On Sunday night, “60 Minutes” did an episode about Concealed Carry Reciprocity, something law-abiding gun owners have been pushing for years. If the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act passed in Congress, states would be forced to recognize one another’s concealed carry permits and licenses. It would be similar to a driver’s license in that sense.

As it currently stands, specific states recognize other state’s licenses. It’s a confusing process for gun owners who are trying to follow the law. They could easily break the law by crossing into another state without even knowing it.

It was obvious throughout their piece that the people behind “60 Minutes” are against Concealed Carry Reciprocity.

And the Twitter debate quickly ensued.

Just because you choose to be unarmed doesn’t mean that everyone else should follow you.

A gun is used to protect you and your life. What if your life is threatened outside of your home but your gun isn’t on you? Then what?

That’s the difference between anti-gunners and law-abiding gun owners. Gun owners want to have the ability to protect anyone and everyone, including those who don’t want them to have a firearm in the first place. Gun control advocates, on the other hand, want people to take their chances.

Would you rather he open carries? Then you’d REALLY be freaked out.


There are other gun rights groups out there, that is true.

LOL. Why? Because families hunt? Because people go to the gun range to practice their shooting skills? Because there are shooting sports?

Oh yeah, that’s right, anything that goes BANG! is bad.

Legally, they aren’t supposed to carry a firearm. They don’t follow the laws though, so we know how that will end up.

That’s one way of looking at it.

Liberals, what do you have to say to young men like Ernie who defend our freedom every day? Sit down, shut up and hand over your gun? Shameful.


If you can trust him overseas to defend our freedom, then you can trust him at home to defend your life.

Canadians trying to chime into the debate…

As if we needed another reason to carry besides the crazies. But remember this guy.

That’s what our Founding Fathers made sure we had the Second Amendment. They wanted to make sure we have the ability to stand up against a tyrannical government.

In other words: defending the First with the Second.

Heidi, why don’t you ask the number of women who live in HORRIBLE inner-cities, like Chicago, about why having a gun is necessary. How many rapes and homicides happen in the city versus the country? Once you figure that one out, pipe down.

Would have saved us all an hour of our life.

So we should dictate OUR everyday laws based on what foreigners think? Let that one sink in, Dana.

Translation: Make firearms, ammo and every other aspect of owning a gun so expensive that the average Joe can’t afford it. Price them out of it and they’ll go away.

Sound familiar? History taught us otherwise.

Don’t forget Tucson, too.

They cherry picked what they wanted to use.

^^^ THIS. A thousand times THIS.

Every person who legally owns a firearm must go through background checks. No ifs, ands or buts. That’s not something that happens ONLY in gun control loving states. It happens in all 50 states.

Most CCW permits require 4-8 hours of training, depending on the state.

That’s the difference between liberals and conservatives though. Conservatives believe in defending yourself, on not relying on others for your own protection. Liberals would rather give you a whistle and a phone for you to call for help. If something happens to you between when you call and when police arrive, you’re shit out of luck.


They want the power, not the duty.

Because these men and women know what happens on the streets.

But there’s nothing wrong with carrying knives or mace around? Got it.

To make matters even MORE interesting: “60 Minutes” failed to use any video from a panel of seven women that they interviewed. One of them works for NRA Headquarters. And they’re being called out for it: