Reasons to Not Get Your Concealed Carry Permit

Concealed Carry Success
Concealed Carry Success

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- You’ve finally convinced me. You’re right. You shouldn’t get your concealed carry permit.

We’ve all heard the justifications. I was going to call them bad reasons or excuses, but that is judgemental. I’ll simply present the justifications we hear for not getting a concealed carry permit. You can decide for yourself if they are good reasons or bad.

  • You don’t need to carry concealed because the police exist just to protect you.
  • You don’t need a defensive tool because your significant other will always be there to ensure your personal security.
  • Don’t get your carry permit now. Instead, you should wait for the politicians to pass constitutional carry in your state..and don’t travel to other states where you’d need a permit.
  • You know other people who break the law and carry without a permit, so you should go ahead and do that too.  They say that being a felon isn’t as bad as it used to be.
  • You don’t want to get on a government list. In fact, you should probably stop giving money to the church, turn all your guns into the police, drop your membership in the NRA and change your political affiliation to Independent. While you’re at it, cancel your magazine subscriptions and close your social media accounts. Hmm. You’re still listed as a property owner so you should probably sell your house and live out of your car.
  • You’re way too busy to get your your permit.
  • You don’t need a gun because you’d never want to hurt anyone. I mean, your family and friends aren’t really that important to you, are they?
  • You don’t need a carry permit because you never open your doors or step outside your home.
  • You should go ahead and be the victim of violent crime rather than pay that nasty old fee for a concealed carry permit.
  • Besides, you’ve studied the tradeoffs, and a carry permit is way more expensive than health insurance.
  • You should refuse to defend yourself just so you won’t have to give the government another copy of your fingerprints.  There. That showed them who’s the boss.
  • Don’t get your concealed carry permit just so you can avoid all that paperwork.
  • Now that you ask, it isn’t the extra 15 pounds you’re carrying around, it is the gun that make you look fat.
  • Don’t get your concealed carry permit until you buy at least a dozen more guns.
  • Don’t get your carry permit until your spouse has taken training too.
  • Maybe you shouldn’t get your permit at all since your spouse doesn’t like guns.
  • Don’t carry concealed. That way your family doesn’t have to worry if they throw you a surprise party.
  • You don’t need your carry permit because you live in a safe neighborhood that criminals can’t find.
  • You don’t want a permit because that way the police will leave you alone.

..And if you believe those, then you probably shouldn’t have your permit.

I gave you 500 words, and fortunately none of them were mine. I hope you laughed as much as I did. What noteworthy excuses justifications have you heard?


Slow Facts

About Rob Morse

The original article is here.  Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily, and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob is an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.

  • 56 thoughts on “Reasons to Not Get Your Concealed Carry Permit

    1. Given the issue that has transpired within the last week, it seems it is necessary to elaborate on this.

      My initial comment on this page questioned the Author Rob Morse and his motivations for writing this article. At other times he has written informative fact based pieces, some of which have appeared here at ammoland and to which I have cited as reference. Usually, he is a very well worded and informed author.

      My transgression appears to have been that I dared to question Mr. Morse about his supposed bone to pick with some individuals who being more aligned with the right politically have made a personal choice in their lives that he seems to take issue with. Instead of trying to make a evidence based case about why he feels such a view is wrong, he instead chose to ridicule them for a choice they made for themselves. I have not seen any part of his article pointing to any individual which has also tried to force these views on him, but rather the offense appears to be solely that Mr. Morse feels those disagreeing with him deserve to be shamed into compliance. I offered to have a debate with him if he wanted to discuss facts and evidence. It was not my intention to “Dox” anyone by this, but a genuine offer.

      Instead what I got was an individual who felt his opinion was threatened. Because I dared to call into question something he agreed with, he felt it was his personal responsibility to show me the error of my ways.

      Through multiple comments, I attempted to offer evidence which he routinely avoided via dismissal and delegitimization by claiming the length of my comments disqualified any question or point made within them. As I write this, he has since sworn off communication with me further as far as the content of or comments relating to this article are concerned. The evidence remains below however, that he has not since attempted to answer the evidence presented as well as having ignored my offer to answer his questions on a single question at a time level to shorten the responses and present “Conciseness” more easily accessible to him. Considering his temperament last week, I don’t think he can handle such a debate at this time. That brings me to the point my original comment was attempting to address.

      What good does an article like this do? None whatsoever.

      It serves only to provide those who feel morally justified in their OPINIONS, not facts or evidence, with a means of thumping their chests and attempting to lord over those they disagree with. If this sounds familiar it should. It is one of the favored tactics used by the Progressive Left and one which we have called them out for. It isn’t that we have differences of opinion that I was questioning, it was the hypocrisy of trying to shame others who held a different personal opinion when that is an action we have condemned in the past. Mr. Morse should have known that, as I am sure he has criticized the left anytime they attempt to paint law abiding gun owners as advocates of murder as a means of shaming them into acquiescing to the demands for more infringements on our rights.

      Of course, there will be those offended at the length of this post.
      To them I offer this challenge, Mr. Morse used 500 words quite proudly so if you have a problem with my using more, then let your evidence do the talking. I will give anyone the benefit of the doubt and have a legitimate debate on this with full respect to your choice to believe what you choose to believe. Just don’t try to make it a victory battle while avoiding evidence.

    2. @Rob Morse.

      Having read through this article, and noticing several of the other places for which you write is included Clash Daily, I have a question I would like to pose to you shortly. Considering that individual rights are practiced on an individual basis by the self determination of those to whom they apply. Knowing a little about one of the founding men of Clash Daily, here you go.

      Do you realize that being offended by the mere prospect that some people may have different opinions than you in this country qualifies you as being a “Crispin”? Of course, there are those who feel their shoulders make very comfortable seat cushions and keeps their ears quite warm at the same time. The problem we have here is an apparent double standard you seem to have in terms of demanding compliance with one right while completely infringing/abridging upon another. Now your initial article was very condescending, hence my reply has been as well. Should you wish to have an actual discussion about this I am open to it, though I will ask that in doing so you remain respectful so I may do the same.

      1. Revelator, his commentary was not condescending, unless you are a “Progressive Liberal Democrat”, aka Socialist. Unfortunately, his “reasons” were true to life. Sadly you didn’t get that, nor his humor, and resorted to what you posted in reply, further confirming what he was obtusely referencing in his commentary.

        1. @ Heed the Call-up

          No, I got it. Re-read the thing twice just to be sure, and understood the inconsistencies and hypocrisy quite well. If you will allow me to Explain. My reply was made in the same condescending manner which could be called “Humor”, or in other cases “hyperbole” as a sarcastic talking down towards attitude. Just so we are clear here, I meant it to be that way. I wanted to give Rob the possibility of being offended, just as there are those out there who will be with what he wrote. Personally, I’m not offended, but I do sit here and shake my head as I see individuals who write about subjects such as individual liberty with a complete and utter lack of knowledge and understanding on the subject. To put it in plain English, Rob is demonstrating Hypocrisy with this comment, but I’ll get back to that shortly.

          Next, I am already familiar with Robs work, and have found at times he is quite capable of presenting factual evidence and insight into actual issues. For reference, I site this article he wrote earlier last month here on Ammoland. https://www.ammoland.com/2018/09/more-truth-leaks-out-about-gun-control/#axzz5SiOhfhxc As noted, factual, to the point, very well written. So what is it that I am saying is different compared to this article? Allow me to show you.

          He starts his article here by saying that these are justifications he(Or all of us since he decided to make it as broad as he could) has heard. Ok, So he is relaying information through a process known as “Paraphrasing” since he did not site a specific source. This also means that each justification is written with just a little bit of his own personal opinion behind the gist of each comment is blended in. Since you believe that it would only be targeting Progressive Liberal Democrats, I would like to offer a Direct quote from Rob Morse as my evidence.

          “You don’t want to get on a government list. In fact, you should probably stop giving money to the church, turn all your guns into the police, drop your membership in the NRA and change your political affiliation to Independent. While you’re at it, cancel your magazine subscriptions and close your social media accounts. Hmm. You’re still listed as a property owner so you should probably sell your house and live out of your car.”

          Pardon me, but that doesn’t sound like it is directed at your average progressive, but more towards someone middle right. Wait, I know, I know. That doesn’t really show him injecting his own words into it since He claimed at the bottom that “none of the aforementioned points are his own words”. Remember what I said about paraphrasing? Try this.

          “You should refuse to defend yourself just so you won’t have to give the government another copy of your fingerprints. THERE. THAT SHOWED THEM WHO’s THE BOSS”.

          This was not comedy. Sure, there were some jabs to those on the left in there but the majority of the article was written and directed at those on the right who don’t have a ccw yet, and it was written in a way meant to belittle and bully those who have made a choice not to.

          Now, you said I didn’t get it, and “Resorted” to my reply. I’d like to ask you a question about that since he ended his article with a question about excuses.

        2. @Heed the Call-up

          Ok, This is the second response to keep this much shorter. I hope you will wait to reply to my question for you until after the first has been put up.

          Q~ IF SOMEONE CLAIMS TO BE ON THE RIGHT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS THEY WERE CREATED TO PROTECT….. WHAT ARE THEY WHEN THEIR ACTIONS DON’T MATCH THEIR WORDS?

          I truly honestly want to hear your genuine answer to that question. Not Sarcasm, not avoidance. A real Answer.

          You see there is an old saying.. “Men who hunt monsters should take care, lest they become monsters themselves.” Its a very simple premise about consistency how easy it is to rationalize ones own wrong doing through moral certitude. You seem to think I’ve confirmed his opinions. If you truly believe that, then you don’t know or understand the difference between Freedom and Fascism. I pray that is not the case because I have seen you make several solid comments here over the last year or two. Some I agreed with, some I contributed additional information to, and others I just said “Nuff Said” and added nothing further. Don’t flush that reputation down the drain.

          Again, I ask you to wait to respond until both of these appear on this page, but await your response respectfully.

          1. Revelator, again, I did not read any condescension in his commentary. Obviously you believe you did. I am not “hunting monsters”, but you clearly are/were in your post. My post does not comport to “wrong doing” nor “moral certitude”. Your post does confirm his commentary, whether or not you wish to believe it.

            His commentary is irreverent, but not condescending. I believe you chose the wrong words for what you mean/believe about his commentary. I do not see where his commentary means he does not believe in the Constitution nor our rights as guaranteed by said document. Your verbosity has left me a bit confused as to your point(s) on which you wish me to debate – you brought forth too many (and opposing) points for a reasonable response on this medium.

            I don’t know the difference between “Freedom and Fascism”? I believe my “freedom” and rights “allow” me the right to question your point of view, which I have – that is not Fascism nor Totalitarianism, just me debating your point of view.

            His commentary was “tongue-in-cheek”, not some diabolical, obtuse attack against those that believe in our guaranteed rights. He ended his commentary with the question “What noteworthy excuses [struck-through] justifications have you heard?”. I do not see in that question where he is bullying or belittling anyone. His commentary was obtusely humorous, playing-off the common “rationale”, concerning those that do not believe in lawful CC and the RKBA, and asking us to further the dialog.

            Your exceedingly long and disjointed posts have only left me more confused as to what your point is. I typically try to make my posts on this medium shorter to aid in readability and making the debate easier to understand and follow. This is not a good medium for doctoral theses nor newspaper-length commentary.

            1. @Heed the call-up.

              It doesn’t help your argument to try and dismiss someone for the length of their posts. The descriptors of “Long and disjointed”, “Verbosity”, and “Confusing” are attempts to discredit and dismiss either myself or a point I am making at the time with no substance behind what you are saying. If I may explain.

              You use the pronouns “I” and “Me” when attempting to dismiss my comments. This is what you called “Point of view” otherwise known as perception. That means so far you have used only your personal opinion. Your opinion does not constitute fact. Neither does mine. That is why when you look at my responses you will see the use of the words “His” and “He”, because I am pointing to an outside reference that contains evidence/substance for why I am making a claim.

              Now, if you feel I am too articulate for you to understand, ok. Then the way to proceed is with you asking a single question about a single point and requesting that I clarify my response. From there, if you truly want to debate me, we can proceed if you have an interest in an actual respectful and honest debate. I’m willing to spend three weeks writing short responses to questions if you feel that is what is needed to make this understandable for you. If after that we still don’t agree, that is fine. However, your opinion of Mr. Morse is not enough to nullify evidence presented against this article. If you choose to believe your own opinion you have that right and I wont force you against that. I’m also trying to remain civil and polite about it, and sticking to the evidence.

              If not, then you have two options. You have already used two of the three D’s. It’s a tactic I have talked about in the past, more commonly used by the left to avoid sourcing and utilizing factual evidence.

              First, you can tell me that I’m not worth your time and make a statement about being the better man and hope some here buy into it.

              Second, and I do not recommend this one, You can attempt to complete the third “D”. This will be where you attempt to destroy me personally through your comments.

              Now, my response to your comment will follow, and yes it will be long, Articulate, and proper giving what you wrote. No more, no less.

            2. The Revelator, too articulate? That’s funny. No, someone with good communication skills is able to convey simple points in less than half the 827 words you used in your first two replies, and the 419 in you last reply. You asked for my opinion, I gave it. The lack of substance was in your posts. If there were something of relevance, it would not have taken you 800+ words to get to your point.

              I haven’t tried to discredit you, I just did not agree with your original assessment of his commentary. I didn’t dismiss your comments, only found that you didn’t seem to know where you were going in your post, which is why it took you a circuitous 800+ words to get to nowhere. You believe you wrote something profound, when all you did was write long posts that didn’t lead anywhere.

              Yes, in my replies to you, I wrote my assessment in the first-person, due to the fact, as you stated, that is my opinion. Your first post was only 209 words and was more concise and to the point. Even my second post was less than half the words you used to reply to me. If you noticed, my reply to your first post was quite clear, and easy to understand and only 65 words. You easily understood what I stated due to the conciseness and clarity of the post. That is the mark of one that is articulate. One writes so that anyone can understand. The fewer the words, the more likely the message will not get misinterpreted.

              There is no need for me to post another reply to your initial argument. I was quite clear in both my initial post and my later reply. Secondly, my post had nothing to do with what I might believe or not about Rob Morse. I only responded to what I believed his commentary was about and how I disagreed with your assessment of it. That is another reason fewer words are better, the nuances of language do not translate well to written words. Context, inflect, visual cues, etc., are all used when speaking, but have no written equal.

              I know we both post here, and I apologize that I may have been too brusque in my reply to you. I don’t wish to fight with you over this. This thread and the commentary have little value to me to spend so much time replying to you. We need to use our time to fight those that are assaulting our rights, not fight with each other. Our rights are much more important than bruised egos or feelings.

            3. @Heed the call-up

              @ Heed the call-up

              Ok, I think you took my last 2 comments as an attack on you. It was not intended as such. I’ll try to explain point by point, and quoting the sections of your response to directly explain.

              1. “My post does not comport to “wrong doing” nor “moral certitude”. Your post does confirm his commentary, whether or not you wish to believe it.”

              a. the moral certitude comment was not leveled at you. All it means is that when people believe they are morally right in their opinions, they will justify or excuse any action since it is done in support of their belief. This is also referred to as “The ends justify the means”. Further more, to claim I am “Clearly hunting” and then attempting to dismiss me as irrelevant is your opinion. Not fact. That in and of itself is confirmation of what I am talking about.

              2. “Revelator, again, I did not read any condescension in his commentary.”

              a. I gave you quotes to two of his points which clearly showed the condescension. I even highlighted in bold what was condescending. Lets start with the definition shall we. Condescension~ “an attitude of patronizing superiority; disdain.” Telling someone who disagrees with you that they should just be a victim for the sake of sticking it to the man, as I quoted Mr. Morse of doing most definitely qualifies as an attitude of patronizing superiority. In fact, He made 19 total points in all. I can tell you which one was directed at those on the left, the ones that definitely contain condescension directed at those who are center to right wing, and the ones that are questionable. It is only the first point that is directed at progressives. Points 3, 6, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are the questionable ones. The ones that do contain condescension are 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17. I can explain why using his own words. This is not just my personal opinion, its right there in his own words. Before you try to tell someone “whether or not you wish to believe it.” as justification for an opinion you have, be sure they don’t have proof first. If you want, I will go through each point independently, but again its right there even if you choose to ignore it.

              3. “I do not see where his commentary means he does not believe in the Constitution nor our rights as guaranteed by said document.”

              a. Since you decided the standard for this was to be “Just because you don’t see it”…. What I am referring to is called consistency. Acta non Verba. Mr. Morse is writing about what he views as a constitutionally protected right. However, in doing so he is also using it as a reason to disparage or discourage others from exercising a different yet just as necessary a right. This is the right of choice, which is connected to the right of expression or conscience under the first amendment, or as Liberty in the Declaration of Independence. If I asked Mr. Morse the question about his views on the constitution and he said yes, my follow up would be if he believes in it, then why would he be willing to try and suppress the same rights for others. If he answered no, then my question would be how can he honestly be expected to be taken seriously when he tries to claim the constitution protects his rights from liberals. What he did was create a situation where if he takes a single step further forward he is engaging in hypocrisy. I’ll explain that in point 4.

              4. “His commentary was “tongue-in-cheek”, not some diabolical, obtuse attack against those that believe in our guaranteed rights. He ended his commentary with the question “What noteworthy excuses [struck-through] justifications have you heard?”. I do not see in that question where he is bullying or belittling anyone. His commentary was obtusely humorous, playing-off the common “rationale”, concerning those that do not believe in lawful CC and the RKBA, and asking us to further the dialog.”

              a. No, again, it was not directed at those that do not believe in lawful CC or the 2nd amendment. It was targeting those who have guns, by his own words, but have chosen for personal reasons not to get a CCL. To paraphrase Mr. Morse, Those are his words not mine. Also, as a side note, you don’t further dialog by slapping someone across the face and then asking “Boy didn’t you think that was funny?” That would fit with the definition of Commentary, but dialog involves more than just one side and you cant get there if you start by making the people you are trying to further a dialog with raise their defenses by attacking them.

              Lets look at the “Tongue in Cheek” comedy claim vs “Rationale” and “Noteworthy excuses” (Struck through of course). I dont suppose that you, or Mr. Morse perhaps have ever seen and criticised an action by those on the left where their response has been “Come on! I’m a comedian, its just comedy…” to which I am sure you turned around and told them it was not funny at all or even appropriate. Perhaps Kathy Griffin holding up the painting of Donald Trumps head. Bill Maher saying “I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow….I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” If you can honestly say you have never criticized anyone for saying something you found offensive, but instead turned around and defended them even though they are on the left, then I have to congratulate you. However if you have, then to try and dismiss criticism on the basis of “Its just comedy man.” is hypocrisy.

              You see, the difference between freedom and fascism isnt whether or not you have a right to express your difference of opinion. It’s whether you attempt to control or suppress someone else’s right to the same, or to defend it even when you dont agree. Each of the points I have made about Mr. Morse’s article have been interconnected, not disjointed. Each one has been about consistency. Each point has been with the thought in mind that you don’t win over people by insulting them from the beginning. You, being here on ammoland should know that as well as anyone given who spent the last two terms in the Whitehouse and how he treated us.

              I sincerely hope you take the time to read this. If you want to take a few days and read it slowly a few times, I understand. I’m not trying to put you down, and I will be here whenever you choose to reply. My response will be based accordingly.

            4. @Heed the call up

              Seems as though you couldn’t wait for the second to follow. Just so we are clear to quote.

              “it took you a circuitous 800+ words to get to nowhere.” That is a dismissal.

              “Even my second post was less than half the words you used to reply to me.” Well you don’t need many words when it isn’t evidence based. Again, your opinion is not fact.

              “There is no need for me to post another reply to your initial argument. I was quite clear in both my initial post and my later reply. Secondly, my post had nothing to do with what I might believe or not about Rob Morse. I only responded to what I believed his commentary was about and how I disagreed with your assessment of it. ”

              Funny how easy it is to predict the “Not worth my time response”. In addition to that, yes it had to do with what you believe about Rob Morse. You are defending his words, or as you described it “All too true”. So your belief is that Rob Morse’s actions and words here were correct. You disagreed with a factual evidence based assessment of what he wrote, and are now irritated that I won’t shut up. More to the point, you cant argue against what I have written other than to state that your opinion disagrees with DIRECT QUOTATION, and making Excuses(Struck through), justifications for your opinion.

              Short enough? Since you don’t seem to grasp the meaning or correlation of the words articulate and verbosity I’m saving that one for another comment should you decide to go again. Using your own words of course.

            5. @Heed the Call-up.

              This is to explain the last comment you made, and my just now reply.

              “I know we both post here, and I apologize that I may have been too brusque in my reply to you. I don’t wish to fight with you over this. This thread and the commentary have little value to me to spend so much time replying to you. We need to use our time to fight those that are assaulting our rights, not fight with each other. Our rights are much more important than bruised egos or feelings.”

              This was the last paragragh in your last reply. Had you left everything else out of it, instead of trying to get those last few jabs in, that would have been something. This needs to be pointed out. This last paragraph was spectacular. Everything you wrote before it made it hollow. That is what I was getting at in my original post to Rob about what he wrote.

              If you can live according to that last paragraph, then I am proud to stand beside you, but your actions have to match your words. Acta Non Verba. We don’t just defend our rights, we defend everyone’s rights. Consistency.. We don’t become the monsters we claim them to be by doing to them what they tried to do to us.

            6. The Revelator, “[w]e don’t just defend our rights, we defend everyone’s rights”. Just another example of how you don’t seem to understand the written word. “Our” rights, as defined by the “our”, is everyone’s rights, that is those that are living in the USA and are lawfully allowed to be here or protected by those rights as we are.

              The last paragraph of my last post, is, as the other posts and statements, what I believe. I would not have written it otherwise. Again, look at the verbosity of your replies to me. Again, if you were as literate and articulate as you claim to be, you’d not be writing novels in response. Clarity and conciseness convey understanding, both by the writer and the reader.

              “Seems as though you couldn’t wait for the second to follow”? Why does it take you so long to compose your replies, if you are so articulate? I have to wait? This is an Internet site, once the posts are sent and can be read, why does one have to “wait” for yet another verbose post? Why couldn’t you get all your thoughts into one post? I know why, you can’t write and think clearly enough to write concisely and clearly. You confuse yourself with your words and believe it is I that doesn’t understand. Oddly, you seem to easily and readily understand my posts.

              As you stated, you are allowed your opinion, as am I. Whether or not we agree is irrelevant. Your posts have not convinced me to reconsider my view on the commentary. Also, again, my view on his commentary is not a valuation of my beliefs about the person. The same holds true for my view on you.

              I have not attempted, nor want to, control your thoughts or posts. Your silliness about my not understanding freedom and fascism was already addressed in a prior post. If your ego wasn’t so bruised, you’d not keep writing these senseless, verbose diatribes. I gave you an out by apologizing. You decided to double-down on stupid. I will not bother wasting further time with you on this thread. I am sorry that my brusque posts hurt your feelings. I do not see any benefit to either of us by continuing a pointless argument.

            7. @ Heed the call up

              My apologies for the late response. Had some Family medical issues that needed to be taken care of.

              First, Let us start with a couple double standards your last comment set up.

              1. “I gave you an out by apologizing.”

              An apology is not made by offering a left handed comment first. The dual nature of your response is why I separated my response to it into two parts, first to demonstrate that tone and aggression can be conveyed quite easily through text, and second because the last paragraph showed exactly the issue that my original comment raised.

              2. ” If your ego wasn’t so bruised, you’d not keep writing these senseless, verbose diatribes.”

              This is your way of asking “Have you stopped beating your wife.” To not reply means you can say my ego was bruised and you made your point. To reply means you are going to say that it was, even when it wasn’t. Of course, since you are holding to this standard, doesn’t that mean by you replying yet again you too would have a bruised ego? This leads me to point three.

              3. “You confuse yourself with your words and believe it is I that doesn’t understand.”

              Ok, seems to me you were the one who claimed to be confused and not sure what it was I was asking you to respond to. Perhaps instead of calling others idiots, you might focus instead on what you have already written before you back track on your own words. Shall I quote date and time?

              4. “Again, if you were as literate and articulate as you claim to be, you’d not be writing novels in response.”

              Boy, if only Orson Welles was alive to witness the duplicity of that statement. You dismiss context and additional information as verbosity. I don’t blame you. In this dumbed down Twitter length world, it is much easier to argue against 240 characters that do not contain context or citation but instead simply spout off rationalized opinions at one another much in the same way two heavy weight boxers go toe to toe. However, the idea that someone can claim confusion, then turn around and blame the other person as confused…. Perhaps only a left handed comment can describe it, but in all seriousness I deal in the realm of reality and would appreciate if you rejoin the rest of us there.

              The sole reason you have a problem with my verbosity is not that we have differing opinions or perceptions, it was that I laid out evidence by direct quotation which contradicted your opinion. Opinions are not facts, they can only agree or disagree with facts when not dealing with personal preference. There is a difference there.

              What you are going to find the most aggravating however is that I predicted this last comment of yours. Re read my comment made on October 3rd at 5:29 PM, to which I quote.
              “you can tell me that I’m not worth your time and make a statement about being the better man and hope some here buy into it.”

              As said as it is to say, you were an easy book to read.

    3. Write your Congressman or Congresswoman, House and Senate representative and let them know:

      In 2008 the Heller decision made clear what it meant to bear arms. Scalia quoted Justice Ginsburg’s writing in a previous case. From cornell.edu
      Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

      “..in the clothing or in a pocket” is carrying concealed.

      Yet it was stated that states can have restrictions:

      “Longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

      Yet, this doesn’t pertain to the carry of style, bearing of appropriation, or limitations supported by curtailment of classes or permits. And like in Heller, a firearm held in an inoperable fashion by state law is an Infringement and therefore Unconstitutional.

      So why are states still allowed to have felonious laws enacted against a citizens right to carry concealed without a permit?

      I mean if the 2nd Amendment doesn’t allow the Uninfringed right to carry concealed, then every state that allows Constitutional Carry is in violation of the precedent set by the 2nd Amendment and must have policies to govern and restrict said concealed carry supported by classes and training, yet no such reality exists….

      So again, why has RBG and all of SCOTUS failed to protect the American people against Tyrannical State laws which Infringe upon citizens Unalienable Rights?

    4. Every citizen of this Nation should go back and study our Nation’s history from it’s beginning, especially the American Revolution. We did not gain our freedom on July 04, 1776, we declared our independence from Great Britain on that day, and the war against them lasted between twelve and thirteen years. Of course, Great Britain continued to cause us problems for many more years thereafter. The history of the American Revolution is painful to read because of the brutal conditions of our situation, and the merciless British troops. Anyone who has doubts about the need for the 2nd Amendment should read this history because you will fully understand just how intolerant a government can be if we allow them.

      1. Some might argue far longer than the 1790’s to finally end the revolution ,UNSHACKLING AMERICA
        How the War of 1812 Truly Ended the American Revolution
        by Willard Sterne Randall

        I would recommend it to any US history buff

    5. N.J. citizens have no one to blame but themselves for electing the DEMORATS!!!
      DEMORATS AND LIBERALS ARE THE RUINATION OF OUR GREAT COUNTRY FOR EVERY TRUE AMERICAN CITIZEN

    6. Absolutely great article, I live in Canada and wish we could get a carry permit. Only a few can, pilots that fly remote areas and some northern miners. Our government is try now to remove hand guns and military firearms. Im so glad that the citizens of USA fight for their rights. Good on all of you…God Bless…

      1. Thank you for the ‘God Bless”. Canadians have the same RIGHTS as we have in America concerning the right of self defense. Our RIGHTS come from God,,,not from our government. The 2nd Amendment didn’t give us the RIGHTS,,,it is an admonition to the government not to infringe on our God given RIGHTS. If Canadians would stand together and TELL their government that they cannot infringe on your rights maybe you would feel better about carrying for protection against bad guys AND your government.

      2. Just step up and demand your rights. Your fellow Canadians travel around the globe and fought and so many wars to maintain peace and democracy or to inject democracy and then you come home to this? Maybe it’s time Canada had their own Revolution, Eh?

      3. @Lee Waddel, Everyone in Canada that wants to carry should suddenly become a pilot that flies to remote areas or a northern miner. If I had a northern mine I would, for a small fee, hire you so that you could tell the truth on your application. If I were a pilot that flies to remote areas, I could do the same.

    7. WHY does everybody keep saying/thinking that we need National Carry Reciprocity legislation??? Has anyone looked at the Constitution? Putting aside, for the moment, that ALL STATES (and the Federal government) are supposed to be bound and obligated under the Bill of Rights: Article 4, section 1 is why your drivers license has to be honored by every state (virtually every other COUNTRY recognizes them). This section would also, without a doubt, require every state to accept your concealed carry permit — or the lack of a requirement to need one. Section 2 states that citizens from the various states, while visiting any of the other states, enjoy all of the additional rights and privileges that might be afforded to the citizens of that state (other than voting) during their visit. Look it up and UNDERSTAND what it is saying.

      1. The problem is getting anyone with backbone to hallenge the state(s) where they would get caught, and/or garner a legal team to mount that battle… I’m game, but I just haven’t run across any LEOS that would be the one(s) to start that particular ball rolling? (Getting stopped, searched or challenged.)

      2. @Charles Moore, As you correctly suspect, it is because all thee co-equally corrupt branches of our federal government and all the states are ignoring the preemptive nature of our American Constitutionally enshrined Civil Rights.
        Under Trump, we have a once in a life time chance to change things by changing legislators.

    8. By my reckoning an HCL serves two purposes. It’s useful as picture ID (such as voting) and it is a proclamation that you have accepted the responsibility of self defense and to defend others if necessary. Arguably when it comes to bearing arms right and responsibility are frequently synonymous.

      1. Look them in the eye and say, under your breath, “Can you keep a secret?” Person nods yes. Say, “Me, too. Have a nice day.”

    9. Thankfully l live in a state where CCL’s are issued. Paradoxically, this Left Coast state has people who want voters to ban semi-auto firearms. I have a CCL but rarely carry. I work in a employer mandated gun free zone but customers can open carry there. Maybe that should be on the list. “I don’t have a CCL cuz l can’t carry at work”. Outside of that, it’s all a matter of choice for whatever reason(s).

      There’s nothing wrong with being an “independent”
      That’s a choice, too!

      1. I also work in a “gun free” (state govt) office building, so my carry gun stays in a lockbox in my glove compartment. Ironically, the policy that prevents me from carrying a firearm at work was mandated by the same state govt that issued my concealed carry permit. Go figure.

    10. there is an old saying better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt , I sincerely hope you do not find my comment on the comment offenseive.

    11. My mailbox is the nexus of TWELVE drug free zones. In the past ten years of owning this home, and property, more than a dozen drug dealers/users have been convicted, and ordered to never get caught here.
      Some were family members of neighbors. I met many neighbors when I moved in, and, educated many transients that I do not judge others, but, through my life of 71 years, raised in the Air Force, and then a career Vietnam Veteran, I have abstained. So, I educated everyone I have met, that the K-9 officers who exercise their dogs in the huge park behind my house might have an issue when the dogs sniff drugs on them. Funny how no one listened, and were legally banished, by the trial judge! Criminals are really stupid!

    12. “You don’t want to get on a government list In fact, you should probably stop giving money to the church, turn all your guns into the police, drop your membership in the NRA and change your political affiliation to Independent. While you’re at it, cancel your magazine subscriptions and close your social media accounts. Hmm. You’re still listed as a property owner so you should probably sell your house and live out of your car.”

      Well? I don’t want to have to be put on a list to exercise a constitutional right. After the first nine words in the above paragraph the rest is just stupid and insulting.

      1. You were pretty much put on a government lost when 1) You received a birth certificatecate and 2) Recieves your social security card, and 3) When you entered school. 4) Got your driver’S license, 6) Registered your vehicle, 7) Safety Inspected your vehicle, 8) Bought insurance, 9) Got a,job and filed an S-9 or a W-2.. I could go on…

    13. Sorry Rob, I’m not laughing. For the mindset of many people out there in today’s world the reasons, uh excuses, you have listed are are all to “right on the money”. In my state only 2% of the total population has a concealed carry permit. The other 98% live by your listed excuses! Sad state of affairs, but, it is the world of ignorant psychologically twisted, inside out upside down people that we live in today.

    14. I liked this reason, “You don’t need your carry permit because you live in a safe neighborhood that criminals can’t find.” I live in one of those neighborhoods, right near a school, which, of course is a drug-free/gun-free zone. I came home one day to an officer in my side yard inspecting my neighbor’s fence that was broken, apparently by two vehicles. A small scale that the officer stated is typically used in illegal drug sales was found in my yard near the broken fence. My side yard is where my driveway is. Something clearly occurred to make them flee suddenly, the tire tracks in my yard showed the vehicles backed through my yard as they were turning around, hitting the fence, before going forward and out of my driveway. I am glad the criminals abided by the drug-free zone laws. However, the neighborhood is a “safe” one. Kids leave bikes and toys in their yards and they are still there the next day. My daughter always left her bike out, too, and it was never touched.

    15. “I only carry when I think I’ll be traveling in a bad neighborhood” So, do you only have car insurance when you think
      you’ll have an accident?

    16. I live in a good neighborhood but some drud addict came in the dead of night and stole my expensive trek bike. I was not awake and did not catch drug addict.

    17. I won’t get one because I live in Idaho . I carry when and where I like, so i don’t need one. When I visit other states I do so under LEOSA. You forgot to those reasons..

      1. Hopefully that will soon be a national law, with the states that are UNITED on the 2nd amendment rights anyway. Let those states that deprive their citizens of their legal right to own and carry a firearm (even if it is carried just in the console or glovebox of their vehicle) deal with the statistics obtainable to anyone who wants that information. And I might add good luck to the states that are protecting their criminals by denying citizens their right to protect their families and others from the armed thugs that know they will meet much less resistance in these states than in other states where open or concealed carry laws have plummeted violent crimes

    18. While your “reasons” and the dripping sarcasm behind them are humorous and mildly entertaining, your article misses or avoids the real reason some people have for not owning guns, carrying concealed, getting proper defensive training, etc. I believe some of these serious reasons are 1) they just don’t like (or possibly fear) guns, 2) they don’t believe they could ever use a gun in self defenses.i.e.injure or kill another person, 3) they don’t want to face the possibility that violence may find them, 4) they have personal and/or religious beliefs that prohibit violence, even in defense of themselves or their loved ones. While we who believe in armed self defense may have difficulty believing these reasons, rest assured they do exist. If we’re ever going to change some of these beliefs, we need to address them respectfully, not poke fun at them.

    19. Mr. Morse, you mock yet there are plenty of people such as myself stuck in states like New Jersey that can not get permits. Out of 9 million people there are less than 2,000 permits issued by the state. No we will not just leave the state. What happens in New Jersey does not stay in New Jersey, this plague spreads. We will not surrender, we will not retreat, we will not quit, we will fight on. Even though I may disagree with you on this article keep up the good work I look forward to reading your next piece.

      1. Many of the Jews said the same thing in Nazi Germany. How’d That work for them? If you can’t protect what is yours…It was never really yours to begin with.

      2. Ugly95 —

        Morse mocks those who choose not to get a permit/license, not those that do not need (constitutional carry states) or residents of those states such as NJ whose laws deny them their natural rights to the means to defend one’s self.

        1. I think the article is suppose to give credence to the reason you should ,if able, to get a CCP and not that mocks people who don’t or can’t get a permit. These are the real reasons for constitutional carry needs so states like NY, NJ,Md, Ca can no longer deny people their constitutional right to protect themselves.

        2. I live in Kansas (Constitutional Carry) and still my wife and I got our CHLs mainly because our daughter lives in Texas. Until ALL states are Constitutional Carry I will maintain my CHL.

    Leave a Comment 56 Comments

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