Constitutional Carry

CCIn addition to the normal Open Mic, I’ll toss in a short article for debate concerning conceal carry permits and an argument to do away with them.  Why should anyone be required to have a permit to carry a firearm for self defense anyway?  Because some people in suits decided that’s the way it should be done?  Screw them!  I challenge each one of you to develop ONE good reason why law abiding citizens should be required to have a government issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.   It seems like each day some politician somewhere is wanting to pass a new law to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves.   Why?  Are the criminals going to suddenly abide by a new law because some Liberal politician demands it?  What are the reasons for the Liberal’s  wanting gun control?

John Filippidis is a Concealed and Carry Weapons permit holder, which means he can carry his firearm on his person or in his car legally. He followed all applicable laws in the State of Florida to obtain his permit, and has been a lawful citizen since being “given the right” to retain a firearm when in public.

Recently he was driving through the State of Maryland on a family vacation when he was stopped, for no apparent reason, by a law enforcement officer who had trailed his car for at least ten minutes.

According to his family, this is how the stop went down:

The officer was from the Transportation Authority Police. He asked Filippidis for his license and registration. Around ten minutes later, he returned and asked John to exit his vehicle.

“You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”

Filippidis told the officer his gun was at home in his safe.

Apparently the officer didn’t believe Filippidis, because he began questioning his wife, Kally, next:

“Your husband owns a gun. Where is it?”

First Kally said, “I don’t know.” Retelling it later to the Tampa Tribune, she said, “And that’s all I should have said.” Instead, attempting to be helpful, she added, “Maybe in the glove [box]. Maybe in the console. I’m scared of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I might shoot right through my foot.”

That’s when things escalated. The officer confronted Filippidis:

Because Mrs. Filippidis told a different story than her husband, the officer said he had probable cause to search the vehicle. And he did just that. He called for backup and they literally took the vehicle apart in an effort to find the weapon the Mr. Filippidis left in his safe back at home in Florida.

“You’re a liar. You’re lying to me. Your family says you have it. Where is the gun? Tell me where it is and we can resolve this right now.”

Of course a gun could not be produced, since it was home in Filippidis’ safe.

Because Mrs. Filippidis told a different story than her husband, the officer said he had probable cause to search the vehicle. And he did just that. He called for backup and they literally took the vehicle apart in an effort to find the weapon the Mr. Filippidis left in his safe back at home in Florida.

The gun, of course, was never found. After 90 minutes of having their personal property violated, the Filippidis family was released without charge or citation.

Since Mr. Filippidis was driving according to all traffic laws, there was absolutely no reason to pull him over. And this is where our problem starts. Why did he get pulled over in the first place?

It turns out that when you register your weapon as a CCW holder you get flagged and tagged in the system. And, apparently this crosses over state lines, because the Transportation Authority Officer who pulled Mr. Filippidis over did so because he suspected there was a firearm in the car. That’s it – there was no probable cause of wrong doing and no other possible reason this car should have been pulled over.

Remember that whole ridiculous argument about registration of guns eventually leading to confiscation like it has in so many other countries in the past?

Turns out there may we be something to that. Mr. Filippidis and his family were, by all accounts, considered and treated criminals for legally owning a firearm, even though that firearm was not in their possession.

The chief of TAP has apologized to the Filippidis family, but no action has been taken against the officer that, in no uncertain terms, illegally detained and violated the rights of this family and did so at gunpoint.

As noted by Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker, this illegal stop highlights the key problem with CCW permits and gun registration initiatives in general, and he argues why such registration requirements need to be repealed.

Denninger: Why I Cannot Support CCW Permits

There is only one solution to this problem folks — it’s none of the government’s damned business if you’re carrying a weapon or not.  It’s none of the government’s damned business right up until you do something unlawful with it, at which point it becomes both reasonable and appropriate to search, arrest, charge, whatever — for the unlawful act.

But the bottom line here is that the fact that this individual registered his ownership and intent to carry for personal protection of himself and his family in the places where it is lawful to do so with the government meant that he was unlawfully stopped, detained and searched by a ****head who has faced no penalty for the violation of his Constitutional right to be left alone absent evidence of, or probable cause to suspect, actual unlawful activity.

The only solution to this is Constitutional Carry.  That is, you have the right under the 2nd Amendment to carry, either openly or concealed, a firearm without applying for any sort of permit or asking for permission from the government first.

It is only if and when you commit a crime with a weapon present and in some way related to the offense that the government gains the ability to intervene in yourpersonal decision to not be a victim and protect both yourself and others near you, most-particularly your family.

There is no means to solve this problem any other way, as despite whatever sanctions Florida may apply to its peace officers for abusive acts of this sort the very act of registration exposes you to abuses by other political subdivisions in the United States.

Therefore, the only means of stopping this crap is in fact to get rid of any such requirement of registration — period.

We’ll repeat that again in case you missed it: The only solution to this is Constitutional Carry. 

Can we all agree that a criminal who intends to do harm to others will never register their firearm? They will be carrying concealed regardless of the laws of the state in which they reside.

So, if the intent of these CCW laws is to prevent gun crimes instigated by gangs and others, then it is a total failure.

What these laws do in actuality is restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to own self defense weapons and, as the case in Maryland shows, to track those citizens across the country. Of course, the government would never overstep its bounds like these peace officer in Maryland did. That was just an isolated incident, right?

They’ll have us believe that officials having knowledge of every gun owner in their state, city or neighborhood poses no danger to the freedom of American citizens.

Perhaps today it doesn’t (unless of course you’re John Filippidis on a family vacation). But consider what will happen should more restrictive legislation be passed – or if the President of the United States signs an Executive Order outlawing the ownership of certain types of firearms or their accessories.

It should be crystal clear: Gun registration in any form, even CCW Concealed Carry Weapons permits, pose an immediate and distinct danger to the liberty of the American people.



  1. 😎

  2. What do you know, the Obama administration caught in another LIE. Can Liberal’s actually be honest? (I’m not speaking about Buck and Mathius, as I don’t see them as true Liberal’s)

  3. I challenge each one of you to develop ONE good reason why law abiding citizens should be required to have a government issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.

    To prove you are not wanted for murder?
    To prove you are mentally stable?
    To prove you are more than 6 years old?

    • Some of those permit fees also go toward gun safety classes and thing like that. The course I took with my son was free. Two days, coursebook, two lunches, a day at the range. The reasons are not all bad.

      • That’s great if your state does that. A class is required in Ohio, at about 100 to 175 bucks per person. Then there’s the permit fee. Sportsman fund conservation and hunter safety classes in Pa and Ohio. Why can’t the Hunter safety courses be made available, for free, to those who want a class? Personal choice is the best way to learn.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Why should they be free? There is no free, somebody has to pay.

          So WHO should pay for YOUR classes??

    • Just A Citizen says:


      To prove that you are competent and skilled in handling a gun and especially to use it in a public place if needed.

      • We demand personal responsibility in every area of life, so this argument is not only BS, but not even a requirement in most states today. This argument is also irrelevant, argument denied 😉

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Your denial is arbitrary and capricious.

          You are required to have a drivers license for the very same reason.

          We are not living in the sparsely populated USA anymore. So I have absolutely no problem asking people who want to carry guns in public to PROVE that they know how to properly handle said gun before I am willing to let them carry it in public places.

          Not much different than Hunter Safety requirements really. The license is simply the PROOF you have been trained and show skill needed. AND of course that you are not certifiably MENTAL.

          Your denial is denied.

          Now instead of attacking the idea of a license or permit try dealing with the REAL issue. Which is the collection, retention and use of data from such permits or licenses.

          • Bullshit. You have no authority to demand anything from anybody. I don’t have to prove shit to you to exercise my rights, and if you believe that to be true your nothing but a Liberal hiding in the closet. How do you know who is “certifiably mental”? Will a pro Shrink be at each class? That’s never going to happen.

            Now, let me get to the facts as I have lived them. Police are required to “qualify” with their sidearm. usually every 180 days or so. Nothing against cops, but they are the worst shots I have ever tried to teach. The cops lately haven’t been do well in decision making either, if you ask me. MOST cops are good people who are very responsible, just like MOST people are. So your training requirement falls flat when it comes to reality (being competent with the weapon). The driving a car issue is a strawman argument and you know it, there is no right to drive outside of one’s property. There is however, a right to defend oneself which includes the right to keep and BARE arms when needed.

            On to your data issue. Data is the ONLY reason to require permits. There is no other reason, as criminals and whackballs won’t bother. The training issue, as I’ve said is an unnecessary requirement, as PROVEN in PA and New Hampshire. While it may make for some “feel good” requirement, it serves no real purpose in the real world (a two day course, like Anita took, will be all but forgotten in a real world world incident).

            Permits are not needed for conceal carry. One, if it’s concealed, you don’t know who is armed, or who is a criminal, or who is nuts. You and I have NO WAY of knowing who did well in your required training and who slept through it and cheated on the test. OR, like is happening in Ohio, just paying for the certificate.

            My only concern about guns in public, concealed or not, is if I can shoot my gun straight. Remember when the Left said it would be like the old West when the permits were made legal? It wasn’t, and crime went down. In fact, cops have shot way more innocent bystanders than the millions of conceal carriers. The facts do not back up your fears my friend 🙂

            • OH, almost forgot. Why do you think they want people to carry permits?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                I don’t care why THEY want it.

                I only care about why I think it is OK.

                This FEAR of the Govt using permits to hunt down gun owners stems from two factors.

                1. Is unfounded hysteria, partly based on False History. People extrapolate behavior in completely other situations to that of the USA. When they are completely different.

                2. The “founded” concern that the popular attitudes and thus standards will change in the USA to become more like those “other” places.

                Deal with the latter issue. It is more appropriate for a large society with diverse viewpoints. This requires reaching people on fundamentals, not hysterical dooms day scenarios.

                By the way, most attempts at gun confiscation have come from LOCAL law enforcement. The very area that you also claim should be our primary area of “political participation”.

                So work locally and the FEAR of them taking our guns becomes nothing but urban legend.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Your right to have a gun as you call it, stems from your true right. That of the right to defend yourself against physical harm.

              This right does not convey a “right to bear arms” in public places.

              The only reason such a claim is even on the table is because BAD GUYS “might” have a gun in a public place.

              Got that…………….. the SAME criteria you are criticizing. They MIGHT have a gun so YOU decide this gives you a RIGHT to carry a gun.

              You have a Right to be mobile as you can. Thus you should be able to use any means to be mobile that does not harm others.

              A community that is dependent upon the same means of mobility should have the power to require some prove of ABILITY in order to reduce PROBALITY of catastrophe.

              YOU having to get a permit to carry a gun in NO WAY impedes YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

              Not unless you are going to claim that EVERY HUMAN has such a right and there are NO CONDITIONS which are allowable to negate that right.

              • YOU having to get a permit to carry a gun in NO WAY impedes YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

                Correct, but in no way keeps bad people from bearing arms as well, so why the requirement? It’s only for DATA that the government wants to have. It serves no other purpose.

                This right does not convey a “right to bear arms” in public places. Yes, It does, if I have to defend myself from bodily harm, it is my right to do so, however I may choose.

                Being mobile doesn’t require a license 🙄

    • To prove you are not wanted for murder? totally unnecessary. If I was wanted for murder, I wouldn’t be worrying about a permit.

      To prove you are mentally stable? Hogwash. If I wasn’t mentally stable, I wouldn’t worry about a permit, now would I. I think this has been well proven.

      To prove you are more than 6 years old? Don’t need too. 6 year olds don’t want CCP’s they want bicycles and cap guns. Why can I legally carry a high powered rifle, by myself, during hunting season after the age of 16? I can also carry at any age, with adult supervision.

      Basically, non of these are good reasons for me or you to be put in a data base as a gun owner. It’s not much different than gun registration, which has ALWAYS led to confiscation.

      Your arguments are therefore denied as irrelevant. 😉

      • They are not irrelevant. Personally, I’d like to know that millions of gun carrying citizens are in fact NOT wanted for murder. Good guys get permits, not bad guys.

        I have a cousin who is severely mentally retarded. It’s obvious by looking at him. I have friends that work in group homes where it is not obvious by looking at them. I certainly don’t want them carrying.

        What age would you consider it to be ok to carry concealed?

        • Good guys get permits, not bad guys. This is the point. Why should the law abiding citizens have to jump through hoops and be put in a government database when the bad guys won’t? What real purpose does that serve? Think logically.

          Those who are severely disabled mentally, will not desire to carry a gun, and that’s where family steps in and shows responsibility for the wellbeing of these people. To claim that permits keep the severely retarded from carrying guns is absurd on it’s face. That is the kind of BS Liberals come up with though, so your learning how to play their game 🙂

          • Ok G. Your argument then is that every person in the country gets to carry..regardless of age, mental state, criminal background, or color of hair (the dumb blond)? Does that make sense to you? My 15 year old son should be able to walk the streets hanging with the fellas with a gun? What about when they get to monkeying around and the gun goes off? Or he is walking the street to his friend’s, gets jumped by thugs and they take his gun?

            • That’s not what I’m saying and YOU KNOW THAT. There you go being a Liberal again. Obviously, we should not allow violent felons to carry (they do anyway). Teenagers, now, when with their parent, should show that they are responsible “in the presence of the parent”. I call that great training. I’d say start at age 15. Maybe that’s something that can be debated further (the teenage issue). I know that when I was a teen, I had no desire to carry a sidearm in public, despite my weapons awareness and training. It was never really a thought back then.

              Mental State? Dumb blonde’s, hell yeah, the only thing they could hurt would be there own foot 😆

              • Call me what you want. You are already walking back your own argument..which means you agree there should be limitations.

              • My only limitations are those that the parents decide, not some fat politician in a far away city making a one size fits all law. Now, someone will say, what about the unruly kids who’s parents don’t care blah, blah., like the inner city kids who carry guns (illegally) and commit crimes and murders everyday. I’d say, get rid of the anti-gun laws that allow this to go on. Stop keeping the law abiding from defending themselves and the problem will eventually resolve itself, as it has in many areas already, without violence 😉

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Oh Anita, I’m sorry – I just have to respond.

              My 15 year old son should be able to walk the streets hanging with the fellas with a gun?

              Well, other than the fact he is a minor, if you feel comfortable as his parent letting him, then why not?

              What about when they get to monkeying around and the gun goes off?

              And causes some damage to persons or property? Why, sue you if necessary since you are the parent responsible for the minor child.

              Or he is walking the street to his friend’s, gets jumped by thugs and they take his gun?

              Or take his wallet, or take his pocket knife, or take his life – gee “what if” time.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Good grief. “Good guys get permits, not bad guys”. EXACTLY why we should require law abiding people to get a permit. To make sure “good guys get permits and not bad guys”.

            If you are carrying a gun without a permit, VIOLATION OF LAW……………JAIL TIME.

            If you want EVERYONE to carry gun in public if they want, then you had better be willing to have some type of permitting system to assure those who do know what the hell they are doing.

            Notice: Permitting people eliminates the need to permit EACH GUN.

            The TYPE of gun becomes Irrelevant.

            • Good Grief, the bad guys already can’t carry guns, because it’s ALREADY against the law. Your argument is bordering on insane.

              If you want EVERYONE to carry gun in public if they want, then you had better be willing to have some type of permitting system to assure those who do know what the hell they are doing.

              NO JAC, permits are ONLY for government Data and control. They serve NO purpose other than that. Most people who DON”T carry now, will not likely carry tomorrow, regardless of permits. There is already a permitting system that “DOES NOT ensure that people know what the hell they are doing, and it’s NOT a PROBLEM anywhere except in your MIND.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Why should law abiding citizens have to get a permit to PROVE they are law abiding? Answer me why the State of Vermont has no requirement for law abiding citizens to get permits? Apparently they may think it isn’t the person willing to be law abiding that they have to be concerned over.

              I warn you not to go to California then. In CA if you have a bat, or some item that could be considered a club (or many other items) by the authorities, and it is in your car – not in plain sight – and you are stopped and the item located you can be (and it happens regularly enough) charged with felony possession of a concealed weapon. And, no it makes no difference if your just returning from a baseball game either.

              Permitting DOES NOT guarantee someone knows what the hell they are doing. Why? Simple, because in the end it is that persons JUDGEMENT that will be the factor controlling their actions. Spending time in a class and on the range DOES NOT guarantee good judgement.

              Oh, in my state I would not have to permit a specific weapon. The permit is not tied to a specific firearm I own. Oops – bad law huh?

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                I thought that for safety’s sake that what trunks are for, to stow loose items that could fly around in the cabin if you had an accident. It also is a place that in the case of firearms a place that is out of reach and relatively secure. So in CA it’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I’d even bet (just a wild guess) that there is a law about having items loose in the car that could cause injury in case of an accident.

                VT is an odd State. When I was living there you could be consuming an alcoholic drink while driving as long as you weren’t drunk. Guys after work had coolers in their trunks and as soon as they left the parking lot opened up the road sodas.

                I was very surprised to hear that VT is still one of the most gun friendly States. With all the folks moving up from NY, CT and MA I thought the laws would have been changed. The State AG a few years back almost invoked an extra tax on those that chose to NOT personally defend their property and place the extra burden on the police and neighbors.

  4. Of course the bigger picture is gun control. Here’s an article to back you up, G

    • Just A Citizen says:

      A very interesting short discussion between a few people on that site. Thought I would bring it here to share. Would love to hear Mathius’ take on the “liberal jewish” mindset.


      This is clearly just off the top of my head, but is there some sort of Stockholm Syndrome at work here with the liberal coalition of Jewish success stories throughout America? Does Harvey feel he will be safer if he helps our enemies disarm honest Americans while Obama is allowing Iran to go nuclear? What is up with these morons?


      At the risk of oversimplification, for a lot of Jews liberal political opinions are part of their identity. Ask David Horowitz. I actually heard a Jewish woman explain her views by the silly syllogism that holds for her and a lot of other Jews:

      1.) Nazis were Conservatives
      2.) Nazis were the enemies of the Jews
      3.) Republicans are conservatives like the Nazis.

      Ergo, Republicans are the enemies of the Jews.

      I do not accept propositions (1) and (3), but there you have it. That’s about as clear as it gets. No one ever said that Jews are smart. I would replace it with the following more apt syllogism, but I don’t get to tell Jews what to believe:

      1.) Nazis were race-baiting statist demagogues
      2.) Nazis were the enemies of the Jews
      3.) Democrats are race-baiting statist demagogues like the Nazis.

      Ergo, Democrats are ..


      This, too:

      1) Nazis persecuted Communists
      2) Communists are left-wingers.
      3) Therefore Nazis are right-wingers.

      Rubbish, of course. National Socialists and International Socialists were both left-wingers. They battled for the same powerful constituencies. But Marxists who run America’s cultural establishment have used this false logic to slander conservatives for crimes they themselves committed or abetted.

  5. ” Why should anyone be required to have a permit to carry a firearm for self defense anyway? ”

    They shouldn’t.

    Who has the right to tell you what to do with your property?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      If your property poses a threat to me then I have some right.

      This is where communities get to establish NORMS of conduct for people when mixing with the community.

      Not on your property or in your home.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        JAC – “If your property poses a threat to me then I have some right”

        Yikes, sounds just like reasoning the government would give you, “It could be bad, so we should force you to live to this standard”. Say it ain’t so JAC……

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Not “could” be bad but carries a realistic and pretty obvious “threat”.

          Your tree leaning over my house.

          You driving a car off your property.

          You carrying a gun off your property.

          This is like many other things. We tend to condemn them because of ABUSE.

          It is not the thing that is the issue, but the ABUSE.

          Which goes to the WHO that is involved. In the case of Guns it should be the State or Local officials. They are closest to the people.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Well damn, how about if I have my baseball bat in hand when I wander off my property? Are you concerned?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Yes I am. If you are heading to my place and I do not have a ball game going on in my yard they I will immediately view you as MORE THREATENING than if you were walking towards me empty handed.

              Is that not a realistic reaction from a rational person?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Gee mister, I’m just walking down the public sidewalk past your house to the ball field over on the next block for a pickup baseball game. Why are you so scared?

                Should I be required to have a permit that shows YOU I am a responsible baseball bat owner/user? And believe me, I have the training to easily beat you to death with that bat!

                Rational? lol….not likely. Seems like you might have irrational fears of society in general. Are they all out to get you? I think you need to go to the shrink to prove your sanity to ease society’s mind that it’s safe for them to let you leave your house – with your permit to wander off your property.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              More on the bat.

              If you simply leave and head down the street I am not concerned that much. But then the RATIONAL expectation that you might have your bat run into another person with a bat is pretty much ZERO.

              The fallacy in the argument is trying to draw precise equivalency between ANY object leaving your property or that “leaving” is the issue. It is the “hair splitting” that confuses the discussion.

              It is the CAR LEAVING or the GUN LEAVING that is the issue. It is a combined concept.

              Lets look at the opposite side of the argument. Are you going to claim that ANYONE should be allowed to drive a car ANYTIME they want???

              Do you want to live in a world where we don’t take rational steps to reduce harm to people where REASON dictates a high degree of probability??

              In other words, everyone can do what they want and we will ONLY deal with the aftermath once tragedy strikes.

              No more “safety factors” in bridge design, for example. If the bridge fails then ONLY then will we take action against the designer/builder. IF we can find them, of course.

              People who live together in close proximity have developed rules of conduct based on these concepts of right, freedom and “safety” for thousands and thousands of years.

              Individuals do not have COMPLETE freedom. We cannot rationally expect to do anything and everything we want to do.

              Freedom is tempered by moral, ethical and normative rules of conduct. That if properly selected enhance our Rights and freedom. Thus these constraining concepts are equally applicable to groups of people living in “communities”.

              It is a rational and reasonable expectation that as the “community” becomes larger and denser that the number of “controls” will increase. Proximity to others matters because it is related to exposure of the hazard.

              You not knowing how to use a gun creates no risk to anyone but you if there is nobody with 5 miles.

              That risk changes when your neighbor is 5 feet or 5 yards away, and there are 100 more within shouting reach.

              Now please notice that I put this “authority” at the local level. I could see a system where States establish the variable system of qualifications and then “allow” communities to establish whether they want to impose the “permit requirement” or not.

              Very similar to what just happened in Washington over the Pot Stores.

              State said legal. Towns said NOT HERE YOU DON”T. State said it is our decisions. Court said, NOPE. State authorized, but the town gets Final Say.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Here we go:

                1. I expect to run into several people carrying bats down the street as we all head to the ball field for that game I was going to. I doubt I’d give any of them a second look just for having the bat with them.

                2. Sure anyone who shows they can drive, have at it. JAC – I find a large difference between a permit and say a certificate proving I can do something. Permits are issued by governments, while the certificate comes from a business oriented to providing services in the desired area. A certificate that says I am proficient with a firearm doesn’t need to be turned over to a governmental agency just so they can issue me a permit to do something. Why would not the private business certificate be sufficient proof? That way there is nothing for the government to track about it’s citizens.

                Now leave out the whole driver’s argument I reasonably license see coming since regardless of whether or not you attend a driver’s school you are still tested and when applicable road tested by the DMV themselves. So no certificate is needed to get a drivers license (or wasn’t when I first got my license back in the 70’s). Plus license renewal means nada on the current ability to operate a motor vehicle. My renewal last year (after my 10 license expired) required no written test, no road test, and only checked my vision, my insurance card & DMV record. Poof, new five year license issued.

                3. I have no problem with rational regulation – but, you fail to show why requiring permitting is rational? You are acting off your own fears when you think – without cause – that just because I have a firearm in my possession that I am not to be trusted with it. Even if I have a permit, should you come up – as a citizen – and ask me to prove it I WILL tell you to f-off and mind your own business. What are you going to do? Forcibly take my firearm from me? Run off and find a cop to violate my rights for no reason other than your personal fear? After all it is not like the permit is going to be on display for you to see as I carry my – legally – permitted weapon with me.

                So your argument fails on that score. You have no reason to think any differently whether I have a permit in my possession or not. You have no idea, so why does not that person get the benefit of the doubt JAC? Will you require a permit holder to show his permit upon demand to ANY person just so that person can go “whew, he/she is safe to have that gun”?

                Damn, I’m being long-winded today

      • ” If your property poses a threat to me then I have some right. ”

        How are you threatened by someone concealing a firearm for reasons of self defense?

        ” This is where communities get to establish NORMS of conduct for people when mixing with the community. ”

        No one has a right to govern another, as we are all have equal rights. Property owners such as bars, restaurants, shopping malls, etc, ..have a right to forbid firearms on THEIR property.

        If you want to have rules within a society regarding guns, it has to be of free will, as to not violate others. I would also agree that it should be kept local. Perhaps a local initiative to establish such a norm, make it popular to keep guns away from places like bars and schools.

        But not to be enforced unless someone violates someone exercising their rights. …Like if someone refuses to comply with a bar owner request to leave the guns with the security guard.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          You fourth paragraph contains TWO statements that are in direct CONFLICT with each other.

          So now lets assume a community where “public” rights of way are actually privately owned but access is openly granted.

          Every other property owner “prohibits” carrying of guns on their property.

          Requiring you to get a permit does not eliminate your “free will” to own or carry a gun.

          Unless you are going to argue that your “free will” should have ZERO constraint of any kind placed upon it.

          • What is the purpose of a permit?

            As G touched on below, …how does it prevent anything?

            If it is to sort and enforce who gets guns and who doesn’t, then it is violating the right to defense, as well as property rights.

            If establishments are left as the authority on whether or not to allow firearms, they can take their own measures to insure people are not armed within their establishment.

            You, the firearm owner/carrier, choose if you want to enter unarmed and/or submit to their measures/methods of search.

            I also posit that such a campaign of leaving the guns at the door is of mutual interest, has been practiced for a long time, and, if done properly, proves to work, …irrespective of regulations/permits.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              This is a ludicrous argument: “As G touched on below, …how does it prevent anything?”

              It is obvious that even current gun laws “prevent” something. You are now doing what has been done earlier, and is common in these debates over guns.

              You confuse or conflate “something” with “everything”.

              Well in the world we live there is no measure to prevent “everything”. Even Banning guns won’t do that.

              So what is left is HOW MUCH of “something” So then we must judge whether the amount and type of “prevention” is a good trade off for the costs and other risks. By risks I mean the potential abuse.

              Permitting people allows us to address the issue of Capability and Responsibility. Maybe you don’t want to deal with the Responsibility component but you can reduce the number of accidental deaths by dealing with “capability”. To some extent you may reduce other “fit of passion” killings as well. I say “may”.

              Permitting people eliminates the myriad of other laws that are really shallow efforts at banning or restricting weapons.

              Permitting people will not prevent bad people from getting guns no more than permitting drivers prevents bad people from driving without a permit.

              However, it GREATLY reduces the number of unskilled and unbalanced people who have ACCESS. Thus to the number that could otherwise use them if no such system existed.

              Meanwhile it eliminates all the other BS and puts the monkey on the back of individuals and their behavior, which is where it should be. Just as your permit to drive places the monkey on YOU and not the car and not the car dealer.

              • Permitting people allows us to address the issue of Capability and Responsibility. Maybe you don’t want to deal with the Responsibility component but you can reduce the number of accidental deaths by dealing with “capability”. To some extent you may reduce other “fit of passion” killings as well. I say “may”.

                yes, but I’m still more likely to die in a car accident by fault of a permitted driver than being shot by a non permitted criminal. Can you please explain that?

        • But not to be enforced unless someone violates someone exercising their rights. …Like if someone refuses to comply with a bar owner request to leave the guns with the security guard.

          Ever wonder why these places put up the “no gun” signs when people are CONCEALING their gun to begin with? How would they know if their rules have been violated if they CAN’T SEE any guns? Why don’t they put up signs that say “No convicted felons with mental disorders and violent tendencies”? Or, “No Mental cases” (a cicle with a line through a picture of a walnut).

          All this fear, propagated by years of OL WEST MOVIES and then the violent cop movies that have brainwashed people into thinking that all hell will break loose if people carry guns (which they do) without a permit. The permit means NOTHING. I laugh at those who think that a piece of paper is the difference in a peaceful society and an “Old West Society”. Insane 🙄

          • You can’t detect mental disorders as easily as you can detect guns. And I don’t think a full psychiatric evaluation before entering buildings is very practical either.

            Guns are already everywhere, and, indeed, edicts on paper solve nothing.

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    Several years ago while passing in to Canada my friend was asked by the RCMP at the border “Where is your handgun”? This was after he had punched our passport data into his computer.

    Not do you own one, but “where is your handgun?”

    He said in the nightstand at home. Not good enough.

    We were detained for 45 minutes as we had to go inside and wait for them to check each of us out on their computer system. There were four of us on the trip.

    Had one of us EVER had a DUI we would have NOT been allowed to cross the border.

    I had been to Canada many times before this and never experienced such a thing.

    The difference between the before and after??? 9/11

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Used to travel quite routinely to Canada. It seemed that there always was a hassle coming back through on the US side. After 9/11 both sides could be counted on to mess with you. Just before 9/11 I had a friend who was detained and not allowed entry into the UK at Gatwick airport. A minor diplomatic dust-up occurred, with embassy’s getting involved etc. How she was treated, held incommunicato, denied any water or food, property destroyed, jail cell, with male prisoners were violations of several Human Rights laws signed by Britain. The agents retort was that’s how the US treats us, how do you like it. The Home office recommended filing charges against the agents. We didn’t because she was returned to the US in handcuffs on the next available flight. Need less to say even I am in the global system. To cut to my end of the story, I had to travel to Canada after 9/11 for a series of business meetings. I was arrested at the border at the point of entry of the Thousand Islands. Seized my passport, and id’s and detained me for 8 hours. Refused to just let me go back 100 ft to the US gate and return my documents. The Canadian company finally faxed on a sunday documents saying that they had invited me. I was given a 3 day visa to conduct business, had to return through the same entry port, and go through some more hassles. When entering the US the border agents asked what the to do was all about 3 days ago and just a few minutes before.
      We here in the US complain about profiling and how the world looks down on us for being so draconian. Traveled to Italy a few years ago and at the airport in Milan, agents were openly walking through the boarding area asking questions, listening and observing. When the call came to board one of the agents took the mike and pointed you, you, you about a half dozen times to various people in the area. They all looked of Middle Eastern decent and they did not board the plane.

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    Must reading for those who THINK and wish to see how you can deal with the bullies on the other side. This is one way to take down an ELITE leftist who claim intellectual superiority over you.

    There are Three Articles, see the left side of the page. Take them in order.


    Note: Back when I was regularly on HP I would take Krugman head on. A few others did as well. To HP’s credit they even cited these three articles for discussion. Although they gave Krugman a full “editorial” to respond.

    When debating on Krugman the arguments would ALWAYS devolve to this one invective by the other person. “Well when you have a Nobel Prize in Economics maybe I will listen”.

    This folks is the “Appeal to authority” FALLACY, in case you were wondering.

  8. plainlyspoken says:

    Well shucks, gun rights versus gun control – nothing new there huh? I was having a conversation about a month ago with my brother-in-law, who happens to be a Colorado State Trooper, on concealed carry and possession of firearms.

    My position is why have concealed permits in Colorado. It is legal to carry a handgun concealed in your vehicle in this sate (unlike the vast majority of US states). It is also legal in Colorado to openly carry a firearm – no permit required – in public (also unlike the vast majority of US states). I said to him I thought that people should carrying openly at all times, let the world know you are armed. There is no reason to hide it and maybe, just maybe, the jackwagon looking to attack you will decide to find a different place to be after seeing your hogleg strapped on.

    My brother-in-law agreed and said that the only ones in law enforcement who take stands against concealed carrying, or carrying period, of firearms are department senior leadership. They have an agenda, whereas most street level officers have no problems with carrying by citizens. That level of law enforcement automatically presumes anyone they come into contact with is armed anyway and the proceed accordingly.

    But for those who demand a safer society by requiring permits to carry concealed weapons I say – LOOK AT VERMONT. Ok, all done – have a nice day. 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I agree with the point there is no difference on HOW you carry a gun in public.

      One permit for you to CARRY. How you carry is your business.

      I always laughed at the idea “concealed” somehow made the gun or owner more dangerous/onerous, etc ,etc.

      If you want to see a “nervous” public then carry in the open. In fact having a gun in the open would be a greater chance of having some whacko over react to you.

      The whole thing never made sense EXCEPT as it relates to Police being able to ASSUME few have a gun concealed. But that fallacy long escaped the barn.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        No permit for you to carry – period.

        “If you want to see a “nervous” public then carry in the open.”

        I have and I do carry openly and have yet to have one person react adversely, including cops. The law allows it and I have not been so much as ever questioned by anyone when I carry openly. Store owners haven’t blinked when I walked in and conducted business in their establishments either. I will remove my gun if the business in question restricts the open carry on their premises – but so far only government buildings have made it necessary for me to remove my firearm beforehand.

        ” In fact having a gun in the open would be a greater chance of having some whacko over react to you.

        Fact? Prove it JAC. At this point it’s not a fact just because you use the word.

        You mentioned above something I will respond to here. Getting a permit doesn’t – by any means really – show a person’s competency with a firearm. Hell, in Colorado the concealed carry permit class doe NOT require you to spend any time on the range – though most class providers make it a requirement of taking their class. All once needs minimally is the classroom time, which is spent primarily on the laws of legally carrying a concealed firearm. Also, in Colorado the County Sheriff or the Chief of Police issues the permits and they are not required to report the permits they issue to the State – and many won’t (like the Sheriff of my county). So, tell me – how does that ensure my competency with a firearm?

        Also, you wrote ” AND of course that you are not certifiably MENTAL.” What happens if you become mentally defective AFTER successfully getting the permit? Hmmm….How’s that work?

        Finally, you wrote; “Now instead of attacking the idea of a license or permit try dealing with the REAL issue. Which is the collection, retention and use of data from such permits or licenses.”

        Yep, I agree that is a problem too. A much worse problem – IMHO – as we know government never stops finding ways to monitor it’s citizenry. Control is everything. But, if there wasn’t a permitting process then they wouldn’t damn well know and have the information to abuse the rights of the people would they?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          “IN FACT” wasn’t proposed as a absolute TRUTH or FACT as you took it.

          Simply explaining the kinds of reactions I have experienced and speculating on the potential outcomes. Now take some edgy character with a gun who suddenly thinks you are looking at him “wrong”.

          You have a gun, so how might he react to you differently than if he did not see you as a threat beyond the “look”???

          If you have to have your permit renewed periodically then your mental incapacity should be discovered on the NEXT BACKGROUND check.

          • Your using “what if’s” like they don’t already happen with concealed carry permits. Like I said, the Wild west argument has already been destroyed.

            If you have to have your permit renewed periodically then your mental incapacity should be discovered on the NEXT BACKGROUND check.
            This a also false. Unless you commit a crime and are convicted, HIPPA Laws don’t allow for reporting mental illness by doctors. Sorry, that’s the law. When my Pop’s renewed, the Sherriff just asked him if he has been arrested in the last 5 years, renewal allowed.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Since I was the one on this site that explained HIPPA to everyone, do you think I don’t understand that.

              Obviously I am willing to consider changes. OR to require a psych eval as part of the permitting process.

              Now lets see how many FAKE shrinks and other FORGED documents become an issue. But then that would fly in the face of the arguments that “Why would a shrink LIE about someone’s ACTUAL condition when it could pose a threat to their practice? arguments of the Anarcho-capitalists.

              • Get off your high horse JAC, I worked at a hospital and knew the law long before you knew of SUFA. But pat yourself on the back anyway 🙂

                Now you want Psych evals? Geez, we are becoming the USSA. 🙄

          • plainlyspoken says:

            oops my bad then on that. Apologies.

            Speculating on the potential outcomes – “what if” in other words. That road is endless – as we both know – and leads nowhere. Hell, how many laws and violations of the laws by government have been based on speculation?

            Permits here are good for five years (used to be ten). Long time to wait to find out if someone went mental. Besides, if they go mental after getting a permit, how does that make them any different from the unlicensed mental case should they go off the deep end and use that firearm to the detriment of another?

            Plus, you’d have to show me with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt they could be properly identified as being a mental case – which (at least in Colorado) from some of what I have read over time shows that States are behind in getting their nutcases on the restricted firearms registry just for background checks for purchases alone, never mind gun permits.

            Lastly, until someone can show/prove that any permitting process is going to prevent the large majority of criminals (and mental cases) from getting or using guns in their criminal activities (if they want to), the whole idea of background checks or permits is ludicrous. I offer up the gun related crime in both New York City and Chicago as examples of how that gun control is working to stop those criminals – NOT.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Permits achieve only a couple of things. In my view, the proper role is to assure adequate skill to be “responsible” and to show your fellow citizens you have exercised that.

              And, to provide a much more efficient and effective means of “partly” assuring ONLY the right people are SOLD guns. One permit eliminates the constant background checks for each purchase. It eliminates the need to track guns from person to person. It eliminates the need for background checks at gun shows and removes private sales from the debate.

              If I sell you a gun there is not problem. If you carry that gun IN PUBLIC without a permit you could be fined or jailed. In my view a “valid hunting license” should suffice until we could iron out the details. Later on maybe the “hunting license” would require the “gun carrying permit”. The latter requires gun safety classes so the hunting license would no longer need those classes separately.

              It is person centered, which is where the responsibility lies, not with the gun.

              Neither this nor any other permitting, licensing or other scheme will ever eliminate the use of guns by crazy people and criminals who secure those guns by taking them from others, or by making their own.

              I know a lot of people who are sane but who should NOT be allowed to carry a gun in public. Open or concealed. Not unless they can show some proficiency in its handling and use.

  9. Just A Citizen says:


    Your argument is still not reasoned.

    Gee mister, I’m just walking down the public sidewalk past your house to the ball field over on the next block for a pickup baseball game. Why are you so scared? DID NOT SAY I WAS SCARED. I SAID IF YOU WERE HEADING “TO MY HOUSE” I WOULD VIEW YOU AS “MORE THREATENING” THAN IF YOU WERE BEAR HANDED.




    Seems like you might have irrational fears of society in general. Are they all out to get you? I think you need to go to the shrink to prove your sanity to ease society’s mind that it’s safe for them to let you leave your house – with your permit to wander off your property. HYPERBOLE IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. AND BENEATH YOU I MIGHT ADD. YOU ARE CREATING A STRAW MAN. I SUGGEST YOU PUT IT AWAY, YOU DON’T NEED IT.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I put hyperbole and straw man in intentionally JAC. It points to being ridiculous, which your argument is where some person having a permit for carrying is going to make you feel better – since when you see them with the firearm you have NO way of knowing if they have a permit or not. So, the ONLY way you can feel that comfort you speak of is if you do not allow the carrying of handguns at all in public. Unless you want to argue that you – private citizen – have the right to demand to see my permit when you come across me carrying that firearm? You can bet I won’t be walking around voluntarily showing you or anyone else since that would be just another case of being forced to prove my innocence first.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        My points are not ridiculous. You are projecting or creating strawmen in order to attack my “fear”. I did not use fear as the motive.

        I used probability of actual occurrence and severity of outcome.

        Just as has been used in bridge design and requirements for having a drivers license.

        The permit to drive a car on public roadways is at its heart no different than that of carrying a gun in public places.

        I do not have to “not fear” I simply need to have a realistic and reasoned expectation that the other people know what they are doing, so that I do not have to overly scrutinize every driver coming my direction.

        It improves efficiency and reduces stress of daily human living. And it does not IMPOSE upon your free will nor IMPEDE your freedom in any meaningful way.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          JAC I need no strawman to attack your fear, and fear seems to be what you are projecting. You have not answered a key question – so I will repeat it and await your answer.

          How do you KNOW whether or not that person carrying tat firearm even has a permit, so that you can rationally or reasonably feel “safe” that the person knows what they are doing with that firearm?

          Also having a permit or not does not impose or impede your freedom in any meaningful way either JAC, simpl because you have no way of knowing at the moment whether someone even has a permit or not when you see them with a firearm.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          “It improves efficiency and reduces stress of daily human living

          For you? In which case your own selfishness and inability to feel less stress requires me to make it that way for you? And since when is that MY responsibility?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            It should be everyone’s responsibility to try and make life less stressful for others.

            That is the essence of the Golden Rule. It reduces the stress and inefficiency of daily human interaction.

            Why do we trust strangers to act properly? Because we have established normative rules of behavior. We have developed safeguards or procedures so that the majority can “trust” that the others are skilled enough that no extraordinary effort is needed to avoid undo harm.

            This is the answer to your question. I don’t know for a fact that the oncoming driver has a permit. I expect that he does, as do the vast MAJORITY of drivers. I know that if he holds a permit he has had to pass training and inspection.

            All this increased my trust in his actions and thus prevents me from acting in ways I would if I did not trust him in any way.

            Let me turn your table. If everyone were armed, how would you know that guy X isn’t planning to kill you when you turn your back??

            What guarantee do you have you can prevent him from killing you?? He might be faster on the draw than you.

            YOU carrying a gun is no more a guarantee than requiring permits. But both reduce the chances of FAILURE resulting in YOUR death.

            What are YOU AFRAID of anyway? Your not afraid the Govt is going to take your pickup because they require a permit. So why are you afraid your gun permit is going to allow them to take your gun??

            • plainlyspoken says:

              So requiring a permit for carrying is ultimately to make YOU feel better. Society’s members must conform to make YOU have a happier and less stressful life. I find that a bit outrageous that you demand of others something to make you feel good – especially when you have no knowledge, only a expectation that they have a permit. That’s all it takes for you to be happy in society?

              “What guarantee do you have you can prevent him from killing you?? He might be faster on the draw than you.

              YOU carrying a gun is no more a guarantee than requiring permits. But both reduce the chances of FAILURE resulting in YOUR death.”

              Nothing, and yes he might be faster on the draw. You are correct, carrying is no more of a guarantee. However, both do NOT reduce changes of failure – that’s your unsubstantiated opinion at this point.

              I am not saying a permit, or no permit, is making me afraid of taking my gun. Does anyone think the government ill not check ALL home for firearms period? If they want the guns they can work to get them. I am arguing there is no reason for the permits, other than you are in fear (or so it appears) of someone else because you will automatically assume that without a permit they are a danger to you.

              Not that you would KNOW if they had a permit or not. And that permit won’t save you if I am out to do you harm.

              You prefer, like many it seems, to let government be your big brother protector and rein in society for your selfishness in wanting to feel less stress. Lots of people are killed each year by those – because they have a drivers license – “competent” drivers out there on the roads.

              I would think I am entitled to my rights, whether natural or conferred by a society, without restriction or government control as long as I am doing no harm to anyone else, or use force against anyone else. You feel rights are not mine when you feel it would be stressful for you to live daily life in that society. Who died and left you – and those like you – God?

  10. Just A Citizen says:


    “Get off your high horse JAC, I worked at a hospital and knew the law long before you knew of SUFA. But pat yourself on the back anyway” HIGH HORSE?? WHAT HIGH HORS? MAYBE YOU SHOULD REVIEW MY WORDS AND THE MEANING OF HIGH HORSE.




  11. JAC, down here. Relax old friend, your getting upset because your arguments are weak at best.

    So let’s review. It is ILLEGAL for people who are not mentally stable to OWN, purchase or carry a gun in today’s society. Despite these laws and background checks, some of these NUTS went out and bought guns and used them in horrible crimes. In mostly all instances, these attacks were carried out at places where law abiding citizens CANNOT carry a sidearm (regardless of permits). The death tolls were horrendous.

    Current permit background checks have no way of assessing one’s mental stability, and to demand that would be impossible and far to costly. But since the nuts can’t legally own a gun, why would anyone think that a permit will change anything. Just what will your ideas change JAC? NOTHING. It provides ZERO protection from NUTS, or felons, or criminals.

    The only thing permits do, today, is to give the government data about gun ownership. It serves no protective service to the community, what so ever. Granted, it is not a complete list of gun owners, because many don’t carry, but to them it’s a start. They have a place to begin, because registration of guns is seriously disliked. The Diane Feinstien’s are out there and always making noise, or should I say spewing LIES.

    I am curious JAC, what has CCP actually done other than give data and money to the State?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      OK, my permit doesn’t address a few of the issues.

      So I will change it.

      A permit is required to Own a firearm of any kind.

      This permit will require proof of competency (training, testing and psych eval) as well as presence of “safe storage capability” within the home, and proof that such storage is being used.

      Said permits will be issued to INDIVIDUALS and subject to renewal every 5 years.

      Unannounced but scheduled inspection will be conducted to assure compliance with “safe storage” and security. Failure to pass said inspection could result in required additional training but will not be cause for rescinding a permit. Not unless there are three consecutive violations after additional training is completed.

      Conviction of violent crimes will be grounds for rescinding said permit and thus prohibit ownership of any such weapon.

      Now under this system you can own ANY gun you like and you can CARRY any gun you like in ANY MANNER you like in public. IF YOU HAVE THAT PERMIT.

      I’ll make a deal with you. I will accept your proposal of NO LAWS when other wise “law abiding citizens” stop killing innocent people with guns. Let us not forget that all gun deaths are NOT due to crazy people and criminals.

      Of course we could simply remove the guns all together. That would address your concerns about “self defense” far more than ANY permitting system.

      • NO, it’s not the governments place to allow or deny me rights, it is their job to PROTECT those rights.

        I have not advocated NO LAWS.

        When criminals stop killing innocent law abiding people, then I may consider permts 🙂

        Your not taking my guns. That’s my property. I use them for numerous means, not just self defense.

        Your talking like Hitler for Christ’s sake

        • Just A Citizen says:

          So you do NOT agree with regulations governing the ownership or storage of dynamite, C4 or other high explosives either. Right??

          • They are not guns nor are they needed for personal defense. Strawman argument 🙄

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Neither is your gun.

              You have a far greater chance of being killed by a car than by a gun toting criminal.

              • Neither is your gun. That’s not for you to decide nor could you ever predict the future to make such a ridiculous statement. This is fun, Me thinks your playing Liberal on us 🙂

                I’m not in my car when I’m walking through a mall. More lives are saved by gun toters when they have confronted killers, that’s a fact, Jack!

        • JAC is fighting the absurd with absurdity. G, isn’t voicing your objection to permits saying that you don’t want permits..which is no law? As I said, you’ve already walked back your argument, you acknowledge there should be some limits. That should be the end of the discussion.

          • No Anita, it is not the end of the discussion. I may be misunderstanding the term NO Laws as meaning no laws at all concerning all gun ownership/possession. As far as the Permit laws. yes, I think they are stupid and serve no purpose and should be done away with.

            • We can run circles all day. You want no permits. That means minors can carry, felons can carry, alzheimer’s patients can carry. Alright then.

              • No Anita, you are consistently changing the subject. There are already laws on the books that have nothing to do with CCP that resolve your concerns. Minors can’t carry, by law, felons can’t carry, by law, nuts can’t carry, by law ALREADY! Eliminating CCP’s does not change this. Why is this so hard to understand. The only thing I’m saying, is lose the permit’s, they are useless.

              • OK, I apologize. You had not made that clear to this point.

              • No problem, JAC didn’t help by playing Liberal today, but he made it fun 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:


          We have established for other things that the requirement to have a permit for something does NOT DENY YOUR RIGHTS.

          It is no different than establishing a moral or ethical “rule”. Rules are just that, rules. It does not matter what you call them.

          The only issue with Govt rules is when “coercive force” is initiated upon the innocent.

          I offered a proposal to permit carrying guns in public. You rejected it. So I proposed a more comprehensive program to address your concerns over REDUCING GUN DEATHS.

          Now you reject that on the basis of somehow violating your rights. Yet there is no Natural Right to OWN A GUN. After all, Guns did not exist long ago, yet ALL Natural Rights have existed for eternity.

          • Some interesting questions about permits. Why do we need government issued permits to drive a car? I say get rid of them as well.

            The only issue with Govt rules is when “coercive force” is initiated upon the innocent. Correct, and that’s why I’m fed up with government, they are in everybodies business about everything anymore. Any govt rule is accompanied by coercive force, it’s the nature of the beast.
            You offered a proposal of “permitting” which I wholly deny. People don’t need permission to be good and SAFE people. Your next proposal was hogwash, besides, this subject didn’t address reducing gun deaths, it’s about requiring a useless permit that has no useful purpose other than to provide data and money to the State.

            Please address that statement. What does CCP provide, other than data and money to the State?

            My Natural right of self defense also carries with it the right to adequate tools. One cannot be expected to defend himself against an armed attacker with feathers. So I reject your premise that I have no right to own a gun. I have the right to own anything I choose, keyword “choose”.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              The Goal is to make sure ONLY good and safe people are allowed to handle DANGEROUS Equipment.

              That is the GOAL.

              The existing system does not do this.

              Your proposal does not do this.

              Mine gets much closer.

              Yet you rant against my idea as attacking freedom or your “rights”.

              A right to self defense carries no other right. It authorizes you to pursue acquiring the best tools you can for that purpose. You have no “right” to a gun for this purpose any more than you have a “right to a pickup truck” in order to be mobile.

              Your selected tools do not give you the moral authority to use that tool against someone unless the threat is equivalent in nature. No shooting the guy stealing your garden hose.

              By the way, my proposal was to REPLACE the BS you listed. Not to simply deal with conceal/carry. I made that pretty clear by listing all the things allowed under my plan.

              No ban on any weapon TYPE for example.

              No ban based on age.

              No ban on ammo or clips or magazines.

              No ban on anything …………..EXCEPT

              Those NOT capable of using the gun safely are BANNED from owning one.

              Just as those NOT capable of operating a vehicle are Banned from driving one, and those not capable of handling explosives are banned from having them, those not capable of flying an airplane are banned from flying them.

              Banning does not prevent it curtails what might otherwise happen.

              The flaw in your “only law abiding” is that you ignore the affect of laws/rules/ regulations on those who might be a problem in some way if not for those rules.

              All law abiding citizens are NOT equal in their skill or sense of responsibility. Thus we have rules to reduce the risk to INNOCENT people of being harmed by others.

              The extent of those rules must then be tempered against our core rights, moral and ethical principles.

              So in my view, requiring an “operators license” to own and carry a gun in public is a reasonable rule because it does NOT impair the ability of good, honest, responsible and skilled people from owning a gun.

              In fact, such a law if passed at the Federal level would INCREASE the number of people being able to own guns in this way. All while reducing the risk associated with bad players by reducing the number of irresponsible and unskilled people who own or carry guns.

              There is nothing wrong with the proposal itself. This is evident in that your attacks are aimed at things like “data collection”, or using the pshych eval. to “stigmatize” target segments of our population (Tea Party for example).

              But those fears would apply to any system. Including one where few or NO rules applied.

              If you fear that Govt can used Psychologists to target a specific group of people, just to deny them guns, then you have much greater issues than the gun laws themselves. And nothing in those laws is going to protect you from the consequences of such a Govt.

              • Interesting views. So let’s look at them.

                The Goal is to make sure ONLY good and safe people are allowed to handle DANGEROUS Equipment.
                CCP requirements do no such thing. Your asking for government to provide the impossible. CCP is nothing more than Data collecting and money gathering. Government rules can’t even make this possible. Close only counts with hand grenades. Stupid rules are, just stupid.

                You have no “right” to a gun for this purpose any more than you have a “right to a pickup truck” in order to be mobile.
                Yes, I do have the right to own a gun and use it for self defense. Read the 2nd Amendment.

                Those NOT capable of using the gun safely are BANNED from owning one.
                These laws already exist, as I explained to Anita up above. Those people have already been designated as to not be permitted to own or possess a gun. Notice that those laws don’t stop these people from violating these laws. Making new ones is a joke and only inhibits good people from being safe.

                Banning does not prevent it curtails what might otherwise happen.
                Really? See the drug war and get back to me.

                All law abiding citizens are NOT equal in their skill or sense of responsibility. Thus we have rules to reduce the risk to INNOCENT people of being harmed by others.
                CCP requirements do no such thing. Other LAWS don’t do to much either. You seem to be falling in the land of “we need more laws” because the ones we have don’t work. Insane.
                Not to mention that MORE people carrying sidearms has REDUCED violent crimes everywhere it has occurred. Without any testing required of those who carry under CCP’s, I might add.

                In fact, such a law if passed at the Federal level would INCREASE the number of people being able to own guns in this way. All while reducing the risk associated with bad players by reducing the number of irresponsible and unskilled people who own or carry guns.

                Once again, their is no reduction of the so called irresponsible and unskilled people who own/carry guns. Why do you insist that CCP does this, when their is no avenue to accomplish this? This is not even a problem in this country, why make it one?

                Once again JAC, what do current CCP laws do, other than collect data and money? There are not more accidental shootings, innocent bystanders are not getting shot by citizens in a shootout (by cops, yes). None of your fears hold water and are not based on any facts. Your making assumptions that more rules will make things safer. I say hogwash.

                The mental issues are a medical issue. Laws won’t change anything. What would have changed things would be more armed citizens in the no gun zones that the nuts attacked. But, the good people were following a law, which didn’t make them safer, it made then unable to defend themselves and their loved one’s. The bullets that killed many of these folks (Think movie theater) may not have ever been fired if not for a law. We do have bad laws, and they get people killed. How many more kids might have survived at Sandy Hook had a few teachers been armed? We won’t ever know for sure. Be we do know how many perished. Laws have consequences, even for the innocent. Laws do not protect people from anything, people do. If you can’t see that, you have been in Liberal land far too lang.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I am not playing a “liberal” I AM a LIBERAL.

              If I were a modern liberal I would be proposing a BAN on guns, period.

              I did not do that, did I!

              Nor did I propose anything that would impair, impede, remove, or prevent you having a right to bear arms. Not unless you cannot pass a psych test or prove you know how to handle weapons.

              I simply proposed a means to assure that only the NORMATIVE portion of society gets to exercise those rights. Which by the way is what the entire field of Philosophy deals with, that being the NORM of Humanity or the Universe.

              Rights, Morals and Ethics are not conceptualized with the insane or freakish outliers in mind.

              When BF speaks to the compassion and peaceful nature of mankind, he is talking about the NORM or Majority. Not the Khans, Hitlers, Pol Pots, etc, etc.

              • Under my plan, only a NORMATIVE portion of society would be effected. All other laws would be in effect. People who don’t carry, won’t. You still haven’t answered the question, what do current CCP laws do, other than collect data and money? It’s an easy question. I’m not asking how you would change things or what you fear. I’m asking what purpose our CURRENT CCP laws have accomplished other than Data collection and forcing people to pay to exercise their rights?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                You have done no such thing.

                The EXISTING laws do not deal with the issue of Mentally Ill not owning guns. Yes, it is illegal. But as you say there is poor compliance. YOUR proposal simply perpetuates this.

                Mine addresses it by creating a process or mechanism for compliance. No psych evaluation then no permit. No permit then no guns “legally” owned.

                It also addresses in home access by “mentally ill” in that if inspections show you are not locking up guns or taking measures to prevent you deranged uncle from getting access, then you lose your permit, and you lose your guns.

                So first you have to deal with the problem question.

                Is access to guns by mentally ill people a serious issue or not?

                If you say no then you have two options. One is keep it all the same and the other is eliminate the current restrictions. Because as you claim it isn’t doing anything anyway.

                If you say yes then you need to ACT to make CHANGES. Because you already said the existing system does NOT work.

                My entire proposal has been developed to address the various arguments made by you and other “pro gun” folks as well as those of “anti gun” folks who have argued on this subject before.

                Look back at the debates over the process, procedures, and details of gun violence. My proposal is aimed at reducing the conflicts, contradictions and identified weaknesses. As presented by you and others.

                It eliminates the need for background checks each time two private parties trade guns. It eliminates the need for background checks each time a gun is purchased, regardless of who sells it.

                It eliminates the loop hole allowing mentally ill people to “purchase” guns or “legally” own guns and addresses the “void” in data sharing with LE agencies. It might eliminate the need for the interagency data bases altogether. The only thing that matters is the licensing agency and your license.

                If adjoining states accept the permitting process of the other then they don’t need the details. Only to see the permit.

                You are licensed to drive……………….you can be licensed to own and carry a gun.

                Hell, you could be licensed to carry different guns, depending on your skills, just as you can be licensed for driving cars or buses or very big trucks.

              • The EXISTING laws do not deal with the issue of Mentally Ill not owning guns. Yes, it is illegal. Existing laws make it illegal for those suffering from a certain level of mental illness from owning guns. How does it not deal with the issue? Do you really think someone who is mentally ill is going to ask for a permit? Are you really that gullible or has the left got you all twisted into believing their BS? Come ON Man, the only people that abide by the laws get these stupid permits. It stops no crime, it stops no nuts from going nuts, it does nothing except COLLECT DATA and MONEY.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        You’ve obviously been in Oregon waaaay too long.

  12. Plainly,

    I don’t find it a surprise that you see things as I do. Most ex-cops know they can’t be everywhere. Self defense is as much a personal responsibility as is paying your bills.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      To protect & serve is a joke. Police are reactive to societies behavior. Making police proactive to the degree to truly “protect” citizens may happen someday – but don’t count on there being anything called “individual rights”.

      Those who believe otherwise swallowed the wrong pill.

      • Your right. We are seeing the ridiculousness of protecting citizens in airports everyday, and that’s a serious joke. They couldn’t catch the flu if at came through, to busy groping Grandma, 😆

  13. Any body want to wager on how Black Flag feels about “PERMITS” ?

  14. Anita, change of subject. I have been getting some nice cookbooks for 3.95 from for awhile now. My latest was for making hundreds of kinds of sausages. Just thought you might want to check it out 🙂

  15. plainlyspoken says:

    Waiting on some answers to the questions I posed to you JAC? I truly am interested your thoughts on them.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I thought I answered them. Check up above again. If I haven’t we can try again.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Sorry JAC, I found it and replied earlier. Just got lost in all the scrolling to get tot he points where response need a response from me. Apologies – again.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          No worries. I was getting lost as well. That’s why I kept pulling stuff down, but then it would get going again.

  16. Just A Citizen says:


    I have answered your CCP question several times in indirect and pretty obvious manner.

    I wouldn’t propose eliminating them or calling them BS if I thought they were effective.

    They prevent SOME people from having a concealed weapon. Which as I said is stupid if you then allow the same person to carry in the open.

    If you allow people to carry a gun in public then what the hell difference does it make whether it is open or concealed? No difference in skill or training is needed.

    The reason for CCP was to permit CARRYING at all. Because there were laws against OPEN carry. So in that essence they allowed KNOWN GOOOD PEOPLE to carry guns in public.

    They PREVENTED Some bad people from carrying. Those would be unskilled but other wise law abiding people.

    So I think they have done more than JUST provide a means of collecting money and data.

    They are not 100% preventative. But no measure will be 100% preventative. NOT EVEN ARMING EVERYONE.

    • They PREVENTED Some bad people from carrying. BULLSHIT! Bad people don’t care about laws. They only prevent some bad people from getting a permit.

      The reason for CCP was to permit CARRYING at all. Because there were laws against OPEN carry. So in that essence they allowed KNOWN GOOOD PEOPLE to carry guns in public.

      So your saying that because of permitting, all the criminals stopped carrying concealed weapons? BWAHAHAHA. Again, waterless!

      • JAC, in places with the most restrictive gun laws (Chicago), has that worked in crime prevention or keeping nuts from guns? NO, it hasn’t. You haven’t answered my question, because your proposed answers have zero basis of fact. It’s just your humble opinion. If a person is denied a CCP, how does that mean he won’t carry anyway? Are you saying that bad people and whackballs are suddenly going to abide by the law because they can’t have a little piece of paper?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Oh, Provide your proof that NOT A SINGLE BAD PERSON was prevented from getting a CCP and thus prevented from being able to LEGALLY carry a gun.

          Note the little word LEGALLY. Now why would that word be the correct word instead of PREVENTING??

        • Just A Citizen says:

          You need to do some reading on group psychology and how normative rules of citizenship cause people to conform in ways you seem to either not understand or ignore.

          Why do most people NOT smoke pot when many of those people think it should be OK??

          Because it is ILLEGAL is enough for them to NOT SMOKE.

          I have answered your question several times. Apparently you don’t like the answer so you keep claiming I did not answer.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Read my comment again. I did not equate bad people with criminals.

        BAD………..people with CRAPPY or NO judgment. People who don’t follow safety rules.

        People who think they are vigilantes, or want to be one. People who cannot shoot straight or handle a gun without dropping it or misfiring.

        Stop being so anal and put my discussion in the context it is offered.

        • JAC, Geez. Permitting today doesn’t stop bad people from getting permits. Permitting also doesn’t stop anybody from breaking laws. We have laws. If you break the laws, you get punished.

          People who think they are vigilantes, or want to be one. People who cannot shoot straight or handle a gun without dropping it or misfiring. You mean like cops? With all their fucking training JAC I have personally witnessed them being the most ignorant of gun handlers’ by far worse as a group than any large group of untrained women I have ever trained. Let me clarify this just once more, most states don’t require gun training to get a permit. If you think that the little two day class Ohio requires is adequate, you don’t know shit about guns anyway. In the whole State of Pa, this has not been a subject of a problem. But you still claim it is some kinda issue because you believe in the process. That’s fine, I think training is a great idea. Making it a government edict isn’t needed, as Pa proves such. Most people who CC are home trained, which is where it should stay.

          You can’t fix stupid JAC, and CCP requirements don’t test for it either. You want to burden people to ease your fears, I want to embolden them to ease mine. I want more people packin guns to protect those who chose not to. And I want them out there to protect you and yours too, because cops are to damn heavy to carry around and cost to much to hire 😉

          • GMan take your PMS pill, PLEASE! What burden are you under by having to get a permit. You sound like Buck and his disenfranchised voter line . :roll:.

            • 🙄 👿 grrr

              • My Sweet Anita, I have had a permit for years. As I have said, they are govt data devices, nothing else. I know more about training people with weapons than all the posters on this site combined and have the documentation to prove it. I’m no amateur when it comes to guns, training and tactics. We have enough laws for the bad guys. Putting good guys through unnecessary hoops solves nothing, nor does it achieve anything. It actually hinders responsibility because good people don’t want govt in their business.

                Based on that, I hold my position. It hasn’t remotely been challenged with any facts yet, just unsubstantiated fears. I also know quite a lot about the Psychy when people have a gun in their hand, it’s not anything like JAC presents it. I know of one very prominate incident that backs me up too, just haven’t used it yet 😉

  17. Just A Citizen says:


    “yes, but I’m still more likely to die in a car accident by fault of a permitted driver than being shot by a non permitted criminal. Can you please explain that?”

    Wrong comparison. You are more likely to be killed by an UNLICENSED driver than a Licensed driver given equal exposure to both. Especially where the accident is caused by negligence.

    So now lets restate. Are you more or less likely to be accidently killed/harmed by gunshot from someone you KNOW has a permit which required training or someone without a permit?

    Given that in this example you don’t know the skill of the Non permitted person. The “likelihood” of being harmed by the non-permit holder is greater. You have a 50-50 chance they are stupid and clumsy enough to kill you by accident.

    For the other guy the chance is about zero. Some accidents do happen…kind of.

    If you don’t like my permit system then you propose a system that Assure me that when I see gun toting people in public there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that they have had training and testing and thus do not pose an unusual risk to me.

    • JAC, Young licensed drivers are considerably more like to be in/cause a fatal crash than any other genre’. This is 100% proven fact. The one’s with the freshest “training”, kill more than all other genre’s combined. Your argument is losing ground.

      So now lets restate. Are you more or less likely to be accidently killed/harmed by gunshot from someone you KNOW has a permit which required training or someone without a permit?

      Neither. Permit requirements don’t require training of any kind in PA. We also have 750,000 hunters with high powered rifles in the woods on the opening day of deer season. While accidents do happen, most are self inflicted with few death’s. Death’s are more likely to come from heart attacks or “car accidents” then being accidentally shot. We had no accidental killings this past season. I did hear of a couple heart attack’s though. Basically your claims of more likely being hurt by a non-permitted vs. a permitted gun owner don’t hold water. IT’s A FIGMENT of your fearful imagination. Nothing more.

      Hunter safety courses only began 27 years ago, and only for hunters under the age of 18. It covers a myriad of hunting subject’s, including gun safety. It doesn’t, nor ever has, included hands on gun training. Once again, your permitting argument hold’s no water.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        So now your argument is that inadequate training is caused by requiring training??

        Not losing ground. You simply make my case stronger. And again, compare apples to apples.

        Teen driver no training and teen driver trained. Which will more likely harm someone??

        I am not talking about your existing permit. Stay on the topic will you.

        Why do you now fall into the same FALLACY as Plainly. YOU two are the ones who interjected FEAR into the discussion. I am making rational judgments.

        It is not me who feels it necessary to wear a sidearm when I go out in public. It is not me crying about the need to defend myself with a gun against “those people” .

        I know what hunter safety includes and its current content and use has NOTHING to do with my proposal or a reasoned critique of it. Your conclusion is pure hot air.

        • So now there is inadequate training you want to throw out there. Why don’t you just say that public school is better than home schooled too? You have lost this debate JAC. you provide no factual evidence to refute my position. You can sit quietly with Anita in your classroom now.

          YOU two are the ones who interjected FEAR into the discussion. I am making rational judgments. No JAC, you are the fearful one. You, like all govt supporters will always fear those who demand their rights be adhered to. Your rational judgements are not remotely proven or even factual in today’s world. They are nothing but mere assumptions.

          Interestingly, PA’s voter ID law was struck down today. Apparently, there is no need for any type of permit to vote for your rulers in Pa, only permits to be controlled by those rulers. 🙂

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Speaking for myself here. Fear is a natural outgrowth of the concern you have that those without permits carrying firearms are a potential danger to you and you shouldn’t have that stress in your life.

          Lets be clear on some things about me JAC. I have no permit and don’t intend to get one as I have no need to. I do not carry a firearm whenever I go away from my property. Why? Because I don’t see the need to. I have at times and will again if I feel there is a reasonable need to have one available. The times I have carried openly was for protection of myself & my family when there existed a valid concern of potential danger (like when my kid’s abuser found our home and left a note clearly showing he had been here while he was out on bond over the sex assault case). I don’t worry over him now and so don’t carry – he’s sitting in prison doing 12 to life. As to having it openly displayed, yep I am good with that. Let that potential threat KNOW I am prepared to deal with them to the best of my ability. Otherwise, my pistol can sit at home on the shelf – where I prefer it stay unless I want to get some range time in to maintain my skills.

          Personally I don’t like carrying regularly – did that in life (career related) and got damn tired of that pistol hanging on my belt. I knew I didn’t need it to be there, but had to carry it anyway.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            My recognizing the reality that a person without skill in handling a gun poses some unspecified threat to me that is greater than a person with training and tested skills does not create FEAR. Nor is FEAR the basis of my judgment on that matter.

            Accidental Shootings are usually the result of bad skills, or no skills.

            If something should happen in a public place with a bunch of armed citizens you cannot deny that the reaction of trained vs untrained won’t pose entirely different probabilities of something going wrong.

            Every responsible gun owner I know AGREES that MORE TRAINING and SKILLS are needed. Especially among many new hand gun owners.

            I am making a very simple and efficient point. REQUIRE the training to get the permit. Then that is it. No other permitting or data storage or sharing or harassment needed.

            My personal preference of gun use is very much like yours. Except I must transport my long guns to and from the hunting area. And when I detect danger nearby it is a shotgun or rifle that stays with me. I don’t want real danger getting close enough to use a handgun.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              JAC, I said fear was an outgrowth of your concern, not the basis of your concern. You clearly, without using the word “fear”, show that your concern becomes just that – a fear – when those unlicensed people are toting guns in public.

              Now I never said training was a bad thing at all – just permits. I do not believe the limited “training” one would get in a permit process will be sufficient to assure good judgement in a situation a permit holder would get into in a public setting. Heck, cops train, train, train for exercising their judgement and handling their reactions in a situation, yet we see they make bad calls as well (though I will admit they make fewer than some permit holder would).

              Why does training and permits have to be locked together? Now you want to require training – ok. Let a person go to a training course meeting the standards of any legislation that gets enacted and receive a certificate upon successful completion. Let that non-governmental document be their “permit”, which wouldn’t have to be shown unless the holder was being lawfully stopped and questioned by law enforcement. Why does there have to be a permit on file at some law enforcement agency or governmental agency?

              And in this day and age the private business would be just as capable of checking an applicants background as law enforcement.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Oh, BTW – I much prefer to have my long gun handy over my pistol too. But, damn I really don’t want to instal a locking shotgun rack in our Chevy Aveo. Not much room there as it is. 🙂

            • JAC, I’m very cool with training, but it should be an individual responsibility, not a government edict. One of the things that I did come to understand during my teaching years, those who had THE LEAST formal training, were by far more careful and safe. This was a small problem, because it negatively affected their marksmanship skills. That got better with practice, as you could imagine.

              Our worst safety offenders were cops, period. They were so used to handling weapons that they often forgot basic range safety rules. No one was ever shot, thank God.

              I can understand your fear about being in public and such, but it’s quite unwarranted. 99% of one on one gun fights happen within 10 feet. There have been no incidents of a citizen missing and wounding people during an incident, that I can recall, as you refer to in your “what if” scenario. Now, there are plenty of well documented incidents involving police shooting innocent bystanders or criminals injuring innocents during a clash with cops or drive by’s. Not sure why your concerned with something that is not common or even memorable.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Gman: ” Not sure why your concerned with something that is not common or even memorable.”

                G, I’ll give this part to JAC ( and you should too). At the least JAC is thinking through the situation and potential issues ahead of the curve and not in a knee-jerk fashion after some headline grabbing event occurs (like so many do – think Gabby Giffords, or any of the school shootings).

                I’d rather he had a dog in this hunt now, rather than later. 🙂

              • Plainly, you bring up a great example, the gabby Gifford’s shooting. How many armed citizens were there? How many shots did he/they fire? ZERO! Amazingly, JAC would have been safe from the good guy bullets. Had He/They been trained better, maybe fewer people would have been shot. In reality, people who lack training and confidence will become cowards rather quickly and do absolutely nothing. I’m sure you ran into a few like that. They were in a bad spot, but not bad people either. Any experiences like that?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                G, remember that unarmed bystanders at the rally are the ones who subdued Loughner. One lady grabbed the magazine her dropped while trying to reload, one male struck Loughner with a chair in the back of the head, and finally Loughner was tackled to the ground by a wounded 74 year-old retired army officer. My point, not all untrained people there lacked the confidence and courage to act.

                I have dealt with incidents where no action was taken by the bystanders – but, let me elaborate a couple of points on that score. 1. Cops don’t want bystanders doing anything at the scene once they (cops) arrive. We couldn’t tell them from the bad guys and they would be treated as a potential bad guy until we secured the scene and sorted out what was going on. 2. As a society we have been “trained” not to get involved. Get away to safety and be prepared to tell cops what you witnessed. Why? Because you don’t have the training, judgement, or experience to risk yourselves in a potentially violent situation we’ve been taught. Let the professionals handle things.

                I brought up the Giffords shooting only to give an example of the reactionary gun control hysteria that pops up.

              • Yes, my point was that the civilians armed never pulled the trigger or harmed anybody. That makes a case that armed citizens are not the danger that some fear they are, even under the worst of circumstances. As to your points : 1. I agree 100%. we always trained to drop and cover if there was ever an incident where something like this occurred. Cops gain control upon their arrival, always! 2. When feasible, I agree. Circumstances dictate all events. All good points!

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                The video that was posted the other night about the “murder” of the homeless man in Fullerton, wouldn’t have occured if more of the passer-by people hung around. The police would have felt so confident to do what they did. Aren’t the police trying to get filming of their actions punishable by law? Funny how the cruiser video from a campus cop shooting a student off campus is not available.

                Gman…when you were in the service, who got in the most trouble for a fight, the combatants or the bystanders that could have broken it up.

              • To answer your question, everybody, LOL. In the real world, the combatants. In the real world, someone who could stop a rape/murder but just walks away will not be in trouble either. There is little decency left in our society, it’s fend for yourself or become the victim.
                My next post will be tomorrow! 😉

          • I didn’t like carrying regularly either. The 92F Beretta was heavy and uncomfortable. While 9mm is an adequate cartridge, 15 rounds gets heavy and cumbersome. As far a CC goes, my training says a smaller caliber round (.380acp) in a lightweight weapon serves the purpose of close self defense. While I carry for critter reasons at home and in the woods, the 380 serves well and gets the job done. Porcupines are a pain in the butt around here, very destructive and do a lot of damage to animals too.

            I’ve carried at work when in the service for 12 years. We went from a Model 15 S&W revolver to the 92F. Much heavier, but more firepower (15 round clip). Never needed more than one bullet (critter kill) and never even pulled it on duty. With my 380, I have also never even pulled it because of a human problem, but, it’s comfy, and I have it IF, and I hope a big if, I may need it one day. I’ve read many stories of folks who could have carried but didn’t, only to regret it. Better safe than sorry. 🙂

    • If you don’t like my permit system then you propose a system that Assure me that when I see gun toting people in public there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that they have had training and testing and thus do not pose an unusual risk to me.

      This one kills me. JAC, the guns are hidden, that’s why it’s called “concealed carry”.
      I don’t need to assure you of anything. If your afraid, see a shrink, that’s your problem. Why should your “fears” infringe on my rights? There is no Universal right to “not be afraid”. There is a Universal right to self defense.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        If I can SEE gun toting people then they are NOT concealed.

        If you need to defend yourself then defend yourself. Why do you need a gun to do that?

        What are the ODDS of being faced with a situation that REQUIRES a gun to defend yourself??

        Like I said, I am not the one who is FEARFUL.

        • The odds? I’m not sure of the stats in the USA one the probability of becoming a victim of a violent crime. I’m not going to be one of them. That’s whats cool about natural rights. See, I can choose to be prepared. Not from fear, but from confidence 😉

          If I can SEE gun toting people then they are NOT concealed. Yes, I agree. The subject is about “CONCEALED”. That which you cannot see. seeing a “buldge” on the side of ones pants don’t qualify..

          Yes, you are fearful. You do not trust that humanity is mostly good, thus you fear them, even when you have no clue if they have a weapon or not. Just curious, do you walk around in public looking for someone who might be carrying? I don’t, even a little. I’ve been going in the same gun shop for years and this winter I finally noticed all the employees are openly carrying sidearms. I had to ask how long they had been doing so, and was laughingly informed, since the business opened. I laughed because I had never noticed.

          You probably wouldn’t shop there, not knowing their training and all, would ya?

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            2012 FBI stats 386.9 / 100,000 in the US

          • Hahahahaha. Says the one who fled Ytown for the hills. I don’t believe for a second that you never noticed the sidearms in the gun store, either.. You military and hunters always notice that kind of stuff.

            • Hahaha, Wise men move to free lands. Would you live in Detroit today? I don’t want to shoot anybody. Being able to move to the country was the healthiest thing I could have ever done. Truth on the gun shop story though. They are mostly behind the counters, which impedes vision. But the really do carry openly. PEACE MISSY 🙂

  18. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    I’ve looked through crime stats articles from 1995 on concerning the UK. They have the most restrictive gun laws of any country in the world. They have a worse “violent” crime rate than we have here in the US. In London 2012 the violent crime rate was 111/1000. There were 1.94M violent crimes commited of a population of 63.3M overall in the UK. Our rate is 1/3 less than theirs.

    • That’s what happens when you allow registration (permitting). They take guns from the good ones. Will no one ever read their history lessons on this subject? I see the Brits being culled anytime now, cuz historically, that’s next.

  19. JAC, funny thing is that nothing is going to change, one way or the other, on this issue. The laws in place won’t change, and more people will have their rights violated by government people who will use the data to “nab” someone. The data being collected by the NSA is already being used to “change” some things in the DC criminal enterprise. It’s easy to get a Supreme Court ruling to go one way or the other when you “have something embarrassing” on a Justice or two.

    It’s already here, we have zero privacy in our lives, despite the Bill of Rights. We can’t even count on NOT being imprisoned with a charge anymore, for as long as they choose. Crap, they turned Dan Manning into a woman while he was locked up in solitary confinement for over a year (which is just wrong). The government holds all the keys now. They own all the communications and have access to any that they choose. They could outlaw guns, but don’t think they can win the fight just yet. New York and Connecticut are lost causes, as is Mass. That’s a shame considering their history. New Jersey is a shithole as well, might as well call all of them Hitler’s Germany part two. At least that’s where there going. California is going to be annexed by China, they’ll fit right in, LOL

    I could go on and on. Sad days ahead for this country. Hail the Police State 🙄

  20. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    I know this may seem way out there, but, if the government keeps taking away our natural right of self defense, shouldn’t the government be held liable as a co-conspirator in any crime commited upon you, because the government is claiming they and only they have the sole right to protect you.

    • Not really. If you live in a CCP state and have the permit to carry, but can’t carry it because the owner of the theater has a no gun policy, and during your visit you are shot by a nutcase with a gun, who had no “permit” anyway, I’d say you can sue the theater owner. Once the owner chose to deny yours rights of self defense, it should be placed squarely on the owners shoulders, protect your patrons, or let them carry their guns or pay a hefty price if something horrible happens.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        By extension you agree. If the theater owner says check your piece at the door, they then take the responsibility and subsequent liability if anything happens in the theater.

        • Absolutely. Let’s see how far them unwarranted fears go when it can hit them in the pocketbook. I’d bet the “check your arms” sign comes down very quickly 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Don’t forget. The Govt is supposed to be an EXTENSION of your Natural Right to self defense.

      Yes, Govt Employees responsible for impeding your own self defense should be held liable for bad things that result.

      But tell me. WHO are you going to sue?? If the impediment is the result of a Congressional law, WHO are you suing??

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I agree with JAC, just who do you hold liable? The legislators who enacted the legislation? The governor or president who signed the legislation into law? The bureaucrat who administers implementation of the law? The authorities who enforce the law? Impossible to find who to hold accountable, especially with all the legislated liability protection they all get for “doing their job.”

        Yet, I will say that while government is suppose to be an extension of your natural rights, the government has miserably failed and will continue to fail far, far more than they succeed.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Here at SUFA we are suppose to debate possible solutions…..I think with my, way out there question, it’s a start……name the “legal” protectors of the law on up in the jurisdiction, city, state etc as un-indicted co-conspirators if a crime happens to you and you were capable but denied the right of self defense by some law passed by them. Using traveling in Maryland would be an example as posted in todays topic.

  21. 17 January 2014: A few days ago, I was given a gift of sorts. It arrived in a plain manila envelope with no return address. Inside was a note that stated that I would know precisely what to do with the information this anonymous source provided. That source was indeed correct.
    According to this benefactor of inside information, the electric bills of certain companies for the next billing cycle and employee overtime costs for the next pay schedule will be particularly high due to the cost of operating shredders and paying people to use them. Not just for physical shredding, but for the electronic erasure of documents, memos and e-mails pertaining to certain companies who played a supporting role in the establishment and roll-out of “ObamaCare” and the website. Moreover, this very task of document destruction is still taking place, which should serve as a red-phone call to congressional investigators who have not been financially enriched in the cronyism of ObamaCare.

    Hopefully, those who are engaged in this frenzied shredding operation received their orders in writing and have taken extraordinary steps to safeguard their orders far beyond the company vault. For if history tells us anything, and it should, this menial but criminally significant task is almost always left to the “disposable” kind of employees where the blame always falls and a stint in prison leaves less of public stigma to other certain, high-value executives dictating the orders. It’s plausible deniability in action, or PD, as it is known in the tradecraft.

    Real or Conspiracy Theory?

  22. Writing for the Atlantic Council, a prominent think tank based in Washington DC, Harlan K. Ullman warns that an “extraordinary crisis” is needed to preserve the “new world order,” which is under threat of being derailed by non-state actors like Edward Snowden.

    Image: Atlantic Council Meeting (Wikimedia Commons).

    The Atlantic Council is considered to be a highly influential organization with close ties to major policy makers across the world. It’s headed up by Gen. Brent Scowcroft, former United States National Security Advisor under U.S. Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush. Snowcroft has also advised President Barack Obama.

    Harlan K. Ullman was the principal author of the “shock and awe” doctrine and is now Chairman of the Killowen Group which advises government leaders.

    In an article entitled War on Terror Is not the Only Threat, Ullman asserts that, “tectonic changes are reshaping the international geostrategic system,” arguing that it’s not military superpowers like China but “non-state actors” like Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and anonymous hackers who pose the biggest threat to the “365 year-old Westphalian system” because they are encouraging individuals to become self-empowered, eviscerating state control.

    “Very few have taken note and fewer have acted on this realization,” notes Ullman, lamenting that “information revolution and instantaneous global communications” are thwarting the “new world order” announced by U.S. President George H.W. Bush more than two decades ago.

    “Without an extraordinary crisis, little is likely to be done to reverse or limit the damage imposed by failed or failing governance,” writes Ullman, implying that only another 9/11-style cataclysm will enable the state to re-assert its dominance while “containing, reducing and eliminating the dangers posed by newly empowered non-state actors.”

    Ullman concludes that the elimination of non-state actors and empowered individuals “must be done” in order to preserve the new world order. A summary of their material suggests that the Atlantic Council’s definition of a “new world order” is a global technocracy run by a fusion of big government and big business under which individuality is replaced by transhumanist singularity.

    Ullman’s rhetoric sounds somewhat similar to that espoused by Trilateral Commission co-founder and regular Bilderberg attendee Zbigniew Brzezinski, who in 2010 told a Council on Foreign Relations meeting that a “global political awakening,” in combination with infighting amongst the elite, was threatening to derail the move towards a one world government.

    Ullman’s implied call for an “extraordinary crisis” to reinvigorate support for state power and big government has eerie shades of the Project For a New American Century’s 1997 lament that “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor,” an expansion of U.S. militarism would have been impossible.

    In 2012, Patrick Clawson, member of the influential pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank, also suggested that the United States should launch a staged provocation to start a war with Iran.

    Ullman’s concern over failing state institutions having their influence eroded by empowered individuals, primarily via the Internet, is yet another sign that the elite is panicking over the “global political awakening” that has most recently expressed itself via the actions of people like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and their growing legion of supporters.

    Remember this article.

    • “Without an extraordinary crisis, little is likely to be done to reverse or limit the damage imposed by failed or failing governance,” writes Ullman

      especially this sentence.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      “Reichstag” fire anyone

      • 9-11 anyone 😆 Same damn thing. Or maybe The Gulf of Tonkin non incident that put us into Vietnam? Do you remember years ago there was a Russian defector who claimed that about 100 suitcase nuclear weapons were missing? 😉

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          yup….just saw it referenced today again about the suitcase bombs.

          • Isn’t that strange that it would come up these days? Obama’s Presidency is a disaster and he needs a boost for his legacy Kinda like Clinton needed the first bombing of the twin towers, which has been declassified as a FBI op gone wrong. I’m glad I don’t live any where near a city right now.

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Carter tried to have one when he re-established the embassy in Tehran in Aug 1979. I personally was shown a request for Marine volunteers in Tehran and noted that they were not to defend the embassy if attacked. The Colonel refused to show it to his troops.
              Immediately the MSM started saying that NO president has ever lost reelection when a crisis was occurring. I can vouch by personal knowledge that Khomeni totally outlined what would happen if any country let the Shah in for his health treatments, outlined the actions and events that utimately triggered the Iran/Iraq war. This was to an interview granted to a reporter from Le Monde during the summer of 1979. Never published as far as we could tell. But sent by newswire from Tehran.

              Obama tried with Syria, failed so far but we still have three years to go. New report? Chemical inspectors say the range of the rockets used in the alleged poison gas attacks could only have been fired from rebel held territory, not government territory as stated by Obama and the NSA.

