Best
187 Comments
Post
  • #38
    !
    i think if our founding fathers would have known of the crimes we now face they may have made it a law where we all are to carry. there may have been a criminal here and there yet nothing of what we now see.
  • #60
    !
    Every year unarmed people are shot to death by police. People should be armed to defend themselves when police violate their rights. In ny Diallo, bell are two that come to mind...
  • #72
    !
    If you are carrying a gun, concealed or otherwise, the old maxim applies: you are expecting a reason to shoot and kill with it. And that is exactly what you will find. A violent and hostile environment.
    If, on the other hand, you look for the best in people and love 'em all, you will inhabit a loving and peaceful world.
    Your thoughts creat the world you live in.
    Thus, those who are so violent -- within themselves -- will "see" a violent world, and will carry guns.
    It's all about, really, how advanced you are as a human being.
    Or, too, how ignorant ....
  • #78
    !
    @Rogue... so all crime and violence can be solved by everyone closing thier eyes and thinking happy thoughts? Why didnt anyone think of that before? With all the "advanced people" like you its a wonder that we don't have world peace by now.
  • #85
    !
    @JoeSchmoe Can't imagine that Einstein, Edison, Mozart, Michelangelo, Gandhi, Henry Ford ever walked around with guns on their hips. Nor did they carry concealed weapons. Their goals were to improve the world, not shoot and murder it. And yes, if there were more people like them, trying to advance their world, we'd have a more peaceful world now. Instead, we seem to have a lot of little paranoiac fellows running around carrying guns,(who've rarely contributed very much to scientific, music, art, world, technological advancement), whining and crying that their fellow man is "out to get" them.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    Every law abiding citizen should carry a weapon. It's our right, we should not surrender it. The best way to fight crime is with a citizenry that refuses to become victims.
  • #8
    !
    I agree. But the text of the second amendment has nothing to do with fighting crime. The amendment was designed to protect freedom, particularly from oppressive government. I agree with sharon engle (losing senate candidate nevada) we should avail ourselves of second amendment remedies to reform hovt. I disagree with her on which people need be addressed as part of the reform, but scalia, demint, mcconnel, chenney, bush and many members of the house come to mind (to be clear this is not a threat, just my opinion).
  • #9
    !
    I will say if there ever was a law against weapons it would never be enforced, first of 4 out of every 5 weapons produced in the world are bought by Americans. Secondly there would be a revolution before they even had a chance to start seizing weapons. I think gun control is the last thing we need to worry about. Also it's completely legal to make your own home made fire arm. I think the second amendment would be the last law Uncle Sam would want to toy with.
  • #16
    !
    @kirbstomp1 Hmmm, not if you Google it!( first of 4 out of every 5 weapons produced in the world are bought by Americans) "In 2007, it was ESTIMATED that there are ABOUT 875 million firearms in the world, of which ABOUT 270 million are in the US. There are about 1,135 companies world wide that make about 8 million firearms a year. ">>> I know it's a 5 yr old study, think it got better in the last 5 years? But, you're right. Gun control is the last thing D.C. needs to worry about!(but look up your facts before you state them...ok)
  • #21
    !
    @stepped_in_it - okay I got my 'fact' from a historian at my university. The only thing I can say to possibly back up his claim is look at the number of weapons we buy to help supply other NATO forces. I'll assume without checking that our government easily buys 1 out of every 5 if not a little higher. I do believe gun purchases spiked right after Obamas first election, but nowhere near 400 million that would be needed to fix the difference.
  • R Load more replies

  • #75
    !
    Yeah I think "shall not be infringed" has a pretty clear meaning. A license to Carry law is a tool used by government to circumvent the Constitution. The government has no authority to restrict ownership of firearms or the manner in which one bears it of any law abiding citizen. A Supreme court ruling or even a new amendment can not change that. It's forbidden by the supreme law the Constitution. Like it or not.
  • #93
    !
    @truthsayer - Agreed. I don't own any guns myself, but have given it a lot of thought. The one thing (besides the expense) that makes me hesitant is that the government would then know I owned a gun. For some reason that I can't seem to articulate, I don't like that idea.
  • #41
    !
    Another Biased Poll.... Limited Permission, No Permission, Let the States Decide...

    What about my opinion... The 2nd Amendment is all the gun control we need.
  • #96
    !
    There, you see? Another issue upon which you and I can agree.(I still say you couldn't hit water if you fell out of a boat, though.:-)
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #6
    !
    Long live the Second Amendment. The infringement to our ability to exercise our Constitutional right to keep and bear arm is gradually being dissolved. But we still have many restrictions to yet overcome. So don't anyone who stands for freedom and liberty get too comfortable. Open carry should be legal in every state. We should be legally allowed to carry in any public place just like law-enforcement does; schools, government buildings, stores, banks, etc., and bars if we don't consume any mind altering substances, which one is not supposed to do anyway when legally carrying.
  • #28
    !
    Anyone who votes against allowing concealed carry doesn't understand that allowing people to carry guns increases safety because they can defend themselves and potentially disable a shooter, like in the case of the Clackamas Mall shooting yesterday.

