Senate to vote on NATIONAL Right-To-Carry Reciprocity, Call Your Senator!

[vpchill]

ahhh.. this legislation was driven, or started for truck drivers that move from state to state.. we as a people are very mobile.. I can conceal carry in 27 states.. what's the issue??

as for the wild west.. in the last 9 yrs here in Minnesota where a "right to self protect" type law has been on the books.... we have had 0 incidents where a licensed citizen has used a firearm in self defense..

#'s out today, violent crime and deaths are at a 25 yr low..

interesting, even with economy so bad..

Ok spy so I would say you are a responsible party. What about others who are not so responsible?

[mho]

Ok spy so I would say you are a responsible party. What about others who are not so responsible?

This is an invalid argument bro. You can't punish an entire group of law-abiding people for the actions of criminals.

[TITANIUM]

All he is trying to say, is reciprocity will make it safer for the law abiding sector.It will also make it easier for law enforcement to deal with not knowing the laws of other states.OK, here is a example, your drivers license is good in all U.S. states.That is reciprocity in itself.

[eatrainrest]

[ggggg

[thegodfather]

in a perfect world this would be acceptable.. too bad too much scum to give a liberal right to carry.. even if you abide by that states legislation

It is because the world is imperfect, and full of people who might want to do us harm, that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS should have their right to defend themselves no matter where they are within the United States.

VPChill, try to use an analogous situation to what you are saying. Say that 10 black people rob convenience stores. Should I conclude from that black people are too irresponsible to go into convenience stores because they might rob them, so now I will ban all black people from convenience stores? Of course not, that is an absurd argument. It is just as absurd to say that because of a few THOUSAND people who do irresponsible, criminal, and wreckless things, that we should penalize the MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of law abiding responsible gun owners in the United States.

You take a driving test because driving is a PRIVILEGE and NOT A RIGHT. Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, that is why the government should not require training to own firearms.

[eatrainrest]

Ggggg

[MuscleScience]

VPchills argument doesnt hold any ground here.. that example cites something obvious in which you can SEE.. which is race in this particular example. NONETHELSS, you cannot point out good vs. bad guy because race nor gender, etc play a factor in it. SO, what im trying to say is yea in a perfect world why not? those "responsible" people are still civilians and are not trained LAW ENFORCEMENT officials (which should be the ones to only carry off duty IMO). think about the accessibility of weapons you are allowing on the streets. "good guy" gets into an argument with a "bad guy" whom then pulls a gun out and shoots them. Who is to justify the shooting? this is ridiculous allowing citizens to carry a weapon. maybe we come from different parts of the country but i can tell you there is a growing gun issue around here and it is way to accessible.

Your assuming that guns are responsible for peoples actions. When in fact every crime a person commits should be based on the person solely, not the means they used to commit a crime. Just because as few bad apples go rotten those few should not be allowed to spoil the whole bunch. If a person commits a crime and uses a white van, that doesnt mean a law should be passed to outlaw all white vans because they are a Pedowagons. Rather the person who commits the crime should be punished for his actions, not his actions causing the punishment of others with white vans.

[kickinit]

VPchills argument doesnt hold any ground here.. that example cites something obvious in which you can SEE.. which is race in this particular example. NONETHELSS, you cannot point out good vs. bad guy because race nor gender, etc play a factor in it. SO, what im trying to say is yea in a perfect world why not? those "responsible" people are still civilians and are not trained LAW ENFORCEMENT officials (which should be the ones to only carry off duty IMO). think about the accessibility of weapons you are allowing on the streets. "good guy" gets into an argument with a "bad guy" whom then pulls a gun out and shoots them. Who is to justify the shooting? this is ridiculous allowing citizens to carry a weapon. maybe we come from different parts of the country but i can tell you there is a growing gun issue around here and it is way to accessible.

AND how many times has your example EVER happened? You pull your weapon any any matter then LIFE threating your AUTOMATICALLY at fault. It's a great responsibility to carry as I do as well. It's not responsible if a criminal comes up to your window of your car or at the bank and blows ur head off with no way to defend yourself.