Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 27 of 27

Thread: An argument about CCW holders being safe and law abiding

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Las Vegas, NV
    SMMAssociates posted:

    Unfortunately, it seems like more people (if they're paying any attention at all) are inclined to believe the "only LEO's are qualified" argument than are willing to look at the stats, and don't understand things like "LEO's often only shoot (let alone "qualify") once or twice a year, and tend to only do that when they're paid to....

    Not to mention the "uninformed" voters who'd vote for Adolph Hitler if endorsed by certain media "leaders"....

    I shoot once a week, maybe 45 to 50 weeks a year. Not all that many LEO's are doing that.


    You're pretty accurate in the assessment of the uninformed; They don't pay attention, and most, on this issue, don't investigate anything beyond the 'television soundbyte' assessments. They don't see the idea of self-defense as a part of their daily lives. The 'gun-control'-mantra is a minor and non-determinative issue, 'identity politics' rules the day: gay rights, abortion rights, immigration, assertions of police over-reach and brutality toward minority populations. And it's an overwhelmingly predominant belief (however misinformed) that a vote for a Republican means the elimination of those rights (or continued oppressive practices), immediately after the election. Kinda like pro-gun folks saying we'll lose our firearms rights after a Democrat gets elected. Except that the fears of firearms/2a advocates are actually manifested in the gun-control legislative record.

    They dismiss criticism of President Obama's gun-control bias, and they've forgotten (if they even knew or cared when it happened) the Clintons' involvement in the suits against firearms manufacturers. (Hillary is 'the one', apparently, in 2016. "We needed an African-American man, in 2008, and now, we need a woman in 2016. Never mind their actual policies.") And they're willing to sacrifice a right they've never thought to exercise, themselves, so long as there's the perception of 'progress' on the other fronts. Nobody has read Roe or Casey or progeny, or even investigated the myriad of issues below-the-surface on the gay-rights issue, so how do we convince anyone to take the time to figure out who the hell's Richard Heller?

    There must be another way. We can tap into the well of anti-police sentiment by making the comparisons, but I just don't think it's productive beyond a sentence or two, in response, as to how frequently the regular folks actually train, and to the actual statistics on safe-practice and lawfulness demonstrated by civilian licensees. The arguable fact that police officers train less, or that officers fail to demonstrate safe practice .... will NOT get an anti-gunner (or a gun-ignorant person who will vote for anti-gunners because of the other issues) to have more trust, either in me, or in regular folks who carry guns for their self-defense and defense of their loved ones. But what it will do is confirm further, for them, a distrust of police.

    "Those regular folks are too macho and paranoid, with itchy trigger-fingers .... just like the police."


  2. #27
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl N. Brown View Post
    ^ You write like the alternative to a CCW was unlicensed right-to-carry.
    Good grief I write as if the constitution actually meant something other than this acceptance of gun control and an unwillingness to fight crappy legislation. Elitists, apologists and appeasers who accept gun control are NEVER EVER going to fight what they accept. Do firearm organisations not think of the consequences of what they advise?

    Before 1986 and the start of the modern shall-issue handgun carry permit movement, R-T-C, the alternative to CCW in most states was no legal carry allowed at all.
    So prior to 1986 laws were passed that denied people their rights and they did NOTHING. Why do suppose that is? Their organisations were fighting for our rights by motivating people and advising them or they were preaching acceptance and defeat?

    Before the Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit (THCP), you could not legally carry a weapon for defense outside your home or your business. The "going armed" law was a ban on going armed in public for offense or defense; you could get a "special deputy badge" from the county sheriff but for many of Tennessee's 95 counties it was made from Unobtainium, a very rare metal often unavailable.
    You make it sound like a victory was obtained by design. OK what have firearm organisations done to obtain CCW laws? Specifics. They have organised movements? Opposition? Voting blocks? Demonstrations? Protests? Media campaigns? Marches? Anything? If you can find anything firearm organisations have done to make these changes you will be doing better than any other researcher or survey company.

    Obama has done more for firearm ownership than the NRA has.

    The shall issue THCP administered at the state level like a drivers license (you apply, meet qualifications, permit shall be issued), is made of plastic with photo and hologram, already available for driver's license production, no Unobtainium shortage.
    And it is unconstitutional.

    The R-T-C movement represents less restriction on carrying guns for self-defense than existed before.
    The R-T-C movement is a herd of elephants with no strategy or long term goal and no leadership at all. Only a blithering idiot indoctrinates his troops to accept what must be fought.

    LICENSED RTC is gun control and accepting gun control is always going to make more gun control possible. I promise you that not one person those fools have taught to accept gun control laws will fight those laws. Not one. So when restrictions increase, difficulty, quantity, level or price increase the PROCESS is justified and valid and any objection can only be petty. Just pay, train, learn...... more, you can still own a gun...

    I cannot imagine gun control needs more than that to win.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts