JAB

People have a right to freedom of religion. You do not, however, have to allow anyone to hold a prayer meeting in your living room (nor does a company have to allow anyone to hold a prayer meeting in their break room.) People have a right to keep and bear arms. You do not, however, have to allow people to carry on your property - and neither does the owner of a company. However, I am not aware of any law that allows an employer to tell an employee that he or she can't have religious tracts in his or her car while on company property as long as he or she doesn't attempt to distribute those tracts while on company property (and I'll bet there would be an uproar if a company tried.) What I have within the confines of my car - as long as it isn't illegal for me to have it there, in the first place - is none of anyone's business whether it be religious tracts or a .357 Magnum.

The owner of my LGS told me that he had seen a guy who was accidentally shot in the torso (gut) with a .38 wadcutter. Said it made a big hole and did a lot of damage. They called an ambulance as soon as it happened and the poor guy was dead (pretty much bled out) before emergency services could arrive. I carry Hornady Critical Defense standard pressure in my Rossi snubbie with Hornady XTP standard pressure in the speed strip if I carry a reload (XTP is supposed to give deeper penetration but less reliable expansion - I'll eventually do a 'milk jug' test to compare for myself.) Mine will handle +P but I am not entirely convinced that +P gives that great an advantage in a snubbie over some of the newer, standard pressure loads designed for SD from a short barrel. Still, I am considering switching to something in +P for my reload. Again, I need to do some informal testing of my own. You probably already know this but one thing to consider when loading a snubbie for SD is muzzle flash. I shot a few, different loads back to back to test for accuracy. I did this outside and it happened to be near dusk. I found that the XTP in standard pressure produces a fireball that is comparable to WWB JHPs in +P. Remington Golden Sabres in +P produced pretty much the same size fireball - all of them large and bright enough to impact night vision or be a distraction in low light. I fired the Critical Defense before these other rounds and honestly didn't even notice much muzzle flash - meaning reacquiring the target and getting off subsequent shots was quicker. Functional accuracy for SD from ten yards was comparable for all of the loads I tried. That's a nice looking little shooter, by the way.

Hmmm...my impression from products shown on their website is that Rossi has discontinued the non +P rated version. Maybe the killer price is due to them trying to sell out the remainder of those? As you say, it's still a great deal.

I also wish that there were an Academy near Knoxville as in addition to the deals available there it might drive competitors prices lower. I bought a new Rossi 35102 (the blued snubbie .38 Special) last year for $299.99 before tax and background check. That was the cheapest I have seen them in this area. Another LGS (Benton's Shooters Supply for those from the area - not exactly the cheapest place around) had one in their case the last time I was there and were asking $349 before tax and background check for it so I guess that for this area I got a pretty decent deal. Mine has actually been my primary carry lately after my P11 and my P3AT both decided to crap out at the same time. Mine is plenty accurate to SD distances and easy to shoot. I haven't fired a lot of +P through it but it has handled the few I have fire with no problems and the large, rubber grips make felt recoil from +Ps not noticeably different, to me, from the standard pressure loads.

I actually own one and really like it. It has gone bang every time I have pulled the trigger. So far, I have put roughly 100 WMR rounds through mine and somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 LR rounds. It isn't a 'showpiece' but it is a fun and so far reliable little shooter. I got mine partly to use as a yard/woods gun and the ability to shoot .22 WMR was a big consideration so I went with the 6.5 inch barrel. Is it any good? Well, below is a target I shot with it at 100 yards the first time I took it to the outdoor range. These shots were made using open sights and were not made from a bench or rest - I like to practice the way I might actually be shooting in a real world situation. These shots were fired offhand with a two-handed grip in basically a Weaver style stance. There wasn't much of a breeze that day and we were the only ones there so I decided to try this more as a lark than anything. I had never tried shooting a handgun at such a distance, before but had surprised myself by doing pretty well with it at 50 yards. I loaded up the cylinder with WMR rounds and took aim at the center of the target. When I checked the target, lo and behold, I had actually put two on paper (circled in green) and figured that maybe it wasn't that crazy an idea, after all. Loaded up again and aimed higher and more to the left but overcompensated - only got one on paper that time (purple circle.) This helped me dial in my aim better and the four yellow circles show the results of the third cylinder full. I don't consider myself to be an exceptional shot, at all and am certain that my Rough Rider is capable of better in more skilled hands. Even I could probably do better if I spent more time on it. One more thing - you might notice the clean, round holes - no keyholing even at 100 yards. In fact, the 40 grain Winchester Super X JHPs I was shooting not only cleanly passed through the target but also passed through the plywood that the target was taped up on and made nice 'thuds' with little clouds of dust when they hit the dirt berm behind the target stand. My advice is that if you are looking for an 'heirloom' then maybe the Ruger would suit you better. If you are looking for a fun plinker and utilitarian shooter, give the Heritage a try and spend the extra money you would have spent on a Ruger on ammo, instead.

Not sure, exactly. All I know along these lines comes from a fellow member at another forum who lives in a state that has a weapons carry permit but often goes into a neighboring state that has only a handgun carry permit (with reciprocal agreement with his state.) IIRC, the two states involved are Kansas and Missouri but I can't remember which is his home state. Anyhow, he says that in his home state, because he has a weapons carry permit, he can legally carry a boot knife that would otherwise be illegal to carry (I assume because of blade length) but that he has to remove the knife when he travels into the neighboring state. I guess that a 'weapons carry permit' would also apply to clubs, cudgels, etc. that may otherwise be illegal. Kind of makes sense, to me. After all, it seems kind of silly to say that you are okay to carry a concealed firearm on your person but could still get in trouble for having a blackjack in your car.

Exactly - my problem with all the folks who only want to trumpet the 'property owner's rights' is that they do not recognize my rights to determine what takes place within the scope of my property (my vehicle.) The passenger compartment of my vehicle remains my property regardless of where it is parked and a law which recognizes that would go a long way toward solving the problem. I would, however, also want to see a stipulation included that expressly forbids, in no uncertain terms, employers requiring employees to submit to vehicle searches as a condition of employment. It should be spelled out that employers cannot make such a requirement either at the time of the search or by requiring employees to sign documents authorizing potential searches at a future time. If such were the law, unless an employee let it be known at work that he or she had a firearm in his or her vehicle, the employer would have no reason to ask the employee to remove the vehicle from the property and certainly could not use the firearm as a reason for termination of employment.

As long as students were informed of the disparity between state requirements and this particular instructor's requirements before signing up for the class - and were given the choice to take the class elsewhere or indicate their agreement by signing up, anyway - I would have no problem. I may have misunderstood you previously - I was under the impression that you weren't informed until the class was already in progress (and money had been paid) that this would be the case. Anyhow, I have received a lot of help from various posters with my original question and am thankful. Thanks also to peejman for the interesting discussion.

Honestly, there was only one such individual in my class. He failed to pass the written portion without the instructor going beyond the state's requirements. What you are talking about here is one individual taking it upon themselves to decide that, even accepting the idea that carrying for personal defense is a priveledge, the state's requirements - the legal requirements on the books - aren't good enough and that he (the instructor) is going to enforce a different standard. That's like a cop deciding that, although the speed limit on a particular stretch of road is 55, he's going to ticket people for going over 45 because he believes that 45 should be the limit. To put it all in perspective, I look around every day and think that it is scary that some of the people with whom I come into contact are allowed to vote and have a say in the direction our society will take. So should people attending polling stations set themselves up to determine whether or not these individuals are qualified to vote, despite the fact that they meet the legal requirements for doing so? Going a bit off topic (is it possible to hijack one's own thread?) Personally, I don't consider the right to be prepared for self defense, regardless of location, to be a priviledge. Perhaps concealed carry should require a permit (this from someone who carries concealed) but the ability to be armed for self defense, period (open carry) should not. It is unfortunate that our state (unlike some other states) seems to feel that self defense in other than one's home is a priveledge, not a right. From a practical standpoint, how can we bear arms if said arms are not with us (on our person) when we need them? Of course, some would say that bearing arms has more to do with resisting a tyrannical government and that the Constitution doesn't talk about personal self defense (although the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Heller.) Thing is, if self-defense was omitted from specific mention in the Constitution, I believe that is because the Founders considered it to be common sense that people have that right - whether in their own home or walking down a public street (Thomas Jefferson did, after all, advise his nephew to always take his pistol with him on his walks - and that wasn't to repel the Red Coats.) Including specific mention of a right to carry weapons for self defense in the Constitution would probably have seemed to the Founders as being much like including specific mention of a right to carry a firearm when squirrel hunting.

