P4P rules VCDL AGAIN this Year!

[grylnsmn]

Ah, but is it better to save some of those people when there is a real and viable solution available with which to save all of them?

Considering that I have, from the very beginning, said that I only support P4P in cases where we don't have a viable or feasible solution with the support to push it through for everyone, this entire point does nothing to refute anything I've said.

And where is the morality of allowing some to die... and how do you choose which live and which die?

You do the best that you can, and leave the rest up to God. It is definitely immoral to not save those you can, even if you have to make difficult choices.

Freedom is an absolute. If everyone is not free then no one is truly free.

I actually agree with this. However, until we reach the point where everyone is truly free, we sometimes have to take what we can get at that time.

 

[Thundar]

The reason that the country is now in the mode to be arguing about Constitutional Carry is because of the success of concealed carry! That empowered 6 MILLION Americans and counting to carry a gun regularly back when gun rights were mostly in the closet. It was a group of people we could point at and say, "See - gun owners can carry guns in public and nothing bad happens - but a lot of good does."

That in turn helped weaken the support for gun control laws and made full preemption possible in states like VA. Concealed carriers banned together to protect and expand gun rights. Open carry as a movement came along around 10 years ago and started become a force...

We have bootstrapped ourselves to this point - and concealed carry got us here (and the Internet to spread the truth about guns). The idea that CHP holders wouldn't back a Constitutional carry is simply not accurate - AZ and AK adapted Constitutional Carry and they had those dreaded CHPs in place when that happened. While we work for Constitutional Carry, we need to keep improving gun laws, be it for concealed carry holders, open carriers, or both.

We have a very different historical perspective Philip. We have permits because racist governments created carry laws, mostly in the South, to keep men of color from bearing arms. This movement carried north for the most part when the Black Panthers intimidated people with the open carry of long guns.

We continue to have permits because too many that otherwise support liberty have not understood the importance of an armed society to the preservation of liberty and order. Open carrying provides visual reassurance to society that the citizen is free and in control of his/her personal security. This is why open carrying is so important.

Minor tweeks in the CHP laws are seen as positive, even when real rights restoration is discarded in Richmond. Gun rights, and liberty in general, got their A$$ KICKED in Richmond during the 2010 GA session, yet we still saw glorious cakes and celebrations for P4P on 01 July 2010.

Permits are a continuation of state sanctioned racist thuggery, do nothing to advance the cause of gun rights, and allow those politicians that sit on the fence to do something for gun owners, without doing much.

Gun rights are also being endangered by P4P. Blowback from the Concealed in Restaurants bill endangers the rights of open carriers in restaurants. The GA limits the right to buy more than one handgun to permittees. Assault firearms can be carried loaded in some areas only by permittees. You may get a meek oh well from others, but frankly I AM OUTRAGED THAT IN THE COMMONWEALTH GUN RIGHTS ARE BEING SACRIFICED ON THE ALTAR OF P4P!

 

[grylnsmn]

Gun rights are also being endangered by P4P. Blowback from the Concealed in Restaurants bill endangers the rights of open carriers in restaurants.

Hold on, how was the restaurant bill P4P? By your own admission, it was already legal to OC in restaurants, so how was allowing concealed carry there creating a "perk"? It was removing a restriction that was placed on concealed carry, but not open carry.

And how exactly is it endangering the rights of open carriers? I don't see any proposed legislation to prohibit open carry in restaurants. At most, you can claim that the blowback encouraged some restaurants to post that no guns are allowed, which applies equally to both open and concealed carriers. Even then, when restaurants post it is a matter of their property rights in addition to our self defense rights.

The GA limits the right to buy more than one handgun to permittees. Assault firearms can be carried loaded in some areas only by permittees. You may get a meek oh well from others, but frankly I AM OUTRAGED THAT IN THE COMMONWEALTH GUN RIGHTS ARE BEING SACRIFICED ON THE ALTAR OF P4P!

And at least some of us with permits are here to work along side you to get those restrictions removed. Would you prefer that we just pack up and go home, since obviously we already got what we wanted (the legal ability to conceal)?

We don't need to waste our time complaining about how things are today. We need to look forward and do what we can to get the laws we want passed. Let's take whatever victories we can get, as long as they move us closer to the final goal.

 

[peter nap]

Just wait for his battery to run down Thundar,

 

[grylnsmn]

You might want to reread the rules, particularly #6:

# (6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!

If you have to resort to ad hominem attacks, it usually indicates that your logical arguments aren't all that strong.

 

[peter nap]

You might want to reread the rules, particularly #6:If you have to resort to ad hominem attacks, it usually indicates that your logical arguments aren't all that strong.

You sure you aren't Novacops Momma? He was real fond of rule 6.

There isn't any arguing with you.
You just keep rehashing you and the Bishop talking up permits at the old food bank.

