Police, gun groups may support concealed-weapons deal

The Plain Dealer ^ | 09 October 2001 | Julie Carr Smyth

[meyer]

Why thank you. I moved down here about 5 months ago. Not because I don't like Ohio, but because I found a better employer. I just inquired about CCW yesterday and am scheduling the qualification permit classes in the near future. Should be nice having one.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Varmint is such a paradox. The most conservative gun laws in the land. The most liberal gay privileges laws in the land.

[Morgan's Raider]

Yeah, and look at their Congressional delegation. An avowed Marxist, a turncoat RINO, and a democrap who leaks classified information like a sieve. What a parlay.

[lavaroise]

Finger prints, licenses et al makes us servile to the government for protection, and it is a slipery slope. Unfortunately the crowd that does not own guns have rejected self protection and pledged allegiance to the police for protection - a welfare mentality. So, yes, just as building your own business makes you less dependent on welfare pay checks and hence financialy freeer, more guns means freeer and more effective protection capabilities and options. THey can make whatever ridiculous assertions or "studies" or annecdote, they cannot destroy the above inalienable self evidence of liberty above life necessitating the balance of powers that necessitates the people to rid themselves of police social security welfare mentality.

In other words, people who do not own guns rob the tax payers in payment to police forces. And that is unacceptable.

While I would advocate a dynamic balance of powers between government and people, the anti-gun crowd's overt dependence on government for protection is ridiculous given the fact that legal gun owners are in no position to subvert the government in organised manner, nor are they willing to do that.

While this should be a sane discussion of power balance, people make it a safety issue, which is almost irrelevant since liberty is more important than human life. But humanists servile to live humans want it differently.

America is starting to follow a devilish cult if it starts talking about public safety instead of the liberty that balances the needs of National Security and the needs of free industry, depending on the situations. LEt us note that the 2nd amendment puts severe restrictions on legislation of ownership of devices of any kinds, and that leaves mostly the executive leadership and the commander in chief with the capacity to use the militia (and not disarm it save for blatant cases of treachery such as when the South sided with Great Britain against the North)

[rebelyell]

What the hell are you talking about? When did The South side w/ great britain against the north? We would have loved for them to help us out during the War between the states, but as you know, they were cowards and would not lend support.

[sneakypete]

"There are members of law enforcement who have very grave reservations about the safety of men and women in uniform out there, and I think the result of that would be that the governor would be very careful in his review of those proposals," he said.

That's about right. The bitch state is concerned about the safety of it's already armed puppies,while not giving a damn about the safety of "outsiders".

[sneakypete]

When were police officers appointed the final arbiters of America's civil rights?

Haven't you ever heard a cop say "*I* AM the law around here!"? I even heard a judge once tell a class graduating from a community college LEO course,"Don't worry about what is Constiutional. *I* am the one who decides if you have a legal right to do or not do something,and I will ALWAYS rule on your side!"

[sneakypete]

I must say I completely agree with Taft's decision to look for consensus amongst law enforcement since they are the ones who have to deal with the having an armed populace.

This isn't surprising,since you were 100% wrong with everything in your post that came before this. I just want you to explain ONE little detail to me,ok? HOW is it that unarmed citizens don't "have to deal with a armed populance"? Are citizens somehow exempt from being shot at,stabbed,robbed,raped,or attacked with pipes,chains,knives,etc in your delusional dream world?

If you think cops are the only ones who have to deal with things liket his,how about tell us about the last time you heard of a armed and uniformed cop having his patrol car hijacked,being raped,robbed at gunpoint,etc,etc,etc.

[Gig]

Funny how folks get more 'polite' when the ability to wreak havoc on one another is heightened.

You know, there seems to be a corollary between BALANCED strength and civility: the more opposing sides are equally balanced in the ability to cause damage to the other, the more both sides do their best to avoid confrontation.

[wcbtinman]

"Funny how folks get more 'polite' when the ability to wreak havoc on one another is heightened?"

Yeah. Ain't it funny how the concept of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' kept another superpower at bay for decades?

I practice this doctrine on a personal basis, and it has saved me twice. I will never go unarmed again.

[Frumanchu]

That was a poor choice of wording on my part. The law enforcement community put themselves in harms way on a daily basis going up against illegally armed criminals. IMO they are the best ones to determine whether allowing all citizens to carry concealed firearms would help alleviate the problem or simply add to it. Will there be a decline in armed robberies and assaults because there's an increased chance that someone nearby (victim included) will have a firearm and the knowledge/will to use it? Will there be an increase in road rage deaths as Johnny Tailing-my-ass decides to shoot at me because I accidently cut him off?

Looking at statistics from places that allow concealed carry versus those that don't, it seems pretty obvious that concealed carry will reduce violent crime, not contribute to it.

Regarding the rest of my response, I'm not saying they should have to go through a SWAT team range excersize, just that they show that they actually know a few simple safety points. People have to demonstrate at least some proficiency in driving before they get a driver's license.

As far as the restriction for those convicted of violent misdemeanors, I'd love to hear from you why it's a good idea to give people who have committed violent crimes a license to carry a concealed weapon.

[sneakypete]

IMO they are the best ones to determine whether allowing all citizens to carry concealed firearms would help alleviate the problem or simply add to it.

Sorry,I disagree with the whole concept that the police or anybody else "allows" citizens to carry guns. The police in this country are supposed to work as our agents,not our masters.

As far as the restriction for those convicted of violent misdemeanors, I'd love to hear from you why it's a good idea to give people who have committed violent crimes a license to carry a concealed weapon.

You can be convicted of a "violent misdemeanor" for fighting back with fists after being attacked. It's more common than not for the cops to charge both parties with assault in these cases. The question also needs to be asked "WHO gets to decide WHAT is violent?" Did you know you can be arrested for being violent by raising your voice to someone who claims this intimidated them?

HERE is going to be the REAL shocker for you. I also think violent former FELONS DO have the same rights to own and carry firearms that YOU do. If they are considered too violent or mentally unstable to be allowed to carry a gun,why were they ever released from prison or the mental institution to begin with? We used to have the concept in this country that once you had served your time,you had paid your debt to society,and you had the right to start over with all the same rights and privlidges as any other citizen.

BTW,would YOU care to explain to me WHY the lives of these people and their family members are of less value than YOUR life of the lives of YOUR family members? Would you really desire to deny these people the tools they need to protect their families?

[Frumanchu]

I see your point (although you don't have to be so condescending in making it), and after thinking it through a little more thoroughly I'd have to agree with you.

Another consideration is the legal and political climate we operate in today. These days it's easy for the family member of a victim who was killed by a fellon with a legally licensed gun to sue the city, county, state or whomever they can blame for letting someone with a criminal history have access to a gun. I'm not offering this in support of keeping it illegal, just in explanation of why it probably is this way.

[Fighting Irish]

Make CCW permits legal nationwide!

Simply legislate nationwide reciprocity. It's a pain in the neck when I'm travelling to have to unload, field strip and hide my piece through Maryland, Jersey or New York. Then stop the car at the Pennsylvania line to reassemble, lock and load.

Rediculous.

Virginia has strict requirements for CCW issuance. It make no sense to not make permits allowable nationwide.

[stevio]

Good luck bump.