While I may agree, in principle, I have a problem with an instructor setting himself up as 'gatekeeper' in such a manner. If a person meets the state requirements, they should pass, period. It is ridiculous that we have to pay for the 'right' to carry in the first place. If I were paying someone who then refused to recognize that I had met state requirements, I'd be pretty ticked. Heck, even if I passed (and I would have), I'd still be ticked that he took it upon himself - rather than following state guidelines - to decide what is 'good enough.' I'd certainly be sure to recommend that anyone I knew who wanted to take the test look elsewhere for a class.

Thanks for all the responses, guys, I really appreciate it - and especially to BigPoppa - this is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for. I have told her the generalities - that it's all multiple choice or true/false, most of the questions are common sense and relate to gun safety or basic carry legalities - but couldn't think of any specific question examples to give her. Thanks, OhShoot, for bringing up the DL reference. It's been a looong time since my mom took the test to get her DL (heck, I've had my driver's license for about 21 years, now if that puts any perspective on it) but that should help her feel better. I also told her that, IMO, the test for the hunter's safety course is harder than the HCP test and that there are 8 year olds who pass the hunter's safety course. Wow, peejman, one 'miss' out of 48 shots would have disqualified you? I'm thinking that we had to hit 37 out of 48 but it might have been 34 hits out of 48 shots as someone else mentioned - can't really remember because all of my shots were 'good'. I know that mom shoots a whole lot better than some of the people who passed the test when I took it (and she uses open sights while some of them were using lasers!) Wow, that would help, I imagine. However, mom is taking the test at the same place I took it. IIRC, there might have been something up with the 'handgun safety rules' on it and maybe something about the proper sight picture but nothing else that would help, much. Still, not a bad idea to keep her eyes open in case they've hung up new stuff.

Yep. Also, what does it mean that the firearm is in your 'possession'? If it is locked in the glove box while you are in the building then is it really in your possession? Does 'possession' mean you retain active control over the firearm by having it on or in the immediate vicinity of (as in next to you in a messenger bag, etc.) your person? So, does the law really say that you are only okay to pick up/drop off passengers as long as you are a non-student adult who remains actively in control of the firearm (it is on your person), are in the act of operating - i.e driving - the car (are behind the wheel and do not exit the vehicle) and you do not handle the firearm nor allow it to be handled while on school property? Is this really just a variation of the 'pass through' law that allows firearms to be carried by a person driving on a public road that passes through a restricted zone which makes a similar exception for passing through a school parking lot/student pick up and drop off area? I'm thinking yes, but IANAL. FWIW, that is also the way my HCP class instructor and his wife (who is a first-grade teacher) interpreted the law. This is an important subject to me as I work at a private college (I don't see that the law makes any distinction for the type of school, grade level or anything else) and believe this law makes it illegal for me to even have a firearm in my vehicle while at work and parked on school property - effectively interfering with my legal ability, with my HCP, to carry in non-restricted areas on my way to and from work.

Okay, I did the 'search' thing as well as checking out the 'resources' sticky thread and still didn't come across an answer to my question. My mom wants to get her carry permit and is signed up for a class. I don't think she'll have any problem, whatsoever, with the shooting portion (I ran her through a simulated version of what the instructor did for our shooting test yesterday at the range, putting the target at various distances - she only had one shot out of 48 that wasn't 'in the black' on the silhouette target.) She gets nervous when it comes to written tests, however. I've assured her that everything she will be tested on will be covered in the class but she is still worried that she will get nervous and draw a blank. I can tell her the types of things that are covered but since it's been over a year and a half since I took the class I can't remember the test well enough to give her specific examples of the types of questions she can expect. Anyone know if and where I might find some sample questions? No, I'm not asking for the official questions so she can 'cheat' - I just want some samples to help her know what to expect so that she will be a bit less anxious.

Okay, I'm going to be the one to try and bring a little 'stress reliever' to the thread. On the subject of 'beating the draw', I wouldn't want to be the guy with the holstered gun trying to outdraw an already drawn and levelled gun. That said, I also wouldn't want to be the guy with an already drawn and levelled gun facing this guy with a holstered gun (and a single-action revolver at that): You know, come to think of it, I wouldn't want to be facing a gun in any position or be in a position of having to draw mine. I will if I have to, though.

I have speedloaders and a double speedloader carrier that I can wear on my belt for the six shot .357 snub but I don't carry that one, much. Lately, my most common EDC has been my Rossi five-shot .38 Special. It's been solid and reliable but the one annoying thing is that the five shot speedloader I bought for it won't work very well. The rubber factory grips, which make it extremely easy to control, are too thick to allow the speedloader to be positioned correctly. I ended up getting a couple of Bianchi speed strips. It is very easy to carry one (or even two, depending on the jeans) of these in the watch pocket of a pair of jeans. As others say, not as fast as speedloaders but this at least gives me quick access to five or even ten more rounds in a package that is easier to carry and much easier to conceal than a speedloader carrier.

