Why Do You Carry Concealed?
- Thread starter lukem
- Start date
Protection but with the prayer I will NEVER have to use it.
Almost 40 years ago ( can't believe it) I was almost robbed at gun point while walking down the street at night in Los Angeles. Because I made a commotion - it was on a main street - the two guys changed their mind and took off.
We don't live in LA any longer but that episode is still in my mind. Along with that we now live more in the country and have some farm animals. Six months ago two dogs harrassed out cows and killed a goat we had. I was not home, and the neighbor had to put the goat down because he had been hamstrung and partially gutted. I am hopping the dogs come back.
Protection for my wife and myself and our animals.
Ron
Almost 40 years ago ( can't believe it) I was almost robbed at gun point while walking down the street at night in Los Angeles. Because I made a commotion - it was on a main street - the two guys changed their mind and took off.
We don't live in LA any longer but that episode is still in my mind. Along with that we now live more in the country and have some farm animals. Six months ago two dogs harrassed out cows and killed a goat we had. I was not home, and the neighbor had to put the goat down because he had been hamstrung and partially gutted. I am hopping the dogs come back.
Protection for my wife and myself and our animals.
Ron
That extra training you got in class on "use of deadly force " law is outstanding. There are those that say requiring training to get a license if just one more GOVT interference. I totally disagree with that thought. Carrrying a gun is an awesome responsibility, and you can never have too much information on the Law, and what you can, and can't do.
My instructors also stressed the police can't be everywhere. There was a court case about that too. The court ruled that the police can't be sued for no protecting you.
But suggesting that we are basically a Citizen police force, and it is our responsibility to be their "assistants" in fighting crime is going a little too far, in my opinion. My instructor mentioned the same thing in class. My reason for objecting to that view is that we don't have the proper training for that, nor the Force of the Badge behind us. It also gives a person that has only taken an 8 hour class the idea that somehow he/she is now some kind of auxiliary police officer. That is taking on all kinds of legality problems that I don't want or need.
Now I am not saying that I wouldn't help someone out. I'm just saying that I don't feel like I am properly trained to know when I can and can't legally get involved and be protected by the law against lawsuits.
Another reason I don't like that idea is that the State may someday figure we already have enough " police assistants", and they don't need to issue any more permits, i.e., basically saying that those that are carrying automatically have the OBLIGATION to help out in emergencies. I know that sounds like a stretch, but we have seen some weird logic used when it applies to gun laws. Besides, some of the worst anti-gunners would e thew first ones to scream for help. Let them get their own permits.
I know all this makes me sound terribly selfish, but our legal system is really screwed up. You can sue someone for the slightest little thing, and you don't even have to prove there is substance to the suit. But you still have to hire a lawyer and go to court to defend yourself, and that can cost a LOT of money. And there is NO assurance that a jury won't render some wildly in correct decision. The general lack of education in this country doesn't inspire my confidence in a "jury of my peers" .
My instructors also stressed the police can't be everywhere. There was a court case about that too. The court ruled that the police can't be sued for no protecting you.
But suggesting that we are basically a Citizen police force, and it is our responsibility to be their "assistants" in fighting crime is going a little too far, in my opinion. My instructor mentioned the same thing in class. My reason for objecting to that view is that we don't have the proper training for that, nor the Force of the Badge behind us. It also gives a person that has only taken an 8 hour class the idea that somehow he/she is now some kind of auxiliary police officer. That is taking on all kinds of legality problems that I don't want or need.
Now I am not saying that I wouldn't help someone out. I'm just saying that I don't feel like I am properly trained to know when I can and can't legally get involved and be protected by the law against lawsuits.
Another reason I don't like that idea is that the State may someday figure we already have enough " police assistants", and they don't need to issue any more permits, i.e., basically saying that those that are carrying automatically have the OBLIGATION to help out in emergencies. I know that sounds like a stretch, but we have seen some weird logic used when it applies to gun laws. Besides, some of the worst anti-gunners would e thew first ones to scream for help. Let them get their own permits.
I know all this makes me sound terribly selfish, but our legal system is really screwed up. You can sue someone for the slightest little thing, and you don't even have to prove there is substance to the suit. But you still have to hire a lawyer and go to court to defend yourself, and that can cost a LOT of money. And there is NO assurance that a jury won't render some wildly in correct decision. The general lack of education in this country doesn't inspire my confidence in a "jury of my peers" .
My question to you is how do we report facts? The only we will make people believe that guns don't add to the violence in the nation is to show them statistics and I admit that no matter how many statistics we show to an uneducated person they will go with their belief and faith rather then with the cold hard truth. I don't disagree that the government is perfect and we the people don't need protection from it. One of my favorite quotes is "People should not fear their government, the government should fear it's people." There are two different kinds of facts. There are good facts and bad facts. It is up to the individual listening to the study and statistical analysis to differentiate between the two.
MilShooter
New member
I'm sorry, Gov5, if you got the impression that I in any way support any of the estimated 10,000 "gun laws" existent in all levels of governments. I abhor ALL of the infringement. I completely agree with you that the 2nd Amendment simply ratified our existing, God-given RIGHT to carry a weapon (of any sort) for any purpose. The Amendment said nothing about "sporting purpose", "self-defense" or any such trash. It simply stated that we AREADY had the right and no one should infringe upon it.
BUT, (you knew there had to be a BUT!!!!), the NRA has been stalwart it its defense of our rights. But please, let us agree between ourselves, that no organization is perfect, and any number of organizations will have to work for generations to reverse all of the unconstitutional laws on the books. (As mentioned, I've seen estimates of some 10,000 existing laws, but that number is just an honest guess as far as I know.) The NRA, wisely, takes its victories anywhere it can get them. Up until the recent Heller and McDonald cases, the Supreme Court has largely refused to hear any 2nd Amendment cases. If, in arguing the Heller and McDonald cases, the NRA or any other parties to the complaints, had overreached by asking for too much, it could have backfired on them. I suspect that the attorneys recognized this and limited their arguments where they saw certain victory. I may be wrong, because I was not a party to their meetings, but I've seen such things before.
I, for one, am thankful that the NRA argues for us every day of the week. I'm a Life Member but I don't always agree with them. Sometimes I feel that Wayne LaPierre is too much of a politician. But we need the NRA. If it didn't exist, we would need to create it. You may think they "blew it", but I suspect they acted in good faith, knowing "when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em". By asking for "everything" all at once, I suspect they would have lost all. I may be wrong. At this point, it is all conjecture and personal opinion. I will continue my membership and my contributions to the ILA (Institute for Legislative Action).
I guess my point in all of this was simple: The NRA, while not perfect, has helped to defend our freedoms over many, many years. Hopefully, they will continue to do so. If they're not as aggressive as you would like, you are free to bring a legal action of your own, paying for the litigation through the state courts, then the federal courts, until you reach the Supreme Court. By the time you reach that level, your original complaint will have changed and been modified through and by the lower courts. Unless your original argument was ruled on in EVERY lower court, the Supreme Court will NOT rule on the original argument. It will rule only on the rulings of the lesser courts. And it will not be cheap.
LkWd_Don
Banned
I know that the thread I am linking to for this one does not explain why to carry concealed or not to carry concealed.. but as this thread has started to get into the Constitutionality of Carry.. I would like others to at least view this.
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...-why-we-have-second-amendment.html#post296801
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...-why-we-have-second-amendment.html#post296801
Charles Austin Miller
New member
Well, no, I'm not saying the Citizen is supposed to partner with police agencies in "fighting crime"... That's like saying citizens should be in there fumbling with fire hoses and falling down and getting in the way of the trained Fire Fighters. That's ridiculous. Citizen partnership with the first-responder agencies is absurd, it defeats the purpose of those agencies.
I'm saying that Citizens who are armed and observant are a superior DETERRENT to crime, if for no other reason than the staggering number of us out here and our high visibility. LEOs know that maintaining weapon visibility and an appearance of alertness will send criminals in the other direction every time. Criminals prefer SOFT targets. Just so, the high visibility of 90 Million armed citizens DOES serve as a superior deterrent to crime, and there are certainly areas where Citizen gun ownership and open carry are welcomed by police.
Yeah, I can give you an example, I know you want one.
