Defensive carry.com sold to Canadian conglomerate

[corneileous]

Yes, but it gets old after the 50th or 60th time

Well yeah, I agree but if it were me I would just ignore them and concentrate more on the topics that interested me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eidolon]

Well yeah, I agree but if it were me I would just ignore them and concentrate more on the topics that interested me.

I can get that by reading Massad Ayoob, Oleg Volk or Tamara Keel or Kathy Jackson or Dave Nash or better yet go get some training or get some range time

 

[BluesStringer]

With that said, since only law abiding citizens follow the law, and criminals do not, do you suggest we just abolish all laws and let everyone do as they please? And no, it's not a rhetorical question. I mean after all, criminals disregard the law, why should we? Wouldn't that make us criminals too?

Just because other human beings write "laws" doesn't mean they're legitimate or just. Disregarding unjust and illegitimate "laws" is the only way unjust and illegitimate "laws" have ever been repealed or delegitimized. Segregation, harboring runaway slaves, open carry bans, photographing police in the normal course of performance of their duties etc. etc. etc. "Let everyone do as they please" as long as what they please harms nobody else, yes indeed I do think that should be the standard in a so-called "free" country.

Well, I guess it's kind of an oxymoron because only law abiding people are eligible for a permit. But atleast with it being the way it is, if I see someone openly carrying or if I learn someone is conceal carrying, hopefully I could assume they aren't a criminal because they're carrying. Someone carrying that isn't supposed to is either really, really dumb or they just got balls of solid rock.

Criminals are law-abiding citizens right up until they're not. Permission slips tell you nothing about their personal demons or proclivities for unprovoked violence. Assuming any stranger won't become a threat to you when you least expect it is a recipe for disaster. I recommend against such assumptions.

All they do instead is create statewide databases of people who own guns, and the people on those lists have to pay for the intrusion against their privacy to get on them.

This only pertains to those that look at it that way.

That's absolute sophistry. A database is a database no matter how you or I "look at it." A fee to exercise a right is a fee to exercise that right no matter what contortions you go through to justify charging a fee to exercise a right in a so-called "free" country.

Mugshot picture, huh? Good one. Guess the photograph on my drivers license is a mugshot style pic too?

Yes. Minus the orange jumpsuit some are forced to wear in actual mugshots, there's no real difference.

The only thing I can think of is that the fingerprinting is part of the background check. Whether it is or isn't, I got nothin' as to why it's required.

The pretense that government gives for the "why" is not my point. It's the fact that you have to be fingerprinted before you can exercise an enumerated, fundamental, natural right that I'm talking about. There's nothing I can think of that is more indicative of the presumption of criminality in our society than being fingerprinted. I would personally not comply with such a requirement, but I don't have to make that choice in my state, which is one reason I live where I do, and highly undignified and rights-violating "laws" and policies were the main reason I left my home-state of California.

Again, it all depends on one's perspective. To legally carry a loaded firearm on your person for protection is a legally obtained permit.

That is not accurate in the factual way you stated it. There are (I believe) eight states now that don't require any permission slip to carry openly or concealed for residents of those states, and if I'm not mistaken, most of those extend the right to visitors as well. Further, there are many states (I don't know the accurate number, but I believe it is a majority) that require no permission slip to open carry. My state is one of the latter. I've lived in this state for 25 years and had a permission slip the whole time. In 2013 the state government followed the trend of others and loosened the OC restrictions. I now OC almost all the time. If I didn't live so close to two other states that I travel to often (FL and GA) that either don't allow OC at all (FL) or require a permission slip to OC (GA), I would've let my AL permission slip go soon after the law changed. It's like I said before, I get complying with a crap law just to make one's life easier because I'm one of those people, I just don't get why anyone who gives a crap about being free and enjoying the protections towards that end that the Constitution was intended to secure, would ever be "proud" or even just cavalier about the violation of their rights. I resent the heck out of having to pay to exercise my rights because they are indeed my rights that the government has no legitimate, or even "legal," financial interest in. There are lots of law-abiding people in OK who have just as much need as you to carry the tools needed for self-defense on them at all times, but who can't afford $100 bucks + $25 + $25 + ridiculously inadequate "training" fees. It is appalling that government makes it a class issue whether or not one actually owns their rights.

Maybe "damn proud" was a bad choice of word but, I am glad to have it because I feel as though I am legally viewed as authorized to carry my gun and not have to worry about breaking any laws. And until the law changes, this is how it is.