With regards to that, what are your thoughts on holsters that are tightly molded for retention vs. holsters with a thumb break, retention strap or a 'button' on the holster you must press in order to present the weapon? I certainly want good retention for CC (whenever possible, I carry my primary at about 3:00 to 3:30 OWB under a cover garment - usually cover with an unbuttoned shirt or open jacket and have practiced sweeping the garment back and drawing) but do you think that OC requires a greater level of retention built into the holster? How would you balance retention vs. ease of presentation in case of a 'beat the draw' scenario? Concerns of retention vs. speed of presentation are part (only a small part, but part) of the reason I don't OC more often - I feel I'd need more retention than my FOBUS offers but, as I'm not exactly 'Quickdraw McGraw' as it is, I worry that such retention - and especially some type of retention strap - would slow me down too much.

I don't know - I think that 'staging' something would have shock value but not much more. In fact, the ketchup scenario would probably just convince them that you are completely nuts and not to be taken seriously. I think having an adult conversation is probably the best way to go. If you want to use 'shock value' in such a conversation, do some research. Find articles about normal people killed in home invasions or even find transcripts (or, better yet, actual recordings) of 911 calls which have been posted online of home owners calling the police for help during a robbery and home invasion situation. Find examples where the home owner was murdered or seriously injured by the invader as well as examples where an armed resident stopped the criminal and possibly/probably saved their own life and the lives of others. Give them real life examples that drive home the fact that the police often or even usually can't get there in time to help. Point out that the victims in these incidents had probably made it through years of life with no trouble at all but that did nothing to guarantee they would never have a problem - as the real world incidents illustrate. Try to remain rational and present your argument in a reasonable manner. It may be hard not to get frustrated but resist the urge as well as you can. I'm glad I never had to convince my parents of the value of having a firearm or of the possibility of having to defend one's home. Thankfully, I would have been preaching to the choir on that!

The P95 would be much better for the 'range gun' part of your dual requirement. Hmmm...maybe you just need two guns! You could always get a P95 or similar and carry that for a while. If it works for carry, great. If not, keep it for the range and carry it until you can get something smaller/lighter for carry.

I will have to think on that one. As long as people who choose to carry guns are presented as being somehow on the 'fringe' by the news media and popular entertainment (let's face it - in movies even the good guys who carry guns but aren't cops or military are presented as being somehow 'out there' or even vigilantes) then I don't think the attitude of the general public will change all that much. In such circumstance, I believe that more people OC'ing would simply serve to make many, average citizens say, "Wow, I never knew there were so many people walking around with guns. Maybe we do need more restrictions." A polite, responsible OC'er might be able to positively influence the opinions of those with whom he or she has direct contact but, because some people will never have the benefit of a conversation with said individual and will simply see, "some guy walking around with a gun like he thinks he's Jesse James," I believe that increased OC would do more harm than good. That is a good question. It would kind of depend on whether or not your average, petty thief is as aware of the various concealment options as are those of us who explore those options. My own feeling - nothing more than a hunch - is that they are not. Professional criminals probably are and I think that a 'tactical vest' or even a 'photographer's vest' might arouse suspicion with anyone but I'm just not all that convinced that your average thug sees a fanny pack and thinks, "Gun." More likely, he thinks, "What a geek!" or even, "Hey, a tourist," neither of which would necessarily be a good thing as they could make one a more likely target. A 'manpurse' probably has a similar effect. Laptop bags and messenger bags, however, have become nearly as ubiquitous as were fanny packs in the 1990s. Personally, the only 'outer wear' vest I have is a zip-up fleece one like I see worn by many guys in this area and that I don't believe indicate, "Gun." I sometimes carry in a fanny pack at home when wearing sleep pants, etc. but never in public. Otherwise, I carry my firearms on my person when I am walking around, even at home. I don't like off-body carry. I'd hate to have my 'manpurse' snatched and give the thief a nice 'bonus' firearm. I use everyday shirts and jackets for cover garments because, regardless of whether or not they scream, "Gun," I think those tactical vests, etc. simply draw too much attention to the wearer. Sorry if my posts seem, "Wordy." Just trying to make sure I get my whole point across.

I did not bring up the analogy. I simply responded to more than one post using said analogy. Does trying to have a discussion regarding the tactics we use to defend our rights constitute an attack? If so, then I guess I am guilty. OC if you want. Heck, use erroneous analogies if you want - obviously no one needs my permission nor would I want them to. I do believe that there is a time and place for OC and not all times and places are appropriate. I further believe that widespread OC might lead to more places posting 'legally worded' signs prohibiting us from carrying, period. Finally, I see no advantage to putting all your cards on the table, so to speak, and letting a possible assailant know they should just go ahead and shoot you rather than risk armed response. I OC at home, around the yard and even if I need to cross the road to get the mail. If I OC in public it is usually because I am only going to be out of my vehicle briefly and don't want to fool with putting my cover garment on (yep, admitted laziness, for the most part.) Otherwise, I am at least wearing a cover garment. That is how I do it and I don't presume to tell others how they should carry. I am glad for the option of OC, both for the times I am too lazy to put on a cover garment and for those times when there is incidental exposure of my firearm. I'm glad we aren't a CC only state. I further believe that OC, at the very least, should be legal for anyone who can legally purchase or possess a handgun, no permit required. If this were the case, there is a chance that I would simply OC and not fool with a permit.

Um...you might have noticed a distinction, there, as in

And therein lies the rub. Discriminating means not recognizing rights and priveledges equally. As a law that applies to all private citizens applies equally, there is no discrimination. Violation, perhaps, or even oppression but not discrimination. This does not mean that those rights aren't worthy of fighting for in the interests of everyone. It simply means that the situation does not qualify as discrimination. [As Linoge requests, I will PM this explanation to him.]

The short answer is that I am not drawing a line between rights and saying that one right is more important than another. Instead, I am saying that these two, specific situations are not analagous and that attempts to present them as being so are awkward, at best, and harmful to our cause, at worst. To explain in more detail: Yes, all rights are equal. Make no mistake that I view my right to own firearms as being every bit as important as my right to sit wherever the heck I please if using public transportation (perhaps even more so as the former can be the last line of defense against violation of the latter.) Further, I am not even talking about fighting for rights or not. The cause of private firearms ownership and firearm carry for self defense is just. I am simply saying that the disparate situations used in that specific analogy are not comparable. If someone told me, "You're a white man and we don't like white men because people like you have been responsible for a lot of bad things in this world. You can't have a handgun carry permit," or said, "Your accent makes you sound like a hick. We don't want people like you carrying handguns so your permit is denied," then that would be discrimination. However, someone saying, "No private citizen can carry a handgun," is not discrimination. Even saying, "No private citizen can own a firearm," and fully enforcing such a regulation is not discrimination. It is certainly a violation of rights but not every violation of rights is clearly discrimination. In this case, such would not be discrimination because all citizens are [at least in a legal sense] treated equally. Such law does not create a 'better class' of private citizen. Should we fight against such a law? Of course - but it would not be a discriminatory law. Even the current (ignorant and totally illogical) law prohibiting private citizens - even those with an HCP - from legally carrying in restaurants where alchohol is served is not discriminatory as it applies equally to all private citizens as no private citizen can legally carry there. Yes, common sense tells us that criminals will still carry where they want but that is in violation of the law, not an exception to the law. Therefore, while nonsensical and illogical, the law is not discriminatory. It needs to go away for other reasons but none of them have anything to do with discrimination. In the case of Rosa Parks and the related civil rights struggle, discrimination was a large - even the main - component. Laws that required certain racial groups to sit at the back of the bus, not eat in certain restaurants, not drink from certain public drinking fountains and even attempt to make it difficult or impossible for certain individuals to vote while allowing other private citizens to do all of those things, unhindered create a 'second class' of citizen. Laws that allow no one to engage in certain actions or conduct do not. As discrimination and being relegated to 'second class' citizenship were so much a part of the struggle for civil rights - and as laws which treat or even opress everyone equally, such as across-the-board firearms laws for private citizens do not create such status - the attempt to draw an analogy between the two is misguided, IMO. I was certainly not saying that there is no justification in fighting for the rights of private citizens - our rights - to own firearms or even to be best equipped for self defense when in public. I am saying that, in the attempt to do so, we should avoid attempting to drive square peg arguments into round hole debates. Believe me, we are on the same side. I guess you could say that my objection has more to do with the tactics used than whether or not the battle should be fought.

No, in fact, it was not, "just an analogy used in a simple conversation." I have seen the same analogy used...ne, parroted...elsewhere in an attempt to draw such comparisons. Basically, from what I have seen, this has, for some, become a standard, canned argument for use in the firearms rights debate - and it does not work. I am not playing the 'race card'. Quite the opposite, in fact. The way I see it, folks who attempt to equate limitations on firearms carry rights with racial discrimination are attempting, in an awkward and convoluted manner, to seek out a way in which the 'race card' can be used to their advantage. Also, I am not tiptoeing around anyone nor am I placating anyone. Instead, I am voicing the opinion that using this analogy belittles the struggle of certain racial groups in this country to move from being slaves to the point that they enjoyed the same civil rights as everyone else. I am also saying that, were I a member of said racial group, I just might be offended to see that struggle belittled and used as a 'card' to play in a totally different circumstance. Further, if you had bothered to pay attention, you would see that I was not using Stalin or Hitler in any way in my argument. Instead, as should be perfectly clear and should require no explanation, I was saying that the use of the 'firearms owners are discriminated against just like Rosa Parks' argument is as ridiculous as some folks' insistance on comparing every, little thing that Obama does to Stalin and Hitler. Perhaps it would have been more reasonable to ask for such clarification rather than simply attacking me and what you view as my personal motiviations? But, hey, just keep on flying off the handle in such a manner. I'm sure it will make you a wonderful representative for people who wish to advance the cause of firearms ownership rights. You can keep that chill pill for yourself as it sounds as though you need it far worse than I.

OC is legal and within the rights of an HCP holder. That said, since others brought it up, I believe that the comparison with Rosa Parks and sitting at the back of the bus is a fallacious analogy and one more likely to be a cause of consternation with the general public than to get a point across and win support. In fact, some members of so-called minority races might be downright insulted by the analogy and I am not convinced that they should not be. First, a firearm is a tool - a piece of equipment - that one can choose to carry. It is not generally a part of an individual's genetic makeup nor does it reflect upon an individual's worth as a person or status as an equal citizen. Generally, one does not choose one's race as one chooses whether or not to carry a firearm. Likewise, one cannot leave one's race or ethnicity in the car when one wishes to dine at a particular establishment. Further, one is not being relegated to 'second class citizenship' simply because one is asked to conceal their firearm or even not allowed to carry a firearm, at all, as long as other private citizens must do likewise or have the same criteria for exercising a particular right. See, Rosa Parks and other black people were forced to sit at the back of the bus while others - so-called 'white' people were allowed to sit at the front of the bus. That was the disparity and that disparity created discrimination. In order for the analogy to work, there would have to be an uneven standard that allowed some law-abiding private citizens to obtain a permit legally to carry guns or to legally carry sans permit while other law-abiding citizens could not. In other words, the analogy might work if the comparison were to private citizens under the age of 21 who are legally adults and have the legal responsibilities of adults but are not allowed to obtain an HCP simply because of their age (this is age discrimination - you can technically be drafted and forced to go to war, you will be prosecuted as an adult for any crimes you commit but you can't legally carry a firearm or even buy a Budweiser.) The analogy might also work with regard to law-abiding citizens without a criminal conviction of a type that would legally prohibit firearms ownership or carry who can't afford to pay the fees to take the required class or to pay for the permit as this is discrimination based on financial resources. However, as long as the same criteria for legal carry exists for every private citizen regardless of race, creed, religion, sexual preference, regional origin, family origin or ethnic background I believe the comparison of carry rights to the struggle of blacks and other 'minorities' for basic, civil rights to be an exaggeration much like comparing every, little thing that Barry O does to Stalin or Hitler. This analogy, to my thinking, is simply a red herring and we would be better to argue for our rights on their own merits and not borrow trouble and sound like we have a persecution complex by making such comparisons. I honestly wish the analogy could be made to work as it would certainly be a strong argument in our favor. However, under scrutiny, the analogy falls apart, comes across as flippant and just makes us sound ridiculous. I, as much as anyone, would like for society and the general public to realize that HCP holders and legal firearms owners are not the boogie-man nor are we [well, most of us, anyway] walking around in a state of mall ninja delusion hoping for an opportunity to 'save the world' or 'take out the bad guys' with our carry weapon. Further, I do of course believe that recognition of our rights is important. However, once again we must argue for those rights on their own merits and not try to draw analogies that do not work and that, in the end, could damage our image in the court of public opinion and lose valuable support both from the general citizenry and from politicians who do not want voters to think they believe such analogies.