Tell you what, when they start teaching firarms safety in school, then maybe I will consider getting behind the establishment and agreeing to some funding for legitimate programs. I taught Hunter Safety because it is required for most folks to get their first hunting license in many states. The parents had a vested interest in their children's successful completion, and those who didn't take it seriously never completed the program, either quitting or getting bounced. It is funded by hunters and I felt it was the right thing to support, so I got involved. Nothing felt better than to take lumps of clay and stuff them with a healthy dose of knowledge and respect so that all the novelty of firearms was wiped from their minds. There will always be the one or two rare students who will comply and subjugate themselves long enough to get through the program, then screw around later on, ignoring all the training, and eventually they lose their privileges anyway, sometimes tragically. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to use public school facilities to teach our program, so we look to places like churches, Masonic, VFW and other fraternal lodges, occasionally civic centers who are not overly paranoid about liability, and sometimes private facilities like Sportsman's Warehouse if they have the room.

The point is, I want to see our leaders get more pro-active about the education aspects, and not so alarmist about the whole business that it draws the wrong kind of attention to such events. I firmly believe that if the kids at Columbine had been put through a program like what we taught, there's a darned good chance they never would've gone forward with their little plan. As for the latest nutso, he is a good example of how badly our system can fail. How many laws did he break, and yet the only one that people seem so fixated on is the murder. I will be happy to hear about how the investigation leads to indictments against the criminals that sold/gave him the firearms, the hospital administrators that discharged him, all the parts of the system we spend so much money on to ensure this sort of scenario can't progess in the first place that didn't do their job. If someone must be villified, make it the incompetents that let this happen despite all the opportunities to prevent it, rather than attacking our rights once more. Get the people we elected and appointed to start enforcing the existing laws. If not, then making more laws won't do us any better.

Samhain, Along with felonies the one thing I would give you in a second is that if anyone has ever been deemed "mentally unstable" by a mental health institution like this character was then they should NEVER be able to pass a background check. In my mind this would include situations when they were a teenager. The way I understand it now once you turn 18 you get a clean slate - I would change that. So there is definitely some middle ground, but as a general rule the more mentally stable, well trained law-abiding citizens who are carrying the better, IMO.

Unfortunately it looks good and is so much easier for a politician to pass a new law. "Look at me! I'm fighting crime!" Then to provide the personnel and funding to enforce the laws on the books. And just as unfortunately, most people don't notice the difference between shamming and actually doing work, nor do they want their taxes raised for more cops or health workers. Easy and obvious nothing trumps tough behind the scenes work every time.

Is this actually occuring anywhere? Alaska and Vermont both have practically no state restrictions on the carry of firearms by law abiding citizens. If it were happening I would expect it to happen there. I suspect that it isn't, therefore I am hesitant to support increased restrictions on the carry of firearms by law-abiding citizens based on irrational fear.



You are right. They are both anti-freedom. The difference is of course that there is no mention of motor vehicle operation in the Bill of Rights.



I'm all for that as well. A good compromise would be that as a law-abiding, non-drug using citizen who has never been convicted of a felony and who is not currently undergoing treatment for any mental disease or defect, my individual right to carry a firearm shall not be infringed by any government agency whatsoever. In return I'll agree to remain the same, upstanding citizen that I am now, with the full understanding that if I do not I can have my 2nd Amendment rights restricted or eliminated (subject to due process of course.)

This sounds eminently fair and logical to me.

Oh, and BTW, if a person chooses not to carry that is perfectly fine with me. They are entitled to freedom of choice just as much as I am.

In Vermont, I would estimate that less than 2% carry a concealed handgun on a semi-regular basis.

In the 3 counties including and surrounding Birmingham
over 12% have a CCW. Both the NRA and the Brady Campaign folks were shocked at the high concentration according to the news article in the paper a few weeks ago. According to the NRA it's one of the highest concentrations in the country.

Interesting that the law quotes unlawful use rather than lawful use of drugs, surely the user of the drugs must be subject to the same drug effect. I guess this is to get round the problem that over 50%, thats half (statistically proven by the pharmaceutical companies which produce psychoactive drugs) of the population in the United States would then be unfit to own a firearm.

Actually when thinking about that percentage I think it may actually be higher since Aspartame (artificial sweetener is in so many products - anyone for a diet coke - you can improve your ability to become more suggestible to electronic forms of propaganda)

Actually, all of that last is federally based, and most states have added the latter.

But I would be very careful about saying any kind of mental illness should block you from ever being allowed to carry. Most of us here would probably get diagnosed as having "general anxiety disorder" because we worry more than a sheep does. Either that or a martyr complex.

And a great many memebers of the armed forces are returning with cases of PTSD that could be completely correctable with talk and group therapy, no need for drugs- these are the guys who don't like crowds, swerve to avoid litter on the roadside (might be an IED) and take cover when car's backfire. They are as harmless and beneficial to society as we are, and need our help before they get worse while waiting for the VA to get off it's collective backside.

I would, will, and do say that those who's diagnosis makes them a danger to others should be blocked, absolutely, and I want to know why this nut's mental health history wasn't passed up the line. Someone needs to be publicly canned and any and all professional credentials suspended.

I'm not suprised. In states where permits are easy to get, I've long seen higher numbers of people who carry than in Vermont where if you can buy it and can carry it without scaring the peasantry, you can carry it everywhere but schools, courthouses, certain state offices, and federal property.

Yeah thankfully permits in Alabama are easy to get for lawbiding citizens. As long as you don't have a criminal record and you are 21 or older all it takes to get one is $7.50 and 72 hours.

The news story said that of the CCW's in the Birmingham area 1/3 of them are women and the majority of them are nurses.