Just went and Got Carry permit for GA

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Since we're already OT, someone explain this ad to me

They're all the same dude, regardless of age. Some are getting struck by lightning, it seems. What.

It means before you die you should go to Kreshatik st. in Kiev on a warm summer Saturday night!

Bring your gun

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Yes. Like I have said numerous times, I have absolutely no problems with law abiding citizens carrying a gun.

It is not a choice I would make for myself and I would not choose to have a gun in my home, but that doesn't mean I am anti-gun for those who want/need one.

The only thing about this post that I even really responded to was the comment about paying for a permit and having fingerprints done. All of which I think are perfectly logical if you want to carry a gun.

We agree in the first part of course.

The problem I have with permits is that they do not show any ability to actually do anything. Sort of like a license plate on the car. You pay your fee and get your paper but it does not prevent accidents or cars being used in crime.

Vermont has no permit, no background check, no training. Buy a gun, load it and carry it. Open or concealed, makes no difference. And our crime rate is consistantly among the lowest in the country. What would a permit do? Would it decrease crime? Our accident rate is very low, what would training classes required for permits do that the training classes our kids get in school not already achieve?

I mean the initial reaction is that you need a permit. and one can make the argument that you have a right to own a gun but need to meet certain requirements to carry your private gun in public places. I prefer a state with shall issue permits to one with none. I just don't see where, in practice, there is actually any benefit EXCEPT to make it politically palatable. OK, for now I go with that.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

People carry guns for protection. Not because they want to fight the government. Well, I guess some do but I gotta hope you're better than that. You guys just wanna act like its your American citizen's obligation to carry a gun when that has nothing to do with that. Its only turned to that because you think someone is going to come into your house and take your gun. A possibility that we're also no where near. Not that it would matter right? We all know they'd have to pry them from your cold dead hands.

The fact is I don't need a reason. If you feel a need to make one up for me, then go ahead.

I will note that when our government wants to support the toppling of a government we do not like...hmmmm, Syria comes to mind, we supply regular people with assault rifles. So you are saying that an armed citizenry can topple oppressive governments in other countries...but not prevent an oppressive government here. Right?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

We agree in the first part of course.

The problem I have with permits is that they do not show any ability to actually do anything. Sort of like a license plate on the car. You pay your fee and get your paper but it does not prevent accidents or cars being used in crime.

Vermont has no permit, no background check, no training. Buy a gun, load it and carry it. Open or concealed, makes no difference. And our crime rate is consistantly among the lowest in the country. What would a permit do? Would it decrease crime? Our accident rate is very low, what would training classes required for permits do that the training classes our kids get in school not already achieve?

I mean the initial reaction is that you need a permit. and one can make the argument that you have a right to own a gun but need to meet certain requirements to carry your private gun in public places. I prefer a state with shall issue permits to one with none. I just don't see where, in practice, there is actually any benefit EXCEPT to make it politically palatable. OK, for now I go with that.

What about drivers licenses? Are you for or against them?

[Peikko 1,575]

Welcome back to VJ, Cleo. It's even stupider than when you were here before.

No kidding

Apparantly announcing you've got off your ####### and bought yourself a gun carrying permit is how automatically worthy of analisis and political debate and is not simply personal trivia more fit for the games in regular OT. Who knew?

[GandD 5,966]

The fact is I don't need a reason. If you feel a need to make one up for me, then go ahead.

I will note that when our government wants to support the toppling of a government we do not like...hmmmm, Syria comes to mind, we supply regular people with assault rifles. So you are saying that an armed citizenry can topple oppressive governments in other countries...but not prevent an oppressive government here. Right?

This isn't Syria. There isn't going to be a government take over attempt. Your guns will never be used to free and oppressed populace. Ever. Wake up.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This isn't Syria. There isn't going to be a government take over attempt. Your guns will never be used to free and oppressed populace. Ever. Wake up.

True. The gun nutters are running scared. If Zimmerman gets acquitted, the political outrage from sensible Americans will be the end of stand your ground and legislation will be passed creating further limitations on the carrying firearms. If he is convicted, then prosecutors will use this case as a model for additional prosecutions. Despite the misinformation about the case from networks like Fox News, this case is a lose-lose for white supremacists everywhere.

Edited July 13, 2013 by The Patriot

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

No kidding

Apparantly announcing you've got off your ####### and bought yourself a gun carrying permit is how automatically worthy of analisis and political debate and is not simply personal trivia more fit for the games in regular OT. Who knew?

Not sure if you are a troll or are really that obtuse Here is my original post below. The parts that are political are underlined. If you still need help understanding , let me know

By my count there are 4 different political references.

OP

I could not be prouder.

Shame I had to go pay 82.50 and be finger printed so I could exercise my constitutional right

But yet somehow making someone show an ID to vote is avast right wing conspiracy to disenfranchise minorities.

** Logic... Sooooo dangerous to our liberty

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What about drivers licenses? Are you for or against them?

I will note first that driving is not an individual right protected specifically by the constitution and several SCOTUS rulings. It is a privilege.

That said, I have no illusion that driver's licenses themselves serve much purpose other than a huge source of revenue. Millions of people operate cars without licenses. Licensing standards vary so greatly between states and even within states as to make any notion of providing safety laughable...

Example...Vermont requires NO drivers education for anyone. Person's 15 years old can get a "learners permit" with a simple written test and a drivers license at age 16. They must have an adult sign off in a log book that they have 40 hours driving experience within that year and then pass a 10-15 driving test. The license issued is then valid in all 50 states for the rest of their life! If you are over the magic age of 18, when all knowledge related to driving is bestowed on you, you simply walk in and take the 10-15 driving test. If you pass, you get a lifetime drivers license, renewable by paying a fee every 4 years. Alla and Sergey were not required to have ANY driver education, Pasha had to do the "40 hours within one year" log book. He was my "chauffer" for one year, so he got a lot of experience and is by far the best of the 3. He also had (optional) drivers ed in school for which he gets an insurance discount, but it is in no way required.

Vermont is no more lenient than a lot of states. But how many Vermont plates do you see in MA, Spooky? We have 100% reciprocity with drivers licenses throughout the USA for all states.

Am I against drivers licenses? No. Do I imagine they protect me from something? No. I am not "against" shall issue concealed carry licenses, per se, but ideally the best protection for society comes when ANY person is allowed to carry concealed. Note there is a difference between ANY person being allowed to carry concealed and EVERY person carrying concealed weapons.

If I had to guess (and I would have to guess because no one knows) I would say less people (%) actually carry concealed handguns in Vermont than, say, Texas or Florida. However we have much lower crime because anyone can carry concealed so 100% of adults are allowed to do so. This will be interpretted to mean "more guns, less crime" by people that cannot comprehend. It is the concept of not knowing who is armed that makes concealed carry 100% effective at reducing crime. Every jurisdiction that has introduced CC has seen a reduction in crime. Period.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

True. The gun nutters are running scared. If Zimmerman gets acquitted, the political outrage from sensible Americans will be the end of stand your ground and legislation will be passed creating further limitations on the carrying firearms. If he is convicted, then prosecutors will use this case as a model for additional prosecutions. Despite the misinformation about the case from networks like Fox News, this case is a lose-lose for white supremacists everywhere.

And here we see why this case is not about murder. And we also see who is "dancing in blood" Racism and gun control. Looking at how the lines are drawn on opinions, who'da thunk it?

He will be acquitted.

what G and D described is the 100% success of the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of having it is never needing it!

Edited July 13, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

This isn't Syria. There isn't going to be a government take over attempt. Your guns will never be used to free and oppressed populace. Ever. Wake up.

That was exactly the point of the 2nd Amendment to begin with. I agree with you 100% Thank you. I hope you are correct, I believe you are.

[Bugs 455]

Since we're already OT, someone explain this ad to me

They're all the same dude, regardless of age. Some are getting struck by lightning, it seems. What.

Seriously. That guy hasn't aged in 57 years.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

No kidding

Apparantly announcing you've got off your ####### and bought yourself a gun carrying permit is how automatically worthy of analisis and political debate and is not simply personal trivia more fit for the games in regular OT. Who knew?

Not you.

The issue of CC licenses is very political. We most recently saw this in IL. The overwhelming influence of racists in Chicago had always bottled up any possibility of IL residents exercising their rights. A recent US Appeals court decision that the state could not ignore the right of the people to be armed forced the state legislature to allow CC. It would seem thatis as political as it gets...but no. The Governor, in colusion with the Chicago Mayor postponed the bill for 30 in contempt of the court order and tried to veto parts of the bill. The legislature over-rode his vetos. This is just in the last week.

It gets more political than that. The district court ruling affected ONLY Illinois because ONLY Illinois in that district had not already implemented "shall issue" concealed carry. Initially, Governor Quinn & Co. announced they woudl challenge it to the SCOTUS. Hold the phone, there Quinn! The calls came from the other states which still discriminate against blacks in issuing permits...HI, CA, NY, NJ and MA. "Fall on your sword, Quinn" They were afraid the SCOTUS would upohold ths ruling as they upheld Heller and McDonald and force ALL states into "shall issue" permits AND reciprocity.

This case is, in effect, a loss for the NRA. The intent of this case was three-fold, get concealed carry for Illinois AND get "discretionary" CC permits struck down nationwide AND get reciprocity nationwide by litigation. 1 out of 3 is progress. And the NRA is very methodical, patient and persistent.

Now whether NB's procurement of a license itself is political news, I doubt it, but the issue is certainly political. One cannot argue that this thread is not political. It is also interesting how this issue influences many other issues, including the TM/GZ courtroom puppet show. If GZ had "stood his ground" and killed TM with a baseball bat, Patriot and that ilk couldn't possibly care less about a dead black teenager. There are plenty of murdered black teenagers for Patriot & Co. to concern himself with if he gave a rat's @ss about dead black teenagers. Or even black teenagers killed by a gun. But this case offered various frustrated ne'er-do-wells an opportunity to promote their agenda with the blood of some black teenager. What could be better? Certainly not 20 white school children...that was already tried. Certainly not 200+ dead Mexicans killed by guns supplied by our government to Narco terrorists in another attempt to create a "need" for gun laws. Certainly not the bad timing of the people killed in a movie theatre in Colorado...before the election, can you even imagine?

What he cares about is another attempt to restrict American's rights. The last one failed miserably and he is pissed off about it and still in meltdown from the NRA slam dunking any new Federal Gun laws. Its the new normal.

Tough shitski. <----- Transliterated Russian Political Phrase.

No kidding

Apparantly announcing you've got off your ####### and bought yourself a gun carrying permit is how automatically worthy of analisis and political debate and is not simply personal trivia more fit for the games in regular OT. Who knew?

Not you.

The issue of CC licenses is very political. We most recently saw this in IL. The overwhelming influence of racists in Chicago had always bottled up any possibility of IL residents exercising their rights. A recent US Appeals court decision that the state could not ignore the right of the people to be armed forced the state legislature to allow CC. It would seem thatis as political as it gets...but no. The Governor, in colusion with the Chicago Mayor postponed the bill for 30 in contempt of the court order and tried to veto parts of the bill. The legislature over-rode his vetos. This is just in the last week.

It gets more political than that. The district court ruling affected ONLY Illinois because ONLY Illinois in that district had not already implemented "shall issue" concealed carry. Initially, Governor Quinn & Co. announced they woudl challenge it to the SCOTUS. Hold the phone, there Quinn! The calls came from the other states which still discriminate against blacks in issuing permits...HI, CA, NY, NJ and MA. "Fall on your sword, Quinn" They were afraid the SCOTUS would upohold ths ruling as they upheld Heller and McDonald and force ALL states into "shall issue" permits AND reciprocity.

This case is, in effect, a loss for the NRA. The intent of this case was three-fold, get concealed carry for Illinois AND get "discretionary" CC permits struck down nationwide AND get reciprocity nationwide by litigation. 1 out of 3 is progress. And the NRA is very methodical, patient and persistent.