See, I couldn't care any less how others "legally view" me. In a country that abides by the Charter that created it, it is government that should be concerned with how it is "legally viewed" by its creators, not the creators that should be concerned with how their creature "legally views" them. There's a huge disconnect in how the hierarchy is supposed to operate in this country in what you say above, and it has nothing to do with "perspective," and everything to do with verifiable facts and history.

Is it also state sponsored extortion to drive a car? Have insurance on your car? Build a house? Add on to a house? Kill a deer? Catch a fish? Talk on a ham radio?? These are normal ways of life. Carrying a loaded gun on you in public shouldn't be any different.

Absolutely "YES" to all of your above questions, and absolutely "NO!" to the idea of government-imposed extortion being "normal" in a free country. Carrying a loaded gun on my person in public is different than all the "normal" things you asked about right now. I do it every single day and never carry my permission slip with me unless I'm headed out of state.

A friend of mine who was a fairly well-known liberty activist before he passed away from cancer last month, encapsulated my whole thought-process on Second Amendment rights in several speeches he gave in the couple of years before he died, when he said, "When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote!"

But I am curious. If you have this ability and have a permit to do so, why the problem with it? Because it's an infringement?

Uh... Yeah. Was that not clear before now?

Nothing should be inferred from my not replying to the rest of your post. I just have stuff to do. Later, if that be your choice.

Blues

 

[corneileous]

Criminals are law-abiding citizens right up until they're not. Permission slips tell you nothing about their personal demons or proclivities for unprovoked violence. Assuming any stranger won't become a threat to you when you least expect it is a recipe for disaster. I recommend against such assumptions.

You're right, just because a person has permit, it doesn't guarantee they won't snap at any second. Nobody can make that prediction. The ability to obtain a permit only stops "known" criminals. Apparently when the state of Oklahoma goes through the background checks on a person who applied for their permit, checking to see whether or not they've been in a mental institution or if they've ever been on a suicide watch is one of the things they check. It's not only to see if you've ever been convicted of a serious crime.

Of course a permit application isn't perfect. But if they find something that would disqualify a certain individual from getting one whereas letting people carry freely that shouldn't be, is a plus in my book.

Yes. Minus the orange jumpsuit some are forced to wear in actual mugshots, there's no real difference.

Oookay.....

The pretense that government gives for the "why" is not my point. It's the fact that you have to be fingerprinted before you can exercise an enumerated, fundamental, natural right that I'm talking about. There's nothing I can think of that is more indicative of the presumption of criminality in our society than being fingerprinted. I would personally not comply with such a requirement....

I certainly don't think they do it for the hell of it but as I stated, if it's not for part of the background check process then I have no idea. And I really don't care.

........but I don't have to make that choice in my state, which is one reason I live where I do, and highly undignified and rights-violating "laws" and policies were the main reason I left my home-state of California.

Can't argue with you on that one. Atleast for the state of Commifornia, anyways.

That is not accurate in the factual way you stated it. There are (I believe) eight states now that don't require any permission slip to carry openly or concealed for residents of those states, and if I'm not mistaken, most of those extend the right to visitors as well. Further, there are many states (I don't know the accurate number, but I believe it is a majority) that require no permission slip to open carry. My state is one of the latter. I've lived in this state for 25 years and had a permission slip the whole time. In 2013 the state government followed the trend of others and loosened the OC restrictions. I now OC almost all the time. If I didn't live so close to two other states that I travel to often (FL and GA) that either don't allow OC at all (FL) or require a permission slip to OC (GA), I would've let my AL permission slip go soon after the law changed.

Yea, I'm aware that there's states that allow permit-less carrying. Good for them. Am I gonna pack up tomorrow and move there because of that? No. Not putting you down because you did. I'm just saying it's unimportant to me. And only me. I'm speaking for only myself.

It's like I said before, I get complying with a crap law just to make one's life easier because I'm one of those people, I just don't get why anyone who gives a crap about being free and enjoying the protections towards that end that the Constitution was intended to secure, would ever be "proud" or even just cavalier about the violation of their rights. I resent the heck out of having to pay to exercise my rights because they are indeed my rights that the government has no legitimate, or even "legal," financial interest in.

I can see this really bothers you and many, many, many more like you. If someone like myself isn't, let it go. Worry about something else. Preach to the choir that views it the way you do.

There are lots of law-abiding people in OK who have just as much need as you to carry the tools needed for self-defense on them at all times, but who can't afford $100 bucks + $25 + $25 + ridiculously inadequate "training" fees.

First off, Oklahoma is pretty cheap compared to other states.

