Well, why not? I can’t think of one place where I shouldn’t be able to exercise my natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Schools? Abso-damn-lutely. Disarming law-abiding citizens who could protect our most precious asset is the height of insanity. Bars? Why wouldn’t you want to carry in a bar (unless you were planning on or had a tendency towards becoming inebriated). Football stadiums and concert venues? D’uh. Airplanes? Your problem being…? Prisons? OK, maybe prisons, where firearms retention could be a serious issue and there are plenty of armed guards nearby. And sure, private businesses that wish to exclude armed customers. Otherwise I’m all for guns everywhere, open carry too. You? [h/t JA]

Recommended For You

125 Responses to Question of the Day: Guns Everywhere?

  1. The whinies never cease to amaze me. Fear, fear and more fear is all they know. Okay, here’s the deal. I’ll say it slow and simple – I carry a sidearm for my safety, okay? Now that we’ve established that little part, can someone explain to me how my life is worth less in one place but not another? Hmm? HMMMM?

    Tom

      • If the Constitution says that the RKBA “…shall not be infringed.” by the government then every single “gun offender” was convicted under an unconstitutional law. We see every day that they are making more and more new laws that will result in the person being convicted by such unconstitutional means and supposedly losing their gun rights forever, but those are natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights not given by the government and not the government’s to take away.

        The purpose of the 2A is simple – if any person, or government, violates any of your rights you have the natural right to defend yourself against that violation. Therefore, to give ANY other person or any instrument of government the authority to tell you that you may not be armed for your own defense is unconstitutional. As for “gun offender” they should be met with equal or superior force at the time of the incident and dealt with in this manner, not by allowing any government to dilute the meaning of the Second Amendment, since that amendment only has meaning in its pure and unadulterated form.

        • How about this: We just let people have guns, and if they hurt someone with those guns we will punish them to the fullest extent. There. Problem solved.

        • Um, no. While rights may not be stripped, through due process (look it up in the Constitution) the State can curtail the free exercise ofrights.

          Say the rights of travel and association, f’rinstance, or the right to breathe. RKBA as well.

          Now while I do believe that upon full rehabilitation, certain offenders should get their RKBA un-curtailed, that’s not necessarily upon release – especially for a parolee, who is still “in the system.”

          Certain particularly egregious types probably should never armed. Rapists come to mind, and axe murderers. They should never be released, really, and if the gubmint wants to keep ’em a little less able to defend themselves, good. Their potential victims deserve a leg up.

      • Violent felons, murderers, rapists, and child molesters forfeit their gun rights and voting rights. I’m fine with that. Everyone else who is a legit citizen should have RKBA. I guess I just don’t have sympathy for child predators and rapists.

        And I don’t support BG checks either. They are designed more and more to prevent and delay legitimate citizens from owning firearms.

        • “Violent felons, murderers, rapists, and child molesters forfeit their gun rights…”

          Every time this subject comes up you respond with this same tired refrain, “I support the Second Amendment wholeheartedly, EXCEPT, …’the natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility…..’ may be infringed by the government or any of its agents in order to protect us from…”

          So you don’t ACTUALLY believe in the Second Amendment OR that giving the government any authority at all to poke its nose under the tent flap will make the 2A null and void. You cannot have the right to keep and bear arms un-infringed while still allowing it to be infringed. No government can be trusted to infringe a natural right only to the degree that YOU think it should be infringed, and no further.

          If you feel so strongly on these particular miscreants, join the SVU or become a prosecuting attorney or something and work to put these people in prisons where their natural rights can at the very least be restricted to deny them easy access to firearms. Other than that, leave my Second Amendment alone. Your fear of and animosity towards these evildoers does not give you the right to negotiate away the Constitutional protection afforded to MY RKBA, or that of anyone else.

        • But how will we keep these violent felons, murderers, rapists, and child molesters from owning guns without background checks?

        • Sorry, dude. These guys never heard of due process.

          I suppose that prisoners should be free to exercise freedom of travel and association, and that the executed should retain the right to breathe.

          Sorry, dude.

      • +1 with that. I carry for the same reason they do. They have no more legal obligation to defend a specific person than I do.

  2. If you won’t ban guns for the children, at least do it for the criminals, psychotics and terrorists.

    • and how did they become criminals? by breaking the law.. thus showing they do not care about laws.. psychotics.. don’t know the difference .. they are crazy.. terrorist want to kill us.. so why should I give up my gun because of them? I need a gun to protect myself from them. As far as children, being a responsible gun owner protects the children. A car is just as bad a weapon to children as guns.. more kids die from car accidents than guns. So your argument makes no sense

    • They were open for about 36 hours. We filled the comments up! There were probably 60 pro-gun comments and maybe 8 against. I knew they would remove them and get rid of the thumb ups.

