Should guns carry a yearly tax to pay for health care costs?

The armed citzens that you refer to are not carrying legally.
This does not happen to legal CCWs.
You have trouble distinguishing between criminals and the lawful.

 

many on the banoid side of the aisle see anyone carrying a gun or in some of the more honest versions of banoids-owning a gun-as the criminal act so they don't distinguish between licensed gun owners and those who are in violation of state or federal law

 

Well yah....that sounds like an argument for permit carrying. .I argue for arming anyone who wants and goes through the process of obtaining a permit. I would even like to see the national carry permit. My position is steadfastly simple and easy to understand. No, just preach armed no permit carry insurrection when it suits you and carrying a permit for an answer when it doesn't. First you support no permits and free carry by anyone , now you give arguments in their favor. We call that psychosis. Seriously.....

Btw, unless you walk around taking out your permit before you draw a gun, even that has limitations to your argument. I just don't take a gun into crowded areas. You are able to distinguish between criminals and lawful ? Amazing capability you have.

 

You have NEVER heard me say anything about banning guns. You just have your neat little catch phrases because it hurts the mind to wrap it around the idea that regulated and banned are two totally different concepts. Yet, those of you who have permits actual practice regulation and are proud to flash your little cards around.....as well you should be. At least it means there is a little sanity involved.

 

I train people to get carry licenses for a living. I have never argued for carry without a concealed license. I am an advocate of advanced training as well.
It's not that hard to tell if your life is in imminent danger, and lethal force would be justified. No amazing ability is necessary.

 

When I was in the military or a cop, danger was not always imminent and easy to tell. . It was just as often indiscriminate, unprepared and shear " bad luck". A trained cop seldom gets killed when he perceives a threat ahead of time. But, they are killed as are many because there is nothing they can do and it happens through bad training or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was the same in the military. Many in the high crime areas are also killed that way, and they are armed.

The idea that training in firearms gives you the ability to neutralize threats before they can happen is a bridge too far for a civilian. Cops and people get shot at through walls and doors when no threat is even perceived more often then most would believe. It's more the norm in some areas. Training for a civilian Imo, is to be safe first and avoid having to use a gun though being prepared as a last resort. . It's a far different then a cop or soldier. Danger is often as unexpected as the guy who hits you while running a light. [MENTION][/MENTION]

Really then, we should be on the same side in every debate then......

 

We won't be on the same side if you are calling for further firearm regulations.
We have plenty. They need to be enforced. No pleas to lesser charges, No early parole.

 

When I responded to situations in NEW YORK CITY, I responded to some of the worst Ghettos, I sometimes wonder how I survived, worked in EMS, I realized it was too dangerous, at least as armed LE, you stand a better chance.....

 

If that's the case then everybody including the cops and military shouldn't be armed because you can't prevent a threat. The point isn't that if I'm trained and armed I will overcome all threats, the point is that I can overcome MORE threats than those who aren't armed.

 

Further firearm regulations. What does that mean ? Every state is free to do what they want with Epcot to firearms. I think I am the only one here who wanted a voluntary nation wide permit. You know what I get for a response ? Another liberal who wants a federal regulation. States are free to do what they want and the laws on the books in all states have not been judged unconstitutional.

 

Before the legislation on LEOSA changed the rules, you could hardly get one State to acknowledge anothers States bonafide sworn Police Officers !!!!

The Federal Government could force reciprocity for Civilians, they won't however, Civilians can sue and use LEOSA as a basis for the suit.

 

You are correct....The Federal govt. will never "force" anything as far as firearms permits are concerned. The FBI has training divisions to unify instruction including firearm training for state certification for law inforcement and is a source for background checks for everyone required by towns and states accross the nation. They are the agency that would be most affected. If it's going to happen. It will be congressional matter.

Having the Federal govt. force anything in this area would be challenged as well the should be. That is not what the FBI is about. Not only would it be legislative, IMO, it could not be mandatory either. States always have the right to impose their own higher set of restrictions then those for a federal agency if they deem fit on a whole range of Federal guildlines and this would be no different. IMHO, it would be a modernized 50 state reciprocity agreement made easier to sign into with limited federal guidelines for permits. It would have to be an optional program for both the states and individual permit holders.

No one is going to tell a holder from Wyoming he can carry in NYC which has 16 times the population in that one city as the entire state of Wyoming. So, holders would still have to abide by local ordinances as well. Pretty much, everyone knows that now.

 

I said I am not in favor of further regulations. I never mentioned states or what's unconstitutional.

 

Totally ridiculous. LEO threats and military threats are as different as night and day. So are civilian threats.

 

Still feeding the troll?

 

Well as civilians we're not intentionally engaging the underside of humanity on a daily basis. The danger with that as an LEO is that you start to see everyone as a potential threat, and that's simply not a fair assessment of the vast majority of people.

Carrying a gun is by no means a sure solution to life threatening problems, but at least it gives you that edge if you need it immediately. I always avoid trouble whenever possible. I'm one of those guys that has never even gotten a speeding ticket. If someone threatened my life or my family, I wouldn't hesitate though.

I think the argument most of us on the pro-2A side is that we don't want criminals and the insane running around with guns either, but we also recognize the reality that more laws are not going to stop anything.

If someone is willing to commit murder, they're not going to be concerned about 10 round mag limits, a license, or if their firearm is "state legal".

The answer doesn't lie in additional laws that will not be effective, it lies in serious punishments and removing dangerous people from society.

The liberal left however, wants to let violent criminals out of prison and take guns away from those who have never broken the law, with the hope that somehow that will make violent people less likely to get a firearm.

With the laws we currently have, a violent criminal could be put away for life, but it's just not being done.

 

"The liberal left however, wants to let violent criminals out of prison and take guns away from those who have never broken the law, with the hope that somehow that will make violent people less likely to get a firearm. "

Got any reference to back this crap up ?

 

Would you care for the study finding that most firearm restrictions are not enforced against those who already possess disqualifying criminal records, and instead the charges are dropped in order to issue a plea bargain for the sake of expediting a conviction on reduced charges?

 

most banoids don't come out and say they want gun bans. they merely say they just want the next "reasonable" step. and when that step is passed, its amazing how none of them disappear but instead are pushing for yes, the next step.

 

Early release, good behavior, finding god in prison....all ways to get your sentences reduced. They're definitely not conservative policies. Or did you mean the other part of that, where liberals think making guns difficult for everyone makes it less likely for criminals to get guns?

Which part of my crap are you referring to?

 

Absolutely making guns more difficult to obtain keeps them out of the hands of criminals

 

And those nasty poor people.

 

Really. Are criminals going into stores to buy guns? Why no they are not. Well some of the dumb ones are. In this country, a felon can walk into a gun store, attempt to buy a gun, get denied, and walk right out the door as if nothing every happened though.

During your ridiculous gun confiscations, who do you think turned in their guns: the law abiding, or the criminal element?

Criminals do not play by anyone's rules, in fact, any criminal reading that would probably die from laughter.

 

And increasing crime.

 

Yes please