Why Do You Carry Concealed? - Page 38
Page 38 of 139 FirstFirst ... 2836373839404888138 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 1390

Thread: Why Do You Carry Concealed?

  1. I simply carry as a last resort to protect family, friends and myself. Talk, walk, run, gun. Talk your way out, walk away......run if you have to, if there is no other choice I have the gun. I live in an area where there if very little violent crime but that doesn't mean I won't be prepared. I live in a state that has had open carry for a long time and had recently allowed concealed carry. Immediately applied for and was granted a permit. Some people are nervous when they see a gun and therfore I rarely open carry unless heading to the range or woods. With concealed carry I am prepared and don't have to advertise my handgun.

  2.   
  3. You bring up some real good points about why the NRA may not have wanted the "ask for everything" approach. And I know the NRA has done a lot of good over the years. But it isn't the only gun organization fighting for us. It's the only one we hear about because it's the only one the Press knows. Jews for Preservation of Firearms is another strong organization, and has done much good for us. I agree with you..I think you got it right...the NRA was afraid if they asked for too much, they may have gotten the decision they didn't want.

    I also agree that the "take what you can get, when you can get it", is usually the prudent way of doing things. But we are running out of time. I guess that's why I am growing so impatient with the NRA and being so hard on them. WE have been fighting this battle since the early 1900's. I think that's long enough. It's time to get this issue settled, once and for all. .....BEFORE we get a Supreme Court that is filled with gun-hating Leftist Liberals. We will have NO chance then. And there are some REAL OLD Justices on that Court. They could die any day, or retire, leaving President Obama another Leftist pick to go on the Court. And I'm not sure we aren't going to have or current resident in the White House staying in there for another 4 years. It would be hard for me to imagine there not being another opportunity for the President to select another Court Candidate within that time frame. And the Senate confirms the Candidates, and President Obama's Party has a Majority in the Senate now. And there is no certainty that the mix will change after this next election.

    These are some of the reasons I was hard on the NRA for not forcing the Court to have to make the statement that we DO have the right to Keep and Bear Arms, and strike down all of the 10,000 or so ILLEGALLY PASSED gun laws in the country. You and I, and all the folks here, want the same outcome. We don't disagree on any of those issues. WE just differ sometimes on our approaches to getting the outcome needed. In no way do I say you are wrong in your opinions. You bring up some very good points that I also agree with. I guess the older I get, the more I get tired of fighting ridiculous statements being made against us gun owners, as proof that we don't need to own and carry guns. I also tire of folks that want to select ONLY the PARTS of the U.S. Constitution that fit their agenda, and trash the parts that don't. They treat the Constitution like it's a buffet. You only have to take what you like, and you leave the rest. The Constitution isn't a buffet, it's a whole meal, and if you're going to take a bite, you have to finish the whole thing.

    Again, I respect you opinions, and I also thank you for respecting mine. I wish all the exchanges on this forum would be as understanding as the one we are having. You may even get me to join the NRA again. I just wish they would sometimes get a little tougher on their stands.

  4. #373
    For protection and I don't want everyone to know I have it.

  5. #374
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Off of I-80 between Des Moines and Cheyenne
    Posts
    1,207
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by GOV5 View Post
    You bring up some real good points about why the NRA may not have wanted the "ask for everything" approach. And I know the NRA has done a lot of good over the years. But it isn't the only gun organization fighting for us. It's the only one we hear about because it's the only one the Press knows. Jews for Preservation of Firearms is another strong organization, and has done much good for us. I agree with you..I think you got it right...the NRA was afraid if they asked for too much, they may have gotten the decision they didn't want.

    I also agree that the "take what you can get, when you can get it", is usually the prudent way of doing things. But we are running out of time. I guess that's why I am growing so impatient with the NRA and being so hard on them. WE have been fighting this battle since the early 1900's. I think that's long enough. It's time to get this issue settled, once and for all. .....BEFORE we get a Supreme Court that is filled with gun-hating Leftist Liberals. We will have NO chance then. And there are some REAL OLD Justices on that Court. They could die any day, or retire, leaving President Obama another Leftist pick to go on the Court. And I'm not sure we aren't going to have or current resident in the White House staying in there for another 4 years. It would be hard for me to imagine there not being another opportunity for the President to select another Court Candidate within that time frame. And the Senate confirms the Candidates, and President Obama's Party has a Majority in the Senate now. And there is no certainty that the mix will change after this next election.

    These are some of the reasons I was hard on the NRA for not forcing the Court to have to make the statement that we DO have the right to Keep and Bear Arms, and strike down all of the 10,000 or so ILLEGALLY PASSED gun laws in the country. You and I, and all the folks here, want the same outcome. We don't disagree on any of those issues. WE just differ sometimes on our approaches to getting the outcome needed. In no way do I say you are wrong in your opinions. You bring up some very good points that I also agree with. I guess the older I get, the more I get tired of fighting ridiculous statements being made against us gun owners, as proof that we don't need to own and carry guns. I also tire of folks that want to select ONLY the PARTS of the U.S. Constitution that fit their agenda, and trash the parts that don't. They treat the Constitution like it's a buffet. You only have to take what you like, and you leave the rest. The Constitution isn't a buffet, it's a whole meal, and if you're going to take a bite, you have to finish the whole thing.

    Again, I respect you opinions, and I also thank you for respecting mine. I wish all the exchanges on this forum would be as understanding as the one we are having. You may even get me to join the NRA again. I just wish they would sometimes get a little tougher on their stands.

    ...My signature, number 2 below, if you please. ;-)
    1)"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." -Thomas Jefferson.
    2)"Imagine how gun control might be stomped if GOA or SAF had the (compromising) NRA's 4 million members!" -Me. http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/nraletter.htm

  6. In a perfect world, the government wouldn't require certification for carry. As soon as we say that they should have applicants meet certain requirements, then we are saying that our Constitutional rights come only with governmentally-mandated qualifiers. Slippery slope. However, as an above responder said, carrying the "power of life and death" is an awesome responsibility. So in the same "perfect world" I mentioned, the government wouldn't have to require training because people who wanted to carry would take the initiative to get the training themselves. I know that when I carry (which as to say always), I know my weapon, the ammo I use for SD, how it draws from my holster, etc. I also know that I really don't want to have to shoot anyone EVER (but will should the need arise). I am certain from the responses that I have read here that the fine folks in this community are the same. Responsible citizens who refuse to be victimized and have taken an active interest in the protection of themselves, their loved ones, and their communities. However, not everyone who decides to carry has done so intelligently and conscientiously.

    Perhaps there should be some kind of common sense quiz as part of a pre-qualification system.

  7. #376
    Why do I Carry, and Carry often?

    That is a complicated question that cannot be answered, in my opinion, in a few quick sentences. Luckily for you the reader, the answer is simple.

    Well, one reason is that it’s tiring to carry a cop around all day and I am having a bit of trouble finding one that will fit in my holster. But seriously, many people believe that the police will be there to protect them, but that is simply not true. There are both state and federal court cases, even Supreme Court cases, which clearly state that police are societal protectors, they are not personal bodyguards or instant responders. They have no legal obligation to protect any one individual citizen, and they carry weapons primarily to defend themselves. If you don’t believe that then try to sue a police department for their officers not getting to you fast enough. The simple truth is that most of the time police will not be able to stop a crime in progress; there just aren’t enough of them. I can guarantee you, though, that they will write the report about what happened.

    The only person that is guaranteed to be there when you, your family, your friends, or anyone else needs help is YOU! Another way to put this is that the weapon I carry is just like the fire extinguisher at my home: Emergency Equipment, Plain and Simple. I am not hoping that my home will catch fire just so I can use my fire extinguisher, just as I am not hoping to use my weapon in a defensive situation. The point is, that like the fire extinguisher, it is there in case of an emergency: Plain and Simple. One’s personal protection is no one’s responsibility but their own. There is just no way to determine when one’s safety or the safety of their loved ones, or those around them, will be threatened. Most likely, as stated above, the police will not be right there. Criminals go to great lengths not to do bad things in front of the police.

    You and many others, as well as I, live in fairly safe places; however, these places are not totally free of crime. If they were there would be no need for police. Some have called me ‘paranoid’; however, I call myself situationally aware and vigilant. There are too many people who traipse through their day without the slightest clue about what is going on around them. Sometimes it is funny, as these people can provide entertainment to us who are observant by walking into windows. But other times the consequences have the potential to become more serious. Criminals tend to pick their victims by looking for ‘easy prey.’ When someone is totally oblivious to their surroundings is a pretty good bet that the criminal will have the element of surprise, a big advantage, and by just moving one’s head from side to side every now and taking in the world around themselves there may be a chance that they will notice something out of the ordinary and possibly save themselves a world of trouble.

    I can be pretty sure of some simple facts: 10 out of 10 criminals favor gun control, one of the best defenses against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and that ‘gun-free’ zones let the criminals (those who don’t respect or obey laws or wishes of others) know that most of the people in this ‘zone’ are unarmed because the law abiding citizens who carry weapons will not be there or will not be armed, as they do respect other’s wishes. That last point is very important. Those that commit mass shootings or as law enforcement/ military/ security personnel call them ‘active shooter/killer’s, are looking for a lot of victims who will most likely not fight back while they are being killed. This is why these ‘active shooter/killer’s do not commit these acts at gun stores, shooting ranges, or police stations. They are looking for ‘easy prey’ not a fair fight.

    To wrap this up I would like to make some things clear. One does not have to carry a firearm if they are uncomfortable with them. I highly, highly, highly recommend training to those who choose to carry; however, if you decide not to because you cannot take a life I respect that. There are other things you can carry like a knife (also requires training), pepper spray, a small tactical flashlight, and many other items. Taking some practical self-defense or martial arts training would not go amiss either. But whatever you do I want to leave you with something else to think about: Being armed is not an 'answer' or a 'solution' as these words point to a predetermined outcome. Being armed simply changes the odds that a day which has gone extremely bad may have a ‘less bad’ outcome in the end.

    Obviously my thoughts here are mainly about firearms. Carrying a weapon, concealed or otherwise, is not a decision to be taken lightly; it is very serious, as you are making the decision to carry lethal force and use it if necessary. Please think long and hard about what I have written here. I am not an expert, just a guy who is very passionate about the subject of personal safety. This concludes my ‘simple’ answer to a complicated question. Take Care, Stay Safe, and if you so choose, Carry Often.

    --Thoughts from a friendly neighborhood Security Officer.
    Last edited by ConstantlyEvolve; 04-09-2012 at 02:41 PM. Reason: Make the post less confusing (added paragraphs)
    10 out of 10 violent criminals favor gun control. Being armed is not an 'answer' or a 'solution' as these words point to a predetermined outcome. Being armed simply changes the odds. Cogito, Ergo Armatium Sum.

  8. Well, I about spit my coffee all over the keyboard when I read the part about the Park Ranger. ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    And yes, I do remember Bill Clinton holding up an AR 15 and pledging to take all of them off the street.
    And I knew that the Inland Northeast is very gun friendly, but I had no idea about the number of guns per household. I can see why the LEOs wouldn't want to try to enforce gun laws there. And YOU'RE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!! That is exactly why the Founding Fathers put that Amendment IN the Constitution! To let the GOVT know that illegal moves against an armed citizen population would be met with FORCE! And I am as concerned as you about the direction of the Central Govt, and it's direction..especially under the current administration, who has a very selective view of the use of the U.S. Constitution. But what did the Country expect from a bunch of "make the laws as we go along" crowd from Chicago, the most corrupt City in the Country, IMHO?

    You were talking about the Inland Northwest where so many people open carry. I DO AGREE that O.C. is a BIG crime deterrent, because potential criminals can see how many folks are armed around them. Concealed carry doesn't do that. And I don't buy the argument that it makes the criminals unsure because they don't know who has the gun. Plus, open carry affords quicker access to your weapon. Have you ever seen a speed shooting contest where the participants kept their weapons concealed? (Not counting COP training where)

  9. #378
    I am saying this honestly, first reason, because I can and secondly before my wife and I had permits and started carrying a couple of instinces scared us, this was 4-5 years ago thankfully there has been no real problems since...........

  10. I live on a farm and always carry out in the field but had never carried anywhere else, much less concealed. My wife and I are retired and travel more, so a concealed carry license just made sense. Also, as one of my "friends" (ha) pointed out, as we get older and continue to live in the country, we become more of a potential target for thieves, etc. It just makes sense to be prepared all the time now.

  11. #380
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Austin Miller View Post
    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.

    ~~ clipped ~~
    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.

    ~~ clipped ~~

    Read more at www.ZeskoWhirligan.com
    Based on what you are saying, when the wife and I have finished paying off the Property we are buying in Montana we will already fit in with the average number of firearms per household there. LOL

    On another note, we might disagree with your comments on private Citizens not partnering with their First responders as the Police can frequently provide insight in better preparing yourself and your home from becoming a victim of other than the kinds of crime that firearms protect you from. In addition, some of those same suggestions might also be common with what the Fire Fighters might tell you as well.
    An example that might come up in common to both might be. Keeping vegetation away from windows making it more difficult for a criminal to hide and while you are at it.. making sure that the flammable stuff is kept out of the area under windows (fire prevention) to the point of having bare soil, so that if a criminal were to stand trying to peer in your window you might get a great shoe impression that would prove that you did have a peeping tom or whatever and prevent the likelihood of a fire at the same time.

    Most LEO's will understand that they can not be everywhere all the time. So by making an effort to at least introduce yourself and pick up their hints/suggestions let's them know that you care about your safety.

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