CC saved many

[Mark_BX25D]

Trained doesn't mean exercising good judgement. Just the other day one cop shot another one through his windshield after the first cop "quick drawed" the other one with a loaded gun.

I think that's an argument that it's not easy to determine who should be "allowed" to carry. Of course, there's been numerous cops who have had negligent discharges. We presume they were "trained professionals".

Personally, I'd rather give non-felons a chance to defend themselves.

The idea that cops are "trained professionals" is factually false. MOST cops do no more than the basics necessary to maintain qualification, and that qualification level is pathetic. Who says? Men like Massad Ayoob and John Farnam, and others of their caliber. (And if you don't know those names, you don't know enough about the topic to comment knowledgeably. Of course, the First Amendment says you are welcome to comment ignorantly.)

They estimate that crediting 10% of sworn police officers with being competent with guns, or even caring at all about being competent with guns, is erring on the generous side.

 

[Mark_BX25D]

THINK about it…. the very “Right” you are arguing….is an AMENDMENT itself!

That word, "right", does not belong in equation marks. It IS a fundamental right, and it has nothing to do with deer hunting.

Nor is there any honest question about what the Founders intended. Our current mess of gun laws (more than 20,000 was the last figure I saw) would not have offended them, it would have outraged them.

 

[jimh406]

The idea that cops are "trained professionals" is factually false.

Of course, that was one of my points.

 

[skeets]

What is LTC?

 

[skeets]

The idea that cops are "trained professionals" is factually false. MOST cops do no more than the basics necessary to maintain qualification, and that qualification level is pathetic. Who says? Men like Massad Ayoob and John Farnam, and others of their caliber. (And if you don't know those names, you don't know enough about the topic to comment knowledgeably. Of course, the First Amendment says you are welcome to comment ignorantly.)

They estimate that crediting 10% of sworn police officers with being competent with guns, or even caring at all about being competent with guns, is erring on the generous side.

 

[ken erickson]

That word, "right", does not belong in equation marks. It IS a fundamental right, and it has nothing to do with deer hunting.

Nor is there any honest question about what the Founders intended. Our current mess of gun laws (more than 20,000 was the last figure I saw) would not have offended them, it would have outraged them.

Correct! Also the original 10 amendments , are an addition , not a change , to the US constitution , also known as the Bill Of Rights.

 

[Killer Bee]

What is LTC?

License
To
Carry

 

[Killer Bee]

curious, why would you sell green walnuts ?

because that's the right time to harvest them and sell them to the hullers.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=8210148119027288&id=100067576855633

 

[Henro]

I’m not into guns, but I don’t think I view them any differently than a workshop tool.

I can share a related experience from the past. Probably 10 years ago now. My wife and I were at a buffet restaurant for lunch, and one person there had a holster on his hip, with a firearm in it, and when I noticed that it actually made me feel more secure.

I guess I’m a realist and I know there’s a lot of loose guns around and it’s the people that shouldn’t have them that you have to worry about. I mean, those guys have no training at all and may not even know how to properly position a firearm when they’re firing it! And they will have those guns whether or not good people do.

So given the choice of having decent people armed, if they desire to be, in public, rather than not, I will take that any day of the week. If for no other reason than the undesirables will be carrying every day of the week whether the good people do or not.

That’s my take on it…

 

[ken erickson]

While I have a CCW license I would not open carry. Not that I have a constitution issue with it, but in my mind, open carry gives up the element of surprise if a bad actor wants to do harm.

 

[Poohbear]

What is LTC?

License to Carry, here in Tx that is what our handgun license is now called instead of "concealed carry" as WE are one of the OPEN CARRY States if licensed. If not licensed You can possess a concealed handgun in your car but can't take it with you into say a store etc..
I still carry concealed however. I prefer the scum to wonder " does he or doesn't he ?".

 

[forky]

I also have a carry permit and exercise my right daily.
I could be wrong, but I believe if a business posts the no carry
sign outside they are liable for any altercation that happens on
their property, and if no sign is posted the State is liable. It seems
to me to be wise and conform to State laws as a business and allow
cc on your property.

 

[bobnic]

License to Carry, here in Tx that is what our handgun license is now called instead of "concealed carry" as WE are one of the OPEN CARRY States if licensed. If not licensed You can possess a concealed handgun in your car but can't take it with you into say a store etc..
I still carry concealed however. I prefer the scum to wonder " does he or doesn't he ?".

If what you're saying about Texas law is accurate, then Texas is not really a Constitutional Carry state. Constitutional Carry means no license is required for concealed or open carry in or outside your car for non-prohibited persons.

 

[GeoHorn]

Texas is a Constitutional Carry state.

I recommend to my friends that they attend a CC course and obtain the LTC for no other reason …….(besides the valuable education it affords, even to experienced gun owners)… it allows most, if not all, of the same privileges when traveling in reciprocal states.