I would invite you to travel, if you have that luxury, up to the Inland Northwest — that's Idaho, Montana, the Continental Divide, the Selkirks, all up in there — and soak up some of their charm. In addition to the immense beauty of the country, do you know that area has the lowest crime rate in America? I mean, major cities that have, maybe, one homicide annually. People carry up there. They carry concealed, they carry openly, and they have about 13 guns per household, last time I checked. If you are a person of criminal intent up there, you ARE looking over your shoulder all the time, because every damned body is armed and they'll DO you if you screw with them.
REAL low crime in the Inland Northwest. And it's NOT because the area is sparsely populated. Don't be deceived. There's a lot of new population and a lot of traffic and a lot of people up in them mountains WATCHING who comes and goes.
I've been there, I enjoyed it tremendously. I had flown-in to Spokane and drove a rent-a-car to Idaho and Montana, so I didn't have an opportunity to acquire a gun on that 10-day tour. Except for my backpacking knives, I was essentially unarmed. Then a ranger way up in the Idaho panhandle asked me if I was carrying any firearms into the state park. I quickly answered, "Of course not!"
The ranger said, "Well... We kinda RECOMMEND that you carry firearms up here."
I said, "That's very different from where I come from."
The ranger said, "Are you from California?"
I said, "No. I'm from the Smoky Mountains of North Carolina."
The ranger said, "Oh, that's good. We DON'T LIKE people from California up here."
Like I said, I thoroughly enjoyed the Inland Northwest.
But, less anecdotally, you may remember back in the 1990s when Bill Clinton tried to ban not only assault rifles but anything that LOOKED scary (e.g. flash suppressors, bayonet bolts, junk like that). Yeah, Slick Willy declared WAR on the American Citizen in the 1990s, and implemented a federal program called "100,000 Cops" across America, right? He was not only gonna ban guns, he was going to PUMP UP the police agencies in preparation for confiscating ILLEGAL WEAPONS.
Those weapons that HE had made illegal, that is.
Well, the State of Montana very directly said "F--K YOU, Mr. President!" Because Bill Clinton's unconstitutional war on guns could never be enforced in Montana.
See, I don't care HOW MANY new cops he pumped into Montana, who's gonna go door-to-door confiscating guns in a state where the average household comprises of 9 individuals bearing 13 firearms?
Yeah. It was a SUICIDE MANDATE. No LEO would follow such an unconstitutional and INSANELY DANGEROUS order. So Montana told good old Bill Clinton to STUFF his federal laws and directives.
That whole drama wasn't about fighting crime, BTW. The State of Montana did not have a crime problem, because everybody was armed and stood their ground. The PROBLEM was that the Central Government tried to CREATE a crime problem in Montana, then wanted to send in LEOs to enforce an unconstitutional law.
How CORRUPT is THAT, I ask you?
Like I've said, I don't fear petty criminals. They avoid me and that's enough.
But what CONCERNS me is the criminality of a central government that has been HAMMERING on MY RIGHTS and undermining the Constitution for decades.
Read more at www.ZeskoWhirligan.com
roosterbooster3632
New member
I simply carry as a last resort to protect family, friends and myself. Talk, walk, run, gun. Talk your way out, walk away......run if you have to, if there is no other choice I have the gun. I live in an area where there if very little violent crime but that doesn't mean I won't be prepared. I live in a state that has had open carry for a long time and had recently allowed concealed carry. Immediately applied for and was granted a permit. Some people are nervous when they see a gun and therfore I rarely open carry unless heading to the range or woods. With concealed carry I am prepared and don't have to advertise my handgun.
You bring up some real good points about why the NRA may not have wanted the "ask for everything" approach. And I know the NRA has done a lot of good over the years. But it isn't the only gun organization fighting for us. It's the only one we hear about because it's the only one the Press knows. Jews for Preservation of Firearms is another strong organization, and has done much good for us. I agree with you..I think you got it right...the NRA was afraid if they asked for too much, they may have gotten the decision they didn't want.
