Understood & Agreed.
It does indicate the increasing audacity of the criminal element, more often adding serious bodily injury to their other crimes. This applies to other crimes as well, jumping people in parking lots to carjack, rather than hotwiring the car, etc.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Reason you decided to get CHL ?”
- Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:33 pm
- Forum: New to CHL?
- Topic: Reason you decided to get CHL ?
- Replies: 155
- Views: 37197
- Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:26 pm
- Forum: New to CHL?
- Topic: Reason you decided to get CHL ?
- Replies: 155
- Views: 37197
Re: Reason you decided to get CHL ?
Several reasons actually
#1 The number of kick-in type burglaries seem to be on the rise.
#2 A life-changing ankle injury made me less able to maneuver, even though I consider myself very aware of my surroundings
#3 To show my support for the 2nd Amendment (although a license shouldn't be required IMO.) I'm a libertarian at heart, and I don't see anything in "shall not be infringed" that leaves room for questions. For those who would argue that the framers of the Bill of Rights were talking about muskets, because they had "no concept" of our modern weapons, I would have to argue that they had "no concept" of instant satellite news and the internet, either, so I suppose that their 1A rights shouldn't apply to computers or to Television. There's nothing in the 2A that says "for personal protection" or "for hunting" and I think that when we make arguments that involve any specific use of a firearm, we make a mistake. Any legal use by a law-abiding citizen that does not infringe upon the rights of another law abiding citizen is allowed. /rant
#1 The number of kick-in type burglaries seem to be on the rise.
#2 A life-changing ankle injury made me less able to maneuver, even though I consider myself very aware of my surroundings
#3 To show my support for the 2nd Amendment (although a license shouldn't be required IMO.) I'm a libertarian at heart, and I don't see anything in "shall not be infringed" that leaves room for questions. For those who would argue that the framers of the Bill of Rights were talking about muskets, because they had "no concept" of our modern weapons, I would have to argue that they had "no concept" of instant satellite news and the internet, either, so I suppose that their 1A rights shouldn't apply to computers or to Television. There's nothing in the 2A that says "for personal protection" or "for hunting" and I think that when we make arguments that involve any specific use of a firearm, we make a mistake. Any legal use by a law-abiding citizen that does not infringe upon the rights of another law abiding citizen is allowed. /rant