Criminals would have brought guns anywhere they like before. Nothing stopped them. All this did was remove the silly prohibition on law-abiding citizens.
looks like a slam dunk to me. “shall not be infringed” is pretty clear. (and for you anti-gunners, if they wanted it to apply to just the militia, the amendment would have said: “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” instead of “the people”.)
So Steve, I assume you are opposed to this bill because it “infringes” on your right to bring guns to school related events and requires you to have a permit, right?
As a gun owner, I do not understand the logic of allowing ANYONE to wander around town with a weapon. ANYONE!! So, dear readers, how do we determine who is an upstanding, law-abiding citizens just taking his/her Glock out for a stroll vs a bitter, anti-social, revenged bearing, suicidal citizen bent on taking out a few folks while he/she goes down in a blaze of glory.
The bitter suicidal citizen will do it whether the law is there or not. The law abiding citizen may be there to stop the crazy person from taking others out.
Your logic is flawed. Police wear uniforms so we can identify who they are and that they carry weapons. Everyone else I will assume is a threat to me and my family as I have no ability to identify their intent until they begin shooting. Nice way to live.
J.S. = I will answer your question with two questions:
1) is requiring a permit an “infringement”?
2) do you really think a person intending to cause mayhem and murder is going to think twice about it because a “permit” is required? but admittedly, virtually no crimes are committed with a person having a concealed carry permit. but virtually no crimes are prevented by requiring one, either. criminals just don’t seem to pay attention.
Criminals would have brought guns anywhere they like before. Nothing stopped them. All this did was remove the silly prohibition on law-abiding citizens.
It’s not the criminals I’m worried about. It is very rare to hear about a criminal shooting up a random park. You do, however, hear often about parents getting angry and getting into fights at children’s athletic events. Adding guns to the mix will only end badly.
Not arguing whether the law is right or wrong, but why would anyone need to bring a gun to a little league game? For what purpose? “Aww c’mon ump! Open your eyes! That was a ball! Mildred, hand me my gun. I’m gonna teach this guy about the strike zone!”?
A bad guy with a gun or a good guy with a gun – either way it just seems really unnecessary in some places and situations.
It would be nice if there were no ‘bad guys’, but they will always be around; lurking and waiting for an opportunity. With that being said, I would feel much safer knowing that there was at least the possibility of having some law abiding, concealed carry permit holders (PROPERLY TRAINED to use their weapon) in my vicinity if my wife and I (who are both disabled) happened to be the opportunity a ‘bad guy’ was looking for. My simplistic view is: if I were a bad guy, I would choose to carry out my mayhem at a location that prohibits the ‘lawful’ carry of a firearm; that way it would be very unlikely that I would risk being shot or at the very least, be subdued and held for law enforcement by one or more ‘law abiding’ citizens who chose to intervene. For example: I would NOT choose to go into a restaurant (or anywhere else for that matter) to perpetrate a crime where there was a good chance of having several licensed and “properly trained” citizens surround me with their weapons drawn (as a general rule, I don’t think most criminals have a death wish; they will choose a place or opportunity with no (or very little) chance of opposition. Lastly, you may have noticed my emphasis on “properly trained”. My main ‘gripe’ with the concealed carry law (in any state), is that the process does not require and enforce adequate training of the proper, proficient and safe use of a firearm (much less the stresses that affect your mental or physiological response and decision making process in a possible combat type of situation. I believe that if a person ‘thinks’ they are responsible enough to carry a weapon, they should be responsible enough to acquire the proper training (whether state mandated or not), and to keep that training current and updated. It may be easy to take your time and without stress shoot at a paper target, but when you are face to face with an assailant that can (and most likely will to avoid arrest) shoot back, and you, your family or other innocent bystanders lives are dependent on your ability to handle this situation in the next second… will you have what it takes… DO YOU have what it takes? Consider the above question carefully; your life (and the lives of others) may depend on it, and you wont have a second chance or a ‘do over’. If you don’t have what it takes when that moment, that split second occurs… IT WILL BE TOO LATE!
What could go wrong. Parents are always well behaved at their kids sporting events.
Criminals would have brought guns anywhere they like before. Nothing stopped them. All this did was remove the silly prohibition on law-abiding citizens.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
And that is your own mental deficiency.