I also agree that the "take what you can get, when you can get it", is usually the prudent way of doing things. But we are running out of time. I guess that's why I am growing so impatient with the NRA and being so hard on them. WE have been fighting this battle since the early 1900's. I think that's long enough. It's time to get this issue settled, once and for all. .....BEFORE we get a Supreme Court that is filled with gun-hating Leftist Liberals. We will have NO chance then. And there are some REAL OLD Justices on that Court. They could die any day, or retire, leaving President Obama another Leftist pick to go on the Court. And I'm not sure we aren't going to have or current resident in the White House staying in there for another 4 years. It would be hard for me to imagine there not being another opportunity for the President to select another Court Candidate within that time frame. And the Senate confirms the Candidates, and President Obama's Party has a Majority in the Senate now. And there is no certainty that the mix will change after this next election.
These are some of the reasons I was hard on the NRA for not forcing the Court to have to make the statement that we DO have the right to Keep and Bear Arms, and strike down all of the 10,000 or so ILLEGALLY PASSED gun laws in the country. You and I, and all the folks here, want the same outcome. We don't disagree on any of those issues. WE just differ sometimes on our approaches to getting the outcome needed. In no way do I say you are wrong in your opinions. You bring up some very good points that I also agree with. I guess the older I get, the more I get tired of fighting ridiculous statements being made against us gun owners, as proof that we don't need to own and carry guns. I also tire of folks that want to select ONLY the PARTS of the U.S. Constitution that fit their agenda, and trash the parts that don't. They treat the Constitution like it's a buffet. You only have to take what you like, and you leave the rest. The Constitution isn't a buffet, it's a whole meal, and if you're going to take a bite, you have to finish the whole thing.
Again, I respect you opinions, and I also thank you for respecting mine. I wish all the exchanges on this forum would be as understanding as the one we are having. You may even get me to join the NRA again. I just wish they would sometimes get a little tougher on their stands.
I also agree that the "take what you can get, when you can get it", is usually the prudent way of doing things. But we are running out of time. I guess that's why I am growing so impatient with the NRA and being so hard on them. WE have been fighting this battle since the early 1900's. I think that's long enough. It's time to get this issue settled, once and for all. .....BEFORE we get a Supreme Court that is filled with gun-hating Leftist Liberals. We will have NO chance then. And there are some REAL OLD Justices on that Court. They could die any day, or retire, leaving President Obama another Leftist pick to go on the Court. And I'm not sure we aren't going to have or current resident in the White House staying in there for another 4 years. It would be hard for me to imagine there not being another opportunity for the President to select another Court Candidate within that time frame. And the Senate confirms the Candidates, and President Obama's Party has a Majority in the Senate now. And there is no certainty that the mix will change after this next election.
These are some of the reasons I was hard on the NRA for not forcing the Court to have to make the statement that we DO have the right to Keep and Bear Arms, and strike down all of the 10,000 or so ILLEGALLY PASSED gun laws in the country. You and I, and all the folks here, want the same outcome. We don't disagree on any of those issues. WE just differ sometimes on our approaches to getting the outcome needed. In no way do I say you are wrong in your opinions. You bring up some very good points that I also agree with. I guess the older I get, the more I get tired of fighting ridiculous statements being made against us gun owners, as proof that we don't need to own and carry guns. I also tire of folks that want to select ONLY the PARTS of the U.S. Constitution that fit their agenda, and trash the parts that don't. They treat the Constitution like it's a buffet. You only have to take what you like, and you leave the rest. The Constitution isn't a buffet, it's a whole meal, and if you're going to take a bite, you have to finish the whole thing.
Again, I respect you opinions, and I also thank you for respecting mine. I wish all the exchanges on this forum would be as understanding as the one we are having. You may even get me to join the NRA again. I just wish they would sometimes get a little tougher on their stands.
squirrelhunter
New member
For protection and I don't want everyone to know I have it.
tuts40
New member
Preacher Schweinekotelett
New member
In a perfect world, the government wouldn't require certification for carry. As soon as we say that they should have applicants meet certain requirements, then we are saying that our Constitutional rights come only with governmentally-mandated qualifiers. Slippery slope. However, as an above responder said, carrying the "power of life and death" is an awesome responsibility. So in the same "perfect world" I mentioned, the government wouldn't have to require training because people who wanted to carry would take the initiative to get the training themselves. I know that when I carry (which as to say always), I know my weapon, the ammo I use for SD, how it draws from my holster, etc. I also know that I really don't want to have to shoot anyone EVER (but will should the need arise). I am certain from the responses that I have read here that the fine folks in this community are the same. Responsible citizens who refuse to be victimized and have taken an active interest in the protection of themselves, their loved ones, and their communities. However, not everyone who decides to carry has done so intelligently and conscientiously.
Perhaps there should be some kind of common sense quiz as part of a pre-qualification system.
Perhaps there should be some kind of common sense quiz as part of a pre-qualification system.
ConstantlyEvolve
New member
Why do I Carry, and Carry often?
That is a complicated question that cannot be answered, in my opinion, in a few quick sentences. Luckily for you the reader, the answer is simple.
Well, one reason is that it’s tiring to carry a cop around all day and I am having a bit of trouble finding one that will fit in my holster. But seriously, many people believe that the police will be there to protect them, but that is simply not true. There are both state and federal court cases, even Supreme Court cases, which clearly state that police are societal protectors, they are not personal bodyguards or instant responders. They have no legal obligation to protect any one individual citizen, and they carry weapons primarily to defend themselves. If you don’t believe that then try to sue a police department for their officers not getting to you fast enough. The simple truth is that most of the time police will not be able to stop a crime in progress; there just aren’t enough of them. I can guarantee you, though, that they will write the report about what happened.
The only person that is guaranteed to be there when you, your family, your friends, or anyone else needs help is YOU! Another way to put this is that the weapon I carry is just like the fire extinguisher at my home: Emergency Equipment, Plain and Simple. I am not hoping that my home will catch fire just so I can use my fire extinguisher, just as I am not hoping to use my weapon in a defensive situation. The point is, that like the fire extinguisher, it is there in case of an emergency: Plain and Simple. One’s personal protection is no one’s responsibility but their own. There is just no way to determine when one’s safety or the safety of their loved ones, or those around them, will be threatened. Most likely, as stated above, the police will not be right there. Criminals go to great lengths not to do bad things in front of the police.
You and many others, as well as I, live in fairly safe places; however, these places are not totally free of crime. If they were there would be no need for police. Some have called me ‘paranoid’; however, I call myself situationally aware and vigilant. There are too many people who traipse through their day without the slightest clue about what is going on around them. Sometimes it is funny, as these people can provide entertainment to us who are observant by walking into windows. But other times the consequences have the potential to become more serious. Criminals tend to pick their victims by looking for ‘easy prey.’ When someone is totally oblivious to their surroundings is a pretty good bet that the criminal will have the element of surprise, a big advantage, and by just moving one’s head from side to side every now and taking in the world around themselves there may be a chance that they will notice something out of the ordinary and possibly save themselves a world of trouble.
I can be pretty sure of some simple facts: 10 out of 10 criminals favor gun control, one of the best defenses against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and that ‘gun-free’ zones let the criminals (those who don’t respect or obey laws or wishes of others) know that most of the people in this ‘zone’ are unarmed because the law abiding citizens who carry weapons will not be there or will not be armed, as they do respect other’s wishes. That last point is very important. Those that commit mass shootings or as law enforcement/ military/ security personnel call them ‘active shooter/killer’s, are looking for a lot of victims who will most likely not fight back while they are being killed. This is why these ‘active shooter/killer’s do not commit these acts at gun stores, shooting ranges, or police stations. They are looking for ‘easy prey’ not a fair fight.
To wrap this up I would like to make some things clear. One does not have to carry a firearm if they are uncomfortable with them. I highly, highly, highly recommend training to those who choose to carry; however, if you decide not to because you cannot take a life I respect that. There are other things you can carry like a knife (also requires training), pepper spray, a small tactical flashlight, and many other items. Taking some practical self-defense or martial arts training would not go amiss either. But whatever you do I want to leave you with something else to think about: Being armed is not an 'answer' or a 'solution' as these words point to a predetermined outcome. Being armed simply changes the odds that a day which has gone extremely bad may have a ‘less bad’ outcome in the end.
Obviously my thoughts here are mainly about firearms. Carrying a weapon, concealed or otherwise, is not a decision to be taken lightly; it is very serious, as you are making the decision to carry lethal force and use it if necessary. Please think long and hard about what I have written here. I am not an expert, just a guy who is very passionate about the subject of personal safety. This concludes my ‘simple’ answer to a complicated question. Take Care, Stay Safe, and if you so choose, Carry Often.
--Thoughts from a friendly neighborhood Security Officer.
That is a complicated question that cannot be answered, in my opinion, in a few quick sentences. Luckily for you the reader, the answer is simple.
Well, one reason is that it’s tiring to carry a cop around all day and I am having a bit of trouble finding one that will fit in my holster. But seriously, many people believe that the police will be there to protect them, but that is simply not true. There are both state and federal court cases, even Supreme Court cases, which clearly state that police are societal protectors, they are not personal bodyguards or instant responders. They have no legal obligation to protect any one individual citizen, and they carry weapons primarily to defend themselves. If you don’t believe that then try to sue a police department for their officers not getting to you fast enough. The simple truth is that most of the time police will not be able to stop a crime in progress; there just aren’t enough of them. I can guarantee you, though, that they will write the report about what happened.
The only person that is guaranteed to be there when you, your family, your friends, or anyone else needs help is YOU! Another way to put this is that the weapon I carry is just like the fire extinguisher at my home: Emergency Equipment, Plain and Simple. I am not hoping that my home will catch fire just so I can use my fire extinguisher, just as I am not hoping to use my weapon in a defensive situation. The point is, that like the fire extinguisher, it is there in case of an emergency: Plain and Simple. One’s personal protection is no one’s responsibility but their own. There is just no way to determine when one’s safety or the safety of their loved ones, or those around them, will be threatened. Most likely, as stated above, the police will not be right there. Criminals go to great lengths not to do bad things in front of the police.
You and many others, as well as I, live in fairly safe places; however, these places are not totally free of crime. If they were there would be no need for police. Some have called me ‘paranoid’; however, I call myself situationally aware and vigilant. There are too many people who traipse through their day without the slightest clue about what is going on around them. Sometimes it is funny, as these people can provide entertainment to us who are observant by walking into windows. But other times the consequences have the potential to become more serious. Criminals tend to pick their victims by looking for ‘easy prey.’ When someone is totally oblivious to their surroundings is a pretty good bet that the criminal will have the element of surprise, a big advantage, and by just moving one’s head from side to side every now and taking in the world around themselves there may be a chance that they will notice something out of the ordinary and possibly save themselves a world of trouble.
I can be pretty sure of some simple facts: 10 out of 10 criminals favor gun control, one of the best defenses against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and that ‘gun-free’ zones let the criminals (those who don’t respect or obey laws or wishes of others) know that most of the people in this ‘zone’ are unarmed because the law abiding citizens who carry weapons will not be there or will not be armed, as they do respect other’s wishes. That last point is very important. Those that commit mass shootings or as law enforcement/ military/ security personnel call them ‘active shooter/killer’s, are looking for a lot of victims who will most likely not fight back while they are being killed. This is why these ‘active shooter/killer’s do not commit these acts at gun stores, shooting ranges, or police stations. They are looking for ‘easy prey’ not a fair fight.
To wrap this up I would like to make some things clear. One does not have to carry a firearm if they are uncomfortable with them. I highly, highly, highly recommend training to those who choose to carry; however, if you decide not to because you cannot take a life I respect that. There are other things you can carry like a knife (also requires training), pepper spray, a small tactical flashlight, and many other items. Taking some practical self-defense or martial arts training would not go amiss either. But whatever you do I want to leave you with something else to think about: Being armed is not an 'answer' or a 'solution' as these words point to a predetermined outcome. Being armed simply changes the odds that a day which has gone extremely bad may have a ‘less bad’ outcome in the end.
Obviously my thoughts here are mainly about firearms. Carrying a weapon, concealed or otherwise, is not a decision to be taken lightly; it is very serious, as you are making the decision to carry lethal force and use it if necessary. Please think long and hard about what I have written here. I am not an expert, just a guy who is very passionate about the subject of personal safety. This concludes my ‘simple’ answer to a complicated question. Take Care, Stay Safe, and if you so choose, Carry Often.
--Thoughts from a friendly neighborhood Security Officer.
Last edited:
Well, I about spit my coffee all over the keyboard when I read the part about the Park Ranger. ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And yes, I do remember Bill Clinton holding up an AR 15 and pledging to take all of them off the street.
And I knew that the Inland Northeast is very gun friendly, but I had no idea about the number of guns per household. I can see why the LEOs wouldn't want to try to enforce gun laws there. And YOU'RE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!! That is exactly why the Founding Fathers put that Amendment IN the Constitution! To let the GOVT know that illegal moves against an armed citizen population would be met with FORCE! And I am as concerned as you about the direction of the Central Govt, and it's direction..especially under the current administration, who has a very selective view of the use of the U.S. Constitution. But what did the Country expect from a bunch of "make the laws as we go along" crowd from Chicago, the most corrupt City in the Country, IMHO?
You were talking about the Inland Northwest where so many people open carry. I DO AGREE that O.C. is a BIG crime deterrent, because potential criminals can see how many folks are armed around them. Concealed carry doesn't do that. And I don't buy the argument that it makes the criminals unsure because they don't know who has the gun. Plus, open carry affords quicker access to your weapon. Have you ever seen a speed shooting contest where the participants kept their weapons concealed? (Not counting COP training where)
And yes, I do remember Bill Clinton holding up an AR 15 and pledging to take all of them off the street.
And I knew that the Inland Northeast is very gun friendly, but I had no idea about the number of guns per household. I can see why the LEOs wouldn't want to try to enforce gun laws there. And YOU'RE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!! That is exactly why the Founding Fathers put that Amendment IN the Constitution! To let the GOVT know that illegal moves against an armed citizen population would be met with FORCE! And I am as concerned as you about the direction of the Central Govt, and it's direction..especially under the current administration, who has a very selective view of the use of the U.S. Constitution. But what did the Country expect from a bunch of "make the laws as we go along" crowd from Chicago, the most corrupt City in the Country, IMHO?
You were talking about the Inland Northwest where so many people open carry. I DO AGREE that O.C. is a BIG crime deterrent, because potential criminals can see how many folks are armed around them. Concealed carry doesn't do that. And I don't buy the argument that it makes the criminals unsure because they don't know who has the gun. Plus, open carry affords quicker access to your weapon. Have you ever seen a speed shooting contest where the participants kept their weapons concealed? (Not counting COP training where)
Rocketgeezer
New member
I am saying this honestly, first reason, because I can and secondly before my wife and I had permits and started carrying a couple of instinces scared us, this was 4-5 years ago thankfully there has been no real problems since...........
grandpa1466
New member
I live on a farm and always carry out in the field but had never carried anywhere else, much less concealed. My wife and I are retired and travel more, so a concealed carry license just made sense. Also, as one of my "friends" (ha) pointed out, as we get older and continue to live in the country, we become more of a potential target for thieves, etc. It just makes sense to be prepared all the time now.
LkWd_Don
Banned
Based on what you are saying, when the wife and I have finished paying off the Property we are buying in Montana we will already fit in with the average number of firearms per household there. LOL
On another note, we might disagree with your comments on private Citizens not partnering with their First responders as the Police can frequently provide insight in better preparing yourself and your home from becoming a victim of other than the kinds of crime that firearms protect you from. In addition, some of those same suggestions might also be common with what the Fire Fighters might tell you as well.
An example that might come up in common to both might be. Keeping vegetation away from windows making it more difficult for a criminal to hide and while you are at it.. making sure that the flammable stuff is kept out of the area under windows (fire prevention) to the point of having bare soil, so that if a criminal were to stand trying to peer in your window you might get a great shoe impression that would prove that you did have a peeping tom or whatever and prevent the likelihood of a fire at the same time.
Most LEO's will understand that they can not be everywhere all the time. So by making an effort to at least introduce yourself and pick up their hints/suggestions let's them know that you care about your safety.
Charles Austin Miller
New member
Well, I wouldn't WANT Citizens thinking they're qualified to make the complex legal decisions that trained LEOs make. In our extended concealed carry class, we didn't just sit there for hours watching a video of some law professor droning on and on about concealed carry and use of deadly force. In our case, we had two instructors who would frequently pause the video and then DEMONSTRATE the complex altercation scenarios — those scenarios in which the instigator has his gun taken away from him and he suddenly becomes the victim, for example, in which case the guy with the gun is now the assailant, and back and forth like that.
It becomes a really murky legal shithole.
I mean, it's no wonder that trained LEOs don't want to dive into the middle of an altercation. Our instructors told us, very frankly, that they would rather stand back for their own safety when the details of an altercation are unclear, because they may end up on the WRONG SIDE of a bad situation escalating into something worse.
Now, imagine the well-meaning civilian — who is typically untrained in Criminal Justice, deadly force, etc — inserting himself into a very complex altercation, totally ignorant of who instigated the incident, who was an intended victim, who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Most civilians would make an instant judgement, based on who was holding the gun, right? So the civilian might go to the defense of a BAD GUY.
And then THREE MORE guys show up with baseball bats and tire irons, and the civilian doesn't know WHO is the bad guy. In which case the civilian just stuck his nose into a VERY NASTY situation from which he might not walk away.
No. I don't think civilians or armed citizens NEED to be partnering with First Responders, whose JOB is to walk into these hot situations with the LAW on their sides, so the citizen doesn't get mixed up in it.
I mean, if the average citizen wants to "partner" with First Responders, then I suggest that citizen become a certified EMT or a volunteer Fireman or go to the Police Academy and take a Criminal Justice course — I don't think some well-meaning citizen with a Concealed Carry permit (who barely managed to keep all his rounds inside a 2-foot target at 21 feet, okay?), is qualified to attend or is needed in the "crime fighting" community.
Hey, that goes for me, too. In my view, it's enough that I'm alert and aware of the law and that I know my rights and I love packin' heat.
See, I'm making a HARD distinction between Citizen Militias and the Executive Branch of government. An armed citizenry is NECESSARY to a FREE STATE, but the Central Government is CHARGED with defending the nation against all enemies foreign and domestic.
That means the POLICE and the FBI and the BATF and the DEA and the INS and all the other enforcement agencies are operatives of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of Central Government. Their JOB is to defend the nation, under the Constitution.
But the armed citizen's JOB is to keep the Nation FREE. Says so in the Second Amendment.
We DO NOT WANT the free and armed American Citizens PARTNERING with the Central Government, okay? The Citizen Militia CANNOT BE an instrument of the government, it MUST be separate; because, when the Central Government waxes corrupt and oppressive and unconstitutional, all those Executive agencies are going to SIDE with the corrupt government. Am I right or am I right?
In which case, WE become the last line of defense of American Liberty.
THAT'S WHY the citizenry should ALWAYS be better armed than the government.
And we ARE better armed than the government, actually. I mean, the American Military is comprised of a little over 2 million active personnel, believe it or not. That's all. The MIGHT of our military is the technology that we have placed in the hands of some 2 million personnel. The various police agencies in this country employ about 800,000 personnel. The Federal enforcement agencies (FBI, DEA, INS, BATF, etc) are reluctant to reveal their personnel numbers; but we know the Federal agencies actually have far fewer personnel than the police agencies, inasmuch as the Federal agencies SPECIALIZE, whereas the police agencies deal in a broadly general way with the public.
So, all told, we can make a guesstimate that there are some 5 or 6 Million armed Executive Branch operatives with licenses to kill. These are the guys who WILL obey the President's order when TSHTF. Look at Katrina.
Now, please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to incite violence or call for an armed insurrection or anything like that. I'm just crunching numbers here.
Facts are, we have, oh hell, let's be generous and say there are 7 Million people in the Central Government who are heavily armed and their job is to take care of "bad guys" both foreign and domestic, okay? Those 7 million Executive personnel are the Guardians, those are the Sentries, those are the Warriors, okay. And I salute.
But these intrepid heroes need to ask themselves What will happen when the U.S. Congress eviscerates the Constitution, tosses its moldering guts in the dumpster, and implements some kind of draconian Martial Law across the land?
Whose orders do you follow? Do you follow your heart and oath and defend the Constitution? Then you're a traitor. But. Wait. You've got to follow orders or they'll kill your ass.
Man, I do not envy the kids taking the Oath today... There is so much Socialist corruption in our Central Government, they're training the kids to defend the GOVERNMENT, rather than the PEOPLE.
