Let me state up front that I really get the whole "its a right, I shouldn't need a permit" idea. I know where you are coming from and I'm not saying your notion isn't without merit. But part of me still thinks that its OK to ask citizens to demonstrate our sanity before putting a gun in our pocket.
Honestly, I don't want felons to have guns. I don't want some dude whose been in and out of the institution and wears a tinfoil hat to carry a gun. I don't want that guy with a restraining order or who beats his wife to have a gun. That just isn't rational or safe.
I want it safe for law abiding citizens to carry guns.
So I didn't have much of a problem going down and submitting to a background check and some fingerprints. Personally, I wish they'd required a few hours of class time too. Honestly, not everyone is as thorough as I am (ahem) and spends beaucoup time looking into concealed carry before doing it. I spent hours reading, watching videos and discussing options and responsibilities before I took the plunge, and I probably still don't know everything I should. But I tried really hard and continue to. I think that anyone who wishes to carry a deadly weapon better be clear on many things first, and mandatory training is probably the best way to do it.
With regard to the national reciprocity bill that got nuked this week: I was all for it because traveling is such a pain now (as I've discussed over the last week). But at the same time, I can see the argument from those opposed that the state with the least restrictions will force others to have to accept this, even if the people of said state want a bit more from their own carriers.
I guess the states with no permit (Alaska and Vermont, any others?) rely on the other gun laws to keep the nutbars out? Maybe that works. Thoughts?
Secondly, healthcare. I love the gun blog-o-sphere. But I'm really getting sick of the healthcare crap getting thrown in all the time. Ugh.
Honestly, I'm a big fan of a more rational approach to healthcare. Our current system sucks. And before you get all uppity, consider that I know what I'm talking about. I've lived with Canadian healthcare for half my life and it is a really great system.
No really. Its always been there for me and my family and all the doomsday crap I hear about it is just silly fear mongering and ignorance.
Oh, and a good conservative friend of mine once outlined his fears by stating it wasn't *any* government healthcare program that he feared, just a US-based one. His opinion was that the US government is just too inept and corrupt to do it right, even if others can and have done a better job of it.
That kinda floored me. Of course, he was more than happy with the MIC and them having keys to the nukes, but healthcare was right out.
Really? Is this a common thought?
Posts
Think about this: The government cannot run Medicare or Medicaid properly. If they cannot get that little piece right, what makes anyone think they can run the entire system?
ReplyDeleteI'm not incredibly happy with them having control of the Nukes either...but who else is gonna do it? That's something not practical for the private sector. The same cannot be said of the medical services industry.
ReplyDeleteAs far as permits: They don't actually accomplish anything except make the sheep feel more comfortable about it.
If someone wants to carry a gun, they're going to carry a gun, permit or no. This, in my experience, is as true of otherwise law abiding citizens as it is of criminals. The law abiding generally only do it when they perceive an immediate need (i.e., they've been threatened or have need to go into an area known to be unsafe), but if they perceive that need, more often than not, a minor detail like not having a permit won't stop them.
All the permit does is allow us to do it regularly without fear of being arrested if found out.
With that said, I do understand that some people simply like to believe that no bad people will carry as long as a permit is required. Fine. If it makes them comfortable enough with the process to not throw me in jail for wanting to defend myself, I'll reluctantly play the game. But why should I have to pay for it?
Who does the permit benefit? It doesn't benefit ME. It only allows me to do something that's my constitutional right to begin with. I know I'm not a criminal, I don't need a background check and fingerprinting to tell ME that.
The only benefit is to the general public...who gets to feel all warm and safe because they've subjected me to an investigation and have my name and address on file. If the benefit is to the general public, why shouldn't the general public have to pay for it? Why should I have to pay for something to benefit someone else?
A permit to exercise a Constitutional right should be shall-issue in every state in the union and should not cost the permittee one red penny.
