Training/recreational shooting is different than self defense. Those activities are regulated by law in most suburbs and cities. I'm not aware of any law forbidding a law-abiding citizen from trying to stop an agressor with a legally posessed firearim given appropriate circumstances, regardless of the location (gun-free zones excluded, unfortunately.)

Recreatonal use is separate from use in self defense - there should be regulations on the former for public safety. You can't go shooting pop bottles in a mall parking lot for shits and giggles, but if Joey Thug comes at you with a weapon in same said parking lot and you stop him it is a completely different set of circumstances. If you hit an innocent bystander at a range or in self defense you will face legal consequences and probable lawsuits.

In arguments like this, I think people dance around the real issue. When you get down to brass tacks… isn’t it an argument over honesty and truth? Some people have very deep seated, principled beliefs in saving humanity thru legislation. They just can’t bring themselves, however, to tell the truth about who they are and what they believe. These principled people remain silent on the matter of ideology, which reduces everyone else to trying to connect the dots and figure it out. When they do…it is refuted and thrown back as right wing conspiracy theories.

Lots of Socialism talk going on in America today…but not a whole lot of people “manning-up” and carrying that mantle. Let one of the “big boys” in the administration say, “I believe socialism is the key to America’s future…” Guess what…that would be the last liberal democrat elected to office for quite a while. But I digress…back to the discussion…

Big Nanny-State Government (read: Socialism) is not consistent with our founding principles as outlined in the DOI or constitution. I haven’t read much of anything in either document that “forces” anyone to do much of anything (excepting the 16th Amendment). The 16th (ratified 1913) was the first amendment that endowed a positive authority on the Government. “Congress shall have the power…”. By the way, anyone know who was president in 1913? A progressive? Then, all of the sudden, we see in the 22nd, 24th and 26th. “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Gives a bit of wiggle room for Government intrusion, does it not?

As a side note…I would like to know what in the heck did we do from 1776 to 1913 to raise funds to operate the Government. Oh, wait, maybe we didn’t need to do much because it wasn’t as large and bloated as it is today. Took 137 years to figure out they needed to tax folks. 97 years later we all believe federal income taxes are one of life’s two certainties. It is hard to keep this rant solely on concealed carry because all of this is inter-twined in ideological dogma.

If you want big Government…say it. If that means curtailing God-given rights in the interest of an enlightened belief in public safety…go for it. Want Socialism? Shout it from the mountaintop. Simply admit it and lay out your plan for fixing America. See who jumps on board.

I thought that we had pretty much beaten this horse to death.

You are presenting the appearance of drifting into trolling.

I certainly hope that there is a point to all of these questions (allegedly for the pursuit of knowledge and understanding), or I am going to have to hold you in contempt. Hopefully, your point is going to be quickly evident.

TR

...and that has been the progressive way of wresting control over the people. Legislate it. Yes...some qualifications are OK and others aren't. There is this whole thing about Professional qualifications vs. civil rights. Doctors and lawyers are good examples of required qualifications...having to receive a qualification in order to vote, voice your opinion, practice a religion, or carry a gun is quite another thing.

“-A persons moral compass can be determined by how he references free men the right to defend themselves-”
~Ted Nugent~

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Are we unclear on the meaning of "keep" and "bear" now?

TR

Oh, snap!!

BTW...Did you hear the Nuge use the word "Metastasize" on Beck the other day? I was like, "Dayum...that was 4 syllables. Didn't know many 2nd amendment supporters that could use a word like that in a sentance." (Just for clarification...everything after "I was like," was total sarcasm...);)

That legislation would be one thing. But the common law is also there that allows a citizen the right of self defense, more than likely in all 50 states. SCOTUS, especially the right leaning justices, have held that there is "natural law" and that IIRC is part of it.

Just now saw it...LOL...nice:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfYbw...eature=related

If my safety is truly number one, then why would I find myself facedown on the concrete with a knee on my neck (and explain how that happens without any injury, please) for merely not telling you I was carrying a firearm, especially if I never presented any kind of threatening action towards an officer? Are you protecting me from you, from myself, or from the concealed weapon jumping out of its holster all on its own and firing at you?

As for weapons retention, if no one knows I'm carrying one, how would they know to try to take it? Consider the concept of hiding in plain sight. I'd submit that by keeping it concealed and not letting anyone know I'm carrying, I'm in fact 'protecting my gun side'. Further, if the weapon is under a cover garment and in a holster, it makes it much harder for a potential snatcher to grab and free the weapon, vs. carrying open (especially as AFAIK there are no requirements for a civilian to use a retention holster when carrying open).

Food for thought.