    • Some idiots did that with a stupid revisionist Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman video (disabled comments), so I went to their website and left my comment there. Might be appropriate for this one too.

  3. I don’t like the idea of courtroom carry. I feel the risk of a crime of passion(though most likely premeditated- I understand that’s a contradiction of terms but whatever) is much higher at a place like this. A situation like an angry family member of a victim or the victim themselves getting vengeance at the trial.

    • I have no issue with banning parties to any case pending before the court from carrying arms inside the courthouse. Too many times, a party “upset” with a ruling of the court–particularly in family law cases (divorces, child custody and support, alimony, property divisions and the like) have taken out their anger and frustration on their ex-spouse and her attorney, his own attorney, and the judge. Not pretty, and entirely preventable.
      Which raises some interesting issues out here in California. Every courthouse I’ve been in bans anyone other than on-duty police officers from carrying firearms, even LEO from out of state. (Some do provide lock boxes, most do not.) But this ban contradicts California law (Penal Code section 171b), which allows nonparties (i.e. jurors, witnesses) with CCWs, all police officers who are not parties, and out of state leos to carry firearms inside. I have yet to find any authority allowing a court to enact these local rules, but no o ne to date has filed any legal challenge to them, and it would have to be done on a county by county basis, just like the challenge in Peruta. I understand the need for security inside a courthouse, given the increased risk of violence, but so does the California Legislature, and it specifically addressed the issue by legislation-and I don’t think the courts can ignore the law.

    • Yes, judges, prosecutors AND defense attorneys hate to have their process messed up by some amateur getting some actual justice.

      I am always amused by shows such as “Law & Order” because too frequently they use the plot mechanism of the Bad Guy getting acquitted on some technicality and then being shot while talking to the press outside the courthouse. It’s become a standing joke at our house whenever the BG is acquitted someone will shout, “Don’t go down the front steps!”

    • That’s effectively the same reasoning I use to understand (don’t agree with, just understand) hospitals banning carry. There can be significant amounts of grief going on with doctors not seeming to do enough.

    • So long as the court is actually a secure location, I’m quite fine with leaving my weapon in the car or checked with security. The same goes for any truly secure location, assuming that the security measures are more than just theater to make people feel safe (Looking at you, TSA).

      But when I’m expected to leave my personal protection at the doors of a facility that don’t make an effort to protect me, personally I get rather peeved.

  4. Basically a big +1. If you’re responsible enough to carry, carry anywhere you please as long as you don’t drop more than a log in the bathroom like some cops tend to.

  5. I wouldn’t care about a cop shop & courtroom ban, both places that don’t have too many armed robberies, ya think? Other than that I long for the day that 80 percent of the people in the malls & everywhere are packin(open carry). I guess criminals would need to find a real job then so this is really discriminatory.

  6. With the exception of times I have to pass a physical security checkpoint I am always armed, and I avoid security checkpoints like the plague. People get murdered in idiotic places like that every day.

  7. Constitutional carry, yes.

    Carry anywhere, yes.

    Carry in the manor you wish, yes.

    However, as far as open carry is concerned, I would never do it.

    I believe it’s stupid, but I also believe it’s a personal choice and right. Therefore, it’s void of my feelings towards it.

    • I have a buddy who wants to wear a shoulder holster for his 1911 (surprised /sarc 🙂 ) and the issue is that without open carry hes damn near brandishing when he opens his coat. Silly I know, but he loves the full size 1911. I dont personally think I would ever open carry either, I feel like it would be similiar to a chick that is very well endowed, everyone would act differently because of your assets (firearm).

      • I can’t think of a single situation where everyone in the room knowing, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I’m armed would be advantageous for me.

        • Unless your name is Frank Nitti, from Chicago. And look where he ended up – in the car. :p

          Nice 1911 he had in the courtroom, though.

          Tom

        • @HellChild The best argument for it that I know is to desensitize people to seeing (and therefore knowing) that people around them are carrying guns. Think about how people would have reacted to someone carrying an AR in the 80s or 90s, and how they react today.

          The whole “scaring off bad guys” argument might be valid, but can never be proven, so it is a moot point. I have yet to hear of an open carrier getting capped in a gas station and his OC gun getting taken, either.

        • Jacob, I can abide that answer.

          That purpose make sense to me…

          Pass out pamphlets, talk to people, support the cause.

          I can dig that.

