🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <77c7qh$muh@flatland.dimensional.com>,
   mackys@dim.com (Ben Cantrick) wrote:
>In article <36996ec9.0@news.mho.net>, Melissa <Melissa9Z@Zmho.net> wrote:
..
>    * Is not mentally ill.

More than half the population is probably mentally ill, I think they refer to 
the "danger to themself or others" kind of test, that the psych community also 
goes by.

..
>  - Someone who wants to carry their handgun concealed has to have their
>permit and a photo ID with them when they carry concealed. Unconcealed carry
>still requires no permit. (That's guaranteed by the Colorado state
>constitution.)
>
>  - Reciprocity - Colorado will honor a concealed-carry license from any
>state that honors concealed-carry licenses from Colorado.

Hmm, I wonder if my home state of Fla. will reciprocate? Most likely. It's just 
getting on the airplane that could be a bit tricky.

>  Not a bad bill, all things considered. The salient features in my mind
>being "shall-issue", "training required" 
..
As far as the training requirements, are there NRA certification classes like 
this currently available here? 

>and "escape clause". I don't
>really care one way or another on "shall-issue" provided the safeguards
>are good enough. And, in this case, they require training (including teaching
>of the laws of when lethal force is permissible), a background check and
>prints, and etc... I consider this an acceptable level of screening. 
>I also like the "drunk clause" as well. I see drinking and carrying as
>analagous to drinking and driving - smart people won't do it, but some
>idiot might. So the law makes it very clear that carrying drunk is illegal,
>period.

Yes, and from what I've heard, only a very tiny number of people in the other 
states have had theirs revoked, so most people have handled it pretty well.

>
>  I'm sure Scott will rant on about any number of things... 

That's not gonna make the evening news. :)

>like how we're
>regulating a constitutional right and so on.

It's true; "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE 
INFRINGED".  But we're stuck with an out-of-control authoritarian state that's 
headed for becoming a totalitarian state if we don't curb it. Our treasonous 
lying ratbag of a President has been defeating the Constitution by issuing 
illegal executive orders that amount to dictating his own laws. ( He's supposed 
to uphold the laws, not make them! ) He's a would-be dictator basically. So 
I'll take whatever I can get that helps in the direction of reversing these 
dangerous trends.

> But I believe that this law
>does a pretty good job of allowing people who really need 

No, there's no needs test, nor should there be, to exercise a Constitutional 
right. Let's make this very clear.

>a concealed carry
>permit to get one without being hassled or arbitrarily denied by the local
>police because, despite all evidence, they don't think that said person is 
>capable of carrying a handgun responsibly. 

Yes, the difference between a libertarian and an authoritarian, is that the 
authoritarian thinks most people are too stupid, evil, and/or incompetent to be 
trusted, but that government is not. The flaw to that way of thinking is, that 
the government is made up of people.
 
While I have seen more libertarian police ( I smoked a little pot with one 
while he was in uniform, many years ago in Miami ) many also tend to be 
very authoritarian, especially the chiefs.

>So despite the fact that it
>probably is a violation of the second amendment, I think it's a good
>thing. 

For it to be found a violation of the 2nd, I think there'd have to be a total 
overturning of all gun ban and control laws first, a worthy goal which I 
advocate, but one which may not happen soon in this apathetic authoritarian 
climate going on in this country right now.

I think if all 70 million of us gun owners were to wake up and demand the 
repeal of all gun ban and control laws, it would be impossible for govt to 
resist that, but sadly far too many are willing to give up their rights one gun 
and one law at a time.

>  Next we need to require training for anyone who wants to carry a gun in
>public, concealed or not. Then maybe I'll be happy. (Or at least less
>unhappy.)

Another infringment of the 2nd Amendment. Why can't we do things by 
encouragement instead of always trying to dictate to people? Have some 
propaganda commercials about how good an idea it is to get training, and the 
schools could even pay for them. Let the fees for the classes pay for the 
commercials.



And that's probably JUST my opinion. I could be wrong. :)

- Melissa

"It's not easy being cute." - The Warner Brothers' sister Dot.

To email me, remove the spam proofing capital letters on each side of the @
in my email address.