    By the way I only live 20 miles away from there!
  • #20
    !
    I support concealed carry. My only fear is if some enterprising young politician attempts to a gun grab and uses the concealed carry license lists as a starting point.
  • #25
    !
    I vote for the legal carrying of firearms, but not because of state laws. The U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and slowly, Federal courts are getting it right by overturning state laws that restrict firearms use. I don't even support the idea of gun licensing, because licensing only affects law abiding citizens, it makes no difference to criminals, who carry concealed weapons on a regular basis.
  • #15
    !
    I support carry, period. I went with your choice of yes, if licensed, only because it was the closest choice. As far as I'm concerned, the free exercising of a right doesn't require the need for a license.
  • #4
    !
    It is up to each state to decide whether this is legal or not. I absolutely support concealed carry for licensed US citizens.
  • #116
    !
    Why should we need a license OR permission from any goverment to protect our life or the life of our loved ones?
  • #124
    !
    @marine1 Well, in most places no license is needed to own a gun. But, to carry a concealed firearm you must have a license issued by the state you live in. The federal registration laws are a pain in the buttocks, though, because it solves absolutely nothing...but harass the honest citizen. The only thing I can see that it does is flag anyone who tries to purchase a large number of weapons.
    IMHO...legal citizens of this nation should be able to keep and bear arms when needed to protect themselves, their families, and their property. However, they should never be able to use or display those arms in a way that intimidates other citizens. But, other citizens should not be able to place undue regulation on anyone's right to use a firearm for sport or protection.
  • #125
    !
    @seedtick,
    Vermont has never required a license to carry concealed. And recently Arizona and Alaska have dropped the requirement. The ensuing calm strongly suggests that the alleged basis for requiring a license is fictitious.
  • #81
    !
    thats the whole point of concealed carry. concealment. If a bad guy knows you have a gun he may come after you first to neutralize any threat to himself before he carried on with his criminal behavior. open carry can make you a target.
  • #99
    !
    @JoeSchmoe you are a target becuase you open carry? I would disagree, if my wife walks out of a store into a parking lot with her .357 on her hip alert to her surroundings vs walking out rumaging around in her purse or yaking on her cell phone, you think she'd be more likely to be a target if she has a gun? The reason for the CCW laws is we are a polite society that believes guns are bad, they make people uncomfortable. Crimminals are cowards they prey on the weak and helpless. last thing some punk with a knife is going to do is mug someone with a fiream strapped to thier hip.
  • #132
    !
    Food,
    Some states prohibit open-carry, so concealed-carry is the only option. That's how it is here in California - except most localities won't issue a concealed-carry permit either. Otherwise, it's just a matter of situational prudence and personal preference. I don't think anyone is trying to "surprise" anyone.
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    !
    I voted that it’s up to the stated because I'm all for having concealed carry and for having CCW permits but not for licensing individual guns.
  • #11
    !
    A license is issued to an individual not to a gun. I am licensed to carry a semi-automatic or a revolver. The license makes no distinction as to gun make, model, or year of manufacture. That is left to me. I qualified for a CWL with a gun owned and used specifically by the self-defense course.
  • #18
    !
    @WMCOL

    I realize that the carrier is licensed. But the question and obvious answer are worded in such a way to refer to the gun being licensed not the carrier. Note the use of the word "they".

    "Are you in favor of allowing concealed guns in every state?
    Yes, if they're licensed"
  • #30
    !
    @Thunderchicken
    "concealed guns" means it is the person doing the concealiing. They gun is not concealing itself. The "they" are those concealing the gun. It is those "they" that are being referred to as being licensed, not the guns.

    Just took my CWL out. It says nothing about licensing a gun. To do that it would have to specify the particular gun to be concealed and everytime I got a different gun(different serial number) I'd have to get a new license.

    Concealed Weapon License means the person to whom license is issued is authorized to carry a weapon concealed. My license identifies three types of guns, Derringer, Revolver, and Semi-Automatic. The license is on the person, not the gun.

    If the license was on the gun it would have to be attached to the gun in some way, kinda like a car tag. And except for some personal plates the tag would be specific to a particular vehicle, just like gun license would be specific to a particular gun and serial number.
  • #33
    !
    @WMCOL my carry permit in Georgia likewise licenses me to carry a concealed weapon. My weapons are not licensed. However every gun I own is registered with the state. They know what I own.
  • #36
    !
    @Speedieg
    My guns are registered too, but registration is not a license. Registration is on the gun, the license to conceal the gun is on the person. However, I have guns bought at Gun Shows, and from other private individuals that are not registered. I have Bills of Sale on them and that's it. The guns I bought from gun stores are registered.
  • R Load more replies

  • #158
    !
    Topix - there should be a choice of "Yes" with no "license" requirements. Other Constitutional rights don't/shouldn't require licensing, and neither should the most basic one, "bearing arms".

    Support real "Constitutional Carry".
  • #145
    !
    Gun free zones simply get unarmed people killed. Malls, theaters and schools....ever wonder why we hear about so many shootings in those locations? The owners of these establishments should be held responsible for removing the abilities of citizens to defend themselves.

    I'd rather take a chance with a jury of 12. If one person in Aurora had drawn and killed the shooter what jury would have convicted them? Unarmed against a madman or facing a jury? I know which one i'd choose.
  • #83
    !
    I think maybe it has to do with the fact one just never knows who is carrying and who is not... when only the criminal element has the guns, then we are all the victims. Kind
    of like a"balance of power". so to speak.
  • #64
    !
    Licensed guns are great until you get drunk or have a really bad day. Not sure, but as long as criminals have guns Licensed guns will be nessasary in my opinion.
  • R Load more comments...
Post