"Need to Carry" Testimonials

[Buzzard]

If a bill should ever bust it's way through commitee, I wonder if we should be ready to advance speakers, or witnesses if you wll, that clearly show a need for the protection of carrying a firearm? I will speak with Jim Sacia and Tim Bivens on this matter and report back to the members.

[anonymous too]

I know this isn't what you're looking for, but the reason is self-defense is a God given right. Don't need to prove a need. I may never have a fire in my kitchen, but I keep a fire extinguisher handy.

 

The answer to the question to why I would want to carry a gun is.......because I can.

[billzfx4]

This is in no means an argument directed to you Buzz.

 

I would like the state to give me a reason, especially since I live in Cook Co., that I don't have a need to carry for my own personal protection.

[BobbyT]

Wild Wild West!

Blood in the streets!

Semi-fully-automatic!

[Buzzard]

I know this isn't what you're looking for, but the reason is self-defense is a God given right. Don't need to prove a need. I may never have a fire in my kitchen, but I keep a fire extinguisher handy.

 

The answer to the question to why I would want to carry a gun is.......because I can.

Yes, and I agree. But I'm just thinking how Springfield works.

[mikew]

My new favorite need is "because a cop is too heavy".

[Buzzard]

My new favorite need is "because a cop is too heavy".

I do like that one!

[flagtag]

How about the instability of the country and the world in general? The rising crime rates and the cutbacks in law enforcement personnel. The upcoming election (albiet temporary - I hope) and because it's our RIGHT! as defined (PROTECTED, not given) by the Constitution of the United States of America.

As evidenced by the history proven :"fight or flight" nature of the human being as our creator intended.

DUTY, OBLIGATION, RESPONSIBILITY. Whichever term you choose to use.

 

Or, ask the government to PROVE that they can do the job for us. (Actually, it's already been proven that they can't.)

Also, reminding them of their OATH of OFFICE that they took, swearing to uphold the Constitution. (And the voting power of the citizens of this state and country.)

[Guest YASLIFF]

This guy has a gift for words and reasoning.

Marko Why a gun is civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

 

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

 

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

 

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

 

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

 

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[CyberGuyPR]

Simple. Because 48 states can't be wrong

[Silver Guardian]

Warren v. District of Columbia, and I'd be happy to explain the full story to the politicians who would be at this event.

 

For anyone here who might not be familiar with it, http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html

[GWBH]

All they need to do is read the newspaper...

Rape, assault, sexual predators, armed robbery, car jackings, burgalry, murder, drug deals gone bad, meth heads - who else is gonna protect me (us) from maniacs that the "system" just turns loose an puts back on the street?

[GarandFan]

At some level, I fall into the "because it's my right" crowd. That's the truth of the matter.

 

Yet, for almost everything we do (whether controversial or not), we probably have an explanation of purpose or reason. And the better, more rational and articulate explanation you have, the better you are able to educate others about this issue.

 

For me, it falls neatly into the explanation that Scalia mentioned in the Heller opinion: "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

 

I carry, and support the lawful carry, of a defensive firearm for the purpose of it's utility in case of confrontation. It's not only our right, and not only are we authorized to use lethal force lawfully, it's my obligation to myself and my family to do so. It's not much different than the fact that I would carry my loved ones out of a burning building, or tell them to wear a seat belt while riding in the car, or for slowing down when driving in wet or icy conditions, or for keeping fire extinguishers ready for use in my house, or why I lock the doors at night. It's about being safe and about being responsible for safety. Research shows that, during confrontations, resistance with a firearm results in much higher success than resistance with other tools, or no resistance at all.

[Buzzard]

I'm seeing a lot of good comments and "testimony" here!!

 

Keep it coming!!

[w00dc4ip]

Citizens need the state to legally recognize our right to defend ourselves (with concealed firearms) so that we don't become criminals just by exercising our rights while the state doesn't recognize them.

 

Kind of reminds me of a discussion I had with my mother last week. While discussing her presidential choice, I stated that I hope, if her choice wins, he doesn't turn her son (me) into a criminal. She asked how that could happen and I told her I would not give up anything I currently own or change my current habits or hobbies based on any changes her presidential choice pushes through the legislature. If he implements laws that make the things I currently do illegal, her presidential choice will have made her son a criminal. She then went on to talk about his policies in contrast with the other popular candidate. I just stated she should vote her conscience and be ready with bail money for the next 4 to 8 years should her choice win.

[Guest YASLIFF]

This guy felt the need to carry.

[wazzle]

Chicago has taken the top spot as the murder capital of the country. That is a pretty good reason.

 

 

http://dancirucci.blogspot.com/2008/10/chi...er-capital.html

 

Barack Obama's hometown of Chicago is the Murder Capital of America and Obama hasn't done a damned thing about it.

Here the story from CBS2 Chicago:

Chicago is the Second City in nickname and the third in population, but when it comes to murder, the city has the dubious distinction of being second to no city in America. As CBS 2's Mike Puccinelli reports, the Chicago Sun-Times pointed out on Friday that Chicago has seen 426 homicides this year through Tuesday, compared with 417 in New York and 302 in Los Angeles. At the end of 1998, Chicago made international headlines as the U.S. "murder capital" after surpassing New York's homicide totals for the first time ever. Chicago shed that dubious distinction when murders plummeted over the last decade. There are more than 8 million people in New York, compared to slightly under 3 million in Chicago. The population of Los Angeles exceeds that of Chicago by more than 800,000. . . .

Chicago is on pace to exceed 500 murders by the end of the year.

[Dr. G]

On a personal level, I have a very strong need to carry. I was involved in a terrible car accident that left me permanently handicapped. Three out of my four limbs are held together with metal parts. In the unfortunate event that i am accousted by those intent on doing me harm, running for me is physically impossible. Fighting is extreamly difficult, despite a superb martial arts background, because 3 of my 4 limbs are helt together with metal parts, both of my lower extremeties plus one of my arms. So for all pratical purposes, I can neither run or fight. What options am I left with??? Defend myself from further harm with a gun or leave my fate in the hands of those intent on doing me harm. That's about as fu_ked up as an "option" can get! Oh, that's right, I also live in Chicago, the murder capitol of the counry! If this ain't a need to carry testimonial, I don't know what is!!!

[drdoom]

Excerpt of my remarks:

 

Why do I have a "need" to carry a gun? because I am a free man, not a slave to this corrupt state Government. I don't carry a gun for fun, or to cause shoot outs in the streets, I carry it because it is my birthright. This state already licenses retired LEO and corrupt officials to carry guns, so there is NO excuse you government crooks have.

[Gbbear]

Every day in the newspaper I read articles where people become victims of armed assailants during robberies, sexual assaults, and home invasions. I keep thinking how pitiful it is that the criminals have guns, many underage, and yet the victims who are law abiding citizens are helpless because our state doesn't seem to care about our right to protect ourselves.

[Guest YASLIFF]

2 examples of Off duty CPD police defending themselves .

 

Remember Off duty means they look just like you or me (a victim) to an assailant. Being a Cop just means they can carry legally in Chicago.

 

 

 

Off-duty police officer shoots man on Northwest Side

November 2, 2008 at 8:10 AM | Comments (2)

An off-duty Chicago police officer shot a man armed with a knife early this morning on

the Northwest Side, police said.

The shooting occurred about 1:30 a.m. outside a residence in the 5100 block of North Bernard

Street in the North Park neighborhood, said Mark Payne, a spokesman for the Independent Police

Review Authority, which investigates shootings involving Chicago officers.

The 20-year-old man was taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center in critical condition,

said Eve Rodriguez, a Chicago Fire Department spokeswoman. She said preliminary reports

showed that eight shots were fired, but it wasn't known how many hit the man.

A knife was recovered at the scene, police said.

Police investigators were still on the scene at 3:30 a.m., Payne said.

No other information was immediately available.

Beshanda Spencer, CLTV, contributed to this report.

 

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/11...north-park.html

 

October 9, 2008

FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS

An off-duty police officer shot and wounded two men during an alleged attempted robbery late Wednesday in the Southwest Side’s Ashburn neighborhood.

 

Two or three men approached an off-duty Chicago Police officer in the 2500 block of West 83rd Street at 11:38 p.m. in an apparent attempted armed robbery. The officer fired his weapon, striking two men, police said. The district where the officer works was not immediately known.

 

The wounded men were taken in good condition to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, where one was being treated for a gunshot wound to the buttocks and the other for chest wound, police said. Their ages were not immediately available.

 

The off-duty officer was not injured.

 

IPRA went to the scene Wednesday night and looked for evidence. Investigators will return Thursday morning to canvass the area for witnesses, Payne said.

 

A weapon was recovered on the scene, Payne said.

 

IPRA and Wentworth Area detectives are investigating.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1211845,...100908.article#

[usmcss]

The quote from YASLIFF is Amazing!!!

 

I am a law abiding citizen and I should have the right to protect my family and myself if need be. I can say that when I have carried concealed in the past it actually makes me unresponsive to ignorance. What I mean by this is; let’s say while out in public I come across a person that is trying to pick a fight with me, or who has a bad attitude and wants to take it out on me. If I don’t have a weapon on me, I might fall into his trap and give him what he wants by reacting to his ignorant words towards me. I am not an aggressive person, and would never look for a confrontation, and would never start one but if someone starts one with me, hopefully I won’t, but I may respond.

 

Now, I can tell you from past experience that if I have a concealed weapon on me, I would never even think of responding to anyone’s intimidation or ignorant actions. Carrying a concealed weapon is one of the biggest responsibilities a man or women can take on, and I completely understand that. I feel that most, if not all people that conceal carry would act the same way, and would never respond to ignorance; they would, as I would, only respond to a life threatening situation.

 

I will never understand why the people who make the laws in this land can’t get it through their thick skulls that so many innocent lives could be saved if only the victims of those crimes had a weapon on them at the time!

 

Semper Fi,

 

Bob

[Ol'Coach]

As I see it, when I leave my home to walk my dog in the city park, there is no "need" to be carrying a firearm; at that point, there is no threat, and during our walk there may never be. However, there is no way that I can know that. I have a natural right to defend myself, wherever I might be, with the best means possible. A firearm IS the best means possible, therefore, it's my right to take it with, even though I may never "need" it.

 

I reckon, what I'm saying is, IMO, owning a firearm is not the result of a need, it's a right as recognized in the Constitution of the United States!

[GNHNTN]

As I see it, when I leave my home to walk my dog in the city park, there is no "need" to be carrying a firearm; at that point, there is no threat, and during our walk there may never be. However, there is no way that I can know that. I have a natural right to defend myself, wherever I might be, with the best means possible. A firearm IS the best means possible, therefore, it's my right to take it with, even though I may never "need" it.

 

I reckon, what I'm saying is, IMO, owning a firearm is not the result of a need, it's a right as recognized in the Constitution of the United States!

 

AMEN BROTHER!!!!

[mack69]

My job often finds me being the only caucasian on the far south side in a vehicle full of computer equipment and tools and frequently having to visit sites in dangerous neighborhoods. Some days I feel like a Christmas ham they way I get looked at. The "beater bar", bear spray and 100,000v stun gun just don't give me the same piece of mind as a firearm.