Then, you are a complete idiot. The criminals are already there with guns.
looks like a slam dunk to me. “shall not be infringed” is pretty clear. (and for you anti-gunners, if they wanted it to apply to just the militia, the amendment would have said: “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” instead of “the people”.)
So Steve, I assume you are opposed to this bill because it “infringes” on your right to bring guns to school related events and requires you to have a permit, right?
As a gun owner, I do not understand the logic of allowing ANYONE to wander around town with a weapon. ANYONE!! So, dear readers, how do we determine who is an upstanding, law-abiding citizens just taking his/her Glock out for a stroll vs a bitter, anti-social, revenged bearing, suicidal citizen bent on taking out a few folks while he/she goes down in a blaze of glory.
The bitter suicidal citizen will do it whether the law is there or not. The law abiding citizen may be there to stop the crazy person from taking others out.
Your logic is flawed. Police wear uniforms so we can identify who they are and that they carry weapons. Everyone else I will assume is a threat to me and my family as I have no ability to identify their intent until they begin shooting. Nice way to live.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
J.S. = I will answer your question with two questions:
1) is requiring a permit an “infringement”?
2) do you really think a person intending to cause mayhem and murder is going to think twice about it because a “permit” is required? but admittedly, virtually no crimes are committed with a person having a concealed carry permit. but virtually no crimes are prevented by requiring one, either. criminals just don’t seem to pay attention.
Criminals would have brought guns anywhere they like before. Nothing stopped them. All this did was remove the silly prohibition on law-abiding citizens.
It’s not the criminals I’m worried about. It is very rare to hear about a criminal shooting up a random park. You do, however, hear often about parents getting angry and getting into fights at children’s athletic events. Adding guns to the mix will only end badly.
I honestly don’t see the difference between if school activities are happening or if it’s just random kids playing. Why the carve out?
(fyi – I don’t like guns at parks at all)
Not arguing whether the law is right or wrong, but why would anyone need to bring a gun to a little league game? For what purpose? “Aww c’mon ump! Open your eyes! That was a ball! Mildred, hand me my gun. I’m gonna teach this guy about the strike zone!”?
A bad guy with a gun or a good guy with a gun – either way it just seems really unnecessary in some places and situations.
Makes it easy to end an argument.
When was the last time anybody heard of a so-called good guy with a gun, stopping a bad guy with a gun? I thought so!
It would be nice if there were no ‘bad guys’, but they will always be around; lurking and waiting for an opportunity. With that being said, I would feel much safer knowing that there was at least the possibility of having some law abiding, concealed carry permit holders (PROPERLY TRAINED to use their weapon) in my vicinity if my wife and I (who are both disabled) happened to be the opportunity a ‘bad guy’ was looking for. My simplistic view is: if I were a bad guy, I would choose to carry out my mayhem at a location that prohibits the ‘lawful’ carry of a firearm; that way it would be very unlikely that I would risk being shot or at the very least, be subdued and held for law enforcement by one or more ‘law abiding’ citizens who chose to intervene. For example: I would NOT choose to go into a restaurant (or anywhere else for that matter) to perpetrate a crime where there was a good chance of having several licensed and “properly trained” citizens surround me with their weapons drawn (as a general rule, I don’t think most criminals have a death wish; they will choose a place or opportunity with no (or very little) chance of opposition. Lastly, you may have noticed my emphasis on “properly trained”. My main ‘gripe’ with the concealed carry law (in any state), is that the process does not require and enforce adequate training of the proper, proficient and safe use of a firearm (much less the stresses that affect your mental or physiological response and decision making process in a possible combat type of situation. I believe that if a person ‘thinks’ they are responsible enough to carry a weapon, they should be responsible enough to acquire the proper training (whether state mandated or not), and to keep that training current and updated. It may be easy to take your time and without stress shoot at a paper target, but when you are face to face with an assailant that can (and most likely will to avoid arrest) shoot back, and you, your family or other innocent bystanders lives are dependent on your ability to handle this situation in the next second… will you have what it takes… DO YOU have what it takes? Consider the above question carefully; your life (and the lives of others) may depend on it, and you wont have a second chance or a ‘do over’. If you don’t have what it takes when that moment, that split second occurs… IT WILL BE TOO LATE!