Reasons _not_ to get a Concealed Pistol License?

[PlayboyPenguin]

I believe option 2 is also criminal, although protesting may seem morally sound. My point was that in certain cases, there are other options available that, while criminal, would seem morally superior to obeying the law that weren't shows of public protest.

I disagree to a point. Protesting is one thing. As long as you are doing something to try and change the way it is now you have a footing to stand upon but if you are simply disobeying the law and doing nothing to change the law you are simply a criminal.

 

[Karma]

I disagree to a point. Protesting is one thing. As long as you are doing something to try and change the way it is now you have a footing to stand upon but if you are simply disobeying the law and doing nothing to change the law you are simply a criminal.

Is being a criminal always wrong? What about when the laws are unjust? Our founding fathers were criminals because they refused to be enslaved by a government. If they would have laid down their arms, or just protested publicly, where would our country be today? A government doesn't have the need to listen to citizens they don't have a healthy fear of.

"A man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject."

"Where the people fear the government, you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people, you have liberty."

"Government big enough to supply everything you need, is government big enough to take everything you have."

 

[cameronhu]

I disagree to a point. Protesting is one thing. As long as you are doing something to try and change the way it is now you have a footing to stand upon but if you are simply disobeying the law and doing nothing to change the law you are simply a criminal.

I've been called worse

 

[NK777]

This has turned into a very interesting debate even if it has strayed a wee bit off topic. FWIW I disagree with you Playboy.

First Morals are not different for all sane people. Believe it or not the atheist and the bible thumper agree on the same basic morals.

Second most laws have little to do with morality aside from laws governing simple murder, rape, and theft, etc. Obviously those are morally wrong. Examples of laws that have nothing to do with morals, speeding, traffic violations, etc. (these are actually all about safety and control) Concealed Carry laws have nothing to do with morality or safety IMHO. A criminal does not need a CHL and rarely will they even attempt to get one before he jams his 9 in his pants in preparation for his daily or nightly criminal activities. Why is it now that the lawful are breaking the law by carrying concealed with out a permit? How does this make us safer? How does this prevent Joe dirtbag/psycho from jamming their illegally purchased gun down their pants and knocking over your local quicky mart or doing a home invasion, rape, etc. etc. etc.?

Fact is the concealed carry laws do nothing but create a record of people they do not need to be worried about on file and generate revenue for the state. In fact one might argue that the law is immoral. The citizen already had the right to arms and self protection given to him by the 2nd amendment of the constitution. States, counties, and, cities do infringe on their right in making these local laws. You have a Moral obligation to defend yourself and family from evil doers and you are given a right by the second amendment.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

First Morals are not different for all sane people. Believe it or not the atheist and the bible thumper agree on the same basic moral

I personally think the bible is a work of fiction and base none of my moral beliefs upon it or it's teachings...as most of the world does not. Morals vary greatly from culture to culture and person to person. To try and pretend your group somehow has the inside track on morality is very naive and self centered. There are many cultures who's values are completely different than my own. In some cultures murder is acceptable under certain circumstances. Even here in some states we sponsor state executions and see no problem with it where other cultures would think it amoral. Here in our own country some people find no issue with abortion and others find it horrific. Some people think drinking alcohol amoral...others do not. I could go on all day.

 

[NK777]

I personally think the bible is a work of fiction and base none of my moral beliefs upon it or it's teachings...as most of the world does not. Morals vary greatly from culture to culture and person to person. To try and pretend your group somehow has the inside track on morality is very naive and self centered. There are many cultures who's values are completely different than my own. In some cultures murder is acceptable under certain circumstances. Even here in some states we sponsor state executions and see no problem with it where other cultures would think it amoral. Here in our own country some people find no issue with abortion and others find it horrific. Some people think drinking alcohol amoral...others do not. I could go on all day.

I believe you will find that deep down all sane people know right from wrong regardless of which culture they grew up in and that is the basic morals I am speaking about. The so called differences you are talking about are in fact people rationalizing in order to make it easier to ignore their basic human morals.

I'd like to reclarify something here to ensure people don't get the wrong idea. I am not advocating breaking the law even if the law is stupid. I am extremely lawful and do have my CHL. I just do not agree that this law is just.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I believe you will find that deep down all sane people know right from wrong regardless of which culture they grew up in and that is the basic morals I am speaking about. The so called differences you are talking about are in fact people rationalizing in order to make it easier to ignore their basic human morals.

I have to disagree. The only true human moral is to survive at all cost and to protect your bloodline after that. Every other trait or ideal of morality is taught by culture, religion, society, etc. You are not born with the idea that punching you brother in the face is wrong...you learn it. You are not born knowing stealing is wrong...you learn it. What you learn and how you learn it varies greatly from culture to culture. Saying I have it right and everyone else is just rationalizing is pretty self important if you ask me.

 

[cameronhu]

Gentlemen, there are a great many books written on this particular topic. This is a classic Kant vs. Locke & Hobbes debate on the fundamental basis of morality. There are supporters of both the Categorical Imperative (NK777) and Desire-based morality (Penguin). Ultimately it comes down to a simple question: Should I pack heat, or not?

 

[JAFO]

Do you ever leave your home and property?

If so I'd say the reasoning for getting a CPL is stronger than for not.

It might be nice where you live and travel but it is not isolated from the rest of the country. Your belongings are a target of the 'entitled.' Your life and the lives of your friends and loved ones isn't all that important to some who may feel 'entitled' to your belongings. The current economy will not help the situation.

 

[NK777]

Gentlemen, there are a great many books written on this particular topic. This is a classic Kant vs. Locke & Hobbes debate on the fundamental basis of morality. There are supporters of both the Categorical Imperative (NK777) and Desire-based morality (Penguin). Ultimately it comes down to a simple question: Should I pack heat, or not?

Agreed we can probably argue this forever and never change anybodies mind.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I personally think the bible is a work of fiction and base none of my moral beliefs upon it or it's teachings...as most of the world does not.

Uhh, you might want to re-think that one PP.
Unless you are strictly speaking of the Christian "Bible." Every religion has it's "book."
Old Testament, New Testament, Torah, Koran and the book the Buddhists use (escapes me at the moment) etc.

Those that read said books and believe in their teachings comprise "most of the world.
Not secularists.

 

[cameronhu]

Agreed we can probably argue this forever and never change anybodies mind.

Yeah, but if it makes you feel any better, I kinda agree with you.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Uhh, you might want to re-think that one PP.
Unless you are strictly speaking of the Christian "Bible." Every religion has it's "book."
Old Testament, New Testament, Torah, Koran and the book the Buddhists use (escapes me at the moment) etc.

Those that read said books and believe in their teachings comprise "most of the world.
Not secularists.

There is only one christian "bible." It is to that text which I was referring. I have no problems with most of the ideals from the book, except some of that wrathful and jealous god stuff from the the earlier episodes, I just do not find it all that original since it is pretty much just a retelling of stories and religious fables from before it was written. Like Gandhi said..."I like your christ, I do not like your christians, your christians are nothing like your christ" Which is another big reason morality needs to be kept out of the law. I do not trust the people who feel they have the strongest claim on what is moral to make decisions for everyone else. That is why I do not care if someone feels it is the "moral" thing to do to disobey the law. I am willing to sometimes consider that peaceful disobedience can be the "right" thing to do...but morality does not figure into it.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Well you mentioned the bible being a work of fiction. and mention the Christian part, which would be the New Testament only.
So do you consider the others to be fiction also? Or just the New Testament?

Faith is just that. You either have it or you don't. If you don't, that's okay, but to say one is a work of fiction and the others aren't, based on a secular position, shows a bias that is difficult to understand.

 

[glockguy]

Not Sure How The bible connects to not Getting a CHL but OK. Why is it that almost ever thread turns into a different discussion?

 

[tionico]

Fact is the concealed carry laws do nothing but create a record of people they do not need to be worried about on file and generate revenue for the state. In fact one might argue that the law is immoral. The citizen already had the right to arms and self protection given to him by the 2nd amendment of the constitution.

You've hit it squarely on the first part.... most laws on the books today can be sifted down to raising revenue, a strange form of taxation. And such laws are immoral, the breaking of them is not immoral. Though at times, when caught, it can prove costly.


A sublt but significant correction on the second part: Please, gentlemen, let us never forget that the Constitution does not GIVE us any rights whatsoever. It merely ennumerates and codifies certain rights given us by our Creator, and which no man, no government, can rightly take away. Note carefully the wording in each of those first ten ammendments, the Bill of Rights: in no case does it indicate the giving of any right. In every case it acknowledges a pre-existing right, the source of which is our Creator. In the thinking of those composing and enacting this document, the intent was to get specific about what those rights are so as to preserve them and eliminate any possibility of later administrations coming along and "deciding" such things as "oh, we see a need to disarm the citizens", or " we have an overriding situation here that requires we censor the press, assuring only what WE approve can be published", or "we now determine that religion in all forms will be regulated by US".

Stop and consider how many of our present laws do precisely this: Patriot Act; INS and Border Patrol "inspection zones" within 100 miles of the border; selling of permission slips for the bearing of arms, and arresting those who bear them without such papers; CPS, on the mere face of an unfounded and unresearched accusation, entering a home and taking children into state custody (Elian Gonzales comes to mind...); searching of the trunk of a vehicle without a warrant OR probable cause (since halted by a Supreme Court case, just weeks ago); Massachussetts demanding Catholic Charities adoption services place children in homes of homosexual couples (not arguing the moral rectitude of such placing of children, only that this private institution was forced to comply with someone ELSE's sense of right and wrong, thus depriving CC of Boston their God-given freedom to govern themselves by the moral code they'd been under for over a hundred years.. clearly depriving them of their right as ennumerated under the First Ammendment. OOh, you say, they SHOULD do that... no, if a homosexual couple want to adopt, there are OTHER entities glad to help them out, so no one was "deprived" of a service or right..... except Catholic Charities. And no, I am not Catholic, only this example serves well to illustrate my point);


Yes, most laws are merely sources of revenue and have little to no basis in morality. And courts are increasingly striking what few laws remain that ARE based on moral law: e.g. Lawrence vs Texas, annulled by the Supremes.....

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Well you mentioned the bible being a work of fiction. and mention the Christian part, which would be the New Testament only.
So do you consider the others to be fiction also? Or just the New Testament?

I consider all religion fiction. From the beliefs of the early Romans/greeks right up until today. I do not think the moral code of any religion should play into the law. Most things are wrong because they harm another person or just border on inhumane. You do not need religion to tell you that. Trying to justify carrying illegally based on morality is an exercise in futility. Like I said, sometimes defying the law can be justified, but it has nothing to do with morality. So either get a permit or do not carry. if you want to be able to carry without a permit fight for a change in the law. If you are unwilling to fight for change just accept it and abide by it.

 

[Weathermaker]

Get one even if you don't plan on using it. You may want on later and there may be tighter restrictions enacted in the future that will make it harder to get. Also, if you have one, there are no questions about how to legally transport it to the range.

I have no basis on this statement other than my own interpretation of how CPLs could be best controlled/harassed by someone looking to make a name for him/herself.

Exactly the reason I got one.

 

[Tactical SS]

Might as well get one if you don't mind being printed. The way I see it, if you have it you can carry whenever and not carry at any time. If you don't have it you can't legally carry when you want. It gives you a choice.

I have had several encounters with the police while carrying and none of them care, they just want to see my CPL.

 

[Trlsmn]

I consider all religion fiction. From the beliefs of the early Romans/greeks right up until today. I do not think the moral code of any religion should play into the law. Most things are wrong because they harm another person or just border on inhumane. You do not need religion to tell you that. Trying to justify carrying illegally based on morality is an exercise in futility. Like I said, sometimes defying the law can be justified, but it has nothing to do with morality. So either get a permit or do not carry. if you want to be able to carry without a permit fight for a change in the law. If you are unwilling to fight for change just accept it and abide by it.

No good can come from a religious discussion!