I'm a DC resident, applied for my CCW, and I'm now carrying concealed

[Anonymous]

DC authorities did little to protect property during the last round of looting and riots. it's not just criminals, it's the potential for mob rule every few decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC authorities did little to protect property during the last round of looting and riots. it's not just criminals, it's the potential for mob rule every few decades.

Yes J6 was bad. Do you really think the general public should have grabbed their guns and opened up on that mob?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you even know how to use it?

DC requires training to get a CCW.

I think that you’re still more likely to shoot yourself or your kid than a bad guy, but if you go through a basic personal and household sanity check and a permitting process, get training and acknowledge that you’re responsible if anyone in your household who commits a mass shooting, I’m fine if you have a gun. Have 10 guns. People like you occasionally going postal or killing your spouses might be the price of freedom.

But it irritates me when very obvious loons who could have never joined a well-regulated get guns.

It also irritates me when we see that NRA became part of Putin’s effort to infiltrate the United States, the gun lovers are the kind of people who try get the United States to shaft Ukraine, and to that most of this thread is probably managed by bots or sock peppers trying to help Putin win WWIII.

We have a right to bear arms to protect us from people like Trump and Putin, and then it turns out that a lot of gun owners are fine with a Putin Trump takeover the United States.

Compared with the fact that gun ownership is now part of an effort to destroy the United States, the suicides, spouse killings and occasional mass shootings are a minor nuisance.

If you’re that concerned about TrumPutin taking over the US, then don’t you owe it to yourself, your family, and the rest of the country who opposes that sort of thing (me among them) to arm yourself and be ready to resist such a thing?


What was the very FIRST thing Ukraine did when the Russians invaded?

They gave away hundreds of thousands of fully automatic AK-47’s to anyone who stood in line to get one.


Ukrainians are courageous. They armed themselves to resist Putin. Shouldn’t you be willing to do the same?

DP. The differences is that they are fighting to protect their fellow citizens, not trying to kill them.

I'm down for a legit militia with training and central storage of weapons. National Guard lite.

There is a machine gun and ammunition in the home of virtually every Swiss citizen of military service age (18-65). Yet the Swiss somehow avoid having the crime involving guns that we have here, despite our own draconian gun laws compared to the Swiss.

How do you explain this?

It's just a really different culture there so not comparable. They have a much higher % of military participation/training (mandatory conscription for men). They treat weapons seriously, not some GI Joe cosplay fetish. They also have a different approach towards education/vocation and lower poverty.

Also, it's harder to get a weapon:
"Not only are you supposed to be criminal record-free in order to get a gun, but you also must be deemed unlikely to cause harm to other Swiss. Local police who have doubts about a prospective gun owner’s well-being (or even those who are assured of the same but worry nonetheless) may and sometimes do ask local psychiatrists or friends about an applicant’s mental state or alcohol and drug use.

Also, that gun license, even when approved, is only valid for a maximum of nine months, and applicants are allowed only one weapon. Period."
https://impakter.com/why-gun-ownership-switzerland-not-same-us/

And, in 2019, the Swiss voted to adopt the new EU gun control laws restricting auto/semiautomatic weapons, including:
-A ban on weapons capable of rapidly firing multiple rounds
-Automatic and semi-automatic weapons to either be banned or heavily restricted
-Each owner of such a weapon, and the weapon itself, to be known to police across Europe
-All essential weapon components to be clearly labelled and registered electronically

You should really push for the US to have the same level of restrictions and regulations as the Swiss.

I'm a gun owner and would definitely be in favor of some of the European style restrictions. In Czechia you need to apply for a gun permit which is a fairly involved process with significant psych screening and competency tests, however it is "shall issue" so they can't just deny you because they feel like it, although this is granted by a law which could easily be repealed at any time so there's no constitutional protection. I believe we should have a constitutionally protected "shall issue" process for obtaining a firearm that is much more involved than the current requirement of doing an instant background check in a crime database. This would protect everyone's right to own a gun but at the same time do much more to ensure bad people can't get guns. Practically it might not do much good because there are a ludicruous amount of firearms already in circulation, this is the main issue.

I don't have any problem with people owning AR15's with 30 round magazines, I just don't want psychos to be able to get them as easily.

That would be great, but yes the crazy number of guns is an issue. Maybe it’s a good long-term plan.

I wonder what most law-abiding gun owners think about this approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC authorities did little to protect property during the last round of looting and riots. it's not just criminals, it's the potential for mob rule every few decades.

Yes J6 was bad. Do you really think the general public should have grabbed their guns and opened up on that mob?

Shooting masses of unarmed protesters isn’t a good look…but it IS exactly the sort of thing most DCUM’s could get behind - IF - it were the right sort of unarmed people getting shot. And the J6 crowd would definitely qualify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC authorities did little to protect property during the last round of looting and riots. it's not just criminals, it's the potential for mob rule every few decades.

Yes J6 was bad. Do you really think the general public should have grabbed their guns and opened up on that mob?

Shooting masses of unarmed protesters isn’t a good look…but it IS exactly the sort of thing most DCUM’s could get behind - IF - it were the right sort of unarmed people getting shot. And the J6 crowd would definitely qualify.

I’m fine letting LEO defend the VP and legislators with deadly force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC authorities did little to protect property during the last round of looting and riots. it's not just criminals, it's the potential for mob rule every few decades.

Yes J6 was bad. Do you really think the general public should have grabbed their guns and opened up on that mob?

Shooting masses of unarmed protesters isn’t a good look…but it IS exactly the sort of thing most DCUM’s could get behind - IF - it were the right sort of unarmed people getting shot. And the J6 crowd would definitely qualify.

I’m fine letting LEO defend the VP and legislators with deadly force.

What about the thousands of BLM protesters that surrounded the White House for 3 days in June of 2020, set fire to several buildings nearby, seriously injured dozens of police officers and caused the secret service to evacuate the first family to the bunker out of fear that the White House was about to be overrun ?

Do you support force deadly force being used there, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you even know how to use it?

DC requires training to get a CCW.

I think that you’re still more likely to shoot yourself or your kid than a bad guy, but if you go through a basic personal and household sanity check and a permitting process, get training and acknowledge that you’re responsible if anyone in your household who commits a mass shooting, I’m fine if you have a gun. Have 10 guns. People like you occasionally going postal or killing your spouses might be the price of freedom.

But it irritates me when very obvious loons who could have never joined a well-regulated get guns.

It also irritates me when we see that NRA became part of Putin’s effort to infiltrate the United States, the gun lovers are the kind of people who try get the United States to shaft Ukraine, and to that most of this thread is probably managed by bots or sock peppers trying to help Putin win WWIII.

We have a right to bear arms to protect us from people like Trump and Putin, and then it turns out that a lot of gun owners are fine with a Putin Trump takeover the United States.

Compared with the fact that gun ownership is now part of an effort to destroy the United States, the suicides, spouse killings and occasional mass shootings are a minor nuisance.

If you’re that concerned about TrumPutin taking over the US, then don’t you owe it to yourself, your family, and the rest of the country who opposes that sort of thing (me among them) to arm yourself and be ready to resist such a thing?


What was the very FIRST thing Ukraine did when the Russians invaded?

They gave away hundreds of thousands of fully automatic AK-47’s to anyone who stood in line to get one.


Ukrainians are courageous. They armed themselves to resist Putin. Shouldn’t you be willing to do the same?

DP. The differences is that they are fighting to protect their fellow citizens, not trying to kill them.

I'm down for a legit militia with training and central storage of weapons. National Guard lite.

There is a machine gun and ammunition in the home of virtually every Swiss citizen of military service age (18-65). Yet the Swiss somehow avoid having the crime involving guns that we have here, despite our own draconian gun laws compared to the Swiss.

How do you explain this?

It's just a really different culture there so not comparable. They have a much higher % of military participation/training (mandatory conscription for men). They treat weapons seriously, not some GI Joe cosplay fetish. They also have a different approach towards education/vocation and lower poverty.

Also, it's harder to get a weapon:
"Not only are you supposed to be criminal record-free in order to get a gun, but you also must be deemed unlikely to cause harm to other Swiss. Local police who have doubts about a prospective gun owner’s well-being (or even those who are assured of the same but worry nonetheless) may and sometimes do ask local psychiatrists or friends about an applicant’s mental state or alcohol and drug use.

Also, that gun license, even when approved, is only valid for a maximum of nine months, and applicants are allowed only one weapon. Period."
https://impakter.com/why-gun-ownership-switzerland-not-same-us/

And, in 2019, the Swiss voted to adopt the new EU gun control laws restricting auto/semiautomatic weapons, including:
-A ban on weapons capable of rapidly firing multiple rounds
-Automatic and semi-automatic weapons to either be banned or heavily restricted
-Each owner of such a weapon, and the weapon itself, to be known to police across Europe
-All essential weapon components to be clearly labelled and registered electronically

You should really push for the US to have the same level of restrictions and regulations as the Swiss.

I'm a gun owner and would definitely be in favor of some of the European style restrictions. In Czechia you need to apply for a gun permit which is a fairly involved process with significant psych screening and competency tests, however it is "shall issue" so they can't just deny you because they feel like it, although this is granted by a law which could easily be repealed at any time so there's no constitutional protection. I believe we should have a constitutionally protected "shall issue" process for obtaining a firearm that is much more involved than the current requirement of doing an instant background check in a crime database. This would protect everyone's right to own a gun but at the same time do much more to ensure bad people can't get guns. Practically it might not do much good because there are a ludicruous amount of firearms already in circulation, this is the main issue.

I don't have any problem with people owning AR15's with 30 round magazines, I just don't want psychos to be able to get them as easily.

That would be great, but yes the crazy number of guns is an issue. Maybe it’s a good long-term plan.

I wonder what most law-abiding gun owners think about this approach.

There really aren’t very many guns in DC. They’re actually quite rare, compared to other areas of the country with less restrictive gun laws. Many places have a MUCH higher density of guns than DC. Many communities in the south and midwest have guns in nearly every home. In DC the numbers are a tiny, tiny fraction of that.

What DC has more of, is criminals.

The guns don’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC authorities did little to protect property during the last round of looting and riots. it's not just criminals, it's the potential for mob rule every few decades.

Yes J6 was bad. Do you really think the general public should have grabbed their guns and opened up on that mob?

Shooting masses of unarmed protesters isn’t a good look…but it IS exactly the sort of thing most DCUM’s could get behind - IF - it were the right sort of unarmed people getting shot. And the J6 crowd would definitely qualify.

The J6 crowd was armed. Not everyone, but enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC authorities did little to protect property during the last round of looting and riots. it's not just criminals, it's the potential for mob rule every few decades.

Yes J6 was bad. Do you really think the general public should have grabbed their guns and opened up on that mob?

Shooting masses of unarmed protesters isn’t a good look…but it IS exactly the sort of thing most DCUM’s could get behind - IF - it were the right sort of unarmed people getting shot. And the J6 crowd would definitely qualify.

I’m fine letting LEO defend the VP and legislators with deadly force.

What about the thousands of BLM protesters that surrounded the White House for 3 days in June of 2020, set fire to several buildings nearby, seriously injured dozens of police officers and caused the secret service to evacuate the first family to the bunker out of fear that the White House was about to be overrun ?

Do you support force deadly force being used there, too?

The vast majority of BLM protestors were peaceful. Certainly the ones were the day when Trump ousted them violently. And they didn’t breach any federal buildings. And they aren’t traitors trying to overthrow the government. So…not comparable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC authorities did little to protect property during the last round of looting and riots. it's not just criminals, it's the potential for mob rule every few decades.

Yes J6 was bad. Do you really think the general public should have grabbed their guns and opened up on that mob?

Shooting masses of unarmed protesters isn’t a good look…but it IS exactly the sort of thing most DCUM’s could get behind - IF - it were the right sort of unarmed people getting shot. And the J6 crowd would definitely qualify.

I’m fine letting LEO defend the VP and legislators with deadly force.

What about the thousands of BLM protesters that surrounded the White House for 3 days in June of 2020, set fire to several buildings nearby, seriously injured dozens of police officers and caused the secret service to evacuate the first family to the bunker out of fear that the White House was about to be overrun ?

Do you support force deadly force being used there, too?

Good question. Crickets, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You say you're fine letting a thief take your car, credit cards, phone etc. So let them take what they want. You're far more likely to make it home alive than if you try to pull on gun on the thief. Because guess what--the gun toting criminals of DC are a lot handier with guns than you likely are. Don't be stupid.

Hahahahahhahahaha. No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You say you're fine letting a thief take your car, credit cards, phone etc. So let them take what they want. You're far more likely to make it home alive than if you try to pull on gun on the thief. Because guess what--the gun toting criminals of DC are a lot handier with guns than you likely are. Don't be stupid.

Hahahahahhahahaha. No.

Yeah that was stupid comment, look at actual shootouts and the criminals miss way more shots than the cops usually. They do dumb s*** like hold the gun above their head while firing in the cops general direction. The number of confiscated weapons that don't even have iron sights or optics mounted is hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC authorities did little to protect property during the last round of looting and riots. it's not just criminals, it's the potential for mob rule every few decades.

Yes J6 was bad. Do you really think the general public should have grabbed their guns and opened up on that mob?

Shooting masses of unarmed protesters isn’t a good look…but it IS exactly the sort of thing most DCUM’s could get behind - IF - it were the right sort of unarmed people getting shot. And the J6 crowd would definitely qualify.

I’m fine letting LEO defend the VP and legislators with deadly force.

What about the thousands of BLM protesters that surrounded the White House for 3 days in June of 2020, set fire to several buildings nearby, seriously injured dozens of police officers and caused the secret service to evacuate the first family to the bunker out of fear that the White House was about to be overrun ?

Do you support force deadly force being used there, too?

The vast majority of BLM protestors were peaceful. Certainly the ones were the day when Trump ousted them violently. And they didn’t breach any federal buildings. And they aren’t traitors trying to overthrow the government. So…not comparable.

But but but…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC authorities did little to protect property during the last round of looting and riots. it's not just criminals, it's the potential for mob rule every few decades.

Yes J6 was bad. Do you really think the general public should have grabbed their guns and opened up on that mob?

Shooting masses of unarmed protesters isn’t a good look…but it IS exactly the sort of thing most DCUM’s could get behind - IF - it were the right sort of unarmed people getting shot. And the J6 crowd would definitely qualify.

I’m fine letting LEO defend the VP and legislators with deadly force.

What about the thousands of BLM protesters that surrounded the White House for 3 days in June of 2020, set fire to several buildings nearby, seriously injured dozens of police officers and caused the secret service to evacuate the first family to the bunker out of fear that the White House was about to be overrun ?

Do you support force deadly force being used there, too?

Good question. Crickets, of course.

Are you stupid, dumb, or stupid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC authorities did little to protect property during the last round of looting and riots. it's not just criminals, it's the potential for mob rule every few decades.

Yes J6 was bad. Do you really think the general public should have grabbed their guns and opened up on that mob?

Shooting masses of unarmed protesters isn’t a good look…but it IS exactly the sort of thing most DCUM’s could get behind - IF - it were the right sort of unarmed people getting shot. And the J6 crowd would definitely qualify.

I’m fine letting LEO defend the VP and legislators with deadly force.

What about the thousands of BLM protesters that surrounded the White House for 3 days in June of 2020, set fire to several buildings nearby, seriously injured dozens of police officers and caused the secret service to evacuate the first family to the bunker out of fear that the White House was about to be overrun ?

Do you support force deadly force being used there, too?

The vast majority of BLM protestors were peaceful. Certainly the ones were the day when Trump ousted them violently. And they didn’t breach any federal buildings. And they aren’t traitors trying to overthrow the government. So…not comparable.

But but but…

Totally different situation. It’s scary that you can’t see that.

Were you there on 1/6?