I mentioned my size for one reason: inequality of other alternatives, such as martial arts or whatever. Some folks assume that a fist fight is ok and non-deadly. Truth is, some fist fights are nasty, leaving folks terribly hurt and often dead. And yes, both of you made snide remarks inferring that short guys are “Napoleonic” — popularly understood to be “short man complex.” That was both insulting and off-base. But, it’s a common mistake. If I was 6′4″ — would you have made the argument I could probably physically best anyone trying to mess with me?

As to the crowd I run with…they’re tame folks. Cops, computer professionals, bus drivers, etc. Normal joes, everyone one. But, there are other people in the world I’ve had run-ins with, people who would love to force their will upon those they perceive to be weaker. Some are simple bullies, like that guy tailgating you on the freeway. Some are violent nutjobs, like the gangbangers who infiltrate most small communities around the country, let alone cities.

You and I will continue to disagree about the brilliance of men who engineered a government based on a consistent philosophy that applies regardless of technological improvements. Your logic would preclude the Internet and Television from the First Amendment protection. Would you really open that can of worms?

I carry the gun in the off-chance that I need it, praying I never do. But, at least in Colorado, it’s my choice when to leave it elsewhere and when to carry it into the places you guys are so scared of. Should I need it, I’ll have it. Otherwise, you won’t be any the wiser.

As to why I care, it is quite valid. More to the point, I have friends and family down in that state that give me a second vested interest in seeing things done right. You may not agree with my views, but to dismiss them because I don’t live there is your problem — not mine.

The technology has changed, but the world really hasn’t. There are good men, bad men, crimes, and justice. Individual rights, for the moment, still have some weight, though I fear that is changing (not just gun rights, but many others, for many years now).

What the Founders set up was a solid system of government built on a philosophy that can easily go along with changes in technology. But to infer that due to changes in technology, many of those rights are irrelevant, is dangerous. Free speech, protections from search and seizure, the right to keep and bear arms, etc, all are potentially impacted by your inference.

You have no interest here other than to forward your own emotionally-based arguments for more weapons in public.

If you’re really so concerned about personal safety and preparedness, why aren’t you own every local forum every time someone proposed new road construction arguing in favor of more stringent highway safety standards? Surely you’re smart enough to know that far more people die on the roadways than die from a gunshot, but for you apparently preparedness only means packing heat at all times just in case the big bad wolf shows up, and the only things you give to support this argument are anecdotal incidences that prove nothing other than bad things occasionally happen, and everyone knows about them because they’re so damned rare. Talk about “intellectual honesty”

As far as the founders, I said they were dead, and a lot more, to basically say that they couldn’t possibly have anything truly valuable to bring to this conversation. The world we live in today is one they couldn’t possibly imagine, and to argue that the opinions of men who lived 200 years ago about this issue are relevant is the absolute height of “intellectual dishonesty”. That isn’t necessarily true of all issues, but it is certainly true of the gun issue when so much has changed about guns and the society’s use of guns in the interceding 200 years.

Personally I’m a little tired of going around and around about this issue. I know it’s been an interesting conversation, but it’s not going anywhere. You carry your gun, I won’t carry one and in the end, neither of us is going to end up getting shot by someone. I’d bet the farm on it! You may call that foolish optimism on my part, but the odds are certainly with me on this one. I don’t spend too much time worrying about lightning strikes, and I don’t spend too much time worrying about being shot either.

I didn’t bring up the “short guy” thing, you did. Whether you like it or not though, it is somewhat telling about your position on concealed weapons considering that logically your arguments don’t hold much weight.

I know you say it’s all about personal safety and readiness, but for someone claiming to be so keen on “intellectual honesty”, you could really use a dose of it yourself. You’re on a local site over 1000 miles from your home state, arguing an issue that realistically will never affect you regardless of your saying you “visit” here regularly. What are the odds that you’d get in a shoot-out, O.K. Corral style, while having a sandwich at a restaurant here? You have no interest here other than to forward your own emotionally based

I love intellectual honesty.

I provided Luby’s because it is easy to obtain information on. I could have easily gone into statistics, which none of us would agree on. I could have easily sat down and dug up stories from The Armed Citizen, which would counter the examples given from the Brady Bunch.

I’m actually quite level headed and calm, even when confronted by someone who (literally) towers over me. I’m rational enough to realize that me trying to go Chuck Norris would end badly for me and that making violence the first response is moronic. That does NOT give me the stereotypical “Napoleon” behavior. And your inferences to such betray your lack of class and intellectual honesty. When you can’t out-argue, you smear. Bravo.

I have a vested interest in the outcome of this law because I occasionally do travel to your state and they recognize my Colorado issued CCW. I know that this whole issue is a non-issue in Colorado. The bars haven’t become war zones, nor have guns in personal vehicles gotten the schools shot up.

Even better, you guys wish to ignore the wisdom of those who came before us simply because they’re dead. Or is it because you know their attitudes, coming out of a first-in-history break with a mother-country?

If you ignore their experiences and reasons, you ignore what happened to and around them. You then run the risk of repeating the very things they resented Britain doing to the Colonists. Some of that is already happening, not specifically guns but with regards to justice and such.

I hope you two non-Steves have some intelligent responses this time.

While Steve and I haven’t agreed, at least he hasn’t resorted to smears. That’s why I’ve continued this long, he’s willing to debate and discuss. I’ll take that over someone who agrees with me, but is not willing to do that with someone who doesn’t.

“I’ve never claimed the group as a whole is angelic, but I have been carrying for years in an area with a high percentage of CCW holders and have not seen the problem.

Actually, you’ve been pretty overconfident about the overall behavior of your “fellow” CCW holders. This is called casual thinking, and is characterized by over-generalization of matters that extend beyond your simple ability to observe. Merely little, homemade conclusions. You say you’ve “never seen the problem.” Well sir, I’ve never actually “seen” the sun set in Japan. So there’s that logic.

Your nostalgic idealization of the founding fathers only works against you. Yes, they’re dead—the point is, they’re dead and therefore can’t discuss/understand the issues of today. No one with any smidge logic on their side can even pretend to know what those dead white guys might have had to say about concealed weapons. Who cares? It’s irrelevant.

“The difference between my position and yours is that forbidding weapons does little to deter law breakers, whether they are CCW holders or common criminals.”

That’s been run completely into to the ground. I think it’s safe to say, no; it won’t “deter law-breakers” but it will discourage people from bringing weapons into these places. For example, there are still kids who get into bars who are under 21 years of age, but the laws in place discourage most from going in.

So you’re saying that permitting weapons in bars does “more” to deter lawbreakers? Interesting homemade concoction.

You thrive on this idea of “what if… what if…” Well, what if one day you were in a car accident? What if one day a plane crashed into your house? What if one day you got struck by lightning? Does this mean you’re going to stop driving, and just live in some underground shelter, because—hey man, you’re prepared now!

“You ignore the past, and as George Santayana wrote, you’re doomed to repeat it. They’re dead, doesn’t mean they were stupid.”

There’s a difference between ignoring all history and disregarding a small portion of irrelevant information some individual plucked out of their grade school memory, clutching to it as though it were a piece of gold.

“Anyone matching the cherry picked examples that the Brady Bunch came up with would ignore such laws as it is in most cases.”

Seriously? you’re actually saying “cherry-picked examples” to Steve? Who provided valid information about actual cases? Because I mean… the Luby Cafeteria example has reared its head more than enough times—talk about cherry picking.

As Kipling wrote, “He wrapped himself in quotations- as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors.” I just thought I’d join in on the fun. I love google.

Chris, do you smell… Napoleon-complex?

Allowing concealed weapons doesn’t appear to change that equation either.

“If nobody is legally allowed to be armed, like in Luby’s Cafeteria in Texas, he can take his time doing whatever the devil he wants.”

Well, how prepared are you for other extremely unlikely events? Do you have an MRE and a quart of water with you at all times just in case you get stuck in an elevator for 24 hours? That’s probably far more likely than getting involved in a mass homicide. And then there’s killer bees you could get attacked by. Might want to invest in some epinephrine and a travel hypodermic kit. Not to mention a snake-bite kit — you’re well over twice as likely to get bit by a snake than you are to be murdered, gun or no gun — so you’ve got to have that at all times.

And, more relevantly, how well do you speak Spanish? You could have a flat in a largely Latino area of town, and need some help. Better carry a phrasebook, just in case.

I’m not mocking you, I’m just trying to demonstrate the application of that kind of logic in another scenario. I do see your point, but I hope you also understand mine.

