Why Do You Carry Concealed? - Page 37
Page 37 of 139 FirstFirst ... 2735363738394787137 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 1390

Thread: Why Do You Carry Concealed?

  1. Simple answer: because I can, and want to. If I won't defend myself, why should someone else?

  2.   
  3. I usually don't but I want to have the right to.

  4. Protection but with the prayer I will NEVER have to use it.

    Almost 40 years ago ( can't believe it) I was almost robbed at gun point while walking down the street at night in Los Angeles. Because I made a commotion - it was on a main street - the two guys changed their mind and took off.

    We don't live in LA any longer but that episode is still in my mind. Along with that we now live more in the country and have some farm animals. Six months ago two dogs harrassed out cows and killed a goat we had. I was not home, and the neighbor had to put the goat down because he had been hamstrung and partially gutted. I am hopping the dogs come back.

    Protection for my wife and myself and our animals.

    Ron

  5. That extra training you got in class on "use of deadly force " law is outstanding. There are those that say requiring training to get a license if just one more GOVT interference. I totally disagree with that thought. Carrrying a gun is an awesome responsibility, and you can never have too much information on the Law, and what you can, and can't do.

    My instructors also stressed the police can't be everywhere. There was a court case about that too. The court ruled that the police can't be sued for no protecting you.

    But suggesting that we are basically a Citizen police force, and it is our responsibility to be their "assistants" in fighting crime is going a little too far, in my opinion. My instructor mentioned the same thing in class. My reason for objecting to that view is that we don't have the proper training for that, nor the Force of the Badge behind us. It also gives a person that has only taken an 8 hour class the idea that somehow he/she is now some kind of auxiliary police officer. That is taking on all kinds of legality problems that I don't want or need.

    Now I am not saying that I wouldn't help someone out. I'm just saying that I don't feel like I am properly trained to know when I can and can't legally get involved and be protected by the law against lawsuits.
    Another reason I don't like that idea is that the State may someday figure we already have enough " police assistants", and they don't need to issue any more permits, i.e., basically saying that those that are carrying automatically have the OBLIGATION to help out in emergencies. I know that sounds like a stretch, but we have seen some weird logic used when it applies to gun laws. Besides, some of the worst anti-gunners would e thew first ones to scream for help. Let them get their own permits.

    I know all this makes me sound terribly selfish, but our legal system is really screwed up. You can sue someone for the slightest little thing, and you don't even have to prove there is substance to the suit. But you still have to hire a lawyer and go to court to defend yourself, and that can cost a LOT of money. And there is NO assurance that a jury won't render some wildly in correct decision. The general lack of education in this country doesn't inspire my confidence in a "jury of my peers" .

  6. Quote Originally Posted by Charles Austin Miller View Post
    @Aside... Statistics can be used like a double-edged sword, statistics are used to ESCALATE an emotional response, okay? We can "crunch the numbers" and "do the math"; but, ultimately you're trying to pull heartstrings. That's the anti-gunner strategy, tuggin' at them heartstrings and ignoring the facts, all those poor children killed by gunfire every year
    My question to you is how do we report facts? The only we will make people believe that guns don't add to the violence in the nation is to show them statistics and I admit that no matter how many statistics we show to an uneducated person they will go with their belief and faith rather then with the cold hard truth. I don't disagree that the government is perfect and we the people don't need protection from it. One of my favorite quotes is "People should not fear their government, the government should fear it's people." There are two different kinds of facts. There are good facts and bad facts. It is up to the individual listening to the study and statistical analysis to differentiate between the two.

  7. I carry to protect myself and my family. What is the point of owning a gun for protection and leaving it at home that is why I got my CCW.

  8. #367
    Quote Originally Posted by GOV5 View Post
    I understand very well how the Supreme Court works. The NRA BLEW IT! The difference in Heller and McDonald is this: Heller was in a Federal Enclave...Washington, D.C. McDonald wasn't, and that case represented the rest of us that don't live in Washington, D.C.

