You and I will never see the world the same way. I did eight years in the Army (including Vietnam), worked as a city police officer and a county deputy sheriff and a deputy coroner and doubled part of the time as a paramedic. After 50 years of dealing with all the shit that no one else wanted to deal with, or even acknowledge, I have a very low opinion of people. There is no point in discussing this further, with you.
Constitutional Carry in Kentucky
- Thread starter 338 Mollett
- Start date
What you or I have done for a living or your opinion of people has no bearing on the right of someone to defend themselves. Having said that Thank you for your military service. I agree this conversation has run it's course and no good is going to come of it past this point.
Thank you for your service.
I would like to invite more police officers opinion on this ,I think their perspective would be very interesting.With a topic such as this it is hard to hit the nail exactly on the head with out bringing about emotions and something taken out of context.Our bunch here is a motley crew but it is our bunch.In the future I will try to be more articulate in describing my thoughts.
Spot on!
One should not need a gov't permission slip, or training endorsement to exercise one's God given rights.
That is unequivocally understood with regards to the remainder of the Bill of Rights.
I never implied people don't have a right to defend themselves.I'm close to covering most bases ,bear with me.
My Father and Brother are both retired LEO. While both agree that the 2nd amendment is golden, they both think a person shouldn't carry concealed unless it's a current or retired LEO. That seems to be the prevalent attitude of a whole lot of LEO that I've spoken with. I disagree.
Rick300
Gold $$ Contributor
I absolutely agree, but when I hear of these yayhoo's wanting to carry their big bad AR's or 50 cal pistols "because they can" into public places like restaurants or such, that just burns me up. I'm not a fan of open carry and I can't think of ONE good reason to do so. Concealed carry, now that I'm a fan of.
Several points have been made from many perspectives with merit.The debate boils down to a chicken or the egg thing,if the world was a better place people wouldn't need to carry guns.I should have asked myself a better question "Is there a need for a responsible adult to carry a gun? " I have to say yes.Safety for good people is always my concern in every aspect.Isn't it a shame that our society has become so morally bankrupt that everyday folks need to carry a gun ?
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of
force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception.
Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through
persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and
the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason
and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or
employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with
a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload
of drunken guys with baseball bats.
The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between
a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all
guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's
potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative
fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful
living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal
force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with
a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works
solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both
are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian
as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as
a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot
be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because
it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who
would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would
do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why
carrying a gun is a civilized act.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of
force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception.
Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through
persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and
the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason
and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or
employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with
a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload
of drunken guys with baseball bats.
The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between
a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all
guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's
potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative
fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful
living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal
force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with
a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works
solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both
are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian
as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as
a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot
be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because
it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who
would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would
do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why
carrying a gun is a civilized act.
I agree as well. But that's as much a matter of civility, good taste, and etiquette; much like bathing, and wearing clean clothes and not talking/ acting obnoxiously in public, not an issue that requires governmental intervention.
I don't advertise that I'm armed.
Open carry should be legal, even though most urban/ suburban people aren't prepared to see it.
It is fine in the boonies.
The guys with the ARs in Starbucks, wearing the t-shirts with the catchy phrases, do not make a positive impression on anyone, on any side of the firearms issue.
They are not on my side.
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety neither deserve nor will receive either"
Benjamin Franklin
Taken farther, look at the countries that have banned ownership of firearms like England and Australia. Yes they boast of less firearm crimes, but their overall violent crime rates have skyrocketed.
How about Chicago with the strictest firearm requirements in the U.S.?
If I deny liberty to anyone else, I deny it to myself.....period.
In order to implement any kind of restrictions we have to TRUST politicians.
Although the thoughts of some men might be idealistic, this world is not.
Think about it.
"The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and Bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed"
The interpretation of Chief Justice Anthony Scalia.
Benjamin Franklin
Taken farther, look at the countries that have banned ownership of firearms like England and Australia. Yes they boast of less firearm crimes, but their overall violent crime rates have skyrocketed.
How about Chicago with the strictest firearm requirements in the U.S.?
If I deny liberty to anyone else, I deny it to myself.....period.
In order to implement any kind of restrictions we have to TRUST politicians.
Although the thoughts of some men might be idealistic, this world is not.
Think about it.
"The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and Bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed"
The interpretation of Chief Justice Anthony Scalia.
Last edited:
A whole lot of different thoughts in here and every one of the seems right on one train of thought or another.
I do feel that a gun worn in public should not be out in the view of all to see, if someone sees mine it will be because it prints though my shirt unintentionally. If I'm hiking the Allegheny national forest my pistol will be on the outside of my pants with my shirt tucked in because of ticks and other creepy crawlies.
I do feel that a gun worn in public should not be out in the view of all to see, if someone sees mine it will be because it prints though my shirt unintentionally. If I'm hiking the Allegheny national forest my pistol will be on the outside of my pants with my shirt tucked in because of ticks and other creepy crawlies.
TAJ45
Silver $$ Contributor
As would I, with both of you Kaintucks. You are also invited up my way. I have a large 700 yard berm plus the 250 warm up. Speed steel also.
Last edited:
snert
Silver $$ Contributor
LEO here.
I think everyone is an idiot. Job does that to ya, no apologies. But all idiots have the right to carry. I personally wish they would conceal it, cause when they don't they look like the idiots they are. I really don't care if nincompoops carry. They drive every day. They kill innocent people. But we still get in our cars, a convenience, not a right. And before anyone starts on the "till they kill one of yours" thing, let me say that they already did. i still believe in the fundemental right to self defense, even for the stupid.
In a perfect world idiots that maliciously kill others would be put down, right there. But that ain't happening either. So, till God steps back onto the scene personally, i think every man has the right to carry, till he forfeits it with a crime.
I think everyone is an idiot. Job does that to ya, no apologies. But all idiots have the right to carry. I personally wish they would conceal it, cause when they don't they look like the idiots they are. I really don't care if nincompoops carry. They drive every day. They kill innocent people. But we still get in our cars, a convenience, not a right. And before anyone starts on the "till they kill one of yours" thing, let me say that they already did. i still believe in the fundemental right to self defense, even for the stupid.
In a perfect world idiots that maliciously kill others would be put down, right there. But that ain't happening either. So, till God steps back onto the scene personally, i think every man has the right to carry, till he forfeits it with a crime.
I was with you all the way until I read this last statement. I have to respectfully disagree for the following reasons:
1) Criminals by definition, do NOT obey laws. Just a wild guess, but would bet that none of the people in your profession would approach a known convicted violent criminal and ASSUME he/they are unarmed because there is a law that says so...so what good the law?
2) I have read and heard numerous times that any person in the U.S. can get up in the morning, eat breakfast and walk out to their car and have committed several "crimes" in the process. With the number of "feel good reasonable sounding" laws on the books in this country, I don't doubt that's true. Also there a several non violent felony laws that would have nothing to do with a convicted individuals of those type of laws, propensity to commit violent crimes but would interfere with their background check.
3) On occasion there have to be some convicted felony criminals that learn and change and become good and honest people. Should they be denied the God given right to self defense of themself and possibly their family against the violence of those still on the other side so to speak?
4) Too often those "FEEL GOOD REASONABLE SOUNDING" laws are DANGEROUS!
In my mind, it's the biggest reason today that this country is essentially bankrupt.
The main goal of 99.99% of politicians and lawmakers is to GET ELECTED OR RE ELECTED. They know and realize that if they come out with simple truth as their platform, they will go home a loser. The old "Vote for me and I'll take from them and give to you" is as sound today as it has been for the last several thousand years in politics I'm afraid.
SO...in my humble opinion, the second amendment should be left alone as it is ...simple and clear. Yes, liberty and free society can be dangerous too but I would choose it over the alternative.
JMHO and THANKS for your service.
snert
Silver $$ Contributor
Hey 22,
i get what you are saying. In my simple brain I was thinking "Convicted criminals (in my perfect world) are incarcerated, punished, proscribed from certain rights...like being able to go where they want etc. I was not considering the "breaking of (stupid) laws, of which there are too many i agree, in the arcane way suggested. Again, simple me is thinking, if you thieve, rape, burn, destroy, sell illegal drugs, drink yourself into a stupor and drive, and are convicted, you should not be afforded the right to have a gun. I am not a fool. I do not think for one second that just cause someone is convicted of such they won't avail themselves to a gun. I KNOW criminals use guns. But then again, being a simple guy, I just think that if that is the case, we shouldn't waste a lot of time after conviction with feeding them....
As far as reformed felons, well, that is the wonder of our supposed great system (except Moonbeam 2 out in CA) that allows for case by case review...or should. The bar should be high.
"So what good the law"? Law, in my mind does little to stop bad behavior in advance (only moral people consider it such). Law establishes punishment for behaviors. hence my allusion earlier to the need for TRUTH outside subjectivity, a truth that becomes an inner compass, looking outward to TRUTH. In that there is hope for morally upright behavior, and thankfully, grace and forgiveness.
So I do think we are really more on the same page than my poor writing skills may suggest.
i get what you are saying. In my simple brain I was thinking "Convicted criminals (in my perfect world) are incarcerated, punished, proscribed from certain rights...like being able to go where they want etc. I was not considering the "breaking of (stupid) laws, of which there are too many i agree, in the arcane way suggested. Again, simple me is thinking, if you thieve, rape, burn, destroy, sell illegal drugs, drink yourself into a stupor and drive, and are convicted, you should not be afforded the right to have a gun. I am not a fool. I do not think for one second that just cause someone is convicted of such they won't avail themselves to a gun. I KNOW criminals use guns. But then again, being a simple guy, I just think that if that is the case, we shouldn't waste a lot of time after conviction with feeding them....
As far as reformed felons, well, that is the wonder of our supposed great system (except Moonbeam 2 out in CA) that allows for case by case review...or should. The bar should be high.
"So what good the law"? Law, in my mind does little to stop bad behavior in advance (only moral people consider it such). Law establishes punishment for behaviors. hence my allusion earlier to the need for TRUTH outside subjectivity, a truth that becomes an inner compass, looking outward to TRUTH. In that there is hope for morally upright behavior, and thankfully, grace and forgiveness.
So I do think we are really more on the same page than my poor writing skills may suggest.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.