PDA

View Full Version : gov't speaks about conceal & carry


SONYEXEC
04-03-2008, 11:14 AM
Here's an interesting article I came across. Apparently some politicians equate responsible gun owners with car jackers, robbers, thugs, & your common criminals ~ we're all the same right. :confused::confused:

http://krla870.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/04/03/obama_comes_out_against_concealed_carry

davedog665
04-03-2008, 11:54 AM
It don't matter anyways The zombies are coming and they'll eat all the anti gun people first. Look out for that Zombie Obama

FlyingPen
04-03-2008, 12:07 PM
Hillary is FOR concealed carry? What? Where?

aplinker
04-03-2008, 1:04 PM
I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find that a liberal is against concealed carry AND that he has changed his rhetoric.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-03-2008, 1:09 PM
I don't think he is saying that he thinks responsible gun owners are all car thieves and thugs. He is saying that he is wary of gun fights in the streets between responsible citizens and thugs. Which I think is a somewhat valid point. I think CCW should be for well trained shooters only, people that have proven they can hit what they are shooting at the first time, and have also proven they know how to properly choose what they are going to shoot at and when. It's a pipe dream though, as anything like that would fall right back into the state's hands and be thoroughly botched right back to where we are now or worse.

Suvorov
04-03-2008, 1:21 PM
think CCW should be for well trained shooters only, people that have proven they can hit what they are shooting at the first time, and have also proven they know how to properly choose what they are going to shoot at and when.

Well then frankly, by your standards, about HALF of the police officers out there (in particular SFPDs Heather Fong) should not be carrying either.

odesskiy
04-03-2008, 1:24 PM
I am going to have to respectfully disagree. While I think every responsible citizen should get at least some training before carrying a concealed weapon, defending our lives is a God-given right. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an inalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution. I don't remember the 2nd Amendment saying anything about proficiency exams.



I don't think he is saying that he thinks responsible gun owners are all car thieves and thugs. He is saying that he is wary of gun fights in the streets between responsible citizens and thugs. Which I think is a somewhat valid point. I think CCW should be for well trained shooters only, people that have proven they can hit what they are shooting at the first time, and have also proven they know how to properly choose what they are going to shoot at and when. It's a pipe dream though, as anything like that would fall right back into the state's hands and be thoroughly botched right back to where we are now or worse.

odesskiy
04-03-2008, 1:26 PM
Well than frankly by your standards, about HALF of the police officers out there (in particular SFPDs Heather Fong) should not be carrying either.

+1
Training received by LEO's these days is thoroughly inadequate.

mymonkeyman
04-03-2008, 1:51 PM
I don't think he is saying that he thinks responsible gun owners are all car thieves and thugs. He is saying that he is wary of gun fights in the streets between responsible citizens and thugs. Which I think is a somewhat valid point. I think CCW should be for well trained shooters only, people that have proven they can hit what they are shooting at the first time, and have also proven they know how to properly choose what they are going to shoot at and when. It's a pipe dream though, as anything like that would fall right back into the state's hands and be thoroughly botched right back to where we are now or worse.

The occasional gun fights between armed citizens and thugs is better than the everyday, wholesale, and unimpeded pillage, rape, and slaughter of innocents we have going on in the streets of many inner cities. Politicians like Barrack Obama give the rubber stamp to this carnage by only dealing with the problem by approving gun control measures which any rational person realizes are likely to make things worse. I have no doubt in my mind that all these pro-gun control politicians fully realize that the gun control measures they support are unworkable and have, at best, no effect on crime and the only reason they do it is because it is a selling point to a sheep electorate who would prefer not to think for themselves. They care more about their own election than the crime in the streets, but they pretend like they really really care and use emotional language to convey it, further encouraging the electorate to feel and not think about the problem. Obviously if they actually provided a workable solution to inner city crime their electorate would no longer be as interested in voting for them, so their goal is to continually advocate more and more draconian and ineffective, but emotionally inspiring gun control to get elected, without a single care in the world about the people on the streets.