I'm glad you had a good experience in Canadian healthcare. However, my relatives in Canada tell a different story - long waiting lines for procedures, or even just checkups, since everyone goes in for anything. ER's are terrible, they tell me, with no way to get true emergency care since everyone's in a line. They would love to have the healthcare options that we have in the US. But more than that, my own grandfather was failed by the Canadian healthcare system - he was a victim of exactly the rationing that we fear will come with a single-payer system in the US. He was having stomach problems, went to his physician, who gave him some pills, without looking at him, and said he didn't have time to do more, but that my grandfather could schedule an appointment for a more thorough checkup - 6 months down the road. So... my grandfather did, and 6 months down the road they discovered an aneurism. However, the doctor said since he was too old to get the proper surgery that he'd just have to live with it. He was 78. So... it kept growing, and no doctor would do anything because he was too old and state resources wouldn't be used for him when they could be used for younger people who would 'benefit more'. He lived in Ontario, fyi. In the end, he died of complications from the aneurism, which grew to about the size of a large plum on his artery near his intestines. By the time he was hospitalized (for the last 2 weeks of his life only) even the US healthcare system couldn't have helped him.
ReplyDeleteI was reading a blog recently by a doctor who lives in Canada and who was, when first studying to be a doctor, an avid promoter of the government healthcare, until he took a shortcut one day on campus through an ER and saw the elderly who had been there for days waiting in line. He said it smelled of sweat and urine and in a moment completely changed his perspective on government 'care.' Rationing is rampant in Canada, and the elderly lose out.
I live in Idaho, by the way.
Here's the article I was talking about. And by the way welcome to the gun-club! :) I've definitely been enjoying your blogs.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
"I guess the states with no permit (Alaska and Vermont, any others?) rely on the other gun laws to keep the nutbars out? Maybe that works. Thoughts?"
ReplyDeleteAlaska has a permit, they simply don't require it. It is for reciprocity purposes only.
I'm not sure what you mean to by relying on other laws to keep nutbars out, but I think your point is obviated by acknowledging the fact that nothing keeps the nutbars out. They are there, brother, right alongside of you, and you never know which one of them it is until it's suddenly obvious.
We carry guns not to completely prevent crime, nor to guarantee oiur safety. There is no way to compeltely prevent crime, and there are no guarantees.
We carry our guns to mitigate the results of crime, to respond to crime. The prophylactic effect of an armed populace applies to government policy primarily, and only to peripherally to crime.
Sailorcurt is absolutely correct. I have my Washington CPL, and I have now completed my requirements for the Oregon and Utah permits, but have not had a chance to file the paperwork and receive the permits yet. Given that I live on the border with Oregon, I leave it as an exercise to the student to surmise if I may have ever carried in technical violation of the law.
Now, addressing your weapons vs healthcare idea.
ReplyDeleteFirst, and most importantly, national defense is a task delegated to and required of the federal government by Constitutional mandate, because it is an issue that requires a mix of centralized resources along with the gathering up of the militia (which, as you are aware, is us.)
So, nukes and biological weapons labs? Yep, it is indeed their job. Personal healthcare decisions, no way.
There is nothing that empowers the federal government to have a role in my health care, and the expansion of federal power beyond its mandate is not a tiny slip in the direction of tyranny, it's a huge leap.
Not only do I remain unconvinced that health care requires federal intervention, I am fairly convinced that it will be a detriment to us. I wrote about it several times on my blog and in emails with friends. I bring this up because you asked.
We all know that shorter decision loops result in better average results. We just get distrustful when we're not involved in them. For your typical lefty, that means not trusting other people to make their own decisions, for the average righty, that means not wanting other people to make my decisions for me. Particularly when it comes to using my money to do both.
National defense is a group endeavour by definition. My health or yours are not. Keepng you healthy doesn't amke me any healthier. Applying your health care decisions to me, likewise. Your daibetes medicine won't help my cancer. It's a fundamentally individual problem (health), and giving a third party say over how my issues are worked out terrifies me. No exaggeration: the word "terrifying" is exactly accurate.
Fritz,
ReplyDeleteLet's change a few words and see if you still support the idea of permits.
Personally, I like the idea of child rearing permits.
Let me state up front that I really get the whole "its a right, I shouldn't need a permit" idea. I know where you are coming from and I'm not saying your notion isn't without merit. But part of me still thinks that its OK to ask citizens to demonstrate our sanity before having a kid.
Honestly, I don't want felons to have kids. I don't want some dude whose been in and out of the institution and wears a tinfoil hat to father a child. I don't want that guy with a restraining order or who beats his wife to have a child. That just isn't rational or safe.
I want it safe for law abiding citizens to have children.
If we let the government require permits for one right, how long will it be before all of our rights are dependent on government permission?
+1 Bob S.
ReplyDeleteHeavenly Sword