Concealed carry is bulletproof


lukem

Administrator
Staff member
Facts are clear, concealed carry laws necessary to allow citizens to protect themselves.

The courts have deliberated over the Second Amendment for some time and it has been confirmed that individual gun ownership rights are indeed provided for in the amendment. Americans' right to own firearms is no longer in question. Today, the bigger issue is what to make of concealed carry laws.

In the U.S., only Illinois, Wisconsin and Washington, D.C., don't allow any type of concealed carry. Every other state has joined the majority faction after seeing the benefits that can come from allowing citizens to lawfully carry firearms.

Concealed carry laws prove their worth all the time, such as when citizens defend themselves from criminals. Just January, in Houston, two citizens used their legally concealed weapons to defend their office against a would-be attacker. Similar situations occur all the time that serve to further justify concealed carry laws.

One flawed argument against concealed carry laws is that while they allow citizens to carry weapons, they allow criminals to do so as well. This theory falls flat on its face for several reasons.

First of all, an extensive background check is required to get a concealed carry permit. Secondly, criminals who intend to break the law with a firearm aren't going to bother with a permit. Law-abiding citizens are the ones who legally acquire a concealed carry permit.

A study by criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz estimated that firearms are used for self-defense 2.5 million times every year. In the 1980s, the U.S. Justice Department funded a study by the Social and Demographic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts. In this study, 1,874 convicted felons from 10 states were interviewed.

The results were astonishing.

According to the study, 34 percent of the criminal respondents said they had been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed citizen, and 40 percent said they had been deterred from committing a particular crime because they believed the potential victim was armed. If anything, this study seems to admit that it's safe to say armed citizens scare criminals and deter crime.

Concealed carry laws shouldn't face any danger of repeal. Washington, D.C., famous for its stringent gun laws and lack of a concealed carry law, serves as a perfect case. According to the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, D.C. had the highest murder rate and violent crime in the country from 2006 to 2007, far exceeding any other area. It still has one of the highest crime rates in the nation, despite infringing on its citizens' gun rights.

Oddly enough, Vermont, which lies in the same region, is a complete opposite. It has the most liberal concealed carry policy in the country (along with Alaska), and one of the lowest violent crime and murder rates. It would seem that concealed carry laws save lives and protect law-abiding citizens in this case, as well.

If nothing else, people have a right to defend themselves. U.S. police agencies are effective and wonderful at their jobs, but stretched thin in many areas. Officers can't be everywhere they are needed at once, especially in large metropolitan areas.

From a strictly legal standpoint, concealed carry makes even more sense, as the government doesn't have a legal duty to protect its citizens. In 1982, a federal court of appeals ruled in Bowers v. DeVito that, "[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." If citizens don't have the right to be protected, they at least deserve the right to protect themselves.

Thus closes the bulletproof case for concealed carry laws.

By: Travis Holland
Source: Link Removed
 

spf159753

New member
I agree with you, but the people in charge these days do not seem to care about our right to bear arms.
They feel more comfortable, when we have no guns,that way they will feel free to pass what ever laws they
want, without fear of us Americans being able to do anything about it,just like Hitler did !!!!

Well, that's how I feel,anyways.

Steve
 

Piece Corps

New member
Nothing...NOTHING allows criminals to carry concealed weapons. I'd love to see statistics that showed that every crime committed with a gun was committed by someone who was carrying legally. The LAW makes it illegal for anyone not licensed to carry a gun concealed (with the exception to a state like Vermont which is a totally open state to begin with).

So the answer is simple. The laws already exist to punish those who commit crimes, with or without a gun. And there are extreme penalties for those who commit crimes using a gun.

Enforce the laws! Case closed!
 

JimPage

New member
PeaceCorps: Even in Vermont legal guns are not used in crime. It is against the law to possess a firearm with the intent to commit a crime in Vermont.:biggrin:
 

nogods

Active member
I agree with you, but the people in charge these days do not seem to care about our right to bear arms.
They feel more comfortable, when we have no guns,that way they will feel free to pass what ever laws they
want, without fear of us Americans being able to do anything about it,just like Hitler did !!!!

Well, that's how I feel,anyways.

Steve

Well, that didn't take very long - just the first reply.

Godwin's law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
 

6shootercarry

New member
Well, that didn't take very long - just the first reply.

Godwin's law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

And for good reason.. They/He are shining examples of how the desires of a few can destroy the lives of many. A government that restricts the use of arms by its citizens should not be tolerated or trusted... Hence the intended protection (not granting) of that basic God Given Right that was afforded by the 2nd Amendment...
 

hatchet19

hatchet19
And for good reason.. They/He are shining examples of how the desires of a few can destroy the lives of many. A government that restricts the use of arms by its citizens should not be tolerated or trusted... Hence the intended protection (not granting) of that basic God Given Right that was afforded by the 2nd Amendment...

Well, I was with you all the way up to the point where you said "God Given Right". I know what you mean, but this has nothing to do with God and everything to do with the U.S. Constitution. I agree with the article written by Travis Holland and support my law makers at the Local, State and Federal level by voting accordingly. In my opinion, it's the best legal way to effect change in the Government. Always Vote and always be an informed voter.
hatchet
 

Axeanda45

Banned
Well, I was with you all the way up to the point where you said "God Given Right". I know what you mean, but this has nothing to do with God and everything to do with the U.S. Constitution. I agree with the article written by Travis Holland and support my law makers at the Local, State and Federal level by voting accordingly. In my opinion, it's the best legal way to effect change in the Government. Always Vote and always be an informed voter.
hatchet


God had lots to do with it...... The US was founded on Christian principals, do your research.....

Voting got us where we are today, didn't work very well, did it?
 

Yarddawg

New member
Well, I was with you all the way up to the point where you said "God Given Right". I know what you mean, but this has nothing to do with God and everything to do with the U.S. Constitution. I agree with the article written by Travis Holland and support my law makers at the Local, State and Federal level by voting accordingly. In my opinion, it's the best legal way to effect change in the Government. Always Vote and always be an informed voter.
hatchet

While this passage may not refer to a gun, I believe that the meaning is the same.

Luke 22:36 (King James Version)

36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
 

hatchet19

hatchet19
While this passage may not refer to a gun, I believe that the meaning is the same.

You can interpret the Bible in many ways. This is not about religion; it's about manmade laws and politics. The only way to fix it is vote.

God had lots to do with it...... The US was founded on Christian principals, do your research.....Voting got us where we are today, didn't work very well, did it?

Maybe you should do a little research. I don't think praying is going to help much now, but you're welcome to try.

hatchet
 

6shootercarry

New member
Well, I was with you all the way up to the point where you said "God Given Right". I know what you mean, but this has nothing to do with God and everything to do with the U.S. Constitution. I agree with the article written by Travis Holland and support my law makers at the Local, State and Federal level by voting accordingly. In my opinion, it's the best legal way to effect change in the Government. Always Vote and always be an informed voter.
hatchet

Remember, the "Right" to self protection with equal or greater force for the preservation of life, existed before the Declaration of Independence and before the Constitution and Bill of Rights existed.

The "Right" to life and the protection of ones life, was given to you by your creator. Irregardless of the lack of acknowledgment of said creator by the individual or which creator the individual believes in, the Right existed before the document that protects it did. The 2nd Amendment is simply the founders trying to protect us from ourselves. They knew we could become our own worst enemies. I believe they were correct.

As far as voting goes, Keep at it. Tried it here, but the brainfurked liberals that graze on the grass keep thinking its gonna get better if they keep voting democrat...
 

Ralioth

New member
If carrying a weapon to defend myself is a right, why do I have to pay for it? Are not rights free?

Yes, I realize this is my first post and seems a bit trollish, but it would appear that TPTB are disenfranchising the less financially endowed. It takes money to purchase a weapon, and I agree to "qualify" proficiency, but why should I have to pay a fee to the sherrifs department to carry it?
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,365
Messages
622,712
Members
74,177
Latest member
gwags76
Top