FlyingPen
04-03-2008, 2:00 PM
After reading Hillary is FOR bringing back the Assault Weapon bans, that's probably worse than being against CCW that Obama is.

dfletcher
04-03-2008, 2:04 PM
I think the above title is most accurate. And it AGAIN goes to demonstrate how some politicians will cleverly assert to support our gun rights - with carefully chosen phrases and misdirection, allowing people to come to an incorrect conclusion but one that serve's their deceptive purpose - and then back track or redefine what they consider "gun rights".

As a kid I tossed a small piece of brick at a bird or squirrel - can't recall which. I missed, it unfortunately smashed through a neighbor's basement window. When Dad asked me if I threw a rock at Mrs Brandolini's house I told him no. Because it wasn't a rock and I was throwing it at a bird, not the house. Of course the finer points of this issue were lost on dear old Dad and I was punished severely - for the broken window and the "lie". But this sort of thing, along with misdirection and the "non - denial denial" are used all the time. I think Obama is very, very good at it.

And BTW, in Idaho he wasn't exactly pro - gun. He said nothing specifically that would prevent him from signing a new AW ban, a handgun ban and a host of other restrictions. His "They say I want to take away your guns" remark means nothing - "They" could be right, he's just pointing out that there's some "they" out there making a statement. OK, so what?

dfletcher
04-03-2008, 2:05 PM
After reading Hillary is FOR bringing back the Assault Weapon bans, that's probably worse than being against CCW that Obama is.

Obama is for the AW ban also.

Harrison_Bergeron
04-03-2008, 2:10 PM
I am going to have to respectfully disagree. While I think every responsible citizen should get at least some training before carrying a concealed weapon, defending our lives is a God-given right. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an inalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution. I don't remember the 2nd Amendment saying anything about proficiency exams.

All I'm saying is that if I go to the Tuesday night block party on Main street and some nut goes crazy I don't want to have to worry about 10 mall ninjas unloading into a crowd of people. I think that going from where we are now all the way to rubber stamping ccws would be a bad move, I think that that is all Obama was trying to say too, but who knows.

And I see police officers poor marksmanship as even more proof that skilled carriers are better, I'd rather the situation be done and over before the cops arrive, would you want to be holding off a nut job thief when the black and whites pull up?

These are just my opinions, they mean nothing to the grand scheme, whenever it comes down to it, the only options are strict laws and liberal(by definition) laws, intermediate is rarely an option, and I would never support strict ones.

mymonkeyman
04-03-2008, 2:14 PM
After reading Hillary is FOR bringing back the Assault Weapon bans, that's probably worse than being against CCW that Obama is.

Make no mistake Obama is far, far worse for gun rights than Hilary is. At best, they are both basically for as much possible gun restriction as they can get away with, and then a good amount more past that. The real problem is that while Hillary is a figure that is well recognized and polarizing in the gun community, Obama is a slick-talking two-faced politician that could sell Americans on gun-control that coming out of Hillary's mouth, would be widely recognized as onerous and ridiculous.

odesskiy
04-03-2008, 2:24 PM
I think Obama is one of the people that predicted law-abiding citizens would turn into blood-thirsty maniacs when more and more states were moving to "shall issue". Of course he and the rest of the anti-gunners would never admit they were wrong, so instead they have to use gun violence in the "inner cities" as proof that more and more gun control is needed.

All I'm saying is that if I go to the Tuesday night block party on Main street and some nut goes crazy I don't want to have to worry about 10 mall ninjas unloading into a crowd of people. I think that going from where we are now all the way to rubber stamping ccws would be a bad move, I think that that is all Obama was trying to say too, but who knows.

And I see police officers poor marksmanship as even more proof that skilled carriers are better, I'd rather the situation be done and over before the cops arrive, would you want to be holding off a nut job thief when the black and whites pull up?

These are just my opinions, they mean nothing to the grand scheme, whenever it comes down to it, the only options are strict laws and liberal(by definition) laws, intermediate is rarely an option, and I would never support strict ones.

FlyingPen
04-03-2008, 2:34 PM
Any links that quote Obama being for a AW ban?

GuyW
04-03-2008, 2:55 PM
All I'm saying is that if I go to the Tuesday night block party on Main street and some nut goes crazy I don't want to have to worry about 10 mall ninjas unloading into a crowd of people.

....These are just my opinions, they mean nothing to the grand scheme....

Yeah, especially since your wild speculations about the careless nature of CCW holders have already been disproved as false in almost 40 Shall-Issue states...

dfletcher
04-03-2008, 3:10 PM
Any links that quote Obama being for a AW ban?



http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/16/30/

SONYEXEC
04-03-2008, 3:30 PM
I think the criteria for CCW has been pretty well set by most states...there is no "rubber stamping" of CCWs and don't think there ever will be but those who oppose would like you to think exactly that. Firearm proficiency is already covered in most CCW permit regulations so why would he make such a comment? To incite 80% of the US population that don't know any better that's why.

A comment on the "proficiency" comment. The best of the best, LAPD's SWAT accidentaly took out a 1.5 yr old girl while her dad was holding her hostage and as a shield in somecases. my point is not that the dad was a scumbag (he was) but the best of the best, have the finest weapons, have fired more rounds in training then you'll fire in your life time, who roll play various scenarious and on, and on, and on, still ACCIDENTALLY took out a innocent person so please...weapon proficiency is to be looked at on a case by case basis and sweeping comments about it should not be tolerated.

Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck
04-04-2008, 2:39 AM
All I'm saying is that if I go to the Tuesday night block party on Main street and some nut goes crazy I don't want to have to worry about 10 mall ninjas unloading into a crowd of people. I think that going from where we are now all the way to rubber stamping ccws would be a bad move, I think that that is all Obama was trying to say too, but who knows.

And I see police officers poor marksmanship as even more proof that skilled carriers are better, I'd rather the situation be done and over before the cops arrive, would you want to be holding off a nut job thief when the black and whites pull up?

These are just my opinions, they mean nothing to the grand scheme, whenever it comes down to it, the only options are strict laws and liberal(by definition) laws, intermediate is rarely an option, and I would never support strict ones.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Israelis who carry and have to knock off the occasionally Palestinian suicide bomber/gunman/etc. necessarily have oodles of training either. In the end, like most choices, you have to weigh whether the benefits outweigh the risk. That (and also the fact self defense is an inherent right) is why I think that there shouldn't be any ban on "rubber stamping", as you put it, CCW permits. Look at Vermont. People can carry there regardless of who they are, and I can't recall any horrendous accident like you envision. Instead they experienced a dramatic reduction in crime--as you'd expect.

As an aside, I found this statistic from this site particularly interesting:

" Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). (23) And readers of Newsweek learned in 1993 that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." (24)"

24. George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.

Now, I realize that LEOs are more likely to find themselves in an "offensive" sort of situation where they will need to ID who is a hostile and who isn't, while most non-LEOs will not have to make that sort of decision. For instance, a SWAT team (hopefully with a warrant) bursting into a violent offender's house will have to identify who is dangerous and who isn't, whereas someone who is surprised by a home invader will have a more obvious target. Nevertheless, I find it significant that there's a five-time difference in accuracy even with two times the kills.

FlyingPen
04-04-2008, 2:42 AM
http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/16/30/

I dont' know, quite a lot of my views on politics and laws have changed since 1994.

ibanezfoo
04-04-2008, 1:03 PM
+1
Training received by LEO's these days is thoroughly inadequate.

+5

I've talked to some guys who didn't even know what kind of pistol they carried. "I dunno, whatever they issue me..."

-Bryan