I feel that “Open Carry” makes one a target. If a bad actor intends to massacre anyplace…I suspect he/she would desire to first identify and remove any armed opponents. (Plus the fact that open display of any firearm …other than at a sporting/shooting-event… is simply Rude! )

My earlier comment was intended to express my desire that Federal Law pre-empt state-laws in such cases… so that a LTC holder might maintain his “right” to carry in Illinois, NY, etc etc. <edit> Let me specifically add CA!)

PS: It does not diminish anyone’s “rights” if I place quotation marks around a word. It only places that word in isolation for context and emphasis.

 

[Scm]

Dangerous freedom or peaceful slavery

 

[The Evil Twin]

We would not go shopping or spend our money if there was a ‘gun-free-zone’ sign at a grocery (or other place for that matter). However I do appreciate when they post that they discriminate against my kind…that way I don’t accidentally support their business.

Agreed. Although sometimes I have to. I keep on carrying anyway. Under law here, they can only ask you to leave. No criminal or civil penalty unless you don’t leave.

 

[GeoHorn]

Agreed. Although sometimes I have to. I keep on carrying anyway. Under law here, they can only ask you to leave. No criminal or civil penalty unless you don’t leave.

Soo… you and GrumpyFarmer don’t believe a property-owner should have control over what happens on his own property…. heh…? It’s what-ever YOU want to do on other people’s property that counts… ?

(it was rhetorical… there are two convenience stores near my place…. One has a “No Carry” sign on the entrance…. the other is where I shop.)

One of the reasons gun-owners face such fierce opposition….is because, frequently they are so aggressive and dis-regarding of the feelings of others on the subject. Deliberately disregarding a property-owner;s posted sign is flagrantly aggressive. And wrong.

 

[GrumpyFarmer]

In our state, to be legal, the sign and verbiage ‘shall’ comply with the wording included in the revised code. So if not

Soo… you and GrumpyFarmer don’t believe a property-owner should have control over what happens on his own property…. heh…? It’s what-ever YOU want to do on other people’s property that counts… ?

(it was rhetorical… there are two convenience stores near my place…. One has a “No Carry” sign on the entrance…. the other is where I shop.)

One of the reasons gun-owners face such fierce opposition….is because, frequently they are so aggressive and dis-regarding of the feelings of others on the subject. Deliberately disregarding a property-owner;s posted sign is flagrantly aggressive. And wrong.

Nice straw person argument…the virtue signaling is very strong for a Monday, but it’s always easier to look down on others from the clouds…maybe it’s more I do not think places open to the public should discriminate, especially if a place of business is using any of the services provided by the common good (tax base)…sidewalks, streets, city services, utilities, etc). Takes an awful lot of talent to tell people that help support the community they are not welcome….awful lot of talent. If someone wants to discriminate others go ahead, do at a private residence space not the open to public space. As soon as one lumps others together thy should look in the mirror at how thy are dividing and discriminating.

 

[GeoHorn]

In our state, to be legal, the sign and verbiage ‘shall’ comply with the wording included in the revised code. So if not

Nice straw person argument…the virtue signaling is very strong for a Monday, but it’s always easier to look down on others from the clouds…maybe it’s more I do not think places open to the public should discriminate, especially if a place of business is using any of the services provided by the common good (tax base)…sidewalks, streets, city services, utilities, etc). Takes an awful lot of talent to tell people that help support the community they are not welcome….awful lot of talent. If someone wants to discriminate others go ahead, do at a private residence space not the open to public space. As soon as one lumps others together thy should look in the mirror at how thy are dividing and discriminating.

Ad hominem attack on me does not justify your logic. It only show how defective it is.’
’
It make No Difference if My Property adjoins public streets or sidewalks. If I own it …or lease it… and run my business …it’s My Property. it’s not “Discrimination” . Your logic is demonstrably defective. It’s not Discrimination any more than it would be to require you to wear clothing and shoes in my restaraunt….or to have a no smoking policy…. or to leave your gun elsewhere if you enter my property.

You need to clean up and clarify your thinking.. It’s another example of how some hot-headed gun owners lose relevance., and fail to meet simple norms of society, that contribute to the public misunderstandings on the subject.
BTW: Here’s one of the Best Store Signs I’ve encountered:

(Note the final line below… Are you one who is offended by store-owners signs ?)

 

[ken erickson]

Geo,

Just to clarify your position, would it then be permissible to refuse service for said business owner to refuse entrance or service based on sex, color of skin, religion? If so, what is the distinction between these subsets of customers?

I personally do not see the distinction between discrimination between that set of people or a person legally able to carry a concealed weapon even though some State laws pertaining to businesses open to the public can choose to discriminate against CCW and open carry patrons.