“Road rage crossing into violence already breaks laws, even when one is allowed to carry. So why stop the potential victim from defending himself?”

Why introduce more guns into the equation at all? Why give someone the option of having a concealed weapon at all?

When a new law is written or a change to an existing law is proposed, the people proposing the law have to demonstrate the need. I don’t see any statistics showing me where the great need to carry into a bar or on school grounds is. I don’t have to tell you why you shouldn’t carry a gun there. You’re the one wanting to change the law, and therefore you should tell me why you SHOULD be allowed to carry in those places.

I haven’t read any good reasons yet. All I’ve read are a bunch of platitudes about rights that don’t exist, and paranoid fears that someone (anyone and everyone apparently) could be a potential threat. If you don’t understand that as paranoia, I can’t help you, but I did find this one line of yours particularly telling.

“I’ve had a couple of close calls with some idiot who mistakes short man for weak man…”

That explains soooooooooooooo much. Paging Dr Freud!

The difference between my position and yours is that forbidding weapons does little to deter law breakers, whether they are CCW holders or common criminals. While allowing it doesn’t mean most of your customers will bother, they simply have the option. More importantly, if one of them is armed and a violent law breaker is attempting to enforce his will by the initiation of force, there’s a chance to stop him. If nobody is legally allowed to be armed, like in Luby’s Cafeteria in Texas, he can take his time doing whatever the devil he wants.

Anyone matching the cherry picked examples that the Brady Bunch came up with would ignore such laws as it is in most cases. Road rage crossing into violence already breaks laws, even when one is allowed to carry. So why stop the potential victim from defending himself?

Because it does happen. Regularly, in fact. Just check out this list from the admittedly biased (yet no more so than any pro-CCW group’s stats) from the Brady Center: http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/facts/2008-ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf

For example …

Philadelphia, PA • October 5, 2008. Christian Squillaciotti, 33, was charged with two counts of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and related offenses stemming from a road rage incident. Squillaciotti, a CCW licensee, fired at least four times toward a vehicle being driven by Thomas Timko on a Philadelphia expressway.

Or this one …

Lubbock, TX • Octber 18, 2008. Tye Burke, 25, was arrested and faces felony charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after pulling a gun on another parent at a children’s soccer game. Burke pointed his handgun at the victim’s head.

And there are hundreds of such cases each year. In fact, the Brady Center makes the case that many crime reports involving CCW holders — both on the police side and by the media — often neglect to mention this fact. Why? Because in many cases CCW information isn’t a matter of public record.

That said, it’s not an assumption of mine that a CCW holder will pull out a gun any moment, but if the argument is “Crimes happen, therefore I need to be armed to respond to them if they ever happen to me,” surely you can see the other side.

That argument goes like this: “Violent crimes by CCW carriers happen regularly, and could happen to me. I need to protect myself. My option are to either get my own concealed handgun, or to reduce the places where such CCW holders are likely to bring their guns, thus reducing the odds that when one does eventually snap, he or she won’t be packing at that time. Schools and bars sound like a nice start.”

It’s just as much a precaution as your argument. It’s just as valid.

I’d also like to dispel this myth that CCW holders are some across-the-board clan of law-protecting heroes. That’s bunk. Some are paranoid, violent, dangerous people who — in the state of Georgia, say — merely have to pass a background check to get the ability to carry their gun with them. Evidently, even a blind person can get one.

After reading up, though, I will concede that Texas is at least making an effort, and I see why the numbers stack up there the way they do. Evidently, their CHL requirements are some of the strictest in the nation. But, that said, they’re also something of an exception when it comes to their numbers, largely because it’s actually a challenge to get a CHL there in the first place.

And Ayn Rand was a wonderful writer, full of excellent philosophy. While I don’t buy her hostile-towards-religion attitude, I do agree with her business and governmental philosophies. They were logical and well considered in most cases.

And proving the negative is often a great way to discuss the positive. It’s called change in perspective. Instead of asking me why I should have something, prove to me why I shouldn’t have something. It’s no less valid a logical question.

Steve, trying to dismiss the men because of the times they lived in is just as foolish as dismissing them because they’re dead. You’re talking about men who built something never done before and never considered before: our Republic. They pioneered a great many ideas that most of the world felt were mad, especially ideals like personal liberty and freedom, without the interference of monarchies.

As I stated before, Mace has its own issues. One, most locations that ban firearms also ban mace and tasers. Both are valid alternatives for folks to implement. I have no issue with their use. Second, mace cannot often be used in close quarters, especially indoors, as it is not a precision tool. While it is permanent, that handgun is a precision tool.

I have to ask you, why do you believe that having firearms in these places makes them inherently more dangerous? I’ve never seen a CCW holder, let alone a lawful gun owner carrying openly, wave his or her weapon around. No twirling, no menacing, etc. I don’t understand the basis of this assumption. I’ve been to places where 90% of the people around me were armed, both openly and concealed, and I didn’t feel any less safe. To them, it was no different than the pocket knife they carried.

A couple of posts have inferred people like me are paranoid for wanting a weapon on hand. I’d say the mistrust you exhibit towards your fellow man who’s lawful, exhibits far more paranoia than anything I’ve stated.

I carry everywhere I’m legally allowed to in Colorado. I’ve never needed the weapon, yet. I’ve had a couple of close calls with some idiot who mistakes short man for weak man, but I’ve always avoided violence. I can never take the bullet back, so I save the option for last resort. But I’d rather have the option and never use it than not have it and need it. Still, I do say my prayers that I never need to shoot a fellow human being.

I also hope to never need to use my first aid kit. But it’s nice to have. Same goes for my tire pump.

I love, love, love, when people quote a woman who took her sexual fetishization of 1920’s business men and turned it into a political philosophy. Any Rand worshipers are fun!

“Actually, asking “Why not” is a fair question”

Actually no it’s not. Proving a negative is always more difficult than proving a positive. When someone wants to institute a change, it’s incumbent on that person to demonstrate why that change is needed. So far, I haven’t seen one rational argument for guns in bars or schools. All I’ve seen are some paranoid rants about being “prepared” for an extremely unlikely threat. Do you propose we all wear rubber suits to stave off lightning strikes?

As far as the founders, I think trying to divine their opinions on most modern issues is useless and impossible. What would Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, or any of the others think? To quote an old professor of mine “Who gives a damn? They’re all dead.”

To assume their opinions on guns written better than 200 years ago could possibly be relevant in a world where the flint-lock musket has been replaced with the M-16 shows either a pointless deification of flawed, dead men or a stunning ignorance of what the passage of two centuries means from a technological standpoint.

But I see your point, and my premise is indeed different. As I see it, there are lots of ways of defending yourself that don’t involve having a hidden firearm capable of killing a person with you in any given situation. Mace, for instance.

Is it really so dangerous out there that it’d be worth ENCOURAGING people to bring hidden guns with them as they drop off their kids at school? Or those oh-so-common situations involving going to a bar without the intention of drinking? Sure, there may be extremely rare occasions where one additional party having a gun would change the equation.

But one could use the same argument to say that all teachers should be allowed to carry guns on their person to prevent another Columbine, and guns should be allowed on airplanes to prevent another 9/11. Never mind that it introduces more problems than it would ever solve.

As I’ve said before, I think Martin’s bill is a gross overreaction to the reality of the situation.

If it’s not about the 2nd Amendment — what it says and what it means — then there’s really not much to talk about. It’s a state issue, and one I think is being used to pander in this case, for reasons well-established above.

I mean, if you want to talk about what the Founders thought about various political and social ideas, that’s an entirely different topic. They lived in a world where people literally owned other people (and where slaves COULDN’T own guns, which should tell just how much critical perspective they really had), where people were regularly hanged and shot as part of the standard judicial system, where Presidents could theoretically hold office for life, where women didn’t get to vote and where law enforcement and public safety policy was more hypothetical than actionable.

We don’t live in that world, and unless we’re talking about actual laws we all live under, it’s irrelevant what they thought. I mean, Hamilton wanted the President to be a monarch-for-life, in effect. Forgive me if I don’t look to them all that seriously for the answers to today’s questions.

Mine is, I should be allowed to arm myself where ever I go. Your premise is different.

As to what the FF said, it goes beyond just the Second Amendment. Did you ever read the writings of Jefferson, Adams, St. George Tucker, or others? It gives you the context to interpret those words. So please, don’t be so dismissive because I interpret that more broadly than you do.