Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry?

[Trolljegeren]

At the present, 21.36% of this forum's posters don't support and comprehend the Second Amendment.

Amazing!

 

[Ruger357SP101]

That's the ticket.

True story and may God strike me dead if it isn't - Today one of my staff members who knows I'm a gun enthusiast told me that her roommate shot himself in the leg while at a gun range today. At least it was him and not somebody else. That idiot's right to carry a gun does not supercede my right to be safe from such idiots.

I will never support permitless or unrestricted carry. And on that note I will move on from this thread.

So your logic is that if the man had had a permit the accident wouldnt have happened?
My rights should be infringed because some nitwit cant practice safe handling of his gun ?
What about the tens of millions of us who DONT shoot ourselves in the leg? We should pay over the one moron who does?

 

[Ruger357SP101]

I will apologize for saying that but the reason you gave for saying no lead me to the statements I made so while you did not say those words that is what I got out of reading your reasons for saying no. And that is what I am apologizing for,

You also agree with me on the training CCW citizens put in but don't seem that bothered by the police officers your tax dollars go to for providing their services when needed. I know police get supplied with ammo to use for there training that tax dollars paid for. But most of the police are just to lazy to go and practice with it. I know some instructors that get paid with ammo the police depart has left over for teaching the police officers. If any of us could get our ammo paid for we would be at the range at lest once a week. So why is it most of our police officers don't use the ammo provided by tax payers to better their skills when it comes to shoot placement.

I figured it was just a misunderstanding of that one post. No big deal.
I am 100% in favor of Constitutional carry.
When I say that Im 'ok' with training I simply mean that I ENCOURAGE training by the individual, not as a requirement to have my 2nd amendment rights.
I think as RESPONSIBLE citizens we should WANT to be as trained and knowledgeable as we can be given we're carrying a lethal weapon.

Ive seen just enough from law enforcement to know that a great deal of them arent as good with a gun as many of us are.
But, I have to wonder if they simply dont have the time to spend 16 hours on the range a week either.
I mean, between all the stuff they have to do, I can see just wanting to call it quits at the end of the day instead of hitting the range for another 2 hours a day.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

Better be careful what you wish for. When new legisleation gets drafted, they could take all the worst that states have to offer and lump them all together & make it worse than it is now. Some in Congress would just as soon remove the 2d A altogether.

Exactly.
i dont want that small number of congressmen having that much authority over guns.

Right now we have state congressmen, state AG's and governors all involved in the process. Its not just a group of men in DC.
Ohios constitution is very clear about guns. I certainly dont want to give a handful of men in DC authority to IGNORE my STATE constitution.

The Ohio Constitution

§ 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

 

[Kasper]

That's the ticket.

True story and may God strike me dead if it isn't - Today one of my staff members who knows I'm a gun enthusiast told me that her roommate shot himself in the leg while at a gun range today. At least it was him and not somebody else. That idiot's right to carry a gun does not supercede my right to be safe from such idiots.

I will never support permitless or unrestricted carry. And on that note I will move on from this thread.

Well you tucked tail and ran away. But the person you said shot himself in the leg at the shooting range. Look and see how many police officers have done the same yet you are fine with them walking the streets to protect you. Here in Seattle the police are protected from criminal charges if they murder someone while doing their job as reported by the news last night. The police are suppose to protect and server so if they are going off and shooting without regard to the citizens that they say they are there to protect and serve it makes it hard for the citizens to believe.

When you go to any gun range they have you sign a wavier saying you know you could get hit by a bullet and accept that risk and will not hold the gun range at fault.

Well you have no say when it comes to the risk involved with the police performing their duties. That is the problem I see with your statement and reason for saying no. The last example you gave has been done by the police numerous times. Google "I'm the only one in this room, that I know of, professional enough to carry this Glock 40." and click any of the links that pop up and you will see a DEA agent shoot himself in the leg then ask is anyone is hurt meaning that he knew he hit himself but had no idea where the bullet was headed.

So while you want to sit on your high horse and claim that citizens need to be trained before given their second amendment rights. You over look at the fact that government officers are given the full second amendment rights and can go anywhere with their firearm without getting a level of training that would keep them and us safe.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

Does training = No accidents ?

DEA Agent shoots himself in the foot.
YouTube - DEA Agent shoots himself in the foot.
So much for being 'professional' enough to carry.
I wonder how many Vermont CCW'er have shot themselves in the foot?

 

[tcox4freedom]

Some of you are saying that the Second Amendment is about self-defense. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or self-defense. It's about protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government and ensuring that we have the means to fight them if necessary. Strength in numbers has proven to be the most deadly weapon of all throughout history. 300 million armed Americans would make the federal government shake in its boots.

I can't press the "Like" button enough times to express how I feel about this post.

 

[tcox4freedom]

You are asking questions to which there are no real yes or no answers.

1. The parents should be responsible for restricting the child's behavior, and should be responsible for their children's behavior, not the government.

2. See question #1. Same answer. If the elderly person has dementia to the extent that they are a danger to themselves and others, their appointed caregiver should be responsible for restricting their behavior, and be responsible for their behavior, not the government.

3. If the government feels that convicted felon is safe enough to walk the streets as a free man, then the answer is yes. If the convicted felon is so damn dangerous to society, then why are we letting them walk the streets freely? And is a permit requirement going to stop the dangerous felon from carrying/using a firearm anyway?

The problem is, B2Tall, that you have swallowed the pill that causes you to believe that Joe Q. Public should not be responsible for anything. You apparently believe that the answer to any social problem is government regulation. Government regulation doesn't work. We've proven that time and time again. What works is holding people responsible for their actions and making them suffer the consequences of their actions. Committing a crime with a gun is still committing a crime! Making a law abiding citizen have to get government permission to carry a gun isn't going to affect the criminal committing the crime with a gun. That's why they are called criminals - they don't obey laws. Government regulation will, however, limit and hinder Joe Citizen's ability to defend themselves against those criminals.

Again, I just can't press the "LIKE" button enough!

 

[Treo]

Add Washington and Montana to your list, Treo.

Currently, the following states do not require any sort of training before issuing a permit:

Alabama

California ( No state rquirement)

Georgia

Indiana

Mississippi

Montana

New Hampshire

Washington

More to be added I'm sure

 

[Grognard Gunny]

Have to go with NavyLT on this one.

ANY restrictions on ANY Bill of Rights item is nothing more than the Government trying to tell us that you are not mature enough to be responsible for the actions you take (or not take) in the exercise of your rights. Sorry, I don't buy into that. (I can't speak for all, but I will be damned if I am to take punishment for anyone else. Nor will I take the implied "insult".)

Unfortunately, in some cases, they are correct in their assumptions. For every "right" you have, there comes with it a certain level of responsible actions in the exercise of that right. Some people simply refuse to act responsibly in any manner, let alone important things like exercising one's rights. (Or handling guns.)

Irresponsible actions concerning a right, will only lead to the Government trying to remove/circumvent your rights under the guise of "public safety".

Therefore, gun safety is a good thing to learn. If for no other reason than to give the Government one less thing to "press" us about. Permits for CC? Nope! Same thing. Only gives the Government a place to interfere in our rights. I'll worry about the incremental personal safety issue without your help. Thanks anyway.

Although I have seen people handling (and I use the term loosly) guns in a way that frankly scares the crap out of me!

Six of one, half dozen of another. Ya pays your money and takes your chances. Just keep the Gubbmint outta my rights. Period.

GG

 

[Fletcher]

And do you feel that , that one training session some how made them safer shooters? Or did your NRA trained somebody just pass them all anyway?

In answer to your question, no, the instructors at my particular CCH certification class did not pass everyone. One gentleman in particular (a very well-dressed gentleman, with a very shiny gun who carried himself well in the classroom portion of the course) just couldn't hit the paper with his 1911 and was pulled from the line and sent home.

One dear, old grandma with a horrible little .380 was coached to within an inch of her life and was deemed a competent enough shooter with an unfortunate choice in handguns. She, along with another gal who'd been given a full-size .357 magnum as a carry weapon by her "loving" husband, were both sternly warned to reconsider their choice in firearm, but after much one-on-one counseling were passed.

The fellow next to me was a grey-haired veteran, who wheeled himself into the range in his chair and only stood up to fire. I don't think he put s single round anywhere outside of the 8 ring. For my part, with my first 10 rounds, I drilled a hole the size of a Kennedy half-dollar with my P99. Needless to say, my gunslingin', wheel-chair bound vet friend and I didn't see much attention from the instructors at our end of the line, so I can't say much about them other than that they seemed to know where to apply their focus and gave the people most in-need of counselling as much as they could absorb. The class was scheduled to break at 9pm, but we were on the line until well after 11pm, the instructors making dead sure they weren't turning gun-happy, wild-eyed shooters loose on the general public.

So, to put it bluntly, yes I do believe every single person in my class walked out knowing more about firearms, shooting and themselves than they knew when they walked in. And I'm damn proud to have taken that class and passed it. I don't believe I needed the nod from an NRA firearms safety instructor to know I'm a capable shooter, but having been trained, tested and certified, you bet your ass I'll carry my head just that much higher. God forbid, should I ever confront a dangerous situation requiring I draw my weapon, I'll have just that much more confidence in my #1 weapon: my mind.

 

[Unfettered Might]

I don't know if anyone else has been paying attention, but it's amazing how close the results have stayed to 80/20.

 

[Treo]

I don't know if anyone else has been paying attention, but it's amazing how close the results have stayed to 80/20.

All you have to do is read the thread to know there's a fudd or two here.

 

[Unfettered Might]

All you have to do is read the thread to know there's a fudd or two here.

Well what i'm saying is, mathematically, it's interesting that it has hovered right at 80/20 without any significant swing at any point.

The "no"'s coming in at mostly regular intervals. Just odd.

 

[Grognard Gunny]

You don't really expect to find gunaphobics/antigunners poking around in a site dedicated to gun tottin" do you?

