🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3bd24h$sjn@fozzy.aud.alcatel.com>, Don Ashe
<don_l_ashe@aud.alcatel.com> wrote:

> The question is simply whether or not we as individuals have a right to
> protect ourselves, or if we must be forced to rely on the admittedly
> inadequate protection provided by the government. 
> The violent crime rate is the reason for an increased need for
> individuals to arm themselves.
> 
> >I don't want people getting carry permits because they think its cool. It
> >needs to be presented as a deadly serious responsibility.
> I'm not sure you know how arrogant this sounds. (reads?) At least to me.
> Who exactly are you, to be telling me how deadly serious a carry permit
> is?  Is that you, daddy? 

From the incidents that I hear about where people leave loaded guns laying
aroud their house and the kids shoot themselves (or one of their friends),
I think that some don't take gun safety very seriously and need to be
reminded. Especially if they apply for a carry permit. If you know
already, whats the big deal?  

> I submit that you don't know a whole lot about violent crime, or carry
> permits, or the intent of our constitution, with regard to individual
> liberty.

Haven't been involved in a violent crime. Never had a carry permit.
I plead ignorance on these topics.

You obviously have your personal interpretation of the intent of the
Constitution (and particularly the 2nd amendment). Lots of people do. It's
why we have a Supreme Court to sort it all out.

> I don't want people voting because they think it's cool. It needs to be
> presented as a deadly serious responsibility. 

Sounds reasonable. See, we can agree on some things.
> 
> >Most police officials that I have heard speak on this issue are opposed
> to CCW. Do you know something they don't?
> Most police officials that I have heard speak on this issue have stated
> that they cannot possibly  be expected to protect everyone with their
> current manpower. 

So they are in favor of CCW?


> This is the United States of America. Our constitution was founded around
> the principle of individual liberty. The whole point is not to have the
> government go around deciding what the people can be trusted to do.
> Now
> you want to decide who can and can't carry a concealed weapon. It's not
> up to you to decide. It is up to each individual to decide for
> themselves, and to face any consequences. Anything else is tyranny. 
> 
> -Don


The point is that some can't be trusted to carry a concealed weapon.
Should everyone have them unconditionally just to make a point? 

Consequences are irrelevant to dead people.

I'm outta here....my waders are leaking...

Tom

--------------------------------------------------------------------.
Tom Karches                    -- Integral Systems --               |
karches@onramp.net      -- Internet Consulting/Unix Training --     |
Dallas, Texas   .---------------------------------------------------'
----------------