Tuesday, July 13, 2010


A post of mine on CCW killers brought out the usual suspects who claimed:
Yet as a whole, they [CCW holders] have fewer brushes with the law than the general population.

I'll agree with you in that you really have to be a true gunloon to think that CCW holders never violate any law, but what I was saying was that CCW holders are one of the least problematic.

What seems to be forgotten that in order to qualify for a CCW, in most states, is that the applicant isn't a felon. It essentially means that one can actually have a pretty long and distinguished criminal record but so long as one isn't a convicted felon--you're good to go.

That's a pretty low bar.


  1. Jade, where would the bar have to be for you to stop demonizing CCW? If someone has a squeaky clean record, do you support issuing permits?

  2. TS: First, I'm hardly "demonizing" anything by pointing out the so-called "law-abiding" citizens aren't really so law-abiding.

    Second, I'd think a 'squeaky clean record' should be a given. I'd also expect to see both physical and mental fitness examined, as well as a real demonstrated proficiency with a weapon.

    Last, I'd want to see CCW holders and all gun owners carrying insurance.

  3. Let’s see, I have a squeaky clean record (nothing worse than a speeding ticket), I am physically and mentally stable, insured, and depending on who you ask- I am proficient with a weapon. Yet I can’t get a CCW permit. Is it possible that in some places we have regulations beyond even Jade-we haven’t even tried gun control in this country-gold’s standard?

  4. TS, I bet you leave your doors unlocked since criminals are gonna break in.

    If criminals are going to break in, why make it hard for them to do that?

    Likewise, they haven't committed a crime until they have broken in.

    So, until they have broken into your house, they are not criminals.

    What's the difference between saying that and being against preventing people who really shouldn't be near a firearm from carrying?


  5. Sorry Jade, the prohibited persons list is far, far more expansive than just felons.

    The largest group of persons denied are 'unlawful aliens'.

    Seem to recall something about gun control being racist?

  6. Laci, I am for background checks for gun purchases, and I don’t mind a higher standard for issuing permits. I am afraid you have me mistaken for someone else.

  7. "Laci, I am for background checks for gun purchases, and I don’t mind a higher standard for issuing permits. I am afraid you have me mistaken for someone else."

    That would be me. :)

  8. Well, that’s the first time I have been mistaken for a fat white man ;)

    It is easier for gun controllers to lump us all into one stereotype gunloon and make vast assumptions on our positions. Certainly easier than trying.

  9. TS: You really can't have it both ways.

    Look, NRA gunloons are fond of pretending that their 4M members are monolithic in their beliefs. You guys like to bring this up as often as possible as if the NRA could bring 4M members (that don't exist) to bear on any issue they wish.

    OTOH, when confronted by the actual beliefs and agendas of the NRA--you are quick to maintain that you don't believe that at all.

  10. TS,

    I don't think Laci would confuse us normally. I am against permits to buy and purchase anything though.


    You are the one that teeters between "The NRA is the source of all known evil" to "the NRA is small and insignificant". Which is it with this post? You might have actually gone both ways in one comment?

  11. FWM: Actually, I take the same view of the NRA as I do with Al Qaeda. Both are relatively small but can be terribly destructive.

  12. Jade: “TS: You really can't have it both ways.”

    I guess you are right. I’ll oppose background checks then… You almost had me convinced it was a good idea, but your “you can’t have it both ways” argument wins every time.

    Kind of hard to make progress this way, though.