Except the occasional troll.

Be forewarned, the average Dem/Prog/Lib/2nd Ammendment disser absolutely will NOT, on the average, do their own homework on a subject. They prefer to take their information from minimally worded sound bites (false or not, does not matter) or bumper stickers and their "mind" (sic!) is made up from there.

GG

 

[Ed Hamberger]

Now that all, or most that is, states have the permit system - and the money it brings in - I don't think that it will ever come to pass where there is one permit - or law - allowing state to state CC. Money talks and you know what walks.:wacko:

There is more than enough Toro Poopoo being slung in this thread by several so-called 2A supporters and self-professed Constitutionalists Yet one person appears to want to deny "B2Tall" his 1A rights to express his thoughts on how he percieves Constitutional Carry. I agree 100% with "handgonnetoter" & "B2Tall"... There are a bunch of us here who spent years in uniform serving our country to give our citizens the rights expressed in the 1A, "NavyLt" has forgotten the Oath he took, apparently!:yu:

 

[NavyLCDR]

There is more than enough Toro Poopoo being slung in this thread by several so-called 2A supporters and self-professed Constitutionalists Yet one person appears to want to deny "B2Tall" his 1A rights to express his thoughts on how he percieves Constitutional Carry. I agree 100% with "handgonnetoter" & "B2Tall"... There are a bunch of us here who spent years in uniform serving our country to give our citizens the rights expressed in the 1A, "NavyLt" has forgotten the Oath he took, apparently!:yu:

So the first amendment only goes one way?

 

[phoenixjim]

Should all states do permit-less carry? Absolutely... currently you can go into any state and speak your mind without a permit - and warrants are required to search your premises (or car if you require it, although they can hold you there while obtaining iirc) in any state without a permit.

Keeping and Bearing falls under the exact same purview as Speech, Faith, Press and Assembly etc.

Remember, a "permit" is permission from the government to do something otherwise illegal. And, how many criminals do you know applying for permits?

 

[S&W645]

Well what i'm saying is, mathematically, it's interesting that it has hovered right at 80/20 without any significant swing at any point.

The "no"'s coming in at mostly regular intervals. Just odd.

Might be that some of us understand that there are places where you never will be able to freely carry. Constitutional Carry would require it to be done freely everywhere by anyone whereas it just never will happen. Nor should it.
One of those places is my former employer's headquaters building. When threats are made against the lives of some at meetings, I don't want anyone but the armed guards or possibly employees armed there. And we have had pipe bombs and explosives set off at some of our structures so those threats are real.
Constitutional Carry also removes the chance of blocking felons from buying guns legally at gunshops. Yes I know they can get them illegally but that isn't the subject. Constitutional Carry would mean anyone and everyone could buy a gun legally and carry anywhere, anyway or you don't have Constitutional Carry. Anything less than that is Constitutional Carry with restrictions which is what you have now. Call it what you want but even those states that claim it aren't really Constitutional Carry. AZ, AK, and Vermont require background checks before sales of guns, do they not? VT also restricts places it can be carried. AK does too. And so does AZ.

And how about it on airplanes? Think it should apply there?

The best thing that could be done is to allow the states together to decide what they accept and keep the Feds out of it. Except to tell the Feds that the states' laws, unless in violation of the US Constitution, overrule theirs.

 

[Treo]

There is more than enough Toro Poopoo being slung in this thread by several so-called 2A supporters and self-professed Constitutionalists Yet one person appears to want to deny "B2Tall" his 1A rights to express his thoughts on how he percieves Constitutional Carry. I agree 100% with "handgonnetoter" & "B2Tall"... There are a bunch of us here who spent years in uniform serving our country to give our citizens the rights expressed in the 1A, "NavyLt" has forgotten the Oath he took, apparently!:yu:

B2Tall is entitled to his own opinion but he isn’t entitled to his own facts. He’s contending that he wants anyone that wants to carry a gun in public to go through mandatory safety training. That was his reasoning for being against unrestricted carry.
He stated that such training would make us safer gun owners.

The problem w/ his contention is that several states require absolutely no training or demonstration of competency what so ever. To be perfectly clear, in the following states (Alabama , California ( No state requirement), Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire and Washington ) you do not even have to demonstrate that you have ever even fired a gun before being issued a permit. All you have to do is pay the fee and submit to a background check and you walk out the door legal to carry a concealed firearm.

So, if state mandated training is so important to the safety of the gun carrying public why don’t we have disproportionately higher firearms accident (not willful negligence or criminal misuse but accidents) rates in those states?

How is b2tall’s argument any different that the emotional hand wringing the antis engaged in when we first got concealed carry? Remember the claims of “blood in the streets” and “shoot outs over parking spots”? How are those claims any different than “I voted no because I'm glad that somebody (usually an NRA-trained somebody) stands in the way of complete incompetents and the right to concealed carry.” Or “Exactly what I'm advocating. A simple safety/training course to help make things a little safer for all of us. It also means that the person who might need to defend themselves will have a better chance of doing so successfully”