no need for gun free zones? The school shootings started when the suggestive ‘gun free school zone’ signs went up.

Most gun free zones have absolutely no protection for civilians when a nut shows up with a gun. Incedentally, the nut with a gun didn’t pay any attention to the ‘gun free’ signs. Why then do we also obey the law?

It seems the time has come for the ‘gun free’ signs should start to come down and with them the knowledge that nobody has a gun for the perpetrator to rely on.

Let’s start to put pressure on legislators to do away with the ‘gun free’ signs.


9 posted on 08/14/2016 9:06:31 AM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent (EEe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

Doesn’t it occur to anyone else that before there were gun free zones such as ‘gun free school zone’ that there was no need for gun free zones? The school shootings started when the suggestive ‘gun free school zone’ signs went up.

Most gun free zones have absolutely no protection for civilians when a nut shows up with a gun. Incedentally, the nut with a gun didn’t pay any attention to the ‘gun free’ signs. Why then do we also obey the law?

It seems the time has come for the ‘gun free’ signs should start to come down and with them the knowledge that nobody has a gun for the perpetrator to rely on.

Let’s start to put pressure on legislators to do away with the ‘gun free’ signs.

This version is more readable.


10 posted on 08/14/2016 9:10:23 AM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent (EEe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

While I'm against the concept of GFZs in general, I absolutely support the right of a business or home owner to declare their property to be a GFZ. If someone doesn't want guns on their property, I will agree it's their right. However I will also choose not to go to those places, letting the owner know why I won't go there.

I once commented at a local bank branch to the branch manager, "thank goodness for that sign, no criminal would dare bring a gun in to rob the bank!" He laughed, and told me that he always carried at the bank (this was before MO allowed for CCW - I was at the bank working on their network.) If the bank were robbed, he didn't feel comfortable depending on the kindness of a criminal not to kill his workers or customers. If the bank were robbed, he'd cooperate, and never try to stop the robber from getting away with money. He would only draw his weapon if he felt they were in immanent danger of violence, and he knew he'd lose job over it. But he was willing to take that risk.

He agreed that it was a stupid idea, but the GFZ sign was the bank's corporate policy.

Mark

12 posted on 08/14/2016 9:43:41 AM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

In the meantime, I avoid `gun-free zones’. They don’t get my business or patronage.

And after being stigmatized for years by the left/MSM/public as a `gun nut’, if I wander into a situation my plan is not to be a hero. I’ll shepherd my family and friends out of danger and the sheep are on their own.

BTW, while driving, remember the best way to carry: open waist pack or shoulder holster.


13 posted on 08/14/2016 9:55:44 AM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Oldpuppymax

As David and Puppage mentioned, carry anyway is not a bad idea.
I’m at Ft Polk with limited Internet, but I think I recall something in TX law that there is an affirmation to the defense if the firearm was used to prevent a crime or for legitimate use. Not sure though, I can try looking it up later


16 posted on 08/14/2016 5:21:41 PM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson