‘Concealed Carry Permit Holders Have a Duty to Be Armed’

No you don't
No -that- silly can use a keyboard with any degree of efficacy.

 

so long as you are willing to pay the price of being a criminal, potentially going to jail , etc etc.

Then of course you can, it is a free world.

 

If you are considered a criminal for defending yourself when attacked, no, it is not a free country.

 

Wasn't it you that said that needing a firearm to protect yourself in America is infinitesimal?

And you worry about THAT???

Tell us what the chances are of your decerebrate scenario happening?

 

I'd still like to know why having a CCW is a prerequisite for gunning anyone down if that's your objective.

Anyone intent on gunning down groups of people can do so anytime they want, regardless of laws or possessing CCW permits.

I highly doubt the Paris attackers waited for their AKs and exploding harnesses to clear government approval. I hear none of them had applied for a CCW either.

 

For an anti-gun person who constantly laments violence and guns, you sure are bloodthirsty.

 

Please tell us how CCW holders in Canada went about some kind of pre-emptive attack? There's a lot of weird drifty thought going on in this thread.

 

This is just plain weird and inflammatory.
We KNOW that CCW holders are not looking for a fight, and there is essentially no record of them fighting between themselves. You imply here that they do. You have serious problems.

 

Bloodthirsty to hope that less shooting amongst gun people happens?

Work on your english champ.

- - - Updated - - -

I have problems with trying to convince people that violence is not the answer.

You have problems with solving problems without violence.

I prefer my problems you prefer yours.

 

Your speculation assumes that the murder stats in this Country are derived from legal gun owners. You know better than that. Gang bangers are not "gun people". You know that. You try to set fires in the wrong house here. Ronstar says that he fears that someone will attack innocent Mooslims in a wrongful pre-emptive strike. I say that you are attacking legal gun owners in a wrongful pre-emptive strike.
We legal gun owners do not condone solving problems with violence, but if someone visits violence upon us, we do condone putting an end to that.

 

Well said. I wish anti gun folks could really understand this. It is the honest truth. We are not looking for trouble, we just want to have the opportunity to defend our families if the need be.

 

Why do gun lovers not want to become more well regulated?

Would simply mustering a local militia company not be some form of deterrence?

 

Think military and national guard.
The "people" have nothing to do with the "militia". Check out the constitution and understand the context of how the words "the people" are used.

 

We ARE "well regulated". I think that would be very difficult for a non-gunner to understand.
There are places where I go to shoot. These places are always "out in the desert". I might encounter other shooters out there. If I approach closely, they stop shooting, and point their guns away from me. When I pass, they almost always wave, and I wave back. If I set up near them, they keep from shooting near me, and I respect their proximity as well.
We're all on the same side, and that's all the "regulation" we need.

 

Why do you still refuse to understand that the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is not related to service in the militia?

 

Is that local milita company going to start showing up to stop home invasions? No, that's on you, as an individual and THAT is ONE of the reasons "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

I am not referring to rights in private property; i am claiming simply mustering a local militia may help prevent crime.

 

How could that work, unless they were running some kind of "neighborhood watch"?

 

Bank Repossessions.

I personally, don't think banks are within their rights to use guns / deadly force to repossess their property.

However, this would conflict with an opinion that any old joe is allowed to use a gun if someone is doing something on their property they don't like..

Where do you gents sit?

 

That's a very desperate attempt on your part. The same defense applies in both examples. In the real estate crash, it became perfectly clear that the banks had very aggressively maneuvered people into the position of surrendering all of their personal worth in a contract that was very much rigged in favor of the bank. It backfired on them. The victims of those fraudulent loans had established the properties as "home", where their entire lives were centered. The banks would be depriving them of that.
It's the very same thing when an intruder enters a home. He threatens the whole center of existence.
Your post tells me that you are either intentionally trying to trick someone into an ignorant response, or you yourself are ignorant of the reality that it implies.

 

Yeah the intent there was pretty obvious.

 

They don't
The state does, after due process.

 

Say you were to meet up with this New Orleans thug and tried to use non-violence to stop him from dragging his girlfriend:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/24/new-orleans-hero-shooting-arrest-machado-pkg-ac.cnn

The best you could hope for that the repeat felon with his illegal unregistered gun would jam and misfire. The dozens of your ****-stupid liberal gun control laws didn't stop the thug from getting one did it?

The ****-stupid liberals in the courts that let the thug run free after his prior offences helped create the problem. Do they deserve any blame---or just the gun?

 

Excellent point, the would be hero failed in his preparation. I wonder what he thinks about CCW and self defense now. If he'd had his own gun or even basic self defense skills it would have gone much better,

This incident does bring up something of both tactical and legal importance. The average thug level criminal doesn't have good functioning firearm nor any skill to use it. Real life isn't the movies, in reality rather often the gun is fake, broken, has the wrong ammo, barely works, etc. Of course you can't count on it, but it's something to look for when you confront a bad guy and says a lot about gun control.

 

I was walking around in a gravel pit one day with a buddy. 2 car loads of 'bangers pulled up at the edge, and started firing all around us. My buddies' AR was entirely functional, and zeroed, too. My P-85 was good to go. We laid 38 rounds of rapid fire into the bank in front of them.
By all means, we who have served under arms, and understand the meaning of Citizenship are duty bound to scare the bejeebers out of these clowns.