Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry?

[Unfettered Might]

Why isn't it a problem, then, in the 27+ states that allow permit-less carry now? People's gun are not going around shooting innocent people in those states any more than the states that require permits to carry.

We, on the side for Constitutional Carry, would simply like to see some facts that indicate that Constitutional Carry is more dangerous than training-required permitted carry. To date, nobody has been able to produce any facts that would indicate a basis in reality for such a claim.

I'll agree with that.

Here's a contrast from my own personal experience.

I don't have a permit, don't need one in KY for OC.
Went for my firing range test and walked out to help the instructor set up the first target. As we walked back, with him in front of me, as soon as I reached the firing line, I spun, pulled up my firearm from the holster and emptied the mag in rapid succession from 25 feet away. Hit the release, dropped the empty mag, slapped another magazine in and fired 3 more shots for a total of 20. Every one of them was within a 6 inch shot group, center mass. I turned and looked at the instructor and asked, "Good enough?", he said, "Yep" and I was done. Took me all of 30 seconds.

Then I watched 2 women (no offense intended ladies, could have just as easily been a man) struggle to get their qualification. One couldn't even clear her own gun (.22 pistol that kept jamming, notorious for that). She made me so nervous that I walked around to the other side of a steel pipe used at the range at Taylorsville Lake and the other took FOREVER to fire 20 shots and a quarter of them didn't even stay on the silhouette. But they both passed.

Now who do you think is more proficient and safe with a firearm?

I still don't have a permit so I must not be huh?

My point is a permit is no indication of proficiency or safety, this isn't conjecture, this is a real life experience.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Then I watched 2 women (no offense intended ladies, could have just as easily been a man) struggle to get their qualification. One couldn't even clear her own gun (.22 pistol that kept jamming, notorious for that). She made me so nervous that I walked around to the other side of a steel pipe used at the range at Taylorsville Lake and the other took FOREVER to fire 20 shots and a quarter of them didn't even stay on the silhouette. But they both passed.

Now who do you think is more proficient and safe with a firearm?

I still don't have a permit so I must not be huh?

My point is a permit is no indication of proficiency or safety, this isn't conjecture, this is a real life experience.

But I think IWLAFART's opinion is that the two women should not have the privilege to carry a firearm in public, until they become more proficient.

 

[phoenixjim]

That's the point NavyLT - "privilege" vs "Right"... privileges are taken or given at whim of the State, while Rights have responsibilities attached.

I would personally like to see everyone who carries practice and become proficient with their weapon of choice - I'd consider that a responsibility of those who are exercising their Rights. But permits are not about rights... they are permission slips from the State, and can be revoked on a whim. Hereabouts, the State even wants you to register your pistols - no doubt planning for that day of Confiscation, as they did down in the City. Talk about Infringement.

Evidence and statistics suggest that people tend to responsibly exercise their rights where they are not prevented from doing so. But This is not why I support constitutional carry. I support constitutional carry because people have a Natural Right to protect themselves and their loved ones, and for no other reason. I'll bet most supporters feel much the same way.

 

[Treo]

Wyoming is the next state to go permitless. Starting July 31st 2011 no permit will be required to carry a concealed handgun in Wyoming.

Surely, the blood will run in the streets :biggrin:

 

[SCfromNY]

I will admit to not reading all 19 pages so if this is repetitive I apologize. I have no problem with constitutional carry and support it with this codicil.

Comparisons have been made to driver's licenses and such. Well everyone has the right to drive, excepting those with violations that have piled up, BUT there is some training required. No one should think that the minimal test for having a license makes one ready to rive in say L.A. or NYC. But at least the operator knows where the gas and brake are.

I am not saying proficiency but familiarity. When you buy a handgun a short mandatory familiarization course is required. All subsequent purchases are exempt. Did our founding fathers want this? Probably not but I am sure they did not envision crowded cities, numerous incompetent citizens due to some form of addiction, and a very low bar for stupidity.

A simple code on drivers license like a motorcycle addition would indicate you are good to go. No drivers license? States issue an identification card to use in place of drivers license. BTW . . I am fine with denying a license to someone with numerous DWIs they do not need a gun.

