Best
313 Comments
Post
  • #2
    !
    The right to bear arms is specifically different than the right to posses arms.
    You are much more likely to need to defend yourself away from your home than in it. An attack on you can happen anywhere any time. You cannot predict it. The right of self defense does not end when you leave your home. We have the right to travel freely in this country. We also have the right to defend ourselves when we do.
  • #7
    !
    The people walking next to you in public also have a right to be free from any stray shots that might go flying if you get into a firefight with a hoodlum. That has to be balanced against your desire to defend yourself with a gun, despite the fact other self-defense options exist.
  • #11
    !
    @Zazziness lets settle this right now. Yes they do. I am responsible for everything I do with my weapon. The difference is I can responsibility use my weapon with out having stray shots hitting innocent bystanders. I have done it. But if I am irresponsible with my weapon it is a serious crime. I understand and accept that responsibility. And have shown that I am capable of being responsible. If you have any doubts about your ability to be responsible then don't carry.
    You can bring no evidence of me being irresponsible with a weapon.
    So your fears do not out weigh my right to self defense. It is much more likely that I will be attacked than the likelihood of me hitting anyone by accident.
  • #14
    !
    @Zazziness I don't ever CHOOSE to become engaged in a firefight with a hoodlum. The hoodlum is the one responsible for that. Am I not obligated to defend my self? If I can stop him from hitting those same people that you worry about me hitting I am reducing the risk to everyone.
    I am certainly not going to allow myself to be killed if I can help it. Or you for that matter. If a hoodlum is shooting at you I will do everything I can to stop him. Unless you prefer for him to continue to shoot at you?
  • #15
    !
    @GvtMule Let us, for the sake of argument, say you are right and it is impossible you will miss your target.That is not the case for everyone. Police have quite a bit of training in how to safely use firearms and when they should be used, right? We'd agree about that, I think.

    OK, now Google "accidentally shot by police officer." You'll immediately find hundreds of news stories where police accidentally shot people and the longer you look, the more stories you'll find. If police officers trained to use their guns and required to have regular practice are capable of missing, do you think it's reasonable to assume your average private citizen with a concealed carry is capable of missing, too? I do. People make mistakes. And when a person's mistake could result in another person's death, the law has to take that into account.
  • #27
    !
    And if you "defend" yourself from an imagined threat, what of any collateral damage? What is your feeling regarding the legal accountability of the person employing deadly force?
  • R Load more replies

  • #1
    !
    I'm all for background checks for those who want to conceal carry. Though, if that's the case and they pass with a clean history, then ELIMINATE the Pistol Free Zones for them.
  • #150
    !
    Guns free zones only work for the criminal. That BIG red sign that says no guns tells the nut case shooter this is a safe place for me to do my dirty work.
  • #187
    !
    The question that needs to be answered is, do people have the right to be prepared to protect/defend themselves whenever and where so ever the need may arise? By restricting ones ability to do this should be treated as complicity before the fact.
  • #203
    !
    @marine1

    The answer is a simple "yes". Cops cannot be everywhere and by the time they arrive to a crime, it's over. I'd rather not wait.
  • R Load more replies

  • #36
    !
    I would rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it! Truly words to live by. What the hell good is a gun if its locked in a safe at my house and not where it could potentially save my ass in a crisis?
  • #9
    !
    Legal gun owners should be allowed to carry a gun around on their person just like they might do with a wallet or a set of keys, and with no permit needed.
  • #243
    !
    Amen ...move to AZ, we do not need carry permits here anymore, The system was to acquainted, Plus we have open carry here anyway.
    Liberals hate it, But we the citizens concerned for our safety adore it.
    I carry my Kimber 1911 where ever I go out here.
    You can take it anywhere , as long as it isnt posted no weapons.
    I think every state should do the same.
  • #81
    !
    Charles Whitman killed I think 17 people and injured over twice that in the 60's. His rampage was ended because a bunch people got their guns and pinned him down in a tower until 2 men came up behind him and killed him. Could an innocent person have been killed or hurt? Yes, but if he wasn't stopped many more surely would have been. No responsible gun owner wants to use their weapon on a man, least of all in public. But when bad things happen it is up to good people to stop it and sometimes you don't have 5 minutes, or even 1, for the police to arrive.
  • #22
    !
    Have you ever wondered why Liberals have a love affair with criminals? They have made it so a killer can walk away free if the cop forgot to read him his Miranda rights. They made sure the inmates have all the pleasures of life & can even get college on the tax payer's back. Now they want to take our guns so that the only people with concealed weapons will be the criminals. Much safer for them don't you think? We honest law abiding citizens? Well we can just be taken advantage of, raped, robbed, & just die.
  • #147
    !
    Prepare for the worst, Hope for the best. I hope I never need it, But if I ever do I am prepared.
    CCW and the right to carry.
  • #42
    !
    How about the proper cause of their constitutional right to bear arms. How about their right for self defense.
  • #196
    !
    Us permit holders in some counties here in n.y can not use self defence for proper cause, I did on the application and received a target/hunting restriction. Cannot carry loaded to or from range either its printed in our paper word with those wordings.
  • #166
    !
    Exactly. The anti gun groups' attempts to justify gun control by spotlighting crime also justifies the decisions of the law-abiding to go purchase firearms.
  • #40
    !
    Prove a cause of why one should be able to exercise a constitutional right?Get real.What next?A cause for one to speak out or able to print in order to have a first amendment right.It wont end until the constitution is destroyed and free people will become en-slaved to the tyrant.
  • #141
    !
    Self defense is all the reason you need . The federal gov't. has no legal rights to dictate state laws , it's supposed to be the other way around. Just remember the criminals are always carrying ILLEGALLY & when 911 response time is more than 5 minutes - a .357 's response time is 1400 feet per second ! Which do you prefer ?
  • #111
    !
    The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is only permit a citizen of the United States needs to own and carry firearms.
  • #91
    !
    " the Right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". I don't need the president,congressmen, or a judge to interpret what that means for me! The Bill of Rights, are your personal freedoms. It's what they(government) cannot do to we, the people.
  • #84
    !
    This is turning into a joke. We the People can police ourselves. The problem we've got is the over zealous politicians who want us, the People, to become subjects to their will. As it stands now, too many people are sheep and just follow along with the powerful politicians want. The only time those people get involved is when THEIR Rights are Intringed...and by then it's too late.

    The way this country's going, everyone wants to get rid of the Constitution and start over again. Why don't they just call our country The People's Republic of Saudiamexipan and call it a day...then those who wanted all this "change" can enjoy their life is restricted movement and thought.
  • #79
    !
    Hit wrong spot. If you have a right to carry then you should not have to prove special needs. New York is as bad a California. Thus is what happens when liberals are in charge. They think you are not smart enough to take care if yourself. Yet the ass clowns who voted this piece if trash spent cover.their named security, or them
    They feel they are above all the laws they pass.
  • #4
    !
    In NY State to get a concealed carry permit is difficult. I can't get one because I don't know four people in the county as a character reference.(I moved here a few years ago) Sometimes I have to inspect dangerous places. Since I can't obtain a pistol permit, I wonder what the reaction would be if I just took an AR-15 or an AK-47 and put it in a sling across my shoulder. Hey.......I can't get a pistol permit!
  • #8
    !
    That's why my state has a " shall issue" permit. If you pass a background check and the training course the must give you the permit.
    What many people fail to understand is when you get that permit you accept a huge amount of responsibility. You must be as responsible with your gun if not more so than a police officer.
  • #31
    !
    @GvtMule
    I had family who grew up in New York State. Who gets the permits to carry concealed in those states? Those who know the right people or pay the right people. You know many celebrities have the right to carry. Bloomberg has basically said that. I'm sure a nice campaign contribution would make that application slide through easier. It just brings corruption in my opinion. Sort of like how a certain couple of lawmakers from California had permits to carry concealed in California meanwhile several thousands of citizens don't get that right. I wonder how these lawmakers got their permits?
  • R Load more comments...
Post