 

[grylnsmn]

You sure you aren't Novacops Momma?

Nope. As far as I know, I've never met him. In fact, I've found quite a few of his posts rather foolish, and one of my first posts after signing up was criticizing his response to someone else. If it weren't for the fact that he hasn't been around much in the last few weeks, you'd probably have already seen me disagreeing with him quite a bit more.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to resort to insults merely because we have a difference of opinion. Whether you believe it or not, we do have the same goals, and I am committed to restoring second amendment rights for everyone.

There isn't any arguing with you.
You just keep rehashing you and the Bishop talking up permits at the old food bank.

This just shows that either you didn't read what I wrote, or you choose to deliberately misrepresent it. I never mentioned a food bank (it was Fairfax Hospital, visiting someone who was sick), and I only mentioned the experience with my Bishop in two (2) posts. (In fact, in the discussion I had with him, I never mentioned my permit and never said that I did. He asked if I carry and I said that I did pretty much any time that I was legally able to, but that I wasn't allowed to there because of the signs.)

 

[peter nap]

This just shows that either you didn't read what I wrote, or you choose to deliberately misrepresent it. I never mentioned a food bank (it was Fairfax Hospital, visiting someone who was sick), )

Read between the lines!:lol:

 

[Thundar]

Hold on, how was the restaurant bill P4P? By your own admission, it was already legal to OC in restaurants, so how was allowing concealed carry there creating a "perk"? It was removing a restriction that was placed on concealed carry, but not open carry.

And how exactly is it endangering the rights of open carriers? I don't see any proposed legislation to prohibit open carry in restaurants. At most, you can claim that the blowback encouraged some restaurants to post that no guns are allowed, which applies equally to both open and concealed carriers. Even then, when restaurants post it is a matter of their property rights in addition to our self defense rights.



And at least some of us with permits are here to work along side you to get those restrictions removed. Would you prefer that we just pack up and go home, since obviously we already got what we wanted (the legal ability to conceal)?

We don't need to waste our time complaining about how things are today. We need to look forward and do what we can to get the laws we want passed. Let's take whatever victories we can get, as long as they move us closer to the final goal.

Where to begin. There is specific OC language before the legislature RE: intoxication, drinking. I don't encourage it, but this gives RAS to 50 any time you are in a resturant that serves. Not what the OC movement needs, another LEO tool to harass OCers.

We are not complaining, we are making an important distinction between P4P and Rights. It is important to those of us who work for gun rights. The point we make is that P4P is not always helpful, sometimes it is detrimental.

 

[frankd]

Dumb question (really really really stupid question).

WTF does P4P mean?

 

[peter nap]

Dumb question (really really really stupid question).

WTF does P4P mean?

Perks for Permits:lol:

Not really a dumb question. That's something I came up with to be irritating. It worked..and it caught on.

 

[Repeater]

Wyoming moves forward on legal concealed carry

Golly, can we in Virginia ever be as free as Wyoming?

Gun bill clears Wyoming Senate

Wyoming residents would be able to carry concealed guns without a permit under a bill that cleared the state Senate on Monday.

The Wyoming Senate voted 20-10 in favor of the bill, sponsored by Sen. Kit Jennings, R-Casper.

If the bill ultimately becomes law, Wyoming would join Alaska, Arizona and Vermont as states that don't require citizens to have permits to carry concealed weapons.

Supporters of the Wyoming bill note that the state and federal constitutions guarantee the people's right to carry guns. They also say criminals are already carrying concealed weapons illegally.

Opponents, however, said they're worried about putting more guns into hands of people who shouldn't have them.

...

Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper, spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.

Scott said it's debatable whether the existing permit system gives law enforcement enough discretion to deny permit applications.

"This law goes the exact opposite direction," and justifiably makes law enforcement nervous, Scott said. "I think there's a risk if this passes you're going to have a real tragedy, the left-wing gun control folks are going to use as an excuse for pushing some gun control that really would be dangerous for our rights."

Oh well, if freedom "justifiably makes law enforcement nervous" then of course it's bad.

Oh and of course LEOs need their discretion, right?

 

[peter nap]

Golly, can we in Virginia ever be as free as Wyoming?

Gun bill clears Wyoming Senate



Oh well, if freedom "justifiably makes law enforcement nervous" then of course it's bad.

Oh and of course LEOs need their discretion, right?

We can if we ever stop treating permits like the passport to Shangri La.

 

[Thundar]

Golly, can we in Virginia ever be as free as Wyoming?

Gun bill clears Wyoming Senate



Oh well, if freedom "justifiably makes law enforcement nervous" then of course it's bad.

Oh and of course LEOs need their discretion, right?

Bingo, we have a winner!

Does the legislature care more for freedom, or more for LEO comfort?