Welcome to the wild west of Utah, I guess, if this bill passes. I don't
want people carrying weapons in the open, just like I don't want people
carrying AR-15 into my local JC-Penny.
Let's be honest. Bad guys always carry guns now without bothering to get a
permit, and will continue to do so, including felons, druggies, gang members,
etc, so this law will NOT increase the number of bad guys with guns.What it does is eliminate the need for law abiding citizens to get a
"permission slip" to exercise their right to self defense. Noting at
all wrong with that. Should they have some sort of training? That
is strongly recommended, but should not be required.For the
inevitable elite media editorials aghast at the idea, let's see if they
want to have to get a "journalist permit" and pass spelling and grammar
tests, and not be allowed to write in churches or schools without their
"journalist permits." But, "guns are dangerous and
someone might get hurt!" Yeah, that was what the critics all said in 1995
when it was made easier to get a concealed carry permit, and several years ago
when permitless "car carry" was passed. Even critics must admit that
their dire predictions of bloody streets and shootouts over parking spots never
happened.Pass the bill! Remove one more infringement on
Constitutional rights!Trust the good guys!
The idea that criminals will always have guns regardless of any effort at
restriction is false. Making guns easier to carry and conceal is just backward
(well I guess that's Utah for you).Other countries that
prohibit or restrict gun ownership have far lower gun deaths than the USA. Japan
only had 11 gun homicides last year, so the criminals there must have had a
difficult time finding their weapons.Laws, licensing and
registration work well in many aspects of life from driving, flying, practicing
medicine, construction, so what is the big hangup with guns.Machine
guns were outlawed in 1934 and you don't see any gunman using a Tommy gun
Criminal or not, why on earth would you want to make it easier for ANYONE to
carry a concealed weapon?? I have voted GOP my whole life and am so angry and
disappointed at the "no limits" gun people on the far right who everyone
seems to be thoughtlessly following. You will rue the day you pass this kind of
legislation. Everyone with common sense and whoever wants to live in
a gun-free society had better become more vocal or this very loud group will
create a situation we cannot undo.
Wonder what this will do to UT tourism industry. Maybe it will attract all
those longing to return to the Wild West? However, not the place
where i want my grandchildren raised.Mormons are the majority in UT.
Is this the kind of society they want to create?
DN Subscriber 2,Nothing you say has any logic or fact behind it. And
then you say people probably don't need any training to carry a concealed
weapon.Even WITH training, I don't want people popping up to
start shooting at whoever they think is the perpetrator in a shooting incident.
Battle-hardened veterans will tell you how difficult it is to tell what is going
on in a firefight and quickly they lose their edge. And they have friendly fire.
Imagine how it would be in a situation like Trolley Square where everyone is
shooting. I don't want to live in that kind of society. Tourists should be
warned before they come to Utah that a good portion of the citizens have decided
to take the law into their own hands. I already know Europeans who don't
want to visit (including many LDS).Maybe you don't trust your
police. Maybe you are afraid of an imminent home invasion. Perhaps you are
afraid of the government. Go see a shrink. If you are that paranoid, you should
not be packing a weapon.
In these dark times of misery and woe, we must have greater love for our fellow
man. We must show greater compassion, understanding, and genuine love. As a
society, we must teach our children the values of piety, devotion, and respect.
With more civility. With more thoughtfulness. These things would go a long way
towards ending the epidemic of violence that is sweeping the land.
@PerficeBased on the number of felons (it is against the law for a felon
to possess a firearm), who are found carrying firearms and convicted of these
offenses, it is obvious that gun laws do not matter to felons, just as other
laws don't have the desired influence on them."Driving,
flying, practicing medicine, construction" are not constitutional rights,
the right to bear arms is. For many of us who love and respect the Constitution
this is the crux of the matter, not the gun itself. While many may not care
about about the right to bear arms, the erosion of one Constitutional right
opens the door for the government to curtail other rights as they might find
expedient to a particular purpose. It would be wise to remember the words of
Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin
Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759).
