Kansas gets it right.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/...b?ocid=U142DHP

Concealed carry in action.

I bet Kansas isn't flying the Chinese communist flag in front of there state capital.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...it-down-video/

Great! How about an accidental discharge? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Simple. Don't carry with a round chambered. I practice twice a week and include the draw/rack the slide/chamber a round as I bring the weapon on target. No accidental discharge that way.

Good for Iowa! http://personalliberty.com/requiring...-of-infringed/

Requiring a concealed carry permit is the definition of ‘infringed’

Requiring a permit is essentially the government’s taking away your right and then forcing you to purchase it back. Yet Americans accept this “in the public interest.”

Governments always use altruistic code words to get the people to surrender their rights.







.

Good for Iowa! http://personalliberty.com/requiring...-of-infringed/

Requiring a concealed carry permit is the definition of ‘infringed’

Requiring a permit is essentially the government’s taking away your right and then forcing you to purchase it back. Yet Americans accept this “in the public interest.”

Governments always use altruistic code words to get the people to surrender their rights.







. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Actually you are wrong. Everything is illegal, like hunting ,fishing, driving a car, getting married, fly a airplane but the government will sell you a permit to do it,,,LOL l

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/...b?ocid=U142DHP

Concealed carry in action. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I saw that on the news and thought.."Damn, not sure I would have drawn and fired in that situation".

First.. it was property theft, not life and death threat. Second, what was his angle? Did he really have enough clearance to shoot the suspect without endangering the lady sprawled across the hood. And what was the background? Was he shooting towards a wall or back stop.. or out towards traffic or residential areas with possible "victims" beyond the thief in the car? All of that is stuff I was trained to consider before/while drawing my sidearm.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...l-not-enforce/

Breitbart News previously reported that the push for expanded background checks in Oregon is being spearheaded by state senator Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene). His efforts are strongly supported by the Brady Campaign and Giffords.

Giffords, in particular, believes every potential gun purchaser should have to pass the same background check her attacker passed to acquire his firearm, which the same background check Jerad and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Aaron Ybarra (Seattle Pacific University), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barbara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), James Holmes (Aurora theater), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood 2009), and many, many others passed to get the guns they used in their crimes.

The irony is not lost on Sheriff Palmer, who sees the push for expanded background checks as just another way to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens without impacting crime or criminals. For these reasons, Oregon Live said Palmer described the push as “borderline treasonous.”

Actually you are wrong. Everything is illegal, like hunting ,fishing, driving a car, getting married, fly a airplane but the government will sell you a permit to do it,,,LOL l Originally Posted by i'va biggen

True.

You know my ideas from my post # 32 in this thread. And yes, the Government does require us to get a permit or liscence for just about every conceivable activity.

But, the big difference is all of those other activities do not have a specific Amendment in our Constitution protecting the people's right to engage.

If there are those that wish to curtail a citizens right to keep, and bear arms, do it the right way. The Constitutional way. Amend the Constitution.

You and I both know that is not going happen, at least not in our lifetime.

Good for Iowa! http://personalliberty.com/requiring...-of-infringed/

Requiring a concealed carry permit is the definition of ‘infringed’

Requiring a permit is essentially the government’s taking away your right and then forcing you to purchase it back. Yet Americans accept this “in the public interest.”

Governments always use altruistic code words to get the people to surrender their rights. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

So by that cut and post job, you're against what Iowa is doing. Or didn't you realize that?

Of course you didn't.

I saw that on the news and thought.."Damn, not sure I would have drawn and fired in that situation".

First.. it was property theft, not life and death threat. Second, what was his angle? Did he really have enough clearance to shoot the suspect without endangering the lady sprawled across the hood. And what was the background? Was he shooting towards a wall or back stop.. or out towards traffic or residential areas with possible "victims" beyond the thief in the car? All of that is stuff I was trained to consider before/while drawing my sidearm. Originally Posted by RedLeg505

I had some conversations about that but the woman was in danger (even if she put herself there) so he had a choice; shoot the criminal, shoot the engine block, or shoot the woman. I think he made the right choice. He also closed the distance to make sure he hit the target and at a downward angle (in case he missed). I think he did everything right though I don't know the exact laws in Georgia. Some states allow you to protect someone from imminent harm and not just imminent death.

I saw that on the news and thought.."Damn, not sure I would have drawn and fired in that situation".

First.. it was property theft, not life and death threat. Second, what was his angle? Did he really have enough clearance to shoot the suspect without endangering the lady sprawled across the hood. And what was the background? Was he shooting towards a wall or back stop.. or out towards traffic or residential areas with possible "victims" beyond the thief in the car? All of that is stuff I was trained to consider before/while drawing my sidearm. Originally Posted by RedLeg505

Those thoughts came to my mind also, but as a non gun owner I decided to bite my tongue and not comment. Thanks for the input.

Those thoughts came to my mind also, but as a non gun owner I decided to bite my tongue and not comment. Thanks for the input. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

But arnt you assuming he didn't take those factors into consideration.

But arnt you assuming he didn't take those factors into consideration. Originally Posted by dirty dog

I have no idea what was going through his mind. The same concerns that Redleg05 expressed came to my mind -- could the guy have stopped the car theft without shooting the would-be car thief? Was he 100% positive that an errant shot could have endangered an innocent person? It all worked out for the better in any case.

All can calm down now when Brownback signed the bill he said that was just benefiting responsible gun owners. Whew now irresponsible people will not CC.

"I'm gonna rise up, I'm gonna kick a little ass, Gonna kick some ass in the USA, Gonna climb a mountain, Gonna sew a flag, Gonna fly on an Eagle, I'm gonna kick some butt, I'm gonna drive a big truck, I'm gonna rule this world, Gonna kick some ass, Gonna rise up, Kick a little ass, ROCK, FLAG AND EAGLE!"

-Charlie Kelly