Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

On Virginia requires you to file at the clerk of the courts office, but that's the extent of your interaction with any state official.

VA is a 'shall issue' state. Unless you fail the background check they are required to issue it to you if you ask for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I thought VA required you to go to court... Might be wrong on that. Utah info came from reading an article about it years ago.

Maybe this one: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/us/06guns.html?referer=

I'd say that maybe it's gotten more strict since then, but what are the chances of that? :lol:

You have to give the application to the clerk. You can mail it or you can actually go to the court.

So VA will no longer accept other state's CCW.

Yes, all those out of state CCW/CHP holders going on their murder sprees here in Virginia.

 

I would love to see the stats for how many people have been murdered by out of state CCW/CHP holders vs the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very happy to see people on the left on tv agree with me about states rights. Too bad they apply that standard only when it fits their agendas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, all those out of state CCW/CHP holders going on their murder sprees here in Virginia.

 

I would love to see the stats for how many people have been murdered by out of state CCW/CHP holders vs the police.

 

 

There's really no reason to even set the bar that high.

 

Simply looking are crimes committed by people with CCW's will show you that this is not about safety or protecting lives. It's not about mass shootings or stopping gun crime. It's about playing on fears using an argument that sounds good and taking shots certain gun owners.

 

I, personally, wish there was a federal concealed weapons permit that set some relatively high standards and in turn allowed you to carry in all 50 states. I'm not really happy about how lax the CCW permit approval process is in some areas.

 

But I have no misconceptions about what this is about.

 

CCW permit holds rarely commit crimes in general, much less gun crimes. A fact those arguing for more gun control seem to have a really, really hard time understanding for some reason.

 

Last time I mentioned it a certain someone had a super hard time understanding that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hearing the standards that these CCW permit holders have to meet is not all that comforting. 

 

Edit: LOL... Tshile and I are so philosophically apart on this. No standards is not a good standard when it comes to lethal weapons.

Edited by Burgold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hearing the standards that these CCW permit holders have to meet is not all that comforting. 

 

Edit: LOL... Tshile and I are so philosophically apart on this. No standards is not a good standard when it comes to lethal weapons.

"Standards" to exercise a right. What could possibly go wrong ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shall Issue states make it way too easy.  I own quite a few guns and I can't understand how some of these low IQ gun humpers wouldn't be okay with a more in depth process before being allowed to get a permit.  Wouldn't rational people be all for a stricter process?

 

If you're a law-biding citizen, have no priors and no history of mental illness, than you should have no issues buying 15 guns every year like some of them do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Standards" to exercise a right. What could possibly go wrong ...

Like being 18 to vote or not slandering or libeling... or allowing classified documents? Gosh, who'd think that having standards or limits on rights would be a good thing :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shall Issue states make it way too easy.  I own quite a few guns and I can't understand how some of these low IQ gun humpers wouldn't be okay with a more in depth process before being allowed to get a permit.  Wouldn't rational people be all for a stricter process?

 

If you're a law-biding citizen, have no priors and no history of mental illness, than you should have no issues buying 15 guns every year like some of them do.  

Because it's a right, not some cool privilege that only the smart and wealthy should be able to enjoy. Some people in this country think that that means something.

 

Like being 18 to vote or not slandering or libeling... or allowing classified documents? Gosh, who'd think that having standards or limits on rights would be a good thing :facepalm:

Lol, if only those were actually the same thing as what we're talking about. If only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's a right, not some cool privilege that only the smart and wealthy should be able to enjoy. Some people in this country think that that means something.

 

 
I don't see how being smart or wealthy has anything to do with it.   

 

And ensuring someone hasn't had any schizophrenic episodes in the past before giving them permission to carry a concealed firearm is infringing on our rights?  Fine line I guess, as you could say it does.  But it makes so much sense to take a little extra time and do a little extra digging before handing out gun permits and CCW licenses.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
I don't see how being smart or wealthy has anything to do with it.   

 

And ensuring someone hasn't had any schizophrenic episodes in the past before giving them permission to carry a concealed firearm is infringing on our rights?  Fine line I guess, as you could say it does.  But it makes so much sense to take a little extra time and do a little extra digging before handing out gun permits and CCW licenses.  

 

Because training and licensing requirements will cost money. Guess who that discriminates against? Poor people. And usually poor people are the least educated of our society. Remember all the people who screamed about how voter ID laws targeted poor people who couldn't afford ID? Same principle here. It specifically targets people who are poor and uneducated.

 

Also, the AG has not released any information on what exactly parts of those states CCW process did not meet Virginia's standards. Frankly, this move is purely political because he and McAwful can't have their way on firearms due to the GOP held legislature. I have a hard time believing that states like Ohio, Delaware, and Pennsylvania have some sort of flaw in their system, but Utah and Oklahoma don't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of dead people?

It truly terrifies me that there are people who are so desperate for the illusion of security that they will willingly sacrifice their rights so quickly and earnestly. I have no idea how people got to the point where banning things or people make them feel safer, but I weep for this society.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's unreasonable to require an ID to vote

 

I also don't think it's unreasonable to require training before carrying a concealed weapon.

 

I can see how some would create unreasonable requirements to enforce their agenda, but I think you can absolutely have reasonable requirements.

 

And the fact that it costs money, I say: wah. I think it's a mistake to conflate carrying a concealed weapon with the second amendment. Two totally different issues to me.


Edit: LOL... Tshile and I are so philosophically apart on this. No standards is not a good standard when it comes to lethal weapons.

 

I'm genuinely confused. Because I specifically said:

I'm not really happy about how lax the CCW permit approval process is in some areas.

 

and:

I, personally, wish there was a federal concealed weapons permit that set some relatively high standards...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's unreasonable to require an ID to vote

 

I also don't think it's unreasonable to require training before carrying a concealed weapon.

 

I can see how some would create unreasonable requirements to enforce their agenda, but I think you can absolutely have reasonable requirements.

 

And the fact that it costs money, I say: wah. I think it's a mistake to conflate carrying a concealed weapon with the second amendment. Two totally different issues to me.

 

I'm genuinely confused. Because I specifically said:

I'm not really happy about how lax the CCW permit approval process is in some areas.

 

and:

I, personally, wish there was a federal concealed weapons permit that set some relatively high standards...

 

Unreasonable and constitutional are vastly different things.

 

It's not unreasonable to require basic training and testing for anyone desiring citizenship. It's unconstitutional though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It truly terrifies me that there are people who are so desperate for the illusion of security that they will willingly sacrifice their rights so quickly and earnestly. I have no idea how people got to the point where banning things or people make them feel safer, but I weep for this society.

You're right.

All those whiny dead people should just man up and recognize that they are the price that needs to be paid, so that some people can enjoy their hobby.

 

Really sucks, the way this country actually considers the costs to society, of some recreational activities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right.

All those whiny dead people should just man up and recognize that they are the price that needs to be paid, so that some people can enjoy their hobby.

 

Really sucks, the way this country actually considers the costs to society, of some recreational activities. 

And this is why we have a no fly list, for which there is no due process. This is why we have places like Guantanamo Bay and American citizens being held with no due process and tortured. This is why we have TSA violating the 4th Amendment every time we walk in to an airport. This why the FBI, NSA, and other agencies access our digital data at will. You're the reason why abortion gets so severely restricted. You're the reason why voter IDs were pushed forward.

Edited by Slateman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is why we have a no fly list, for which there is no due process. This is why we have places like Guantanamo Bay and American citizens being held with no due process and tortured. This is why we have TSA violating the 4th Amendment every time we walk in to an airport. This why the FBI, NSA, and other agencies access our digital data at will. You're the reason why abortion gets so severely restricted. You're the reason why voter IDs were pushed forward.

Mister, I admire your notion of logic. (That's a movie reference.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because training and licensing requirements will cost money. Guess who that discriminates against? 

 

 

 

I know it varies by state, but it's not that much money.  In NC it's $80, $10 fee for fingerprinting and a $75 renewal fee every 5 years.  If one can afford the gun, they can afford to pay a little extra for training associated with it.  

 

I just looked and found one class for $49 total (includes the 8 hours training, test, range shooting from 3, 5 and 7 yards, etc.).  Personally, if one can't pay $140 total, they don't need to conceal carry.  

 

Pretty simple, save up for the class, take it.  Save up for the permit and finger printing, submit application.  Doesn't all have to be completed at the same time.  Depending on the handgun purchased, that's what cost the most. 

 

If you are talking additional training, I see no problem with it costing them $100 for twice the required amount of training and more tests.  

Edited by Dont Taze Me Bro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's unreasonable to require an ID to vote

I also don't think it's unreasonable to require training before carrying a concealed weapon.

I can see how some would create unreasonable requirements to enforce their agenda, but I think you can absolutely have reasonable requirements.

And the fact that it costs money, I say: wah. I think it's a mistake to conflate carrying a concealed weapon with the second amendment. Two totally different issues to me.

I'm genuinely confused. Because I specifically said:

I'm not really happy about how lax the CCW permit approval process is in some areas.

and:

I, personally, wish there was a federal concealed weapons permit that set some relatively high standards...

I probably just read a post in isolation and extrapolated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it varies by state, but it's not that much money.  In NC it's $80, $10 fee for fingerprinting and a $75 renewal fee every 5 years.  If one can afford the gun, they can afford to pay a little extra for training associated with it.  

 

I just looked and found one class for $49 total (includes the 8 hours training, test, range shooting from 3, 5 and 7 yards, etc.).  Personally, if one can't pay $140 total, they don't need to conceal carry.  

 

Pretty simple, save up for the class, take it.  Save up for the permit and finger printing, submit application.  Doesn't all have to be completed at the same time.  Depending on the handgun purchased, that's what cost the most. 

 

If you are talking additional training, I see no problem with it costing them $100 for twice the required amount of training and more tests.  

It's not that much money ... for now. Look at other places that have higher fees. Look at a place like Chicago or NYC.

 

Quite frankly, it's just another way of trying to suppress firearms ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because training and licensing requirements will cost money. Guess who that discriminates against?

People who can't afford to buy guns?

But you do bring up a good point. Guns are expensive. Which absolutely does maker it tougher for poor people to have them. (Let alone to have a really large number of them.)

Think we should have a program, maybe call it "NRACare", that will give poor people taxpayer money, to buy guns with? So we aren't discriminating, you know.  (Heck, maybe we can punish people who can afford guns, but don't buy them.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who can't afford to buy guns?

But you do bring up a good point. Guns are expensive. Which absolutely does maker it tougher for poor people to have them. (Let alone to have a really large number of them.)

Think we should have a program, maybe call it "NRACare", that will give poor people taxpayer money, to buy guns with? So we aren't discriminating, you know. (Heck, maybe we can punish people who can afford guns, but don't buy them.)

Oh my god I just figured out how to pass universal healthcare. Lump a universal gun ownership law into it as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that much money ... for now. Look at other places that have higher fees. Look at a place like Chicago or NYC.

 

Quite frankly, it's just another way of trying to suppress firearms ownership.

 

How can requiring classes/training for a CCP suppress firearms ownership?  You can still buy the firearm, you just can't conceal it legally, where allowed.  

 

I am for buying/owning guns, I'm also for CCP for those that want those.  But I'm also for requiring more mandatory training than already offered.  My wife wants to get her CCP in the next couple of years, I'm behind her 100%.  

 

The responsibility of owning a gun, knowing how to use and store it properly, laws around what you can and can't do, firing it properly (if it ever came to that) is tremendous.  Last thing we need is for it to make it easier for people to obtain handguns and have minimal training to conceal one.

 

I would like to pose this question, and before I ask, I'll state that I'm not against CCP.  But, what is the big deal to get a CCP?  Really outside of being able to travel with it and be able to store in a trunk, glovebox, etc. and having it on your person when walking from your car into your apartment complex, house, etc. what other purpose does it really serve?

 

Can't take them into the vast majority of places where you might need them on the walk back to your car.  Example, say you are out late at a place that prohibits firearms (sporting event, work, dinner, etc.) walking back to your car and **** goes down.   If you obeyed the law properly, you wouldn't have the gun on your person concealed anyhow.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unreasonable and constitutional are vastly different things.

 

It's not unreasonable to require basic training and testing for anyone desiring citizenship. It's unconstitutional though.

we're talking about concealed weapons permits

 

there is no constitutional right to carry concealed firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.