The Loveshade Family Blog

You think the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech were done by people with concealed gun permits? You need to go do some research. If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns.

They do a complete background check before you can carry a concealed weapon. You know who gets a permit? Police officers, military men, security officers, people who know what they're doing. If a trained marksman had a concealed gun at Columbine, he could have taken those people out before they took anybody out. Lives could have been saved. For once the court made the right decision.

Mr. T.,
The late Charlton Heston made a comment very similar to yours about having even one armed guard at Columbine.
It's not widely known but there was in fact a single guard on duty at the time who even returned fire with the gunmen before deciding that tending the wounded was more urgent.
Because of that, lives were lost and others were saved.
Since you brought it up, I leave it to you to decide what the better choice was for him to make.

Oh, that jackass comment about only outlaws havin' guns.
*yaaaawwwwwwnnnn*
Ol' news, bub.
It ain't even a cliche anymore. It's now just a ol' pile o' junk that needs ta be tossed inta th' trash with that other stoopid ol' sayin'; "gun control is bein' able ta hit yer targit."
How lame. Really. Is that the best ya got?
Since I been shootin' 37 years, I know that. I've pretty much heard 'em all.
By the by, how long you been shootin'?
So c'mon. Surprise this jaded, crotchety old Oregon cowboy/Alaska frontier fart.
If'n y' kin.
An' if ya can top the Midnight Sun, North'n Lights, bush pilots, live volcanas, 'n' a bulletproof bear, I might consid'r cuttin' ya some slack.
But ya really gotta impress me first.
Good luck with that.
'Cuz, y'see, I been there.
You sound way too much like a city slicker; can you hold up to fifty below zero?
That's 82 below freezing.
I did.
In an outhouse no less.
An' I still have my balls.

(Hey folks. Yeah, it's dumbass ol' me. I'm sorta back an' I've got more ta say on this, but I'm so sleepy now, this is as far as I go t'nite.
Latah, 'kay?)

Why are you so angry, Danacasso? Couldn't you say what you want without sounding so hateful?

What is this, a wimp fest?

Marie, if you think Danacasso's being hateful you haven't been on any other blog on the Internet.

Danacasso, yeah if you sat in a cold outhouse obviously that makes you an expert on guns.

We all need guns
so screw those bans--
you can take my gun
from my cold dead hands.

Danacasso, you ain't getting the point, IS you? If responsible, loyal Americans can't carry guns, then the only people who'll have them are criminals. Go back to that history book you used as a pillow and read the Second Amendment. Americans have the right to bear arms. You don't throw away the Constitution just cause you're at college.

While I write or co-write many of the entries here, I seldom post comments. But I'd like to clear up confusion over U. S. concealed weapon permits.

The laws for concealed carry permits vary tremendously by state and laws have changed significantly in the past several years, which may explain some of the confusion. In addition, the way the laws are written and the way they actually work may vary.

U.S. states and the District of Columbia generally fall into one of the following categories: Shall issue, May issue, Unrestricted, and No issue.

Currently, Illinois, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia are no-issue areas; that is, they do not issue concealed carry permits to private citizens.

Many states are shall-issue, which means that if an applicant meets the requirements he or she shall be issued a permit. Usually the requirements are paying a fee, taking a class and undergoing a background check to see if the applicant has been convicted of a felony, not necessarily one involving a weapon or violence.

Other states are may-issue, where the applicant may technically qualify, but the authorities issuing the permit still have the power to deny it.

A few states, Alaska, Vermont and soon Arizona, have unrestricted-issue, where a permit is not required.

Many states recognize concealed carry permits from other states for visitors, but not all.

As usual in anything involving law, the listings above are a general guideline--individual states may have exceptions and may in practice interpret the law differently than what the law seems to indicate. For example, some states may technically be may-carry, but issue permits to virtually everyone who qualifies so they're in practice almost shall-issue states. Others may be may-carry, but in practice issue permits to a very small minority of applicants so they're almost the same as no-issue states.

In addition, The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which was signed into law in 2004, permits off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons regardless of state law. There are some conditions--the officer has to keep up weapons training, cannot be under the influence of an intoxicating substance, etc.

To me surprisingly, states are generally more likely to issue concealed carry permits than they were in the 1990s. I suspect this may be in part due to the public reaction to a few people being able to hijack and crash commercial jets armed with nothing more than box cutters on 11 September 2001, but that's just a guess.

None of this is intended to be interpreted as legal advice. You are responsible for checking the laws of your state of residence and whatever state you might be visiting.

For more information on gun laws for states and U. S. territories, check http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/

For more information on the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, see http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=383&issue_id=92004

Hmmm, it appears I've started a bit of a fracas.

Actually, Marie, I'm not angry, just bored. And cynical.

Because, as Isaac pointed out, it's soooooooooo obvious that freezing your butt off in an outhouse makes you a gun expert.

I'm not in college and have no intention of going back any time soon.

But when I was, I majored in political science and spent quite a few years on the Constitution.

It should be noted that the Second Amendment ("amend" means "change" or "modify") is actually in the Bill of Rights of 1791 and not the Constitution of 1787.

That's because some states refused to ratify the first part until some changes were made.

Hence the Bill of Rights, aka the First Ten Amendments.

And in the Second, the Right to Bear Arms is just one, short, single line of the Amendment's text.

To make sense of the Bill of Rights, you need to know the Constitution itself.

And the one thing that you absolutely MUST know is that the original seven articles have built-in provisions for all types of amendments.

But if one part of the Constitution can be changed, all of it can.

That means, ultimately, nothing in both the Constitution and Bill of Rights is absolutely guaranteed.

Nothing in either is written in stone.

Think a minute about the implications.

Take the First Amendment.

"Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof..."

It then mentions free speech, free press, and redress of grievances.

What would happen if just one of those rights was changed in just that one amendement?

How about making a national religion law?

It could snowball and destroy every other right in that same amendement for everyone, including supporters of a national faith.

And we would end up living in a totally different country.

So, actually, I oppose the banning of and most restriction on weapons.

Not only because of the potential snowball, but also there are so damn many guns-and so many ways to make them-that a ban is useless.

Pandora's box is open and closing it impossible.

A ban would easily result in the same sort of chaos brought by Prohibition.

Plus, as I pointed out, I've been shooting since I was kid, and quite frankly, I enjoy it, and did it enough to get to be a pretty good shot.

So if my history books were used as pillows, how could I possibly know any of this stuff?

Simple. Hard to believe, but simple.

I was one of those weird kids who actually paid attention in history class, knew more than my teachers, and routinely committed academic suicide by correcting their mistakes.

I've learned it's best not to focus your values on just one tiny provision of the Constitution but to focus them on all of it.

So I do get the point. Far more than most and I can see consequences they can't, don't, or won't.

Because of that, I'm always wondering...

Just who are the responsible, loyal Americans?

Really I don't see why people need to be carrying guns at school.

Everyone who carries a gun should be shot by someone carrying a gun.

LOL, Bootie, you old scoundrel!
You're still here?
Good to see you're still the same as always.
We always could count on you to throw something funny into the mix.

Yeah, still here. What of it?

Also you notice where those high school girls in front are holding their guns? Sex and violence.

Came here from the Pirate Faire. Funny that Texas is a gun state where kids grow up playing with real guns. But you can't take guns on campus or shopping at Wal-Mart. Guess if you're gonna shoot somebody here ya gotta do in the street, Matt Dillon style.

I agree with Lorien. Why would anyone need a gun at school?