Posted on 10/09/2001 10:18:26 AM PDT by Deadeye Division
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.
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".
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.