Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry?

[phoenixjim]

This thread has proven to be very interesting. However, I see only two sides to this debate, really. On the one side, we have gun control - which ultimately means making all gun ownership illegal, IMHO. On the other, unrestricted constitutional gun ownership.

Some say that the founding fathers never intended for people to be able to legally own and carry an uzi or rocket launcher. I say the founding fathers, while they were quite intelligent, never dreamed of a nuclear bomb. Yet, thanks to the fact that common citizens had available to them state of the art military weaponry (at the time), we the people secured the blessings of liberty. Now, how would a person with a muzzle loader stand up to even one infantry? Not well...

The point of 2A was not to make sure people could hunt, and not even to allow for people to protect their homes from criminals. It was to secure the first, third, fourth etc Amendments and all other natural rights, from those who would trample upon them. For the "security of a Free State...". There are those who might argue that the 2A only allows for us to carry flintlocks and such - but they don't travel in horse-drawn buggies, do they? Technology advances.

Because of advances, the 2nd advances as well - and were the founding fathers here today, I believe they would (grudgingly, but ultimately) state that yes, it applies to rocket launchers and automatic weapons. Because that's what the government has available to it, and therefore it's what is necessary to prevent government abuses. Not the use of the weapons, but just the unrestricted availability of them. That alone is enough to discourage tyranny I think. No, I don't personally want my neighbor to have a nuke in his back yard - but frankly, private nukes would do nothing to prevent tyranny - and rather, would only promote chaos...

Let me close my rant with the obvious. Any restrictions on our natural, un-infringable (sorry for that mangling of english, but I'm sure you understand my meaning) rights are meaningless. They promote not safety but danger - empowering criminals and making the innocent more vulnerable. They encourage tyranny - and yes, this country is Much less free than it was even 100 years ago. And the most inconsequential of limitations seem only to lead to ever greater infringement.

Freedom comes at a price - responsibility. Yes, at times there will be those who use the freedom given to all to the detriment of others, such as this Loughner character in Tucson. :cray: But it is only because of our freedoms that we are even now able to discuss this topic. We give up even the smallest shreds of our freedoms at our own peril.

Of course, all of the foregoing was just my opinion - agree or not, that is your right leasantry:

 

[S&W645]

However, no permit is required in AZ, VT, or AK in order to carry a gun openly or concealed. A citizen can lawfully carry a firearm in those three states, either concealed or openly without a background check, because the permit is not required.

Yes, you are correct about the Federal GFSZ law, which is interesting since I'll bet there are a bunch of people in Vermont violating that one every day since Vermont does not even offer an optional permit.

I'd bet on it too. Better get the Feds up there quick to take care of the Vermont Yankees.:sarcastic:

 

[FN1910]

This thread has proven to be very interesting. However, I see only two sides to this debate, really. On the one side, we have gun control - which ultimately means making all gun ownership illegal, IMHO. On the other, unrestricted constitutional gun ownership.

Some say that the founding fathers never intended for people to be able to legally own and carry an uzi or rocket launcher. I say the founding fathers, while they were quite intelligent, never dreamed of a nuclear bomb. Yet, thanks to the fact that common citizens had available to them state of the art military weaponry (at the time), we the people secured the blessings of liberty. Now, how would a person with a muzzle loader stand up to even one infantry? Not well...

The point of 2A was not to make sure people could hunt, and not even to allow for people to protect their homes from criminals. It was to secure the first, third, fourth etc Amendments and all other natural rights, from those who would trample upon them. For the "security of a Free State...". There are those who might argue that the 2A only allows for us to carry flintlocks and such - but they don't travel in horse-drawn buggies, do they? Technology advances.

Because of advances, the 2nd advances as well - and were the founding fathers here today, I believe they would (grudgingly, but ultimately) state that yes, it applies to rocket launchers and automatic weapons. Because that's what the government has available to it, and therefore it's what is necessary to prevent government abuses. Not the use of the weapons, but just the unrestricted availability of them. That alone is enough to discourage tyranny I think. No, I don't personally want my neighbor to have a nuke in his back yard - but frankly, private nukes would do nothing to prevent tyranny - and rather, would only promote chaos...

Let me close my rant with the obvious. Any restrictions on our natural, un-infringable (sorry for that mangling of english, but I'm sure you understand my meaning) rights are meaningless. They promote not safety but danger - empowering criminals and making the innocent more vulnerable. They encourage tyranny - and yes, this country is Much less free than it was even 100 years ago. And the most inconsequential of limitations seem only to lead to ever greater infringement.

Freedom comes at a price - responsibility. Yes, at times there will be those who use the freedom given to all to the detriment of others, such as this Loughner character in Tucson. :cray: But it is only because of our freedoms that we are even now able to discuss this topic. We give up even the smallest shreds of our freedoms at our own peril.

Of course, all of the foregoing was just my opinion - agree or not, that is your right leasantry:

I have to say that for the most part if not all of it I agree with you. Just as there are those who would say that 2A only applied to flintlocks and such there is a equally size number that feel than 2A only applies to handguns and AR-15's. A good point is the right to have weapons and the right to use them is different. This is just another way of saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people. For most people the concern about those carrying guns is not that they carry it but that they might use it. My concern is that they use it improperly or without reason. Where I live I can carry my gun legally most places but I cannot fire it inside the city limits. The argument by the anti-gun people is over what might happen with no real proof of any of that happening. Our argument is that it will not happen. However too many times the argument of the antis about what might happen is demonstrated by some idiot. Get rid of the idiots and we get rid of the antis arguments.

 

[Unfettered Might]

This thread has proven to be very interesting. However, I see only two sides to this debate, really. On the one side, we have gun control - which ultimately means making all gun ownership illegal, IMHO. On the other, unrestricted constitutional gun ownership.

Some say that the founding fathers never intended for people to be able to legally own and carry an uzi or rocket launcher. I say the founding fathers, while they were quite intelligent, never dreamed of a nuclear bomb. Yet, thanks to the fact that common citizens had available to them state of the art military weaponry (at the time), we the people secured the blessings of liberty. Now, how would a person with a muzzle loader stand up to even one infantry? Not well...

The point of 2A was not to make sure people could hunt, and not even to allow for people to protect their homes from criminals. It was to secure the first, third, fourth etc Amendments and all other natural rights, from those who would trample upon them. For the "security of a Free State...". There are those who might argue that the 2A only allows for us to carry flintlocks and such - but they don't travel in horse-drawn buggies, do they? Technology advances.

Because of advances, the 2nd advances as well - and were the founding fathers here today, I believe they would (grudgingly, but ultimately) state that yes, it applies to rocket launchers and automatic weapons. Because that's what the government has available to it, and therefore it's what is necessary to prevent government abuses. Not the use of the weapons, but just the unrestricted availability of them. That alone is enough to discourage tyranny I think. No, I don't personally want my neighbor to have a nuke in his back yard - but frankly, private nukes would do nothing to prevent tyranny - and rather, would only promote chaos...

Let me close my rant with the obvious. Any restrictions on our natural, un-infringable (sorry for that mangling of english, but I'm sure you understand my meaning) rights are meaningless. They promote not safety but danger - empowering criminals and making the innocent more vulnerable. They encourage tyranny - and yes, this country is Much less free than it was even 100 years ago. And the most inconsequential of limitations seem only to lead to ever greater infringement.

Freedom comes at a price - responsibility. Yes, at times there will be those who use the freedom given to all to the detriment of others, such as this Loughner character in Tucson. :cray: But it is only because of our freedoms that we are even now able to discuss this topic. We give up even the smallest shreds of our freedoms at our own peril.

Of course, all of the foregoing was just my opinion - agree or not, that is your right leasantry:

I would have to agree with everything.

As I feel that a weapon does not belong in a courtroom, I believe concessions can be made to the ownership of such a massively destructive device as an atomic bomb.

But EVERYTHING else should be fair game for lawful citizens for the reasons that have already been stated.

 

[Treo]

Personally I think the founders meant common infantry weapons of the time. In todays world that would translate to common infantry weapons of our time.

I believe I shoud be able to purchase any firearm on the TO&E for an 11B (or what ever they're calling grunts these days)

In keeping w/ the militia principal I think that crew served types of weapons should be collectivally owned by the local militia. Same for claymores, grenades AT4s and the like

 

[FN1910]

Personally I think the founders meant common infantry weapons of the time. In todays world that would translate to common infantry weapons of our time.

I believe I shoud be able to purchase any firearm on the TO&E for an 11B (or what ever they're calling grunts these days)

In keeping w/ the militia principal I think that crew served types of weapons should be collectivally owned by the local militia. Same for claymores, grenades AT4s and the like

I would tend to agree with you except for one thing. The idea of being collectively owned by the militia is good but the militia especially during the time of the founding of our country was the people. The idea of owned by the militia infers that the militia is not of the common man but rather a volunteer army that is controlled by the government so what you are saying is that the government has a standing arsenal that can be accessed by the common people when the government allows it to. This to me is exactly the reverse of what 2A was written to mean. One always need to keep in mind that during the Revolutionary War many of the cannons and ships were privately owned and the government furnished the ammo when it could. Otherwise the owners just used their own hoping to get paid back after the war.

A nice story to read that I don't know where to find it but you might want to search for it is George Washington's expense account. Everyone knows he served without pay but did bill the government for his expenses during the war. It wasn't much different than today's CEO expense account. :biggrin:

 

[Treo]

I would tend to agree with you except for one thing. The idea of being collectively owned by the militia is good but the militia especially during the time of the founding of our country was the people. The idea of owned by the militia infers that the militia is not of the common man but rather a volunteer army that is controlled by the government so what you are saying is that the government has a standing arsenal that can be accessed by the common people when the government allows it to. This to me is exactly the reverse of what 2A was written to mean. One always need to keep in mind that during the Revolutionary War many of the cannons and ships were privately owned and the government furnished the ammo when it could. Otherwise the owners just used their own hoping to get paid back after the war.

A nice story to read that I don't know where to find it but you might want to search for it is George Washington's expense account. Everyone knows he served without pay but did bill the government for his expenses during the war. It wasn't much different than today's CEO expense account. :biggrin:

At some point the militia has to be tied to government even if at the local ( town) level. In the 1700s not everyone could own a cannon. Thye were owned by the militia collectively.

Also several states have State militias that are completely seperate from the federal Army

 

[Fletcher]

Personally I think the founders meant common infantry weapons of the time. In todays world that would translate to common infantry weapons of our time.

You may be shocked to learn that I agree with you on this point. At the time of the writing of the US Constitution, there was relatively little variety in firearms. All weapons, up to and including the handguns of the era, were single-shot affairs that were fairly impractical for the kind of mass murdering that most modern-era "gun foes" (and, I presume, depending on your personal definition, "FUDDs") seem to be obsessing over when envisioning guns in the hands of the general populace. Rifled bullets, integrated cartridges, machine guns, assault rifles and submachine guns had yet to be invented, even. I woudl imagine that if there was anything the Founding Fathers would have suggested keeping out of the hands of the populace, it would have been the cannon, but I think there is probably some evidence floating around pointing to cannon-ownership by militia members, so that would also seem to have been included.

So, it's fair to assume that the Founding Fathers most-likely did have in mind, when they gave us the right to form well-regulated militias, that we would be wielding the equivalent of the infantry weapon of our time. Although it's probably also fair to assume that the capacity and efficiency of our modern weapons were unimaginable to them. None of us, however, can presume to guess what they would have written into the Constitution if they had been able to see the future, to divine the course of weapons development and/or the shifting tides of our culture. We just have to do the best we can with what understanding of their intent that we do have and try to work out our differences as reasonable men who share at least some common values.

For my part, I would like to see our government support an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that grants citizens the right to purchase and carry arms equivalent to those being carried in the hands of the armed forces. I believe that being so equivalently armed is the only way to ensure the integrity of the "well-regulated militia" as our Founding Fathers described it, "as being necessary to the security of a free state." That's not what we have now, and we may never have it, but I'd sure like to see it.

I still stand behind my "no" vote to this poll, though. Just as we do not live in a world in which our government is ever going to allow the common citizen to purchase military-grade fully automatic weapons, I believe we also do not live in a world in which every one of the 50 states is ever going to agree on a single, damn thing, much less buying-in to a federal statute decriminalizing permit-less carry. Because that's what it would take: a federal law, and that ain't likely to happen any time in the near future. If we think the debate over carry is fierce, it would pale in comparison to the debate over states' rights in this matter. And therefore, looking at the problem realistically, I don't think it's ever going to happen and so I will not waste my time banging my head on that particular rock. Better to ensure that if a permit is required, that some measure of sanity and usefulness can be squeezed out of the process.

Also, on a lighter note, I find it incredibly amusing to note the tag on this thread called "pointless bickering." Seems apt. :hang3:

 

[Unfettered Might]

Although it's probably also fair to assume that the capacity and efficiency of our modern weapons were unimaginable to them. None of us, however, can presume to guess what they would have written into the Constitution if they had been able to see the future, to divine the course of weapons development and/or the shifting tides of our culture.

The Framers were men of exceptional intelligence, all you have to do is read their written works to see that. I'm sure they had an idea, after all we went from sticks and rocks to flintlocks in recorded history up until their time. The exponential curve of weapons development would have been apparent to an intelligent man then. They knew.

I still stand behind my "no" vote to this poll, though. Just as we do not live in a world in which our government is ever going to allow the common citizen to purchase military-grade fully automatic weapons, I believe we also do not live in a world in which every one of the 50 states is ever going to agree on a single, damn thing, much less buying-in to a federal statute decriminalizing permit-less carry. Because that's what it would take: a federal law, and that ain't likely to happen any time in the near future. If we think the debate over carry is fierce, it would pale in comparison to the debate over states' rights in this matter. And therefore, looking at the problem realistically, I don't think it's ever going to happen and so I will not waste my time banging my head on that particular rock. Better to ensure that if a permit is required, that some measure of sanity and usefulness can be squeezed out of the process.

Citizens can already purchase military grade FAs, just not any made after the Hughes amendment was unscrupulously passed.

There could be no legal battle over states rights if a federal law passed giving back rights to the citizens that states took away. This is one power that is definitely enumerated in the Constitution to the Federal Government.

Also the same article that allows the above, prevents the below.

The small arms weapons treaty that Hillary is supposed to be working on. No treaty that takes away rights from US citizens, is enforceable under our Constitution.

The document is brilliant.

 

[FN1910]

And this surprises you?

Nope, just pointing it out. Any discussion on guns will have these kinds of point/counterpoint arguments that neither side stick to the real topic. If you ask which GLOCK should I get about half the answers will be an XD or similar. :biggrin:

 

[Treo]

Nope, just pointing it out. Any discussion on guns will have these kinds of point/counterpoint arguments that neither side stick to the real topic. If you ask which GLOCK should I get about half the answers will be an XD or similar. :biggrin:

Well. if you had been paying attention you'd know that's because GL:biggrin:CKS suck :biggrin:

 

[S&W645]

Nope, just pointing it out. Any discussion on guns will have these kinds of point/counterpoint arguments that neither side stick to the real topic. If you ask which GLOCK should I get about half the answers will be an XD or similar. :biggrin:

Everybody knows the answer to your Glock question is a Smith & Wesson.:biggrin:

 

[gregory44mag]

Everybody knows the answer to your Glock question is a Smith & Wesson.:biggrin:

Amen to that!:laugh:

 

[Nightmare45]

CDC, forget them look at FBI Crime/Gun Stats, CDC does not seperate a shooting by a BG or innocent bystander being shot. All Stats have inherent flaws.

 

[pilot in wyoming]

I voted no. I believe honest Americans proud enough to keep and bare arms would also be proud to have a permit.

 

[hp-hobo]

I voted no. I believe honest Americans proud enough to keep and bare arms would also be proud to beg for a permission slip from fed.state.local.gov.

There, fixed that for ya...

What past of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?

 

[NavyLCDR]

I voted no. I believe honest Americans proud enough to keep and bare arms would also be proud to have a permit.

And that's perfectly acceptable. Just don't REQUIRE a permit - like the second amendment says. In Arizona and Alaska you can still get an OPTIONAL permit. I would recommend a nice shiny badge to go with it. I am a proud American who is proud of FREEDOM, vice government regulation and permission slips.

 

[Treo]

I voted no. I believe honest Americans proud enough to keep and bare arms would also be proud to have a permit.

What are you going to do when Wyoming goes permitless?

 

[NavyLCDR]

What are you going to do when Wyoming goes permitless?

I can't believe you would even ask that question!

Get a badge, of course!

 

[Simpleman71]

I voted no. I don't agree with permitless carry. I think with the way things are you should have to go through some kind of back ground check. There are just too many crazy people walking around to give everyone free reign to carry a gun. I put a lot of time, training, and money into getting my state permit and then followed with permits from PA and FL.