 

[hp-hobo]

I will admit to not reading all 19 pages so if this is repetitive I apologize. I have no problem with constitutional carry and support it with this codicil.

Comparisons have been made to driver's licenses and such. Well everyone has the right to drive, excepting those with violations that have piled up, BUT there is some training required. No one should think that the minimal test for having a license makes one ready to rive in say L.A. or NYC. But at least the operator knows where the gas and brake are.

I am not saying proficiency but familiarity. When you buy a handgun a short mandatory familiarization course is required. All subsequent purchases are exempt. Did our founding fathers want this? Probably not but I am sure they did not envision crowded cities, numerous incompetent citizens due to some form of addiction, and a very low bar for stupidity.

A simple code on drivers license like a motorcycle addition would indicate you are good to go. No drivers license? States issue an identification card to use in place of drivers license. BTW . . I am fine with denying a license to someone with numerous DWIs they do not need a gun.

Would you please cite the Amendment to the US Constitution that recognizes driving as a right that is not to be infringed. I seem to be unfamiliar with it.

Thank you.

 

[Unfettered Might]

I will admit to not reading all 19 pages so if this is repetitive I apologize. I have no problem with constitutional carry and support it with this codicil.

Comparisons have been made to driver's licenses and such. Well everyone has the right to drive, excepting those with violations that have piled up, BUT there is some training required. No one should think that the minimal test for having a license makes one ready to rive in say L.A. or NYC. But at least the operator knows where the gas and brake are.

Even stupid people know where the trigger and the business end are. A gun is such a simple device that to think that someone requires training to know how to use it or that its dangerous is asinine.

I am not saying proficiency but familiarity. When you buy a handgun a short mandatory familiarization course is required. All subsequent purchases are exempt. Did our founding fathers want this? Probably not but I am sure they did not envision crowded cities, numerous incompetent citizens due to some form of addiction, and a very low bar for stupidity.

Right, because where they came from was such a sparsely populated region, didn't have alcoholics and the average man could do calculus equations. They were intelligent enough to write better than 90% of people now and created a document that laid out the greatest civilization in the history of mankind.

But they didn't consider your points. Uh huh. I love it when people try to second guess the intentions of individuals who IQ was probably several dozen points higher than their own.

A simple code on drivers license like a motorcycle addition would indicate you are good to go. No drivers license? States issue an identification card to use in place of drivers license. BTW . . I am fine with denying a license to someone with numerous DWIs they do not need a gun.

That's akin to gun registration, FAIL.

So a guy who has a drinking problem doesn't have the right to defend against a lethal assailant?

I can tell your from NY.

 

[S&W645]

Even stupid people know where the trigger and the business end are. A gun is such a simple device that to think that someone requires training to know how to use it or that its dangerous is asinine.

But yet we have stupid people who shoot themselves. Including cops.

.....
But they didn't consider your points. Uh huh. I love it when people try to second guess the intentions of individuals who IQ was probably several dozen points higher than their own.

Don't think you know everyone's IQ or that of the Founding Fathers.

So a guy who has a drinking problem doesn't have the right to defend against a lethal assailant?

I can tell your from NY.

If he/she lost the right due to drinking, who is at fault? He/She already has shown the fact that he/she cannot be trusted with something that could be deadly. As an example of that, there are different levels of DUI for people who have a regular driver's license and a Commercial Driver's License ( CDL ). And also applies to people who do safety sensitive jobs vs regular jobs. A CDL carries a level 1/2 of that of a regular D/L, 0.04% BAC vs 0.08% to 0.10% depending on the state. Would you want a person who has DUIs operating a nuke reactor while drunk? Or flying a jet with weapons? They've already shown by the DUIs that they cannot be trusted where clear thinking is required. Can that right be reinstated after a set period of time, yes. One time being caught over .04 in a CMV gets your CDL yanked for either 1 or 3 years. Second time is loss of CDL for 10 years to life.

 

[hp-hobo]

But yet we have stupid people who shoot themselves. Including cops.

