Read it and learn, why I carry a weapon

[Chasbo00]

The whole reason that this argument exists is precisely because the sheeple (on topic, yes?) are not accustomed to seeing good guys w/guns who aren't LE/Mil.

Fixed it a bit, but this is exactly the problem. The antis with their allies in the media have successfully branded gun owners and particularly those who carry (open or concealed). The American spirit has been perverted from accepting liberty and freedom to wanting the government to regulate and ban everything we don't care for. The only way to fix this is to lead by example, you can't argue with an irrational fear.

Are you suggesting that frequent and widespread OCing at locations and venues populated by a high percentage of antis and liberals who either dislike or fear guns is leading by example and will fix things?

[gunderwood]

The whole reason that this argument exists is precisely because the sheeple (on topic, yes?) are not accustomed to seeing good guys w/guns who aren't LE/Mil.

Fixed it a bit, but this is exactly the problem. The antis with their allies in the media have successfully branded gun owners and particularly those who carry (open or concealed). The American spirit has been perverted from accepting liberty and freedom to wanting the government to regulate and ban everything we don't care for. The only way to fix this is to lead by example, you can't argue with an irrational fear.

Are you suggesting that frequent and widespread OCing at locations and venues populated by a high percentage of antis and liberals who either dislike or fear guns is leading by example and will fix things?

No, the issue is far bigger than guns. We are talking about the very spirit and nature of what America has been about vs. what it is has become. Guns are a trivial part of that; OC resistance is a symptom, nothing more. The actual impact of OCing on the current American people is practically unquantifiable. Increased OCing may "fix things" or it may make them worse, I don't know which will win. What I am saying is I see no reason to spread fear of OCing harming our rights like you did on previous posts.

Personally, whenever faced with lack of knowledge and/or causality, I prefer to error on the side of least invasive for the individuals involved. The phrase life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is listed in that order for a reason; it was not without thought. In the lack of knowledge we should error on the side of life first, then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness. No claims to the right to life are reasonable in this case. The restriction or suggestion that OCers should not do so it directly limiting their liberty. At best, those who fear them can claim an impact to their pursuit of happiness, but that is stretching it quite a bit. Given that I have no special knowledge how any particular OCer will behave and those are the only two claims I can evaluate, society should error on the side of allowing the OCer to continue their actions as liberty trumps the pursuit of happiness. Of course this only applies to public property. Although that is how society should error, certain states have chosen not to do so. That is their prerogative, but one built on false rationale or at least one not consistent with the founding of this country. The federal government has no such powers.

Practically, there is no difference between a state which prohibits OC and a state which permits it, but the people are too afraid to exercise their rights. This too argues for anyone who wishes to OC should be supported by us, not torn down. OC is not my normal choice, but I support those who wish to do so legally in this state 100%.

[Chasbo00]

@gunderwood
Thanks for the reply and clarification, and I do agree with your last reply.

What I don't agree with is the contention that in-your-face OC at any and all locations and venues is necessary for the advancement of gun rights. In my opinion, it's detrimental to the cause. However, I do fully support an individual's right to carry a firearm any way they choose. I also support extending this right for 18 to 20 year olds.

Part of my interest in OC was to gain an understanding why some think OCing nearly all the time and everywhere is good idea. What I've come to realize is that some of the most ardent of the OCers advocating this universal and exclusive OCing have little choice to do anything else. They have chosen not to acquire a CHP and OCing is their only legal carry option by default.

It was also interesting to me to learn that some of the most ardent OCers don't care at all for CC. Well, when you dig a little deeper here, it starts to become clear that it's not really CC they are against - it's permitted CC. The permit itself and the associated process to obtain one are what these ardent OCers are really against. Often, CC vs. OC issues are actually permitted carry vs. constitutional carry issues. For those who are interested in this, I recommend spending some time at Open Carry dot Org (OCDO) in the Virgina forum; I'll bet you find it an eye opener.

