2nd Amendment and also consealed weapons

[Cyalaytr]

Well here we are in the state of Colorado. A big hunting state, a lot of small good ol boy towns, a few uppity snobby villiages like Vail, Aspen a few over crowded cities like Denver, Springs....

Well we have seen our fair share of crime, but outside of that... the debate over consealed weapons has played on an on to the point we now have the right at least in the county I live in to do so for a nice round number of $125 for a background check and the lic fee.

But the state is also looking at making the permits state wide. This has brought a lot of controversy among the people. The anti gun people chime in.. guns kill people
and the gun people chime in no people kill people guns do nothing more then fire when the trigger is pulled.

But my thought is what are they so affraid of? Are they thinking that if we make a law saying non felons, people with gun experiance, and who have passed a background check wanna carry a gun they can... may just loose it one day and run out and start shooting people because they have it on their person as opposed to being in the car or at home?

Or are they affraid that if we allow these people that pretty soon everyone will be carrying a gun and then it will Anarchy total mess just trying to go get groceries in the soccor mom mini van?

Maybe they haven't yet realized is that the people that carry illeagle are do so now and will continue to do so with or without a law. And that they have been for some time.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I don't know what scares me more. Some of the people who I know have permits or the people who don't want them or anyone to have permits at all. Or even own a gun.

THOUGHTS????

Yes this means you can reply here. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[zelazny]

As you said : the most dangerous factor, namely those who own a gun illegally will remain a dangerous factor, whether hidden firearms are allowed or not.

So the point is moot.
The only thing i want to add is that when guns become widely available, most crime becomes ... more lethal too. Instead of just doing a robbery you'll have to face gon-toting shopkeepers now. And in that case if i'm the guy robbing i'd rather be safe than sorry and shoot the guy before i rob him.

<font color="#6699ff" size="1">[ June 30, 2003 03:54 AM: Message edited by: zelazny ]</font>

[Cyalaytr]

True.. but sometimes they do that just to keep from being adentified.

<font color="#6699ff" size="1">[ June 30, 2003 03:30 AM: Message edited by: Cyalaytr ]</font>

[zelazny]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by Cyalaytr:
True.. but sometimes they do that just to keep from being adentified.

[ June 30, 2003 03:30 AM: Message edited by: Cyalaytr ]</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

i dunno, i wouldn't kill someone to prevent identification, but if it was someone who was likely to kill me, yeah, i think i could.

[SHATOUSHKA]

i'll be honest.

i usually avoid this type of conversation as i
have not firmly settled on exactly how i feel
about it.

the right to bear arms presupposes that crime
is rampant... at least in the respect that many
people like to justify gun-toting as a means
of possible protection.

i do not like this justification because its
senseless and lame.

this also goes for those that feel that citizens
shouldn't carry firearms but government officials
can... bullshit, i say! with all the bloated,
bigoted, self-serving cops -- there's no way
i'd feel safe knowing they have the right to
bear arms and a 'normal' person can't.

i GRAVELY dislike the argument:

guns kill people

guns don't kill people, people kill people

they are both incorrect.... or at least, misleading.

the overly-simplistic view is certainly void
of any real intelligence... as guns are ONLY
a weapon for destruction/death... and nothing
more... so technically, yeah, guns kill people.
but on the other hand, a gun isn't going to
fire itself (unless we wanna talk science)...
so it would necessitate an individual firing
that gun.

then there are the people that claim that if
guns were banned... some other object would
be used where guns once were used... such as
knives, clubs, pepper spray... you name it...
and therefore owning a gun is no different than
getting new kitchen utensils.. and blah blah blah.

personally, i do not think that gun ownership
has any real statistical effect on the amount
of crime in any given area. crime will always
remain as long as there is some sort of capitalism
and/or social *dare i say* caste system....
whether implied directly or indirectly.

as long as there is inequality, there will be
crime. funny thing though... no matter the
course of action, there will always be inequality.

and so, the paradox *within my mind* remains.

if i had it my way....... bah... nevermind.

[zelazny]

if we all had our way, this wouldn't be reality.

[Cyalaytr]

So if you had to vote on it which way would you fall Shatzy??

[SHATOUSHKA]

i wouldn't vote.

(which is why i don't)

[Cyalaytr]

Well then.. guess ya cant bitch too loud about either side. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[SHATOUSHKA]

of course i can.

voicing an opinion is prevailent....

as is not voting.

its a voice.


[img]redface.gif[/img]