    • On the subject of Open Carry, generally; tens of thousands of LEOs wear a very distinctive uniform on the job every single day. The purpose of this uniform is to make it obvious to everyone who sees them that they are an authority figure who can and will take them to task for breaches of the peace. The instances of crimes committed when such a personage is visibly in the area are fairly small.

      The number of uniformed individuals who are NOT Open Carrying while in uniform is also very small and so part of the value of the uniform is that people who see it will assume it is authority backed up by a firearm and someone who (supposedly) knows when and how to use that pistol. That is know in the parlance as “Deterrence.”

      So if Open Carry is an effective deterrence for these many thousands of LEOs every single day, how is it “stupid?” A non-LEO without a uniform, but with a visible sidearm, would very likely be a force to deter a crime from ever happening in their presence, rather than a concealed weapon being produced only in response to a crime already in progress.

      • I’m not a cop, nor do I want to be one and I’m not an authority figure, nor do I want to be one.

        I carry as a personal insurance policy against criminals, but my weapon is not a talisman that I hang from my belt with the hope that it may ward off bad people.

        How many DGU stories do we read about on TTAG where pointing a gun at the BG did not stop the threat, or even shooting the BG once (or more) did not stop the threat?

        So, based on that, I do not subscribe to the notion that simply having a gun displayed openly on my belt will either.

        I’m not opposed to it, knock yourself out. I just think it’s stupid, doesn’t seem worthwhile to me.

        • We can certainly agree to disagree on the open/concealed debate, however, I am only countering your argument that Open Carry is “stupid.”

          “How many DGU stories do we read about on TTAG where pointing a gun at the BG did not stop the threat, or even shooting the BG once (or more) did not stop the threat?” – I contend that the majority of these incidents were initiated by BG who thought he was confronting helpless victims and that the presentation of a firearm occurred only AFTER the crime was in progress. This certainly changes the dynamics of the incident where if the firearm was observed in advance said incident might not have been initiated at all. Different concepts, but I contend that it shows adequately that Open Carry is not in and of itself “stupid.”

      • Because the vast majority of these open carriers will not have graduated a handgun retention class.
        Second, the vast majority will not have Level 2 or 3 retention holsters. Before the advent of these, at least half of all the Officers murdered each year were killed with their own guns.

        • Blanket statements, blanket statements, blanket statements; (head shake) So how many people that OC do you know Gregolas? I’ve only seen one other OCer than myself in 5 years here in Albuquerque. He was bigger than me; and I’m 6’1″. 220 lbs and people routinely comment they think I’m a professional body builder. I have over 10 years in martial arts; with the last year training in mixed martial arts. I shoot expert when I qualify and hand gun retention is part of that training.

          Sigh; the gross prejudice and sheer fantasy when CC POTG talk about OC POTG is truly bizarre.

          So if you don’t personally know the “vast majority” of OCers that you can speak to; then show the study that backs up your statement; otherwise; your just blowing smoke.

        • One has to point out that a large percentage of LEOs are by their natures, and the nature of their jobs, intentionally confrontational and likely to be confronted by bad people and in physical conflict with those individuals. To get into a wrestling match with a very Bad Guy while wearing a non-retention holster seems a poor idea in the first place, especially if that BG will, given the opportunity, shoot your ass dead.

          Applying law enforcement scenarios and statistics to non-LEO Open Carriers seems specious. Assuming that non-LEO Open Carriers would not avail themselves of quality retention holsters for their beloved and very expensive EDCs is also a bit of a stretch.

        • @Gregolas

          I hang out with open carriers periodically, because I am one.

          Every open carrier I’ve seen that is part of that group has a decent retention holster. The vast majority of them have taken at least one or two training classes, and a decent number of them also have the concealed carry permits for their state.

          I’d like to see a source for your assertion that the “vast majority” do not have retention holsters or have not taken a handgun retention class. Do you have a source?

        • @gregolas
          I keep seeing that tossed out there, “civilians” don’t have secure holsters. Sorry, SERPA holsters are widely available for a wide range of weapon makes and models, and they are not all that expensive, so that argument is a non-starter from the get go.

          As for training, just look to the news. Cops are supposed to be the absolute pinnacle of trained professionalism. And yet they routinely shoot innocent bystanders, kick in the doors of the wrong homes, kill people’s pets that are no danger to anyone, kill old people and children and women simply for not crawling on their knees quickly enough,,,so on and so on. Spare me the training meme. Training does not abrogate incompetence, stupidity or willful abuse of authority.

      • You said it yourself, cops are assumed to be proficient with their weapons, thus making them deterrents. I have no idea what the average criminal thinks an average joe w/ an open carry gun can do. He might see them as possible threats to be taken seriously, or he might think of them as idiots ripe for the killing.

        • This is where the fantasy/fear part comes in; if the OC’ing of a weapon was a magnet for criminals; the examples of those that OC being attacked, weapons taken away and used against the gun owner would be front page news all over the country.

          As it stands; this common fear by CC POTG about OC POTG is just that, an irrational fear; similar to the fear that anti- gun people have about all POTG being homicidal maniacs itching for any reason to shoot someone; with none of it backed by facts.

    • “It’s stupid”;, Well; spoken ROHC; The erudite and incisive argument that completely demolishes the ability to raise any objections to such an obvious conclusion.

      • You can check out my argument with Cliff H. for a more thought out response.

        If that doesn’t suffice you, I don’t really care.

        • A well thought out response without resorting to ad hominem attacks is always appreciated. But when a person resorts to such attacks; it either reminds me of the classic tactics of a anti-gun liberal/progressive; and/or an immature 12 year old; but for a liberal/progressive; that is pretty much saying the same thing.

        • I was advocating that OC is a right and personal choice, void of my feelings towards it as well.

          So, don’t take it too far out of context.

      • I didn’t know the vast majority off Cops killed with their own guns, either, ThomasR, that didn’t keep them from getting killed. In my former role as legal use-of-force trainer for a 370 officer department, I have seen surveillance photos of prison inmates practicing how to take guns from cops. Most gun owners aren’t as fit, trained, or aware as you. When they’re standing in the “10 items or less” line their minds are unlikely to be on the smart-aleck teen, the drunk, the fascinated child, or the violent felon behind them.
        I’m not saying that no one should open carry. I’m saying that simply open carrying without preparing for a real, known danger is unwise.

        • The reason Gregolas; we don’t hear about OC’ers having their gun taken away and used against them is that we don’t have the necessity to try to physically subdue someone that is belligerent or threatening us; we can draw our weapon and in 95% of those situations, simply presenting a weapon is enough.

          A cop is in many more situations of close physical contact with bad people that can unexpectedly degenerate into a physical altercation with the cops gun taken away and used against them as a consequence.

          But the point is that there is not stories of OC’ers guns being taken away; so the ones that do OC, just as those that CC, as a group, do so without being yahoos or in a negligent or dangerous way.

  8. Absolutely. I already carry everywhere there are no metal detectors. Correctly, that includes the public areas of my city’s airport.

      • Exactly, trespassing if I’m caught and refuse to leave. That is why I love OK, signs have no weight of law, they are merely suggestions

        • Yep, same for Michigan. The only places I don’t carry are the ones that I’m legally bound not to. So that means anywhere deemed off limits by state or federal legislation, or where I’ve signed paperwork stating that I understand that I am subject to disciplinary action for possessing a weapon on the premises. Only two places have fallen under that category: My current employer, and my previous university. Of course now I can carry at that university if I’m visiting, because I’m no longer bound by the rules for students, faculty, and staff.

          Otherwise, signs advertising property as having a prohibition on weapons just give me a chuckle as I breeze past them.

  9. I’m not for carrying on an airplane. Bars? Sure, I can see it, though I don’t much go to bars so it doesn’t really matter that much to me personally. I do fly on a lot of airplanes. A lot of them. Carry on public transit? Of course. The difference is that if someone takes out a bad guy on bus, or a train, any negative consequence of a miss could be a wounded bystander or a hole in the carriage. Miss – or even hit and over penetrate – on a plane and the potentially negative consequence is to send the whole plane to the ground.

    And before anyone tries to point out that “there is no such thing as explosive decompression”, I will call BS in advance as the evidence is that it can and does happen, though rare. I’ve been on planes that have lost an engine to a bird strike, had a cabin air leak that caused the O2 masks to drop, have lost secondary hydraulic system (couldn’t steer the nose wheel upon landing), that have had malfunctioning brakes, and that have experienced various other things such as severe turbulences (as in the overheads open and dump all the bags onto people) and unexpected wind shear on a landing approach.

    Sure, one bullet hole in a cabin isn’t going to make the entire side of the plane blow out – that’s Hollywood. But one hole in the wrong place can cause a very bad day for 200 people, me being one of them. I basically have no problem not carrying anyplace where metal detectors are used well to minimize the risk of a bad guy having a gun on them, such as courthouses, airport areas past security, etc. I know those aren’t perfect, but I’ll accept the reduced risk as nothing is risk free, even carrying a gun from home to the local Walgreens,

    • We can currently carry in the non-secure areas of Hartsfield airport, not that one could tell from that video. What this bill will do is allow a license holder to not be arrested if they forgot their gun was in a carry on bag. It will still be a TSA fine, but they won’t arrest you and through you in the Clayton County pokey.

    • There was a time when carrying a firearm on an aircraft was perfectly legal, and done every day. Never a mishap in all those years.

      If the pilot had shot the first Communist hi-jacker dead instead of appeasing him, dis-armers would still have made it an excuse to ban gun of airplanes. They’re aren’t any real actual safety concerns for carrying on airplanes than for carrying on city streets.

      • Yes, it was legal, back in the day, but then times have changed. There was a time when air travel was glamorous and meals were first rate and served on china and accompanied by champagne in crystal. When people dressed to the hilt for the travel as it was oh, so chic. Now, not so much. Flying is also safer than it used to be, though, so maybe that’s the tradeoff.

        Many more people, many more planes, much more complicated technology… There are just some places certain things introduce more risk than they reduce it. I am reminded of a long-ago, summer job in the oil fields. We were warned routinely that before you step on the rig floor, all jewelry had to be removed. I always though it was BS until I saw a guy lifted off the ground because his wedding ring caught on a piece of equipment and another guy was electrocuted (not badly) because an earring bridged two poles on a starter solenoid on another piece of equipment.

        • “Those that are willing to trade style for safety deserve neither.” -Me.

          But really, it being more safe and it being the horror show of pajama pants and Hawaiian shirt that it is now are both because of the passage of time. Maturing technology makes it safer, and the novelty wearing off makes it less glamorous.

    • Might be surprised but, where I live and visit here in Texas, no mental detectors in courthouses.
      My dad was a JP in a small town, he kept a revolver on him in the courtroom, long before CHL.

      • That’s nice. I hope some of those places stay that way in TX, especially in those old, lovely towns where stately court houses are still used.

    • 505 – The major point that you seem to be missing is that if it was unknown how many, if any, passengers on a plane were armed then there are not many people who would even attempt a hijacking. This is the purpose of the incognito Air Marshals.

      If a hijacker was standing in the loading area and saw one or more passengers boarding the plane with Open Carry pistols it is a very good bet he would change his plans, or at the very least re-schedule to another flight.

      The point being that if there was a sufficient number of Air Marshals or unrestricted Open or concealed carry on airplanes the need to ever fire one of those weapons on board a plane in flight would all but evaporate, with the result that the possible bad results of bullet impact to strategic areas of airplane controls would be statistically near zero.

    • I’m calling BS on your call of BS. You claim there is evidence of explosive decompression from small holes, and then provide anecdotal stories about bird strikes and mechanical failure, neither of which has anything to do with explosive decompression. Incidentally, the bird hitting the engine could have reduced the plane’s ability to compress air for the cabin, because the compressors are part of the engines. Do you have any evidence relevant to the discussion of the potential negative effects of bullets causing small holes in airplanes?

      An airplane is not an airtight environment, that’s whey they have to keep pumping in pressurized air for the duration of the flight. As long as the air compression and circulation system is functional, a few extra 9mm-12.5mm holes in the fuselage won’t cause any real issues. And the small hole from the bullet won’t grow into a giant hole that sucks out passengers with hurricane force winds. That bit of idiocy came from the same minds that believe a shotgun blast causes somebody to fly back thirty feet, and that shooting a fuel tank causes a car to explode.

      I’d be more than willing to risk a slight drop in cabin pressure, if it could prevent planes from slamming into skyscrapers again.

      • Sorry I wasn’t clear. I agree that there is no evidence, ever that a small hole has brought down a commercial airliner because of explosive decompression. Good catch – I should have been more clear. However, explosive decompression has brought down large aircraft. In at least two instances I can think of – both with all souls lost on board – when a luggage compartment door blew out in flight,

        In those instances the decompression was so severe that it caused the passenger compartment floor to buckle, thus compromising the hydraulic and cable-driven controls that ran through the floor from the cockpit to various control surfaces.

        My primary concern is not explosive decompression, but rather taking out a vital flight system, be it hydraulic or other. The crash in Sioux City, IA was caused by an engine failure that would have been a small problem except that shards from a fan blade punctured hydraulic lines and the entire system bled down to no control at all.

        • I believe that a luggage compartment door blowing out would cause explosive decompression. That is 30 or 40 square feet! That equals 30*144= 4,320 square inches for air to escape. A 9mm bullet (.355″) would make a (area = (pi * diameter^2)/4) 0.099 square inch hole. Hardly enough area for explosive decompression to take place. The previous point about small holes not being a problem is valid.

        • Well, Jacob. If you’d actually read my post, you would have read this: “Sure, one bullet hole in a cabin isn’t going to make the entire side of the plane blow out – that’s Hollywood,” Not sure what you are actually commenting on.

      • One more point – the cockpit crew is perhaps the most vulnerable system on the aircraft. A commercial aircraft was purposely crashed in CA after a disgruntled employee shot the cockpit and cabin crew and then put the aircraft into an unrecoverable dive. All on board perished. There are very, very few cases in which I can imagine 1 or 2 bullets can kill over 200 people. On an airplane is one of them.

        • And on 9-11 commercial razor-knives killed 3,000. Would the presence of an Air Marshal or even a citizen with a concealed weapon on any of those flights have changed that statistic?

    • This is a question where you will never see a satisfactory answer on. Or one nobody has bothered to detail here.

      Yes. So let’s go ahead and allow unrestricted carry aboard Air America’s 737. Maybe some of the passengers are carrying, maybe they aren’t. That’s the big question mark that will supposedly scare our terrorist away, right? After all, it’s the same logic that pro-gun advocates are applying to everyday society– Criminals won’t want to play the odds of who has a gun and who doesn’t. Here is the problem that so many people arguing for civilian carry on airlines conveniently ignore: This is all great if you’re only concerned the random lone gunman who wants to get to the olympics in Russia.

      The moment you involve an *organization* who coordinates their efforts, you’re screwed. Seriously, people don’t think like an evil mastermind enough. I want to take over an airplane. I have people willing to sacrifice themselves to do it. My budget easily buys me six to eight seats on said airplane, if not more depending on volunteers to my cause. Fortunately, America Air allows my henchmen to carry with impunity. We do dress rehersals. Simulate a cabin. Syncronize swatches. At exactly 1hr into the flight, half of us go live. The other half waits for a reactionary response.

      Even if my henchmen fail, that plane is probably going down in flames with all 300 odd people. That’s a media victory for me. If i played the odds and succeed, i can put it into a building, magnifying the body count. I still win until the hammer of the US Army takes my ass out.

      My only point here is if you’re going to argue for open carry on a plane, think this thing through instead of saying, “D’uh, Airplanes? Your problem being…?”

  10. Not on Airplanes/Jets. I believe you should be able to check them to baggage and retrieve them on the other side, and carry a knife or any non-discharging weapon, but if you happen to put a hole in the cabin at altitude and pressure, this is not a good idea.
    Same goes for an explosives factory, or any chemical plant where volatile chemicals might explode and so forth. I seem to remember an ammo ship that dropped a round of explosive that went off and caused a chain reaction that took out an entire town during WWII (Navy).
    Some common sense must apply. Otherwise I’m ok with everywhere else.

    • The Port Chicago disaster didn’t destroy any town or city, but it did kill a lot of sailors who were unloading ordnance. Still, there’s a teensie weensie beensie difference between a 9mm cartridge and a two thousand pound bomb.

      And a gunshot hole in a fuselage will not cause decompression. Don’t believe what you see in cheesy movies. There already are holes in the fuselage and nobody gets sucked out.

        • Texas City was a fertilizer explosion (ammonium nitrate). The Brooklyn Navy Yard was diesel fuel.

          The Black Tom (New Jersey) explosion in 1916 was ordnance, but that was sabotage, not accident.

        • At first blush frangible ammo probably seemed like a good idea until the whole “explosive decompression” myth was busted. Then the relative inability of frangible ammo to effectively penetrate any sort of cover becomes a serious problem.

    • Unless you hit the two idiots in the front seats, the chances of you hitting something that causes the plane to crash is very very rare. Just puncturing a hole in the fuselage is a very minor issue. It just means that the outflow valve (which on most airplanes is the size of a cooler for a six pack) needs to close a tiny bit more.

      Anyways I can agree that there are places where guns shouldn’t be, but if these places are own by the government they should be required to have lockers where you can lock your gun up and you enter and retrieve it when you leave. For example court houses.

  11. It’s a complete mindset/culture shift for people to understand that guns are tools, yes, potentially deadly, but they are tools. Lean how to use them, and when, and why.

    ’nuff said.

  12. Id like to urge fellow Georgians to call or e-mail their representatives in support of broadened carry options. If the antis are voicing their opinion then we need to voice ours louder.

  13. I do not believe most businesses should be able to ban legal concealed carry. What are you suppose to do with your piece when you go into a Walmart etc? If you leave your gun in your car, you run the risk of having it stolen. As long as you don’t make it obvious, why should you be restricted?

    • If someone steals my car, I’ll just call the PD and my insurance company. But if someone steals my gun, I will track them to the ends of the Earth until hell freezes over.

      Priorities. A person must have priorities.

    • I think that this is a valid point for retail businesses where consumers come and go, what is generically referred to as “open to the public” or “place of public accommodation.” It may be different for “private” offices (e.g., professional offices with no walk-in business) where the boundary between a public space and a private space is more apparent.

    • IMO, regardless of what I want or what I think is right, property owners should be able to make the rules regarding what people may do when they visit their properties.

      I don’t think businesses should ban firearms carry – it’s a horrible policy – but it is their right to control their property. I don’t believe that I have any right to coerce a business into behaving in a way that I would like them to behave, regardless of how stupid I think one of their policies may be.

  14. I believe we are seeing the next phase of the anti’s campaign. They realize that they can do nothing more at the Federal level (they overplayed the “mass shooter” card), so now they are shifting to the state level.

    Have y’all noticed the increase in their hysterics in your state lately?

    • There was a bunch of screeching for a bit, here in PA. They basically got told to sit the hell down. Around Philthydelphia there is always the usual anti-gun crap and I believe there are a couple items in state legislature to restrict carry, not much chance they will see daylight. Moms and Bloomies are running TV spots and they will keep traction with the usual crowd of gunhaters.

      Personally I have noticed “no gun” signs NOT being on doors and buildings that they were before, being somewhat interested I been paying attention. And there is an actual armed guard at the local HS and elementary schools all around our region, Pittsburgh/Allegheny County notwithstanding

  15. Allowing carrying on planes is the dumbest thing I’ve read lately. It would only be a matter of when before a person did something incredibly dumb up there.

    • +1
      Using a gun on a plane is serious business. If you armchair commandos out there reallllly think you’re up to snuff, why don’t you challenge an Air Marshal to a shoot out? Or better yet, become one? No takers? Really?

      We have some of them that shoot at our range and they mean business. Weapons on plane totally mess up the use of force for those guys. They see you with a gun, they’ll shoot you. No warning, no announcing their presence.

      This isn’t a government conspiracy to take your guns or deprive you of your rights on an airplane either, it’s small unit tactics.

        • Definitely not a troll. I’m talking from experience. I know plenty of people who bought more guns than training bullets and still talk about being high speed low drag.

          Why, Ralph, are you qualified to carry a gun on an airplane owned/leased by a private air carrier?

      • Agree 100%. It’s delusional to think having firearms on an airplane is a good idea. It actually makes you ppl sound so dumb all your other arguments lose credibility as well.

      • “using a gun on a plane is serious business”. Thank you for telling us we couldn’t just spray lead everywhere./// I don’t see a lot of need for CC’ers on a plane. When someone takes their shoes off the air marshalls can handle it…along with the 3 people desperately trying to put them back on.

    • An airline should be treated no differently than any other private business. Paste a “Gun Free Zone sign on the side of the plane near the entrance, IF THEY WANT TO. Advertise it on their website and in their boarding areas. Make a big deal about it and let the sheeple who believe the government and a few signs can keep them safe from terrorists or crazies fly in their fantasy comfort zone.

      But airlines should also have the business option of designating one or more gates and flights as “Gun Friendly” and allow open and/or concealed carry on board. The let the market decide. Or an airline should have the option of being entirely gun friendly and advertising the fact. I would chose to fly that airline, if they were going where I wanted to go, and feel just fine one board with my Ruger and whatever everyone else was packing. I think we could have some fine in-flight discussions. Free Market means we should have the choice.

      If armed government authority in a totally gun free zone could actually make you safe there would be no violent crime inside prisons.

    • In a free society, the airlines themselves would be able to decide what, if any, policy they want to enact regarding firearms.

      They could ban them all, period. They could only allow carry by law enforcement / air marshals / etc. They could allow everyone to carry. They could also have their own company – or an external company – create a training class, and those who successfully pass the training class could be issued a permit to carry on the plane. They could do any number of things, depending on what they think is best and/or what their customers think is best.

      One can dream, I suppose.

      • A possibility, as long as you keep the violent and non-violent offenders segregated.

        And provide a single-shot, non-reloadable pistol in .380 FMJ.

    • I think that it’s a good idea to keep guns out of prisons. Something to think about, more and more lately the powers that be are making the free world more like prisons. Random stop and frisk? A regular feature of prisons. TSA doing pat downs at choke points leading into controlled areas? Happens at prison all day. Cameras everywhere, recorded phone calls and collected meta-data, mail being screened and logged; I think you get my point. I think maybe the end goal here is to make us all safe and disarmed by converting the free world into a place that’s a lot like prison.

