Why Do You Carry Concealed? - Page 35
Page 35 of 139 FirstFirst ... 2533343536374585135 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 1390

Thread: Why Do You Carry Concealed?

  1. "this poor guy"?? I think you are just like way too many people who are rushing to decide the facts without actually knowing the facts!

  2.   
  3. As they say in the military, or in Kansas, Carry on!

  4. #343
    I'd just rather have one and not need it, than to need one and not have it. Kinda like a condom. Be prepared.

  5. #344
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, SC
    Posts
    13
    because it is my right to do so

  6. I'm a small middle-aged woman. With all of the craziness in the world I carry concealed to protect myself. I have a concealed carry permit, and a purse made for concealed carry. This way, I can protect myself and others if ever necessary. I practice regularly at a range to keep up my competency level, have taken handgun training courses, and consider myself a pretty good shot! So, I pray I never have to use my gun and that it stays concealed, but I'm ready if needed!

  7. I carry concealed because I have a wife and three kids and I value their lives a lot more than the scumbags that make the second ammendment necessary. My wife carries also, and as my kids get older I take each of them to the range and teach them to shoot and teach them gun safety. We have the right to bear arms, so my family takes advantage of it. Better to be prepaired than caught unaware.

  8. #347
    I carry to protect my family from anyone or anything.

  9. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by Pokeylady View Post
    I'm a small middle-aged woman. With all of the craziness in the world I carry concealed to protect myself. I have a concealed carry permit, and a purse made for concealed carry. This way, I can protect myself and others if ever necessary. I practice regularly at a range to keep up my competency level, have taken handgun training courses, and consider myself a pretty good shot! So, I pray I never have to use my gun and that it stays concealed, but I'm ready if needed!
    While I don't want to lecture to you, I will - but just a little bit. I'm sure you agree that in order to protect yourself through the use of your firearm, you must possess your firearm. Consider that many, many crimes involve what was, in the past, called "purse snatching". A fleet-footed criminal may be able to grab your purse and run away from you. Your handle here of "Pokeylady" suggests to me that you will not be successful in running after the perpetrator. In that instance, you've lost not only your purse, but your weapon as well.

    It has been suggested that women (or others) who carry their firearms in a purse or something similar, reconsider their decision. Another argument is that, stored in a purse, the firearm is not immediately accessible. My second argument is discussed above.

    I would hate for something like this happen to you. I urge you to reconsider your carry method. Some women like a shoulder holster because many women (evidently) wear jackets or sweaters more frequently than men. My best lady-friend carries in an ankle holster. I know of other women who use a high-rise pancake holster. There are lots of choices.

    Please consider what I've said. Criminals like to have easy targets - and a dangling purse is very inviting. They would not immediately realize that they stole your firearm, but when they got around to it, they would have hit the jackpot! I shudder to think about the turn of events if the perpetrator grabbed your purse and then stuck around, rummaging through it in your presence. Do you really want to be assaulted with your own weapon?

    I offer this advice because you may not have thought about the consequences of carrying concealed in a purse. In the end, you have to do what you have to do. If there is no other way for you to comfortably carry, by all means, keep it in your purse.

    Best regards.
    NRA Life Member, US Army Veteran - 95 Bravo
    "A recent police study found that you're much more likely to get shot by a fat cop if you run." - Dennis Miller

  10. #349
    Quote Originally Posted by GOV5 View Post
    If I misquoted you, I apologize. Sorry about that.

    <Snipped>

    The HOT AIR National Rifle Association hasn't helped either. In fact, THEY BLEW IT!! They had the perfect time, the perfect case, and the perfect place, and the perfect Court, to get all theses rights enumerated and explained in the McDonald case. The spineless organization only asked the Court to consider that it was good enough to just be able to ow a gun and have it in your HOUSE, for protection. Well, hell's bells, what was Mr. McDonald going to do when he left his house to go to the drug store to protect himself against those same criminals that were bothering him at his house?
    Shoot, a 3rd year law student could have argued that case better than Alan what'shisname with the NRA. The NRA has become such a big organization that they want to stay in existence. If they had won that case arguing it correctly, we would have no need for them. THEY BLEW IT!
    I think that maybe you don't understand how things are usually done with the Supreme Court. It is not really the complainants who choose what is ruled-upon. When a complaint is made, the Supreme Court decides what issues to rule on. In the case you mentioned, the Court decided to rule only on the constitutionality of whether or not the 2nd Amendment applied to states as an individual right. It was brought by McDonald because of the uncertainly left behind from the "District of Columbia v Heller" case wherein it was determined that Heller had the right to have a handgun in his home, regardless of the laws of Washington DC. There, the Court remained silent on broader rights - they limited their ruling ONLY to the constitutionality of the Washington, DC laws forbidding handgun ownership.

    The Court almost always decides to limit their decisions to very specific issues and to ignore the broader issues brought in the original complaint(s). The Court does not rule on abstractions - they rule on very specific issues. And the issue before them was the "is the 2nd Amendment an individual right and does the 2nd Amendment apply to states" - the issues that was not answered in "Heller". One tool they use to narrow their choice of "what to rule upon" is whether or not the complainant has "standing" to argue before the court. They have to show specifically that they experienced harm from a specific law. Chicago held that the "Heller" case did not apply to them - but rather only to Washington DC.

    By way of a brief example, the Court is now deciding only upon the legality of the mandate to buy health insurance, and not the constitutionality of the whole health care law. Why? Because no one yet has standing to pursue legal action by demonstrating damages. And that is because the law has not yet fully been implemented. Once it is implemented, there may be an avalanche of filings against various aspects of the law by people who believe they've been harmed by the legislation. Until they've been directly harmed, they have no "standing" before the Court.

    And by the way, in "McDonald v Chicago", the case was brought by McDonald and not the NRA. The NRA filed a suit "NRA v Chicago" by a "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari" with the 7th Circuit Court. (A Writ of Certiorari is basically a request to have the case reviewed by a higher court.) Their suit was incorporated into the McDonald complaint. The actual question asked by the NRA is as follows (verbatim from the Writ):

    "Whether the right of the people to keep and
    bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to
    the United States Constitution is incorporated into
    the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or
    Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so
    as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating
    ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the
    home.
    "

    If my memory serves me correctly, there were more than 30 Amicus briefs (also known as "Friend of the Court" briefs) filed by various legislators and states. In the end, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court AFFIRMED that the 2nd Amendment was an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT and not a collective right. By that measure, I'd say that the cases were rather successful.

    Without the NRA, we would all be disarmed by now. You may not agree with everything they do, but to make the claims you've made about the NRA "Blowing it" is simply inaccurate. They work hard every day to protect our gun-owner rights. But they recognize that they must disassemble existing unconstitutional laws one by one. They can't do it all at once, and they MUST HAVE STANDING in order to bring a legal action. So they pick-and-choose among "test cases" and associate themselves with ones that (1) matter, and (2) stand a reasonable chance of success.

    And so it goes...
    NRA Life Member, US Army Veteran - 95 Bravo
    "A recent police study found that you're much more likely to get shot by a fat cop if you run." - Dennis Miller

  11. When someone ask me why do I carry concealed. I Say to protect my self self form all Enemies, Foreigh & Domestic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast