Why I carry or Look! Up in the sky...

[bbarton713]

Every once in a while this thought goes through my mind and I find myself wondering if I've written about it or not. After a while all the forums and comments and threads start to resemble a big ball of tangled yarn.

Anyway, what I see on these concealed carry forums is the same thing I observed over the years on martial arts forums. The only difference is that carrying a firearm is part of our Constitution while I guess the right to keep and bear arms could apply to karate as well, in a literal sense.

The idea is that because you are a black belt or because you carry a weapon you are now at a different level and should act accordingly. The martial arts ends up with people that think that because they are a black belt in karate that makes them an expert in everything, and if you disagree you can fight it out with them.

The idea of operating at a different level, in my opinion, plays right into the hands of those that make us go through background checks, jump through hoops, and then spend inordinate amounts of time and money to finally get the (heavenly choir breaks out into song) PERMIT!

Why should we be held to a different standard for exercising our right? I don't imagine the founding fathers thinking that they had created a class of super-citizens based on the 2A being part of our constitution.

Somehow the requirement went from being a citizen to being a super-qualified and squeaky-clean citizen that says yes sir, no sir, three bag fulls when approached by the pinnacle of weapon-hood, the LEO.

I carry because it is my right. I have a permit because I was considered a 'safe and law-abiding' citizen, but let's not get carried away and start giving ourselves any more hoops than what the state or federal government has already created for us.

 

[kelcarry]

Hey bb: Understand where you are coming from but tend to disagree a bit. If your behavior requires an LEO to be asking you about your your CC, and he is not some sort of LEO who should not be an LEO, I think you are out of bounds. Granted it is not quite the same thing,but you do have freedom of speech but cannot call fire in a theatre. You do have your rights under 2A but you also have responsibilities; 2A did not mean walking around CC in a modern environment doing whatever came naturally because it is writen that we can have a well-regulated militia. Note the word" regulated"--that can easily mean having a permit and assuming additional responsibilities then the ordinary joe standing next to you. Just sayin. Peace brother.

 

[bbarton713]

Hey kc: I understand where you're coming from too. I think what I'm looking for is the balanced approach between responsibility and right. I think the extreme in either direction (forcing an OC encounter on one hand, being more militant than the government about who gets to CC on the other) is what bothers me.

As always, a pleasure exchanging ideas with you.

 

[CapGun]

I think all rights probably come with responsibilities. One would be that "a right not exercised is a right lost!"

 

[kelcarry]

Hey cap and bb: Like your replies. Some of these threads are getting rather contentious and I always appreciate like-minded replies. I'm not perfect by a long shot and have gotten in trouble on forums by letting off too much steam on "current issues" so to read replies that allow me to take a breath of peaceful equanimity is welcome.

 

[Austin]

Having a permit to CC, to me, is the same thing as having to go through a background check to purchase a firearm.

 

[charliej47]

leasantry:I see it as no different thatn having to get a license to drive or fly a plane or "slice and dice " as a doctor.:no:

 

[kelcarry]

Hey Austin and charliej47: I totally disagree with your comparisons. A background check is for things you did before someone allowed you to CC with a potentially lethal firearm--big difference when you were just a regular joe and are now allowed to be armed with potential killing power--your responsibilites as you are CC have gone up measureably. Flying a plane and driving a car? Yes they are licenses but come on guy--if you cannot see a difference between a driver's license and a CCWP, I cannot even begin to explain why I disagree with you. I truly believe that you do indeed know the difference but I think you are denigrating the responsibility that the CCWP confers when you are CC.

 

[2beararms]

... The martial arts ends up with people that think that because they are a black belt in karate that makes them an expert in everything, and if you disagree you can fight it out with them...

So if you don't agree with me we can shoot it out? I hope CCW's don't really go to that extreme (I know some do).

I agree with your initial premise except that I think it is a personality type that is attracted both to getting a CCW and then to participating in forums that has a natural level of "superiority complex" thinking they are always right. Of course everyone knows they cannot always be right because I AM!leasantry:

Now seriously, if you feel a need to be "legal" then you wind up studying the laws and analyzing actions and there are going to be generated differences in opinion.

For example, I do feel there is a similarity between a CCW permit and a drivers or pilots license. All allow you to control a deadly weapon and the one with the least amount of killing power is the gun, so to say that a CCW need to be more "responsible" than a driver or pilot, to me is inaccurate.

I feel CCW requires great responsibility, but so does anything that can cause mayhem and death and if we treat those things as "normal", then we can also treat CCW as "normal".

I see so many posts by CCW people who take actions that either draw attention to themselves or else become violations in their own right, in order to comply with the "law". An example is Florida says you may not carry in the "portion of an establishment primarily designated for the dispensing of alcohol." There was a story of a CCW who trekked through the posted "EMPLOYEES ONLY" area of the restaurant to avoid walking through the bar area while carrying to get to the restroom. He also did the same on the return trip after being told.

Now here, this person actually committed the crime of TRESPASS (entering a restricted area of private property after being warned not to) because of a paranoia of how the Florida law COULD be interpreted, even though there are no cases of prosecution for walking through a bar to get to the restroom while carrying, and there is a law requiring access to said restroom that trumps all other restrictions.

So paranoia about CCW caused this person to not act "naturally" resulting in his acting irrationally. Luckily it was no harm no foul and LEO was not dispatched to dispose of him ... but it could have gone that way.

Thinking CCW responsibility is greater than these other items is actually an example of this "better than the rest" mentality, like we have a much harder standard of laws and morals to adhere to. But that is not true. CCW law is 99% common sense. MEN the answer is the same one your daddy taught you when you were six ... KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS AND YOU WILL STAY OUT OF TROUBLE! Take it for what it is worth, that adage works for guns my Friend.

You know right from wrong and it is not that you now know the law that makes you seem superior, it is that you cared to learn about it in the first place and that you accept the restrictions at hand until you can change them under the law. It is all just a game we are all playing, so enjoy it, because it is NORMAL!

And if you think I'm wrong we can shoot it out.:biggrin:

 

[kelcarry]

Hey 2beararms: C'mon guy. It is easy to write comments about favorably comparing a CCWP to a driver's license, but methinks you are being argumentative just because. Why is it that you must lock you firearm up but do not have to lock your car? Why is it that you can drive your car literally anywhere, but you cannot take your firearm anywhere? You know this list goes on and on when trying to compare the use or misuse of both of these items. Please do not tell me that is the crazy anti 2As. I truly believe, as I said before, that you are arguing for argument's sake and that you really do not expect me to believe that the two are interchangeable. Yes, they both confer responsibilites and yes, they both can kill--I'll give you that---but I guess we will agree to disagree even though I truly believe you are saying this with a tinge of sarcasm. In any event, make sure you lock your car and do not leave it on a public street--wouldn't want you arrested for "brandishing". Please take my comments lightly--I enjoy the discourse and mean no disrespect. Peace brother.

 

[glock stock n barrel]

leasantry:I see it as no different thatn having to get a license to drive or fly a plane or "slice and dice " as a doctor.:no:

Not everyone is permitted to pilot an aircraft nor operate a motor vehicle..so why would anyone feel that concealing a deadly weapon on their person should NOT be regulated also?
Age ,mental capacity ,individual personal history and physical capabilities must all be considered first. Just as flying or driving. I am not for govt. regulation on many regulated issues but firearms is one i'm glad they have tests and restrictions for. Someone has to regulate it. It's not 1777 AD anymore. If govt. don't do it ,then who ? local govt.? Remember ,they make money doaling out permits to. Just as they make money at the dept. motor vehicles. The pioneers had the unrestricted right to bear arms ass hould we now but society's moral degradation requires a different way to go about protecting amendment#2 in 2010. I could make a few very inflamitory statements regarding who and why...but i won't. I would be called a closed minded biggot and pro govt. Just think about almost no mandated regulation on handguns in 2010. Never the less , machined ,fully automatic ,two handed firearms. Wow. The horror ! Unless i'm way off in what this thread is speaking to. Thats been known to happen. If so , i'm sorry.
I know many people that should'nt have any firearms but have squeezed through cracks in the law, also a higher number of perfectly responsible people that should not have to deal with the red tape of having them but it's the people who should not have them that cause us to be regulated and bogged down with red tape. There are However too many scatter brained liberals who fear everything but islamic gihadists and many other things they should fear and just don't know any better...They'll close Gitmo and open the pentagon to our enemies. They are perfectly willing to appoint islamic sympathizers and" islamic members" to our homeland security positions but insist on trying to undermine the civil rights of good ,red blooded American natives. They will mirandize bin laden but arrest someone for having one to many imported parts on a shotgun. They go too far in limiting the responsible citizens in what and how many we could have and how we carry them. State govt. has much to do with it to. Not just the feds. In a nut shell ,there are too many nut cases out there these days so We need regulation but not this much.
Having said that , I want a glock 18 for edc and an uzi for my nightstand without having to be personally familiar w ith my local police commisioner. Yeah , in my dreams.

 

[Onlinedad]

Of course to get a pilots, or drivers license you have many many hours of training and practice before you are allowed to go out and have at it on your own. Its not always the case with obtaining a CWP. All states have different requirements, but do any of the states require that you get a learners permit first and spend many hours one on one with an instructor before you are allowed to carry on your own.

I think, to try and go back to one of your original comments, those that do carry, try and hold ourselves to a higher standard, is because (my opinion) we are trying to instill into ourself and into those around us, that we need to set ourselves to a higher level and set the example for others to follow. When the govt looks down at us we want them to recognize that we are not a bunch of gun toating idiots, but that we are responible citizens that have chosen to take upon ourselves the burden of self protection. And we will use our constitutional right to do so, in a responsible manor. And when we are surrounded by the rest of the flock, they can look to us to protect them as well, as is our duty, and our calling.

 

[wolfhunter]

Flying, driving, or even performing surgery are PRIVILEGES. I don't care what requirements the government expects you to meet before they ALLOW you to carry out those activities.

Carrying a firearm any way I want to is a RIGHT. EVERY law currently on the books concerning firearms is an affront and an encroachment on my RIGHT. If we allow the government to set restrictions and tell us when or where we can exercise this right, what are we going to do when that government starts delimiting our other RIGHTS? When they start creating taxes and programs that the People don't want? Letting the government make "just one more gun law" "for our protection" or "because it makes sense" is why you can't carry in NYC or DC and why every county in NY has its own little policies and procedures.

 

[GOV5]

"
Carrying a firearm any way I want to is a RIGHT. EVERY law currently on the books concerning firearms is an affront and an encroachment on my RIGHT."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

The way I see it, carrying a firearm IS a RIGHT we have. But I don't see EVERY law on the books being an affront to it.
I personally don't have a problem with "some"/a little regulation. All kinds of things are regulated, less they get completely our of control. If you want to carry a firearm, I think you should be able to...anywhere in this Country. It is a Constitutionally mandated right. I shouldn't have to look at a map when traveling to see which State or locale I can carry in, and which ones don't allow it. I also think I have the right to carry it concealed or open, at my discretion.

I do, however, think that it isn't an affront to my rights when the NCIC wants to check me out to make sure the permit they are issuing is going to a law-abiding citizen. In fact, I feel a LOT safer with this provision in place. Once you have committed a bad crime, you don't have a RIGHT anymore to carry a gun!

Look at it this way. If we read in the morning paper about a two time convicted armed robber getting a concealed carry permit, we'd all hit the roof!! Because, after all, they are a citizen of the U.S., so using your logic, THEY have a RIGHT to carry a gun.....IF...it was unregulated.

Let's face it, we can argue/discuss to the cows come home, but we live in a world where regulation takes place all around us, and always will. I just don't see the big deal about having to apply for a permit...as long as it's treated in a "must issue" way. No State has the authority to pick and choose which law-abiding citizens get a permit. I'm DEFINITELY against that!

Now, when is South Carolina going to wake up and pass Open Carry? I don't want us to be the last of the seven remaining States that finally do it!

 

[wolfhunter]

"
Carrying a firearm any way I want to is a RIGHT. EVERY law currently on the books concerning firearms is an affront and an encroachment on my RIGHT."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

The way I see it, carrying a firearm IS a RIGHT we have. But I don't see EVERY law on the books being an affront to it.
I personally don't have a problem with "some"/a little regulation. All kinds of things are regulated, less they get completely our of control. If you want to carry a firearm, I think you should be able to...anywhere in this Country. It is a Constitutionally mandated right. I shouldn't have to look at a map when traveling to see which State or locale I can carry in, and which ones don't allow it. I also think I have the right to carry it concealed or open, at my discretion.

I do, however, think that it isn't an affront to my rights when the NCIC wants to check me out to make sure the permit they are issuing is going to a law-abiding citizen. In fact, I feel a LOT safer with this provision in place. Once you have committed a bad crime, you don't have a RIGHT anymore to carry a gun!

Look at it this way. If we read in the morning paper about a two time convicted armed robber getting a concealed carry permit, we'd all hit the roof!! Because, after all, they are a citizen of the U.S., so using your logic, THEY have a RIGHT to carry a gun.....IF...it was unregulated.

Let's face it, we can argue/discuss to the cows come home, but we live in a world where regulation takes place all around us, and always will. I just don't see the big deal about having to apply for a permit...as long as it's treated in a "must issue" way. No State has the authority to pick and choose which law-abiding citizens get a permit. I'm DEFINITELY against that!

Now, when is South Carolina going to wake up and pass Open Carry? I don't want us to be the last of the seven remaining States that finally do it!

If it's a Right, why do you need to have a permit issued? If YOU (and your predecessors) didn't give your governments the authority to infringe on your Right, you wouldn't be pleading for SC to wake up and "Let" you OC. Every gun law on the books is a violation of my RIGHT, and yours.

 

[Cocked _and_Locked]

Every gun law on the books is a violation of my RIGHT, and yours.

What about "equal" rights? Who gets the rights and who doesn't? Should violent felons who've been paroled after serving their time have the right to own and carry firearms? What about people with reduced mental capacity, autism, whatever? Where does the Constitution say some people don't have all the same rights as others?

Laws, maybe?

 

[wolfhunter]

Yes, those are some of the laws I meant. I'm against a government deciding what's "best" for responsible adults. I think families should expect to be responsible for members who have diminished mental capacity, autism, or whatever, not expect the government to take on their duties. I think the penal codes need to be revised so that rights are restored upon release, but I think greater punishment (with less parole opportunities) should be awarded to violent criminals.

In general, I feel that if State and Federal legislators are working as legislators more than 2 weeks a year, they are doing work that should be handled at a more localized level of government, and they should be supporting themselves with full-time private sector jobs the other 50 weeks.

 

[Ektarr]

If I may, I believe the most important aspect of this discussion is that "Keep and Bear Arms" is a Constitutionally guaranteed Right, whereas driving, piloting a plane, even being a surgeon, etc. is a State controlled/licensed privilege.

 

[GOV5]

"I think families should expect to be responsible for members who have diminished mental capacity, autism, or whatever, not expect the government to take on their duties."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

All due respect to you, and I mean that.

My opinion, from reading this thread, is that the statement above is where you and your opponents on the other side of the debate are at odds, and the statement sums up the entire debate. Many folks think that it is impossible to expect the general population to have the values to expect that kind of responsibility. Therein lies the reason for the necessity of regulation.

I don't like it anymore than you do, but where you and I differ, is that I don't like the likelihood of the alternatives if regulation isn't allowed. The sad fact is, there are just too many in our society that not only aren't responsible, but they don't even know the meaning of the term. They are the ones from which regulation protects us, and are the sole reason regulation is needed.

 

[Onlinedad]

this is just my opinion but for the sake of argument....

What about the dumb ass people? I'm sure that back when the constitution was written, natural selection played a bigger part in normal everyday life. Now for some reason society, has decided to try and save every degenerent, or drain on society that is ever born. So, although the constitution protects these people and gives them the right to own/carry a firearm. I'm not so sure I want to give that power and right to a person who doesn't have the motor controls to keep from shooting a bystander. Or someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to find their way out of a paper bag with a map and a yardstick.

Of course if you do qualify to carry, then there should be no limitations on where/when you carry.