Some claim that universal OCing will help sensitize the public to the concept that good guys carry guns too. Presumably, this will lead to fewer antis, enhanced gun rights and ultimately to full carry rights without a permit. I'm not so sure; in fact, I doubt it. But, to my knowledge, no one has yet done any credible research to determine whether widespread OCing is actually helpful or hurtful with respect to influencing positive perceptions and beliefs about guns and carrying them. Maybe this is something the NRA or VCDL should look at.

[gunderwood]

What I don't agree with is the contention that in-your-face OC at any and all locations and venues is necessary for the advancement of gun rights.

It's activism. While I don't participate myself, I am glad that there are people who care enough to do something. Going to carry events, OC or otherwise, is just my thing.

In my opinion, it's detrimental to the cause.

Maybe, maybe not...time will tell. One thing is for sure, hiding them hasn't helped at all as far as public awareness.

I also support extending this right for 18 to 20 year olds.

+1 They can only OC right now.

Part of my interest in OC was to gain an understanding why some think OCing nearly all the time and everywhere is good idea. What I've come to realize is that some of the most ardent of the OCers advocating this universal and exclusive OCing have little choice to do anything else. They have chosen not to acquire a CHP and OCing is their only legal carry option by default.

The reasons very quite a bit, but that has not been my experience. My wife did it often, despite having a CHP, because she could conceal much of anything anywhere during the summer.

She found that there were very few negative responses (we use to live in Springfield which counts as NOVA). She encountered a lot of people who thought she was LE and questioned her about it. After learning she was not LE, they were interested and discussed it further. IMHO, she has been a help to the cause. I've known others like that as well. The only ones who can't get a CHP are under 21, but over 18 so they must OC.

Furthermore, OC and CC both have different pros and cons. While CC has an element of surprise, it is always much slower than OC. OC takes that element of surprise away, but may act as a deterrent. It could go either way depending on your attacker and I think it is important that everyone think about it and make their own decision.

I think far too many people jump on OCers, even on gun forums like this one, as "in your face" with no proof of that. Most I have known and encountered were just going about their lawful business; it wasn't a statement anymore than a watch or purse were. I don't think the state should even be in the business of handing out permits for lawful activity which has no ethical violations, so if some people choose not to get a CHP and OC for that reason only, more power to them. It isn't just that I'm ok with it, I will actually take the time and make the effort to defend them. Even though I rarely exercise the liberty to OC, I believe it is the right thing to defend their liberty regardless.

It was also interesting to me to learn that some of the most ardent OCers don't care at all for CC. Well, when you dig a little deeper here, it starts to become clear that it's not really CC they are against - it's permitted CC. The permit itself and the associated process to obtain one are what these ardent OCers are really against. Often, CC vs. OC issues are actually permitted carry vs. constitutional carry issues. For those who are interested in this, I recommend spending some time at Open Carry dot Org (OCDO) in the Virgina forum; I'll bet you find it an eye opener.

Why does that matter? I'm against a permit to exercise my 1st amendment rights just as much as I am against it for my 2nd. I happen to have one and use it, but that doesn't mean I don't care for the intrusive and restrictive process the state has put in place. Even if I don't participate in the activity, I'm all for expanding liberty. This is not unlike the drug thread. I'm willing to stand for liberty even if I have no intentions of using it. I'm glad there are people like that.

Under the old common law, it was considered good to challenge mala prohibita. Of course then the penalties for doing so were a slap on the wrist, not the destruction of your life. Juries use to throw out such things simply because the prohibition was silly. They would actually say the person committed the act, but that the act should not be prohibited. This is something the state has taken away from us; it use to be a check on their arbitrary power. It was a good thing IMHO.

Some claim that universal OCing will help sensitize the public to the concept that good guys carry guns too. Presumably, this will lead to fewer antis, enhanced gun rights and ultimately to full carry rights without a permit. I'm not so sure; in fact, I doubt it. But, to my knowledge, no one has yet done any credible research to determine whether widespread OCing is actually helpful or hurtful with respect to influencing positive perceptions and beliefs about guns and carrying them. Maybe this is something the NRA or VCDL should look at.

