“For whatever reason, we’ve had this law in existence where if you put a coat on, you’re now a felon, if you have your coat off and you’re not covering up a firearm, you’re not committing a crime.” – Wisconsin State Sen. David Craig in Mayor Barrett: ‘Right to carry’ bill leads to more guns on the street [via tmj4Wiscom}
That was the same situation in NH. The best defense against CC was police chiefs essentially stating they wanted the power to jam people up for whatever reason they felt like and CC would remove one specious reason used to jam people up.
Cops are funny when they’re being honest about what assholes they are.
I wasn’t. Try not to be be prejudiced.
Just because one idiot makes the news, doesn’t mean everyone who wears a badge is equally an idiot.
No, anyone who wears a badge is an idiot.
It means they either explicitly or implicitly agree that stealing from citizens is not only moral and just, but an actual right of the state.
Most cops have swallowed the whole “to protect and serve” junk hook, line and sinker but they’ve never given a thought to whether or not the people they are supposedly serving want that “protection”.
Anything a state-sanctioned cop can do a private security person can do better. And they wouldn’t be able to run around and infringe on peoples’ rights all day long under color of law and legally steal from them.
I mean no disrespect, I really don’t. It’s just that holding on to fairy tales and myths does no good and does not advance the cause of liberty.
Like Pinkerton security, Right?
There’s a lot of things police can do that private security can’t – investigate crime, make arrests, maintain order in public spaces, etc.
Sorry. Police have their issues but i dont want “privatized police”.
The “regulators” of the past were just like the gangs of today.
Out for themselves using intimidation and murder to provide “law”.
Dont think i want Blackwater policing here in the homeland.
“Dont think i want Blackwater policing here in the homeland.”
As a short-term trial, just to see how it goes, how about turning Blackwater loose in Chicago’s south-side for a month?
With Hughes 500 ‘Little Birds’ and Dillon Aero door gunners, of course… 😉
“I mean no disrespect, I really don’t.”
Liar.
I tend to agree with you Pun…
Especially when you consider that nearly every state, county, city, etc., has a special carve out for law enforcement of one kind or another. Automatically, cops insist they are above at least some of the law. That’s explicitly counter to the spirit of the Founders’ intent and effectively anti-Liberty(read that anti-American). Furthermore, Until they get the same level of scrutiny EVERY time they discharge a firearm that a non-LEO does, they are de facto tyrants. I have heard cops talk about how they hate having to bust a guy for pot when they showed up at the wrong address, but I’ve never heard one say they DIDN’T bust the guy. Some of those pot smokers got a hellacious beat down for attempting to flee, or worse. Kick in a cop’s door and he’s gonna open fire. We should all be allowed to do the same. Let’s also consider that CC permit holders are significantly more law abiding than cops. I don’t think they are idiots, though. I think that like most folks, they wander around in a logic dampening roar of cognitive dissonance thinking that THEY can violate liberties with impunity and still somehow be protecting liberties. It’s actually pretty disgusting. As far as private security firms are concerned, let’s be clear: Blackwater is a para military organization and is probably in violation of at least 100 federal laws. However, Liberty prefers the corruption of limited private organizations over the widespread corruption of the state. History is fairly vocal on that topic and not the least bit unclear. Which would you rather get caught doing? Stealing pot out of the pocket of a Hell’s Angel in his clubhouse or selling cigarettes on the street in NYC? Both would have painful consequences, but only one would prevent you from getting a job later. The next time a cop says something along the lines of “I wish civilians wouldn’t tell me how to do my job…” Remind him/her that they ARE civilians. As for us telling them how to do their jobs, it’s a civilians primary civic duty to hold those employed by the state accountable for their performance in the line of duty. As a member of the public whom shall be “protected and served”, I have a completely valid position on how cops do that. I actually heard a cop say when being challenged by a citizen citing jurisprudence “I will protect and serve the shit out of you if you keep running your mouth…”. If all cops everywhere would suddenly stop enforcing unconstitutional laws, we’d only need about a tenth of them. It’d be great! But, that’s the primary reason they don’t, because they’d need a new job.
Since this comments platform is unwieldy I cannot reply directly to people.
But let me just say: Who are private security firms beholden to? They, unlike the government have to turn a profit to stay in business.
Blackwater? Bad example. Those guys were hired by the FedGov to go into another country and do illegal things.
Investigations? Why can’t private investigators do what cops do?
You also forget about competition. If a private security company starts acting out or becoming a mafia or other illegal gang, guess what? Either another group of hired private companies can bring them to justice or citizens can bring them to heel.
I’m not lying when I say I’m not trying to be disrespectful. It’s kinda hard to when you see things like women getting beaten by 5 or 6 guys because she failed to use a turn signal.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/graphic-video-police-turn-signal/
Ayn Rand is about as strong an advocate for competition and limited government as I can imagine, and she was dead-set against this idea:
“One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.”
There’s always going to be somebody in charge. Take away a government, and the strongest family or party or corporation or gang becomes the new government. As I can’t picture a better form of government than the one we have, I don’t agree that cops are inherently stupid for being part of it.
Private security? Like Omar Mateen?
Or like the Blackwater/Xe employees that got pissed off and whacked a bunch of innocent bystanders in Iraq?
Or more harmless, like Paul Blart the Mall Cop?
I think you are the one holding on to a fairy tale.
Punisher:
You deserve no respect. Obviously you’ve had many dealings with the police. My guess is that you badly disappointed your parents, family, friends and parole officers.
Seek help.
You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. I was in law enforcement for over 8 years and only ran across about four officers that were total jerks. All the rest were quite dedicated and honest. Those four were pretty darn bad, I have to admit. You can’t lump all of the good ones in with those guys, however.
One has to admit that the VAST majority of police that are seen in interviews are against gun rights and due process. That, I’m sure, has more to do with the interviewers and those that publish the interviews, but the perceived bias is there. So it’s hard to not have a bias against police.
You clearly missed the policeone survey which found the vast majority of law enforcement supports gun rights and armed citizens.
The Progressives are always good at finding and placing outliers on podiums to tear groups apart… that’s how they make their money: on B***S*** social causes. The rest of us think for ourselves, see through the Progressive smoke and mirrors, have real jobs and are trying to make ourselves better, our families better, and our communities better.
The vast majority seen in interviews. That’s not the vast majority. What that means is when anti gun media go to give interviews, they aire only the anti gun cops. Was a survey a few years ago of 10K cops across most services where some 86% of cops said that conceal carry for regular civilians had a positive affect on crime. Some 8 or 10% said neutral and only like 4% said negative. Cops who are pro gun just don’t get the interviews on TV.
The cops I’ve met are not against gun rights.
Libtard interviewers will pick interviewees sympathetic to their biases.
At the gun range I frequent, at least 50% of the patrons are LE officers. Every single time I go there. The majority of them are genuinely nice people, people you like having as your neighbors. Also, there is a small percentage of these LE people that are what I would consider head swollen. They blatantly disregard range rules, challenge the range officers authority, are dangerous to be near, and commonly not very good marksmen. I generally don’t bring up politics or religion when I’m punching paper, or ringing steel, but good conversation is migratory. The majority of LE’s are all about CC, they’re not happy about handing out speeding tickets, and they’re also questioning who they’re serving and protecting. Then the minority generally have an epic superiority complex, and feel that CC is too dangerous for civilians, while littering the ground with brass they won’t clean up, and complaining about the mess. I usually just leave when one of the minority LE’s show up.
Just my $0.02.
No all equally idiots, some are dumber than others. The real issue for me is that they can’t be trusted. Ever. Anyhow. Under any circumstances.
Be suspicious whenever a cop is nice, chances are he’s playing you or fishing.
Really? I know a lot of cops. All good guys. Solid, friendly family men that serve their communities well. I would trust any one of them with my life, my kids, my wife, my stuff.
They see and deal with the worst of the worst every day, so of course, they tend to be jaded and suspicious around people that act suspiciously. Maybe that is your problem. Maybe you’re an ass, and all of the cops you meet react to your asshole attitude.
I think we all need to come to the realization that most of the police force in the US isn’t some super intelligent person with vast critical thinking and reasoning skills. A lot of cops were likely jocks in schools and because they were fit and weren’t smart enough to do any other job that made decent money, they join the force.
That and the uniform, bade, and gun can net some nice pussy.
Who the hell do you think joins the police today? An honest man or a morally questionable one?
My nephew joined the police last year.
I have found no reason to question his morals.
TruthTeller…you seriously implied cops make a “decent” amount of pay/salary? Someone was lying to you. It just ain’t so.
That’s true, they make *amazing* money for the work involved when you factor in benefits.
Using Houston P.D. as a reference point, a first year officer makes between $55K and $69K annually, depending on education level and prior years of experience elsewhere. Second year bumps up to $60K-80K and third year goes up to $62K-81K, depending on the same factors. This is for basic patrol officers, which requires at least 48 hours of college credit. There are lots of special factors that can boost pay, too, for example: bilingual, motorcycle duty, shift differentials, weekend pay, field training officer duty, seniority, and so forth.
Higher ranks such at Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Captain, naturally come with higher pay, too, with Sergeants starting out at $89K and Captains maxing out at $138K.
Officers also accrue between 41 and 61 PAID days off per year, in addition to the normal 11 paid holidays. Just like with public school teachers, you have to look at not just their nominal salary, but also how many days of work that actually reflects, in order to make a fair comparison to other careers.
Also as with teachers, officers are free to work other jobs during their time off. Lots of HPD officers will work directing traffic at the entrances of large corporate campuses or refineries. That is exceedingly simple work, which pays near minimum wage when it’s private security doing it. Heck, it’s free when it’s a retired grandmother volunteering as school crossing guard. Yet, officers get paid at their normal rate because they get to wear their uniform, badge, and sidearm, and still enjoy all the official authority and protections as if they were on duty.
Overall, you aren’t going to get rich as a police officer, but you will do very well for yourself measured in terms of the difficulty of the job and as compared to similarly qualified people in the private sector.
That’s all before you factor in the untaxed cash that *some* officers steal from suspects and crime scenes, from being on the take, or from serving as drug muels themselves, of course.
I think most cops are good people. Most of the ones I’ve met have been professional, reasonable, and trying to do good.
And from what I’ve seen, cops in democrat/liberal bastions are the ones you really have to watch out for.
The problem isn’t that cops are all stupid, morally suspect former jocks, as you stupidly allege. The problems are: 1 – there are some bad departments that cannot or will not police themselves because of bad leadership and bad local/state politicians, 2 – some cops DO have an entitlement mentality, and finally 3 – one bad cop can do an enormous amount of damage, because they are invested with more authority and power than ordinary citizens.
Well, Tom, you’re probably not a police chief from the “Live Free or Die” state who actively campaigns against civil rights, are you?
I have to agree with Shire-Man that the best reason for LE to oppose lawful carry is that if you make carry lawful, LE can’t jam up people they don’t like for carrying.
1. A lot of LE leaders are douchebags. (chiefs, sheriffs, and especially union bigwigs)
2. A lot of LE leaders oppose civil rights, especially 2A rights.
Funny how those two groups have nearly identical membership lists.
I may just be lucky, but just about every cop I have had dealings with, has been respectful to me. Maybe it’s just the way I greet them on the few times I have been pulled over. The first thing I say when the cop comes up to my window is, “Good morning officer” not, ” What the f— did I do now ass hole”.
I’ve never done drugs so haven’t been on that end of the spectrum, Maybe if I was a pot head I might have a different opinion.
I agree that there are too many times the law has been made up on the spot to fit the circumstances though, but I’m going to venture to say that the individuals involved may not have been on their beat behavior.
Don’t forget that Chiefs are essentially political appointees, and their stated positions are often starkly opposed to those of rank-and-file officers.
When I see politicians questioning the efficacy or application of a law in an intelligent, rational manner, it gives me hope for the Republic.
Hmmm. People like this exist in all European countries, Canada, Australia etc. The problem is we’re so outnumbered by the statists. We do have it much better than those places though. So much better in fact I won’t be shocked if Wisconsin enacts constitutional carry.
LEOs, like any other person has thier prejudges. When they see(what in thier mind is) a good guy/gal with a gun, they approve. When they see someone they don’t particulairy like with a gun, many will misuse thier powers the get to the bottom of this. I have seen this at the range, even here in a LEO community, the locals will jam up LEOs’ family members, if they don’t like thier hair, clothes, or vehicle.
“Their”
“I before e, except after c”, other than a thousand exceptions, of which “their” is but one.
There is a preponderance of scholarly opinion that “the” right to bear arms is the right to do so “openly”. We are well aware that this interpretation is a judicial determination rather than one founded in a textual analysis. It would be hard to say what the founding generation might have thought about a “gentlemen” concealing a flintlock pistol of the 18th Century within his coat.
Arguably, after the invention of the percussion cap, one MIGHT have made something of the distinction between going armed discretely – in an unmanly way – vs. openly. Even so, CC vs. OC is at most an INCIDENTAL issue. What is “core” is the right of self-defense; and, the reasonableness of the act of “drawing” through whatever follows that act.
At the dawn of the 21’st Century we are in an altogether new era as contrasted with those of the 18’th or 19’th. Today, the distinction between CC vs OC is essentially a “fashion statement”. I prefer to carry my gun discretely so that I will not be scorned in my neighborhood as “that guy” who fancies himself as a gun-slinger. My constable neighbor carries his gun openly so that he will be recognized as “that guy” who means to keep the peace.
Today, a dozen States make no distinction between CC vs. OC. The remainder mostly require a “permit” to CC; and, the majority of these are relatively perfunctory “prohibited-person” checks with/without a modest training mandate. A few States impose a permit and training requirement to OC.
When SCOTUS finally gets around to dealing with the right to carry it will find itself confronting the contemporary nation’s view of CC vs. OC; a view radically different from that of the early-to-mid 19th Century. Instead of imputing “unmanly” intentions, SCOTUS will be compelled to rule on women’s fashion preferences. What are SCOTUS’s alternatives?
1 – no right to carry, neither openly nor concealed?
2 – a right to carry openly without license, no right to carry concealed with license?
3 – a right to carry with license, whether concealed or openly?
4 – a right to carry without license, either concealed or openly?
Discrimination between CC vs OC under #2 is hard to justify other than as a fashion statement. Even SCOTUS would hesitate to impute “unmanly” intentions on a growing body of women carriers. (Focus on THIS scenario; do you see how absolutely ABSURD it appears? Which justice would willingly write such an opinion?)
#1 would be tough to justify. Just when, and how, did the “right” to “bear” arms disappear?
#4 would be too much to hope for. SCOTUS isn’t ready to strip that much power from State legislators. (I’m not saying whether they should / shouldn’t; just that they wouldn’t).
This analysis leads to #3 as the most probable. I.e., that the CC vs. OC distinction is apt to recede in significance; likely, to become insignificant. SCOTUS will be compelled to acknowledge that there IS – some sort of – right to carry outside the home. I can’t see SCOTUS determining that VT must legislate to license carriers; therefore, the 12 States that have no license requirement will be left alone. What, then, will be left in a ruling? DC, NYC, CA, HI etc. will probably be told that they may license carry but that such license must not be withheld unreasonably; i.e., that the right to bear arms is at least a right to Shall-Issue.
This outcome brought to you by VT’s benign neglect, Con-Carry in 11+ other States, and Shall-Issue in 38+States. (Coincidently, enough States to pass a Constitutional amendment.)
In your downright scholarly comment you asked, “Just when, and how, did the “right” to “bear” arms disappear?” I would opine that no small number of “gun control” measures grew out of the “Black Codes” imposed on freed slaves during the years of Reconstruction following the Civil War. The Democratically-controlled Ku Klux Klan didn’t want people shooting back at them while they inflicted their reign of terror on blacks so the Democratically-controlled Southern legislatures passed laws and ordinances which not only disenfranchised the freed slaves but also disarmed them. After that it wasn’t that great a leap to impose those restrictions on everyone. It was done then just as it is today, incrementally, a little bit at a time. During the hottest days of the Cold War Mayor Will Brandt of Berlin called it “The Old Salami Game”, referring to the Russians – “They take a little piece of your salami, not really enough to fight over, so you don’t. Before you know it, they have the whole salami and you have none.” Thanks a bunch, Democrats.
Although the south implemented arms bans applicable to blacks for racist reasons, such laws were not restricted to the south. In California, various arms bans were enacted to disarm the Mexicans and the Chinese.
Moreover, concealed carry bans were enacted long before the Civil War, as detailed in the Heller discussion. Essentially, it was believed that any man who would conceal his firearm was intent on criminal mischief. The state Supreme Court cases cited in Heller concluded that the government could ban concealed carry as long as open carry was unimpeded. My, my, how times have changed. Now, in many places, a person with an openly carried firearm (which is usually men) is considered a threat; hence, concealed firearms are the preferred method of carry for no other reason than that it doesn’t scare the sheep.
Your remarks concerning Black Codes prompted me to think once again about the CC vs. OC distinction.
What – exactly – is the purpose of “gun control”? It is – simply enough – to keep guns out of the hands of “those who shouldn’t have them”. In other words, Negros and poor White trash.
To whatever extent guns are carried openly, it’s easy to enforce the rule against carrying by “those who shouldn’t have them”. The carrier is simply informed that he is not to carry under penalty of sudden death or such lesser penalty as might be meted out by the observer.
But what if someone is found to carry concealed? So long as he is the “right” kind of people, nothing need be said. Should he be of the “wrong kind” then there must be some penalty that can be enforced judicially. What is needed here is a law against (un-permitted) CONCEALED carry. Such a law is respectful of the Constitution (open carry is legally permitted, but socially proscribed) while concealed carry is licensed to only the “right” kind of people.
If I am on the right track here, then the CC vs. OC distinction is rooted in the “original sin” of racism. And, on this ground alone must be struck down.
Seems like I recall a court decision which allowed citizens had the right to carry, a state could prohibit concealed or open, but not both. Which I could live with, tho it seems stupid for a state to do so, either way. Up until mid ’90s, TX prohibited both. And white folk had been carrying (illegally-but not really wink wink) for over 100 years, no worries up until around the ’80s.
LarryinTX,
Yes, there was a court decision (I believe a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) which declared that a state cannot ban both open and concealed public carry of handguns.
Keep in mind: that is a court decision and does not necessarily reflect what is right, true, and just.
Go reread Heller. The decision cites several old (from the 19th Century) STATE court cases which reached this conclusion. I am not aware of any federal court cases addressing this issue, other than the Ninth Circuit, which concluded that there is no RIGHT to a concealed carry license, and at the same time dodged the question as to whether there is a right to openly carry firearms. There is a case pending, filed by Charles Nichols, contending that there is a right to openly carry in “nonsensitive” places. Obviously the Court will make every effort to dodge yet again, or conclude that the government can enact “reasonable regulations” concerning open carry “in the interest of public safety,” and will thus validate California’s open carry ban in all incorporated cities and towns and not violative of the Second Amendment. But even if Mr. Nichols wins, it will be a hollow victory, since it is virtually impossible to carry in ANY incorporated areas without violating the Gun Free School Zone Act (either state or federal) 1000′ exclusion zone.
Love the intent, HOWEVER . . .
The Declaration of Independence was signed 241 Years, 2 months, 17 days, 9 hours, 46 minutes, ago declaring it OPEN SEASON on tyrannical MFs that even bring up the question of infringement.
The U.S. Constitution was signed LATER, 230 Years, 4 days, 9 hours, 49 minutes, ago.
Did you allow for the cumulative effects of DST?
While you’re promoting the Constitution, Joe, remember that it also includes provisions for electing “your useless neighbors who need a job.” Just sayin’.
You want to stick up for them, that’s your business.
mamby-pamby is what brought us to this, and if your stupid neighbors who (put themselves out there) don’t fear you, you have to push back 300% to make sure that you don’t have to fear them. (That’s the ultimate goal of the Declaration, Constutution, and Bill of Rights)
Cliff H.,
The U.S. Constitution clearly authorizes federal government employees.
The problem is that most federal government employees who satisfy the letter of the law also violate the spirit of the law. Saying it another way, the U.S. government is over-bloated by a factor of about 100. Instead of having something like 1 million federal government employees, we should have about 10,000.
And the same scale pretty much applies to state governments and state government employees.
Vermont has had Constitutional carry since 1791,such as the founders intended,it just works.
That’s because no one lives there. Shootings are rare when you have to walk three miles to your nearest neighbor.
There are about 19 states with lower population densities than Vermont, yet Vermont perennially has the lowest or second lowest violent crime rate in the U.S.
Lighten up, Curtis, I thought it was a pretty good laugh line. Would have been *great* if he had made that “walk 3 miles to *shoot* your nearest neighbor.”
The gist of the interview with the Mayor of Milwaukee is really the city wants more of the citizen’s money, oh, and we’re good with taking peoples guns.
MarkPA says:
September 21, 2017 at 09:34
There is a preponderance of scholarly opinion that “the” right to bear arms is the right to do so “openly”. We are well aware that this interpretation is a judicial determination rather than one founded in a textual analysis. It would be hard to say what the founding generation might have thought about a “gentlemen” concealing a flintlock pistol of the 18th Century within his coat.
Arguably, after the invention of the percussion cap, one MIGHT have made something of the distinction between going armed discretely – in an unmanly way – vs. openly. Even so, CC vs. OC is at most an INCIDENTAL issue. What is “core” is the right of self-defense; and, the reasonableness of the act of “drawing” through whatever follows that act.
At the dawn of the 21’st Century we are in an altogether new era as contrasted with those of the 18’th or 19’th. Today, the distinction between CC vs OC is essentially a “fashion statement”. I prefer to carry my gun discretely so that I will not be scorned in my neighborhood as “that guy” who fancies himself as a gun-slinger. My constable neighbor carries his gun openly so that he will be recognized as “that guy” who means to keep the peace.
Today, a dozen States make no distinction between CC vs. OC. The remainder mostly require a “permit” to CC; and, the majority of these are relatively perfunctory “prohibited-person” checks with/without a modest training mandate. A few States impose a permit and training requirement to OC.
When SCOTUS finally gets around to dealing with the right to carry it will find itself confronting the contemporary nation’s view of CC vs. OC; a view radically different from that of the early-to-mid 19th Century. Instead of imputing “unmanly” intentions, SCOTUS will be compelled to rule on women’s fashion preferences. What are SCOTUS’s alternatives?
1 – no right to carry, neither openly nor concealed?
2 – a right to carry openly without license, no right to carry concealed with license?
3 – a right to carry with license, whether concealed or openly?
4 – a right to carry without license, either concealed or openly?
Discrimination between CC vs OC under #2 is hard to justify other than as a fashion statement. Even SCOTUS would hesitate to impute “unmanly” intentions on a growing body of women carriers. (Focus on THIS scenario; do you see how absolutely ABSURD it appears? Which justice would willingly write such an opinion?)
#1 would be tough to justify. Just when, and how, did the “right” to “bear” arms disappear?
#4 would be too much to hope for. SCOTUS isn’t ready to strip that much power from State legislators. (I’m not saying whether they should / shouldn’t; just that they wouldn’t).
This analysis leads to #3 as the most probable. I.e., that the CC vs. OC distinction is apt to recede in significance; likely, to become insignificant. SCOTUS will be compelled to acknowledge that there IS – some sort of – right to carry outside the home. I can’t see SCOTUS determining that VT must legislate to license carriers; therefore, the 12 States that have no license requirement will be left alone. What, then, will be left in a ruling? DC, NYC, CA, HI etc. will probably be told that they may license carry but that such license must not be withheld unreasonably; i.e., that the right to bear arms is at least a right to Shall-Issue.
“This outcome brought to you by VT’s benign neglect, Con-Carry in 11+ other States, and Shall-Issue in 38+States. (Coincidently, enough States to pass a Constitutional amendment.)”
Mark PA
Not Vermonts benign neglect,in the last thirty yeas the permit for reciprocity has come up 6 times in the legislature.
The thought is no citizen since Vermont has become a state has had need to ask permission from any person,magistrate or potentate to exercise a natural right and each time it dies in the legislature.
The spirt of Ethan and Ira Allen,Seth Morrill and Remember Baker and the Green Mountain Boys are alive and well in most of the state with the exception of Chittenden county.
To further explain the thought process of Vermonters.
https://www.usconstitution.net/vtconst.html
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/41halvt.pdf
http://www.guncite.com/court/state/55a610.html
https://personalliberty.com/make-mistake-vermonts-proud-original-guns-everywhere-state/
Mark N. says:
September 21, 2017 at 14:19
That’s because no one lives there. Shootings are rare when you have to walk three miles to your nearest neighbor.
Mark N.
Hmm my nearest neighbor isn’t 30′ from me but then again I don’t reside in Timbucktoo Vermont.
However the old adages are true,fences make for good neighbors and as Vermont proves a armed society is a polite society,where any Tom,Dick or Harriet up and down the lane and dell can and maybe armed.
“For whatever reason, we’ve had this law in existence where if you put a coat on, you’re now a felon”
No, a “felon” is someone who has committed and been convicted of a felony…
Comments are closed.