Now whether NB's procurement of a license itself is political news, I doubt it, but the issue is certainly political. One cannot argue that this thread is not political. It is also interesting how this issue influences many other issues, including the TM/GZ courtroom puppet show. If GZ had "stood his ground" and killed TM with a baseball bat, Patriot and that ilk couldn't possibly care less about a dead black teenager. There are plenty of murdered black teenagers for Patriot & Co. to concern himself with if he gave a rat's @ss about dead black teenagers. Or even black teenagers killed by a gun. But this case offered various frustrated ne'er-do-wells an opportunity to promote their agenda with the blood of some black teenager. What could be better? Certainly not 20 white school children...that was already tried. Certainly not 200+ dead Mexicans killed by guns supplied by our government to Narco terrorists in another attempt to create a "need" for gun laws. Certainly not the bad timing of the people killed in a movie theatre in Colorado...before the election, can you even imagine?

What he cares about is another attempt to restrict American's rights. The last one failed miserably and he is pissed off about it and still in meltdown from the NRA slam dunking any new Federal Gun laws. Its the new normal.

Tough shitski. <----- Transliterated Russian Political Phrase.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I will note first that driving is not an individual right protected specifically by the constitution and several SCOTUS rulings. It is a privilege.

That said, I have no illusion that driver's licenses themselves serve much purpose other than a huge source of revenue. Millions of people operate cars without licenses. Licensing standards vary so greatly between states and even within states as to make any notion of providing safety laughable...

Example...Vermont requires NO drivers education for anyone. Person's 15 years old can get a "learners permit" with a simple written test and a drivers license at age 16. They must have an adult sign off in a log book that they have 40 hours driving experience within that year and then pass a 10-15 driving test. The license issued is then valid in all 50 states for the rest of their life! If you are over the magic age of 18, when all knowledge related to driving is bestowed on you, you simply walk in and take the 10-15 driving test. If you pass, you get a lifetime drivers license, renewable by paying a fee every 4 years. Alla and Sergey were not required to have ANY driver education, Pasha had to do the "40 hours within one year" log book. He was my "chauffer" for one year, so he got a lot of experience and is by far the best of the 3. He also had (optional) drivers ed in school for which he gets an insurance discount, but it is in no way required.

Vermont is no more lenient than a lot of states. But how many Vermont plates do you see in MA, Spooky? We have 100% reciprocity with drivers licenses throughout the USA for all states.

Am I against drivers licenses? No. Do I imagine they protect me from something? No. I am not "against" shall issue concealed carry licenses, per se, but ideally the best protection for society comes when ANY person is allowed to carry concealed. Note there is a difference between ANY person being allowed to carry concealed and EVERY person carrying concealed weapons.

If I had to guess (and I would have to guess because no one knows) I would say less people (%) actually carry concealed handguns in Vermont than, say, Texas or Florida. However we have much lower crime because anyone can carry concealed so 100% of adults are allowed to do so. This will be interpretted to mean "more guns, less crime" by people that cannot comprehend. It is the concept of not knowing who is armed that makes concealed carry 100% effective at reducing crime. Every jurisdiction that has introduced CC has seen a reduction in crime. Period.

I regularly see Vermont plates here, not lots but often enough. Not like RI or NH which I see daily. I disagree with the any person being able to carry concealed. A felon convicted of a crime using a firearm should not be able to carry concealed, IMO. Ditto for people convicted of aggravated assault, etc. People with a know history of mental illness, Alzheimer's, dementia, schizophrenia, mentally challenged or retarded, blind people, habitual drug and alcohol offenders, etc.

I believe that there are about 15 or so states that have a higher percentage of gun ownership than Vermont and they all have a higher crime rate. No one will ever convince me that demographics do not play a big part in the crime rate. There is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Edited July 13, 2013 by spookyturtle

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I'd like to add that I do think drivers ed training is good for kids before they get their license. If it saves one life, it is well worth it, IMO. Lots of kids don't have responsible parents to teach them driving safety. Too many kids only have one parent, and some should only be called parents because they were responsible for conceiving the child. I was fortunate to learn gun safety at an early age from my father and my uncle. Today there are so many that wouldn't have someone teach them at home, so a gun safety program can be a good thing, again, IMO.

Many people don't take the time to learn proper gun handling and safety. I have known more than one person that carried and never fired a single shot with the gun they carry. They didn't really like shooting, they bought the gun for protection. And as I asked, don't you think it would be a good idea to do a bit of practicing with it? Someone like that with a gun scares me.