Second, the fingerprints and the training is only a one time deal. For your very first permit, you get a five year one for a hundred bucks or if you spend two hundred, you get one for ten years. After which ever one of those two you get expires, it's only like, 85 dollars for a 5 year permit or 170 or so for a ten year.

Sorry if you don't agree but to me that ain't a whole lot. If someone can't afford that, I don't know what to say. I know quite a few people who bought ten year permits that didn't complain. Yes, I know, just because the people I know didn't complain, that don't go for everybody. You gotta keep in mind tho, there's also cheapskates out there that try to get as much as they can for free. Kinda like them liberals.

Absolutely "YES" to all of your above questions and......

Seriously?? Wow. So, you think nobody oughtta be required to have a driver's license, huh? Amazing. What about the guy who had his license taken away for multiple DUI's? Oh wait, since we're abolishing laws, it wouldn't matter anyways because all the sudden drinking and driving isn't against the law anymore.

Hell, let's just let high school kids drink too. They do it anyways when they ain't supposed to, now we don't have to care, right?

You really think everybody, whether it's in season or not to just take home a trailer load of deer whenever they want? Deer would be extinct in no time.

Fishing? Let's just let people snatch whatever amount of fish outta the lake as they can.

.....absolutely "NO!" to the idea of government-imposed extortion being "normal" in a free country.Carrying a loaded gun on my person in public is different than all the "normal" things you asked about right now. I do it every single day and never carry my permission slip with me unless I'm headed out of state.

Call it government imposed extortion all you want. I disagree tremendously.

Uh... Yeah. Was that not clear before now?

Not really. Still not.

What I was asking, why do you even care since you have the ability to get a permit? Is it just strictly because it's an infringement that angers you?

Besides, you know live in a state that doesn't even require a permit.... Why even comment? Need I remind you that you're preaching this to someone who feels differently?

Nothing should be inferred from my not replying to the rest of your post. I just have stuff to do.

I agree highly. I could think of a lot better things to do besides debating this. I'm not trying to change your opinion whereas it seems like your trying to change mine.

Later, if that be your choice.

Blues

Thats completely on you.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blueshell]

Permits are for activities that consume a public resource, to ensure no one takes more than their share, thus depriving someone else. Carrying a personal sidearm does not consume any public resource. No matter how much someone else carries, your ability to carry can not be 'used up' by it. Thus carry permits are illegal. The State is braking the law.

Sent from my A462C using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Permits are for activities that consume a public resource, to ensure no one takes more than their share, thus depriving someone else.

Good point.

Carrying a personal sidearm does not consume any public resource. No matter how much someone else carries, your ability to carry can not be 'used up' by it.

Another good point however, a permit to carry a gun is hardly the same as a permit to cut firewood or have a garage sale.

Thus carry permits are illegal. The State is braking the law.

Sent from my A462C using Tapatalk

How so? I thought the states had a right to make their own laws within reasonable limits mandated my the federal government and when they go outside those limits is when the Supreme Court steps in.

But a quick question. Disclaimer, I'm not in anyway supporting lesbian and gay rights, just using it as an example. Since the government legalized the crap, is Texas breaking the law outlawing it in their state?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blueshell]

Good point.

Another good point however, a permit to carry a gun is hardly the same as a permit to cut firewood or have a garage sale.


How so? I thought the states had a right to make their own laws within reasonable limits mandated my the federal government and when they go outside those limits is when the Supreme Court steps in.

But a quick question. Disclaimer, I'm not in anyway supporting lesbian and gay rights, just using it as an example. Since the government legalized the crap, is Texas breaking the law outlawing it in their state?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've never heard of permits to cut firewood or have garage sales.

Sent from my A462C using Tapatalk

 

[Blueshell]

How so? I thought the states had a right to make their own laws within reasonable limits mandated my the federal government and when they go outside those limits is when the Supreme Court steps in.

The 2nd amendment incorporation via the 14th amendment means the states can only make laws that can survive Strict Scrutiny. Carry permits cannot.

But a quick question. Disclaimer, I'm not in anyway supporting lesbian and gay rights, just using it as an example. Since the government legalized the crap, is Texas breaking the law outlawing it in their state?

I'm uncertain what you're referencing here.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]


Sent from my A462C using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

I've never heard of permits to cut firewood or have garage sales.

Sent from my A462C using Tapatalk

Really? Don't know where you live but when I lived in Colorado, you had to have one of you cut in national forest.

Maybe that was a bad example because not every place one would cut firewood is on national forest.

