my opinion on the 2nd amendment and carry rights: The 2nd amendment gives every american the RIGHT to bear arms. It does not say anything about where or when or what type you can carry. To me, this means that until proven otherwise everyone should be able to carry. So then why do law abiding citizens have to apply for all of these permits to carry? That should be the default. If you qualify to buy a gun, which means you went through a background check ( fellonies, domestic violence checks etc) then you should automatically qualify to carry. If you can't buy a gun then you have obviously done something that revoked your RIGHT to bear arms and therefore cannot carry. Instead of punishing law abiding citizens with fees and permits, tag the people that have lost that right with something, like a code indicator on their license or ID. Tag it in the police database so it is known by authorities that these people cannont carry and if they do they are commiting a felony.
In my opinion, the only time it is a good idea to open carry is if everyone open carries. Otheriwise a criminal will know who is and isnt armed. If you cenceal carry, then it is like rolling the dice when you want to attack someone. Does he have a gun or not? It is just like the fuckign jackass that posted the addresses of all of the gun owners on the internet. Now criminals know who to avoid or if they want a gun, they know just where they can potentially get one. It allows targeting of specific individuals, whether you have one or not you are a target depending on the goal of the criminal. You can go about this debate in many ways but in every one of them, even in a perfect world without guns, you are ALWAYS giving the criminal element more power than you, the the law abiding citizen. Criminals will always use whatever is at their disposal to achieve their goal of robbery, murder etc, so why take away the one tool that puts you on almost the same footing as the criminal emement. Notice I said almost, the criminal will always have an advantage, they will look for ways to achieve a first strike in essence, so even if you are armed you are almost always on the defense and have to react to a situation, which could result in critical time lost to protect yourself or others. The only thing that eliminates this to an extent are stand your ground states which gives you the right to shoot without prejuduce anyone that invades your home (castle, which includes your home, your car, a tent in the woods etc, or someone in the ACT of committing a felony. In a world without guns, what would you defend yourself with? a crowbar, bat or machette? I think a gun is a better option, it removes a lot of risk on your part in the event that you are engaged by another individual that is trying to achieve harm to your persons. I would much rather have someone shoot me or shoot at me than to get beat in the head with a bat or stabbed or hacked to death with a fucking sword. All evidence that I have seen, suggests that states with strong pro gun laws have much less crime than states that all but eliminate the right to carry.
