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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

#DeathParty yeah!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come back and tell us when you use it, OP.

+1

Yes, let us know when you are some super hero that saves the day, you dumb mutt.

Why would you post this?

Are you so lacking in both self control and self perception that you don’t understand how posting something like this makes you appear to the rest of us? Further, do you understand the harm this does to the credibility of others who might tend to agree with you, but are embarrassed at the thought of being lumped in with your crazy ass?

Seriously- if my choices were one of the carry permit people on this thread, or you- I’d pick any of them. They’re at least civil. You, on the other hand, are just plain mean.

[Anonymous]

I’m about to do the same in VA. Another carjacking at Tyson’s today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people have inadequacies they attempt to assuage by repressing their own internal impulsivity, rage and violence and then projecting it onto other people and inanimate objects, all the time demanding to be free agents in every area of their own lives while dedicating every effort to micromanaging the lives of others.

The most anti gun people I know personally range from being suicidal/formerly suicidal to chronically depressed about the direction their life has taken and have a history of making very stupid and illogical life choices, often bad money/career/relationship choices, and overall are truly miserable individuals. It’s definitely projection, they don’t trust themselves with a firearm so they assume most other people can’t be trusted either.

And yet you want all of those people to easily acquire guns.

Nope. I want a strong background check system that is much more robust at stopping people like this from getting guns than the system we currently have.

The issue is these anti gun types who I just described don’t want anyone else to be able to have a gun. Period. They project their own feelings of incompetence with dangerous tools and irrational fears of them on everyone else.

Great. Glad to hear you support common sense gun control.

Given the level of gun violence in the US your friend’s fears aren’t all that irrational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m about to do the same in VA. Another carjacking at Tyson’s today

Speaking of irrational fears…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good on OP. Democrats can’t stand when it when you exercise your Constitutional rights. They like to take away the rights of law abiding citizens while giving more rights to criminals. On top of that they tax you more for the privilege. If democratic officials don’t enforce the law and do their jobs wrt public safety, what do you expect citizens to do? Allow criminals to keep teeing off on them? Law abiding citizens wouldn’t need CCW if democrats enforced the law, jailed criminals, and put the rights of law abiding citizens over thugs and miscreants in DC.

Says the people who are fine with women losing bodily autonomy.

Where are abortions listed in the constitution?

Just admit it- you can’t stand the fact a citizen demands to exercise their constitutional right.

I’m fine with 2A “rights” - with limitations.

And just because I have a uterus doesn’t mean I don’t have “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

14th Amendment
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/liberty
liberty
The term “liberty” appears in the due process clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. As used in the Constitution, liberty means freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual. Freedom from restraint refers to more than just physical restraint, but also the freedom to act according to one's own will. On numerous occasions the Supreme Court has sought to explain what liberty means and what it encompasses. For example:

The Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska stated “[liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
In Bolling v. Sharpe, the Supreme Court stated “[liberty] is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective.”
In Ingraham v. Wright, the Supreme Court stated liberty includes “freedom from bodily restraint and punishment” and “a right to be free from and to obtain judicial relief, for unjustified intrusions on personal security.”

Look how many words you needed to try to argue that abortion should be covered under constitutional rights.

Meanwhile, you know what’s far more explicit and abundantly clear? Our citizens’ rights to own and carry a fire arm, as stated in 2A. Far less words and tortuous arguments needed. Our citizens have the right to own arms whether you like it or not. Every law abiding citizen in DC should be allowed without ridiculously cumbersome roadblocks in the way setup by progressive dem local laws.

I’m sorry you have trouble following so many words.

“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are more fundamental than 2A. Unalienable, in fact.

Not everyone should have a gun and gun ownership has limits and responsibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

Sorry but the data says otherwise. The more guns, the more gun violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

Sorry but the data says otherwise. The more guns, the more gun violence.

Only if you discount the enormous number of defensive uses of firearms by decent people, most of which don’t involve any shots fired. Lawfully armed firearm owners commit crimes at a lower rate than police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should all get CCW's.

Agree, if there is a substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down. So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun. It is a win-win.

And gun deaths will go up.

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence.

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.” Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments.

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.” A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit.