Laci the Dog at mikeb302000’s blog is not the most strident of gun grabbers—although that may be the dictionary definition of an invidious distinction. In any case, Laci had a little debate with pro-gun commentator Jim about abortion (like we need to go there) and the right to self-defense. Laci laid out what I’m sure he believes to be a “middle ground” position on the right to carry a concealed firearm. I share it with you because A) I’m reaffirming my willingness to link to gun control websites (regardless of the possibility of gun blogger fragging) and B) Laci’s statement demonstrates the ill-considered insidiousness of gun control advocates’ positions. “I believe that carrying weapons should only be allowed if someone is in immediate threat of encountering deadly force.” Toss that man a gun! You know; as and when.

Recommended For You

25 Responses to Quote of the Day: Link and Be Damned Edition

    • 10-4. But you know that Laci’s perspective still applies in many “shall issue” states. The irony (if that’s what we should call it) being that by the time you prove the imminent threat and clear the hurdles (including a waiting period), you’re dead.

      To wit: the liberal (yes liberal) talk show host Alan Berg, gunned down by white supremacists while waiting for his gun permit. ( A fact not mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Berg)

      • Sure, and if I know what day I’m going to have a grease fire in my kitchen, I’ll make sure to stop by Home Depot on the way home and buy a fire extinguisher first. Or invite the local fire station over for coffee that day.

        Yes, it’d be nice to know which day will be your worst ever. That ain’t the real world, though, and wishing will not make it so.

      • May issue is better than shall issue. You proved the lack of true need for carrying a gun in that more recent thread in which you discussed the times you didn’t have a gun and wished you did.

  1. Laci is full of sh!t. The “immediate danger” threshold can never be met by anyone, except someone that he/she/it/them want to meet it. Which is no one. See how that works?

    Chicago used just the same kind of Gestapo Catch 22. Want a gun? You have to go to a range. Oops, so sorry, no ranges here. I guess that means no gun for you. Hehehe.

    There is no rational or reasonable member of the Brady Campaign Against America. They are all liars, thieves and scumbags just spewing the same old bullshit. Harsh post to follow.

      • I thought Ralph was using a bit of hyperbole, but you sounded serious Bob G.

        I’m not an idiot and I’m not a liar. But what you are with that statement is pretty interesting. I continually get accused of painting with the broad brush and describing all you guys as unfit. I always respond with the clarification that I never say ALL, it’s a question of how many.

        But you, say you never met one of us “who wasn’t either an idiot or a liar.”

        Please clarify.

  2. If I’m in “immediate threat of encountering deadly force”, I won’t have my CZ P07 or Kel-Tec P3AT with me. If I know there is a “immediate threat of encountering deadly force” I want to be in an M1 Abrams with the 1st MEF with me, backed up with an AC-130 or three.

    Barring that (and because I live in an open-carry state), if I know there is a “immediate threat of encountering deadly force”, for instance, if there’s been a Mumbai-style attack in my city, I’ll have one of my AR’s and a pistol with me at all times, and my wife will be carrying too.

    And an A-10 from Davis-Monthan circling overhead. You can never be TOO safe… 🙂

    I don’t WANT a fair fight. I want to make sure I survive. I will not start the fight. Ever. But if it does start, I want to end it with as little impact as possible to me and my family

  3. I have the permit app. for NJ, and you need to prove that someone has threatened your life to get their silly permit. My smart ass sister told me to go piss off some gang bangers in the hood and catch a beating and then I would qualify for their permit. I’m going to apply for their permit with the help of the SAF, but only after I complete my current quest to get every permit I can without being rejected. I’ll be able to carry in 41 states before I attempt NJ, NY and Maryland, because I don’t stand a chance in hell of getting any of these permits (unless some lil gangsters kick my butt).

    • ha this is my exact problem. i live in an “urban” county , and yet have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting a CCW in MD.

      • Yeah, MD’s laws seem to be designed to let as few people as possible get CCWs’ while still allowing CCW (at least in theory). Pisses me off to no end that I can get a VA or UT non-resident permit, but not one in my home state.

    • JOE, I’m willing to take one for the team here. Ready? Okay. Here we go.

      “If I ever catch you in New Jersey I will thrash you soundly to within an inch of your life.”

      You can now prove that someone has threatened you. Go get your permit. No need to thank me.

  4. I wish both Joe and Sdog luck with their MD permits but don’t hold your breath. Unless
    You have already been attacked or carry lots of money it ain’t gonna happen and even then they can restrict it to When your carrying the cash

  5. I wonder if there isn’t a Federal problem with states that do not allow me to carry even though my state issued me a permit. Don’t other states have to honor drivers licenses and marriages?
    I think that MD doesn’t allow concealed carry for out of state residents. Isn’t that unconstitutional?

    • It’s not unconstitutional as far as I can tell. MD doesn’t even have their own version of the 2A in the state constitution. The SAF has a court case going through the system to try and loosen up the restrictions in the state, but it’s still a matter of wait and see.

  6. Clearly this is your blog and you will link to whoever you will. But may I ask that you take into consideration the civility of the blog you are linking to? A recent post by Laci the Dog wishes death upon pro-gun poster FatWhiteMan. Why would you want to send your readers to sites where the commentors are treated like that?

    • There you go RuffRidr doing your exaggerating thing followed by fake indignation. Do you have any integrity at all? Doesn’t it bother you to keep doing that nonsense?

  7. I liked Laci’s statement, that “the odds of something like what happened in Norway occurring or even what happened in the pharmacy recently, or the story posted here about the Michigan barbershop are relatively rare. Our crime rate, particularly violent crime, has been going down. Those instances you used as examples are so much the exceptions to the rule for daily life for all of us as to render it ludicrous as a rationale.”

    And yet, it is rare examples like this that the anti-gun lobbies use to bolster their arguments. Well, guess what? We pro-gun types can use the same tactics; and we can make a stronger case of it. Like this: If you were in the position of being stuck on an island with an armed mass-murderer hours away from any police presence, how would you feel about not being able to carry a firearm? For 9 of 10 of mass-shooting murderers that the anti-gunners point to as a case why guns shouldn’t be available, there are multiple victims we can point to that would have benefitted from someone employing a firearm in their defense. Yes, these are extremely rare cases; but for each victim of these atrocities, it didn’t matter how rare such an occurance is. I bet they don’t (or wouldn’t) consider being prepared for such a rare event “ludicrous” now.

  8. The peace-loving anti-gun people wishing death upon others aside, the kid in that video has some really sweet gun control…

Leave a Reply

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