Why Do You Carry Concealed?


Statistics

GOV5 said:
I don't now if it is more or less dangerous today as far as crime rates...and I don't care. That's not the point of concealed or open carry. And we, as gun owners, need to stop using crime statistics as an argument for or against gun ownership and carrying. What if crime rates went WAY down while gun ownership stayed fairly constant? Anti-gunners could say we don't need any more guns because crime isn't a big problem anymore....whoops!...caught in our own trap!

You see, our fight has been wrong all along. We try to use all these tangential facts, or arguments, that are not really pertinent to the case. Studies show polls. Studies use statistics(the most dangerous source, by the way , because you don't know anything about HOW the gathering of the data was done, i.e., question make-up, number of people in the group, socio-economic and racial mix of group, etc.). NONE of this stuff matters.

What does matter, and we should use only ONE argument and keep repeating it until everyone understands and ACCEPTS IT! And that argument is simply: We own and carry guns because the United Sates Constitution, in the 2nd Amendment, says we have the right to do so. And any public and/or elected official that tries to stand in the way of that right is subject to legal action for not upholding the sworn duty to protect and uphold the Constitution. If we could get some of these (no tort reform needed) lawyers to actually grow a pair and start suing these officials, asking the Courts to remove them from office for malfeasance, we see a BIG change in our fight literally OVERNIGHT!
Click to expand...

The problem with your logic is that the second amendment is not specific enough to protect concealed carry. The second amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Nowhere in the second amendment does it say that every citizen should have the right to carry concealed. I feel like the statistics you denounce are probably the most important argument we, as supporters of concealed carry have. The problem with the statistics we have are inconclusive.We should be doing more research on the subject to see if concealed carry laws do drive down crime. I will be the first to tell anyone that a ban on handguns or concealed carry laws will take guns out of law abiding citizens essentially creating a defenseless target. But that is my belief not really based in sound facts. I carry concealed 99 percent of the time I am outside my home and wile inside my home I am within reaching distance of a gun in almost every room. I would say that the government would only be infringing on my second amendment rights if they told me I could no longer own or carry my gun at all. In many states if there was no concealed carry law you would still be able to open carry your weapon. Unfortunately if the government doesn't outright ban guns all together I can see people making the argument that they can still own and bear arms even if the right is extremely restricted
 

I CC because its my God given right! If I don't do it now, how can I expect my kids to be able to when this world goes down the crapper? Or has it already gone?
 
aside:293655 said:
The problem with your logic is that the second amendment is not specific enough to protect concealed carry. The second amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Nowhere in the second amendment does it say that every citizen should have the right to carry concealed.
Click to expand...

Where does it say we don't have the right to carry concealed? If anything, it says we can carry concealed, since we can keep and bear arms. There is no stipulation in the 2A how we keep and bear arms, just that the entire right can not be infringed. I thought the BoR told the government what they can't do, not what we can or can't do.
 
"Nowhere in the second amendment does it say that every citizen should have the right to carry concealed."
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

I want to address that specific statement.

The Constitution doesn't DENY you the ability to conceal carry either. It says, in part, that you have the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. "Bear arms" means you can carry them. IT doesn't say you can carry them in you shirt, or pants, or coat, or boot, or sock, or sleeve, or anywhere else, for that matter. That phrase also DOESN'T say you are NOT permitted to carry concealed either. It just doesn't address "concealed carry" at all. You see, the Founders didn't care HOW you carried your gun, or where, or IF you carried at all. That was YOUR CHOICE!

"Concealed Carry", you see, is a made-up term. The Founders had never even knew about that term. It was "invented", I believe, in New York City, by the few honest politicians that were there. They knew they couldn't clean up the entire city and State Govt from corruption, influenced heavily by organized crime, so they passed a law to do it. It was called, I believe, The Sullivan Act, which barred Concealed Carry, which was the preferred method used by gangsters. Because crime was so rampant at that time, the citizens didn't object loudly enough to some of their Constitutional Rights being taken away by the "GOVT", and that's when and how, our gun rights fight began. Since we allowed the GOVT, ONE TIME, to take away our rights, we have been fighting this battle ever since.

So that is why I say use of statistics is the wrong way to fight our battle. There are WAY too many variables that influence crime rates. It isn't that we don't have enough statistics, or even that we don't have accurate ones. They would ALL be inconclusive anyway, because of there just being too many variables that contribute to crime in an area going up or down. Not to mention that the fight turns into an argument over "whether or not the STATISTICAL DATA" is correct, the argument is now side-tracked, and now you are away from the main point, being able to carry a weapon any way, and anywhere, you want.

And frankly, I only care about "concealed carry" because YOU do. I want YOUR rights protected. For ME, I don't like Concealed Carry. I would rather Open Carry. It's just less of a carry hassle, and the gun is, in my opinion only, more accessible for ME. But I want each person to be able to select the way THEY want to carry. They have that RIGHT!
 
I am applying for mine because I am a mom with two small children. As a female, I am vulnerable to begin with - I feel even more so with two babies in tow. I want to make certain I am able to protect them and myself to the best of my ability.
 
GOV5 said:
"Nowhere in the second amendment does it say that every citizen should have the right to carry concealed."
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

I want to address that specific statement.

The Constitution doesn't DENY you the ability to conceal carry either. It says, in part, that you have the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. "Bear arms" means you can carry them. IT doesn't say you can carry them in you shirt, or pants, or coat, or boot, or sock, or sleeve, or anywhere else, for that matter. That phrase also DOESN'T say you are NOT permitted to carry concealed either. It just doesn't address "concealed carry" at all. You see, the Founders didn't care HOW you carried your gun, or where, or IF you carried at all. That was YOUR CHOICE!

!
Click to expand...

I nowhere in my post said that the second amendment denied citizens right to carry concealed, I was trying to point out that we do need to fight for the right and the best tool available tool to pro concealed carry is statistics. I agree that people will always question where the statistics come from. I also agree that crime rates are influenced by many factors one of them may be people carrying concealed but if concealed carry could lower crime rates it is worth investigating and using math to share the results is important to protecting the right to carry concealed.
 
The anti-gun lobby (the Jim Brady organization and Eric Holder among them) are CONSTANTLY attempting to twist the Second Amendment into something it never was and NEVER SHOULD BE.

Right now the Jim Brady organization is hammering Concealed Carry, as well as Florida's so-called "stand your ground" law. They're HAMMERING it. I just heard a representative of the Brady organization on the radio today, very ANGRILY attacking the Second Amendment and claiming that responsible gun ownership is contributing to a MENTALITY OF VIOLENCE that America WILL NOT TOLERATE.

I don't know about you, but when I show my gun, everything EXCEPT violence happens. When I meet and talk with gun owners who ARE carrying concealed and who ARE openly carrying a Glock in a side holster, we have the most pleasant conversations imaginable.

The anti-gunners claim that WE (gun owners) are living in FEAR.

Well, again, I don't know about all of you, but I'm probably the LEAST FEARFUL individual on my street, if not in my town. And it's not a gun that gives me courage — it's not a weapon of ANY KIND that gives me courage. You know what Gunny Ermey would say: "It is the HARD HEART that kills." And I don't care WHAT weapon is available or not available. If anti-gunners had their way and banned all public gun ownership, then we'd become a nation of swordsmen. Ban the swords and we'll go to knives. Ban knives and we'll switch to clubs.

Because It's the HARD HEART that Kills, not the weapon of the moment.

How much is a family worth? It's worth whatever you happen to pick up to defend it. In my case, I want the most awesome weapon available, okay? Unfortunately, I can't afford an AA12 Combat Shotgun; but, if I could afford it and the numerous registrations and permits required, I'd have an AA12.

And that's not because I'm afraid. It's because I know who's out there. Frankly, violent criminals don't concern me that much, because that's one-on-one, or maybe two-on-one, and I can handle that, no problem. Hell, I used to be a bouncer in a strip club, and that's a WHOLE DIFFERENT kind of bouncing.

You know what concerns me? It's the criminals in high office, it's the anti-gun lobby, it's the movement to DESTROY our Constitutional Rights. And when you speak out about what the Second Amendment DOESN'T say, you're actually exposing your IGNORANCE of what it DOES say.

Flat-footed, the Second Amendment says that a WELL REGULATED Militia comprised of ARMED CITIZENS is essential to the Security of a Free State. It says BECAUSE a Militia is essential, the Central Government SHALL NOT INFRINGE on the citizens' RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms.

Do you understand the IMPORT of the Second Amendment? It's NOT saying that A Police Force or National Guard is an acceptable SUBSTITUTE for armed citizens.

Do you know why?

It's because every police force and every National Guard outfit in the country OBEYS the Central Government. We know that when FEMA went into New Orleans, they brought in U.S. Marshals and Oklahoma National Guard and New Orleans Policemen to go door-to-door and disarm the citizens.

When the Central Government goes BAD, goes CORRUPT, starts oppressing the citizenry, WHO is going to come to the rescue? The CENTRAL GOVERNMENT? LOL

Hell no.

The Second Amendment establishes the NECESSITY of a NON-GOVERNMENTAL Citizen's Militia. The term "well-regulated" has been used by anti-gunners for DECADES to attack this amendment. But if you understand the spirit of the amendment, you know the Founders weren't going to hand the organization of the Citizens Militia over to the GOVERNMENT. Because the Citizens Militia is NECESSARY to secure a free state when the Central Government goes bad.

Anti-gunners just assume the Central Government is always RIGHT and BENEVOLENT, they assume the Central Government is going to establish a perimeter around the USA with watchtowers and high fences and sharpshooters to protect the 300 MILLION unarmed American people, right? And, in truth, they don't want a SOVEREIGN United States, they want an ASSIMILATED American Union, with free trade and no religion and everybody hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

Anti-gunners are spineless idiots.

So, when I hear somebody say, "The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about concealed carry," that's when I come back and say, "Go peddle your anti-gun propaganda somewhere else." The Second Amendment WANTS GUNS in the HANDS of CITIZENS so that we can FIGHT BACK against an oppressive and tyrannical Central Government. Not against a foreign power, not against a foreign invader, but against OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

Only GUN LAWS have made a distinction between concealed and open carry. This falls under the heading of INFRINGING on our RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Come to think of it, the MAJORITY of the 23,000 gun laws in America are UNCONSTITUTIONAL under the Second Amendment.

Pardon, but KEEPING and BEARING ARMS is our American RIGHT, and I don't care if it's a shoulder holster or an ankle holster or a paddle down in your pants, it is OUR RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR ARMS.
 
@Aside... Statistics can be used like a double-edged sword, statistics are used to ESCALATE an emotional response, okay? We can "crunch the numbers" and "do the math"; but, ultimately you're trying to pull heartstrings. That's the anti-gunner strategy, tuggin' at them heartstrings and ignoring the facts, all those poor children killed by gunfire every year, oh, my mascara is running. Look, if you wanna refer to statistics, let's go to the Centers For Disease Control... See, the CDC has an AGENDA to undermine the Constitution. No? You don't think so? Look here, let's take a little look at how the CDC misrepresents crime data to promote gun control

In a new report, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) attempted to link firearms with violence, especially against children. The authors wrote: “Gun violence historically has been a problem in cities, and youths have been affected disproportionately.”

The gun control formula equates guns with violence in the reader’s mind, thus the term “gun violence.”

The CDC has long supported gun control. Researcher David Kopel wrote about CDC’s history of funding anti-gun research:

Finally, in 1996, Congress cut off gun control funding for the CDC — mainly because the NRA demonstrated to legislators the CDC was buying political misinformation rather than science.

Since then, they’ve attempted to reframe their agenda into “gun safety.” In the early 2000s, the CDC performed national gun ownership surveys. The survey’s codebook had interviewers asking people if firearms in the home were loaded and locked. The assumption was that a loaded, ready firearm was dangerous.

But CDC fatal injury data show that right-to-carry (RTC) states — where law-abiding civilians carry loaded handguns in public — averaged 16.3% lower homicide rates than restrictive-carry states.

More interesting, CDC data show that between 2000 and 2007, black homicide rates averaged 24.9% less in RTC states. Considering that American gun control policy historically coincides with racist oppression, this data indicate modern gun control is a questionable policy.

Today’s “youth” and violence

The CDC report focuses on homicide victims ages 10-19, and uses the term “youth” 30 times in a report about 1,600 words long.

Numerous sources have concluded that street gangs have a significant influence on violent crime. A U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) report noted:

At present, more than 20,000 gangs consisting of approximately 1 million members exist in the United States. Gangs are present in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories.

University of South Florida researchers reported a 20% increase in law enforcement agencies reporting gang problems between 2002 and 2005, with most of the growth in suburban and rural counties across America.

The DOJ reported: “The age range of youth gang members is about 12 to 24; membership is expanding at the top and the bottom of the age range, but mainly at the top.” The DOJ estimates that in 2006, juveniles (under age 18) comprised 36.5% of gang members, a 17.7% increase from 2002.

Over the Memorial Day weekend, numerous “youth” violence incidents occurred.

Massachusetts State Police dispersed 1,000 “youths” for fighting from Carson Beach in South Boston. The Boston Globe, which used the term “youth” 11 times in their article, reported “the troublemakers were mostly 14 to 19 years old” and that many were “gang members.”

In Long Beach, New York, police had to “quell a beach melee involving ‘hundreds’ of “young people.”

Charlotte, North Carolina, experienced “many fights” and one person was killed. “In all, 70 people were arrested — including 15 juveniles.” Many flashed gang signs.

In Nashville, a water park shut down after a “significant number of kids grew impatient” and started causing trouble, including “several fights.” WTVF video shows that most of the trouble involved what CDC calls “youth.”

For the children!

The CDC report covers “youths age 10-19 years.” Anti-rights researchers include real children (under age 15) with older teenagers and young adults, obfuscating this by calling them “youths.” Few children get murdered, but the image of thousands of children getting shot evokes readers’ strongest emotional response.
Click to expand...

And we can take this a step farther, because the CDC works hand-in-hand with the World Health Organization (WHO). Going global, as it were.
 
If I misquoted you, I apologize. Sorry about that.

I believe, no facts to back it up, that there is no way to prove that concealed carry lowers crime. I don't believe criminals even consider that when they are planning or executing a crime. Again, all the proof I have of that belief is what I have seen on TV shows where criminals were interviewed. I guess if a study was done, interviewing criminals that are in jail, and the study was conducted over a wide enough variety of State Prisons to get a legit sample, that would probably prove it one way or another.

I guess where you and I have a difference of beliefs(not saying that's bad either) is that I just think we need to stay on message in our gun rights fight as a Nation. The very fact that we start using all these statistics, and " case stories", says that we are still TRYING TO PROVE THAT OUR RIGHTS SHOULD EXIST., rather than the FACT that they are already enumerated in the 2nd Amendment to our U.S. Constitution. You and I see the battle from a different perspective, that's all.

To folks that don't like guns, and don't want people carrying them, no amount of statistics will ever change their minds. They either will say they don't believe them, or completely ignore them. And I must admit, I have NO IDEA what their true fears are all about. I don't understand why they would be worried if they were the only ones, in a crowd of 100 people at a grocery store or sporting event, that wasn't carrying a gun. For the life of me, I just can't understand their logic.

But what anybody can understand is this...It's the LAW! Whether or not they like it isn't a factor any in any argument. No statistics are needed. No case studies/stories are needed. It's the LAW!
This whole gun rights argument got off track a LONG TIME AGO. People surrendered their rights once, and then the GOVT keep taking bigger bites out of our freedoms. This didn't happen overnight, and it continues today. It is OUR responsibility to get the fight back on subject....AND STAY THERE.

The HOT AIR National Rifle Association hasn't helped either. In fact, THEY BLEW IT!! They had the perfect time, the perfect case, and the perfect place, and the perfect Court, to get all theses rights enumerated and explained in the McDonald case. The spineless organization only asked the Court to consider that it was good enough to just be able to ow a gun and have it in your HOUSE, for protection. Well, hell's bells, what was Mr. McDonald going to do when he left his house to go to the drug store to protect himself against those same criminals that were bothering him at his house?
Shoot, a 3rd year law student could have argued that case better than Alan what'shisname with the NRA. The NRA has become such a big organization that they want to stay in existence. If they had won that case arguing it correctly, we would have no need for them. THEY BLEW IT!
 
When jesus sent the guys out to the cities he told them to take a sword. Not the spiritual sword but rather a real sword, as that was their method of defense. I say a sword is not practical but a concealed weapon is today. I am not a radical but carry always. I believe God has given us items to protect ourselves and our families with. One is prayer. Another is our mind. Another may be our guns. We are never supposed to lay down but fight for righteousness. What God has given let NO man take away.
 
I carry because it's my right and responsibility to protect myself and my family. I carry concealed because I don't think that everyone needs to see what I am carrying.
 
I carry a weapon because of the type of work i do,armed security/bar management and to protect myself family and coworkers..and also to exercise my right to carry a firearm....rather have it and dont need it than need it and dont have it..
 
I conceal carry for self protection. The recent problems for George Zimmerman, put concealed carry into focus. This poor guy could be anyone of us, but it won't stop me from carrying.
 
"this poor guy"?? I think you are just like way too many people who are rushing to decide the facts without actually knowing the facts!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 199 (members: 0, guests: 199)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon

Share this page

Back
Top