  23. I always like to put out some “doom and gloom”, mainly to keep Anita on her toes (don’t quit yet), so here goes some more.

    Greg Hunter’s

    Financial newsletter writer, Dr. Jim Willie, has a bleak warning for America. Dr. Willie says, “I don’t think the United States is going to be killed as the host. I think it’s going to be bled to death and harvested for its organs, and done so by China.” Dr. Willie explains, “The Chinese will drain this nation and all the Western nations of all their gold.” Dr. Willie predicts, “I have been saying steadily, not until the dollar has problems and the globe starts saying we’re not going to use [the US dollar] anymore, and we’re going to force a devaluation on you . . . that is when the dollar will hit Main Street and the U.S. economy with price inflation. It’s coming this year. . . .This is the late stage, the very late stage.” Dr. Willie goes on to predict that Deutsche Bank will fail “caus[ing] a string of bank failures, a domino effect of failed banks.” Dr. Willie goes on to say, “When the big impact comes from the dollar global rejection, and when devaluation does take place, there will be three effects: a jump in prices . . . food shortages and supply disruptions, the third is violence. This is the year we have the currency explosion.” Don’t think Obama Care is going to make things easier. Dr. Willie thinks, “[Obama care] will be 100 times the nightmare than you think it might be. . . . Obama Care is a big plan to track people, both their money and their bodies, like a bunch of herded animals. This is going to manage death of the individual and manage death of the economy.”

    So there you have it, doom and gloom for all of us. For the record, I’m not doing one thing different.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      On the same vein…the Opium Wars starting in the 1840, were all because of the “specie” drain on the western treasuries and trade imbalances. Ultimately foreign troops were stationed in China for over 100 years, including US troops to “protect our interests” Just another historical antecdote, bound to repeat itself, but maybe on our territory???

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Wasn’t the holiday season this year pretty much a disaster for the retailers? No matter what sales were offered. As Sebelius cavalierly stated, the price for the healthcare is only the cost of a car payment….forgetting to add that was for just one, not a family…..Bernenke says the country runs on credit…maybe I could pay my healthcare bill with an IOU. I’ll pay you the next time I find a nugget.,

      • LOL, I agree. DC is totally LYING about everything these days. Most people can’t afford a car payment these days either.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          That headline is not a misprint.

          The number of working age Americans that do not have a job has increased by nearly 10 million since Barack Obama first entered the White House.

          In January 2009, the number of “officially unemployed” workers plus the number of Americans “not in the labor force” was sitting at a grand total of 92.6 million. Today, that number has risen to 102.2 million.

          ****working age people in US*****

  24. Just A Citizen says:


    This would be a good argument : plainlyspoken says:

    January 17, 2014 at 7:12 pm (Edit)

    EXCEPT you are taking my use of the word STRESS to literally and to finitely.

    I am talking population stressors. Think about the STRESS on a community from Unknown or Unexpected or Out of the Ordinary occurrences. Food shortage, power outage, etc, etc.

    Well the same is true of perceived or real violence. Give a bunch of kids guns and tell me there isn’t greater population stress.

    It is this type of stress for which Humans have made laws. Whehter they be common or Govt laws, that has been a primary purpose.

    They set the guidelines and boundaries of expected and acceptable behavior. Why? So the population can live more peacefully and secure in their daily activities.

    So this is not an issue of me or a group deciding to play God with rights. This has been going on for eons. This is a broader point I have tried to make on this and few issues earlier in the week.

    Much of our discussions are based primarily on Anarchist or Libertarian theories. They don’t necessarily match up with human history. So are they Rational if there is no way to make them consistent with Human’s ACTUAL behavior??

    Part of the anxiety over these discussions is the mixing of concepts in our current system.

    The LAW at one time set boundaries which allowed people to act…knowing that if something happened while acting lawfully they were protected from retribution. If they acted badly and were designated OUTLAWS then they no longer had the PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

    This was not protection in the sense that it prevented a bad thing, but it prevented others from acting against you if you acted within the law.

    Some of our laws are based on this concept. That is the idea behind my permit system.

    If you have a permit the law protects you from retribution by others and by actions against you by the Govt. You see, it also binds the Govt.

    Another concept often mixed up is that of Freedom and Rights. The Constitution uses both words to describe the same concept, while today we use them separately. We also recognize layers of rights and freedoms. The laws written in the founding period did not do this so much as just present those that were important at the time.

    The Founders used the term Natural Rights but much of the Constitution is really Legal Rights in that they are rights ONLY derived because of the establishment of Govt.

    They set limits on Govt power. Absent Govt these rights would not exist. Yet others would.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      It is late and I may be mis- reading your post.

      “Legal Rights in that they are rights ONLY derived because of the establishment of Govt.”

      The 1st 10 amendments to the constitution are rights NOT bestowed upon us by the government, but rights that existed and are not to be infringed upon by the government.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        They are Expressed Rights made necessary ONLY due to the creation of Govt. That is different than bestowed by Govt.

        Remember their origin, or ancestorl origins. The English needed a list of things the King could not infringe upon. They are a mix of Common Law, Civil or Govt caused rights and natural rights.

        I am not saying the Govt bestows the rights. I am saying the concept for these types of rights is to limit or define the RELATIONSHIP of Man and Govt. Without Govt there is not need for the Right to exist or be articulated. Such as the Right to bear arms. This is a secondary freedom tied to two other rights. Right to property and Right to self defense. Yet neither of these are explicitly stated in the Constitution. What is stated are the secondary rights or freedoms which deal with limiting Govt.

        Such as the right to be secure in our homes and affects, thus limiting search and seizure. Also the limitation on forcing people to house troops.

        Natural Rights would exist independent of Govt and be also applicable to the relationship of Man to Man.

        If these and others were all natural or common law accepted rights they would never have needed to articulated. This is another key point. They only included SOME, not all.

        But why list them at all? Because they were at the same time creating a Govt that they knew would restrict certain rights to provide for the General Welfare. That old notion of we give up some freedom for improved efficiency, greater security or a more peaceful and happy community. All these concepts were rolling around when they put the pen to paper.

        And that is why debates that reiy on the Constitution can get messy at times. Because the document is based on a mixing of concepts and is not based on a singular and unified philosophy or ideology.

        Liberty and Freedom were the guiding lights. But even these terms meant different things to different people. Take Jefferson and Hamilton for example.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          It is is late and have been ill all week (head cold) so the brain is getting clouded over…if overall you are saying there would have been no reason to enumerate the rights unless there was a government that might infringe on those rights.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            In a nutshell, yes.

            There is more to it. But best left to a day when the fog of illness is gone.

        • restrict certain rights to provide for the General Welfare.

          This is interesting, because it doesn’t say the General Welfare of the people. It does say “of the United States. I do believe the thinking was to retain certain rights from government intrusion, but don’t see the General Welfare statement as being the reason. In fact, if we dig deep, we could see that it states it’s the peoples responsibility to promote the general welfare. I laughed when I read that the Congress Must convene at least once a year. They were never intended to be the monster they are today, that’s for sure.

  25. plainlyspoken says:

    G, down here for my reply.

    “That makes a case that armed citizens are not the danger that some fear they are, even under the worst of circumstances.”

    Oy, here’s where I may get in trouble. To me it is a hard case to make simply because it comes down to the judgement of a person, whether armed or not. Now, I expect unarmed individuals to get to safety in the majority of the cases. Most have never been confronted directly with life-threatening violence and flight will likely take precedence over fight.

    That armed person, well how do we measure their judgement with any true accuracy? The kind of judgement we would likely expect take training, training, training and experience in handling situations and people. That’s not something I would expect a majority of a gun toting population would have. Which, I guess, JAC could use to argue permits even more – though he can’t show that a permit would give a person any better judgement capability.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Nicely written…..

    • No trouble my friend 🙂 In reality, most people always take cover first, and the most trained ones know this, but it’s just natural instinct. I have rattled my brain trying to come up with an incident that JAC could refer too to substantiate his fears. I can’t think of any outside of what has been put out by Hollywood. There are lots of cases of cops injuring bystanders in shootouts with criminals and lots of bystanders hurt by criminals breaking laws. Not one incident would have been changed by a “permit reqirement”. It’s a new day, so I’ll start out giving JAC some slack on little fear fettish 😉 but he has not presented one IOTA of evidence that refutes the claim the permits serve no purpose but to collect data.

      I carry all the time. To me, it’s second nature. It did take some getting used to when the military uniform came off, but that was short lived. Now, it’s like having my wallet, it’s just there. Will I ever need it? I have a better chance than most because of the possibility of putting a deer out of it’s misery if struck by a vehicle (lots of that around here). I have less of a chance to have to defend against a criminal, mainly because everyone carry’s around here and there is very little crime.

      The one thing that permitting CAN and likely will again is outlined in article. A man follows the law and gets his rights trampled. But, that is the only purpose of the permits, control.

      • Yes he has GMan, you just won’t acknowledge it. Without scrolling forever, he made one analogy of permitting drivers. You then have a reasonable expectation that the person driving has an acceptable skill level. But your only response was to do away with that permit too. I made the comment that you sound like Buck with the disenfranchised voter blew that off too. You also never addressed the issue of “free” classes, who pays for those free classes? So we have presented many things. You just don’t like them and accuse us of jumping sides. And here you are today continuing to bash..not cool.

        • Anita, JAC claims that to get a permit, training is required. That is NOT true in Pa as I have stated. You can look it up. I’m not proposing new laws or changes to the one’s we have, I’m arguing that what we have provides NOTHING that would please JAC, or keep guns from criminals or nuts. It only provide Data to the government, as the Florida law below, clearly states. That is the only purpose of these laws. The training you got was likely very nice, if you had never been to any form a gun safety education, it’s a great start. It doesn’t provide you with any skills in a shootout or when you have to use it in your defense. Hopefully, you and the young’un are practicing when you can. May I also suggest that in the winter month’s, if you have a gun that it’s OK to dry fire, to practice your trigger squeeze and breath control. Practice unholstering and getting to your shooting stance, not quickly, but purposefully. Do this with an unloaded gun of course.

          Got off the subject a bit 🙂 All we are speaking of are current laws and how it was used to attack a person’s rights, who had otherwise committed no crime. So we ask, why do we need the govt to give it’s permission? JAC contest’s for the education, wrong. JAC says it keeps guns from a few bad people, wrong again. They don’t even have a way to check if there are any mental issues. These are things JAC wants, but none of which are currently happening. That brings us back to the original question, since all of JAC’s ideas on what purpose they serve don’t hold water, what purpose do the permits really have? That has been my whole premise, but it seems that people want to fantasize rather than look at what is.

          A question for you. In your class, did you feel that everyone in the class learned as much as you? Was the training sufficient to make you competent in any situation? I looked at what Ohio teaches and laughed my ass off, totally useless. People could have just taken a hunter safety course and gotten a better education, and had more fun.

          • Besides, I was surprised by JAC’s opinion. I thought that would come more from our ex-cops. Turns out the opposite.

          • JAC wasn’t looking to change anything either. YOU are the one crying about it. You want it changed because it’s nothing more than data mining and fee collection. We tell you it does more than that. You shoot us down. There is no point in continuing if you shoot down everything we say. You wrote the article, it’s your opinion, But that doesn’t mean our defense of the permit is worthless. It doesn’t mean that you are right either.

            The class I took was firearms safety, it wasn’t a concealed carry class. I mentioned a day at the range. We were all allowed several shots, maybe 50 total. No, I don’t feel that was enough to make me prepared for any situation. But remember it was a safety class not a shooting class. And it was know..the cash that comes from the permits paid for that class.But you won’t accept that!

            • I hope everyone who needs gun training gets it, I have no problem with it. What I laugh about is that the government wants info on people (see the NSA stuff) and to do that they offer a false sense of security to ease the minds of those who were fearful of the wild west breaking out (remember these arguments fro the Left?). I guess if you don’t see how un needed the permit law is, you never will. That’s OK, because our chat will not effect any of it anyway. You and JAC see it your way, Plainly and I see it ours. Life goes on.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              First off, good morning my Michiganlander friend. I hope your family is well and warm.

              I’m sorry but I WAS proposing to change something. You seemed to understand the rest of my arguments so I must assume I was not clear enough on this point. So let me restate it, hopefully more clearly.

              I was proposing an entirely NEW system. Using the permit and attaching requirements to address various “legitimate” issues about gun safety and to ELIMINATE the existing system.

              What I got back was a failure to recognize that there are any legitimate issues regarding gun safety.

              I was trying to develop a “Compromise” system that would move us closer to freedom while ACTUALLY improving gun safety and not just trying to “control guns”.

              I tried to explain to G early on that I was NOT talking about CCP or any of the existing system. I was replacing it. Most of his arguments and attacks seem to be focused on some comparison of the existing system to the permit I proposed. He was arguing with himself most of the time, and is doing so again today.

              I pointed out yesterday that there is a “first” question. One that drives the rest of the debate. That is whether gun safety and gun deaths are significant enough to be a pubic issue. Is there reason for people to act to address these concerns, in some manner.

              If the answer is NO then the entire debate is useless. Because the person who views it as no problem will never accept any other argument. If the answer is yes, then we move to finding the best means of addressing the concerns.

              The argument with G yesterday reveals a couple of things. One is that often we can get so intensely attached to a position that we create a bubble around us and won’t let other words penetrate. I see this often, and have committed the error myself at times. The person arguing is really arguing with themselves because it is not related to the other person’s proposal or comment. It is actually a projection of their own argument onto me, or you, or whomever. It becomes a lecture presented in argument form. BF, are you watching??

              The second is the failure to accept certain REALITIES. One of those is that we are never going to live in a society without some type of gun control or regulation. We are not going to live in a society without Govt.

              This of course means we must fight CONSTANTLY to move towards freedom and prevent complete tyranny from winning the day.

              But the Anarchist and Hard Core Libertarians want all or nothing. If that remains their position they will LOSE and then WE ALL LOSE. Because they will get nothing.

              As your reminded BF just a week ago. One knife at a time.

              Lets try a new comparison. We are the boiling frog. We have not been completely cooked. If we threw the frog back in cold water it would die from the shock.

              But if we turn down the heat and cool the water slowly, he will once again acclimate to the cool water. Then we can put him back in the pond.

              Go Seahawks

              • plainlyspoken says:

                “That is whether gun safety and gun deaths are significant enough to be a pubic issue. Is there reason for people to act to address these concerns, in some manner.”

                Yes, would be my answer.

                “The second is the failure to accept certain REALITIES. One of those is that we are never going to live in a society without some type of gun control or regulation. We are not going to live in a society without Govt. “

                One reality I certainly subscribe to. Societies, large or small, have governments. It is the only way human societies will continue to exist.

                “This of course means we must fight CONSTANTLY to move towards freedom and prevent complete tyranny from winning the day.”

                Now we could have a debate on how your proposal would move us towards freedom and prevent tyranny?

                “Go Seahawks”

                Well at least they are an NFC team I guess. 😉

              • Right JAC .My fault for not being clear. Permit stays, you’re tweaking. Not to be confused with twerking! You can cheer for the Seahawks. I’l be cheering for Sparty tonight vs the Illini

                Go Green!
                (hoping to draw Kathy out of hiding with that)

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I told you yesterday you need to READ my ACTUAL words and stop arguing against things I wasn’t saying. So lets address your summary of this morning.

            “Anita, JAC claims that to get a permit, training is required.” NOPE, NEVER SAID THIS AT ALL.

            ” That is NOT true in Pa as I have stated. You can look it up. I’m not proposing new laws or changes to the one’s we have, I’m arguing that what we have provides NOTHING that would please JAC, or keep guns from criminals or nuts.” FIRST PART IS CORRECT, AND I SAID THE SAME THING. SECOND PART IS YOUR CONJENCTURE BECAUSE YOU ONLY KNOW OF THOSE THAT IGNORE THE RULES AND NOT THE ONES WHO FOLLOW IT.


            “Got off the subject a bit 🙂 All we are speaking of are current laws and how it was used to attack a person’s rights, who had otherwise committed no crime. So we ask, why do we need the govt to give it’s permission?” WRONG QUESION. SHOULD BE IS GUN SAFETY AND DEATHS A LEGITIMAT CONCERN REQUIRING SOME ACTION BY PEOPLE INSTEAD OF INDIVIDUALS. IS IT A LEGITIMATE COMMUNITY CONCERN.

            “JAC contest’s for the education, wrong.” ONCE AGAIN YOU SAY TRAINING IS GOOD THEN CLAIM IT IS WRONG.

            ” JAC says it keeps guns from a few bad people, wrong again.” YES, WRONG AGAIN. I NEVER SAID THAT.

            “They don’t even have a way to check if there are any mental issues.” TRUE. THAT IS THE FLAW WITH THE EXISTING SYSTEM, WHICH I WAS NOT DISCUSSING.

            ” These are things JAC wants, but none of which are currently happening.” YES, SO YOU USE THEY ARE NOT HAPPENING TO ATTACK A PROPOSAL THAT WOULD MAKE THEM HAPPEN. SO STRANGE.

            ” That brings us back to the original question, since all of JAC’s ideas on what purpose they serve don’t hold water, what purpose do the permits really have?” YOUR CLAIM MADE WITH NO BASIS IN FACT, BECAUSE YOU ARE CRITICIZING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT MY PROPOSAL. YOU ATTACK THE WORD “PERMIT” BASED ON ITS CURRENT MANIFESTATION.




  26. Florida’s concealed carry law states: “The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall maintain an automated listing of licenseholders and pertinent information, and such information shall be available online, upon request, at all times to all law enforcement agencies through the Florida Crime Information Center.”

    JAC, DATA DATA DATA on law abiding citizens.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Yup, just like your drivers license.

      And your license to have nitrogen fertilizer.

      And your license to have explosives.

      And your license to fly a plane or operate a boat.

      And your hunting and fishing license.

      So in your mind why should the Govt agencies that issue licenses NOT keep the data on the licenses? I am guessing the next time you went in and they said you had to rill all the forms out again because they had no data you would be the first to scream about Govt inefficiency and stupidity.

      The issue raised earlier, and one I gave an example of, is the broadcasting of that data without an Appropriate Request. That information should be considered subject to unreasonable search rules, but not as stringent as searching your personal affects.

  27. Just for the hell of it, look at Maryland recently. Governor O’Malley gives any true Communist a run for the money when it comes to control. He is pro just about anything you are against, abortion, Gun Control, illegal aliens DL’s, gay marriage, gay adoptions, welfare, food stamps, amnesty, you name it. This is the state with the highest number of highway cameras per mile (I got nailed by one). It is also one of the dumbest ones. When I paid the fine, my dyslexia had me write room 414 instead of room 441. After three months, the check was returned to me uncashed with a note telling me I sent it top the wrong room. Rather than walk it down the hall, they mailed it back! Needless to say, they can go fish. When you want communism, just dial “O” for O’Malley.

  28. plainlyspoken says:

    OK, don’t laugh, but I enjoy watching Dr. Phil. G – stop that snickering! 😉 Early am hours this morning while working on classwork for the college courses I am currently taking, I watched yesterday’s show. I’ll give you a quick overview and I am interested in all of your thoughts.

    In 2012, in a small town in Indiana five boys (one was 21, the other four under 18) went looking for a house in the neighborhood to burglarize. After knocking on several door to make sure no one was home they found one they decided to enter and steal from. They went around the back of the house and broke in through the back door into the kitchen. Inside the kitchen they saw a man’s wallet and watch sitting on the kitchen counter, indicating someone was in the home – but they continued with the plan of burglarizing the house.

    Within moments of entering the home, the homeowner came down from upstairs – where he’d been woken from his sleep by sounds of people in his house. He was armed with his legally owned handgun and upon getting downstairs and finding himself facing five young men in his home the owner fired at the intruders. His first shot hit the 21 year-old in the chest – killing him. A second shot struck one of the other boys in the leg. Also, one of the five boys never entered the home, but knew beforehand of the plan to burglarize the home (he waited outside across the street).

    Now, the four surviving boys were all charged with felony murder in the death of their friend. One pled guilty in a plea deal and received 45 years, the other three went to trial and were found guilty of felony murder. 2 received 55 years sentences and the third received 50 years.

    Now, the mothers and other supporters believe the boys should not have been charged with felony murder, just burglary, as none of them were armed or shot their friend. They strongly believe the sentences are unjust as well. Now – the four were charged with felony murder under the “but for” concept of the law. Had not the boys chosen to commit the felony act of burglary they would not have been in the house where their friend was shot and killed by the homeowner.

    So here are some questions to consider. 1. Should the boys have been charged with murder, or only burglary? 2. Are the sentences given too harsh, and if so, why? 3. Should the ages of the boys be taken into account when being sentenced (BTW – according to the show none of the boys had any history of criminal activity)? 4. If the boys shouldn’t have been charged with murder, then who should have been held legally liable for the death of one of them during the commission of a crime? 5. Should the law, and laws like them elsewhere in the country, be changed? 5. Ifthe owner of the house had been killed during the burglary would the charges and sentences be question as they are now?

    What say you fellow SUFAites?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Wow, I did not know such laws existed. BAD LAW, from many perspectives. So short answers this AM.

      1. No, only burglary.
      2. Yes, because of answer to 1.
      3. No, burglary is burglary. Circumstances do count, but age is only part of it.
      4.Nobody. The homeowner is under protection of the law for the killing of another person.
      5.Yes. This is BAD LAW.
      6. By the family but not by me or many others.

      • plainlyspoken says:


        Yes, they exist all over the country. Most states have laws making others responsible for the actions of one. For instance, you and I go to rob a store. During the commission of the crime I kill the clerk with the gun I am carrying that you didn’t know I had. You are charged with murder right along with me because you were present and participating in the crime, and “but for” our criminal action (the robbery) that clerk would never have died.

        Should you not be as responsible for the clerk’s death as I (not saying you should, just wondering where you’d draw the line)? Is there ever an act committed wherein all are just as responsible as any one would be?

        In the case outlined, should the one boy who reportedly waited across the street even be charged with burglary (remember he knew and was in on the “planning” to break into a home)?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I am aware of those laws but this seems different. Self defense and castle doctrine laws deal with the killing in this case. If this same argument is used elsewhere then we have a lot of BAD LAW, in my view.

          The person who pulls the trigger is the person who is accountable.

          For the other person to be legally liable, it should have to be proven they 1) knew of the gun and 2) agreed with using it if they were resisted.

          Both hard things to prove.

          So in your example the person without the gun might get more time for the burglary, as it is a different type of robbery so it could carry a harsher sentence, but no charges for murder.

          Another appropriate approach might be “reckless endangerment” against the non gun holder. They contributed to increasing the danger.

          But neither applies to the case you cited. In that case the robbers were not armed. The homeowner is protected by law from being prosecuted but it was HE who did the killing.

          Yes the kid across the street is guilty of participating in the burglary. Same charge and restitution as those who entered the building in my view.

          Oh, and no other charges. I hate this piling on charges like “conspiracy”, etc, etc.

          They planned and executed a robbery. They are guilty of robbery, whether they got away or not.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            JAC, I always get nervous when I see you typing in all caps – I don’t want to get yelled at. 😉

            Now, here’s my thoughts on this case. Murder charges were not appropriate. I believe that when someone committing a crime gets injured/killed during the crime it is their own fault. That individual alone is responsible for what happened to them. Had the 21 year old not been there then he would be alive today. His actions, his consequences. The sentences for these young men are not appropriate, nor would 25 year sentences for burglary had they only been charged and convicted of that charge.

            A reckless endangerment type charge would have been more appropriate. Many laws on the books have been put there based on the pressures of society (their fears and concerns) and are later used inappropriately by the prosecuting attorneys. Sentences have gotten warped out of shape back in the 80’s (if not earlier) when courts began handing down – what I consider to be – outrageous and unequal sentences for drug related activities.

            Stacking charges, I’d need more discussion with you to expand on your beliefs here to insure I was not interpreting your statement inaccurately. Conspiracy charges have their place, as do charging multiple counts of a case as well. The problem is are they being used appropriately – and I would say not in all cases they are used in.

            In sentences, I believe the judge and society (who support laws/sentences like this) fail to take into account the factors of not only their current age, but if there are any redeeming qualities that would turn these young men into safe and productive members of society? I wish I could have read the per-sentence reports (if Indiana law provides for them) on these teens.

            Lots to consider really. Ultimately it is the society that compels (rightly or wrongly) the laws they demand be enacted to keep their society “safe”. Not that all laws enacted are demanded by society.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      OH, BTW – had they only been charged with and found guilty of burglary they would have faced sentences of up to 25 years (as I recall). How would that knowledge impact your thoughts on the case?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        No impact at all. My reaction is based on the concepts of personal action, responsibility and Justice of the old school. Namely, the homeowner is protected from being prosecuted for homicide of some type.

        The robbers are punished for the robbery.

        One other thought on the reckless endangerment or culpability to killing/injury.

        I don’t think this should be applied because they are all accomplices, partners if you will, to the same crime. Thus they all SHARED equally in the risk and this is done KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY.

        So none of the robbers committed a crime against the other robbers. They are thus all guilty of robbery.

        Now if the homeowner had also been injured in some way, perhaps they would ALL be guilty of “endangering” the homeowner. Because their actions of continuing the robber “knowing” someone was home carries a reasonable expectation of confrontation and thus “endangerment” of the homeowner.

        They assumed that risk for themselves but IMPOSED it upon the homeowner.

        Now just think of how many laws we could eliminate by applying such simply principles.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          I don’t disagree with you here at all. One of the determinations the jury had to consider under the felony murder charge (there were four in all) to find guilt is – was there a reasonable expectation that someone was in the home (resident/homeowner). The jury said there was based on the wallet & keys seen laying on the kitchen counter, as well as a vehicle parked behind the house.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            One problem with our system is that Juries are given and instructed on choices within BAD LAW.

            It is rare that they Nullify BAD LAW. Because they are told what their choices are by someone they have been taught to respect, and to some degree fear. Da Judge.

            Those Cops getting off in Calif for beating that guy to death, is a good example of how this paradigm works out. The Juries “assume” and “believe” and “feel” to much with respect to the REASONABLENESS of Law Enforcement.

            In that case I also think the Judge should be excoriated. It was the judge who allowed the defense to bring up “history” between the cop and the victim as some “justification” for the cops behavior. I am still angered over that outcome.

            Wonder when the Holder DOJ is going to file charges of violating civil rights against those cops???

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:


            • plainlyspoken says:

              I can’t comment on the incident you speak of, I don’t know anything about it. Could you point me to an article I can read?

              Jury nullification is a concept not codified in law really. Therefore juries don’t have the option of saying – that’s bad law and we will not convict based upon it. Courts say it is the legislature, or the governor, or the courts that get to decide if a law is bad and needs to be altered or removed. Heck, if we had jury nullification the courts wouldn’t have quite as much case law that has to me reviewed before a charge is filed and argued over for months on end.

              I believe society could get along just find with a lot less law, yet governments and courts perpetuate laws, laws, laws. We need less law and more common sense used.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Yes, the nature of govt is more law. But lets not forget this is in response to the DEMAND for law from the herd.

                Just look at how the Congress is ridiculed by the left as a Do Nothing Congress thanks to Republican Obstruction.

                The issue is not good or bad or even NEED but MORE.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                “The issue is not good or bad or even NEED but MORE.”
                Yep, MORE is the issue. Good or bad and even need are just subcategories of the more issue.The “more” brings about the questions of “need”, “good” or “bad” I think.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          could not have said it better

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Plainly…..Here’s what I think….
      1) The charges against the youths should have been only attempted burglary and breaking and entering, including the one outside, acting as look out maybe, doesn’t matter.
      2) The homeowner, may have been charged with justifiable homicide initially, after thorough investigation, then all charges dropped. Scenerio happened to a friend of mine.
      3) Tough luck to the youths who were killed and wounded, they rolled the dice and snake eyes came up.

      The scenerio of an accomplice in a robbery where the partner killed the store owner with a gun that he allegedly didn’t know about is a totally different case. Though I believe the charge should be assessory to murder in the commission of a felony (robbery).

      I live in a section of fairly nice historical homes. It is smack dab in the middle of a black basically poor area. In 7 years there has not been even one attempted B/E. Most of us are former military types. 6 of the houses in our blocks are owned by a retired Marine Colonel who only rents to Military personnel. The neighborhood watch is a retired Marine sniper. Bottom line is it is a bad bet to break into a house in our 9 square blocks.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Why add a charge of breaking and entering? Robbery obviously involves breaking in.

        The breaking and entering should be left to cases of home intrusion WITHOUT intent to harm or robe. Rare, but does happen.

        What the hell is the reason for that “charge” anyway? It makes little sense to me.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Don’t the DA’s pile on the charges just so one will stick???? Local case here across the river. Stick-up of a convenience store. Robber was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction. A 12 gauge shotgun. He should have been charged with being totally stupid. He had an ankle bracelet on with a GPS tracking device. He was out awaiting trial on another charge. They just tracked him home. He thought that the police turned off the device during the workday.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Yep, they want the defendant convicted of something and regularly overcharge or stack on multiple charges for the same offense. It’s like charging murder and having the “lesser” included offense charged for the jury to have more than the choice of guilty or not guilty. If you can’t prove the murder charge then don’t dang well charge it. Charge only what you can be proved (the higher of offenses) and leave the lesser included charges out of it.

            Now, don’t confuse that with charging multiple counts, or charging separate acts for the same incident (like kidnapping and murder for instance). There is appropriateness in multiple counts or charges in the correct circumstances.

      • plainlyspoken says:


        1) The charges against the youths should have been only attempted burglary and breaking and entering, including the one outside, acting as look out maybe, doesn’t matter.

        I think “attempted” is a crock of crap in the law. Just because the criminal act didn’t succeed doesn’t change the fact that there was a crime. Burglary is defined – generally – as entering a place with the intent to commit a crime. They entered with the intent to take property of another. Just because it didn’t succeed has no bearing on the act at all. Because someone tries to murder someone and fails changes not the fact that the murder was the intent. Charging one with attempted murder is just to get more time if the individual is convicted. Find a more appropriate charge, like assault with a deadly weapon resulting in bodily harm – to me a more appropriate law than “attempted murder”.

        2) The homeowner, may have been charged with justifiable homicide initially, after thorough investigation, then all charges dropped. Scenerio happened to a friend of mine.

        Why should someone even be charged with justifiable homicide? Why charged at all? If the investigation determines the act(s) were justified, then there is nothing to charge. Plus in most States just the arrest is a permanent record. You may be found to have been justified, but that arrest will show up (unless of course one goes to the extraordinary steps to get the record expunged completely – and if you were justified in the first place you shouldn’t have to be the one to clear your arrest record)
        3) Tough luck to the youths who were killed and wounded, they rolled the dice and snake eyes came up.

        Yep, plain and simple.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          1) used unfortunately a politically correct term, like “alleged”
          2) To your point about the charge even though dropped by the DA and police is not expunged from the record. It takes extra ordinary effort to have it removed. I believe it is then the governments reponsibility to remove the charge or information from all records or suffer the legal consequences for harming the person at a later date. Like in a job search for example. In the case of my friend, he was exonorated, but released from his position of employment apparently due to the bad publicity it brought the organization.
          ****Maybe this is a cause that should be taken up locally to start with. I believe entirely it is a misuse of government power to retain on a permanent record anything that there was NO conviction, much less the case not going anywhere due to lack of evidence or they just plain stopped the wrong person and the charges dropped, for whatever reason. In reading the study of the major causes of the Watts riots in California during the 60’s was chronic unemployment, caused by blacks with records. Most had never even been officially charged with a crime, just stopped, interrogated released, but a record now existed, and ergo no employment due to having a record. Automatic death spiral into ultimately desparate action.

          • plainlyspoken says:


            The government has laws making it legal to retain records of arrests. They will argue that the validity of that record is not harming the un-convicted/innocent person simply because (at some point) the record will show a disposition to the arrest (conviction, dismissed in the interests of justice, etc. The government will say they are legally, even rightfully, retaining the information under the law and it is YOUR responsibility to follow any remedies that exist (expungement) to remove said arrest from your record.

            I regularly read rap sheets in my career in law enforcement/corrections and found records that showed an arrest but only gave the date and jurisdiction of the arrest because the case had been “sealed” by the court. So I knew the individual got arrested for something, and would regularly ask them to explain.

            To me NO record should exist if the arrest did not lead to a conviction, yet there is the argument that will be used that it gives law enforcement and prosecutors an understanding of a suspects prior behaviors, which may show evidence to the prospect they are guilty of the current case. They will say it allows investigators to look into these prior arrests as a part of their investigation, giving them information of where to look (agencies) for the case files on those arrests. Did I use this tactic with rap sheets – yes, at times. I was a gang investigator in the jail and I would contact departments to gain information that would aid me in certifying the gang membership of the offender under arrest.

            And, what should scare you more is not the information in the state or national databases on arrests, but the records & databases of information maintained by local agencies that even the courts may not be aware exists. Those records/databases are far more often misused than the state/national arrest record.

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Your last paragraph is to me the justification for changing the law. The records in LA were not State or National, they were mostly local LAPD, truly being misused for any number of reasons. Be they racial, union etc. The teamsters and afl-cio absolutely used those records to keep blacks out of union jobs.
              Government continually passes laws exempting themselves from the very laws they pass to be enforced on the people.
              I trust that you were or still are a police officer that truly believes in the words, “to protect and serve”

              • plainlyspoken says:

                “I trust that you were or still are a police officer that truly believes in the words, “to protect and serve””

                I was, but I laid down my badge on my chief deputies desk in 1997. I couldn’t do it anymore and refused to continue in a career I was miserable in.