There is some truth to that as my wife has learned. I don't know what the accumulative affect will be; it could be good or bad. The one thing I do know is that the less educated the public has become about guns the easier it is for the antis to get their lies accepted as truth. Try and talk some sense into someone who has never shot a suppressed firearm...they are convinced Hollywood got it right!

[Chasbo00]

I really can't find very much at all to disagree with you on here. I find that's usually the case with your posts though. Just a couple of minor counterpoints...

Furthermore, OC and CC both have different pros and cons. While CC has an element of surprise, it is always much slower than OC. OC takes that element of surprise away, but may act as a deterrent. It could go either way depending on your attacker and I think it is important that everyone think about it and make their own decision.

It's interesting that almost all VIP security details and bodyguards nearly always CC. But, I'm not willing to get into a discussion about this.

It was also interesting to me to learn that some of the most ardent OCers don't care at all for CC. Well, when you dig a little deeper here, it starts to become clear that it's not really CC they are against - it's permitted CC. The permit itself and the associated process to obtain one are what these ardent OCers are really against. Often, CC vs. OC issues are actually permitted carry vs. constitutional carry issues. For those who are interested in this, I recommend spending some time at Open Carry dot Org (OCDO) in the Virgina forum; I'll bet you find it an eye opener.

Why does that matter? I'm against a permit to exercise my 1st amendment rights just as much as I am against it for my 2nd. I happen to have one and use it, but that doesn't mean I don't care for the intrusive and restrictive process the state has put in place.

It matters when you are so against obtaining a CHP on principle that you refuse to get one. Yet, you choose to carry nearly all the time and are law abiding. OC now becomes your only carry option and your universal carry solution regardless of the location or venue. You become an OC advocate by default. 18 to 20 year olds can't get a CHP due to existing bad law; others have a choice that's not cost prohibitive.

[CCFan]

It's interesting that almost all VIP security details and bodyguards nearly always CC. But, I'm not willing to get into a discussion about this.

Not being argumentative, but if you're not willing to get into a discussion, why bring it up?

I'd say most VIP security details and bodyguards CC for the element of surprise. I know some police folks that do this in certain circumstances - if you don't know who they are, they're just another suit in the crowd...

[Chasbo00]

It's interesting that almost all VIP security details and bodyguards nearly always CC. But, I'm not willing to get into a discussion about this.

Not being argumentative, but if you're not willing to get into a discussion, why bring it up?

You're not being argumentative; your're right. I should not have brought it up. I even thought about that for a brief moment too after I wrote the last sentence...was too damn lazy to expunge it. Still not going to discuss it though. Besides, I suspect most have heard more than enough from me on OC.

[gunderwood]

Why does that matter? I'm against a permit to exercise my 1st amendment rights just as much as I am against it for my 2nd. I happen to have one and use it, but that doesn't mean I don't care for the intrusive and restrictive process the state has put in place.

It matters when you are so against obtaining a CHP on principle that you refuse to get one. Yet, you choose to carry nearly all the time and are law abiding. OC now becomes your only carry option and your universal carry solution regardless of the location or venue. You become an OC advocate by default. 18 to 20 year olds can't get a CHP due to existing bad law; others have a choice that's not cost prohibitive.

That is the central question you have danced around. You say you support a citizens right to carry how they wish, but you judge them if they choose not to CC? Why is there anything inherently wrong with choosing not to get a permit? It isn't illegal, it isn't immoral, it isn't unethical...it's simply not what Chasbo00 would do. You're not the only one who assumes that anyone who chooses to OC wants trouble, but that is a big assumption.

It seems to me that you are basing your decision to judge them negatively off of the utility their action has for you. First, that utility, as I pointed out a while ago, is practically impossible to assert. All we can say for sure is that keeping guns out of the public sight hasn't worked; in fact it seems that the more guns have been discussed in other reference frames besides the latest murder, such as CC laws, the less supportive of gun control the public has been...that's hardly a causal link though.

The problem here is not the study of human action (which we could do), but rather knowing how society at large will value the OCers actions. The CC of guns has had a positive effect on society and gun rights, but that is hardly something we could have said with certainty when FL was debating their law. We could and did make arguments for why the CC of a firearm as an action is beneficial (a rational argument concerning the action), but how each individual values that action, aggregated for a society, was unknown at that time. It is entirely possible that despite the statistics we have today showing the value of that human action (CC), society could value it incorrectly and the CC movement would have failed. The same is true for OC debates; the argument is rationally sound, but how society will value it is unknown at this time. It could go either way.

I will say this though. The expansion of liberty, while risky in the sense that people are not use to exercising that freedom, is always a good thing in the long run and usually is viewed as the right choice after the fact. The problem, and usually the people who call me an idealist can't get over, is the intermediate risk associated with exactly that; liberty is hard work and it takes common sense, which a non-free people haven't had the chance to cultivate. Certainly there will be issues and people who can't handle that freedom, but the vast majority will do just fine. If you can win the propaganda debate, as we did in FL, you can ride out any intermediate issues. In the long run, liberty is always the right choice.

Second and far more importantly IMHO, a utility function for your own happiness is trumped in a free society by their liberty, even if exercising that liberty leads to an incorrect valuation by society of OC.

[Chasbo00]

Why does that matter? I'm against a permit to exercise my 1st amendment rights just as much as I am against it for my 2nd. I happen to have one and use it, but that doesn't mean I don't care for the intrusive and restrictive process the state has put in place.

It matters when you are so against obtaining a CHP on principle that you refuse to get one. Yet, you choose to carry nearly all the time and are law abiding. OC now becomes your only carry option and your universal carry solution regardless of the location or venue. You become an OC advocate by default. 18 to 20 year olds can't get a CHP due to existing bad law; others have a choice that's not cost prohibitive.

That is the central question you have danced around. You say you support a citizens right to carry how they wish, but you judge them if they choose not to CC? Why is there anything inherently wrong with choosing not to get a permit? It isn't illegal, it isn't immoral, it isn't unethical...it's simply not what Chasbo00 would do. You're not the only one who assumes that anyone who chooses to OC wants trouble, but that is a big assumption.

I’m against a universal policy and the advocating of OCing all the time and everywhere, call it in-your-face OCing or demonstration carrying. In addition to supporting someone’s right to OC, I also support a person’s right to be rude. Being rude isn’t immoral, it isn’t unethical and it’s also not what Chasbo00 would normally do. Just because something is legal, not immoral or unethical, does not mean it’s therefore OK to do everywhere and all the time. Can does not equal should. And, if you carry a gun, being rude in public places is especially bad and can lead to dire consequences.

[It seems to me that you are basing your decision to judge them negatively off of the utility their action has for you. First, that utility, as I pointed out a while ago, is practically impossible to assert. All we can say for sure is that keeping guns out of the public sight hasn't worked; in fact it seems that the more guns have been discussed in other reference frames besides the latest murder, such as CC laws, the less supportive of gun control the public has been...that's hardly a causal link though.

You state that keeping guns out of public sight hasn’t worked. I disagree. When shall-issue permits became a reality, all sorts of people who would not otherwise have bought and carried a handgun before became gun owners and gun rights supporters. Your Ruger LSP is probably a product that would not have even been available without shall-issue and a widespread nationwide ability for citizens to CC. Furthermore, all the studies have shown that despite the antis’ dire predictions of increasing crime and shootings resulting from widespread citizen CC, the opposite occurred. Hidden guns and CC have done a great deal to enhance gun rights and increase the ranks of gun owners.

I will say this though. The expansion of liberty, while risky in the sense that people are not use to exercising that freedom, is always a good thing in the long run and usually is viewed as the right choice after the fact. The problem, and usually the people who call me an idealist can't get over, is the intermediate risk associated with exactly that; liberty is hard work and it takes common sense, which a non-free people haven't had the chance to cultivate. Certainly there will be issues and people who can't handle that freedom, but the vast majority will do just fine...

Second and far more importantly IMHO, a utility function for your own happiness is trumped in a free society by their liberty, even if exercising that liberty leads to an incorrect valuation by society of OC.

Here, we agree.

[gunderwood]

I’m against a universal policy and the advocating of OCing all the time and everywhere, call it in-your-face OCing or demonstration carrying. In addition to supporting someone’s right to OC, I also support a person’s right to be rude. Being rude isn’t immoral, it isn’t unethical and it’s also not what Chasbo00 would normally do. Just because something is legal, not immoral or unethical, does not mean it’s therefore OK to do everywhere and all the time. Can does not equal should. And, if you carry a gun, being rude in public places is especially bad and can lead to dire consequences.

Sort of, but you have to go much deeper on this one. What does it mean to be "rude?" Being rude is a violation of an accepted social construct, nothing else. What constitutes as rude varies greatly even in our own country. Case in point, southerners generally consider people from New York City to be rude. Certainly by southern standards they are being rude when they come to VA and act like they are in NYC. However, in NYC that is accepted behavior. The social constructs between VA and NYC are different, just as they are between rural VA and NOVA. NOVA wasn't always like that though, it was many outsiders who came over the years and changed what was socially acceptable so that it is now very much in conflict with the rest of the state. I'm not passing judgment on which is better, I'm just explaining the mechanism.

When the founders created this country they knew it wasn't perfect. They recognized that social constructs must change. That is exactly why they wanted the central government, first under the Articles then under the Constitution, to be limited and guarantee basic human rights. For them those things were not negotiable. Even while the war was being fought the colonies had very different social constructs. When Washington was in NYC, he, as a southern gentleman, was appalled at how the people of NYC behaved. Not much has changed, eh?

It does raise a good question though: how does one change the social constructs of a society? There are good and bad ways to accomplish this, but they generally require starting a debate over an issue by providing an example. That is what we did with CC, that is what some of the OCers are trying to do with OC. Not everyone who OCs has an agenda, but some do. If we don't challenge social constructs society can't grow and change for the better. Now, not every social experiment will produce a change for the better, but again, that is one reason the Federal government does not have those social powers, the States do. A State can choose to embark on a social policy and if you don't like it you can move to another state. If that social policy works, other states will adopt it; if it doesn't, like CAs policies, the other states will reject it. It provides a very good mechanism for society to advance the cause of liberty...at least it did until we decided that everyone must live like us and the battle to have the Federal government dictate social constructs was on.

Without this mechanism for challenging social constructs (at least what is left of it), CC would not exist today. FL decided to try a social experiment to reintroduce the widespread CC of firearms, it turned out to be a good idea and other states have followed. There were plenty of people who argued exactly what you do today against OC. Backlash, loss of rights, foolish, in-your-face, etc. etc. They were wrong and generally are wrong when ever the debate is about expanding liberty. In the long run, it always works. Even in the short term it works, but society must be willing to take some additional risks in order to get to the end state. Think of it like starting a business, there are risks but the reward is high so you take them. If it works you end up with a much better life. So yes, we do need the ability to be "rude" as it preserves our ability to challenge social constructs and improve society. However...


I started this noting that there are good ways and bad ways to challenged social constructs. There are also ways to evaluate if the social construct challenged is good or bad. The CC debate was a good challenge because it:

1. Acknowledged the basic right to self defense which is part of the 2nd, but not everything therein.
2. There were practical applications for citizens defending themselves.
3. Better defense of individuals was thought to make crime more difficult, which it did, so society at large benefited from the CCers actions regardless of their choice to CC or not.

The biggest negative was the potential backlash against the CCers and the law when something would occur; it wasn't if, it was when. A little common sense showed this to be a frivolous argument. Overall, the evaluation was positive because it advanced personal liberty and provided benefits to society. By challenging the previous social construct society has advanced. Being rude would be a bad challenge because it does none of these things, it does not advance personal liberty, nor does it provide society with any benefits.

However, OC fulfills all of the same social constructs as CC, but it pushes #1 a bit further and attempts to answer the additional question: "Does the government have the authority to require a permit of a law abiding citizen to exercise their rights?" I don't think they do and society needs to answer this question at some point. Certainly the status quo says yes, but it didn't always. I think in this way society has regressed not progressed and as such we should advance again. While I'm not the protesting type (I can't fit my posts on a sign and have them still be readable), I don't think we should have "free speech" zones and they should be challenged too.

You state that keeping guns out of public sight hasn’t worked. I disagree. When shall-issue permits became a reality, all sorts of people who would not otherwise have bought and carried a handgun before became gun owners and gun rights supporters. Your Ruger LSP is probably a product that would not have even been available without shall-issue and a widespread nationwide ability for citizens to CC. Furthermore, all the studies have shown that despite the antis’ dire predictions of increasing crime and shootings resulting from widespread citizen CC, the opposite occurred. Hidden guns and CC have done a great deal to enhance gun rights and increase the ranks of gun owners.

You misunderstood the argument. The reason CC has done so much is the debate surrounding it which the permit process and law created. The fact that the guns are not seen is irrelevant. The CC/shall issue permit laws caused a stir. They caused a national debate even though it only applied in certain states. That debate led to a lot of people becoming more educated and we have won that battle for now. This is exactly what the OCers are now pushing for.

Flash back to pre-shall issue and replace OC with CC. They made the same arguments, but for CC instead of OC..."I mean who needs to carry a gun all the time concealed!" Many gun owners fell for it hook line and sinker and they weren't too happy about the CC movement either. They argued that it would cause a backlash and we would loose more gun rights, they argued that it wasn't needed (guns were for sport only!), etc. etc. They were all wrong as I suspect you will turn out to be with OC.

I meant a much more generic argument when I said keeping them hidden hasn't helped; it wasn't specific to CC as the hidden nature of the gun has done nothing for gun rights, it was the whole debate, concept, and lawful execution that succeeded. I was referring to general lack of discussion about guns in society we have had the last several decades. We weren't having debates where expansion of liberty was on the table like the CC/OC ones we have had recently, it was only how much liberty are we going to loose this time. Not pushing and poking those social constructs which limit guns has not helped us one bit.

[Chasbo00]

To me, it’s not rocket science or even complex. Either widespread OCing everywhere it is legal all the time will enhance the general public’s positive perception of guns and citizens carrying them or it won’t. Or, it will just not make any difference. It’s either a good practice for the advancement of gun rights or it’s not. Again, it’s possible it won’t make a difference. On the whole, I simply think that it falls into the not category. The fact is, no one really knows because there is no research or data to support a conclusion. Given our discussion, it appears we disagree. That’s OK. Disagreement, especially in matters of opinion, between reasonable people is to be expected. Besides, I’ve enjoyed the debate and discussion.

I also came across a bit of history on modern CCing.

Florida was a catalyst for national expansion for shall issue due to high media attention, but it was not the first as some may think.

“1976 to 1986: Getting Started
In the United States the history of modern concealed carry started with Georgia. In 1976 that state's governor, Zell Miller, introduced what became the model for later laws. His effort was inspired by an NRA director and former border patrolman, Ed Topmiller. The heart of the law was that the job of administering the shall issue permit process was given to a non-law enforcement, elected official.
Georgia joined a handful of other states allowing concealed carry, including Vermont, where no license is required; New Hampshire, with a 1923 law; Washington, which made issuance almost mandatory in 1961; and Connecticut, where in 1969 a Handgun Review Board was established to minimize arbitrary denials.
The Indiana Sportsmen’s Council, assisted by the NRA-ILA, passed a mandatory issuance law in 1980, then had to sue the state police and other agencies and elected officials into compliance.
A trend started, with CHL laws passed in Indiana in 1980, Maine and North Dakota in 1985, and South Dakota in 1986.

1987-88: Florida, the Media Storm
The national media ignored these until 1987, when Marion Hammer tackled Florida. Anti-gun folks were horrified. Obviously concealed carry would turn Florida into another Dodge City. Blood would flow in the street. Fender-benders would turn into firefights.
The fight was tough, but the Unified Sportsmen of Florida succeeded. The dire Predictions? A year later the president of the police chiefs association, who had opposed the bill, was asked if he had kept track of all the problems the law caused. "There aren't any," he said.

1989 to 1998: CHL Sweeps the U.S.
That opened the way. CHLs swept through Oregon, Pennsylvania and West Virginia in 1989; Idaho and Mississippi in 1990; Montana in 1991; and Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee and Wyoming in 1994. Then came 1995, with Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Nevada, Utah, and Virginia. In 1996 Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Carolina passed CHL laws, and West Virginia passed it again, their state supreme court having struck down the first one. Alaska, in 1998, had to override a governor's veto to remove restrictions from their law.”

http://www.txchia.org/history.htm

[zephyp]

+1

The people of this country these days have become entirely too dependent on the government to protect them. In actuality, LEO's are not required to come running to the call of a citizen asking for protection. It is incumbent on every able bodied citizen to provide their own defense. Not only against the "bad guys", but also against the government.

The founders of this great country recognized this, and wrote the second amendment for exactly this purpose!

Indeed. SCOTUS ruled on that one if memory serves. LE has no obligation (yes that was - no obligation) to protect/defend the public. And, as an added bonus - some places now if you call the police, they will send you a bill afterwards...

Edit -- please, dont ask Garrett what time it is. As a moderator I do feel obliged to read everyone's post just to follow along. His are long *cough* and sometimes dry...

[SgtBill]

What country did you want to know what time it is so that I can ask Garrett.
LOL
Bill

[Kreutz]

And, as an added bonus - some places now if you call the police, they will send you a bill afterwards..

Would you favor not publicly funding cops in exchange for a per service fee? Its nuts to pay taxes for them and then get a bill, but if you to pick either/or, which would it be?

Curious to hear a possible free market police force explanation. It has merit.

[zephyp]

And, as an added bonus - some places now if you call the police, they will send you a bill afterwards..

Would you favor not publicly funding cops in exchange for a per service fee? Its nuts to pay taxes for them and then get a bill, but if you to pick either/or, which would it be?

Curious to hear a possible free market police force explanation. It has merit.

Our Constitution says that Congress can levy taxes for the defense of the country and the general welfare of the people. One could debate that basic services like fire and police might fall into that last category. If the left werent running around spending our money like drunken sailors then there wouldnt be an issue funding police or fixing roads or all of the other things that get neglected in favor giving money to professional welfare recipients and illegals.

[gunderwood]

And, as an added bonus - some places now if you call the police, they will send you a bill afterwards..

Would you favor not publicly funding cops in exchange for a per service fee? Its nuts to pay taxes for them and then get a bill, but if you to pick either/or, which would it be?

Curious to hear a possible free market police force explanation. It has merit.

Our Constitution says that Congress can levy taxes for the defense of the country and the general welfare of the people. One could debate that basic services like fire and police might fall into that last category. If the left werent running around spending our money like drunken sailors then there wouldnt be an issue funding police or fixing roads or all of the other things that get neglected in favor giving money to professional welfare recipients and illegals.

There is a huge difference between national defense and general welfare. The Federal government may "provide for" the common defense, which implies they can levy taxes to pay for the system of common defense we the people decide we want. There are competing alternatives and it doesn't specify one particular organization of said common defense. However, it may only "promote" the general welfare which is an entirely different action. To promote means to encourage or to admonish the general welfare. Interestingly enough, this goes hand in hand with their power to regulate interstate commerce. The constitutional convention was called because the states were not playing nicely together. Regulating interstate commerce was suppose to be a positive regulation to promote the general welfare not inhibit it like the ATF does. It wasn't meant to regulate individuals citizens either. It was meant to make the states play nicely so that the general welfare of the citizens could be provided for by their own actions, but where the Federal government promoted the general welfare by making sure that the states were not inhibiting it across state lines.

[zephyp]

@Garrett - indeed there is a big difference between the 2 yet the Constitution clearly calls out those 2 things for which congress is authorized to levy taxes. Depends on your interpretation of both. One is relatively simple to define. The other, well lets just say they didnt mean so someone could indefinitely collect money at the expense of the we the people...