Robin Bailey’s

There are currently only two states that allow no form of concealed firearm carry, Illinois (President’s Home state) and Wisconsin. As a side note, Open (non-concealed) Carry is legal in Wisconsin.
Illinois is currrently debating legislation on allowing CC. We will see how that goes…

So here is my question: “Is the fact that people CAN legally carry a gun Scary or Comforting?”
Would it be more/less scary if the only people who CC’ed a firearm did so illegally?
Here is a really good article about “Blaming the Tool”

Our current President agrees on the dangers of Concealed Carry. (Note, he is not saying it is dangerous, or is he?) Story here. (Note: This is pretty much as anti-gun slant as you get, I think just reading the article will cause kids to shoot themselves)
They cite a large number of crimes commited by CC’ers, maybe lets say 100. Now how many Concealed Firearm Permits have been issued? Utah has issued over 300,000.
With me so far? 300K permits, 100 national crimes…. Now lets pretend that Utah is the only state that issues every CFP. That would still be 1:3000 CFP holders commiting a crime.
On the average, a CFP holder is much more obedient to the law. They (me) have to pass a FBI background check, no felonies, domestic stuff, no psycos, etc, etc…. But, 1:100,000 would still be too high.

A side note, Utah is bragging on how ONLY 1:64 Utah Adults are currently IN the “corrrections system” (This does not mean jail workers, but jail customers and parolees). Nationally the number is 1:31, which is one of your classmates from 2nd grade.

So in Green Jello Utah, only 1:64 adults are convicted criminals, is that Scary or Comforting?

You get rid of the 1:64 and then lets start talking about disarming the rest…. I won’t give up my security, until then is no need for security. I am personally more scared of the 1:60 than the 5% of Utahns with a CFP.

Holder talks right from the Brady Campaign Webpage

A.G. Holder, who voted against lifting the DC Gun Ban, talked to the press about reinstating the “Assault” weapons ban from the Clinton Era. This made Speaker Pelosi -D CA cringe and say that the democrats won’t support it. Holder’s reasons this time included helping stopping guns going into Mexico for their drug war.

Tell me this, how does every US citizen not having the right to buy a Semi-Automatic AR-15 Rifle cause more Fully-Automatic M-16’s and grenade launchers to be used in the Mexican conflict? The weapons encountered on the border are not the one’s that this ban would cover, they are already banned!

Then number of “assault” rifles that were used in crimes is insignificant compared to other firearms. All gun crime pales in comparison to the number of crimes stopped via private citizens with guns.

A ban on these semi-automatic (means it shoots 1 bullet with every trigger pull, like the gun I am packing right now) weapons is more comparable to a ban on ATV’s or JetSki’s. They are both used for recreation and sport. Well, actually ATV’s (which are not designed to “assault”) cause more deaths than assault weapons.

I suppose I am going to go buy me one as soon as I can….. (This post is very poorly written)

This is a very good piece:

This video is a little “Big Brother” and “Mr Wizard”

Alright, welcome to 2009.  There is a new bill which requires a buyer to get licensed (I cannot spell “license” without crossing my eyes) before he/she can purchase a firearm. 

The full text of the bill can be found here.  It is H.R.45 by Rep Rush, Bobby L. in the 111th congress.  It is currently in committee.

The premise of the bill is that a national licensing system for anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm will reduce gun crime.  (The non-epidemic of “gun crime” will be discussed later). 

At first thought, it may be understandable.  Compare with a Driver’s License.  You have to have on of those to operate a car, why not guns?

Well, first a Driver’s License grants one the right to legally OPERATE a vehicle on PUBLIC lands/roads.  One does not need a DL to operate a car off of public land.  Also one does not need a DL to PURCHASE a vehicle. 

Now, what if a person was required to have a DL to PURCHASE a car?  What if, when grandpa gets old and loses his DL the Fed comes and takes his car away? 

I am personally all about having to require people who hunt, aka OPERATE, firearms on Public Lands to have a proper License.  Well Tada!!!  It is already in place.  It is called a Hunter’s Safety Tag.  It is also Illegal to OPERATE a firearm in a Homicide etc. 

Do you get the difference between having Private Ownership Rights and Public Use Rights?

There are many other issues with a bill like this that raises many other red flags.  Gun Registration is the step before Gun Confiscation.  It is also based on “Interstate Commerce” just like the Gun Free School Zone Act.  Most Federal gun laws are based on interstate commerce because they fail the 2nd Amendment.  The Gun Free School Zone Act was deemed Unconstitutional under the Bill of Rights in the supreme court, link and link.

In the words of the Founding Fathers, “I think ’shall not be infringed’is perfectly clear”

If you are still reading, check this out as well.  Article on H.R.1022