      • The reason these things happen every day in prisons are:

        1) Prisons are full of people who have no problem, and sometimes even enjoy, hurting other people, that’s often why they are there in the first place, and

        2) The right to bear arms in self defense is a natural, fundamental, inalienable, human and individual right and even in the most restrictive environments people WILL attempt to arm themselves, especially if they are constantly surrounded by violent people who might reasonably want to hurt them. Access to firearms may be effectively prevented in prison, but people WILL find a way to arm and protect themselves.

        The right may be restricted, it CANNOT be revoked.

    • Pilots have a right to refuse anyone service that they want. There are repercussions for denying sworn officers on official business… There are no repercussions for them denying service to a regular Joe carrying a gun -who checks in with the pilot. I don’t know about you, but if I’m that pilot and not completely confident with your “training” that you tell me you’ve “done,” I immediately deny you service in lieu of having you sit behind me in a metal tube with a gun… My $.02

      • Honestly, this is where smarter pro-2A people need to step in. Guns on planes make no sense whatsoever… The general populace knows that and would never get behind it. Let’s fight battles that make sense – political battles that win hearts and minds

        • this is where smarter pro-2A people need to step in

          To paraphrase your prior comment, I don’t know about you, but if I’m pro-2A and not completely confident that you have a brain in your head, I’m telling you what to do in your own chapeau.

        • “…this is where smarter pro-2A people need to step in. Guns on planes make no sense whatsoever… The general populace knows that and would never get behind it. Let’s fight battles that make sense – political battles that win hearts and minds…”

          The smarter pro-2A people have spoken. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Do you think that when this was written there was any prohibition against taking arms on coaches or on ships? I understand that one of the delegates to the Continental Congress carried his rifle into every session leading up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, with no objections or concerns from any other delegate.

          The only battle we MUST fight is to reverse the public perception that the Second Amendment does not mean exactly what it says and that somehow it can be construed to mean that in certain cases the government can in fact infringe the RKBA.

          L. Neil Smith: “The freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

  16. I only wish to carry in places where I could be shot. Or stabbed. Or hit with a brick or tire iron. Okay, yeah… Everywhere. 642 in a Desantis Insider, appendix carry, right now, on my couch, watching Ghostbusters on VH1. RIP Spengler!

  17. Ever notice how when these pin heads post a video on YouTube that all comments and ratings are disabled? Would be nice if YouTube would change their policies on that. Bar them from posting their propaganda and miss information by forcing them to allow comments.

  18. I understand the property-rights argument, but if you’re carrying concealed, no knickers are twisted, and you’re doing your part to keep yourself (and potentially others) safe. Luckily, I live in a place where “no guns allowed” signs do not have the force of law.

  19. I can only think of one place where the general public must be disarmed and that is inside a prison. (I have no idea whether or not it is a good idea for staff to be unarmed in a prison.)

    I can also imagine that the general public should be disarmed in a highly secured mental hospital that houses violent, dangerous mentally ill people.

    Otherwise, I cannot think of anywhere that anyone should be disarmed.

  20. I carry a handgun for the very same reason that cops do–for self-defense, essentially (that includes self-defense necessitated by intervening on behalf of other threatened individuals). So the reasonable conclusion is that I should be able to carry in the same places that cops can carry, no? If there are armed air marshals, then firearms on airplanes apparently “make sense” at some point..

  21. Places I wouldn’t carry:

    Honeymoon bed (unless she’s into that sort of thing);
    My funeral (probably won’t be consulted on that);
    An AR to a Kalashnikov con (just disrespectful);
    E3, Comic- or Dragon-Con;
    Any Trekkie event (Trekkies are overwhelmingly anti-gun libs, SW fans are cooler with firearms);
    TTAG SHOT Show Booth Babe jacuzzi champagne testings;
    The Westminster Dog Show.

  22. I think carry near operating MRI’s should be prevented; other than that I don’t care.

  23. Maybe that haven’t noticed, but guns are already everywhere – especially in the places they mentioned in the video. Actually, psychos enjoy prime time video coverage for bringing weapons to those exact locations and shooting hoards of people. Their proposed solution? Keep it illegal to carry in those locations. I figured it was obvious those means have already been proven ineffective. Psychos looking to broadcast their suffering globally for a earth-wide sympathy prayer look for places they can do the most damage. These places where firearms are banned, people are densely packed, and mostly importantly – defenseless for the onslaught, are perfect for these psycho’s pursuit.

  24. Not too keen or restoring RKBA to some violent offenders, really. Like I tell a four year old: you abuse, you lose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *