Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, July 1, 2007

Guns in our midst: ‘It gives you the ability to look someone in the eye and say no’

July 1, 2007

Advertisement

Richard Dyer, of Lawrence, passionate in his pro-gun views, thinks the concealed carry law makes the world safer.

Richard Dyer, of Lawrence, passionate in his pro-gun views, thinks the concealed carry law makes the world safer.

How easy is it?

Reporter Chad Lawhorn explores firsthand what is involved in acquiring a gun for concealed carry in Kansas, in Monday's Journal-World.

Hear Lawrence resident Richard Dyer speak about why he thinks concealed carry is a good idea.

Hear Lawrence resident Richard Dyer speak about why he thinks concealed carry is a good idea.

Hear Lawrence resident Marilyn Roy speak about why she thinks concealed carry is a bad idea.

Hear Lawrence resident Marilyn Roy speak about why she thinks concealed carry is a bad idea.

A single, laminated flower hangs from the refrigerator in Richard Dyer's Lawrence apartment.

You know, the art-project kind where the petals are made from a cutout of a small child's hand. Hanging next to a Kansas City Royals schedule, it paints a grandfatherly picture.

Dyer's curly white beard, a half-finished Sudoku puzzle on the kitchen table, and how he leans in and turns his ear toward you to hear better, add to the image.

But don't let the 57-year-old, self-professed bookworm fool you. He can show you a different side, not that he would want to, nor that you would want to see it.

"One thing a firearm does for you is it gives you the ability to look someone in the eye and say 'no,' and mean it," Dyer said.

Dyer may be carrying a gun now, as he visits and leans back in a dining table chair. It is not a subject he wants to talk about. Nobody's business. But Dyer certainly believes it is his right to carry a gun in his house, in City Hall, in a dark downtown alley or anywhere else.

Dyer doesn't walk around with business cards that read "Richard Dyer, gun activist," but on a Tuesday evening late last year, he was one. He was the only member of the public who attended the Nov. 14 Lawrence City Commission meeting to protest a policy that would allow the city to post "no firearm" signs at City Hall, recreation centers and other public buildings.

The policy was in reaction to the state's new concealed carry law, which allows residents who successfully complete a training class to carry a concealed gun in places where it isn't prohibited.

He argued - politely - that what city commissioners were doing was prohibiting law-abiding residents from having guns. The criminals wouldn't pay any attention to a sign, he told the room full of City Hall leaders. Commissioners unanimously disagreed.

Dyer left undeterred. He really didn't expect them to do anything differently. He describes the commissioners' reaction as "standard," and says they probably just haven't thought about the subject very much.

Dyer has. He says commissioners probably never stopped to think about the role that gun control played in regimes such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

"I think the quote comes out of Solzhenitsyn," Dyer said. "They sat in their death camps and wondered how it would have been for the KGB - if every night when they went out in the dark of the night and pounded on a door to seize someone - that when they opened the door, someone went 'bang.' They said no and shot them.

"Tell them no and make it count."

In control

The glasses that sit atop Dyer's nose are made for working. They're the large, square, gold-rimmed variety with lenses that are much bigger than the small "stylish" spectacles of today.

Dyer's glasses are good for reading and good for seeing the big picture, he says.

"People live in the moment these days," Dyer said. "Sometimes in the moment you get into constraints on what you can see."

That isn't a problem for Dyer. He spends a good deal of his time looking back. He's an avid reader of history. Dyer said as a 7- or 8-year-old boy, he started reading about the Civil War and slavery, and was always struck by how many "otherwise good people" thought slavery was acceptable.

But he goes back even further to point to the writings that have done more than any other to shape his views on guns and the right to bear arms. For that, he pulls out Machiavelli, the Italian political philosopher who lived from 1469 to 1527 - who famously said if a man must choose, "it is better to be feared than loved."

Dyer, though, doesn't babble about any of that "feared or loved" stuff that is in every Western Civilization textbook, and that has made Machiavellian a synonym for sadistic. Instead, Dyer points to one of the philosopher's lesser known books, "The Discourses." He said a major point stuck with him after reading the book.

"Government needs to be controlled, and citizens need to do the controlling," Dyer said. "And it goes from there."

'A spare tire'

Dyer - a former diesel mechanic who is on a disability retirement from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway - can imagine what some people think of him. The "tinfoil hat brigade," his synonym for crazy or extreme, is how he's heard it referred to.

He's fine with that. Dyer's history books have told him that people who stand up for civil rights have been marginalized before. He should be no different, because to Dyer, concealed carry is a civil rights issue.

"The concepts behind the Second Amendment are immortal, so to speak," Dyer said. "They are basic truths. The freedom to defend yourself is fundamental. It would sort of be like someone passing a law saying you shouldn't be breathing today.

"The government did not grant you that right. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant you that right. What it says is that government can't infringe upon that right."

But Dyer said he knows that may be too philosophical for some. So he tells people to look in the trunk of their car for a reminder of why carrying a firearm might be a good idea.

Most cars have a spare tire. Most days, you don't need it. But when you need it, you need it. Dyer said it is the same way with a concealed gun.

"Every now and then it comes in handy," Dyer said. "There are people who have found out it comes in real handy in certain situations."

Comments

jonas 6 years, 9 months ago

Maybe it just means that appealing to the second amendment as proving your position, one way or the other, is a logical fallacy, impossible, and needs to be stopped. It is highly clear that our society has changed substantially since the founders created the bill of rights, especially in the armaments abilities, and in the nature of community. A well organized citizen militia is unlikely to happen or be successful in any context, certainly not by the simple addition of a concealed carry law. So it's really arguing, to my mind, apples and oranges. I take that back, it's a way of oversimplifying the issue in the face of any real defensible position.

There are plenty of good reasons to allow this bill to stand, that don't require the mismanagement of the second amendment.

0

FROC29USMC 6 years, 9 months ago

Anyone claiming that the US Supreme Court has declared that a "well regulated militia" placed by the founding fathers in the second amendment meant the National Guard, is most incorrect, and they are spreading a falsehood. There was no National Guard at the time of the writing of the constitution and the bill of rights; secondly if anyone thinks they are correct in stating that the Supreme Court has settled this issue and stated that the second amendment does not extend to individual rights, nothing could be further from the truth. There has never been a ruling by the court stating this, further more the United Stated Attorney General has stated that the second amendment is indeed an individual right, just as is the first amendment, which I quote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". And the second amendment is in the same context, it is an individual right, and again I quote" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" The key wording in both of these amendments is the wording" The right of the people" The Bill of Rights does not jump around as to who the rights belong to, they are clear in there wording that they are individual rights of the people and, not local, state, federal or collective rights, but individual rights. I learned this in grade school in Wichita in the 60s. People need to take the time to research their history before quoting historical facts. And read the law review's before making claims as to court rulings. No matter what your stand on gun control, when you quote false and misleading information you only damage your position and creditability. Frankly I am pleased that the great people of Kansas can now exercise their lawful rights to carry if they so chose. Though I no longer live in this great state, I grew up there and I have nothing but the greatest respect for the people of Kansas and know they will exercise their rights and responsibilities in a lawful manner.

0

max1 6 years, 9 months ago

July 05, 2007 http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1285735.html He was straddling Sheda on the ground when Sheda pulled the pistol from his pocket. Hogan wrestled it from Sheda, put the barrel under his chin and shot him.

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/tom_waits/small_change_got_rained_on_with_his_own_38.html Small Change got rained on with his own thirty-eight

0

GeorgeH 6 years, 9 months ago

Staff04 said: "I am not concerned about law abiding, resopnsible gun owners carrying firearms. I would prefer to know who is." If you're not concerned about the law-abiding carrying guns, then why do you want to know which of them are carrying? If the law allows open carry only, then only the law-abiding will carry openly. Criminals will always carry concealed REGARDLESS of what the law allows.

Windlass said: "Bear arms refers to military service..." If this is true, then why does Pennsylvania's State Constitution (adopted in 1776) say "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." People don't serve in a military capacity in defense of themselves.

0

StephenCCH 6 years, 9 months ago

There is no "duty to retreat" in Kansas.

A repeated question here has been how do you tell the people carrying lawfully from the criminals. Answer: For the most part you don't. Chances are if you encounter one of the 7868 (as of 1 June) licensed citizens, you'll never know it. Same thing if you pass by a criminal with a gun, you'll never know. "conceal 1: to prevent disclosure or recognition of 2: to place out of sight" Failing that, the easy test is that the criminals are the ones committing crimes "criminal 1: one who has committed a crime 2: a person who has been convicted of a crime"

Last I checked, most people don't go around lifting up jackets to check others for guns. Police don't either (something about the 4th amendment I think). It's pretty easy for the police to tell if the license is fake, there is after all a license number that they can check.

Violence is a fact of life. There is no known way to completely eliminate criminal violence. It is widely accepted that violence applied in self defense or in the defense of others is permissible (the existence of law enforcement is evidence of such). The firearm is a tool that allow greater equality in conflict. There was criminal violence long before the invention of the gun.

It's not an issue of manliness or whether or not I'm a "pu**y". I've studied martial arts for years but that doesn't make me Chuck Norris. There are plenty of criminally minded people that can present a deadly threat to me without the benefit of weapons (firearms, knives or other). When one considers the elderly, disabled, or those just not genetically inclined one thing becomes clear: the right of self defense is self evident, firearms are for equality.

I must point out that SB 418 is the "Personal and Family Protection Act". It has nothing to do with reducing crime rates, protecting the public, or supplementing law enforcement. It will not significantly affect crime rates. Approximately 1 in 265 Kansans is licensed. Situations where a gun is need for defense are rare. The likelihood of someone licensed defending herself from violence is extremely low. The only case I'm aware of so far involved a man with a license issued from out of state.

0

stare 6 years, 9 months ago

One potential future prediction. If Kansas does not now have a 'castle doctrine' law, which removes any duty to retreat for a person, if they have a legal right to be where they are, they may meet deadly force with deadly force. Most such laws prevent prosecution for such self-defense shootings, and prevent civil suits by the perpetrator or his/her family. When such laws are debated and implemented, the gun-grabbers go through the similar wails and moans as do the implementations of concealed carry laws. In this case, though, the leftists like to call such laws 'Make My Day' laws. Again blood in the streets is predicted. Of course, that never happens either. Those determined to ban guns never stop using the same tactics to scare the public, and some people go on listening to them and obtain the majority of their knowledge of the subject from such sources. Unfortunately, the major media with the exception of John Stossel at ABC excepting Fox News, are the worst of the professional moaners and wailers society.

Enjoy your new-found freedom!

0

stare 6 years, 9 months ago

Atreides has a simple misunderstanding of how the Supreme Court functions. One has to have a case to go to the Supremes. The case of Parker vs. District of Columbia might be such a case. It is up to the mayor (and maybe city/district counsel) to decide whether to appeal the appellate court's decision.

You're flat wrong about the Supremes ever having set down a decision stating that the 2nd Amendment applies to the collective rights of all citizens. The case that the grabbers love to misuse I think maybe it was Webber, or something like that occurred in the 30's. The issue at hand was whether it was appropriate that he had a constitutional right to possess a sawed off shotgun. The plaintiff was dead by the time the case got to the SC. His attorney said basically nothing. The court held that the sawed-off shotgun was not an appropriate gun for the militia. They did this, in fact, in total error. In WW1, the shotgun was used to great effect even got the nickname 'trench broom' or something of the sort.

The research of John Lott has demonstrated that violent crime has gone down in the years following adoption of a 'shall-issue' concealed carry permit law. That is in every state that has adopted such a law. Statistics show that the people with a concealed carry license are 800 times less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen. License holders are 300 times less likely to commit a gun crime than the average citizen.

0

stare 6 years, 9 months ago

Pre-wrote this. Apparently will need 2 or 3 posts.

Poster kocrime ought to take a few minutes to check out projection in some psychology books. The article did a great job of describing Mr. ??s thoughts about carrying a gun. He's in his late 50's, disabled physically, and potentially has vision problems. He'd be a fool to try to prove his manhood with his fists against younger, faster, stronger, meaner adversaries. Check out your own panties if you're worried about finding cats down there.

Poster Fatty_McButterpants is just plain wrong. Canada has more than double the violent crimes that the US has. England is approaching triple the numbers. Yes, the US is high in murders with guns, but not nearly so high as the Brady Bunch make it sound, because they always throw in the suicides which always outnumber the homicides. The Us is actually somewhere near the middle of the pack for violent crime in 1st world nations.

Atreides is more full of bunk than any other poster I read. But, what he/she had to say has been said many times by the anti-gun crowd. There have been about 80 scholarly research efforts into the 2nd Amendment. About 70 of them have come down on the side of the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. Of those remaining studies which have the opposite result tho the Brady Bunch has repeatedly lied and said that the 'vast majority' of such studies came down on the side of a collective right all of them appeared to have been done by staffers of the Brady outfit, or paid for by them.

0

Windlass 6 years, 9 months ago

Text derivative: To supplement its obvious inadequacy, NRA proponents turn to philology, examining the language of the Second Amendment. But if they are inadequate as historians, they are ludicrous as philologists, as one can see from the way they treat the term "bear arms." Don Kates writes in the Michigan Law Review that the amendment clearly refers to personal weapons, since "bear" means "carry," and a person cannot carry certain military weapons, like artillery. This gets things exactly backwards. "Bear arms" refers to military service, which is why the plural is used one does not bear arm, or bear an arm. The word means, etymologically, "equipment" (from the root ar-* in verbs like ararisko, to fit out). It refers to all the equipage of war. Thus "bear arms" can be used of naval as well as artillery warfare, since the profession of arms refers to all military callings. In fact, the only regular use of "arm" in the singular refers to branches of the military the mounted arm, the naval arm, etc. William Shakespeare called war itself "arms," and Hamlet's "take arms against a sea of troubles" was a military metaphor. A whole series of uses shows that "arms" means military service in general to be under arms (sub armis), to call to arms (ad arma vocare), to take up arms (arma capere), to lay down one's arms (arma ponere).

The Robert Whitehill's and the Stephen Halbrook's of history have misconstrued the 2nd Amendment. They ransacked it.

0

elevenbravo 6 years, 9 months ago

One point of "concealed' is the criminal doesn't know who is carrying and who is not.

See it keeps 'em guessing.

This one is for the "let's just ban handgun or certain firearms or all firearms". How's that working for cocaine or meth? How about when we tried it with booze?

You would have two groups of criminals.

  1. The criminal type that exist now, someone who will prey on the weak and defenseless.

  2. All of us who refuse to be weak and defenseless.

The sad part is it is easier for someone who is legal to buy/own a firearm to obtain illegal drugs that it is to legally purchase a firearm.

0

DaveR 6 years, 9 months ago

C.W. Klebe replied to my question a few moments ago:


DaveR: If I see someone who is carrying heat, how do I know he is doing so legally?

C.W. Klebe: Basically, unless you are law enforcement, a licensee does not have to disclose to you the nature of their carrying. Licensees are of a confidential nature and not subject to public disclosure (K.S.A. 75-7c06(b); only when asked by law enforcement is a licensee required to disclose his status (K.S.A. 75-7c03(b)). The best thing to do if faced with a situation like this is to contact local law enforcement and have them handle the situation


This was IN WRITING.

So if I see anyone carrying, I call 911. Let them mess with it. Carry a gun, get to know your local cop.

0

staff04 6 years, 9 months ago

50-

You had me...right up until you said, "its a known fact."

In that case, I guess I am no one...

0

50YearResident 6 years, 9 months ago

04: here is your original post (your opinion) I would support open carry for responsible gun owners in a heartbeat. Open carry actually has some potential to deter crime and gun violence. Concealed carry has, in my opinion, zero potential to do the same. Actually, I believe that concealed carry encourages gun violence by not deterring the potential criminal until it is too late.

Now my opinion: Open carry would make targets of permit holders because the bad guys can identify them by their open carry and disarm or shoot them before committing the intended crime. The deterrence to the criminal that you desire is the criminal not knowing who has or might have a concealed weapon. The fear of their own personal injury is the deterrent. Open carry alarms everyone in the immediate area, its a known fact.
No legal concealed carrier is going to pull their gun on you unless you are the first aggressor.

0

staff04 6 years, 9 months ago

50: You clearly didn't read and/or understand my post. There is no panic. The only time I panic is when someone reaches under their shirt or jacket and pulls out a handgun without me having any warning. As I stated, I am not concerned about law abiding, resopnsible gun owners carrying firearms. I would prefer to know who is. You can't argue with an opinion.

0

jonas 6 years, 9 months ago

Or it could be a personal thing. You really just feel the need to blame anything and everything on society don't you? Is that because you can then go on to blame it on academia?

0

Godot 6 years, 9 months ago

If an individual has to carry a gun to feel safe, then our society has failed.

0

50YearResident 6 years, 9 months ago

staff04, if all legal carriers had their gun in plain sight on their belt holster, the criminal element would still hide theirs out of sight anyway just like now. The only thing to be gained would be the panic caused in people like you that get terrified by seeing weapons openly displayed. The real criminal would just wait till the open carriers left the area to commit his intended crime. He would know when it is safe to continue his unlawful deed. The element of the unknown (the possibility of a concealed carrier close by) is what makes this work against criminals.

0

JJE007 6 years, 9 months ago

DaveR, It is easy to conceal a lethal weapon and lethality is not the only deterrent to crime. Do you believe in the death penalty?!

I am, generally, a hopeless kind of a guy and am able to sense a similar and extreme helplessness in your logic. I still fail to "get" your bizarre trust and comfort in a thing beyond your sphere of influence.

What do you trust? If all is hopeless, then does that mean it is time for us to surrender to "the powers that be"? I just don't see it that way and I think you are responding to a designed perception, rather than reality.

What failed and oppressive society should we wish to inhabit, unarmed? I don't quite understand the hopeless logic. Are we "devo" or not?~)

0

JJE007 6 years, 9 months ago

Wilbur_Nether says: Dyer's idealistic worldview is also sadly mistaken. The argument that concealed carry will ward off criminals-or at least allow one to a show-down with them-proceeds from the assumption that all criminals are rational, self-interested individuals who make decisions in their own best interests. I suspect the truth is otherwise.

So...what? , Let's say that all criminals are stupid. Are all of them so stupid that none of them will be influenced in the least knowing that someone near(nearer, and perhaps more volatile?, than the man's police) their crime scenes will be no threat to them? I think it may behoove us all to realize that the NRAers are ready and willing, if not able, to defend us from the criminal element. I believe that they might hide,quivering, behind the twinkies in a robbery but perhaps a criminal will not be aware of that. I would also posit that one reason they might hold off in shooting a perp or, accidentally, a neighbor is that they are afraid of hurting their GUN rights!~)

0

DaveR 6 years, 9 months ago

PS.

A society in which you need to pack is a failed society. At their most famous, Dodge City, Tombstone, et al, were failed towns.

A healthy society in which people feel the need to pack is a paranoid society in need of leadership. Fat chance getting any in a country that's militarily armed to the teeth the way we are.

0

DaveR 6 years, 9 months ago

So I'm with Roger O. If 15 people walk into a bar & they're all carrying heat, how do you know all 15 are legal? Do they have government-issued tattoos etched into their foreheads?

If I was a criminal, I'd LOVE concealed carry. The more people who carry, the easier it is for the unlicensed to slip in among them.

And what is this concealed crap, anyway? If you're going to carry a gun, it should be one-shot lethal. That's traditionally a .38 mag or a .45. They're not small. Unless it's the dead of winter & you're bundled up, you have to dress quite well to "conceal" anything. In summer - roughly half the year - you stand out like the insecure fool that you are. Undercover cops have never been hard to spot. For that matter, the bigger you are, the easier to conceal. I guess the small among us, who will never be able to conceal, will just have to get by with bravado & a smile. Hear, hear, for equality! Conceal is unfair to the small. Everyone, big, medium & small carries equally, or no one carries. That means slung on your hip. The wild west was the way it was for good reasons.

And no, smaller weapons are flat-out dangerous. A .22 cap shooter gets the same response from police as a .45. So it has to have the same effect. As a .22 never will, there's no point in messing with it. You simply risk getting shot for no reason.

So you're going to stop the guy who's packing & ask him for his license? Isn't this a paradox, like the famous riddle, "I am lying"? If he's legit, then presumably he'll show you. Unless he's been hit on every day for the last two months by self-appointed vigilantes. If he's not legit, how hard is it to fake the license, and if it's under scratched, dirty acetate (typical wallet display), could you spot a fake at a glance?

It would be far better to not have concealed carry. We could then presume that ALL those who carry are illegal & act accordingly. With concealed carry we can only HOPE they're legal, while presuming otherwise.

0

Wilbur_Nether 6 years, 9 months ago

Dyer's idealistic worldview is also sadly mistaken. The argument that concealed carry will ward off criminals--or at least allow one to a show-down with them--proceeds from the assumption that all criminals are rational, self-interested individuals who make decisions in their own best interests. I suspect the truth is otherwise.

0

JJE007 6 years, 9 months ago

Firearms really seem to frighten people, so perhaps we should have concealed, concealed carry!~) Wait. We do. It's not legal, though. I do believe that open carry was legal in Lawrence in the not too distant past.

I guess I'm not sure that people should be quite so frightened about law abiding people carrying personal protection. I do understand. I was goldangt afeart of firearms until I was about 38. I used to curse at every gunshot, when hiking in the fall and felt like I was holding a release button activated (hold down or die/kill) nuclear weapon when being presented with a gun.

Perhaps growing up when most of the shows on TV were about some imaginary wild weapon slinging west or pervy, private eyes or other gun toters contributed to that. It's worse today, what with all those mass murderers and terrorists out there!.?

I'm not planning on getting a concealed carry license. The process is too invasive and the benefits are barely there for this Lawrencian.

I do believe that we all have a natural right to protect ourselves. That should go without saying. I also believe that things seem pretty safe on the streets of dodge sanity. I do not think I'll prepare for the horrors of Martial Law, just yet, or count on Marshall law to protect me, or trust in the beneficent nature of the multinational corporatocracy. I also don't think that the idea of being a thorn in their, or having a thorn at my lawful, side is necessarily a great horror for the public.

I will keep a few guns and hope that I can continue to use them for enjoyable pursuits and not emergencies. Y'all should go shoot some targets. It's a lot of fun and exceptionally safe.

http://shoplocal.planetdiscover.com/sp?aff=9&catId=12021800&address=66044&maxDistance=30 http://gunclub.hostlss.net/

0

staff04 6 years, 9 months ago

50 year:

So you'd rather have 15 people with concealed weapons, 5 (or more) of whom might be illegally carrying those weapons?

At least we CAN check those who are carrying firearms to determine whether they are doing it legally if htey are carrying them in sight of all. At least then, people who do not want to shop/eat/commute in the presence of people who are carrying firearms have the choice. With concealed carry, I don't have the option. I am forced to move through my daily life not knowing which direction the gunfire will come from in the case of an emergency.

Frankly, I'll choose to know who has a gun.

0

macon47 6 years, 9 months ago

hey, you are in lawence ks drugs are good guns are good

WE ARE COOL

support your local drug dealer the SAME nice guy that sells you pot

SELLS crack and guns to your kids BANG BANG

attend the hip hop show of your choice and have a great day

0

Sigmund 6 years, 9 months ago

I've read both articles profiling Ms. Roy and Mr. Dyer. I have to say LJW did a good job of finding two very likable people on opposite sides of the issue to represented their positions. While these articles are unlikely to change any minds I think these two portraits are first class journalism.

0

50YearResident 6 years, 9 months ago

Concealed Carry: You are sitting in McDonalds eating your lunch, 15 people walk in dressed in casual attire and a couple in suits, 5 of these have a concealed permit with a gun under their shirt out of sight. Are you going to get nervous about your safety and get up quickly to exit the restaurant? I don't think anyone would get up and leave before finishing their meal. Why? Because there is no perceived threat of being harmed and the permit holders will never reveal their presents unless they are threatened with harm to their self and I wouldn't blame them if you were attacked and they didn't come to your aid because of liability consequences.

0

Atreides 6 years, 9 months ago

timetospeakup: I am well aware that the National Guard wasn't in existence in 1787, but individual state militia's were. The National Guard absorbed existing state militias into it later under roughly the same principle. For instance, the Kansas National Guard is our de facto state militia. This is in compliance with the second ammendment that we have a well regulated militia .The National Guard is ordered out at the command of the Governor and/or at the request of the federal government. That's our well regulated militia that bears arms for the people of Kansas. Mr. Dyer and company thinks that no regulations on firearms should apply though it explictly states differently in the 2nd Ammendment that he calls immortal. By his misreading of it and his logic, any private citizen should constitutionally have their own rocket launcher, suitcase nuke or ICBM too??

By the way, the Founding Fathers of our beloved Republic didn't have to contend with psychos goin' postal in their workplaces, schools and markets, either. Handguns were in the primitive stages in those days, and the most available firearm weapon was the cumbersome musket.

0

50YearResident 6 years, 9 months ago

staff04 wants open carry for law abiding, responsible gun owners, to deter crime. Lets say this is passed into law. Now you are sitting in McDonalds eating your lunch and 15 people walk in with guns on their hip openly displayed. Who is going to check to see if each of the fifteen has a legal permit? How are you going to tell if 5 or more of these people are criminals with felony records. Do you think you would actually feel safe finishing your meal? My guess is the restaurant would be evacuated immediately except for the 15 carriers and the swat team would be called. Can you see a problem with open carry yet?

0

roger_o_thornhill 6 years, 9 months ago

larrylarry, you very much missed the point of what I posted. My point is HOW DO YOU KNOW IF SOMEONE HAS A PERMIT AND IS RESPONSIBLE? If all you see is a gun, how do you know? Are there badges that armed, LAW ABIDING citizens wear to distinguish themselves?
And if you want to talk about nervous???What are you nervous of that you feel the need pack heat? Or is it machismo? Why would you make so many ridiculous assumptions about me--especially based on your obvious misunderstanding of my post? I dare say that if you and I were in an auto accident, you would unsnap your holster simply based on my physical appearance as soon as I got out of the car. I can tell you from past experience that people who have run into my car get really nervous when I get out to talk to them. It doesn't matter that I am a nice guy who is not at all likely to hurt anyone. All that matters to them at that point is that they just ran into the car of someone that is 2-3 times their size. What does it take for someone to feel sufficiently threatened as to shoot me? If I raise my voice? If I reach for my insurance information but the other driver thinks I'm going for my gun? And then there's the unstable types. The ones who don't care about any laws and carry guns whenever they want anyways. How do they look different from the responsible, law abiding type?

But at any rate, this is way off point from my first post which simply posed the question of whether or not a weapon, concealed or not, creates an inherently unfair situation for any type of confrontational social encounter where the possessor of the gun will have (possibly even unintended) advantages over the other person involved?

0

OldEnuf2BYurDad 6 years, 9 months ago

"Teach gun safety in schools? Please tell me you were being sarcastic?"

It's my understanding that there are already school districts that are doing this. The idea makes a lot of sense: kids die when they find guns and DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ARE DANGEROUS. So, if kids learn about guns in school, and if they find one in a drawer at home, they will understand the dangers and not accidentally shoot their little brother. That is what kills kids: access to guns, but no access to gun education. As long as idiots are out there failing to secure their guns we need to consider the value of teaching all children gun safety.

0

staff04 6 years, 9 months ago

I would support open carry for responsible gun owners in a heartbeat. Open carry actually has some potential to deter crime and gun violence. Concealed carry has, in my opinion, zero potential to do the same. Actually, I believe that concealed carry encourages gun violence by not deterring the potential criminal until it is too late.

0

jumpin_catfish 6 years, 9 months ago

self defense is a basic human right, guns are the current technology I'm sure the future will bring better less lethal forms of self defense but you use what you got

0

coolmom 6 years, 9 months ago

right kanshawk it isnt us lawabiding citizens that are the problem so why the uproar over concealed carry? i certainly think it is a good place to begin.

0

Jamesaust 6 years, 9 months ago

"The 2nd Amendment say "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" It doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms:"

Text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Does "militia" appear invisible? How do you adopt an interpretation that means "unregulated" when the text says "well regulated"? Pray tell: what is the NRA "regulation" spin? (Like most gun owners, I don't pay dues so I don't get the propaganda sheets.)

0

Jamesaust 6 years, 9 months ago

Marion -

The government's militia force for the Whiskey rebellion was roughly the size of the ENTIRE army in the Revolutionary War. By its overwhelming force, it marched into Western Pennsylvania where the rebels quickly disbursed. (As Jefferson wrote, the rebels "could never be found.") A few men were imprisoned, where one died, while two were convicted of treason and sentenced to death by hanging. But Washington, having so clearly demonstrated that no rebellion by a bunch of gun-nuts was ever going to be successful pardoned them on the grounds that one was a "simpleton," and the other, "insane."

Sounds just like the gun-nuts of today.

0

kanshawk 6 years, 9 months ago

its not the people who buy the gun legally and who get licenses to carry them you should be worried about.

0

swede 6 years, 9 months ago

Just my .02 cents (and I'm sure some of you out there will show how smart you are by telling me how wrong I am).

The 2nd Amendment say "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" It doesn't say "the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms..."

Why doesn't there seem to be any doubt as to the "peoples" rights in the other amendments? Only in the second, does this appear to be in question.

0

50YearResident 6 years, 9 months ago

klattu says....What is the reasoning behind concealed firearms? If the criminals are so afraid of gun carriers wouldn't an exposed firearm be more discouraging to them?

CC is not to scare criminals, it is for self defense.

klattu says....It seems to me that the only reason for concealed guns is to be able to go places where it's illegal to carry guns, and doesn't that make the concealed gun carrier one of the criminals?

CC people are only going about their daily business, not looking for trouble.

klattu says.....If you want to carry a gun for self defense where it is legal to do so, fine. There's no reason to be sneaky about it unless you're up to something fishy.

He/She wants CC holders to revert to the old West Ways with 45's strapped to their hip. Can you imagine the fear this would cause?

CC is for self defense stupid!

0

Marion Lynn 6 years, 9 months ago

Jamesasst wrote:

"Tell that to the rebels they shot or hung."

Marion writes:

Thank you for the spin and the lies!

According to the website to which YOU referred the gentle readers:

"In the end, a dozen or so men were arrested, sent to Philadelphia to trial and released after pardons by Washington."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........................

Well. Jamesasst....what is correct?

You SPIN or the historic record?

0

Reality_Check 6 years, 9 months ago

So, if the violent crime rate goes UP, can we expect the support of the gun lobby to repeal the law? Just curious (even though I probably already know the answer.)

0

KLATTU 6 years, 9 months ago

What is the reasoning behind concealed firearms? If the criminals are so afraid of gun carriers wouldn't an exposed firearm be more discouraging to them?

It seems to me that the only reason for concealed guns is to be able to go places where it's illegal to carry guns, and doesn't that make the concealed gun carrier one of the criminals?

If you want to carry a gun for self defense where it is legal to do so, fine. There's no reason to be sneaky about it unless you're up to something fishy.

0

Jamesaust 6 years, 9 months ago

"I beg to differ: It is well documented that several of the founding fathers considered that the purpose of the second amendment was to prevent treason against the PEOPLE by the government."

It is NOT well documented. And repeating NRA b/s doesn't make it any more documented.

Indeed, the Constitution was enacted in the immediate aftermath of what was to be called "Shay's rebellion," which demonstrated the weakness of the existing government. It was a key 'last straw' that led to public acceptance of the need for a constitution that would allow the government a firm grip on power as opposed to mobs using their arms "to prevent treason against the people by government."

Indeed, it wasn't even through George Washington's term in office that the militia's had to be called up to PUT DOWN another rebellion, this one to be termed the "Whiskey rebellion." No doubt if the rebels could speak to us now they too would be mouthing drivel like 'protecting the people from treason by the government.' Here's a brief summary you won't find in your NRA literature: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/

Sorry but the Founders of our Constitution would be amazed that they'd supposedly legitimatized treason to their own government. Tell that to the rebels they shot or hung.

0

itsjustmyopinion 6 years, 9 months ago

cynical,

What an appropriate screen name. Yes there are many assumptions in this scenario; however, not having a gun was clearly not one of them. If you would have read what I wrote and not not read what you wanted to hear, you would have clearly seen that. Nonetheless, with only 3000 characters allowed in responses, there was not room for all the what ifs. Furthermore, I did acknowlege that I may be killed while defending my family, and I would never assume what the assailant is thinking, nor would I care. I do, however know what I am thinking, and I am thinking I sure is heck am not going to stand by while someone attempts to take my family from me. You do what you want, or feel you need to though.

I do agree with you on two points. I hope that it never happens to you or I, and I hope that I am not near you in the unlikely event that it happens to you.

By the way, you can call me what you will (nut), but that will not get you hurt by me. Thanks for responding to my writing, but that was pretty weak.

0

insiderinfo 6 years, 9 months ago

Keep up with the Yellow House Business illegal investigation http://yellowhousestore.blogspot.com/

0

50YearResident 6 years, 9 months ago

I have noticed that opponents of concealed carry have the opinion that if/when a weapon is drawn in self defense that the person it is pointed at is going to be killed. The facts are that lethal force seldom happens as a result of presenting the handgun. Most of these occurrences result in the attacker running like hell or discontinuing the attack by giving up. Even if shots are fired most of these criminals live to go to jail. Ask any policeman about how many perps they have killed while responding to violent crimes. Most of them have not even fired their weapons at a criminal, let alone killed any. So why do you think an ordinary citizen carrying a gun would automatically kill everyone he encounters?

0

jrlii 6 years, 9 months ago

Jamesaust wrote: "Besides, the Second Amendment does not serve as a green light for treasonous rebellion against the American government. Rather it follows centuries of English practice to require the populace to be armed so they could be called upon BY the government to act as a militia. "

I beg to differ: It is well documented that several of the founding fathers considered that the purpose of the second amendment was to prevent treason AGAINST the PEOPLE by the GOVERNMENT.

The purpose was to enable the next American Revolution when (not if) it became necessary. They had just overthrown their central government, and in erecting a new central government they were deeply suspicious of that government, and probably would be amazed that it has survived so long.

0

itsjustmyopinion 6 years, 9 months ago

Lifelong,

One would assume that you never let your children near water either. Pools kill more children than guns do. I respect your opinion. You use your alarms and take all your precautions. I use them as well; however, I am a veteran. I work the streets. I have worked in Denver and Kansas City at night and day. I know what goes on and how the criminal works. I know what it will take to stop it from happening to me or my family, and that is what I will do. I owe it to them.

0

jrlii 6 years, 9 months ago

I don't know about Mr. Dyer, but I know I've had to shy off from people 'cause they look aggressive. Some times much smaller guys. With a gun, I still would, no need to provoke a confrontation. However it is nice to have an option were he to come after me. Like Mr. Dyer I'm a bit of a bookworm and learning to fight has never been a priority.

Learning to shoot is a much smaller investment of time than learning to fight, be it with Asian or Western style. That is why muskets rapidly replaced the bow & arrow: While they were hugely more expensive and slower to shoot, their effective use could be taught in weeks instead of years.

I can't understand why so many women are afraid of guns: They need 'em WAY worse than men do: While there are plenty of guys twice my weight, the same guy would outweigh a petite woman by a factor of three!

I suppose a large part is the association of guns with aggressors in the popular media. Indeed, almost all of the firearms use I can recall from the media have been by aggressors: Either criminals committing crimes, police enforcing laws. or soldiers following orders.

The use of firearms in the media by a victim defending herself is vanishingly rare, almost unheard of. I'm sure it has happened, but much, much less frequently than in real life. According to somebody's statistics (JPFO's maybe), several dozen people have defended themselves with guns in the time I have spent writing this response. Six times a minute. Most have not involved shooting, but none the less they have prevented themselves from being victimized.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 9 months ago

"The government did not grant you that right. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant you that right. What it says is that government can't infringe upon that right."

That says it all. Apply that to freedom of speech, which allows citizens to refer to Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rice as murderers and war criminals etc etc..........it's all very, very simple.

You live with me walking around strapped and I live with your comments.

Again, simple.

0

TtownKUlivin 6 years, 9 months ago

When they wrote that 2nd amendment, do you think the forefathers were thinking "in the moment"? I mean, considering they had just came from a large revolutionary war and were wondering if the British would try to make another effort to retake the states. The law as it stands is fine and there should be no reason to provide a class that overrides the system. What criminal actually goes in to City Hall? Places like bars, where confrontations can get very heated would then turn into an old fashioned wild west shoot-out.

0

thunder_x 6 years, 9 months ago

I agree with Jonas, and I wonder how people deal with situations that irritate and arent life threating. They just wanna look that jerk "in the eye and say no".

0

timetospeakup 6 years, 9 months ago

fletch - did you miss the robbery in topeka in january that got stopped because of a concealed carrier from oklahoma?

0

macon47 6 years, 9 months ago

kids and guns dont mix only a fool keeps guns in a home with small children (except maybe a drug dealer or dog breeder)

i thought i read where australia banned guns and everyone turned them in but the thugs

and a year later crime had more than doubled

0

Lifelong_Lawrencian 6 years, 9 months ago

itsjustmyopinion-

It is my opinion that my family is safer because I do not have a handgun in my home under my pillow or in my nightstand or car and because my shotgun and .243 are safely locked away with their trigger locks locked. Certainly one can think of situations where one would be advantaged in having a handgun, yet I feel there are many more where it could be a disadvantage even in the hands of a convenience store clerk. There are other more effective ways to defend one's property and family. An alarm system makes a great deterrent. I just purchased a new car with one of those smart keys. You just put it in your pocket and push a button to start the car. If a carjacker wants your car, give it to him because he won't get far. If you happen to be in the car, just toss it out the window. I realize that handguns are probably here to stay, but it would be nice to see some common sense limits put in place on guns that the NRA remains opposed to.

0

Jamesaust 6 years, 9 months ago

Hmmm....apparently I'm the only one well-read enough in Solzhenitsyn to spot it.

First, the 'quote' is a parody of Solzhenitsyn. He said something similar once (that I'm aware). He did not mention guns.

He was talking about the 'what if' of resistance. What was it about the Russian soul that made (sometimes) mass numbers of people not object, not resist. He doesn't really have answers to that question, just a lament that they did not.

In that context, the quote is: "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

Now, Dyer would no doubt stand corrected but say that its of no consequence - his point remains correct: guns are a means of resistance to an oppressor.

But, with respect to Dyer, THAT is NOT Solzhenitsyn point. He is focused on the nature of the Russian people and they - long before the Soviets - had become a people that were incapable of not following along, that EVEN IF they'd had guns - lots of guns - they still would not have resisted (much to their subsequent regret).

That doesn't sound like the American people to me at all, and so Dyer's point evaporates.

Besides, the Second Amendment does not serve as a green light for treasonous rebellion against the American government. Rather it follows centuries of English practice to require the populace to be armed so they could be called upon BY the government to act as a militia. (After all, there was no such thing in those centuries as a police force. Query: what changes in life would be necessary if there were no police at all, only an army?)

0

fletch 6 years, 9 months ago

"No shoot outs at McDonalds or road rage incidents like the opponents to the bill predicted. Looks like it's working to me."

That's specious reasoning. On the same logical line I could say that there haven't been any reported incidents where somebody with a concealed carry license ended up breaking up a crime.

0

cynical 6 years, 9 months ago

itsjustmyopinion, In your scenario, you assume the person does not have a gun or knife and is not very close to you. Do you think he will wait while you pull out your weapon? No, you will probably be shot or knifed when you make that move. And further I hope I'm never in that situation and I sincerely hope I do not have concealed carry nut next to me in the extremely unlikely event that happens.

0

jonas 6 years, 9 months ago

Not that it's likely to ever happen anyway.

Some people do need strange things to gain peace of mind, ne?

0

itsjustmyopinion 6 years, 9 months ago

Hey life long,

I am not worried about your safety. It is my safety and my familie's safety that I want to protect. If you don't care about a criminal carring a gun, that is your problem. Me, I have worked hard to get what I have, and I do not need some jerk carrying a gun illegally taking my family or my property from me.

0

itsjustmyopinion 6 years, 9 months ago

Thank you Mr. Dyer. Thanks for standing up and saying what needs to be said.

KOCRIME - You make a good point when you refer to the criminal as being what you said they are. You have a valid point about a man that needs a gun being such as well; however, I do not need a gun to make me feel or think that way. Nonetheless, a wise man knows not to bring fists to a gun fight.

Atreidis - Lets just disregard all our rights and let the criminals decide what we can do and can't. Let them decide what they can take from us or won't take.

Put yourself in a scenario. You pull up to fill you car with gas. Your wife and children are in the car. Another man walks up to you, pulls a gun out and says, "I am taking your car." What would you do? I hope I have a concealed gun. You can have the car, but I will not let you take my family. I will say, "no," and mean it. When he is looking down the barrell of my loaded 45, and my determined eye down the center of the sites, he will have no doubts as to my intention. If I do not have one, I will still fight, but I will probably be dead.

One may use the argument to call 911. Sure, go ahead, call them. Then wait to see if they can stop this person. I do not mean any disrepect for the fine men and women in blue; however, even if law enforcement does see them and give chase, now my family is envolved in a very dangerous high speed chase. Moreover, how will you react if law enforcemnt deems it unsafe to continue pursuit?

Don't get me wrong. I respect your opinion on guns, but I assure you it is not me you have to worry about carrying a gun. In fact, if you were in the above scenario, I would be the one you would want at the pump next to you. Oh, I know, what happens if you accidently shoot one of my family? I can not speak for others, but I believe I am more wise than that.

One may or may not view this next thought as relevant or not, but alow me to give something else to think about. We can take an 18 year old, send him/her to basic training (the majority of which does not envolve weapons training), give them a very deadly weapon, and then give them the responsibility to kill someone. We then trun around and tell them they are not responsible enough to drink a beer. Sorry, but it makes no sense.

Feel welcome to view my opinion to Mrs. Roy, which I hope to post by the end of the day.

0

mustang 6 years, 9 months ago

Taxpayer, Go to WWW.ksag.org and follow the links for CCH classes in Douglas County

0

Lifelong_Lawrencian 6 years, 9 months ago

LawLaw-

Reread my post. I mentioned nothing about CC. The basic argument that gun adovcates like yourself make is that guns make us safer. The problem is that this country abounds with guns that are all to accessible to those who are not as responsible as yourself. It makes violent crime more violent and much more common and convenient. When people are faced with a situation like Roger mentioned, guns make it far to easy to instinctively overreact, much like you did to my post.

0

Kat Christian 6 years, 9 months ago

50yearresident - does Granada and Last Call sound familiar? Guns incidents abound in this town. I agree there should be gun education in schools, how to handle one safely, when and how to appropriately use a gun. It is a constitutional right to own and bare a gun and I believe in the constitution. But once we began taking away constitutional rights on one right then it will begin to deterioate on other rights. I believe education, stricter backgroun checks and laws as to allowing mentally instable and persons with criminal records from owning a gun should be enforced.

0

50YearResident 6 years, 9 months ago

"Carry them on your belt" Sure, that's a good idea, just watch the customers exit the store when someone enters with a large gun on thier hip. Concealed, no one gets excited because there is no sign of a weapon and thus no cause for worry. Get it?

0

i_tching 6 years, 9 months ago

One thing a firearm does for you is it gives you the ability to look someone in the eye and say 'no,' and mean it," Dyer said.

So does syphillus.

0

LawrenceLawrence 6 years, 9 months ago

Roger-

What should this person think? How about this: "This person is a licensed gun carrier. If someone try's to take advantage of our vulnerable situation this strong, upright citizen can protect my unprotected a**."

If you're nervous because a licensed citizen is carrying a weapon, after they have taken classes and proven their ability to do so in a safe and reasonable manner, maybe you DO have something to be scared of. If this makes you nervous it can only be because you're hiding something---you're nervous because you know you've done something bad and that you have something to be nervous about. It make me happy to know that I will have my gun when I run into a shifty eyed fellow like you.

0

roger_o_thornhill 6 years, 9 months ago

I'm with dstavin. Carry 'em on yer belt. Wouldn't that be an even more effective deterrent? Who's going to target the person with a heater on their hip when looking to commit crime?

On another note, is there any thought as far as how these armed citizens will be perceived by the other non-gun-toting members of society in everyday interactions? Example: A car accident. Two cars collide at a 4way stop. Liability is in question. Exchanges get heated. One driver notices the shoulder holster under the jacket of the other driver. What is this person supposed to think? "Is this person one of the rational, law-abiding citizens who only carries that gun in order to protect himself and his loved ones from crime?" or "Is this someone who is going to shoot me if I don't acquiesce to their demand that the accident was MY fault?" Seems like unintentional bullying could be a side effect of this business.

0

LawrenceLawrence 6 years, 9 months ago

Lifelong-

There it is again. An anti-gun fanatic blowing things out of proportion!

"Would Mr. Dyer also advocate a citizen's right to carry a machine-gun, an RPG, a small tactical nuclear device? Does anyone actually think that allowing law abiding citizens to carry AK-47's, thereby making them more accessible to criminals albiet illegal, would make our cities saver?" What planet have you been living on? Assault weapons have nothing to do with concealed carry. Nor are they mentioned in the article because guess what?---assauly weapons have nothing to do with concealed carry! Oh no... The sky is falling... The sky is falling... Better run Lifelong. Society as we know it is at an end. There will be chaos everywhere! You better go and hide under your rock some more.

I fully advocate that you shut it.

0

timetospeakup 6 years, 9 months ago

Atreides - the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the national guard, the national guard wasn't established for over a hundred years after the 2nd amendment was written, so how could they be related?

0

Reality_Check 6 years, 9 months ago

So, according to the Concealed Carry lobby's logic, we should be seeing violent crime stats drop now, right? Should be quite obvious. And, if the stats actually RISE now, I'm sure they will support repealing the law.

Ha, ha, ha.

0

Reality_Check 6 years, 9 months ago

"The concepts behind the Second Amendment are immortal, so to speak," Dyer said.

How true, a "well regulated militia" is definitely a good concept. We have one called The National Guard, but we could always use another that is more focused on local law enforcement. Too bad neither has anything to do with concealed carry laws.

I wonder: Does he also think he should be able to carry inside an airport terminal?

0

mom_of_three 6 years, 9 months ago

Teach gun safety in schools? Please tell me you were being sarcastic?

I do not own a gun, don't plan to, and don't see the need. You can if you want to, I suppose.....

"it gives you the ability to look someone in the eye and say no." wouldn't he shoot you with his gun, before you said it, or do you plan on shooting him while you are saying it......Or do you hope the sight of a gun will make him more scared of you than you will be of him.

0

Lifelong_Lawrencian 6 years, 9 months ago

"The concepts behind the Second Amendment are immortal, so to speak," Dyer said. "They are basic truths. The freedom to defend yourself is fundamental. It would sort of be like someone passing a law saying you shouldn't be breathing today."

Would Mr. Dyer also advocate a citizen's right to carry a machine-gun, an RPG, a small tactical nuclear device? Does anyone actually think that allowing lawabiding citizens to carry AK-47's, thereby making them more accessible to criminals albiet illegal, would make our cities saver? If not, why should handguns?

Here's the point, and I don't see any getting around it. The U.S.'s fanatical aversion to any form of gun control makes this country one of the most dangerous "civilized" places to live on the planet with the highest murder rate and incarceration rate. Does it not make sense that outlawing assault weapons and handguns would make us safer?

0

macon47 6 years, 9 months ago

gorrillas in the mist with guns and butter, would make a great song

0

Taxpayer 6 years, 9 months ago

Can anyone tell me how do I go about getting a Kansas Concealed Carry license? Where can I find out what classes to take and when they are scheduled? I"m interested in classes in Douglas County.

0

Atreides 6 years, 9 months ago

These unrestricted gun advocates need to halt bringing the 2nd Ammendment into their spiel. A "well regulated militia" is our respective state's National Guard , and the Supreme Court has already proclaimed this a settled issue that said 2nd Ammendment does not extend to individuals. This Ammendment was added to the Bill of Rights due to some of the Founding Fathers' hostility to a large standing federal army. Members of said state militia's kept their guns in their home for the purpose of using them when called upon to do so by their state governments. If the NRA lobby is so adament that unrestricted ownership of firearms is a solid 2nd Ammendment issue, they would take it to the Supreme Court. They do not because they know that they will lose - even with the conservative activist high court that we have now. Instead, they bully members of Congress and do the end around on the 2nd Ammendment .

P.S. - How is this conceal and carry a "well regulated militia"?

0

jonas 6 years, 9 months ago

Nothing wrong with being able to carry a gun, my only wanted concession was to demand training to go with the permit, and they've done that. I won't ever carry one, and I won't worry about it. I can understand the idea that we'll all just start plugging away at each other, it seems like common sense to the cynical amongst us (and who's more cynical about human nature than your regular past moderate liberal?) but it's just not going to really be much of an issue, in reality. That's simply been shown to be fact, it's rather useless to deny it.

0

Deb Stavin 6 years, 9 months ago

I think if someone is carrying a gun, the gun should NOT be concealed.

0

Fatty_McButterpants 6 years, 9 months ago

Americans and their guns...

It's the American obsession with guns, violence, and crime - plus, the "I can do what I want to, it's my right" attitude - that cause us to have the highest crime rate of any country in the world. Heck, add together three different countries and they won't equal us. Maybe, just maybe, carrying guns isn't the answer? Maybe we need to have a nationwide paradigm shift.

0

Moderateguy 6 years, 9 months ago

It appears that the LJW is embarking on a CCH series. Please LJW, try to create some sense of balance. I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure there will be plenty of pictures of big "Dirty Harry" revolvers pointed directly at the viewer.

Finally, law-abiding citizens have the right to make their own decision about their own personal safety. What a concept. OK, so you say "just call 911." What are you going to do for the next 5-10 minutes until law enforcement arrives? I'm sure your attacker would love to hear your thoughts on why all guns should be illegal.

0

kocrime 6 years, 9 months ago

"It gives you the ability to look someone in the eye and say no" ... I'd have to say that makes you a puy if you need a gun to be able to look someone in the eye and say no. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for handguns for personal protection (if you've had the proper training and aren't a felon), but when you start needing one to feel like a man, well then you're not much of a man huh? Which is why so many murders these days involve handguns. You take a guy that's a puy to begin with, give him a gun, and he feels like such a big man that he doesn't hesitate to pull the trigger to settle a dispute.

0

50YearResident 6 years, 9 months ago

The law has been in effect for 6 months now and there has not been one incident of abuse from the the concealed license holders. No shoot outs at McDonalds or road rage incidents like the opponents to the bill predicted. Looks like it's working to me.

0

none2 6 years, 9 months ago

Everybody should carry at least one hand gun: men, women, children. The more the merrier. It's what Jesus would want.

0

macon47 6 years, 9 months ago

the photographer needed to have dwyer in a wife beater t-shirt, with an armfull of tattoos, a pit bull in the background and maybe a confederate flag on the wall , , that would give the tin hats something to whine about

0

freeordie 6 years, 9 months ago

Hear hear Dyer! Thank you KS! I am sad I did not know about this meeting. I wouldn't want to be on a list for concealed carry. I think you should just be allowed to carry if you wish. Gun safety education should be readily available or taught in schools. Our government has guns. They have already proven themselves untrustworthy. Retain your rights and freedom.

0

KsTwister 6 years, 9 months ago

Good article and Mr. Dyer is one of many citizens who have said enough is enough.

0

KS 6 years, 9 months ago

Conceal carry in Kansas is long over due. Only time will prove to the "doubting Toms" of the world that this law works. I don't own a gun and don't want one and would not carry one, but I believe in the right of those than want to.

0

geekin_topekan 6 years, 9 months ago

I found a card on the ground that read "no gun=no $$".and went on to proclaim "I will take my business elsewhere if I can't carry in your store". From what I can tell,that leaves,umm.. the bait store and weaver's to shop.I hear the messege but it's kinda stepping on your own toes isn't it?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.