Growing numbers seeking permits for concealed handguns

Here is how I see it; we are all out on a boat. The crew goes aft for a meeting while we stay forward talking about what a great day we are going to have. A freak wave rolls over the aft end of the boat taking the captain and crew to sea. With engines running full ahead and auto-pilot on, we head out to sea. Several of us head for the bridge to try to save ourselves, georges61555 and twomiler2 jump in front of the door to the bridge blocking our way. twomiler2 yells you are not qualified to run this boat, stay back! georges61555 yells, yes, wait for the Coast Guard! They we realize we are missing eventually! We can do nothing to save ourselves!!!

Me? I would much rather die trying then to give up without a fight.

With over 2 million people in jail, is jail a deterrent? Obviously it is not. Then why do we waste all that expense if it is not deterring crime?

Sir, you're reaching. First the treaties between the US and The Indians has nothing to do with this argument. What I meant was that a restraining order or the law providing for it means nothing when a person has no respect for the law. Second, The Columbine and Paducah shootings were committed by students under the age of 18 where it is illegal for them to possess these weapons on school grounds. They did NOT acquire these guns legally as they weren't of legal age to "legally" acquire them. If VA. Tech had allowed for armed security guards on campus, rather than the proclaimed "gun free" zones, then perhaps he could have been stopped. But as usual, law enforcement are the last to arrive and are usually unable to prevent the crimes anyway. Also, the law itself wasn't followed in Cho's case as he was supposed to be committed, but the judicial system failed in his case. Anyone can "crack", even law enforcement officers. I guess it's alright with you and George to have someone be executed rather than die fighting. I am in the 21st century sir. Perhaps you and George should enter too, rather than being in denial.

To those of you who tried in vain to convince me the 2nd Amendment doesn't need some revision. Sorry, but it didn't work. As one writer stated, "you will never convince me that you know what you are talking about."
If you were concerned citizens YOU too would want better control and registration of just who can own a gun, but you don't. The childish phrase, "I want what I want when I want it", seems to apply.
This is my last comment for now, but I will not give up by fight to establish better gun control laws. That does not mean banning your right to own guns, but to establish a better system for those that do or want to.

All I can say is, if you guys want to give up your right, go ahead, but you're not going to take mine.

We can argue ad nauseam whether the glass is half full or half empty, but as long as you chose to ignore facts and make silly attempts to belittle pro-gun people, you will never convince me that you know what you are talking about.

Let's see.......... Columbine, Paducah, Planned Parenthood centers nationwide, Va. Tech, etc.......... I guess all shooters involved in these cases, were prime examples of sanity. They all bought or acquired their weapons legally. Please, don't give me the weak bunk about " if other students had been carrying concealed guns, they could have shot the gunman!" If others had been carrying, a shootout would have been likely, with even more fatalities. When law enforcement arrived, the possibility of "Johnnie Self Defense" being shot dead by said officers would have been high, as there wouldn't be any way to discern who the original gunman was. The days of Wild West Justice are long gone. Please, consider entering the 21st Century, on this matter.

Martial Arts & pepper spray are for Self Defense. Guns are only for the purpose of killing. Sure, one can target & skeet shoot but that's not the purpose of a gun. If this is actually about Self Defense, why have the gun concealed? If the gun is a deterrent, why not have it out in the open? Believe me, if some of our citizenry with certain attitudes & unreasonable fears obtain gun permits, especially concealed permits, the probability of unwarranted shootings will be mind boggling. Police officers make such mistakes, too often, in training & in real life. There have been times that people in combat have mistakenly fired at non -enemies. Why do you feel that Jane & John Doe could do any better?

The amendment is outdated, and should be revised to meet current day civilization. No I cannot give you a guarantee nor can you give me one.

That was quite the intelligent retort, twomiler2!! Why ignore the truth? Why run from the answer? You know we are right.

So, that's how the federal government was able to break all the treaties made with Native Americans.

Driving a car is a privilege sir. That is the purpose of a license. A license is permission from a jurisdiction to do something. The right to self defense is absolute. The real purpose of a car is for transportation, but it becomes a 4000 pound missile when someone is drunk or uses it to commit a crime. You, George, or anyone else cannot guarantee on the life that is most precious to you, that if all firearms were banned, that no one would ever have to fear of being shot by someone who doesn't care about what the ban says. Just like a restraining order, the law or the paper it is written means nothing.
George, there is nothing extremist about the right to defend ones self. A person who is determined to commit a crime against another person doesn't care what the law is. He or she knows better, but will act anyway.

twomiler2, "Cars have to be registered, insured & have up to date inspections, to be used."

Yes, all this for a privilege, not for a RIGHT! And with so many dying from this misused privilege, why are you spending so much time on squashing my RIGHT?

"Drivers have to be licensed, after being tested, on the road & by exams.” states twomiler2.

How many times have you been made to take this test? Me, twice in 30 years!!!

Do the states and the Feds share this information? Not until someone breaks the law!! And it must cross state lines for the Feds to be involved.

"The purpose of a gun, especially a handgun, is to kill. The purpose of a car, is transportation.", states twomiler2.

And how many people are killed by auto verse gun??? You are fighting the wrong battle if you want to save lives!!! You are fighting against a RIGHT which takes far far less lives then a privilege! Why?

Cars have to be registered, insured & have up to date inspections, to be used. Drivers have to be licensed, after being tested, on the road & by exams. Carrying necessary insurance on one's being & family members has nothing to do with concealed weapons. The purpose of a gun, especially a handgun, is to kill. The purpose of a car, is transportation.

an extrimist right is quite another. The lack of gun laws give people extremist rights.

Twomiler2 writes "I still think, as I've said before, any one wanting to buy guns, should be tested psychologically, & have a background check, & intense training. Police shouldn't get the benefit of doubt."

Well sir, you are turning an individual right into a privilege. Permission from government to exercise a RIGHT. If that is the case, should one have a background check, psychological test to exercise their First Amendment right? After all you could yell FIRE in a movie theater. Dozens could be injured or killed. Should you have to ask permission or have a background check to exercise your Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights against unreasonable search or self incrimination? You could be deemed a threat to the judicial system as pretending to be a member of the BAR or an officer of the court. Exercising ones RIGHTS comes with responsibility. Abuse it, you lose it.

twomiler2, How do you feel about cars? People in cars kill far more people than guns {Except for wars of course}. If you are worried about public safety, are you fighting for psychologically testing, background checks, and intense training before someone is given the privilege to drive?

Remember driving is a privilege not a right like firearms are.

I do not live in fear either. But I have life insurance, auto insurance, eat right, exercise and all that other stuff, why do you equate carrying a firearm to living in fear?

I come from a rich family history of people who served in the military during combat. None of us, including one's of us who later served in law enforcement, as officers, attorneys, Federal Agents & Federal Judges, has ever carried a weapon, once we no longer worked in those fields. We are We & You are You. Different strokes for different folks.

Slavery was brought up as a counterpoint to another poster's comments about the Constitution & Declaration of Independence. I PRAY FOR YOUR SAFETY & THAT OF ALL YOUR FELLOW TROOPS IN COMBAT. As I've said many times in other posts, I have not carried any weapon since I am retired from any type of work in which carrying is expected. I don't even own one. I understand your fear, especially since you are in a dangerous situation not of your making. I never said people shouldn't have fear in a situation such as yours. However, I personally fear nothing & no one due to who I am & my beliefs. I especially don't have fear in every day life, which others were giving as reason to carry. You, obviously, have had intensive training in weapons. Some of the other posters wanting the right to concealed carry, haven't. I fell no need to carry a weapon, openly or concealed. I still think, as I've said before, any one wanting to buy guns, should be tested psychologically, & have a background check, & intense training. Police shouldn't get the benefit of doubt.

One wonders what slavery that ended in 1865 has to do with the right to self defense in 2008. One also wonders why someone seems to feel that his right to self defense is more valid than another’s. One is on his third combat tour in Iraq and has plenty of “intense training.” It also seems that one has exchanged more gunfire than another one, and one is not ashamed to admit that one was quite afraid of what might happen to one in such a situation. It seems one is not as brave as another one, who is apparently fearless. If this is the case, then why do you carry a gun?

Well sir, if YOU (as a police officer whether in uniform or not) had to use deadly force to defend yourself or your family, because of your profession, you would be released on your own recognizance and would not have to spend one minute in jail. You would be given the benefit of the doubt. Right?
If the same circumstances happened to John Q. Public, and you were the first officer on the scene, you would arrest first then ask questions later.Right again?

If one finds it necessary to use Deadly Force, in true self defense, one has acted within one's legal rights. One would not worry about going to prison in such a case. Self defense can be proved in numerous ways. One may be arrested, initially, & placed in a holding cell in a jail. This is done so that investigators can begin compiling evidence to ensure the right party is going to be released on bail/PR. I can't speak for others but I know I don't think I'm holier than anyone else.

It's knowledge that no person can harm me more than I could harm them. In other words, no one else on earth has control over anything in my life. It doesn't matter what the scenario, I go forth with that knowledge & a state of peace. I don't ignore facts. I wrote why I feel as I do. It is "His Story", not History, that reads that Slavery was not the major reason for the secession of the South & the treason of USA military officers such as Robert E. Lee. This is why the region extended Slavery after defeat, with Jim Crow laws. This is why, as a youngster, I couldn't eat a hot dog at the counter of W.T. Grants & a slew of other places. This is why my Grandfather, a WW1 veteran, couldn't vote until he was an elderly man. This is why my Father, Uncles & Aunts, couldn't buy homes in the areas they wished, after serving in WW2 & Korea. This is why Blacks were paid less than Whites, for the same job, even when Blacks were better educated & qualified. Do you all have the intense training that police & military have, to be able to carry?

Well, like I said in a previous post, that folks like cs, contractorva, pappy62, and myself would go to jail if these types of scenarios had happened to us and we used deadly force to defend ourselves. It is disturbing that most people in law enforcement, as well as prosecutors, and judges consider themselves to have more integrity as well as reason to carry firearms to defend themselves or their families than we do. It makes them appear holier than thou.

I tend to agree with that comment. Any & all of the weapons mentioned have been used with deadly force historically. If I didn't "buy the farm" first, any man pulling a weapon of that "caliber" on me, is a dead man. I would consider negotiations pointless, & a dangerous waste of valuable time.

twomiler2, you say "I had shotguns, butcher knives, 38's, baseball bats, 44' magnums & other weapons drawn on me...I have never feared for my life." This makes you a very unusual individual indeed.

Well sir that is why that the U.S. Constitution can be amended. The 13th Amendment ended slavery in the US. There hasn't been an amendment to change the republican form of government that we now have into a democracy. You just continue to ignore the facts. As for the Bill of Rights, especially The 2nd Amendment, they are all meant to be rights for the individual not a collective. Also The U.S. Civil War was fought for the power of states to govern themselves as well as for economics.

Wikipedia, being information given by anyone who wishes to give it, is not necessarily, the best & final choice for absolutely factual information. I am not misinformed. Neither are you. I just don't limit my concept of a democracy or a republic. Language, as someone as well versed as you are is aware, I'm sure, is fluid. I never wrote that the USA isn't a Republic. I wrote we are a Democracy. A true Republic, in & of itself, is automatically a Democracy. The representatives of each region are voted in by the majority of voters within their regions. That is the essence of democracy.

The description you gave of a Republic is the definition of a democracy. I know that the documents mentioned don't contain that word. That, however doesn't mean that our government is not a Democracy. The documents you mentioned don't mention a lot of things that have or still exist within our frame of government. Separate but Equal is mentioned nowhere in the original finished documents either, yet, that was the law, for quite sometime. All men are created equal are words that are in at least one of these documents, yet the institution of Slavery continued to exist, legally, for almost 80 more years. Slavery is not mentioned in at least one of the aforementioned documents, yet Slavery was a legal institution. That "little" matter was taken care of by not mentioning Slaves as Slaves but as others that would be considered 3/5 of a human being, for census purposes so the South would gain in delegates for representation in the federal government. A republic is a democracy as the majority in each region votes in their representatives.

Sir, you are so misinformed. I refer you to Article Section 4 of the U. S. Constitution. Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. No where in the U. S. Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, or The Magna Carta will you find the word democracy or even democrat. From Wikipedia: A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as presentatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather th

The USA is most definitely a Democracy,(see Webster's or any other college level dictionary). I have read & studied the Federalist papers & other pertinent documents on this issue. My sister studied Constitutional Law in great detail. As a police officer, I drew my weapon on several occasions. I never fired it outside of the practice range. I had shotguns, butcher knives, 38's, baseball bats, 44' magnums & other weapons drawn on me, before I could even think about reaching for mine. I, through Grace, perhaps, was able to disarm the weapon-wielder each time, without any one being seriously injured. I have never feared for my life, not while in the military, police department or private life. I have never feared an individual or a situation. This, I believe, is so because I have never, nor will I ever, allow another to dictate any aspect of my life in any regard. By the way, Iraq, with Saddam, was a Republic. Life, is what one makes it. If one lives in fear of being accosted, one, most likely, will be.

No swearing from me! I wrote this before, and it was deleted! lol