Why can't we carry guns in schools, on planes, in national parks, ...

Dennis,

Does your state issue CCW permits, and if so, do you have one? Just curious.


Horny Toad




------------------
NRA Life Member
SAF Member
GOA Member
 
Why can't we carry guns in schools, on planes, in national parks,...

Because there is a need for places where the public gathers that crimes must occur unimpeded which will allow for a renewed call for further gun control legislation. Without these "gun free" zones, the proof of self defense would become self evident and would dispel the doubts of all. This cannot be allowed to happen.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited May 03, 2000).]
 
Answer to Question : because the Govt. believes you are not trustworthy to (a)not commit a crime (b)have an accident (c) posess a gun in the 1st place

I wouldn't mind "checking" the gun upon boarding the plane but not by statute. I see nothing wrong with the policy of an airline not allowing carry. When you board an plane, you are stepping onto their property.
Private schools should be able to form their own policies.
Public schools and other Govt. buildings should have no restrictions.
Churches : Same as private schools and airlines.

Private Property rights are just as precious as the RKBA.

[This message has been edited by animal (edited May 03, 2000).]
 
I agree with not being able to carry a firearm on a plane. Why am I against it? Because I am absolutely terrified of flying. Everytime I step onto a plane I am pretty convinced that I am going to die. A gun in the passenger compartment will give me one more reason to think the plane is going to crash. I don't care how much it is said a gun won't bring a plane down, fear is illogical.
 
At the risk of sounding like an anti, the advantages in the process is to insure a minimum level of training and knowledge of the law. We have read many range horror stories on this forum alone on the abysmall conduct we have witnessed at ranges by many, including "trained professionals". I know the cost and the pain of the process is to discourage the less then serious and make money for the state. True the criminals won't bother, but that is part of the thought process that makes them criminals. I personally recieved my training in the military and it is documented in my training record, but the vast majority do not have some type of certification. I would hope that the majority of you would agree that training and certification of some level of proficency is a good thing. Some of you may believe that it is not require and that you have a right to carry without. To that I say, with rights come responsibilities. You owe it to your fellow citizens, especially those who are afraid of firearms, to act in a responsible manner and they have a right to make sure we have been properly trained in the proper carry and use. Sorry, that is how I feel. I can be just as easily or more easily shot by some idiot through incompetent handling of a weapon, then by a criminal. That is part of how we got to this point.
 
I guess my original point was that if, after passing a background check (and whatever else they do), I am allowed to carrry a firearm, why am I then restricted again as to where I can carry it? For example:<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> if I'm attending a parents/teachers conference in school and another parent goes nutso and starts shooting, the gun law preventing guns in schools isn't going to help and everyone there is now unarmed and unable to defend themselves.
<LI> if I'm out in a national park and encounter an animal that wishes to do me hard (a bear, mountain lion, hungry pack of wolves, etc.), a firearm sure would be helpful -- and what is the harm in having one? If I'm responsible to carry the firearm around humans in the cities & streets, one would think that I would be equally responsible in the woods.
<LI> I can understand with a possible problem of haviing a loaded firearm on a plane but with luggage theif being so high (especially those containint firearms), what would be the hard in carrying an UNLOAD weapon on the plane? It elimates the risk of having th gun stolen and with no bullets, there's very lttle risk of an accident happening.</UL>
Share what you know, learn what you don't -- FUD
fud-nra.gif
 
No, the People's Republik of Wiskonsin (and Minnesota too for that matter), do not issue CCW. They are "MUST DIE" states. So, since I understand that my life (and the lives of my family) are more important that statist government, I carry anyway.

At one time, I carried valid CCW permits from THREE states. So, it's not like I'm a felon or anything....

Ooops, that's not true anymore, is it?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Covert Mission:
Glamdring:

Ha ha...you laugh

> Laws don't prevent crimes--Laws cause crime!If there were no laws there would be no criminals.

I had a "systems scientist" say just that to me, on a NY Times forum. He said "Remember, the biggest cause of crime is legislation"

I nearly swallowed my tongue and fell off my chair. I composed myself, and promptly told him in several ways that he was completely full of post-digested food residue. What a PhD-toting idiot.[/quote]

Covert Mission,

I have to agree with that systems scientist. With the passage of more legislation, those who were not criminals or committing a crime, but who are now affected by this new legislation, are now criminals and committing crimes if they continue their activity or possesion of the now illegalized activity or item.

A very good example of this took place here in Arizona last year. On the ballot before the people was a measure that would make anyone who raised game cocks (for cock fighting) a class 6 felon. The measure passed due to the emotionalization of the "birds' being hurt" and the "mob presence" at such fights. It did not matter that overnight there were several families that became class 6 felons that had depended upon this business for their income.

Ann Rand said it best when she wrote that government passes laws to create criminals because govenment's purpose is to prosecute. (imperfectly summerized). Therefore the more criminals they have to deal with, the more power they can excercise over the people they are to govern.

Doesn't that all ring a bell? It's been resounding in my ears for the last 8 years...


------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
I must quote my father on this issue, who has also said for a long time that passengers on an aircraft should be issued handguns (you could even provide the special aluminium guaranteed non-airframe-penetrating ammo the special air marshals use). In the - unlikely - event of a hijacking, a vote could be taken on the destination...

unless the hijacker is determined to die anyway...
 
Actually, Minnesota does issue some CCW's.
You either need to live out in the country with a freedom-friendly Sheriff(sp?), be a traveling jewelry salesman, or otherwise "important".
I can't get a CCW. I was a pizza guy for five years, going into godawful dingy apartment buildings at 2am, I am currently employed at a gun shop, I'm also a nursing student going to-and-from my car in dark parking ramps at 5am or 11pm, and I'm not "worthy".
So, Dennis is basically right that MN won't issue. But technically it is a restricted-issue state.
Just to clear it up, -Kframe

Oh, and carrying without a permit is not a felony unless you are in the commission of some other crime too.
If not, it's a misdemeanor.

[This message has been edited by Kframe (edited May 03, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top