Literally, the more I think about it the more ironic it is. Liberal law and order policy driving up private gun ownership. Could there be anything more ironic than everyone feeling like they are basically responsible to be their own little sheriff? Not exactly the socialist utopia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just don’t get all the animosity toward OP. She is making an informed decision, exercising her constitutional right and complying with the policies and procedures set forth by the DC government to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Unless you assault her she is no threat to anyone. CCW holders are as a group are rule followers and law abiding citizens.

As daily life in DC, other large US cities and around the world demonstrate, you don’t need a gun to protect yourself, until that moment when you actually do. But then it is too late to go through the 30-45 day process to get a permit, pop by the gun store, hit the range for practice, etc.

OP is now prepared to act to save herself if necessary, i for one applaud her for her decision. Others are free to criticize.

We anxiously await her stories of putting it to use.

We have a registered handgun. I won't lie-when I could hear the windows breaking and sirens in 2019, it made me feel a lot safer. We don't really go out enough in places where violence would pop up (not denying that it is almost continual these days) but we are pretty much homebodies - to need a concealed weapon. If we did , I would totally see the case for it. I believe you have to make a case to the city you are under threat? Isn't that pretty much everyone in DC these days, except for the criminals? Thanks ultra liberals! You just made us all want guns.

Anonymous wrote:Just don’t get all the animosity toward OP. She is making an informed decision, exercising her constitutional right and complying with the policies and procedures set forth by the DC government to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Unless you assault her she is no threat to anyone. CCW holders are as a group are rule followers and law abiding citizens.

As daily life in DC, other large US cities and around the world demonstrate, you don’t need a gun to protect yourself, until that moment when you actually do. But then it is too late to go through the 30-45 day process to get a permit, pop by the gun store, hit the range for practice, etc.

OP is now prepared to act to save herself if necessary, i for one applaud her for her decision. Others are free to criticize.

We anxiously await her stories of putting it to use.

Just don’t get all the animosity toward OP. She is making an informed decision, exercising her constitutional right and complying with the policies and procedures set forth by the DC government to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Unless you assault her she is no threat to anyone. CCW holders are as a group are rule followers and law abiding citizens.

As daily life in DC, other large US cities and around the world demonstrate, you don’t need a gun to protect yourself, until that moment when you actually do. But then it is too late to go through the 30-45 day process to get a permit, pop by the gun store, hit the range for practice, etc.

OP is now prepared to act to save herself if necessary, i for one applaud her for her decision. Others are free to criticize.

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.”

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.

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.

Who says anything about this? I am pro-choice but also for Second Amendment and right to defend yourself. I am sure I am no unicorn People are fed up and don't feel safe.

You always vote D to protect women’s reproductive rights? No? Then you are fine with women losing bodily autonomy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My first thought is it might be a good idea because when the civil war starts as of now most of the conservatives will be armed and most of the liberals will not. That doesn't sound like a fair fight.

My second thought is that I would never live in a place that felt as unsafe as DC apparently does. I am nearing 70 and I have never lived anywhere that unsafe and I currently live in Florida. In my community I feel perfectly safe and no I don't have a bunch of money and don't live in a gated community. I also felt safe in every neighborhood I lived in in NoVa which was most of my life.

I have no gun, don't want a gun, and I guess if I come face to face with a gun I'm just going to die, but in the meantime I'm making decisions about my life that pretty much eliminate the need for a gun.

We can’t all move to Florida, ma’am.

That's good, but apparently lots are, at a rate of 1000 a day.

You might have missed the part where I said I lived most of my life in NoVa where I also never felt a need for a gun because I lived in safe neighborhoods. I would never live in Miami, or Atlanta, or Jacksonville, or DC, because it seems you must have a gun to survive living in places like that, or so I gather from this thread.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I've lived in cities all across the country. I've never before experienced so much random, reckless, and violent crime. I'm now carrying a concealed firearm.

You can have my car, my cell phone, my credit cards, and any other thing you want. But I am getting home to my family at the end of the day.

This city seems more worried about the wellbeing of criminals than law-abiding citizens. The most important job of government is protecting the safety of residents. The city doesn't have the stomach for it, so I have to do it myself.

I'm a lifelong democrat. I believe in sensible gun control. I'm not a "gun nut." What we have here are not Democratic policies. Democrats don't believe in lawlessness. Parents don't believe in lawlessness.

I pray I never have to use it. I can't imagine having to take a life.

A question for any Jewish democrats that have historically been adverse to acquiring a firearm, given events in Israel and Gaza, as well as the increase of anti-Semitic sentiments on the left — are you now acquiring (or considering acquiring) a firearm?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my research there are 5,000 CCW permits in DC which roughly translates into about 1 in 100 adults legally packing.

A good start and given the political leanings of the city what one would expect. Also a number that is higher than the number of sworn officers on the DC Police force.

I would expect most CCW holders to be LEOs or Special Police.

Law Enforcement personnel, active and retired, don’t need permits. Permits issued to Special Police are valid only while performing their SPO duties.

They would need a permit for their own weapon. If I was a SPO I would get a CCW just to remove ambiguity about issues around commuting and threatening behavior in my own neighborhood.

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act creates a federal scheme exempting active and retired law enforcement from most state gun laws, including carry permit requirements in the states that still have them.

SPO’s cannot use a personal firearm on duty. They frequently do not take the company gun home. If they want to carry a gun on their own time in DC they need their own permit as an individual.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my research there are 5,000 CCW permits in DC which roughly translates into about 1 in 100 adults legally packing.

A good start and given the political leanings of the city what one would expect. Also a number that is higher than the number of sworn officers on the DC Police force.

I would expect most CCW holders to be LEOs or Special Police.

Law Enforcement personnel, active and retired, don’t need permits. Permits issued to Special Police are valid only while performing their SPO duties.

They would need a permit for their own weapon. If I was a SPO I would get a CCW just to remove ambiguity about issues around commuting and threatening behavior in my own neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my research there are 5,000 CCW permits in DC which roughly translates into about 1 in 100 adults legally packing.

A good start and given the political leanings of the city what one would expect. Also a number that is higher than the number of sworn officers on the DC Police force.

I would expect most CCW holders to be LEOs or Special Police.

Law Enforcement personnel, active and retired, don’t need permits. Permits issued to Special Police are valid only while performing their SPO duties.