    No as to What the Court was ruling on...that is set forth in the brief, and the NRA didn't include it....specifically. But unspecifically, they actually did. AS a matter of fact, the Justice writing the Opinion actually mentioned the "right to KEEP and BEAR" arms several times, even though the "carry outside the home" specific wasn't put in the brief(which s my beef with them).

    AS far as I'm concerned, from reading the Opinion, the Justice DID give us the right. However, it is basically a mute point now. 49 of the 50 States allow concealed carry anyway. Really, the only thing missing from the "concealed carry" or "carry" laws now, as I see it, is making the States "must issue", rather than "shall issue".

    <snipped>
    I'm sorry, Gov5, if you got the impression that I in any way support any of the estimated 10,000 "gun laws" existent in all levels of governments. I abhor ALL of the infringement. I completely agree with you that the 2nd Amendment simply ratified our existing, God-given RIGHT to carry a weapon (of any sort) for any purpose. The Amendment said nothing about "sporting purpose", "self-defense" or any such trash. It simply stated that we AREADY had the right and no one should infringe upon it.

    BUT, (you knew there had to be a BUT!!!!), the NRA has been stalwart it its defense of our rights. But please, let us agree between ourselves, that no organization is perfect, and any number of organizations will have to work for generations to reverse all of the unconstitutional laws on the books. (As mentioned, I've seen estimates of some 10,000 existing laws, but that number is just an honest guess as far as I know.) The NRA, wisely, takes its victories anywhere it can get them. Up until the recent Heller and McDonald cases, the Supreme Court has largely refused to hear any 2nd Amendment cases. If, in arguing the Heller and McDonald cases, the NRA or any other parties to the complaints, had overreached by asking for too much, it could have backfired on them. I suspect that the attorneys recognized this and limited their arguments where they saw certain victory. I may be wrong, because I was not a party to their meetings, but I've seen such things before.

    I, for one, am thankful that the NRA argues for us every day of the week. I'm a Life Member but I don't always agree with them. Sometimes I feel that Wayne LaPierre is too much of a politician. But we need the NRA. If it didn't exist, we would need to create it. You may think they "blew it", but I suspect they acted in good faith, knowing "when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em". By asking for "everything" all at once, I suspect they would have lost all. I may be wrong. At this point, it is all conjecture and personal opinion. I will continue my membership and my contributions to the ILA (Institute for Legislative Action).

    I guess my point in all of this was simple: The NRA, while not perfect, has helped to defend our freedoms over many, many years. Hopefully, they will continue to do so. If they're not as aggressive as you would like, you are free to bring a legal action of your own, paying for the litigation through the state courts, then the federal courts, until you reach the Supreme Court. By the time you reach that level, your original complaint will have changed and been modified through and by the lower courts. Unless your original argument was ruled on in EVERY lower court, the Supreme Court will NOT rule on the original argument. It will rule only on the rulings of the lesser courts. And it will not be cheap.
    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

  9. #368
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    209
    I know that the thread I am linking to for this one does not explain why to carry concealed or not to carry concealed.. but as this thread has started to get into the Constitutionality of Carry.. I would like others to at least view this.
    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/firea...tml#post296801

  10. righton brah, dont ever want to be left withou a way to defend myself. You wont catch me standing around with my pants on the ground.

  11. #370
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Great Smoky Mountains, NC
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by GOV5 View Post
    That extra training you got in class on "use of deadly force " law is outstanding. There are those that say requiring training to get a license if just one more GOVT interference. I totally disagree with that thought. Carrrying a gun is an awesome responsibility, and you can never have too much information on the Law, and what you can, and can't do. My instructors also stressed the police can't be everywhere. There was a court case about that too. The court ruled that the police can't be sued for no protecting you. But suggesting that we are basically a Citizen police force, and it is our responsibility to be their "assistants" in fighting crime is going a little too far, in my opinion.
    Well, no, I'm not saying the Citizen is supposed to partner with police agencies in "fighting crime"... That's like saying citizens should be in there fumbling with fire hoses and falling down and getting in the way of the trained Fire Fighters. That's ridiculous. Citizen partnership with the first-responder agencies is absurd, it defeats the purpose of those agencies.

    I'm saying that Citizens who are armed and observant are a superior DETERRENT to crime, if for no other reason than the staggering number of us out here and our high visibility. LEOs know that maintaining weapon visibility and an appearance of alertness will send criminals in the other direction every time. Criminals prefer SOFT targets. Just so, the high visibility of 90 Million armed citizens DOES serve as a superior deterrent to crime, and there are certainly areas where Citizen gun ownership and open carry are welcomed by police.

    Yeah, I can give you an example, I know you want one.

    I would invite you to travel, if you have that luxury, up to the Inland Northwest — that's Idaho, Montana, the Continental Divide, the Selkirks, all up in there — and soak up some of their charm. In addition to the immense beauty of the country, do you know that area has the lowest crime rate in America? I mean, major cities that have, maybe, one homicide annually. People carry up there. They carry concealed, they carry openly, and they have about 13 guns per household, last time I checked. If you are a person of criminal intent up there, you ARE looking over your shoulder all the time, because every damned body is armed and they'll DO you if you screw with them.

    REAL low crime in the Inland Northwest. And it's NOT because the area is sparsely populated. Don't be deceived. There's a lot of new population and a lot of traffic and a lot of people up in them mountains WATCHING who comes and goes.

    I've been there, I enjoyed it tremendously. I had flown-in to Spokane and drove a rent-a-car to Idaho and Montana, so I didn't have an opportunity to acquire a gun on that 10-day tour. Except for my backpacking knives, I was essentially unarmed. Then a ranger way up in the Idaho panhandle asked me if I was carrying any firearms into the state park. I quickly answered, "Of course not!"

    The ranger said, "Well... We kinda RECOMMEND that you carry firearms up here."

    I said, "That's very different from where I come from."

    The ranger said, "Are you from California?"

    I said, "No. I'm from the Smoky Mountains of North Carolina."

    The ranger said, "Oh, that's good. We DON'T LIKE people from California up here."

    Like I said, I thoroughly enjoyed the Inland Northwest.

    But, less anecdotally, you may remember back in the 1990s when Bill Clinton tried to ban not only assault rifles but anything that LOOKED scary (e.g. flash suppressors, bayonet bolts, junk like that). Yeah, Slick Willy declared WAR on the American Citizen in the 1990s, and implemented a federal program called "100,000 Cops" across America, right? He was not only gonna ban guns, he was going to PUMP UP the police agencies in preparation for confiscating ILLEGAL WEAPONS.

    Those weapons that HE had made illegal, that is.

    Well, the State of Montana very directly said "F--K YOU, Mr. President!" Because Bill Clinton's unconstitutional war on guns could never be enforced in Montana.

    See, I don't care HOW MANY new cops he pumped into Montana, who's gonna go door-to-door confiscating guns in a state where the average household comprises of 9 individuals bearing 13 firearms?

    Yeah. It was a SUICIDE MANDATE. No LEO would follow such an unconstitutional and INSANELY DANGEROUS order. So Montana told good old Bill Clinton to STUFF his federal laws and directives.

    That whole drama wasn't about fighting crime, BTW. The State of Montana did not have a crime problem, because everybody was armed and stood their ground. The PROBLEM was that the Central Government tried to CREATE a crime problem in Montana, then wanted to send in LEOs to enforce an unconstitutional law.

    How CORRUPT is THAT, I ask you?

    Like I've said, I don't fear petty criminals. They avoid me and that's enough.

    But what CONCERNS me is the criminality of a central government that has been HAMMERING on MY RIGHTS and undermining the Constitution for decades.

    Read more at www.ZeskoWhirligan.com
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
    the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    TOXIC REIGN: Reclaim Our Future

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