JayC

Your math is off it's much large than our military... 1% of the population in open rebellion is larger than our entire military, state, local, and federal police forces. And the truth is it would likely be more like 3% in open rebellion in short order.

The short answer is yes. Having a handgun without a license is illegal in DC no matter how the firearm is stored. Non-DC residents can not get a permit. Why are you going? I personally won't go to DC and waste my money there... Same reason I won't take a trip to IL, or anywhere else that I can't carry a firearm to protect myself and my family. Lots of great places to visit where you don't have to go unarmed... and by picking those places over states like IL, CA, and DC you get to speak with your pocket book.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-25-licenses_N.htm?poe=HFMostPopular It's probably has to do with you needing glasses to drive. But we're one of the 31 states noted in the article doing computerize matching.

And this is a perfect example of why we should remove immunity from the court system employees. Mess up somebodies life, face civil liabilities like everybody else...

It has nothing to do with the glare... It's because the facial recognition software the state uses can't handle glasses very well... It's to better allow them to do matching from other sources such as security cameras and sources such as the internet.

I'm sorry but as a person with libertarian leanings how can you say that the current drug laws (and all the bad things that come from them), don't need to be changed? The vast majority of the bad firearm laws in the last 30 years have come about because of the war on drugs, by taking away that street level violence (and if history is any guide, just as after the end of prohibition you'll need a sharp decrease in street level violence). How about the infractions of the 4th amendment by our government during the 'war on drugs'? How about the fact I can't legally buy a saline IV kit for my bug out bag without a prescription because some drug user might use the needles? Or how about the simple fact that we could reduce the size and scope of government in peoples everyday lives? I agree, there is no logical argument that one should legalize pot and not all other drugs, including the vast majority of 'prescription' drugs... There *might* be an argument for a limited number of drugs - for example chemo type drugs which are radioactive although I'm not enough of an expert to say even that is a serious enough threat to others to require a prescription. But, the drug laws need to be changed, even at the state level... if at the very least so I can buy decent cold medicine again without the fear of buying too much in too short of a period of time and landing myself in jail.

Did you watch the video? I'm a big supporter of open carry... But he is running around pointing what appears to be a weapon at people and cars in a threatening manner. I don't agree with steeple who get scared because they see something... But you point what looks like a weapon at me, and I'm going to react... Pointing something that looks like a weapon is not the same thing as open carrying.

I agree, and if you take away the biggest source of income for organized crime... and they aren't leaving anything on the table today, what happens? Organized crime takes a hit and gets smaller. This is what we saw after the end of prohibition, organized crime got smaller.

And organized crime is doing all of those things today... Do you really think there is another 400 BILLION dollars a year they're leaving on the table?

And who says God doesn't watch out for fools and little children? Agreed, stupid and lucky they didn't get shot.

Dave, No offense, but going after the suppliers will solve nothing. The only way to stop the flow of drugs is to remove the market for drugs... and that is impossible. Removing the supply will just increase the cost of the product, until new suppliers emerge who provide more supply and reduce the costs. The high price will be temporary, and while it may price some users out of the market, they will likely enter back in once the price starts to come down. This is econ-101. You can't fight human nature, people want this stuff and are willing to pay money for it, somebody will provide it. We don't have a supply problem, we have a demand problem and there is virtually no way to fix that... much easier to legalize the supply side and take this revue stream away from the criminal elements.

First, I kinda take offense to that... I've never smoked a cigarette let alone pot or any other illegal drug in my life... I never felt the need or desire to, and honestly I don't drink either. I think drugs are bad, they're bad for you physically (so are M&M's), they're bad for your family, they're bad for your ability to provide a living, they're just all around bad when they are abused... but that can be said about any other thing taken to extremes... I'd never want my children or family members to get involved in drugs... whether legal or not, just as I'd never allow my children to smoke tobacco. So, lets run down your rabbit hole... if we make illegal drugs legal, where are the gangs going to get the replacement cash flow? What is it today they're not doing to the best of their ability already that tomorrow when drugs are legal they'll start doing? Trust me they're already exploiting those other cash flows... most of which we should make legal as well... What you're left with are real serious criminal activity, which isn't very profitable on any large scale. Things that are hard for people to turn the other way on... So what is it exactly they'll start doing tomorrow that will replace the BILLIONS (350-400 billion a year estimated)... You're right gangs won't go away, there will be an uptick in some violent crimes... but just like any other business or army, you need money to recruit, train and equipment your soldiers, and drugs provide the lions share of that money today.

Robert, Here again you're not focused on the root cause... The issue isn't why should we be paying for drug users healthcare... the issue is we should be paying for anybodies healthcare. This is a perfect example of trying to use a band-aide to fix a 'symptom' instead of fixing the root cause... The government (any level) should not be involved in social welfare, period. I shouldn't be paying your healthcare bills because you're gorked out on drugs anymore than I should be paying your healthcare bills because you're 400 lbs from eating Twinkies all day long. And here is the great thing, if I'm not paying for your healthcare then it doesn't matter to me if you're doing either. The drugs aren't the real problem, it's the government doing things it has no business doing, and then we find all sorts of excuses to allow the government to manage our lives. But, the problem with your argument is it doesn't matter... drug addicts get all of those things today... being a drug addict is considered a disability... you're paying for them to sit home and do drugs today already... so unless you believe ending prohibition would somehow cause the number of drug addicts to sky rocket, how is it anymore of a burden on you than the 'war on drugs' is today?