In a few years you will see big ego guys walking around with low hanging
holsters with handguns tied to their leg. It will be Marshall Dillon and Dodge
City all over again. Unlike the old west it will probably be alot of "tough
guys" in skinny jeans with their underwear showing. This is a bad idea that
we will wish never materialized. We will have more accidental shootings by
untrained people who think the buck stops here and want to be heroes.
@ ThomasJefferson: The actual Washington quote is, "A free people ought not
only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan
is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote
such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential,
particularly military, supplies." It was part of his first State of the
Union address on January 8, 1790. The meaning is quite different.
Once again the "Blood in the streets" cry and Wild west quotes...
Vermont has had constitutional concealed carry for decades with out issues
(except for very little crime). Three more states have added freedom to their
laws and no blood is flowing. Concealed carry laws have show a reduction in
crime.Please cut the baloney about Japan. You can die by blunt
force as easier than with a gun, and in fact blunt force murders out number gun
violence in this country. Also, last I checked, suicides in Japan are higher
than here. They just don't use a gun.Guns are not the sole
instrument of violence. Start looking at violent crimes in Australia sense
their gun ban and you may think again... Yes, it gone UP. No one can defend
themselves and the criminal are having a hayday. Survival of the
fittest (biggest fist) is a crappy game plan in a civilization. The possiblity
of resistance lowers crime.
So, DN Suscriber 2, should we do away with training when it comes to driving a
car? Or can we just "trust" the good drivers?
there are several states that restrict guns that those of you that dislike them
can move to, I like my guns , my state and my bill of rights.
Give that congressman a raise
So, more guns will protect lives, right?How'd that work in NM?
Where a 15 year old boy took his families gun and killed them.How'd that work for Gabriel Giffords, where she had armed guards, x3 men
with guns, and she was shot?x9 people died.This is
passing laws due to rhetoric, not reality.And when it's your
child killed by someone who purchased 6,000 rounds of ammo legally before they
go on a killing spree, I hope you remember today.
How many Utahns are in such peril that they need to carry a gun around with them
everywhere they go? Where are they going and who are they hanging out with? Utah
is just not that dangerous.
More guns do not keep us safe.My examples are:Columbine.Gabriel Giffords.New Mexico shooting.Ft. Hood.Trolley Square.
nrajr:"Based on the number of felons (it is against the law for
a felon to possess a firearm), who are found carrying firearms and convicted of
these offenses, it is obvious that gun laws do not matter to felons, just as
other laws don't have the desired influence on them"What
laws are you referring to? The one's that nobody enforces? That's the
whole point. Gun laws have been weak and the ATF has been gutted by the
congressional puppets of the NRA."Driving, flying, practicing
medicine, construction" are constitutional rights as well as a couple of
others I didn't mention which fall under the category of "Life, Liberty
and the Pursuit of Happiness"It's nice to know that so many
of my fellow citizens believe that the 2nd amendment trumps all other
considerations within our constitution and body of law. I hope you all use that
as your defense when your creator asks you what you did to turn your swords into
I previously lived just outside city limits in a state where it was okay to fire
a gun on your own property so long as the bullets did not leave your property.
The problem was that my property was very small and so was my neighbor's
property. Our houses were only a few feet away from each other. This man liked
to go into his small back yard and fire his gun into the ground. He wasn't
the sharpest tool in the shed, yet it was perfectly legal for him to fire a gun
only a few feet away from my bedroom window. It was more than a bit stressful to
hear the loud shots and hope that my house or my family didn't get hurt
because of this man.My point being that just because someone
isn't a criminal, doesn't mean it's a good idea for them to have
a gun. Accidents can happen.
One shouldn't have to get permission (get a permit)to exercise a
constitutional right, so this bill makessense.Also hunters
ought to be able to use silencers, thiswould help stop hearing loss.
