Stranger, that was mostly a response to the argument of “It’s Illegal!” not any specific merits of Trunk 's position or not.
The civilized side, yes.
No argument there.
~OneCentStamp
(grew up in suburban Maryland)
I don’t really have a comment on Trunk or his gums per se. And I don’t advocate a reckless disregard for laws. However, treating the law as though it were something higher than man is terribly misguided. It was once illegal to help slaves escape their masters. It is still illegal to do many things that are ethically neutral. To paraphrase Jesus, the law is made for man, not man for the law.
This isn’t a comperable situation, though, and Trunk’s argument against obtaining a permit–“It seems like a lot of hassle”–scarcely qualifies as a protest against the injustice of it all. Bad or ill-conceived laws deserve to be challenged, and in some cases even by illegal but ethical actions. But Trunk isn’t taking the position that somehow laws regulating concealed carry are fundamentally morally or ethically wrong; merely that they’re an imposition to him. It’s a very obtuse, juvenile attitude, particularly in regard to an activity that many people would like to see prohibited outright.
Stranger
Last I heard Maryland had some pretty stringent carry laws. In an environment such as that, I can believe that someone would develop the attitude Trunk expresses. Without getting into too much detail about my habits before Colorado became “shall-issue”, back when I was newly married and Robert Harlan was fresh on our minds, the police weren’t my biggest concern.
But
In a state where one can jump through minimal hoops to get a permit, and as someone who trains/practices almost religiously, there is no excuse for a law-abiding citizen with the means* to carry without one.
I’d rather carry open and not be harassed for doing so, but since that is no longer an option and I take my duties as a citizen seriously, I do the next best thing and accept my name going on The List.
- Low income and/or women fleeing an abusive dickwad are another story and a source of frustration to me. Seems the whole CCW thing is reserved for middle-class (or richer) people that can plan their defense needs a minimum of 3 months in advance.
Thanks for giving me the chance to reiterate that I was not defending Trunk or his argument for guns. 
I don’t believe that is correct. Vermont doesn’t issue licenses of any kind.
You may be thinking of Alaska. Alaska allows for both concealed and open carry without a permit. I was just up there in June and open carried in downtown Anchorage. No problems. Read about my experience in the link I posted.
Alaska does issue permits to residents so they can CCW in other states that recognize Alaskas permit.
No. They are just obeying their constitutional right to bear arms. Why should one need a permit from the government to exercise a civil liberty?
Isn’t Trunk from Maryland? One of the worst places for a gun owner to live!:mad: :eek:
I’m sympathetic to the plight of battered women. However, handing a gun to someone with no experience or forethought is just inviting catastrophe, anecdotal claims of defense aside. Firearms and strong emotions go together like gasoline and matches.
Stranger
Why can’t battered women have experience? Many probably don’t get to the range as often as I do, but who am I to say that they can’t utilize whatever tools are available to save their life? “No ma’am, I’m afraid you don’t have the training to carry a gun. Best you stay at home at let the menfolk handle this”?
Heck, I got my CCW without demonstrating even basic gun knowledge.
If she has the desire it’s up to us to provide the knowledge and opportunity. Never yet met a woman that didn’t learn faster than a man, nor many that are eager to draw. The plural of “anecdote” is “evidence”.
I think there’s at least one person on this board that has been in an abusive relationship and carries a gun.
None of this supports Trunk’s basic assertion. I’m saying there are exceptions, not that it’s too much hassle.
I agree with you.
I live in one of the hardest states to get a license own a firearm from. I jumped through hoops just to own a firearm and it made me damn respectful of both the responsibilities involved and the laws in place. IMHO, it is not possible to be a responsible gun owner and to intentionally desrespect/disregard the laws of your state concerning firearms. If you object, write to your representatives & lobby to have the specific law you object to changed.
Some may. Most (along with most of the general population) don’t. As I said, I sympathize with the plight, but a firearm is not a panacea, and in the hands of someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing under pressure, it can be more hazardous than beneficial.
Yes, laws that require training, fees, et cetera are discriminatory toward the poor. I don’t have a solution for that. But for someone who is not experienced with firearms and defensive shooting, picking up a gun is almost literally playing Russian roulette.
In my opinion, CCW permits ought to come with a minimum of required training and familiarization with applicable laws. Most gun owners are reasonable and responsible people, but ignorance is rampant, and the advice you get about such over the gun counter or from your Uncle Bob is suspect at best.
Stranger
Yes, laws need to be obeyed because they are laws. If the laws are somehow morally “wrong” then they should be challenged and overturned. But while they remain laws, law abiding citizens will (and should) follow them.
Yeah, but what if he needs ta blast on a muthafucka?
Dagnabbit Stranger, we’re going to turn this into another one of those threads, and I don’t want to do that.
I’m just not convinced that, for someone in immediate danger, a gun is more hazardous than beneficial.
That’s why practice is so important. So you can do it without thinking, almost.
I must have been mistaken. I thought I had read here previously that Vermont would issue a license to someone who had need of it for use in another state under reciprocity.
I’m of the opinion that reciprocity should be national as it is with driver’s licenses.
I’d agree with you on the fee part, since some fees can be prohibitively (sometimes intentionally so) expensive. But training should be mandated in cases where the aspiring licensee wants to do something that can easily injure or kill others, be it carry a gun or drive a semi truck.
I believe he’s still covered under one of the federal statutes, but whether it falls under “Shoot First and Ask Questions Later” or “Kill 'Em All and Let God Sort 'Em Out” slips my mind at the moment.
Perhaps you should express similar rage at anyone who passes laws limiting which adults may own guns and how they may carry them, since they are in violating of the Second Amendment, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States.
But somehow I don’t think you care as much about the people who decide THOSE laws don’t apply…