According to the constitution, that is a right that is already guaranteed. The fact that we have somehow let the government severely infringe that right is something that should be remedied sooner rather than later.
I voted yes but I change it to no. I would rather you just need one nation wide permit.
Personally, I would rather see the 14th amendment repealed and a return to real state's rights.
So I have to say no.
Why? Why require a permit to exercise a right protected by the US Constitution?
Because even some people, apparently 20% here as of this posting, who are pro 2A aren't really pro 2A.
The key word is "infringed" and ANY infringement is contradictory to the 2A and they just don't understand that licensing and/or required training is an infringement.
Some just can't wrap their minds around the concept LT.
No.
I support a nationwide permit but not unrestricted carry. I believe in reasonable restrictions when it comes to carrying. So does everybody else here unless you're a completely irrational loon or just being spiteful (6-yr olds carring in school?? Nope. How 'bout a criminal defendant being allowed to carry in court?? Uh-uh....not happening. Hand grenades and rocket launchers available to the public?? No way. Nukes to anyone who can afford one?? Etc., etc. Yeah....right. Anyone care to disagree with those restrictions?? There are plenty of others as well that are just plain common sense). I don't think having to attend and pass a 3 hour firearm course is unreasonable at all. That's why I don't support unrestricted carry. I don't think every Tom, Richard, and Harriet should be allowed to pack unless they've proved themselves at least minimally competent.
I'm pretty sure that there were reasonable restrictions 200+ yrs ago as well. I doubt very much if babbling idiots, habitual drunks, senile old folks, etc. were allowed to carry loaded weapons around in 1791. There may not have been a written law against such people carrying firearms but I'd bet that their fellow citizens made sure they were disarmed and not a danger to the public.
I can hear the Brady Campaign standing, cheering and applauding your efforts.....they appreciate your support. Permits do not stop criminals. Permits only stop law abiding citizens.
No.
I support a nationwide permit but not unrestricted carry. I believe in reasonable restrictions when it comes to carrying. So does everybody else here unless you're a completely irrational loon or just being spiteful (6-yr olds carring in school?? Nope. How 'bout a criminal defendant being allowed to carry in court?? Uh-uh....not happening. Hand grenades and rocket launchers available to the public?? No way. Nukes to anyone who can afford one?? Etc., etc. Yeah....right. Anyone care to disagree with those restrictions?? There are plenty of others as well that are just plain common sense). I don't think having to attend and pass a 3 hour firearm course is unreasonable at all. That's why I don't support unrestricted carry. I don't think every Tom, Richard, and Harriet should be allowed to pack unless they've proved themselves at least minimally competent.
I'm pretty sure that there were reasonable restrictions 200+ yrs ago as well. I doubt very much if babbling idiots, habitual drunks, senile old folks, etc. were allowed to carry loaded weapons around in 1791. There may not have been a written law against such people carrying firearms but I'd bet that their fellow citizens made sure they were disarmed and not a danger to the public.
What next - will the U.S. collapse into anarchy if I don't excercise my constitutional right to have croutons on my salad!