Be Honest: There is only one real reason to need to carry a gun.

[JoeB131]

[

In my wife's case...thugs. It's that simple. She works late (out until midnight tonight), she finishes her shift carrying cash and sometimes as many as a couple dozen credit card numbers (not to mention the $100,000 truck she drives or the tools in it). So yes, she carries a gun. They have had two drivers robbed (one of them beaten to a pulp) since she started working there.

That might be a valid case where someone should be given a gun permit- after proper training, background checks and bonding.

There's no good reason why THIS GUY should have a gun, though.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Are you looking out for your own, or are you being manipulated by an industry that is playing on your fears?

I look at Nancy Lanza, who was a scared "Prepper" who was stocking up on guns (she owned 8). Where the hell did she get that idea? Perhaps an industry that sells fear on a daily basis.

So she was armed like the Zombie Apocolypse was coming, and at the end of the day, she was killed by her own son.

I am manipulated by nobody, I am my own man.

The number of guns is irrelevant, I have over 20 here, and not one of them has shot anyone for nearly 200yrs at least.

She shouldn't have made guns available to someone she knew was offside and was about to have committed. You can't legislate that kind of stupidity away.

Yes you can legislate that away. Just by not having that type of weapon sitting on a shelf ready to be bought by any maniac, or irrational fear filled individual. Hey this mom was supposedly a responsible gun owner. Right till the time she was being shot by her own gun.

What you can't legislate away is stupidity. I agree. But you can help protect the general population from stupid people buying guns like the killers mom bought.

If that Bushmaster rifle had not been on the rack to buy, how would her son have got hold of one?

A couple hundred bucks cash on a random corner in Bridgeport. I doubt it would take an hour.

 

[Charles_Main]

FEAR

Seriously. Think about it. If there was no FEAR of being robbed and/or assaulted there is no reason to carry a gun, right?

We buy auto insurance and wear seat belts because we FEAR that at some point in time we may be involved in an accident. (Ok, and in most cases the law requires it and we fear getting a ticket too.)

Hey!! I'm not knocking it. Illinois will soon finally join everyone else in passing a CC law. When we do that I will get one so I can carry it in any areas known for high crime rates. But since I don't FEAR being robbed and/or assaulted in my small hometown I don't feel the need to carry it around.

Now I also realize that there are those who simply want to carry one around like a playtoy. But I suspect that they are simply making up for other "shortcomings".

So if anyone disagrees that FEAR is the primary motivation to carry a gun please explain why it's not.

.

My words Security.

 

[M14 Shooter]

apples oranges....

A statement that is impossible for you to soundly support.

there is a 4th amendment requirement that searches be reasonable. law has defined what...

None of this supports your claim of apples/oranges -- that the "if you have nothing to hide" argument is sound with regard to the 2nd but not the 4th because of some inherent difference between the rights.

Please do try again.

 

[PixieStix]

FEAR

Seriously. Think about it. If there was no FEAR of being robbed and/or assaulted there is no reason to carry a gun, right?

We buy auto insurance and wear seat belts because we FEAR that at some point in time we may be involved in an accident. (Ok, and in most cases the law requires it and we fear getting a ticket too.)

Hey!! I'm not knocking it. Illinois will soon finally join everyone else in passing a CC law. When we do that I will get one so I can carry it in any areas known for high crime rates. But since I don't FEAR being robbed and/or assaulted in my small hometown I don't feel the need to carry it around.

Now I also realize that there are those who simply want to carry one around like a playtoy. But I suspect that they are simply making up for other "shortcomings".

So if anyone disagrees that FEAR is the primary motivation to carry a gun please explain why it's not.

.

Fear of being hurt or having a loved one harmed, without an adequate way to fight an assailant off? Yes. I fear that.

It is better than cowering in a corner begging for ones life

 

[Jarlaxle]

FEAR

Seriously. Think about it. If there was no FEAR of being robbed and/or assaulted there is no reason to carry a gun, right?

We buy auto insurance and wear seat belts because we FEAR that at some point in time we may be involved in an accident. (Ok, and in most cases the law requires it and we fear getting a ticket too.)

Hey!! I'm not knocking it. Illinois will soon finally join everyone else in passing a CC law. When we do that I will get one so I can carry it in any areas known for high crime rates. But since I don't FEAR being robbed and/or assaulted in my small hometown I don't feel the need to carry it around.

Now I also realize that there are those who simply want to carry one around like a playtoy. But I suspect that they are simply making up for other "shortcomings".

So if anyone disagrees that FEAR is the primary motivation to carry a gun please explain why it's not.

.

I had CCW, but never renewed. One thing is, no matter how I packed it, it always poked,pulled and gouged, second you had to dress to suet your method of carry. I like T-shirt and jeans, so the gun spent a good deal of time in the car or at home, and third, In Texas, concealed meant concealed. In class we were warned that if another citizen saw the weapon and called the police, then we could be charged with brandishing a fire arm, which is a potential felony. Then there is all the crap that follows if you use it (see George Zimmnerman) wright or wrong, you will be financially, and possibly professionally destroyed for crippling little johnny crack head. There is a tom more to it then just getting the card and stuffing a Glock in your pants.

You need to consult with someone who knows holsters. My uncle (not a big guy) carries a Ruger Super Redhawk with no trouble. He can wear a T-shirt and shorts...I know what I'm looking for, and I can barely see where it rides. My wife carries a Beretta 92F, her best friend (tiny at 4'5" and 85lbs) carries a 3" barrel S&W Chiefs Special. (Both needed custom holsters...Tina due to her size, my wife due to being left-handed.)

 

[Jarlaxle]

Be Honest: There is only one real reason to need to carry a gun.

To shoot your spouse if they cheat on you?

I know that stones are the biblical answer but this is the 21/st century.

Are YOU stoned, dude?

 

[Dr Grump]

Background checks are a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And so, no, he should not, because doing so infringes upon his rights, which violates the constitutional mandate against same.

Now, any right can be infringed w/o violating the constitution, should the state show that said infringement was enacted pursuant to and is effective in achieving a compelling state interest, and that the infringement is the least restrictive means to that end.

So, if you believe there is such an interest, please feel free to show it, remembering, of course, that "compelling state interest" has a specific meaning that far exceeds "a good idea".

I know you have case law that has decided some of this stuff, but NOT doing background checks is bordering on the insane.

So.... you admit you do not have a sound counter to my argument.
I therefore accept your concession of the point.

If you don't think checking out if somebody is sane enough to have a firearm is a sound argument, then sure, you win....

However, I don't think that....you do. So you may win your argument, but you don't win mine...

 

[M14 Shooter]

I know you have case law that has decided some of this stuff, but NOT doing background checks is bordering on the insane.

So.... you admit you do not have a sound counter to my argument.
I therefore accept your concession of the point.

If you don't think checking out if somebody is sane enough to have a firearm is a sound argument, then sure, you win....

Again: you admit that you do not have a sound counter to my argument; your opinion of what is sane and what is not is meaningless, except to you, which, of course means nothing, especially in regard to the soundness of my argument.

So, I shall continue to allow my sound argument to stand while you continue to do nothing to negate it.

 

[Dr Grump]

So.... you admit you do not have a sound counter to my argument.
I therefore accept your concession of the point.

If you don't think checking out if somebody is sane enough to have a firearm is a sound argument, then sure, you win....

Again: you admit that you do not have a sound counter to my argument; your opinion of what is sane and what is not is meaningless, except to you, which, of course means nothing, especially in regard to the soundness of my argument.

So, I shall continue to allow my sound argument to stand while you continue to do nothing to negate it.

You are under the impression that I would be deciding who is sane and who isn't. I wouldn't. A psychiatrist would.

 

[jillian]

A statement that is impossible for you to soundly support.

there is a 4th amendment requirement that searches be reasonable. law has defined what...

None of this supports your claim of apples/oranges -- that the "if you have nothing to hide" argument is sound with regard to the 2nd but not the 4th because of some inherent difference between the rights.

Please do try again.

why would i bother? you didn't counter any of the constitutional arguments i raised.

you might not like them. you might not agree with them.

but that is how courts determine these things. So if you have a better argument....

otherwise, i'll thank you for your concession that it's above your head.

 

[P@triot]

FEAR

Seriously. Think about it. If there was no FEAR of being robbed and/or assaulted there is no reason to carry a gun, right?

We buy auto insurance and wear seat belts because we FEAR that at some point in time we may be involved in an accident. (Ok, and in most cases the law requires it and we fear getting a ticket too.)

Hey!! I'm not knocking it. Illinois will soon finally join everyone else in passing a CC law. When we do that I will get one so I can carry it in any areas known for high crime rates. But since I don't FEAR being robbed and/or assaulted in my small hometown I don't feel the need to carry it around.

Now I also realize that there are those who simply want to carry one around like a playtoy. But I suspect that they are simply making up for other "shortcomings".

So if anyone disagrees that FEAR is the primary motivation to carry a gun please explain why it's not.

.

Say you're right....What the **** is it to you?

I am right. And it's nothing to me as long as you admit that the reason your carry is because you're scared shitless.

You honestly sound like the ******* idiot you are. Like you're some macho bad-ass (trust me, I could stomp you like the fat ass, lazy, filthy biker that you are).

There are assholes all over the world carrying weapons to do serious harm. I'm NOT "scared shitless" - I'm just trying to make sure we have an even battlefield and a fair game.

Keep talking big mouth... you're just showing the world what a ****'n asshole you are

 

[Charles_Main]

Have any of you ever lived through a Major Natural Disaster? I have, 3 times I lived through major Hurricanes which for a short time after left the area almost lawless. In those times I got a snap shot of what life could be like in the US after only a few short days if things go to hell.

We live in a society dependent on Delivery of everything from our food, to our Fuel. If a Major event happens that disrupts the supply of those goods. You would be shocked to see just how quickly things go from a peaceful civilized society, to an every man for himself situation in which you would be very happy you owned a gun.

It's not Irrational Fear that prompts me to own weapons, like my AR, It's a desire to be able to keep my family safe in any situation that may arise, and a knowledge of just how fragile the society we live in actually is.

Ask anyone who lived through Katrina for example, just how quickly things descended into Anarchy and Chaos after a few days of no deliveries, no services, and no government to turn to.

 

[jillian]

Have any of you ever lived through a Major Natural Disaster? I have, 3 times I lived through major Hurricanes which for a short time after left the area almost lawless. In those times I got a snap shot of what life could be like in the US after only a few short days if things go to hell.

We live in a society dependent on Delivery of everything from our food, to our Fuel. If a Major event happens that disrupts the supply of those goods. You would be shocked to see just how quickly things go from a peaceful civilized society, to an every man for himself situation in which you would be very happy you owned a gun.

It's not Irrational Fear that prompts me to own weapons, like my AR, It's a desire to be able to keep my family safe in any situation that may arise, and a knowledge of just how fragile the society we live in actually is.

Ask anyone who lived through Katrina for example, just how quickly things descended into Anarchy and Chaos after a few days of no deliveries, no services, and no government to turn to.

do 9/11 and hurricane sandy count?

ftr, we didn't find what you're saying to be true at all. quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

there is a 4th amendment requirement that searches be reasonable. law has defined what...

None of this supports your claim of apples/oranges -- that the "if you have nothing to hide" argument is sound with regard to the 2nd but not the 4th because of some inherent difference between the rights.

Please do try again.

why would i bother?

I accept your concession of the point, that you -cannot- show how the 2nd and 4th are so fundamenrtally different that your claim of apples/oranges is sound.

you didn't counter any of the constitutional arguments i raised.

None of which were relevant to the point and hand, and none of which you fully understand.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you don't think checking out if somebody is sane enough to have a firearm is a sound argument, then sure, you win....

Again: you admit that you do not have a sound counter to my argument; your opinion of what is sane and what is not is meaningless, except to you, which, of course means nothing, especially in regard to the soundness of my argument.

So, I shall continue to allow my sound argument to stand while you continue to do nothing to negate it.

You are under the impression that I would be deciding who is sane and who isn't. I wouldn't. A psychiatrist would.

Thank you for the admission that my point continues to stand, undiminished.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Absolutely.

Every reason given for wanting to control our liberties is based on fear.

Not really. More like common sense...

So it's common sense to deny law abiding citizens the right to own a weapon?

Tell me what other liberties do you want to infringe upon in the name of "common sense"

The fact is you're just used to living in a place where you have been denied so much liberty that you think it's normal.

Sorry but no one is going to tell me I don't have the right to protect my property and my wife from potential harm.

The simple fact is that 99.999% of law abiding gun owners will never kill anyone with a firearm.

Curtailing the rights of everyone because of the acts of 1 is not the way to govern and any government that does that is unjust.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[

In my wife's case...thugs. It's that simple. She works late (out until midnight tonight), she finishes her shift carrying cash and sometimes as many as a couple dozen credit card numbers (not to mention the $100,000 truck she drives or the tools in it). So yes, she carries a gun. They have had two drivers robbed (one of them beaten to a pulp) since she started working there.

That might be a valid case where someone should be given a gun permit- after proper training, background checks and bonding.

There's no good reason why THIS GUY should have a gun, though.

According to you the last three incidents you are harping about that were perpetrated by 3 mentally ill retards is reason to deny every single person in the US the ability to own a weapon.

So let's do the math. I know you sheep don't like math but too bad

3/350,000,000 is .00000086% of the population that have committed mass shootings and that's enough for you to ban weapons?

 

[JoeB131]

So it's common sense to deny law abiding citizens the right to own a weapon?

Tell me what other liberties do you want to infringe upon in the name of "common sense"

The fact is you're just used to living in a place where you have been denied so much liberty that you think it's normal.

Sorry but no one is going to tell me I don't have the right to protect my property and my wife from potential harm.

The simple fact is that 99.999% of law abiding gun owners will never kill anyone with a firearm.

Curtailing the rights of everyone because of the acts of 1 is not the way to govern and any government that does that is unjust.

If 99.999% of commerical flights never crashed, we'd still have 3 firey airplane crashes a day... and there would be demands that the airlines clean up their act on safety and maintenance.

We have a lot fewer than that because the government requires safety, and cracks down hard when there is a crash. One jerkwad tries to light his shoes on fire, and everyone gets their shoes checked now.

We have 9158 gun murders and 13,000 suicides with guns a year. That is an unacceptably high number.

 

[JoeB131]

[quot

According to you the last three incidents you are harping about that were perpetrated by 3 mentally ill retards is reason to deny every single person in the US the ability to own a weapon.

So let's do the math. I know you sheep don't like math but too bad

3/350,000,000 is .00000086% of the population that have committed mass shootings and that's enough for you to ban weapons?

If you guys refuse to self police, then YEAH, it's a good enough reason.

The reason these guys were able to get guns is because you law abiding owners are unwilling to submit to background checks and licensing and any responsibility for the industry that is marketting based on fear.