gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 8:22 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:
wrote in
news
Han wrote:
Wasn't it you who said that you're ONLY innocent until proven
guilty in criminal cases? When you enter the country, it's you
who has to prove your identity, and the immigration people can
just say I don't believe that passport is real, wait over there
until I find out more. At least that was what she said to me she
COULD do. You have to have a driver's license when driving a car,
so why don't you have to have a gun license if you own/possess a
gun?
Well, you don't necessarily have to have a driver's license to
drive a car - the necessity or a license depends on where you are
doing the driving.
Of course we are all talking public space here. In the FL case of
Martins vs Zimmermann, it was apparently public enough for both to
be in the same area.

Um, yeah. Your point is...?

In the case of guns, the U.S. is unique in asserting that "the
right to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed." Some states and
city jurisdictions take one extreme view of guns and require
governmental permission, of one sort or another, to own or buy a
gun, other jurisdictions do not.
I'm not in favor of a Wild West mentality in cities.

No "Wild West" mentality here.
it was not any macho challenge or "duel" crap,it was simple self-defense.
People DO get attacked,robbed,or raped in cities.
There ARE bad people out there,violent people. when they know or suspect
someone is armed,they leave that person alone,and find easier victims.


I am. An armed society is a polite society.

Nothing polite about being shot.

the politeness comes from people RECOGNIZING that the wrong actions could
get them shot. When dueling was common,people went to great lengths to NOT
insult others.

Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman had a gun,or he never would have attacked
him. Trayvon never learned about the SYG law or Florida's concealed carry
laws. His parents failed in raising him,he never learned about not seeking
out trouble.

If Z could do this night over again
I'm sure he would.

Slowly, but surely, the notion that self-defense as an unassailable
right is creeping 'cross the land and that personal weapons tending
to assert that right should not be challenged.
That is very regrettable, IMO (and I do know there are other
opinions). I can just see someone getting in an argument on a
crowded subway platform (and I've seen arguments). Would you want
to see anyone, anyone at all, start shooting.

Wild imaginations not supported by fact. Just the opposite happens.
Who is going to get violent when the result could be a shooting? the
violence occurs when people think they are safe or are stronger than the
other person,"might over right".
Besides,you must not remember Bernard Goetz and the NY subway shooting of
the 4 young thugs with screwdrivers who tried to rob him. a crowded subway
car,and no bystanders got hit.

In the first instance, how do you know those involved in a
spittle-frothing argument were NOT armed?

Here's the facts: People with concealed handgun permits do NOT start
shooting. Period. No matter the amount of insults hurled. Absolutely.

BS. How could you possibly know the mental state of each person with a
chp?

You can check the data amassed in EVERY US state that issues such permits
since concealed carry was adopted;the revocation rates for permit
violations of any sort are exceedinly LOW,fractions of a percent. States
are quick to revoke permits if a person violates the law,even non-gun
violations.

Lawfully armed citizens are just not committing crimes or violent acts.
They are not the ones to fear,no threat to other law-abiding ordinary
decent citizens(ODCs).


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com