Finally a law that makes sense and doesn't require any other legislation or
explanation. The only exception to this suggestion would be no restrictions of
possession or use of a gun by any legal citizen not incarcerated or in jail, or
impending citizens (legal immigrant). I agree with the age of 18 for
public carry but gun safety and practice has no age limit or restrictions. If a
son or daughter of the USA can go to war and give their life then they qualify
as an accountable citizen.
Another sad, sad news day about our Utah legislators. I am so sick of our
elected officials and their "message to Washington, DC" bills. This one
needs to be shelved right away.
@PaganColumbine happened during the last assault weapon ban,
that's a bad example.
The Constitution says that the Right to Keep and BEAR arms shall not be
infringed. Utah has finally figured out what that means. We are one step closer
to law and order.More guns DO keep us safe:During the
first year of the Obama administration, with national gun sales rising
dramatically, the national murder rate declined by 7.4% along with other
categories of crime which fell by significant percentages (FBI). 450,000 more
people bought guns in November 2008 than November 2007 which represents a 40%
increase in sales. The drop in the murder rate was the biggest one-year drop
since 1999, when gun sales soared in the wake of increased calls for gun control
after the Columbine shooting.The more Americans carry guns, the less
violent crime we have.All those school massacres, including
Columbine and Sandy Hook, even the Colorado Theater, were in "Gun Free
Zones". Hint: Gun Free Zones invite criminal attack. That's why the
politicians won't make the US Capitol into a Gun Free Zone. They're
not stupid, they just hope you are.
"Utah permits are extremely popular with many people from outside Utah
because the permits are accepted in 35 of 50 states."And that
the requirements to get a Utah CCP are very lax. 4 hour class and no
requirement to shoot the gun.
How do you distinguish a bad guy from a good guy? If I walk into a store and
see a man carrying a semi-automatic weapon, how does this make you feel safe?
Doesn't it just allow bad guys to carry without being nervous about it?
Bad guys would just assume that you will perceive them as citizens who are
exercising their 2nd amendment rights. You can make it very easy
for some guy to walk into a school with a gun and kills a bunch of children.
Seriously. If it's legal, you can't stop him. It's only illegal
as soon as he starts shooting, at which point it's too late.People supporting this are losing their minds.
re MaudineSLC, UTEither way, George Washington believed that
people ought to be able to form up into armed militias when the need arises and
thereby not be overly dependent on the military. So for our purposes in this
discussion what does it matter?Also is it possible that he said
similar quotes on similar occasions? When I Googled it I saw the quote both
ways, the way you presented it and his way ..'ThomasJefferson'WELLSVILLE, UT
You may summon up all the reasons you want about taking away someone's
second amendment right, but if that right is unalienable and it is guaranteed
under the constitution, how does anyone assume the right to redefine it without
limited someone's God given right to defend themselves from anyone,
including governmental intrusion? It doesn't make since, any kind of
sense, that because someone else(ie newtown, etc.)doesn't know how to
protect, defend, and use a God given right, that anyone, including the
government, has the right to take it away from me or any other citizen. A
society like that is much scarier than a society where tragedies like Newtown
happen! Unfortunately, every one espousing a gun free society won't be
around to see the devastation that could, and most likely would, result from
taking away any God given right, including the right to bear arms. The answers
to Newtown have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment and everything to do with
creating a safe, loving, and principled environment for children at home.
"If I walk into a store and see a man carrying a semi-automatic weapon, how
does this make you feel safe?"Well, apparently not. When a guy
brought a pistol and a semi-automatic weapon to an Orem Mall a couple years ago,
there were lots of 911 calls.The guns were legal to carry openly.
Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin did not live in a
world where every citizen carries a cell phone and where police are available at
a moments notice. Nor did they live in a world of AK47's and automatic
pistols with high capacity ammo clips that can be stacked.GW was
busy claiming land occupied by the Indians and sending men with guns to occupy
it. Human rights and the sanctity of law did not even resemble the world that
we know today. Second amendment gun rights are out dated.
Unabashed worship of the founding fathers and the constitution is out dated and
bordering on the ridiculous. It's time for a change.
Many of you are confusing individual examples with the community at large.
Humans are at times violent. They always have been, always will be. The fact
is, people get killed and hurt, with guns, without guns, makes no difference.But in the US, LESS people get killed and hurt when MORE people are
armed. If someone other than the bad guy and the security folks in the crowd
had had a gun, Gifford may not have been shot at all. If a teacher in Sandy
Hook had had a gun, there may have been FAR fewer deaths.You can
talk about individual tragedies all day, and we can quote overall statistics all
day, and we can play the what-if game forever. But the FACT is, according to
every crime statistic in the entire US, there are less violent crimes and LESS
murders in places that have MORE legal guns, period.Comparing the US
to England or Japan is a red herring, they are TOTALLY different cultures, with
different religions, ways of life, understandings of right and wrong, and the
fact is that you cannot take my guns away, and remain the United States of
cjb said: "One shouldn't have to get permission (get a permit) to
exercise a constitutional right"and yet the same political hacks
enforce "Free Speech Zones." They don't allow you to cause
fear by yelling fire in crowded places either, clearly a constitutional
infringement.What happens when it's not a middle aged bearded
white guy that walks into JC Pennys, but a middle eastern bearded man with an
AK, do you feel the same warm and fuzzy for your gun love? He would probably be
shot by a racist patriot even if he would be legally within his rights to do
so....and finally "Utah permits are extremely popular with many
people from outside Utah because the permits are accepted in 35 of 50
states." This would cost the state some revenue, the guys on the
hill love their cash cows, more than their fantasy's about the wild west
George Washington also owned slaves. Was that an unalienable right?Within the rule of law we balance the rights of different citizens to avoid
anarchy and bloodshed. The constitution is the starting point whereas
legislators and courts define the details. In 1934 machine guns were banned and
upheld by the supreme court. That made it constitutional.The very
fact that you all fight to retain THIS right at the expense of others is just
telling, especially in the face of the death of so many children. 20,000 people
die in this country every year by guns. That is equivalent to a town the size of
Brigham City. We have a gun death rate similar to the country of Colombia. Is
that the legacy you're trying to protect?
I'll make a deal. I'll give up all my rights, including my 2nd
amendment rights, if everyone else will give up their right to abortion,gay
marraige,illegal drugs, alcohol, immoral movies, violence of any kind, welfare,
war, athiesm, and especially public education. Also, you have to give them up
willing forever! Accordingly, I will give up my 2nd amendment rights, except for
when I want to go hunting. If you will give up all those rights, I will swallow
my pride and go down to the local law enforcement agency and check a gun out for
hunting. Is anyone ready?
@ cjb: If you google it, you will find quotes of Abraham Lincoln commenting
about the number of false quotes on the Internet. Reliable sources will provide
the full context of the quote and debunk ones that are not accurate. If the actual quote doesn't matter, why use it? Quotes by individuals
like Washington are used to lend credibility to one's argument through an
appeal to authority - using an incorrect quote shows a complete lack of
credibility and no authoritative support for your position. Words
matter. There is a vast difference between "armed and disciplined" and
"armed, but disciplined" - there is an even bigger difference between
the rest of the fake quote and the real quote. The inability to
support one's stance without resorting logical fallacies indicates a
problem with said stance. A position that cannot be defended honestly is a
position not worth defending.
re Happy Valley HereticOrem, UTI think we all agree, one does
not have a right to abuse any right they have, constitutional or not.No one has a right to yell fire in a theater unless their is a fire, I do not
have a right to falsely slander someone.I do not have a right to
brandish a gun or shoot innocent people.Of course all that said, the
governemt doesn't have a right to tape up a persons mouth or take away
their guns, simply because a person might misuse them. Why, because of the
constitution rights we have.
In the Old West, gun laws were pioneered in such legendary towns as Abilene,
Wichita, and Dodge City. The Wyatt Earps and Bat Mastersons of those days knew
how tough the job of a lawman was as is and they favored city ordinances
prohibiting the carrying of firearms within city limits.Now if the
Utah of today becomes a state that requires a license to drive a car but no
permit to carry a gun, that condition of moral and legalistic imbecility could
truthfully be called a Wild West, not to be confused with the Old West of
history. Post-Civil War city fathers seemed to be more idealistic visionaries
than are legislators of the present.
Maudine,....The actual Washington quote is, "A free people ought
not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested
plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should
promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for
essential, particularly military, supplies." It was part of his first State
of the Union address on January 8, 1790."______________________________Thanks so much for that quote.
It's so easy for Americans to forget that freedom carries with it the need
for responsibility. The former without the later makes freedom more of a menace
than than a virtue.
cjb said: I do not have a right to brandish a gun or shoot innocent people.Well your half right...Utah's 2010 Legislative Session, Rep Stephen
Sandstrom introduced and passed House Bill 78 otherwise know as the
"Brandishing Bill"So why we agree on some restrictions being
needed, the Utah political hacks believe there should only be restrictions on
free speech but a free for all on guns.
Only a criminal would have a problem with the passage of this bill. It will need
a little tweaking. This fellow Rep - John Mathis should consider running as a
State Senator or Congressman , we need his kind of thinking in America.
I'm liking the state of Utah more and more, as it's 7 degrees here and
The photo with this article does a lot to illustrate one of the worst problems
Utah has with guns.Look carefully at the photo. Do you see the
problems?And this guy could well be a "graduate" of our
state's ridiculous CCP "training" that provides no training at
all.Notice the problems: 1) Gun is stuffed in the belt 2) no
holster 3) no holster with trigger cover 4) finger on the trigger while drawing
the weapon.But he will certainly learn a lesson he won't forget
if he pulls on that trigger just a little too much.If anything, we
need much TIGHTER AND MORE STRINGENT training and requirements for packing a
gun.Loosening those already non-existent requirements will be one
So ThomasJefferson posts that he will pick and choose which version of a quote
by the real Thomas Jefferson he will choose to use as he argues against gun
safety.Wow. What a display of arrogant dishonesty!
This guy is my hero.
Those who think that hundreds and hundreds of people in Utah don't already
carry concealed guns are ignorant. They are called concealed for a reason. I
think it is unfounded paranoia to think that this will be a disaster and that
Utah will turn into the "wild west." If you read the article it listed
several states that already have this bill in place. Are you afraid to go to
Arizona or Vermont or Wyoming? Gun control activists really need to start
looking at why they are so scared of inanimate objects.
I have a CC permit and I'm just fine with the process. My problem is, I
know people who are law abiding citizens who I wouldn't trust with a gun in
any circumstance. They have no common sense nor the brains to think properly
about it.The possession of a firearm for defensive purposes creates
a great responsibility. Both moral and ethical. I'm all for personal
defense and defense of other. And if a situation is created where deadly force
is the final and only option left to someone, then the person using the weapon
for deadly force needs to know that there will be consequences. Mostly
mental.The ability to use a weapon requires training, and a lot of
it. Cops are supposed experts and see how many of them miss when the pucker
factor increases. Just letting any Tom, Dick, or Harry pack without proper
training doesn't excite me. I'm all for constitutional rights as far
as the 2nd Amendment is concerned, but just like you can't yell fire in a
theater, proper use of guns requires training. Untrained, undisciplined
shooters are as big a threat as bad guys/girls.
@dlharman"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is not
part of the constitution, that is from the Declaration of Independence.
Columbine had armed security...when the shooting at Columbine
happened.Same thing at Ft. Hood and Gabriel Giffords.
Gkwahlberg:Actually the Supreme Court declared in 1897, "..the
Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is
the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the
Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.."Regarding rights:If we have the right to Life, why do we kill
criminals and enemies in foreign wars?If we have the right of
Liberty, why do we prohibit trespassing? If we have the right of
Freedom of Speech, why do we prohibit Libel?We balance rights,
freedoms and law for the largest common good and security.So far
nothing the President has proposed is going to do much more to your gun culture
than inconvenience you (speaking collectively of course).Are all of
you so intractable that you can't even consider a little inconvenience if
it might reduce the number of violent gun deaths?
Flashback,"I have a CC permit and I'm just fine with the
process. My problem is, I know people who are law abiding citizens who I
wouldn't trust with a gun in any circumstance. They have no common sense
nor the brains to think properly about it...."______________________________Your post makes a rational case for
conceal and carry permits which I’m not opposed to under state licensing
authority.What’s alarming are proposed laws that allow
issuance of a permit on demand or require no permit whatsoever! It used to be
that permit applicants had to show cause (e.g. having received death threats, a
job transporting large sums of cash, etc.). That reasonableness seems to have
been discarded. There must be responsible criteria for issuance of
C&C permits and stringent enforcement of its conditions. At the top of the
list would be the obvious (e.g. no record of arrests for violent behavior or
threats made to harm someone, being under treatment for severe mental health
@dlharmon"Are all of you so intractable that you can't even
consider a little inconvenience if it might reduce the number of violent gun
deaths?"I'll answer for my conservative friends: YES
More Americans have died from domestic gun violence, than in all the wars since
Although I favor the Second Amendment and the right of a law-abiding citizen to
carry conealed, after 30 years of carrying a sidearm professionally, I doubt
that most folks would bother to dress properly every minute of every day to
carry a concealed firearm. You wouldn't have to worry about everybody at
the local Mickey D's drawing weapons on some dumb crook who wasw trying to
rob the place.
Flashback Kudos to your comments. By far the best of all the posts on the
subject.There was a woman who shot an armed intruder in Florida.
That was a legitimate act of self defense. The problem was you could hear her
husband on a cell phone yelling at her saying keep shooting him, keep shooting
him. I heard the tape on Hannity. What if the intruder were already down
and and no longer a threat. There is a fine line between self defense and
murder. To many on the right feel the constitution gives them the right to be a
judge, jury and executioner. Most people are not anti-gun or against the
second amendment. Most people, myself included are againsst taking the law
into their own hands, It is called vigilanti justice and that is what concerns
This bill goes the wrong direction. The public is in a mood for more gun
control, not less.
This bill is madness. I'm embarrassed that it's even being introduced.
Welcome to the Wild West indeed.
The people may be in the mood for more gun control... but the gun control they
need should be to have more people able to hit the target, not the type of gun
control they're demanding.Combine this with increasing the
permit requirements for the people who wish to get one (for reciprocity reasons,
probably to something like 6-8 hours of shooting practice, 4-6 hours of
'class', instead of just the 4 hours of class) and it'd be a
great bill. As it is, it's a good one.And yes, issuing a permit
on demand (short of mental illness or inappropriate police record) is a good
Until the drugging of the school children is stopped , nothing is really going
to change as far as stopping all of these shootings.Psychotropic are
unbelievably dangerous and that fact has been proven over and over, as they are
the catalyst behind all of the shooting mishaps.Why Washington
continues to ignore this fact is really not surprising
The interpretation of the 2nd amendment as self-defense is a modern
interpretation that began in the 19th Century. Arms, not guns, is mentioned in
the second amendment, and those living in the 18th Century understood arms as
military weapons in the service of militias or standing armies. Militias
existed because people believe standing armies would rob us our liberty. The
second clause of the 2nd amendment does say people have the right to bear arms,
but you have to remember that in the 18th Century all people (really, meaning
men, not women) were obligated to fulfill the civic duty of participating in a
militia, which was government by states. Most states forbid people from
traveling with guns because they believed people should be free from terror.
Furthermore, the Federalists, those who were pro-Constitution--our
founders--understood the 2nd amendment as militia protection of the government.
The anti-Federalists, those who resisted the Constitution, wanted to read it as
protection from the government. A lot of folks have it upside-down.
There will always be someone passionate against Constitutional rights of others.
When we shave away muck and opinion, the bottom line - the fundamental truth -
is this: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed." Why criticize people who live in Utah just to make a
self-centered point, while you yourselves live in Utah? If you are angry that
someone is carrying a gun peacefully, are you not the one in error, promoting
hostility? Are we so learned, so wise, so principled to think ourselves higher
than the great God-inspired Constitution? Perhaps the gun some of you fear will
save your life one day. The only thing that will take us back to the lawless
wild, wild west days will be the continued unraveling of our Constitution. I
applaud the courage and integrity of our legislators who are deeply concerned
for the potential loss of Utah's sovereignty.
How does the federal government plan to enforce these new gun control laws, if
passed? Using GUNS, of course! The threat of force is what's used to gain
your "compliance" with everything the government does.The
Second Amendment is the one right that protects all other rights. Without it,
there would be no First Amendment, no due process, no right to remain silent,
and no freedom whatsoeverThe strongest reason for the people to
retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect
themselves against tyranny in government.What is the U.S. government
planning that requires it to first disarm the American people? For if they
really wanted to stop these school shootings , they would attack the real cause
- School Kids on Psychotropic Medications , wish I could post some links on this
forum, that are actual occurrences, not the made up kind by the MSM
I'm not sure how having a lot more people carrying loaded guns around is
supposed to make me feel safer. Which ones are trained and which ones have no
idea what they're doing? Which ones are stable and sane, and which ones
are a bit on the macho side, looking and hoping for an opportunity to be the
hero, shooting it out in a crowded place with a bad guy? Which ones have
undiagnosed mental illnesses, ready to overreact to a non-existent threat? Which
ones will remain calm in a crisis, and which will start blasting at anything
that moves, overloaded with adrenaline and unable to do more than fire in the
general direction of the perceived threat? And when the cops show up to an
ongoing shooting scene and see several people with drawn pistols, which ones do
Eliyahu..you are not supposed to feel safer, since, as they are concealed, you
would have no idea that they are there. Just as you do not know right now, who
is carrying. And I guarantee to you, it is more than you think. We really
don't care how you feel, what we care about is the fact that, if something
happens, we can defend ourselves, not you. If that means you get saved, great,
but that isn't really our intent, our intent is for YOU to be able to
defend yourself, if you so choose. If you choose to be an unarmed victim, that
is your right as well, but you shouldn't get to make that decision for the
rest of us.I get a kick out of the incessant "what-if"
arguments, as there are presently several states that DO allow any legal citizen
of age to carry concealed. Two of those states allow 16 year olds to carry
concealed. And NONE of the "what-if" issues has ever actually been a
problem in any of those states. Vermont has not become the Wild West!
All for constitutional carry, but I think NOT requiring a background check or
permit is taking things too far to the other side.
Your version? The quote you offer up doesn't use the parlance of the time,
and is an obvious modern day paraphrasing designed to offer up a different
intent. You can't misquote George Washington and expect people to take you
@Harley Rider'How does the federal government plan to enforce
these new gun control laws, if passed? Using GUNS, of course! The threat of
force is what's used to gain your "compliance" with everything the
government does.'Thank you for pointing out what isn't so
obvious to many of the commenters here, but should be. So, let's say it
isn't safe to allow just any old somebody on the streets carry a weapon.
Fine. But what are you going to do about it? Have some armed and dangerous
federal goon squad shake those people down? Here's a news flash to all of
you who think this is a dangerous bill. The GOVERNMENT is dangerous. The
government, itself, arms drug dealers and terrorists all over this world. Some
of their own armed agents wreak all manner of havoc on the innocents. So, while
the thought of everyday citizens possessing firearms may make some of you feel a
little squeamish, just consider that there are armed and dangerous individuals
ALREADY out there terrorizing this world, some with our corrupt
government's blessing. When that same government of excess, in that rare
instance, offers to limit itself, ACCEPT!
Don't the Politician realize everybody started out as a law abiding