It is said that you never screw around with the guy(s) holding the microphone because you will always lose. I’ve never been accused of being rational or sensitive so here I go.

Tyler and Robert are upset. It seems I wasn’t too nice to them on a previous post and they took exception of my snarky comments. They claim that they do not ever favor a A Federal Database of Gun Owners and Federal Regulations to Carry Concealed but they are very much in favor of a Federal Concealed Weapons permit…Huh?

OK guys, here is how it works.  What do you think would be necessary to issue a Federal CCW? Let’s see I imagine that a federally issued CCW number must be connected to at least name and an address with very possibly a set of fingerprints and a full background check, right? So far so good. Now, I imagine that the immense majority of those applying for a FCCW permit do so because they are gun owners and want to carry anywhere in the US so we end up with information on somebody who owns a gun in the hands of the Feds. Oh yes, they will make a list of the permits issued, don’t you think? Congress will make sure it happens that way in order to check for mistakes, possible issuance of FCCW to criminals, terrorists and other undesirables plus they need to know the statistics in order to allocate funding and many other things important to Washington Bureaucrats. A compilation of such information is called a database thus making a FCCW a Federal Database of Gun Owners. I am a big fan of reciprocity between the States and also supported Senator Thune’s Bill because it was simple, effective and did not add crap or created a new Federal monster. What is really disturbing about your proposal is that it seems to me designed for convenience and laziness, not gun rights (14:05) ” We advocate a solution to having to go out to all these different states and get your concealed weapons permit through each individual State… I shouldn’t have to go out and get an Oregon permit and a California permit and an Utah Permit and a Florida Permit. It would be nice to just get one permit.” And of course, a Federal Concealed Weapons Permit seems to be just the ticket. But many others think not for the reasons posted above.

Now , if you think that you and me will be allowed to say how the FCCW law will be written, you have another thing coming. Assorted Congresspeople will soon inundate the bill with restrictions (Mag capacity, defining a pistol as assault weapon if it has some extra feature they don’t like, type of ammo used, registering the gun to be used as FWCC, etc), pork, fees, insurance requirements and assorted crap unrelated to the original idea (A de facto Federal Regulations to Carry Concealed) plus our goal has never been to add another gun law but to eliminate the 20,000 laws we have in the books already. At the end of the day we will probably end with a Frankenstein that will encroach even more in our Second Amendment Rights which will promptly be signed into law with an Administration like the one we have nowadays.  And all of this because you do not feel like taking the time and money to get CCWs from different states? Basically you admitted that your driving motive for a FCCW is laziness. Now, if you really want to make a difference and eliminate the reciprocity issue, campaign for a new version of the Thune Bill, if not just let the individual States work the Reciprocity issue on their own. It has been working fine so far albeit it might be too slow for some. If your State does not allow reciprocity, well it is a local issue that the gun owners in that state should confront and not ask the Feds to intervene. I think we have too much federal intrusion as of now.

At 13:22 you hear “I come up with ideas. If you have a better idea than that, please send me an email.” I am going to tell you here instead of via email: Coming up with ideas does not absolve you from idiocy. You must think through and analyze what could go wrong. The Coyote came up with many ideas, but never gave it much of an analysis with the obvious (and hilarious) consequences happening.

Now let’s take the Mandatory Training thing. My questions are: What kind of broadcast training you two have? Do you think you should be allowed to express your ideas via podcast just because you have the tools? Don’t you agree that mandatory training is necessary specially in this day and age of electronic media where it can reach instantly to other people? Can you imagine the damage unrestricted blogging or podcasting could have? Let’s do it for the Children! See? kinda silly.

Here is an idea. Are you Firearms Instructors? If not, become one. Go to all those Gun Stores that are doing such a bad job and tell them “Hey. We are Certified Instructors. We are here to offer basic firearms safety to your customers specially those buying a gun for the first time.” Strike some sort of deal and reach to those first time buyers. Offer Hunter Safety Classes or the NRA First Step classes for a reasonable fee. Contact other instructors and propose creating local network of instructors that are willing to teach basic gun safety for free if necessary and reachable by phone or a quick email. But to mandate anything before you can own a gun? Hell no! Why do we insist on treating the Second Amendment as an embarrassing Right for which we must voluntarily bend over and take it?

And yes guys, you can call me Popoo Head if you wish, it is your right. Wait, do you have a Federal License to Podcast? Are you properly trained in Podcast safety? Just joking.

And no, I won’t contact you via email if I disagree. You made it sound like you are afraid of being criticized in public and wish to hide any potential embarrassment. Bad move even if that was not your intention. Be open, man up, take it and give it back. You will screw up, everybody does. Just fix it and carry on.

And I have been registered in the GRRN forum for a while but I choose where to participate and comment.