I think anybody who thinks outlawing a substance that is addictive somehow makes things better is naive. But, lets look at the current drug problem... First we have to separate crimes and issues caused by use, from those caused by prohibition. The first won't go away, it might even get a little worse.... But, for the sake of argument lets pretend you're 100% correct... that the level of crime doesn't change at all, it stays at the current level (history seems to disagree with you, looking at the end of prohibition and crime rates).... So we end prohibition tomorrow... and make all 'drugs' legal to own and sell... 1. My taxes go down, first from the increased revenue from the now legal selling of drugs... second from all the police officers, and border patrol agents who we no longer need to have on the government payroll. 2. My civil liberties get restored... no more need to search my car during a traffic stop... no more need to have Terry Stops, etc... So worse case looks a lot better for me than what we have today... and I suspect we'd see additional benefits as well.

They're ALREADY a burden on society! How much more of a burden can they get if we repeal prohibition? So solution A: Make the drugs illegal, even though there is a high demand for the drugs, create horrible violence in our streets, loss of civil liabilities, and a small war on our southern border which is starting to spill over into our country. Or solution B: Repeal prohibition, the current druggies continue to cause problems, we're still having to deal with the issues we do today... but we get a 'prohibition dividend' get reducing government spending on police officers by 50-75% and all the foreign aid we spend on the drug war. Or even better solution C: Move the social safety net back where it belongs to private groups and churches and get rid of 100% of the government funding of safety nets. How many years were you a police officer? Tell me the number of times you saw somebody do a home invasion to get cigarette money? Drugs are very expensive today, once legalized, even with a 100% tax on them, they would still end up being much less than they are today. As for work place issues... just like it's a great way to get fired to be drunk on the job, being high will continue to be a great way to loose your job... But, for the most part we're already doing that... The cost of being a drug addict isn't going to increase property crime, because the cost will go down... I suspect you can't buy 20 joints for $5 on the street today, my guess is that 20 joints costs upwards for $50+ on the street today... they same would be true for all drugs, the costs would go down. I'll also point out, how many robberies have you heard about for Viagra? So again what is the downside?

Doing what? Making money how? Will you completely do away with bad people doing bad things? No. But, none of the things you listed make money like drugs do... They are all high risk low reward type of activities... We'd never see gangs fighting over 'rape' street corners... Organized crime requires money, a lot of money... With maybe the exception of KnR, if you take prohibition away these groups won't be able to make enough money to stay in business... And we did have gangs before prohibition, there are some types of crimes that can support small groups of organized criminals... we're never going to do away with that. But, why pass laws that create criminal gangs with enough money to topple foreign governments? Will there always be criminals? yes... will they sometimes get together and do bad things? yes... But, they won't have the GDP of a small nation state if you take away prohibition.

It's all a government created mess to begin with... The fact is you can't stop capitalism... There is a product and a high demand market.. By driving that market underground you end up with street gangs who can't work within the system and therefore blood spills out into the streets. We've seen this movie before and the *only* way to get rid of the gang problem is to get rid of prohibition because the high demand for their product is impossible to get rid of. Make the product they're selling legal and the gang problem would be gone in 12-18 months.

You're letting them off pretty easy, my time is worth a lot more than the class fee... I'd show up and demand a legit certificate or a reasonable compensation for my lost time they wasted, taking their unlicensed class. And frankly the OP should be posting this companies name everywhere so we can all avoid such a poorly managed company.

I'm amazed this far after 9/11 I'm still having to take my shoes off, and wait inline to be sexually assaulted Which scares me more? A otherwise law abiding citizen carrying a firearm onto a plane, or a TSA agent purposely sending my daughter through the naked body scanner to get his jollies? I can tell you it isn't the otherwise law abiding citizen.

http://willcounty.isra.org/forms/GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf Page 16 The fact is from a little read study (and hard to find online) by Dave Kopel and Clayton Cramer. Dave Kopel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Kopel Clayton Cramer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Cramer I've read their study, but only have a paper copy or I would post it.

You're good to go.

The entire HCP/CCW class structure is corporate welfare for ranges and instructors... it does little to nothing to make us safer and acts as a road block for otherwise law abiding citizens. FACT: Citizens who are involved in a deadly justified shooting are 5 times less likely to kill an innocent person than police officers... Citizens at large 2% of the time, Police Officers 11% of the time. Now why exactly do we need anything more than a $5 written test for an HCP?

Law don't stop said douchebags from trying to troll in real life... simpler laws that reduce the chance that said trolls can get the police to over react makes it better for everybody include said trolls. We can't write laws to contain one idiot looking to land a lawsuit... The fact is it's silly to have that law as a defense... ownership in your home should be legal outright, period, end of story. Who here thinks there should be any grey area about an otherwise law abiding citizen having a firearm in their home be a criminal act? Speak up, because I can't think of one logical reason to have that law on the books as a defense today... when a single word would solve this once and for all.

It would have been just as easy to use the word EXCEPTION instead of defense... Making the activity legal out right instead of making it an affirmative defense in a court of law. We could get this changed without any serious re-writing of the law by changing the word defense to exception in a few key spots.

Only because the officer in TN doesn't want to arrest you and do all the paperwork to have a judge later release you... much like in FL... but make no mistake, they could do the exact same thing here to any HCP just because they want to.