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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why people can’t accept the the 2nd amendment like all 10 in the bill of rights are individual rights and that OP is exceeding here right within the process required by DC to carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure why some people think 2A is somehow absolute when none of the others are (for example 1A does not give you the absolute right to say you are a cop or a doctor when you are not, to make false claims about goods and services, to threaten to kill or harm someone etc). 2A did clearly say "well regulated."

+1

2A rights are limited. Expanded background checks would better "prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people".

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Great “proof quote.” Did you read the rest? Including the holding where they found DC gun laws at the time unconstitutional?

And there has been a great loss of life associated with that ruling.


Gun laws reduce gun fatalities.

What’s wrong with “NFA background checks”? (Top left illustration on the graphic you cited)

Why is that framed in such a negative connotation? Don’t you WANT more background checks? You should be supporting that.

Explain yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why people can’t accept the the 2nd amendment like all 10 in the bill of rights are individual rights and that OP is exceeding here right within the process required by DC to carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure why some people think 2A is somehow absolute when none of the others are (for example 1A does not give you the absolute right to say you are a cop or a doctor when you are not, to make false claims about goods and services, to threaten to kill or harm someone etc). 2A did clearly say "well regulated."

+1

2A rights are limited. Expanded background checks would better "prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people".

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Great “proof quote.” Did you read the rest? Including the holding where they found DC gun laws at the time unconstitutional?

And there has been a great loss of life associated with that ruling.


Gun laws reduce gun fatalities.

What’s wrong with “NFA background checks”? (Top left illustration on the graphic you cited)

Why is that framed in such a negative connotation? Don’t you WANT more background checks? You should be supporting that.

Explain yourself.

DP... NFA background checks corresponds with gun purchases, which spiked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why people can’t accept the the 2nd amendment like all 10 in the bill of rights are individual rights and that OP is exceeding here right within the process required by DC to carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure why some people think 2A is somehow absolute when none of the others are (for example 1A does not give you the absolute right to say you are a cop or a doctor when you are not, to make false claims about goods and services, to threaten to kill or harm someone etc). 2A did clearly say "well regulated."

+1

2A rights are limited. Expanded background checks would better "prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people".

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Great “proof quote.” Did you read the rest? Including the holding where they found DC gun laws at the time unconstitutional?

And there has been a great loss of life associated with that ruling.


Gun laws reduce gun fatalities.

This, 1000%

The data does not lie. More guns make us LESS safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why people can’t accept the the 2nd amendment like all 10 in the bill of rights are individual rights and that OP is exceeding here right within the process required by DC to carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure why some people think 2A is somehow absolute when none of the others are (for example 1A does not give you the absolute right to say you are a cop or a doctor when you are not, to make false claims about goods and services, to threaten to kill or harm someone etc). 2A did clearly say "well regulated."

+1

2A rights are limited. Expanded background checks would better "prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people".

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Great “proof quote.” Did you read the rest? Including the holding where they found DC gun laws at the time unconstitutional?

And there has been a great loss of life associated with that ruling.


Gun laws reduce gun fatalities.

No they don’t. Because there are tons of gun laws and there are still fatalities. Gun laws haven’t worked since Reconstruction except to disarm subjugated people so they could be oppressed. If gun laws prevented crime it would’ve stopped in the 30’s with the National Firearms Act, or in 1968 with the Gun Control Act, the chief result of which was to improve the quality of weapons in criminal hands.

People use firearms untold thousands of times a year to protect themselves, typically without firing a shot.

Before Heller, “grandfathered” DC residents had more rights than people who moved there later. So did retired police, and they still do.

Wow. What a bunch of bullshit you just spouted there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why people can’t accept the the 2nd amendment like all 10 in the bill of rights are individual rights and that OP is exceeding here right within the process required by DC to carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure why some people think 2A is somehow absolute when none of the others are (for example 1A does not give you the absolute right to say you are a cop or a doctor when you are not, to make false claims about goods and services, to threaten to kill or harm someone etc). 2A did clearly say "well regulated."

+1

2A rights are limited. Expanded background checks would better "prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people".

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Great “proof quote.” Did you read the rest? Including the holding where they found DC gun laws at the time unconstitutional?

And there has been a great loss of life associated with that ruling.


Gun laws reduce gun fatalities.

No they don’t. Because there are tons of gun laws and there are still fatalities. Gun laws haven’t worked since Reconstruction except to disarm subjugated people so they could be oppressed. If gun laws prevented crime it would’ve stopped in the 30’s with the National Firearms Act, or in 1968 with the Gun Control Act, the chief result of which was to improve the quality of weapons in criminal hands.

People use firearms untold thousands of times a year to protect themselves, typically without firing a shot.

Before Heller, “grandfathered” DC residents had more rights than people who moved there later. So did retired police, and they still do.

Wow. What a bunch of bullshit you just spouted there.

Please cite any bullshit you see. List it. We can over it item by item to see if it’s indeed bullshit, or if in fact it’s true.


Get started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why people can’t accept the the 2nd amendment like all 10 in the bill of rights are individual rights and that OP is exceeding here right within the process required by DC to carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure why some people think 2A is somehow absolute when none of the others are (for example 1A does not give you the absolute right to say you are a cop or a doctor when you are not, to make false claims about goods and services, to threaten to kill or harm someone etc). 2A did clearly say "well regulated."

+1

2A rights are limited. Expanded background checks would better "prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people".

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Great “proof quote.” Did you read the rest? Including the holding where they found DC gun laws at the time unconstitutional?

And there has been a great loss of life associated with that ruling.


Gun laws reduce gun fatalities.

What’s wrong with “NFA background checks”? (Top left illustration on the graphic you cited)

Why is that framed in such a negative connotation? Don’t you WANT more background checks? You should be supporting that.

Explain yourself.

DP... NFA background checks corresponds with gun purchases, which spiked.

Do you even know what an “NFA background check” even is? Without googling it?

You probably don’t- which is why you seem to think it’s indicative of something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why people can’t accept the the 2nd amendment like all 10 in the bill of rights are individual rights and that OP is exceeding here right within the process required by DC to carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure why some people think 2A is somehow absolute when none of the others are (for example 1A does not give you the absolute right to say you are a cop or a doctor when you are not, to make false claims about goods and services, to threaten to kill or harm someone etc). 2A did clearly say "well regulated."

+1

2A rights are limited. Expanded background checks would better "prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people".

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Great “proof quote.” Did you read the rest? Including the holding where they found DC gun laws at the time unconstitutional?

And there has been a great loss of life associated with that ruling.


Gun laws reduce gun fatalities.

What’s wrong with “NFA background checks”? (Top left illustration on the graphic you cited)

Why is that framed in such a negative connotation? Don’t you WANT more background checks? You should be supporting that.

Explain yourself.

That’s the “more guns” part of “more guns = more gun fatalities”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why people can’t accept the the 2nd amendment like all 10 in the bill of rights are individual rights and that OP is exceeding here right within the process required by DC to carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure why some people think 2A is somehow absolute when none of the others are (for example 1A does not give you the absolute right to say you are a cop or a doctor when you are not, to make false claims about goods and services, to threaten to kill or harm someone etc). 2A did clearly say "well regulated."

+1

2A rights are limited. Expanded background checks would better "prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people".

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Great “proof quote.” Did you read the rest? Including the holding where they found DC gun laws at the time unconstitutional?

And there has been a great loss of life associated with that ruling.


Gun laws reduce gun fatalities.

OP’s gun and her carrying it does not endanger law abiding citizens. Want to stop gun crimes and associated harm to individuals. Then use existing gun laws or pass new ones to deal with the real problem, bad gun dealers. We know who they are - https://gunviolence.issuelab.org/resources/30185/30185.pdf

Stop the bad actors if you want to make things better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why people can’t accept the the 2nd amendment like all 10 in the bill of rights are individual rights and that OP is exceeding here right within the process required by DC to carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure why some people think 2A is somehow absolute when none of the others are (for example 1A does not give you the absolute right to say you are a cop or a doctor when you are not, to make false claims about goods and services, to threaten to kill or harm someone etc). 2A did clearly say "well regulated."

+1

2A rights are limited. Expanded background checks would better "prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people".

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Great “proof quote.” Did you read the rest? Including the holding where they found DC gun laws at the time unconstitutional?

And there has been a great loss of life associated with that ruling.


Gun laws reduce gun fatalities.

OP’s gun and her carrying it does not endanger law abiding citizens. Want to stop gun crimes and associated harm to individuals. Then use existing gun laws or pass new ones to deal with the real problem, bad gun dealers. We know who they are - https://gunviolence.issuelab.org/resources/30185/30185.pdf

Stop the bad actors if you want to make things better.

Great. So you do support adding common sense laws that give LEO the tools they need to track down these bad dealers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why people can’t accept the the 2nd amendment like all 10 in the bill of rights are individual rights and that OP is exceeding here right within the process required by DC to carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure why some people think 2A is somehow absolute when none of the others are (for example 1A does not give you the absolute right to say you are a cop or a doctor when you are not, to make false claims about goods and services, to threaten to kill or harm someone etc). 2A did clearly say "well regulated."

+1

2A rights are limited. Expanded background checks would better "prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people".

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Great “proof quote.” Did you read the rest? Including the holding where they found DC gun laws at the time unconstitutional?

And there has been a great loss of life associated with that ruling.


Gun laws reduce gun fatalities.

OP’s gun and her carrying it does not endanger law abiding citizens. Want to stop gun crimes and associated harm to individuals. Then use existing gun laws or pass new ones to deal with the real problem, bad gun dealers. We know who they are - https://gunviolence.issuelab.org/resources/30185/30185.pdf

Stop the bad actors if you want to make things better.

Great. So you do support adding common sense laws that give LEO the tools they need to track down these bad dealers.

Read the document. Already know who they are. Enforce laws to put them out of business. Arrest, prosecute, convict, lock away. Simple process. Lacking the will or whatever to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why people can’t accept the the 2nd amendment like all 10 in the bill of rights are individual rights and that OP is exceeding here right within the process required by DC to carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure why some people think 2A is somehow absolute when none of the others are (for example 1A does not give you the absolute right to say you are a cop or a doctor when you are not, to make false claims about goods and services, to threaten to kill or harm someone etc). 2A did clearly say "well regulated."

+1

2A rights are limited. Expanded background checks would better "prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people".

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Great “proof quote.” Did you read the rest? Including the holding where they found DC gun laws at the time unconstitutional?

And there has been a great loss of life associated with that ruling.


Gun laws reduce gun fatalities.

OP’s gun and her carrying it does not endanger law abiding citizens. Want to stop gun crimes and associated harm to individuals. Then use existing gun laws or pass new ones to deal with the real problem, bad gun dealers. We know who they are - https://gunviolence.issuelab.org/resources/30185/30185.pdf

Stop the bad actors if you want to make things better.

Really? because there are plenty of examples of people carrying legally shooting law abiding citizens because they're paranoid untrained idiots who should never be allowed to carry a deadly weapon:

https://www.khou.com/article/news/one-man-injured-after-carjacking-shooting-at-gas-station/285-142447940

https://abc13.com/archive/8666763/

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/08/27/stem-school-highlands-ranch-armed-security-guard/

[Anonymous]

"More guns make us LESS safe."

Really? Then why are so many people leaving cities and going to where people are armed to the teeth? Good luck in DC, you are going to need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"More guns make us LESS safe."

Really? Then why are so many people leaving cities and going to where people are armed to the teeth? Good luck in DC, you are going to need it.

That's not where most people are going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"More guns make us LESS safe."

Really? Then why are so many people leaving cities and going to where people are armed to the teeth? Good luck in DC, you are going to need it.

Yes, anyone with any sense is fleeing democratic run cities before they become the embodiment of the plot for Escape from New York.

[Anonymous]

Right, people are leaving DC to move to Cuba. They wont really notice much of a change aside from they will now actually get shot for crimes real or imagined by the government.