Law Change Makes Concealed Weapon Permit Easier to Obtain in Clarke County

Concealed weapons are now a little easier to carry in Clarke County and Virginia thanks to a change made the Commonwealth’s General Assembly during its latest legislative session. The law change, which removes fingerprint print submission as part of the concealed weapon permit process, means that local sheriff and police departments now can only require applicants to submit documents when applying for a license to carry a concealed handgun.

“This is an example of the Dillon Rule in action,” said  Supervisor Chairman Michael Hobert. “As a Dillon Rule state, localities only have the authority to enact rules expressly authorized by the Commonwealth. We had been allowed to require fingerprints prior to this change but now the Commonwealth has taken the authority to do so away.”

Hobert’s statement concerns Section 18.2-308 of the Code of Virginia which had previously stated “As a condition for issuance of a concealed handgun permit, the applicant shall submit to fingerprinting, if required by local ordinance, in the county or city where the applicant resides and provide personal descriptive information to be forwarded with the fingerprints through the Central Criminal Records Exchange to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of obtaining criminal history record information regarding the applicant, and obtaining fme gerprint identification information from federal records pursuant to criminal investigations by state and local law enforcement agencies.

The revised Code strikes the fingerprint requirement and effectively prevents Clarke County from asking applicants to submit to fingerprinting.

As a Dillion Rule state, Virginia courts have concluded that local governments in Virginia have only those powers that are specifically conferred on them by the Virginia General Assembly, thosee powers that are necessarily or fairly implied from a specific grant of authority and those powers that are essential to the purposes of government — not simply convenient but indispensable.

The Clarke County Sheriff’s Department began observing the new regulations several weeks ago when the new law was enacted, however, the Clarke Supervisors took longer to act due advertising requirements associated with the public hearing process.

At the time of the legislative change Clarke County Sheriff Tony Roper expressed concerns that without a fingerprint check it is very difficult for law enforcement officials to verify that the concealed weapon permit applicant is, in fact, who the person represents themselves to be. Roper also said that Virginia law enforcement associations had not been consulted prior to the law change.

“This kind of snuck up on us,” Roper told the Board of Supervisors at a work session earlier this summer. “We were very surprised to learn about this change.”

“I’m not saying that the change is either a good one or a bad one,” said Supervisor John Staelin (Millwood). “But the move came in the dark of the night without consultation with localities. This is not the way that the legislative process was intended to work.”

On Tuesday night the Supervisors voted unanimously to adapt the Clarke County Code to reflect the General Assembly’s change. No citizens spoke at the public hearing on the issue.

Comments

  1. Clarke Fan says:

    We need more effective Gun Control in light of the recent shootings. I hope the Prezy of the United Steezy takes care of this…….

    • Gun control? Oh yes, the theory that becoming a victim is morally superior to defending yourself and your family. Makes perfect sense.

      Look at DC and Chicago… VERY tight gun control laws and they were murder capitals. The Supreme Court had to make them comply with the 2nd Ammendment. Did you know that in the first year of DC allowing residents to register their weapons to keep in their residence, NOT one was used in a murder. I have not seen any additional data but the point is criminals ignore laws.

      I am a concealed carry holder and when asked why I carry, my response is you never know when your life may be threatened. Never in Clarke County, right? Let’s just say I was very thankful I had my weapon with me one evening fishing on the river.

      Gun control laws hurt the law abiding citizen. When I obtained my CCW, I had no problem getting my prints taken. The question should be how do we stop criminals from committing crimes.

      • another one says:

        When I am asked why I concealed carry,my answer is because I can! Thank God and the US Constitution for the second amendment.

    • Another View says:

      How would more effective gun control have prevented the NY shooting? Guns are effectively banned in NY city now. Same in Chicago. And the carnage continues, despite the stringent gun control laws.

      Guess what? Criminals do not care about the law. They ignore gun control laws. It’s part of what makes them criminals.

  2. Realistic Joe says:

    While I’m sure this will stir up a bees nest, I’m glad fingerprints are no longer allowed. Due diligence by the Sheriffs Dept and reviewing the necessary documentation along with the application should be adequate.

    For a law abiding citizen having to give their prints like criminals stuck in my craw and made it hard to take. Remember, I stated a law abiding citizen. Yes, there are nuts out there but they will get a weapon regardless of the law and requirements.

  3. “…the move came in the dark of the night without consultation with localities. This is not the way that the legislative process was intended to work.” How should the process work then Mr. Staelin… Mr Hobert? With disregard for the actual law? If the state grants the authority for localities to fingerprint CCP holders then you’ll have it. That’s is the existing LEGITIMATE process. Most CCP holders I know have no problems with being held reasonably accountable for this privilege. If it’s that important to fingerprint, then get the “blessing” of the state assembly, as a reflection of the people they are obliged to represent. Are we to be governed by laws and process, or emotions and opinions?

  4. Never really saw the point in fingerprints to begin with. The documentation should have been enough.

  5. If more people carry concealed, the crime rate will drop precipitously, even more so after someone bags someone committing a crime.

    • Mr Mister says:

      Not by what all the gun nuts say. They argue that if someone wants to commit a crime they will use a knife. Still a crime!
      The only thing will happen is more accidental shootings by people who are motivated by fear to own a gun. People who should not even hold a gun. Fear that was spread by Fox News and the GOP.

    • Great. Another Bernie Goetz advocating vigilante justice…

      We don’t need to return to the Dodge City of dusty Old West lore…

      • just the facts..PLEASE says:

        You want to see Dodge City….just go to DC or Prince George’s county MD where they average MULTIPLE shootings and murders every week.

        But how can that be one may ask…. don’t they have some of the the most strict gun control laws in the country… YEP they sure do……………just like Dodge City did…… where law abiding folk were made to turn in their guns upon entering the town.

        It is PAINFULLY obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that gun control did not work then and it does not work now…..but liberals never seem to let little things like reality and the facts interfere with their policies.

  6. Eric Thomson says:

    I have had my concealed handgun permit for almost 5 years I have to renew in January. I had no issue with being fingerprinted at the time and have no issue not being finger printed either. I am a law abiding citizen which allows me the privelage of the permit and I will happily abide with whatever the law states. I will say as the husband of a former police officer in another county, I’m sure quietly the sherrifs deputies are kind of happy at not having to do this administrative task.

  7. “I’m not saying that the change is either a good one or a bad one,” said Supervisor John Staelin (Millwood). “But the move came in the dark of the night without consultation with localities. This is not the way that the legislative process was intended to work.”

