tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-586914322065730371.post5952934583387453633..comments2023-10-31T08:24:52.483-05:00Comments on CHICAGO ARGUS: “Concealed carry” a chance for rural Illinois to speak, without doing harmGregory Tejedahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03233009340333100205noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-586914322065730371.post-12552075728299992252009-03-25T22:45:00.000-05:002009-03-25T22:45:00.000-05:00I actually read the entire article/writting of the...I actually read the entire article/writting of the person and then clicked to complain about their lack in reporting. What I read led me to think they wanted to take my 2nd Amendment away. Now that I have gotten to this I find something way different. So, is this a reason that only two have commented? Or a well thought out plan to prevent others from actually reading something that may give us the right to defend ourselves from someone or something. Hell, now that I have wrote all of this I am wondering why I even give a hoot about others rights. Do not get me wrong though, others rights taken away take mine. This said, the saying "From My Cold Dead Hands" rings a bell. I have always laughed at that saying since my idea will out live my breath.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-586914322065730371.post-277583631514109812009-03-09T22:05:00.000-05:002009-03-09T22:05:00.000-05:00Check the stats, because violent crime rates drop ...Check the stats, because violent crime rates drop dramatically when "conceal carry" is allowed. There has only ever been one exception to this fact. The crime rate which drops the most is rape.<BR/><BR/>Research will also find information about how fear in the criminals' heads is more important than actually having to use the firearm.<BR/><BR/>If you lived in my gang-infested neighborhood, full of welfare and section 8, you might agree with me. When was the last time you saw a drug-deal in front of your house, or had a shooting in your neighborhood? I have to walk my dogs among gang-bangers, unarmed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-586914322065730371.post-70814422512935206252009-03-02T16:02:00.000-06:002009-03-02T16:02:00.000-06:00Human beings only have two ways to deal with one a...Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and<BR/>force. If you want me to do something, you have the choice of either convincing me via discussion or argument, or to try to force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's<BR/>it.<BR/><BR/>In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact with one another through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu<BR/>is the possession of personal arms, as paradoxical as that may sound to some.<BR/><BR/>When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason to try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a<BR/>100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang-banger, and single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken homophobes with baseball<BR/>bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, and/or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.<BR/><BR/>There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd all be more civilized if every gun was removed from society, because firearms make it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are disarmed, either by choice or<BR/>by legislative fiat. It has no validity when most of mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for the automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's exactly the opposite of a civilized society.<BR/><BR/>A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the argument that guns make confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result only<BR/>in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns, the confrontation is won by a physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones<BR/>don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the<BR/>stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is leveled. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as in the hands<BR/>of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.<BR/><BR/>When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am out looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced; only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because<BR/>it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why my<BR/>carrying a gun is a civilized act.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-586914322065730371.post-55296780842035843002009-02-20T09:35:00.000-06:002009-02-20T09:35:00.000-06:00"After all, why pack a pistol if you don’t serious..."<I>After all, why pack a pistol if you don’t seriously want to have a reason to use it?</I>"<BR/><BR/>Nice.<BR/><BR/>That's like asking why you would have insurance on your home, unless of course you were <I>hoping</I> that it would burn down. Why have life insurance on your family? Are you <I>hoping</I> that they die?<BR/><BR/>Those of you that do not wish to carry firearms for protection are more than welcome to dial 911 and wait for the police.<BR/><BR/>No, I will <I><B>not</B></I> protect you. The firearms that I carry will only be used to protect me and my family.<BR/><BR/>If you are too proud to protect yourself or your family, think you're too good to have to deal with thugs, too scared to defend yourselves, or feel that the police are paid to protect you, then by all means, go ahead and don't carry a weapon. But, as I've said, my weapon is solely for my and my family's protection.<BR/><BR/>And don't whine when the police don't show up quickly enough for you. After all, even the police at<BR/><A HREF="http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Second City Cop</A> like to note that "When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away." and yes, Second City Cop supports Concealed Carry for the law-abiding citizen.<BR/><BR/>My weapon is solely for me and my loved ones. I'm not a cop wannabe. I'm not a vigilante. I don't wish to be a hero (hence my reason for <B>not</B> protecting you if I see you getting your ass beaten down). And I certainly don't <I>wish</I> to take the life of another human being.<BR/><BR/>You may now return to your throne now, your highness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com