                Once, I was a believer in the “to protect and serve” mind set. But, now I see it as a misstatement of what police do. It is a mirage, a hallucination police want or need to believe in to bolster their reason(s) for working in law enforcement. The truly only one we are protecting and serving is the government. Police are maintaining the power of the government to act in their governance, whether it is right or wrong. The people may pay the salaries, but all they get for it in return is an armed force following the edicts of the government establish control over the population in their jurisdiction.

                Remember that a cop doesn’t do what is right, but what is dictated in the law as they see it. Those cops who use the law to violate the rights of others face little opposition to their actions from their controlling agencies. Are all cops bad – nope, they are not. But even the good ones have to enforce laws against the citizenry when the law calls for it regardless of whether it is right or wrong. The bad cops (and even the neutral cops) care not about the impact their behavior has on society, because in their mind they are “getting the job done.”

                So now you know my jaded view on cops – and I was one. lol.

  29. Just A Citizen says:


    “Now we could have a debate on how your proposal would move us towards freedom and prevent tyranny?” Yes, we could.

    I begin with my proposal that the permit system be a State issue. The FED Govt in my opinion has virtually no authority regarding the regulation of firearms for personal ownership or use. The Commerce Clause deals with regulating the interstate “trade” of weapons.

    Not the control of personal use.

    The States on the other hand could regulate personal ownership, if their State Constitutions allowed it.

    My proposal also REMOVES all Fed barriers to the type of guns owned by those holding permits. If we have addressed safety and skills then why should permit holders be limited in the guns they own or use? No legitimate reason in my view.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I agree that the feds are overstepping their authority to involve themselves in legislating gun laws in the States. It is a State only issue and should be left there.

      Now as to the type of guns being held by a permit holder. If we have permits for gun ownership (not just concealed carry) I don’t not know if I can agree with the “have a permit and can own whatever guns you want” because I believe there are limits on what type of weapons any permit should cover. As an extreme example, there is a big difference between a handgun, shotgun or rifle and being allowed to own a M2 Browning .50 cal machinegun. I don’t think a safety class for handguns gives the permit holder the necessary training for a “Ma deuce”.

      Geez, does that make me pro-gun control?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I agree. In one of my comments yesterday I suggested we could have different permits for different classes of weapons.

        Just like the drivers license varies for class of vehicle.

        You can get a Fed LICENSE to own a machine gun, I believe. D13 has discussed this before.

        I am also open to other suggestions on WHO issues the “permits”. It could be private outfits who are then inspected to ensure they are not spoofing the community.

        In some people’s mind, yes that would make you a pro gun control nut. 🙂

        • plainlyspoken says:

          “In some people’s mind, yes that would make you a pro gun control nut. :)”

          Oooooh crap! I’m ruined! lolol

          Yes, I can see it would require different levels of permits, ye there are some weapons – in my humble “pro-gun control” opinion – that have no place in the hands of civilian (and I include law enforcement in that category of civilians). They are weapons that have no reasonable or realistic use by civilians in 99.9 percent of circumstances.

          Yep, you can get a fed license for one. Interesting too since a State could enact law saying you can’t have one, but it would not be valid since federal law trumps State law. Federal law should never get to trump State law unless the law is directly related to the authority granted the federal government in the Constitution – and I don’t mean with the feds way of “stretching” the meanings of the Constitution (like commerce regulation).

          Well, we could likely find a comprise on who issues those permits. If we have them, then I want them out of the hands of government and the information provided to obtain that permit severely restricted.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            If one of the reasons for permits and gun control laws is to reduce deaths by firearm, answer this….of the 8855 deaths by gun in 2012, from the FBI stats just released, and from other gov sources 1/2 of those deaths were suicides, how many had permits and licenses.

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              forgot…how many were also police action. I think a about 5 %

              • Just A Citizen says:


                “The countrries that have instituted strict gun control laws have seen NO corresponding drop in suicides. Australian data. They just used a different method and tool.”

                The discussion about permits is not to reduce killing or suicide or death itself. It is to reduce death caused by gun. Especially death by gun where it could reasonably be prevented.

                If Total Elimination of gun death is the goal then the ONLY answer if not one we want to explore.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                OH NO – the dreaded specter of ban & confiscation of all firearms. Yikes!

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Well if you implemented the entire concept I fleshed out yesterday, some of the accidental shootings may have been prevented. Maybe some of the suicides as well, depending on the extent that mental illness played in those suicides.

              Perhaps the school shooting in the NE would have been prevented because the local police inspection of the woman’s house would have revealed her careless storage in the presence of a mentally ill person.

              That is the hard part in this. How do you show what is prevented when our data collection is aimed almost solely on the failures. Namely when something does happen.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                The countrries that have instituted strict gun control laws have seen NO corresponding drop in suicides. Australian data. They just used a different method and tool.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Statistics, statistics. My question would be – why are deaths caused by justifiable action even recorded? Record those deaths that are the result of criminal action only. That gives a clearer picture – to me at least – of the “problem” of guns in America. Including all deaths just pads the stats in my opinion and give the pro-gun crowd ammunition to argue the horrors of gun ownership.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Now we have gone full circle as I raise my OBJECTION to your constraints on gun ownership.

            In my view it is not a shortage of hand guns or AR15’s among the people that is a concern. It is the absence of Machine Guns, RPG’s, Mortars, Tanks and APC’s of many varieties, not to mention various calibers of Cannon.

            We always resort to using Self Defense as the Second Amendments primary protector.

            But that Amendment had a much deeper PURPOSE. It was to make sure we had the power to protect us from the Govt. To assure that the people were capable of forming the Militia when needed, against whomever was required.

            WE THE PEOPLE are over armed in the wrong areas and underarmed in the areas needed.

            It is often forgotten that until the last century there were few bans on citizens owning weapons capable of military action. There were some controls on their storage and use, but not on the ownership itself.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              I know JAC, it is an inconsistency in my beliefs. But, how many citizens are likely to have tanks or 155 mm artillery pieces parked in their yard in the event we need to arm a militia, even against our own government? The numbers of weapons needed to overcome even one combined arms military unit will likely NOT be available even if we could legally posses the weapons?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I have a friend who has a permitted tank. It wouldn’t be very effective though in an insurrection. Good at blowing holes in cinder block walls though.

                If the mid size weapons were more prevalent it would be a greater deterrent. Obviously few rational people would expend the money for a modern tank, cannons or aircraft. Notice the little trick I played there?

                I think BF may own some of these.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                In addition:

                It is not ownership of the weapons that we have lost site of. It is the MILITIA and its proper use as a “deterrent” in our modern society.

                If these larger weapons were kept as part of the Militia and thus training and exercised conducted under State authority, my purpose would be achieved without all of us having to worry about what the neighbor has hidden in his oversized Shop/Barn. 😉

              • plainlyspoken says:

                JAC, not a lot of sleep last night so I am not sure I see the “trick”, so please unwrap it clearly for me. 🙂

                I agree, if the State maintained a militia – outside of the control of the feds (so to me the national guard doesn’t apply as a militia) – and citizens were required to be trained and even maintain the appropriate weapons in their homes (thinking Switzerland and Israel here), then no problem would exist (as you show) needing permits. I could live with that. Even fat old guys like me still have some value we could provide a State militia (even if is just guarding militia sites or resources while the youngsters handled the field operations). 😉

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                I like your last statement on a State militia not unlike Switzerland and Israel. It would solve a lot of this very issue we’ve been discussing and any constitutional interpretation of words and overstepping of rights by the FED. Agree the National Guard doesn’t count, they are nothing but an expension of the Federal government.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Interesting reference to Concealed Weapons bans….in late 1800’s. From a Supreme Court Case. This also shows how the Constitution was already being victimized by the “Legal” profession and its “philosophies”. It is easier to see how the SCOTUS of the 1930’s was then able to make the big jump to the NEW INTERPRETATION.

    “But we are also of opinion that even if the contract of a seaman could be considered within the letter of the Thirteenth Amendment, it is not, within its spirit, a case of involuntary servitude. The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the “Bill of Rights,” were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people

    Page 165 U. S. 282

    to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (Art. V) does not prevent a second trial if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant’s motion, United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 163 U. S. 627, nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment, Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, and cases cited. Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.”

    Got that?? Prohibition to carry concealed weapons does NOT “infringe” upon our right to bear arms.

    NOTE: I am not agreeing with the argument. Only trying to show some here that these concepts existed long ago. BEFORE there were any data bases.

    The purpose of Conceal Carry Permits was to override Bans on carrying concealed weapons so that law abiding citizen could carry concealed weapons. It was not to create a data base on law abiding citizens.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I agree with what you are saying about the permits in this posting. Yet, I will say that in today’s world those databases the data is contained in can be – I say can be – misused by government (and very probably is). I argue the necessity of them when there are other solutions to meeting some of your thoughts on a “new” permitting system (I have problems with the government having the ability to inspect your home in such a blanket manner to look for evidence you are violating the permit law).

      • Just A Citizen says:


        They DO abuse the data collection. The ONLY acceptable use of that data is if you are stopped and the officer is not positive you are telling the truth, they should be able to check and see if your permit is valid. Just like a drivers license.

        But the gun permit should NOT show up in your Vehicle registration nor vis’ versa. These outcries for improving “efficiency” of data storage and retrieval are excuses for centralizing data under YOUR ID rather than under the ID of the permit/license.

        Perhaps a permit with a scan ID in it would help. If the officer or authority scans the card it will show it as VALID. No check of data bases required.

        For the record, I share your heartburn over home inspections. I proposed it as the ONLY realistic solution to ASSURING that individuals are being responsible. Perhaps it could be limited to homes where it is known that some one with mental disease is residing.

        Maybe that becomes a very special permit requiring inspection for just those types!

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          On databases…just because its in the “computer” doesn’t make something more accurate. All it enables is the error to spread quicker and cause more damage in your life. Heck, the DMV in NC can’t even in their own department get the vehicle records to be consistent and track accurately. The one indelible tracking record is the VIN number. Everything is secondary to that. Tag number, owner, insurance etc. Just think about how hard it is to correct an error in your credit record. Miss one little thing somewhere and the entire record repopulates, and you do it all over again. Does anyone think more layers of bureacracy (sp) in the gun permit process going to make things safer. I think it will not, and later a cry will go out for more layers and more laws ad infinitum. Just so politicians can CLAIM they are doing something. The number of deaths due to guns, whether used legally, illegally, accidental, police action, by psycho’s etc is such a infantesimally small percentage of the overall “untimely” deaths in this country, in a business it would not warrant any expenditure of effort other than let’s keep an eye on that number. It is being used as a political control tool by the government to make people suspicious and distrustful of their neighbor if they are a gun owner, being broadly painted as wacho’s, much like Obama painted southerners as bible hugging, gun toting people who somehow have some sort of devient behavioral disease. Its called marginalization. Yet we are being programed to trust Doctors who cause by negligence and errors more than 10X annually the untimely deaths by guns for all reasons.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    Yesterday someone raised the issue of Govt responsibility for someone being hurt due to Govt laws or regulations. This is not exactly the same but it comes close.

  32. plainlyspoken says:

    You know what movie always make me think about not supporting the death penalty? The Green Mile. Happens every time I watch it, which I am right now.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Recommended read is John Grisham’s book “The Confession” or more todate the 25 minutes it took for the execution in Ohio.

  33. They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    Those who offer the Liberty of others, for their self centered temporary safety are the true enemy of Liberty, and thusly, are cowards.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Ah, you have returned. How’s your Pop doing?

      • Pops is great, back to normal, as good as that can be 🙂

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Excellent to hear! Now, get to reading since I’m sure you have some thoughts on today’s conversation.

          • All caught up. Nothing much more to add , as most has been said. Actually, I’m just chilling, trying not to get too wound up tonight.

          • About the burglary case with the 4 teens. Laws are only deterants. Laws do not provide safety. Do we need laws, in this age yes. But then you reach a point that lawmakers have little left to do but make more laws. More laws only make more criminals.

            Maybe a new subject could include a massive “bad law” purge and turning ALL governments into “part time” entities. What say you ?

            How is the Missus today, hopefully recovering nicely? Pas on my best wishes 🙂

            • plainlyspoken says:

              I will pass along your best wishes. She is doing well, almost completely recovered. She starts her new position at the hospital on Monday as the patient education coordinator, which means she teaches patients about their medical problem(s) and the management of those issues on discharge from the hospital.

              She is excited to start the position and I am pleased she is not going to be in the ER anymore (she was recently struck by a patient who was in police custody – not the first time that happened to her). It is time for a change for her and I won’t worry like before.

              The problem with purging bad laws is getting a majority to say they are bad. It is subjective, unless we can agree on a set of criteria to evaluate the laws objectively.

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Wasn’t it shown many years ago in England when they made certain crimes punishable by hanging, it only gave more opportunity for those to commit said crime, because it brought more people together in an area to witness the hanging and made the pickings easier. Wasn’t a deterent at all, just thinned down the competion.

              It was illustrated on one of the posts recently about the law. This past year very few laws actually made it through the Federal system, so the stack was small, and as the MSM and Obama say they were by extension very inefficient. The stack of laws written by un-elected administrators was huge and mindboogling. Congress delegates the writing of the regulations which then become law. Maybe if the lawmakers actually wrote the whole deal, it would slow them down and give pause for reflection and they would cause less damage.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                “Wasn’t a deterent at all, just thinned down the competion.”

                The only deterrent the death penalty has provided is that the executed was permanently deterred from committing future crimes. The death penalty should be debated only on the aspect that it is the ultimate punishment for criminal activity. Because really, all society wants – so I think – is for someone to pay the price of their misdeeds, keeping the society safe from them while they pay that penalty.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Well that pretty much includes our Founding Fathers and everyone since then.

      Platitudes and slogans are great. But they are only meaningful when attached to reality and real life solutions.

      And yes, I know I like to use them as some sort of ideological ideal also.

  34. Plainly, down here 🙂

    Let’s begin with the Feds. They have 18 responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. Let’s begin by only allowing those tasks.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:
      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        I could start a local project here in town on just the desk procedures in our city offices. If I performed an audit of their procedures they would fail hands down, without a doubt. I just recently had the tax department remove a vehicle from the property tax rolls after I sold it. The desk procedures was nothing more than a binder with pages in it covered with notes on sticky labels. Several years ago I approached the mayor on such a project. It never went anywhere because they wanted me to do it gratis and go through each city department. Yeah right. We have a new mayor, it’s time to try again.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Even the Federal IRS makes no pretense of knowing the law. Proving it is arbitrary and capricious and incompetent. You can have them actually prepare the tax return for you, they make an error on the data provided, no new information, you get audited and they find an error, you pay the penalty and fine. Even H/R Block stands by their work as long as the information you provided is accurate and complete.

      • plainlyspoken says:


        There are a lot of agencies, at all levels of government we could do away with. So, it would likely be easier to decide agencies to keep and the scope of their responsibilities.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Ok, but before we go farther I need to ask a question. When we say government, do we mean just the legislature/Congress, or are we going after the bureaucracy too? If the bureaucracy is a part of this, then how do we limit them to part-time and still make their offices we find necessary accessible to the public on a regular basis as would be needed.

      • All of it. Let’s start by saying we can’t just cut people off of Federal aid or SSAN. That wouldn’t be right. Social Security should remain solvent, people pay into it and should get it back. We need to undo all the money spent from the system and get it back. I would like to propose that we get the money back from the people who allowed it to be stolen, the elected one’s responsible. We identify them, we determine where their wealth went, and we get it back.

        All agencies not identified in the Constitution as a Congressional power (other than SSAN) is hereby eliminated and those responsibilities are remanded to the States. Your move!

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          The second scenario allegedly real economic savings sounds to be more of an accounting fraud and rip off than number 1. Regardless of either method the government is repaying a 1984 $ with a greatly devalued $ in 2020.
          # 2 is also one of the accounting tricks that are use to say they reduced the spending and deficit.(yes/no)?

          Scenario 1 (Trust Fund is an accounting fiction):

          1984: $1 payroll tax collected in 1984
          1984: $1 lent by Social Security to the federal government
          1984: Federal government increases spending on government programs by $1
          2020: Federal government raises taxes by $1 plus interest to repay the loan to Social Security
          2020: $1 plus interest transferred from Federal Government to Social Security.

          Scenario 2 (Trust Fund represents real economic savings):

          1984: $1 payroll tax collected in 1984
          1984: $1 lent by Social Security to the federal government
          1984: Federal government borrows $1 less from other sources and increases spending on government programs by $0
          2020: Federal government raises taxes by $0, but may borrow from other sources, to repay the loan to Social Security. Any tax increases that occur in 2020 would have happened anyway without Social Security.
          2020: $1 plus interest transferred from Federal Government to Social Security.

%d bloggers like this: