Moby, The point I'm personally trying to get across is that I carry a firearm for the same exact reason I own insurances and fire prevention equipment etc. Just in case. If my home catches fire, is there any guarantee that a fire extinguisher is even going to help? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd like to have it on hand regardless. I feel the same way about firearms. I lump them right in with flashlights, spare tires, a good wrench, etc. It's just another tool in the bag to me. Most gun owners feel the same way. You see where I'm going with it?

Now what sucks, and I have to use the car insurance as an analogy, like you said, I am forced by law to have that precaution whether I want it or not, but I have to constantly kick and scream on the political front to own a firearm which is just another precaution to me. I'd rate the option to have the ability to protect myself above car insurance any day.

What ever the reason a person has for carrying a firearm, you can label it paranoia or preparedness, either way the end result is usually the same.

Guns can also be a hobby Brent. You know how like cars are your hobby. You know every nut, bolt, and part of the Xterra. You're interested in it just like many people are interested in guns.

Guns are also a constitutional right. You are interested in constitutional rights... at least I would hope so.

The knowledge you have because of your interest in cars has helped other people. The odds are very good that sometime in your life, someone with a gun is going to help you or one of your family members.

Don't knock what you don't know... or intentionally chose not to care about.

What really sucks is that we currently have a ban on guns in this country. No felon can own a firearm of any type.

That ban is working out real well, so lets extend it to the law abiding...

That is about one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Really, it is.

Stay out of malls and classrooms.

And Wendy's. Stick with the drive-thru.

I feel strongly about gun ownership and rights. I own guns for several reasons. I sport shoot; targets, clays etc. I hunt. I have guns for home protection and for self defense. I also CCW, in fact I have a handgun in my waist as I type this.

There are two people who know I carry; a friend who also has his CCW that I shoot with, and the Sheriff who issued it. Not even my wife knows.

Imagine it's the middle of the night, and you hear an intruder breaking into your house...or worse, already in your house. What are you going to do...call 911? What about the time it takes for the police to get there? It's the job of the police to get there, not to be there. It's my job...my responsibility as a husband and soon to be father, to protect my family. Doing so does not mean I'm going to load up and go hunt down the bad guy in my house. I'm going to use my bedside handgun to get to my shotgun, where my family and I will hide out in a room while we wait for the police. Protected. Do not take false comfort in your home security alarm, motion lights and deadbolts etc. They are all good, but are just layers of home security.

I think every responsible law abiding household should have a gun in the home. As far as CCW, it's not for everyone, I understand that. I've decided that it is for me. I've seen all the shootings and terrible things that happen EVERYWHERE at ANY TIME, and decided that I have no interest in being a victim. I can not imagine the feeling of stopping at a Wendy's with my wife for a milkshake only to find ourselves facing the horror of a gunman, and our only chance being that he runs out of ammo.

Of course I'm going to bring this up...what if there was a CCW student at VT, who might have been able to end Cho? Or in the Wendy's? Or any other place where a gunmen has taken out people like fish in a barrel? It's a sad state of affairs that our times have come to people doing just that...walking into a room/school/restaurant etc and just picking people off at will.

If you choose to not carry, that's your choice. I respect that. But you should not speak or think negatively about those who do. I might be the guy at the table next to you, when a hell-bent psycho storms in and opens fire. There's a good chance, that I might be able to save your life. Now, don't get the wrong idea here, I'm not saying I may be your hero pistol packing saving knight. I used the words "chance" and "might", because that's what my CCW gives me; a chance. I'm not a cop. I'm not a bodyguard. I'm just a guy who made the choice to carry a hanggun to protect my family and myself, as a last choice .

It's a big change in lifestyle, to carry a gun. Where I used to put my moneyclip in one pocket and my chapstick and pocketknife in the other...I now stick a holster and gun into my waist. That's a big change. I'd rather not carry it, trust me. But unfortunately, the world we live in does not share the same views as I. I'll tell you another thing about CCW, is that it makes me MUCH more likely to avoid ANY kind of confrontation. I'm not saying that I was a hothead quick to fight etc. before...it's just that carrying a firearm brings a WHOLE new level of responsibility and accountibility.

What I'm saying is, just because YOU might not agree with CCW and gun ownership, does not mean that it's wrong, or that you should look down on those who do. The same as I don't look down on those who do not (CCW that is, I still think a home gun is important).

I know it's quite cliche, but true...
"I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it".

Well put

I'm sure a lot of you have read this book, but it describes what a gun owner should do and be ready to do in various situations. In The Gravest Extreme (1980) - Massad F. Ayoob. This book has great ideas on how to avoid or neutralize a situation before it can escalate to deadly force. It also preaches that, just like the title, firearms should be used in only the gravest extreme.

I live in Naperville, Il, one of, if not the safest city it's size in the nation and yet there is an increase of break-in's and robberies at gunpoint in the area, especially the areas near the tollways as the criminals can be headed back into Chicago before the police even arrive on the scene. They also arrested some teens in my parent’s town who have been doing armed robberies by the new family friendly shopping areas. These 17-19yr olds had semi-auto handguns. You must be 21 to purchase handguns in IL so we know they did not have them legally. IL is also one of two states that ban concealed weapons outright.

I don't think the gun control debate should be so black and white. Both sides should make some concessions to find a common ground. The public should be able to defend itself, but responsibly. I think all gun owners should have to take a safety class before they can take the gun home, not matter if it's a long arm or handgun, or at least a course when they obtain or renew their firearms owner’s card. And anyone who wants to get a CCW permit should take another highly intensive training course like MI has.

Since the subject of tomorrow's oral arguments in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller has been brought up, and since it could turn out to be a landmark case that could affect gun rights all across the country, there are some interesting facts involved with this case.

-- The Justice Department has taken the side of the District of Columbia's ban.... well, sort of. They are using an unusual and thin argument, but it is interesting to note anyway. They have claimed that the circuit court in it's decision used too strict a constitutional standard and should be told by SCOTUS to reconsider its decision.

The Bush administration has always claimed they support the individual rights in the second amendment, but they are using a sneaky method and argument here in order to allow DC to uphold it's ban. Their thin argument is that if the circuit court's ruling is allowed to stand, other federal gun laws may also be seen as unconstitutional such as the ban on "machine guns". They want the case kicked back to the circuit court for another ruling.

Personally I don't agree with that logic and I think the Justice Department favors the ban but they just don't want to say it outright.

-- It's very interesting that Dick Cheney chose to publicly part company and disagree with the administration. That is unusual for a sitting Vice President.

He signed an amicus brief in support of the circuit court's decision last year. The brief was signed by Cheney and a majority of Congress..... 55 senators — (46 Republicans, 9 Democrats) and 250 representatives — (182 Republicans, 68 Democrats).

It's also interesting to note that Democrat Senators Charles Schumer and Diane Feinstein didn't sign the brief. Each of them have CCW permits (In a city where it is next to impossible for private citizens to get a permit, Charles Schumer has a carry permit).

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/heller-congress-brief-2-8-08.pdf

Actually, I'd stay away from the drive-thru too. This happened a few weeks ago in a bad section of town:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_549987.html

x2

I was ready to make a big long post, but you hit just about every issue.

I understand what you're saying.

I suppose I should have been more specific in why I agreed with Brent...

All those people that went out and bought guns after 9/11 (and to think there weren't a lot would be ignorant)...THAT is paranoia.

If the first reason someone gives for carrying is "9/11, Columbine, Wendy's, etc." and not "to protect myself, my family and my property"...THAT to me is paranoia.

(I'm not getting into the hobbyist at all - I think that's a different reason all together.)

When did CCW come into this? It was never mentioned in regards to paranoia. This is about a gun ban, not a CCW law.

I made no mention of CCW when I said paranoia.

I wasn't specifically addressing anything that you said in particular. But, since you're asking, I'll answer your question.

The topic went into carrying on the first page. You addressed the topic of carrying a firearm. When discussing the topic of legally carrying a firearm you are basically talking about CCW since there are only a couple of places where you can carry without a permit.

[/QUOTE]All those people that went out and bought guns after 9/11 (and to think there weren't a lot would be ignorant)...THAT is paranoia.

If the first reason someone gives for carrying is "9/11, Columbine, Wendy's, etc." and not "to protect myself, my family and my property"...THAT to me is paranoia.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Is that really such a bad thing? Maybe examples such as you have given were events that opened someones eyes to the fact that violence happens any place at any time? If you lived near the Wendy's, for example, and that even made you want to go out and purchase a gun, does that make you paranoid?

Or is it a healthy fear?

I wear my seatbelt every time I get into my truck. Does that mean I fear getting into an accident? No, that means that I realize that it is a possibility.

I wear my sidearm every time I leave the house. Does that mean I fear being attacked? No, that means that I realize that it may happen. What I fear more than being attacked, is being attacked and unarmed.

I personally don't think it is. Not for that specific example. Much like around here in DC around the sniper time.



Apples and oranges. Unless you are in New Hampshire, wearing your seatbelt is the law.

And that's fine. But if you grab the sidearm with the primary reason being, "I may be in a mall when a nutcase comes in"...THAT is paranoia. Just like it'd be paranoia to say, "I'm never going to play golf, because I could be struck by a lightning bolt."

Serious as opposed to the lazie-fare gun owners that leave them lying around for accidents to happen? I'd prefer a serious gun owner to a casual one any day. What's your point here Brent?

Moby: I have a question for you, and I'm not leading you because I'm sure you know what I'd follow with, I'm just asking...

If you were ever in a situation where a gun was pulled on you, do you think that would make you want to carry/be prepared in the even that it would happen again?

Hmmm... gun control is one of those contentious issues, like the legalization of abortion, where any sort of middle ground is achieved with great disgust from one or both sides. Up front let me say I don't have a gun, and I've never even fired one. But I've long since been resigned to the fact that guns are a part of American society. I cannot see it changing in my lifetime.

But to all, I just wonder if this 'right to bear arms' privilege we have in America has been worth the cost? Think of all the thousands of individuals who have been shot by accident. Many more are shot in a momentary fit of rage. And many, many more folks are shot due to criminal activity. Now let's counter this with the folks who have used a firearm in self defense, the primary purpose of bearing arms. From this big picture has the right to bear arms been good for America? Of course for those relatively few who've used a firearm in self defense the answer is a resounding yes. But I suggest for most others the answer is a resounding no.

So should America deny good folks the right to defend themselves with firearms in order to, hopefully, drive down the unfortunate usage of firearms? Alas, all this is just an academic thought. I cannot see America reforming its gun laws to any significant extent. So I suppose both sides of the argument will continue to shout at one another, never giving an inch.

_Lazza

PS - I also suspect very few anti-gun folks are really against responsible sportsmen from owning firearms associated with their sport. Clearly this represents a mere fraction of the firearms in America today.

I wonder . . .

At the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, weren't most firearms the typical muzzle-loaded musket?

The cartridge didn't exist then, did it? What about the multi-shot revolver? Certainly not the Gatling gun . . . did they have multi-round shotguns?

If Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin were around today, to watch a fully automatic AR-15 hose a Mazda 323 into itty bitty bits of confetti, would they still argue for guns in every home?

Or would they shit their pants?

Just wondering.

We are the first country that has a true "gun culture" because we are relatively young. Compare our overall Mace, Battle Axe, Broadsword, and Knife statistics with other countries and see where we stand.

Seriously, if you are a criminal or want to hurt someone, you're going to do it regardless of the implement used. People say "what about Columbine or VA Tech, they couldn't have done the damage they did without guns" to which I say, they could have easily created pipe bombs, poisoned, or set fire to the buildings etc.

The gun has been vilified simply because people in this country have not been given any other "killing instrument" to really compare it to, and other countries came up through the ages killing with knife, axe, and sword long before the gun came on the scene.

Civilians owned and operated cannons and mortars back then. Most black powder rifles and guns were 40 and 50 caliber.

At one time words actually meant something. Now they are bent and twisted to suit whatever irrational fear blows through the skirts of the congressmen.

Fuck the shotgun, then. I want a mortar in the study.

Probably...but that would be a knee jerk reaction. Just like saying we should just go nuke the whole middle east - make it a glass parking lot.

But the "non" knee jerk reaction would be to just make myself more prepared - avoid getting into a situation that might bring it up.

(Yes, I know...it's impossible to guarantee it not happening...but I can minimize my risk without a gun)

Interesting article
Must be why the Sups are going to finally make a decision on it.

I still think we need an unenforceable manditory concealment law. Unenforceable to keep people from random weapon checks by Gov't officials. Strict education doctrine by the age of 18 and or graduation of High School in the proper use of a weapon. Etc.