Don't think you know everyone's IQ or that of the Founding Fathers.


If he/she lost the right due to drinking, who is at fault? He/She already has shown the fact that he/she cannot be trusted with something that could be deadly. As an example of that, there are different levels of DUI for people who have a regular driver's license and a Commercial Driver's License ( CDL ). And also applies to people who do safety sensitive jobs vs regular jobs. A CDL carries a level 1/2 of that of a regular D/L, 0.04% BAC vs 0.08% to 0.10% depending on the state. Would you want a person who has DUIs operating a nuke reactor while drunk? Or flying a jet with weapons? They've already shown by the DUIs that they cannot be trusted where clear thinking is required. Can that right be reinstated after a set period of time, yes. One time being caught over .04 in a CMV gets your CDL yanked for either 1 or 3 years. Second time is loss of CDL for 10 years to life.

Why do you and people like insist on comparing a Constitutional right (to keep and bear arms) to a privilege (driving)? They are not the same... Never have been, never will be.

I'm still waiting for the citation (three posts up) that shows driving is covered by our founding documents. Perhaps you can show us.

 

[SCfromNY]

So a guy who has a drinking problem doesn't have the right to defend against a lethal assailant?

I can tell your from NY.

Well yes I am originally from NY and yes people with a known severe addiction to alcohol or drugs do not need to have a handgun at least not near me. I have been to enough shooting completions and range nights to be aware that newbies have a learning curve which does not need to be diminished or impaired by an addiction.

I am not as positive of our founding father's IQ as you are but since you enjoy guessing and nitpicking." I can tell your from NY" actually the your should be you are.

Irrational, unbending devotion to a cause is as stupid as anti without listening to reason.

 

[Unfettered Might]

So a guy who has a drinking problem doesn't have the right to defend against a lethal assailant?

I can tell your from NY.

Well yes I am originally from NY and yes people with a known severe addiction to alcohol or drugs do not need to have a handgun at least not near me. I have been to enough shooting completions and range nights to be aware that newbies have a learning curve which does not need to be diminished or impaired by an addiction.

I am not as positive of our founding father's IQ as you are but since you enjoy guessing and nitpicking." I can tell your from NY" actually the your should be you are.

Irrational, unbending devotion to a cause is as stupid as anti without listening to reason.

I disagree. I don't care if a drunk is walking down the street with a gun, I care if he is pointing it at me. I don't believe that he should loose that right until he abuses that right. I don't believe someone committing an act that doesn't currently have a victim, should loose their rights to self defense.

You don't punish someone for something they MIGHT do. You punish people and take away their rights for something they've done.

Your not positive? Have you read the Constitution or the Federalist papers, or anything about them at all? The way someone writes and speaks is a very good indicator of their intelligence.

Yeah I'm fully aware that "your" is possessive and "you are", being descriptive, is what I should have typed. Thats what I get for not proof reading. Obviously a grammatical error, sue me. I'm sure you've never made one right?

It is not just undying devotion to a cause, it is undying devotion to a just cause.

 

[S&W645]

Why do you and people like insist on comparing a Constitutional right (to keep and bear arms) to a privilege (driving)? They are not the same... Never have been, never will be.

I'm still waiting for the citation (three posts up) that shows driving is covered by our founding documents. Perhaps you can show us.

And you refuse to see the tie in between DUIs and failing to be able to reason clearly. A DUI means caught once but may have occured more than just that once. Most people won't lose their DL on the first DUI. If a person has multiple DUIs, then there is a pattern of poor and unsafe thinking. Thru Elements of Logic ( a college Humanities class ) you can state it as: A=B, B=C, A=C.

3 DUI convictions in 10 years in Florida makes the 3rd one a felony. Felon in possession of a gun = Felony. A misdemeanor conviction that could impose possible imprisonment of over 2 years also bars ownership or possession.
If you have a Florida permit, conviction of a second DUI in 3 years will get your permit revoked or suspended. No open carry in Florida so if you go off your property with a loaded gun, you can face felony charges if carrying concealed. 2 DUI convictions in the previous 3 years before applying for a Fl permit will get it rejected.

So as you can see, DUIs and guns do have a direct tie in.

 

[PaxMentis]

But yet we have stupid people who shoot themselves. Including cops...

And the down side is...?

 

[S&W645]

And the down side is...?

None really except we will soon enough run out of Darwin Awards.:biggrin:

 

[Unfettered Might]

And you refuse to see the tie in between DUIs and failing to be able to reason clearly. A DUI means caught once but may have occured more than just that once. Most people won't lose their DL on the first DUI. If a person has multiple DUIs, then there is a pattern of poor and unsafe thinking. Thru Elements of Logic ( a college Humanities class ) you can state it as: A=B, B=C, A=C.

3 DUI convictions in 10 years in Florida makes the 3rd one a felony. Felon in possession of a gun = Felony. A misdemeanor conviction that could impose possible imprisonment of over 2 years also bars ownership or possession.
If you have a Florida permit, conviction of a second DUI in 3 years will get your permit revoked or suspended. No open carry in Florida so if you go off your property with a loaded gun, you can face felony charges if carrying concealed. 2 DUI convictions in the previous 3 years before applying for a Fl permit will get it rejected.

So as you can see, DUIs and guns do have a direct tie in.

Yeah but then we get into that whole thing about a felon should have their rights restored after they serve their time and they are citizens again. The only reason DUI and guns have a tie in is because of legislation since the Constitution was written. There were drunks back then and the Framers didn't think they should be disarmed either.

As I said, you don't punish someone for what they might do and certainly not when it comes to a constitutional right.

 

[Treo]

The problem w/ DUIs and felons w/ guns isn’t the Constitution it’s the current judicial system. When the Constitution was written the types of felons we’re talking about were never paroled from prison they either spent the rest of their life behind bars or they were hung in the town square, thus doing away w/ the necessity of writing laws prohibiting felons from owning firearms.

None of the four states that have permitless carry have changed their laws regarding using a firearm in the commission of a crime. It’s still illegal in all four states to be a prohibited person in possession of a firearm

 

[6shootercarry]

YES YES YES!!! WTF?? Really??? NO VOTES!!!

I'd really like to know who the 38 were that voted NO... I bet nogods is one of the 38...

 

[6shootercarry]

So a guy who has a drinking problem doesn't have the right to defend against a lethal assailant?

I can tell your from NY.

Well yes I am originally from NY and yes people with a known severe addiction to alcohol or drugs do not need to have a handgun at least not near me. I have been to enough shooting completions and range nights to be aware that newbies have a learning curve which does not need to be diminished or impaired by an addiction.

I am not as positive of our founding father's IQ as you are but since you enjoy guessing and nitpicking." I can tell your from NY" actually the your should be you are.

Irrational, unbending devotion to a cause is as stupid as anti without listening to reason.

Another NY liberal, Constitution ignoring, Rights trampling democrat... Pathetic how they grow in that state...

 

[6shootercarry]

Would you please cite the Amendment to the US Constitution that recognizes driving as a right that is not to be infringed. I seem to be unfamiliar with it.

Thank you.

It is a right... We are free to do these things... Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness... Basic Human Rights don't come from the document, they come from your creator... Get that idea? Why should I have to ask permission to be free? Pathetic...

The document was written to protect the rights because our founders knew how nosy, controlling, and manipulative we as humans can be.. They were aware of the potential for certain people to enforce their will's on other people. They were trying to protect us from each other... Sad how that has failed...

 

[hp-hobo]

It is a right... We are free to do these things... Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness... Basic Human Rights don't come from the document, they come from your creator... Get that idea? Why should I have to ask permission to be free? Pathetic...

The document was written to protect the rights because our founders knew how nosy, controlling, and manipulative we as humans can be.. They were aware of the potential for certain people to enforce their will's on other people. They were trying to protect us from each other... Sad how that has failed...

Thank you for your pointless rant. Now maybe you can answer my question in the context it was asked.

The Second Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear arms. Can you or anyone else show me the amendment that recognizes to right to drive?

Please save your additional pontificating for someone who gives a damn. Simply answer the question... If you can.