But around here in Oklahoma, you gotta have a permit to have a yard sale. It's only like five bucks from what I've been told but it's still a permit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

The 2nd amendment incorporation via the 14th amendment means the states can only make laws that can survive Strict Scrutiny. Carry permits cannot.

So, what are you saying?

I'm uncertain what you're referencing here.

Nevermind, I'm not so sure I understand what you were saying before.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blueshell]

Really? Don't know where you live but when I lived in Colorado, you had to have one of you cut in national forest.

Maybe that was a bad example because not every place one would cut firewood is on national forest.

But around here in Oklahoma, you gotta have a permit to have a yard sale. It's only like five bucks from what I've been told but it's still a permit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The notion of garage sale permits is new to me. In my 4 decades on this earth I've had my share of yard sales yet your post is the first I'm hearing of permits.

Link Removed

Well, good to know going forward, I guess.

Sent from my A462C using Tapatalk

 

[Blueshell]

So, what are you saying?

The state assumes you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent with a permit.

Surely you see the problem.

 

[BluesStringer]

Seriously?? Wow. So, you think nobody oughtta be required to have a driver's license, huh? Amazing. What about the guy who had his license taken away for multiple DUI's?

A license is a revenue-generation scheme that has no bearing on the safe and responsible operation of a motor vehicle. This guy who gets his license yanked for multiple DUI's, was it the first, second, third or beyond DUI that got his license yanked? And did he continue to drive after it was yanked? I can't imagine that he wouldn't since he was already a serial law-breaker before he got it yanked, regardless of the number of DUI's he "got away with" before the meaningless license was pulled.

Oh wait, since we're abolishing laws, it wouldn't matter anyways because all the sudden drinking and driving isn't against the law anymore.

Where did I say drinking and driving should be made legal? You asked about licensing, and I answered directly and politely. What do you imagine a license has to do with someone deciding to drive while they're impaired anyway? I haven't had a drink in over 20 years, but I'll guaran-damn-tee ya that back when I was partying my brains out (a looooooong time before my last drink) my license was the last thing on my mind if I needed to get home to pass out in my own bed. I was more afraid of Mom or Granny figuring out I was toasted than of anything happening to my license. The very definition of "impaired" in the context of a DUI is not knowing and/or thinking about what you're doing, but doing it anyway. The license has nothing to do with drinking and driving at all, and repeat-offending addicts and alcoholics who lose their license rarely refrain from driving afterwards.

Hell, let's just let high school kids drink too. They do it anyways when they ain't supposed to, now we don't have to care, right?

High school aged kids? I certainly don't care if they drink. I would prefer that they do it under the supervision of their parents, but see, that's the thing - what high school aged kids do should only be within the purview of their parents, not the state, as long as they don't harm anyone (physically or financially) in the process. Laws that create crimes for which no victim exists are illegitimate laws in my view. And again, their driver's license has nothing to do with any of this anyway.

You really think everybody, whether it's in season or not to just take home a trailer load of deer whenever they want? Deer would be extinct in no time.

You asked about hunting and fishing licenses, not about wildlife management. I answered the question(s) that you asked, and you have inferred all manner of meaning to my answers that I neither stated nor intended.

Fishing? Let's just let people snatch whatever amount of fish outta the lake as they can.

Blah blah.

Call it government imposed extortion all you want. I disagree tremendously.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat, The Law

Bastiat was a very wise man. He was speaking from personal experience there. Just something to think about....

What I was asking, why do you even care since you have the ability to get a permit? Is it just strictly because it's an infringement that angers you?

Asked and answered - I said unequivocally, "Uh... Yeah" to the exact same question.

Besides, you know live in a state that doesn't even require a permit....

Not accurate. I live in a state that doesn't require a permit for open carry, but travel often to states with permit reciprocity agreements that do require a permit to carry, whether open or concealed. As Blueshell tried to explain to you, the Heller and McDonald cases combined to incorporate the Second Amendment nationwide as an individual right. The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth* Amendment should protect our right to carry (bear) our arms anywhere in this country with no state or federal agency having any authority to restrict it without due process. Some bureaucrat giving his/her permission to carry in one place, and a different bureaucrat denying it in another, hardly qualifies as due process.

Why even comment?

Why not? We're on a discussion forum devoted to gun rights via the Second Amendment. Commenting is what is expected of members here.

Need I remind you that you're preaching this to someone who feels differently?

So?

Blues

*Edited because I mistakenly typed "Second" Amendment there to begin with.