Private competition is not good for unions.
That's tough, Officer Fife. WE THE PEOPLE make the laws, you just enforce them, and you damned better respect our rights.
Because law enforcement cannot protect us, we must do it ourselves. Having them come with their yellow chalk to outline your body or the bodies of your loved ones is not exactly what we have in mind as “protection.”
“has sparked concern among some law-enforcement authorities”
translation, opposed by the Fraternal Order of Police and all the other jack booted fascist thugs that think “serve and protect” means be our Masters.
The operative word here is "authorities." This alleged "concern" is only among high ranking, APPOINTED, LE "authorities." Rank and file LEOs and locally elected "law enforcement authorities" have no such concerns.
And despite the State-run media’s exploitation, pistol permit applications have soared here in Newtown. Another friend, and father of young kids who lives in Sandy Hook, just got his and is eager to “go shopping.”
Cops should really get concerned when dogs get CC permits.
Re: felons need not apply.
I would change that to violent felons only. Che k kiting is a felony, yet why should one lose their 2A rights over that? I would also argue that a 68 yom who was violent in his teens should also get their 2A rights restored.
I like to hold up Arizona as a great example of gun liberty.
When I do, some critic always spouts off about Arizona ranking 11th for gun homicide in the US.
But what they don’t know is that 71% of gun homicides in Arizona are *suicides*.
And since Arizona went whole hog for gun liberty, the violent crime rate in the state has dropped more than 38%! That is more than double the national drop in crime rate.
As I like to conclude: “The only people stupid enough to commit gun crime in Arizona usually aren’t from here (mostly Mexican); or they are so insane that they don’t care if other people are shooting back at them. And they are.”
“And the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit group that advocates for gun control, said that since 2007, concealed-carry permit holders have fatally shot about 500 people, that 128 of them have been convicted of manslaughter or homicide, and 36 have committed murder-suicides.”
Yep, the article was VERY biased. When given stats from a left-wing group, one must ALWAYS parse them - and one can get quite for even assuming that the data provided is valid.
In this case, 500 shootings in 6 years, out of 5,000,000 holders (low-end estimated average number over those 6 years) - or about 1 per 10,000 permit holders. Not exactly the WILD WEST that the big-city cops and liberals were SURE would ensue. In fact, if there were only 1 fatal shooting per 10,000 people in New York City in 6 years, then there would have only been 1,000 fatal shootings in that time, or about 167 fatal shootings per year. Last year, they set a record LOW of 414 homicides (actually, an excellent year for them)...and they have been much much higher in the past (as in nearly 2,000).
So how about those 500 homicides? It looks like 75% of them were justified, or at least to the extend of not being able to convict the shooter (CCW holder). So now you have 128 murderers with CCWs. So closer to 21 murders per year from CCW holders. Not bad for a group of 5,000,000 people.
But what about them? How many of them killed while in public? In other words, how many of them took their weapons out on the street and killed someone? That’s an important number, because the remaining people (probably the majority), would have killed without a CCW. In other words, a nutcase shooting his wife at home may have a CCW (and a gun, of course), but the CCW HAS NOTHING to do with the killing...no more than his driver license or voter registration had anything to do with it. So one SHOULD NOT blame the CCW in any way...he didn’t need it to be legal before the killing.
That is how you parse something from the left.