    Looks like Mr. Staelin needs to be in better communication with his state delegate. Deal with it supervisor.
    Millwood, PLEASE vote this guy out next election. He’s the type of politician who is just trying to justify his job, just like the career cronies in DC.

  8. Dean Weingarten says:

    Fingerprints are just another timeconsuming waste of resources to give the impression that the state can prevent criminals from obtaining weapons.

    There are several states that do not require fingerprints to obtain concealed carry permits, and there are now four states that do not require permits in order to carry concealed weapons (constitutional carry). Those states are Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and Vermont. 12 other states are considering the removal of the laws forbiding concealed carry without a permit.

    The only effect of requiring fingerprints is to reduce the number of people who choose to obtain a permit, because of the additional cost and difficulty.

    Virginia is moving in the right direction.

  9. I carry a CCW permit and a Glock 26 for daily protection. The act of carry by lawful citizens is granted by our natural born rights, not by government. The 2nd Admendment, just like all of the others, is to restrict our government from diluting these natural rights. As for me, I do not carry to be a cop on the street. In fact, unless bodily harm or death of my life or of my family is in pearl, I would not get involved(you should have armed yourself). There is a quote from one of our Men of the past that states that “if good men leave unjust actions unanswered, then liberty is dead”. This is a true statement and applies to the case if I were faced with aiding another citizen in pearl of their lives by a criminal. Unfortunately, most DA’s in the county where you excersize your right to self defense are just itching to put you in jail for it.

    • “…is in pearl”?

    • Mr Mister says:

      I would be curious as to how many of those days, that you carry your Glock, your family was in pearl. Out of the 365 days of the year, how many times did you need to carry? I bet none. So keep carrying because you never know why the Government is closing in…..By the way, the Government wrote the 2nd Amendment. Keep spreading the fear and carrying water for the Tea Party and the GOP. See you in November.

      • Another View says:

        It only takes one (1) day. Would you rather have a gun on that fateful day, or take your chances with an armed criminal’s mercy?

      • Local Biker says:

        You have your right not to carry and I have the right to carry to protect my loved ones.To each his own. But people should not try to deny us the rights which all of us have. Just remember what has happened in most countries that have banned guns from the people. Read your history. I’ll give you a clue, start with Germany. We all know how well that worked out for the Jewish people.

      • Always prepared says:

        How many days do you actually need that fire extinguisher in your kitchen? I bet none. So why bother keeping it when you could just rely on the fire department.

    • “most DA’s in the county where you exercise your right to self defense are just itching to put you in jail for it.” THIS IS SO TRUE..
      Clarke is no different, the Commonwealth attorney’s office is anti gun and I’m sure will vigorously prosecute if you if you use deadly force even to defend yourself and family against a home invader, car jacker or a mugger… . But like they say, it’s better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6.
      Make it illegal to own guns and only criminals will have them. Restricting law abiding citizens from owning or carrying guns is irresponsible. The murder rates in locations where it is unlawful or extremely difficult speaks for itself. Ignoring those statistics is not only irresponsible it is moronic.
      I carry and I didn’t mind giving my prints. My prints were taken when I went in the service so the government already has them on file along with a DNA sample.

  10. Clarke Fan says:

    “In Pearl” Are we being attacked by clams? I am assuming you mean peril…….

  11. Local Biker says:

    I have had a permit since 1996 and I carry everyday. I have never had reason to draw my weapon and hope I never do. But if the need ever arises, I would bet that any of the anti-gunners that would be saved would be glad that a person had taken the time to obtain his permit to be there to protect them. Remember the police cannot be every place at the same time.

  12. Roscoe Evans says:

    NYC’s finest, who actually are trained to shoot, tagged nine bystanders while taking down the Empire State Building gunman, and some of you guys think you can do better? Sorry, but I don’t know any Clarke County Cowboy who I might want to pull out a piece to protect me, no matter how tough he talks.

    And the comment about Nazi Germany is absolutely inane and offensive. I’ll give you a clue. Ask a Jew.

    • One of the first things the Nazi’s did was take away the guns of average citizens. Sorry you don’t know or acknowledge history.

    • Another View says:

      The comment about Nazi Germany is absolutely historically accurate. AMONG THE FIRST THINGS the Nazis did was to disarm the populace, because an armed populace is a threat to the government.

      Don’t give me this tanks, army, nuclear weapons B.S. The fact is, history has shown, that an armed and determined populace can defeat the mightiest of armies. It happened in East Germany, the Soviet Union, and–you should know this–the English colonies in America.

      An armed populace is a guarantee of freedom.

      Read more. Learn history. Buy a gun. Be prepared for the next American Revolution.

    • Local Biker says:

      Roscoe, I have been shooting since I was 6 years old. I grew up shooting rifles and handguns. I shoot USPSA Matches as well as Speed Steel Matches, I have shot against several SWAT team members and have came out on the top of them in the standings. Most of the Police today did not even touch a weapon till they started there training. So as far as being a Cowboy far from it. Just a normal country boy who grew up shooting that loves his family and his country. And as far as the the Germany statement. It was not to degrade the Jewish people it is to show support for them and the horrible time they had during the rein of Hitler. Maybe if they had not been unarmed ,many of their family members would have been with them today.

      • Hardly, LB. The Nazi officials and the German army had them outgunned with superior firepower, the force of the Nuremburg laws, and the mistrust sown in the general populace by that fiery beer-hall-speaking Austrian, Adolf Hitler. Their rights were systematically eroded and neutered by the laws passed in the patriotic name of “Deutschland uber Alles” – “Germany over all else.” “Kristallnacht” was but a glimpse of the firestorm of carnage that would have rained down on them had they violently resisted; indeed, in places like the Warsaw ghetto, where the Jews and allies were able to make a stand, it STILL ended poorly for them as they were just outgunned.

        I’m for maintaining the 2nd Amendment, as my family are proud hunters, too. However, I also believe that sensible gun control is not mutually exclusive to this hallowed amendment. I mean, seriously, who needs an AR-15 for hunting? Who needs unlimited purchasing ability online of ammo? If we all could set aside the flag-wrapping and look at the matter in terms black & white (not red, white and blue), perhaps some common ground could be found.

        • Local Biker says:

          We all need the right to protect ourselves. You or our government should not be able to decide how we do that. The Government is trying to protect itself form us!!

        • Another View says:

          The Second Amendment is not a hunter’s bill of rights. It was put in place so that the populace would be armed, and serve as a check on tyrannical government; like the government of George III. Or Barack Hussein Obama.

          • life is good says:

            So it’s not just self defense? As I do not believe Obama is planning to enter your home?

          • Another View says:

            Resisting tyranny is a form of self defense. And Barack Hussein Obama has already entered our homes in the most intimate way; perhaps you’ve heard of Obamacare?

            Sic Semper Tyrannis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Yeah, that’s why the Social Security Office just bought a few hundred thousand rounds of hollow point ammo, as well as Homeland Security and the National Weather Service.

            Remember Obama saying this?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

            “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

        • The problem is that once you start that mess, politicians always want to take it a step further.

          Maybe it sounds reasonable to limit purchases of ammo to a certain amount, but once you do that, there’s some liberal that will come along and say, “Well, we limited ammo purchases to 100 rounds. Why do people need to buy a hundred rounds of ammo? How about we limit it to 20” Next thing we know it’s “Mother may I?” for one box of shells.

          “Assault” weapons was another joke of a law instituted by politicians that wouldn’t know a real assault weapon if it came up and shot them in the a$$. . Just because something, say a 308, is set up on a scary looking platform like an M-16 DOES NOT MAKE IT AN “ASSAULT WEAPON”. And yet for years you couldn’t buy anything that “looked” scary because of these nit wits and the idiotic “assault weapons law”.

          And just to clarify, an assault weapon is a weapon that when you flip the switch to “auto”, fires multiple rounds downrange with ONE pull of the trigger until the clip is empty. Also, real assault weapons have been banned in this country since the 80’s, which is why they are so expensive.

  13. Clarke County Annie says:

    In my circle of friends/family, many don’t carry but, most are explicit about personal protection within their home and their property (all but a few live in the country). Some with permits don’t carry every day as it depends on their itinerary and destination. None are extremists or wanting to act like it’s the old west.

    Actually, far more of them have been hurt directly or indirectly by impaired/distracted drivers.

  14. Got-A-Dollar says:

    Why conceal? Just strap it on your side or lay it on your dash and let everybody know how macho you are.

  15. Another View says:

    It is not about “macho”. It is about self defense. What is so hard about that concept for you to understand?

  16. Real men keep guns in the pouch for obvious reasons.

  17. Local Biker says:

    A word from a friend of mine sums it all up well.

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid
    I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil
    I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil around me

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m against the government
    I carry a gun because I’m aware of the limitations of government

    I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry
    I carry a gun so that one day I don’t end up hating myself for not being prepared

    I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man
    I carry a gun because real men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love

    I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate
    I carry a gun because unarmed, facing the armed thugs, I am inadequate

    I don’t carry a gun because I love it
    I carry a gun because I love life and those that make it meaningful to me

    ANY QUESTIONS?

  18. Lockesneighbor says:

    What happens to the record of fingerprints for the law abiding citizens who were asked to provide them when the law required it for conceal carry? I had never been fingerprinted before i applied for the permit.

    • If you’re a white veteran it goes to Obama’s department of homeland security so they can put you on a terrorist watch list

      • Mr Mister says:

        I don’t believe your fear mongering for one minute. BTW, have you seen the news lately anyway? Seems to be a lot of white people with guns killing a lot of people though. Just saying…. You may be on to something Obama should consider. Where are your prints?

        • It doesn’t matter the color of the skin…stupid is as stupid does. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people and they will use whatever means necessary to do it.

        • “I don’t believe your fear mongering for one minute.”

          Read and learn

          Funny too, that when you go to google, this document doesn’t even show up without extensive add ons. It popped right up in Yahoo. Hmmmmm.

          http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

          And I went through the same process as everyone else when I got my CCP, even though I’m a military vet, hold one of the highest clearances you can get and worked for an agency that already had run my prints as a condition for employment.

          Redundant if you ask me

          • “…hold one of the highest clearances you can get…”

            Why do you keep running your mouth about it? It’s going to get you in trouble.

          • Doesn’t work that way. While I’m sure it wouldn’t take too much work to discover my secret identity, there is no real prohibition on saying something that generic. Do you know what clearance I hold? Do you know what I do? Have I ever discussed what I do in public? No. Sadly, one of the agencies that I worked for is one of the worst kept secrets in the area. Hell, they even have the correct return address on their outgoing correspondence, whereas most agencies that try to keep things on te down low have PO boxes. I brought all that up but no one cared, so c’est la vie.

            No, my point is that criminals should undergo background checks, not citizens that are asking “Mother may I?” from the federal government to do something that is a given right to begin with. This especially goes for former military or cop types.

          • Mr Mister says:

            “my point is that criminals should undergo background checks”

            Can you tell what a criminal looks like when the try to purchase a gun? How about former vets? Or do you take everyone for their face-value?

            I hold a pretty high clearance myself, and have no problem getting fingerprinted for gun purchases. I understand why it needs to be done. I put aside the bloviating.

          • Criminals are not going to subject themselves to the hassle of trying to obtain a permit, or risk the attention it brings. They will obtain weapons regardless of what the government or the law says.

            My point is, when did we start to have to ask “Mother may I?” When did we allow the government to take control of the situtation? What good has it done in placeslike DC and Obama;s hometown of Chicago? Did we have to go thru this a hundred years ago?

            Frankly, I think it’s nothing more than a money making scheme for government.

  19. Balitimore HS says:

    I personally feel our Viginia students should be permitted to carry so we don’t find ourselves in a similar situation as today’s news. Violance must be defended by rationale people closest to the threat. Let’s arm the schools all ready!! This is today’s tyranny the second ammendment was about!

    • Mr Mister says:

      Yes because the majority of school aged children are rational. I trust an adult with a gun far more than a minor. Just goes to show how nutty the gun-nuts are. Keep packing coz you never know……

      • The majority of the gun laws deal with handguns.

        The Baltimore kid had a shotgun that he brought in disassembled and then put it together once in school. Not much you can do about that except pay attention. Obviously, nobody did.

  20. I’m all about the right to carry and I don’t think guns kill people, people kill people, but I do think this is a bad change.

    I don’t necessarily oppose students right to carry on a college campus BUT the last thing we need is a bunch of kids who don’t know the first thing about gun safety and how to shoot, firing back at a shooter and potentially killing others because their aim was off. If kids are going to be allowed to carry on campus, they should have to go through a lot of training and should have to prove their accuracy yearly.

    • Another View says:

      Absolutely; we cannot have a repeat of what happened in NY City, where trained policemen shot at a suspect indiscriminately and wounded 9 innocent folks.

  21. ElinorDashwood says:

    The problem isn’t that people have guns, it’s that some of the people who have guns are too stupid to use opposable thumbs responsibly, let alone weapons that can easily kill human beings.

  22. The problem isn’t that people have cars, it’s that some of the people who have cars are too stupid to use opposable thumbs responsibly, let alone vehicles that can easily kill human beings.

    See how that works?

  23. ElinorDashwood says:

    That’s like saying the problem isn’t stuffed animals, the problem is that some people are too stupid to keep them off their faces so that they don’t asphyxiate from stuffed animals.
    See how that DOESN’T work? Bad metaphor…
    Yes, vehicles kill people through stupidity, distraction and inexperience but a vehicle’s purpose is to transport people, a guns’ sole purpose is to fire projectiles. Period.

    • Actually you have erred in switching function and purpose in your attempted argument. At a functional level both vehicles and bullets are projectiles. Their purposes are different and are morally ethically and practically neutral. To attempt to argue otherwise is hysterical.

      • ElinorDashwood says:

        Too many people are carrying guns shouldn’t be. If you are going to shoot a teen dead because he egged your car, you shouldn’t be carrying a gun. If you are going to shoot a person because he is cheering for an opposing team at a game, you shouldn’t be carrying a gun. If you are going to shoot someone because they won’t listen to you about how to make kool-aid, you shouldn’t be carrying a gun. If you are going to shoot a guy that annoyed you at the bar at Chili’s, you shouldn’t be carrying a gun. If you are going to shoot your cousin dead over $60, you shouldn’t be carrying a gun.
        All of these actually happened and all were carrying ‘legally’.
        So I guess they should have just run these people that they were mad at, over with their cars.

        • Another View says:

          What is the solution? Get people to promise that they won’t commit a crime in the future? The problem is that people are flawed, people do bad things, and people commit crimes. That is how it has always been, is, and always will be. But it is certainly no excuse to hinder other law abiding people from exercising their rights, just because they MIGHT go over to the dark side at some point in the future. We don’t have preemptive punishment in this country.

          • Mr Mister says:

            How are they hindered? By giving prints? If that’s the worse thing, they need to get thicker skin.

            You show ID at the bank when you withdraw your money. Are torn up about that?

          • Another View says:

            Yes. “By giving prints”. There is no rational reason to require this of law abiding citizens. None.

            And I don’t show my ID at the bank to withdraw my money. And yes it would tear me up if I began having to do so.

        • “So I guess they should have just run these people that they were mad at, over with their cars.”

          The result would have been the same.

          So, when are you going to ask the government if and when you can buy your next car?

          • Mr Mister says:

            When we start carrying cars in our waistbands, then maybe so.

          • Another View says:

            Criminals already carry guns in their waistbands, without permission. What is the point of asking the law abiding to ask permission?

            Answer=No point, other than harassment and discouragement.

  24. Guns kill people through stupidity, distraction and inexperience as well. So do cell phones, even though their soole purpose is communication and entertainment. Shall we regulate those as well?

  25. HL Mencken says:

    I’ve seen three men ‘open carry’ around the county in the past three weeks, one at the fair, one on Main Street and one in Dunkin Donuts. I know it’s perfectly legal to open carry as long as the gun is registered and the owner/wearer has no criminal convictions but seriously guys, it’s like Crocs… you’re entitled to wear them but you look like an idiot.

  26. Where is the Dunkin Donuts? Just asking because I never leave Berryville because it has everything I need but I like a good DD every now and then. Plus I can carry concealed there as well.

  27. Roscoe Evans says:

    Have any of you gun-toters succesfully drawn down on any approaching criminals? Do you have cites to any legitimate studies of folks who have? (i.e. something other than NRA progaganda?)

    I ask because I am genuinely curious; and because I simply cannot recall any significant tales of a good guy getting the drop on a bad guy, just because he was carrying at the time.

    LB-I’m sorry if you think the cowboy remark was directed primarily at you, or if you thought it was insulting. You can carry simply because you wanna, so far as I am concerned. But the anti-government theme that runs through this thread is simply inane. Especially when it’s espoused by guys who work for the government, who whine about the government, and who then expect some sort of special exception to governmental laws and rules, just because they have a background in government, police work, or the military. Sorry, but your paranoia and your hypocrisy don’t make for compelling arguments.

    And the Nazi Germany/Holocaust claims?

    Sorry again, but if you see significant parallels between Nazi Germany and any era in American history, you are seriously deluded. And I guarantee you, no Jew died, not one, so gun nuts could draw cheap, absurd, and inapt arguments respecting the importance of a gun carrying populace. When post hoc, ergo propter hoc is the best case you can argue for your position, you have no argument at all. None.

    Some of you guys are comic book historians, cartoon lawyers, and Classics Illustrated sociologists. You’re talking about killing people. Don’t shoot unless you’re fully prepared for what comes next.

    • Another View says:

      “Have any of you gun-toters succesfully drawn down on any approaching criminals?”

      YES.

      “But the anti-government theme that runs through this thread is simply inane.”

      THE FOUNDERS WERE ANTI-GOVERNMENT, and very suspicious of the concentration of power at a national level. Are you suggesting that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Edmund Randolph, Patrick Henry, George Mason and James Madison were “inane”? OR ARE YOU SIMPLY MIFFED THAT MORE PEOPLE DO NOT FALL IN LINE WITH THE TYRANNY THAT HAS BEEN IMPOSED UPON US?

      “. . . your hypocrisy don’t make for compelling arguments.”

      ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT ONLY STATISTS–DEMOCRATS–BE ELIGIBLE FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT? SHOULD THERE BE A POLITICAL LITMUS TEST FOR OUR SOLDIERS, POLICE, AND FIREFIGHTERS?

      “. . . if you see significant parallels between Nazi Germany and any era in American history, you are seriously deluded.”

      IT IS NEITHER DELUSION, NOR CALLING OUR COUNTRY A REINCARNATION OF NAZI GERMANY TO IDENTIFY CERTAIN SIMILARITIES AND TO LEARN LESSONS. The fact is, our federal government is engaged in fascism, a practice begun in post WWI Italy, and exported to Spain, Germany, Finland and France. The fact is that gun control is a common tactic of governments who wish to neutralize citizen opposition to its policies. The litmus test is not how many concentration camps we establish; the litmus test is how far from our Constitution have we strayed, and how much liberty has been taken from the people. And it is frightening to recognize how much liberty the American people have sacrificed, either by neglect of their civic duties, or in trade for security. The German people in the 30s were not inherently evil, and neither are the American people today. But strong government, at any level, in any country, is an evil force, not to be trusted, and which must be challenged, curbed, and brought to heel. Government does not grant freedom and liberty; it encroaches upon it.

      “You’re talking about killing people.”

      NO ONE [but you and your fellow travelers] IS TALKING ABOUT KILLING PEOPLE. Those who are defending the right to self-defense on this thread are writing about saving lives; theirs, their families’, and perhaps, yours. The right to life identified in our Constitution means little without the means to defend it.

      • geezlouise says:

        Neither party is doing anything about “more gun control” so this conversation is pretty much moot, but still you ply us daily with your nazi this and that drivel.

    • Again, you show your ignorance of history,something that has become common place for you. In every instance I can think of, gun control has been the precursor to worse events. Since it appears you failed history where ever you obtained your supposed law degree (funny I can’t find you listed anywhere) , allow me to re-intorduce you to it, since one of my degrees is in history from UNC.

      The Nazis. Granted, the Wiemar Republic already had some pretty strict gun control laws in place. And technically speaking, the Nazi’s relaxed some of them…………for the German populace. Jews however, were up **** creek. They were not allowed, initially, to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Later, they were outright banned from owning guns and ammo at all. And, of course, the Nazis started by rounding up criminals and gypsies, then moved on to the retarded and then turned their attenion to the Jews, who of course had no means to defend themselves. Hard to resist the “Come with us” order when the only people that had guns were the Nazis.

      Sorry, but that’s just plain facts. Unless of course, you”re a Holocaust denier.

      In the Soviet Union under good ol’ Uncle Joe. (Stalin, not Biden), gun control was intiated around 1930. During Stalins reign, MILLIONS of people were rounded up and executed. People give Hitler grief about the Jews, but MILLIONS MORE died under Stalin than Hitler. Some estimates were as high as 60 million. Hitler was a piker compared to what Stalin pulled off. And it was all precipitated by gun control laws.

      Gun control is why a lone, unarmed man stood by himself in front of a tank in Teinenmen Square in 1989. The CHICOMS initiated gun control when they came to power in the 1930’s. MILLIONS died afterward at the hands of the CHICOM authorities and various CHICOM leaders starting with Mao Zedung, who by the way is “admired” by at least one former Obama White House staffer.

      Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge initiated gun control in Cambodia in the mid sixties if I remember correctly and began rounding up “intellectuals” who, of course, had no guns with which to defend themselves. Perhaps you’ve heard of “The Kilings Fields”? Gun control at it’s best.

      There are a few more examples of authoritarian regeimes coming to power after taking guns from people, but hopefully these examples are enough to get you to apologize to your histpory teachers for sleeping through class over the years. Beginning to see how this works? George Santayana’s quote comes to mind “Those that do not learn from history are condemed to repeat it”

      Switching gears. Have I ever succesfully “drawn down” on anyone? No, that’s cowboy ****.

      That’s not to say I haven’t flashed a pistol though. The purpose of carrying a concealed weapon, among other things, is for protection and to avert situations like my wife and I found ourselves in twice over the years. Once in Winchester.

      Twenty years ago, while returning to our base in Southern Mississippi, we were on the interstate outside Mobile when a car load of wanna be gang bangers drove up beside us and began edging closer to our car. Then they would pull ahead and hit the brakes, get behind us and speed up and other stupid stuff. They actually got off an off ramp, to my wifes relief, and came back on and started their antics all over. It got serious when they pulled up beside us and I thought I saw a gun. I told my wife to slid down in the seat and the 9mm came out. I didn’t aim it at them, but I know they saw it due to the priceless looks in their faces. They dropped back and got off at the next exit.

      One night, a couple of years ago, we finished eating at Brubakers and took the alley beside the place back to our car. There were two salty looking types hanging around back there and my “This ain’t right” radar went off, so I found myself reaching behind me and putting my hand on the grip of my 38. Nothing happened, but the next day I read of a strong arm robbery in the same alley not long after we passed. I don’t know if the “Don’t **** with me” look I put on my face and the fact that I had my hand under my shirt helped us avoid being mugged, but I’m pretty sure it didn’t hurt.

      You are correct about one thing, which is a first. Killing someone is a horrible thing and can mess with your mind if you let it.

      Hopefully no one that has a CCP has to experience it.

    • “… I simply cannot recall any significant tales of a good guy getting the drop on a bad guy, just because he was carrying at the time…”

      Good Lord, do you not pay attention to the news? Oh, that’s right, you said you lie when it’s convenient for you.

      Here: http://www.abc57.com/seen-on/wednesday/Florida-elderly-man-stops-armed-robbery-162848846.html

      and another: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/02/23/charges-dropped-against-nh-man-who-fired-gun-to-stop-burglar/

      This one is not so recent, but I needed to make a point: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/crime-law/bystander-with-gun-stops-palm-bay-bank-robbery/nL6g9/

        • Mr Mister says:

          What do you think would be the outcome if the guy with the knife had an AK with a 100 round clip? Do you really think the bystander would have a chance?
          I ask this because he could have legally owned an AK or even a smaller hand gun with multiple clips that could be concealled. Just the way the gun nuts like.

          • Another View says:

            I own semi automatic guns. I also own multiple, large capacity clips. So far, I have committed no murders. And I have no plans to do so. Just as most of us “gun nuts like.”

      • Roscoe Evans says:

        Congratulations, RW.

        I committed hyperbole, and you (an admitted non-intellectual), caught me in it. I should have limited myself to a request for a genuine, legitimate study showing that the benefits of concealed carry outweigh the costs to our society. So, I was stupid. I’d rather be stupid on occasion, though, than be willingly and unnecessarily ignorant.

        Now, you seem to continue to be upset about my remark that scientific and sociological studies show that everyone lies, and that I lie, too. Fine. Call me a liar day in and day out, for so long as you and I come here. I don’t care. It’s about as “offensive” as being called a racist by a racist, or a fascist by a fascist.

        I lie, willingly, when I need to. I already have explained to you my justifictions for my lies, so I won’t waste any more electrons on those points than necessary. Just this, though: I practiced criminal law for a little more than a decade. I pleaded all of my clients “Not Guilty.” Every time, it was a lie, as a matter of fact; but not, as a matter of law. None had been convicted. So, pull out your Constitution, and figure that one out.

        • Another View says:

          “Not guilty” is a matter of law, and not of fact. And you do not plead your client “not guilty”, your client pleads “not guilty”. Pleading “not guilty” is a procedural matter, not testimonial in nature.

          Every time you discuss the law, you reveal how little you know about it. Just as your allusion to me as a “racist” and a “fascist” reveal you to either know nothing about these terms, or it constitutes more lying.

          Perhaps you are lying about being a lawyer. You certainly are being dishonest in characterizing me as either racist or a fascist.

          Read more. Learn more. Be more tolerant. Engage in substantive discussion. Abandon ad hominem attacks.

          • ElinorDashwood says:

            Did you really just say, “Be more tolerant.” ?

          • Roscoe Evans says:

            It’s clear you’ve got Perry Mason down pat.

            My clients, factually, were guilty. They were not legally guilty until they pled or were tried.

            I’ve called you a seditionist, which you are. Feel free to keep calling for a violent overthrow of a second Obama Administration. You deserve, at least, a knock on your door.

            You flatter yourself to think that my every allusion is to you. And, I don’t need to characterize you in any way. Your words betray you.

        • The only remark from you that I care about is the remark where you said that you are a liar. I don’t trust liars, I don’t listen to liars, and I will call out liars everytime because nothing a liar says can be trusted.

          • Roscoe Evans says:

            I said that science tells us that every man is a liar. I am a man.

            And Jesus, if you believe in him, tells us that every man is a sinner. I am a man.

            You, I assume, are a man. You know what you are. If you want to pretend otherwise, feel free.

            If you want to follow me around and call me a liar, too, day in and day out, feel free.

          • No. You specifically said that you are a liar. Then you tried to justify it by citing scientific studies. Why do you feel the need to justify lying? Lying eventually catches up with you, one way or another.

            And just to clear things up, I never said I was a non-intellectual. I just prefer to speak so everyone can understand, rather than hide behind large words. Something that George Allen thought he could get away with.

  28. lovethisplace says:

    I think I now understand.

    The government can tell women what to do with their bodies and personal decisions……

    The government can interfere in personal life choices

    The government can not tell us not to kill people with guns, because of course, we all need those muskets.

    The government can tell us what sex we can marry

    The government can determine death penalty.

    Ok, got it.

    • Another View says:

      The government can tell women that they may not murder their unborn children.

      The government should not be able to interfere in personal life choices, so long as those choices do not infringe upon the rights of others.

      The government can outlaw murder, but not self defense.

      God tells us who we can marry, as he created that institution.

      The government can impose the death penalty.

      Now you got it.

      • Mr Mister says:

        How exactly does a gay marriage infringe on your rights? Seems to me a personal life choice , like you say.

        Maybe with your wisdom, you can answer these?

        1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

        2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

        3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

        4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

        5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

        6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

        7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

        8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

        9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

        10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.

        Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

        I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

        • I’m going to jump in on this one because I hear this often and it is really a misunderstood aspect of Christianity. This is an argument that is often trotted out by people who are unfamiliar with the Bible, in particular the overarching meta-narrative that the entirety of the Bible represents, which is God’s redemption of his people. In fact I have heard many people cite this as a major obstacle for them in subscribing to Christian beliefs but when examined as a part of the whole it is really easy to see the relationship of the Old Testaminet to the New Testament particularly as it relates to Levitical Law.

          The laws you quote from Levitical Law (i.e. from Leviticus) covered a group of laws that included Ceremonial Law, Civil Law, and Moral Law. This is a concept recognized by the early church dating back to almost 100 AD. These divisions were always recognized among Cristian communities and still are today.

          Ceremonial Law dealt with outward manifestations of the Israelite community. As God’s chosen people in the Old Testament, Israel was given ceremonial rules in order to separate them from the gentile communities they lived among. Some of these were behavioral but also included circumcision which was a mark of God’s covenant with his people.

          Civil Law included laws which were culturally specific to Israel at that time. These were many of the things you reference such as penalties for various crimes, rules for business and guidelines for the treatment of servants, women, and slaves. These were provided for a nation of people to be shepherded through a period of time in history.

          The Moral Law describes God’s commandments which are binding regardless of culture. The moral law includes the ten commandments and the amplification of those laws that Jesus provided in the New Testament.

          Followers of Christ have always been bound by God’s Moral Law but not by the Ceremonial and Civil Law of Leviticus. Civil Laws fade with cultures and ceremonial laws like circumcision, were done away with by Christ’s work on the cross. and the creation of the New Covenant.

          That said I have heard good intentioned Christians use Levitical Law as a part of a stance against gay marriage. This would be incorrect. However the stance against homosexuality is very clear in the Bible particularly in the New Testament. Jesus tells us to “flee sexual immorality.” Does he call out homosexuality in particular in this passage? No but he also does not highlight bestiality or other aberrant behavior because they were clearly in the realm of “sexual immorality” in the culture in which he lived so when he says flee sexual immorality it means all forms of it. There are other direct references to homosexuality (Romans 1:26) but the essence of the Christians opposition lies within the instruction to “flee sexual immorality.” Homosexuality is no more sinful than adultery, pornography or swinging. They are all clearly outside the guard rails of how God designed us to live. God is not a kill joy trying to rob us of joy but is instead leading us on the path that he designed us to live.

          So the problem with gay marriage in our culture is that it is an attempt to legitimize a behavior that Christians recognize as out of bounds. We are to tolerate that fact that we all engage in sinful behaviors, but to legitimize it to the point of being on the same moral ground as marriage between a man and a woman goes beyond tolerance into forced acceptance.

          Activists have sought to transform the cultural meaning of the term tolerance, which has a negative connotation. You don’t tolerate something you like or approve of, you tolerate that which you do not like or enjoy. So the culture is attempting to change the meaning of tolerance into “acceptance” through legislation that would legalize gay marriage and that will never be accepted by followers of Christ who adhere to God’s moral law.

        • Another View says:

          There is a difference between God’s law and man’s law; or, as you have cited above, Jewish law. God’s law is supreme, and is not to be mocked or violated. Man’s law is inferior, and is not supposed to conflict with God’s law. God’s law deals with eternal matters. Man’s law concerns itself with earthly issues, which are fleeting and temporary.

          You should read the Third Commandment. It might help guide you.

          And as for your question on homosexual “marriage”, there is no such thing. God created marriage and it is between one man and one woman. It is not up to man to change that institution.

          Moreover, homosexual conduct is immoral, unnatural, and contrary to God’s law. It is a sin, and should be condemned, not celebrated. It is, as you state, a personal choice to sin. But it is not a wise choice. It is better to repent, and to reform.

          • Mr Mister says:

            well in some religions tattoos, smoking, drinking, and even eating pork is a sin against God. Or are we only to live as YOU believe?

  29. We used to have a firearms store in Berryville by the ABC store that suddenly disappeared. Possibly, in part, due to the misguided fear of guns that certain people on this thread seem to exhibit. I personally feel that Berryville would be a great place for a business owner to open a new gun store. There are plenty of people in Clarke county who would become clientele. This type of venture could become a anchor in the business community of Berryville when it seems so many others are going under. I guarantee that owner would be carrying concealed and welcomed by all other local businesses for the amount of traffic he or she would draw downtown

  30. Michele Worthing says:

    God created the institution of marriage? What a joke. Men created it for the purpose of controlling women, usually abetted by organized religion. Marriage is very different in other cultures, you know. Did God create polygamy? Did “She” create divorce?

    • Another View says:

      God–the Father–created marriage. It is not a “joke”.

      If marriage is different in other cultures, then that is a perversion of God’s institution by man.

      God did not create polygamy; indeed, he condemns it. The same with divorce. Again, these are man’s departure from God’s word and will.

      • Roscoe Evans says:

        How about, next time you’re chatting with Jesus, you tape record him? And after you get the down low on men, women, and marriage, ask him about where he’s hiding all of the gold, and other good stuff.

        Of course you’re right about marriage and culture around the world. God clearly only approves of the American way. He no doubt will be smoting the heathens any day now.

        • Another View says:

          I chat with Jesus regularly. You can, and should, too.

          God only approves of his way. May America’s way be his way.

          Read more. Open your mind. Open your heart. Turn away from cynicism and hate.

          • “No one is trying to impose religion on anyone, other than the Islamists.”

            AV, your words from one of your post today. Don’t you hate when someone keeps track of what you say?
            I guess if we all follow YOUR religion all is well…

            Keep using “Hussein” , it connects the dots.

      • Mr Mister says:

        So I should put a pox on Reagan and Gingrich for their mulitple divorces?

        • Another View says:

          Ronald Reagan’s and Newt Gingrich’s lives are not comparable. Jane Wyman divorced Ronald Reagan. Newt Gingrich divorced his wives. Very different.

          But again, the answer is repent and reform. Everyone–everyone–sins against God. The key is to seek forgiveness, repent and reform.

      • Mr Mister says:

        God-the Father also created the gays, Hispanics, Demarcates and other things you despise. Just saying….

        • Another View says:

          I do not despise anyone. What a despicable, hateful thing to write.

          I do despise behaviors. Behaviors that involve stealing from your neighbor to give to others is contrary to God’s law. Behaviors that involve immoral sexual conduct, such as homosexuality and bestiality. Behaviors that involve suppressing folks’ ability to worship God, requiring them to provide services and products, such as contraception, that violate their conscience. Behaviors such as murdering children. These are all sins. And engaging in these behaviors is wrong.

          The answer is to repent and reform. Again, did you read what I wrote?

  31. Roscoe Evans says:

    Sorry, gents.

    But repackaging and repeating your paranoia and your hypocrisy add nothing to your “arguments.” Come up with a study or two about how concealed carry makes us all safer (from somebody besides the NRA), and maybe you can make a point out of your blabbering. But I just don’t think every post on this site warrants a rehashing of your religion, your philosophy, and your politics. Your opinions — which is all they are — become less convincing each time I see them.

    I can respect LB or anybody else who carries because he wants to. That, plus the fact that he can shoot straight and has the right to carry, is legitimate. But you can save your phoney political arguments and your anecdotes.

    Congrats on working your degree into the discussion though, Sarge. That, and your whiteness

    • Another View says:

      Thank goodness! I was afraid that Roscoe Evans had given up on the phony racism charges, but no, he’s BAAAAAAAAAACK! WELCOME!

      Sarge’s and my arguments are sound, as are the other proponents’. That you do not like the arguments, or are not persuaded, does not make us paranoid or hypocritical. Stop name calling, and hurling racial canards, and engage in substantive debate.

      As for studies, they are legion. You should read Professor John Lott. He is the authority on this subject, And the studies definitely demonstrate a drop in crime where the citizens are armed. And you can read in the newspaper, every day, the crime results in jurisdictions with gun control–Chicago, Washington, D.C., etc.

      And Sarge’s history degree from UNC is impressive. UNC has a fabulous history department, and is a mecca for research, particularly in Southern culture, living and other historical aspects. Their archives have been of great assistance to me in the past.

      Read more. Learn tolerance. Buy a gun. Be safe.

    • CC Permit Holder says:

      http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4527526. For those of you against concealed carry view this article. The officer needed assistance nto the other way around.

  32. Sorry Roscoe, but refusing to acknowledge history that has repeated itself over and over again, and does in fact bolster one side of an arguement, is nothing more than you admitting defeat because you have nothing to back up your position except your opinions and belief system.

    However, unlike you, I have facts and history to back up my statements

    Oh, nice racist remark, as well. Of course, you’re known for that here. Well, that and you’re lack of knowledge of history

  33. The only reason I do not apply for the concealed weapon rights is because I would probably shoot myself in the foot.If I want a permit I best take myself to the nearest shooting range and learn the proper ways of handling a gun. I am not against the law but perhaps you should show your knowledge about guns first? A thought only

  34. Roscoe Evans says:

    Sarge, you continue to make post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments: you find cause and effect on the basis of a passage of time, and nothing more. That’s not much of an historical analysis, especially for a purported UNC grad. And your “I’ve been to 22 countries, and they all suck” arguments are no more compelling. So stop repeating yourself: you repeat yourself over and over again, history does not, despite your effort to seek refuge in Santayana’s aphorisms. And your observations about the world are so colored by your petty prejudices they are worthless.

    Leave the Jews out of your arguments. I’ve represented plenty of Holocaust survivors. None of them like seeing their unique and horrific biographies and histories abused for cheap, petty political arguments like those presented here. It’s not just that the parallels you and others draw to their sufferings and their murders are inapt and inane: they are insulting and insane. The Holocaust “bolsters” nothing. It stands alone. A historian would likely know that.

    Carry whatever you want. I don’t care. “I want to” is a good enough argument for me. Your quasi-historial nonsense is just that.

    If you can’t hack “racist” remarks, stop talking like you’re a racist. And, stop cheap-shotting the LGBT’s while you’re at it.

    • ” Sarge, you continue to make post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments: you find cause and effect on the basis of a passage of time, and nothing more. ”

      For a supposed lawyer, you Latin is faulty and misplaced. Not surprising. I have never said that one historical event always occurs because another event always precedes it. I have said that some like events occur as a result like events, ergo, gun control by governments is USUALLY a prelude to an authoritarian regeime. This again is proven to have occured throughout history. In fact, I’d challenge you to name a time or event where gun control by governments DID NOT led to less freedom for the populace.

      “So stop repeating yourself: you repeat yourself over and over again, history does not, despite your effort to seek refuge in Santayana’s aphorisms.”

      Why? Are you afraid you’ll learn something? Perhaps about the Weimar Republic or the Weimar Laws on Firearms and Ammunition? Can’t have that, can we? History is, at a minimum, the memorization of chronological events. And, as has been repeatly demonstrated to you by various people, gun control most of the time leads governments to take liberties with people’s freedom. Other DOCUMENTED times it has contributed to mass murders. Maybe my repeating of these FACTS over and over will allow the slow among us to catch up.

      “Leave the Jews out of your arguments”

      I can make my case easily without them. Robert Mugabe is a great modern day example. Perhaps you’ll read about how he has taken everyone’s gun’s and the results that have followed

      “I’ve represented plenty of Holocaust survivors.”

      Somehow, I doubt that.

      “If you can’t hack “racist” remarks, stop talking like you’re a racist. And, stop cheap-shotting the LGBT’s while you’re at it.”

      You’re the one that brought it up. So if you want to keep hurling insults, trust me, after 22 years in the
      military, I’m you’re huckleberry. I promise you’ll lose that one.

      Meanwhile, I’ll leave you to your “trapped in the 1960’s, NAACP, Affirmative Action” attitude. Maybe one day you’ll grow out of it

    • Another View says:

      Sarge doesn’t make racist remarks; you do.

      And you have not represented any Holocaust survivors. See? Stop lying. Try the truth, it will set you free.

      Sarge’s observations about the world are based on his experiences. Is he not entitled to his views? Must he admire barbarism, socialism, and Islamism which are present abroad, and which many Americans view with disdain, having not seen them up close, as he has?

      Diversity, for its own sake, is empty and, to coin your term, anti-intellectual. It is a vehicle by which folks such as yourself hate America.

      Work harder. Pay less taxes. Take care of your family. Love your country. God Bless The U.S.A.!

      • Roscoe Evans says:

        The Nazis did not kill them all. But if you wish to pretend otherwise, feel free. You and your ilk have no concern about demeaning their tragedies to make your petty points.

        Diversity, like the 60’s and the NAACP and Affirmative Action, are the products of your and the Noncom’s imaginings of my personna. I could care less.

        Sorry, but you are deluded.

        I just dislike seeing history trivialized by the ignorant and the self righteous, and I am tired of seeing you minimize the horrors of our past while doing so.

      • ElinorDashwood says:

        We have handguns for target shooting, shotguns for skeet shooting and my husband has rifles for hunting. Do I or my husband feel it necessary to keep any with us? Not at all. Is living in constant fear really living? Personally, I don’t think so.

        I work hard. I pay my taxes honestly. I take care of my family. I love humanity, not just the ones that reside inside these particular borders. God bless us all.

      • Mr Mister says:

        “Sarge doesn’t make racist remarks;”

        Really?

        So you don’t remember the story of the Hispanic male that trespassed on his uncle’s property by the river? Or as he put it; “the illegal Mexican”.

        Hispanic = illegal , may not be racist but inaccurate, offensive, and stereotypical.
        Hispanic = Mexican , is racist and offensive.

        Racism is not always black and white. Sometimes there are a few shades of brown.

        I know you like to think he walks on water, but those are the facts. Look ’em up.

        • Roscoe Evans says:

          Look out, Mister.

          The local Noncom comes equipped with radar, as well as gaydar.

          When he tells you a buddy of his was relegated to a terrorist watch list solely on account of him being white, you’ve got to take his word for it.

          And if they’re darker than coffee with two creams, they’re Mexican and illegal (which of course is the same thing), no matter where they’re from. If the Noncom makes the call, you got to know he’s on target. Cause he’s our huckleberry.

  35. ElinorDashwood says:

    Facts to think on… I’m sure the numbers are higher now.

    “In 2003, there were 30,136 firearm-related deaths in the United States; 16,907 (56%) suicides, 11,920 (40%) homicides (including 347 deaths due to legal intervention/war), and 962 (3%) undetermined/unintentional firearm deaths.”
    CDC/National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports 1999-2003 http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars

    “The rate of death from firearms in the United States is eight times higher than that in its economic counterparts in other parts of the world.”
    Kellermann AL and Waeckerle JF. Preventing Firearm Injuries. Ann Emerg Med July 1998; 32:77-79.

    “The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.”
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1997;46:101-105.

    “The United States has the highest rate of youth homicides and suicides among the 26 wealthiest nations.”
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among children: 26 industrialized countries.
    MMWR. 1997;46:101-105.

    Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Powell KE. Childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm deaths: an international comparison. World Health Stat Q. 1996;49:230-235

    From the American Bar Association… but some of you lawyer types already know that.
    Fear has killed more men than time.

    • Another View says:

      And lots of folks die from slipping on bathroom floors and in automobile accidents. Let’s ban bathrooms and automobiles.

      Better yet; a federal law mandating that everyone be swathed in bubble wrap and permitted to consume only oatmeal served with organic milk and fruits.

      Or simply pass a law banning death.

  36. Mr Mister says:

    When you read stories like this:

    http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=21918624&nid=148&title=corn-vendor-admits-to-shooting-self-fabricating-robbery&s_cid=queue-12

    Then you wonder if the right to carry does apply to everyone. Good thing he only shot himself, but a shame he had to bring race into it. I’m betting he was relying on the fear that fake (FOX) news channels spew to validate his story.

  37. Always Prepared says:

    As to the utility of CCW, I submit this story from Tuesday. Paraphrased from WOIA News…

    SAN ANTONIO – A woman is in critical condition after she was stabbed outside her child’s school Tuesday morning. The attack happened around 10:00 a.m. Tuesday outside the Bonham Academy on St. Mary’s Street. Teresa Barron, 38, had just dropped off her child at the school when the child’s father showed up, and the two got into an argument. The child’s father, 38-year-old Roberto Barron allegedly then stabbed the woman several times in the upper body and neck area.

    Police say a bystander who happened to be a concealed handgun license holder pulled his weapon and ordered Barron to drop the knife. Barron surrendered and was taken into custody by the bystander and a school district officer. The woman was taken to San Antonio Military Medical Center. Barron was arrested for aggravated assault, and is in jail on a $150,000 bond.