One one level, I agree.

The problem is that licensing requirement can, and have, been abused to prevent anyone from obtaining a license. See DC as an example.

Matt

I'm for CC licensing and have one myself. Here's some of the reasoning:

1). Carrying my handgun openly advertises it to those who might want to steal it. If a thief/robber wishes to come up on me to get it, with any brains in planning and approach he most likely he will have the advantage of surprise intent and advancement. My handgun offers no protection if a guy comes up and pulls out a gun and says "give it to me." He has the draw on me already so all I wind up doing is giving him my gun, and now it's a stolen weapon on the street in the hands of criminals.

2). An open gun signals that I might also have a lot of cash on me, making me an extra attractive target besides the gun.

3). A criminal who got the draw on me might not wish to let me go after a theft and if he doesn't know I have it then I have a chance.

4). A concealed weapon with a person who already has the draw on you has a greater chance of not being stolen because he may not know you have it.

5). I don't want to make nervous ordinary citizens or trigger off any hotheads, thugs and idiots who see it.

6). It's unsightly to my regular clothes of the day to carry openly.

7). A concealed weapon is harder to drop or otherwise misplace or forget.

8). If someone has criminal intents with a gun and/or are prohibited owners/carriers, they possess and conceal it anyway, so the CC licence to lawful owners with valid purposes does not encourage criminal activity.

__________________

There are no perfect solutions, but this one has proven itself to be among the best at reducing crime. There are idiots in every crowd. There are a few things to keep in mind with these particular idiots. First, just displaying the gun in public can violate federal statutes against “brandishing a weapon”. Second, what “tough guy/gal” is going to let a silly little law diminish their image? If they own a gun, permit or not, they’ll be strapping just to look cool.

I certainly advocate training. My only concern is the flank attack you’ve mentioned, but considering the history and tactics of the anti-gun movement, it’s not a concern I’m comfortable overlooking.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

True, cool is in the eye of the beholder. If some person needs a gun to appear tough, they are pretty gone on the cool side, in my book.



I was pretty comfortable overlooking it until Matt brought up the DC issue. It is definitely something that has been used. Shameful, IMO.

I would have thought that a good sophisticated left wing irish immigrant like you would never touch a gun, and especially not go along with that cowboy shit and actually carry one!

So what do you carry and why do you find it necessary?

__________________
January the 20th 2009. The day I started to respect America!

I agree that giving guns to mentaly disabled folks is bad. Even more so than say criminals who are involved in white collar crimes.

However that is about the only form of restictions i would support.

That darn freedom is contagious.....

LOL. I was raised with guns. My father and his father and my maternal great-grandfather (alive until I was 17) always had them (outstanding marksmen all). We used them to hunt and, back in the 1920s, to achieve independence. Stirring words only got my forebears hung. Guns got them their freedom.

We also used them for self-defence at home. My paternal grandfather died of complications from a broken hip. He got it when a known and wanted home intruder group robbing the elderly in his area (including binding and throwing a man down a well) tried at his house. He shot at them through a wall and they ran. He broke his hip in a fall pursuing them as they ran for their getaway car. Smartly, he refused to turn in his pistol for 'amnesty' and kept rifles.

You see, Ireland having cracked down on gun ownership only made home invaders and other criminals feel more comfortable doing so. The criminals are armed. They know their victims aren't, so they get bold. Things would be different to some extent if they feared invading homes and such.

I have a CC permit because of the nature of my job brings me regularly into contact with dangerous people and areas and/or cash payments. I do not carry it regularly by personal choice and depending on the circumstances of whom and where I am going. Otherwise, it's for home and office defence.

When I carry I carry a .40-cal. handgun.

__________________

Why would it be any different than someone being prevented from getting a driver's license? If someone does not pass the required tests, they should not have a license, driver's or gun.

It makes perfect sense, yet the NRA is preventing the laws to be changed so that guns can be kept out of the hands of mental patients and criminals. The NRA doesn't like strict background checks and testing and training. That's all the Brady campaign wants to do. But the NRA stops them every time.

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

I can't understand why anyone would be against this.

Because the "failure" rate in places like DC was 99.9% (unless you were politically connected, no license would ever be issued).

That's a ban, just by another name.

What tests would you have for Free Speech? Freedom from unreasonable search?

Do you need a special license not to incriminate yourself?

The USSC has finally clarified that, like those rights, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual liberty secured by the Constitution.

Should you have to apply for a license to criticize the government?

Matt

I believe that the NRA were trying to sort out some sort of an agreement with Congress over military vets who suffered mental problems having served in a warzone. I would support that. Do you?

The way you would ask the question of course is:

Why wouldn't you want our vets to have the same rights the rest of us do?

Yes, the USSC declared it's an individual liberty, but no where in the constitution does it say anything like that. It says the people should have guns in order to form a well regulated militia.

So when do the militia meetings start?

The USSC twisted the constitution to mean something it does not mean.

But we're used to that these days aren't we? So many parts of the constitution have been violated and twisted. It's become meaningless.

Are you saying you support mentally ill people to have guns?

So being a combat vet = being mentally ill?

In answer to your question VL:

Those who've served in warzones, yes. (They generally will have handled a lot worse than a shotgun and in civillian conditions will be fine).