Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry?

[Midnight]

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.

 

[B2Tall]

Isn't that the exact same claim that you are making if citizens DO exercise their Constitutional rights to carry firearms?

Three very simple questions for you, LT. Yes or no.

1. Should a 6-yr old be allowed to carry firearms unrestricted in public, concealed or not??

2. Should an elderly person who suffers from dimentia be allowed to carry a firearm?

3. Should someone convicted of a felony involving a firearm be allowed to carry?

 

[NavyLCDR]

300 million armed Americans would make the federal government shake in its boots.

And B2Tall as well...

 

[NavyLCDR]

Three very simple questions for you, LT. Yes or no.

1. Should a 6-yr old be allowed to carry firearms unrestricted in public, concealed or not??

2. Should an elderly person who suffers from dimentia be allowed to carry a firearm?

3. Should someone convicted of a felony involving a firearm be allowed to carry?

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.

 

[B2Tall]

Why? Why require a permit to exercise a right protected by the US Constitution?

Everything is protected by the constitution. It's called "freedom of expression" (to say nothing of the Declaration of Independence which makes it clear that our nation was being formed in order to ensure the pursuit of happiness, among other things.). So by your interpretation, the fact that you would need a license to practice medicine or drive a car is an infringement on your constitutional rights (i.e. an infringement on your freedom of expression). Don't think that stuff is covered by the 1st Amendment?? Think again. Everything from nude dancing to teaching has come under the umbrella of freedom of expression at one time or another.

It's all about reasonable restrictions.

 

[B2Tall]

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.

Weak. Weak and totally predictable.

1. And what if the parent chooses not to restrict a child from carrying a gun to school or anywhere else?? According to you it would be an infringement on the rights of the parents and the child to prohibit such things (after all, there is no age restriction mentioned in the 2nd Amendment). We know you wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's constitutional rights. 6-yr old packing. Nice.

2. See above. Substitute "dimentia-stricken elderly person" for "child" and "caregiver" for "parent".

3. And here's the chink in your armor. You said "If the government...". Wow. You're letting the government decide on whether a particular citizen should be allowed to carry. You may not know it but you just agreed to a restriction.

I don't think you're an irrational loon so that leaves the other option: Are you so spiteful that you'll disagree with somebody even on the most basic common sense issues with regards to carrying firearms?? Apparently yes.

 

[Mr.357Sig]

Who are the 10 who voted "no"?

 

[B2Tall]

And B2Tall as well...

5 pistols, 4 assault rifles, 2 shotguns, and 2 long guns. Always looking for more. I've passed the reasonable restrictions. I'm good to go.

 

[Mr.357Sig]

I see this thread ending badly...:nhl_checking:

 

[Treo]

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.

Are you aware that in the (geographic) majority of this country no permit what ever is required to carry a firearm? The permit is to conceal it . Yet , I don't see constant news stories about law abiding gun owners haveing NDs or blowing their feet off at Starbucks.

I'm all for individuals who violate basic safety rules being punished but why should an entire class be preemptively made to pay for the crimes of the few?

 

[Treo]

5 pistols, 4 assault rifles, 2 shotguns, and 2 long guns. Always looking for more. I've passed the reasonable restrictions. I'm good to go.

Really? you own 4 intermediate caliber class 3 fully automatic rifles such as an M16?

I bet they set you back a pay check or two

 

[Treo]

Three very simple questions for you, LT. Yes or no.

1. Should a 6-yr old be allowed to carry firearms unrestricted in public, concealed or not??

2. Should an elderly person who suffers from dimentia be allowed to carry a firearm?

3. Should someone convicted of a felony involving a firearm be allowed to carry?

Reductio ad absurdum
In formal logic, the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows the form that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. The term is now often used to refer to the abuse of this style of argument, by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion. For example a UFO enthusiast once argued that if I am skeptical about the existence of alien visitors, I must also be skeptical of the existence of the Great Wall of China, since I have not personally seen either. This is a false reductio ad absurdum because he is ignoring evidence other than personal eyewitness evidence, and also logical inference. In short, being skeptical of UFO’s does not require rejecting the existence of the Great Wall.

These aren't yes or no questions.

1. Should a 6-yr old be allowed to carry firearms unrestricted in public, concealed or not??

Shouldn't mom and dad have some responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen?

2. Should an elderly person who suffers from dimentia be allowed to carry a firearm?

Would such a person be allowed to legally own a weapon?

3. Should someone convicted of a felony involving a firearm be allowed to carry?

If you can't trust them w/ a gun why are they out of prison?

I haven't kept that close of an eye on the news but I haven't seen a lot of stories about toddlers packing in Arizona nor old demntedpeople either. As for the felons, well, they're doing it anyway no matter what the law says

 

[Nightmare45]

Would be in favor of nationwide carry, odd I think that is already covered by the 2nd amendment. Texas requires local, state and federal background check for cc would love to see Texas with constitutional open carry also.

 

[Unfettered Might]

Everything is protected by the constitution. It's called "freedom of expression" (to say nothing of the Declaration of Independence which makes it clear that our nation was being formed in order to ensure the pursuit of happiness, among other things.). So by your interpretation, the fact that you would need a license to practice medicine or drive a car is an infringement on your constitutional rights (i.e. an infringement on your freedom of expression). Don't think that stuff is covered by the 1st Amendment?? Think again. Everything from nude dancing to teaching has come under the umbrella of freedom of expression at one time or another.

It's all about reasonable restrictions.

Practicing medicine and driving a car are not constitutionally protected rights, I really shouldn't have had to point that one out.

6 year olds don't have rights, they are property by definition of law, not citizens. The rights in the US Constitution don't apply to minors. If a state law allows someone younger than 18 to carry, that's fine, because state law is supposed to trump Federal law unless it limits something in the bill of rights.

Mentally incompetent people, would fall under the same ideology as minors. They are the responsibility of their caregivers, not the Federal government. They become de facto property of their caregivers by definition of law as well.

Criminals have become property of the state or federal government when convicted, they are no longer citizens. However, they should have all rights restored once they have served their time. If they can't be trusted to have those rights restored, then they should remain property.

Now are you seeing a pattern here yet? In all three options, you are referring to property which do not have constitutional rights as opposed to citizens, who do.

 

[B2Tall]

Really? you own 4 intermediate caliber class 3 fully automatic rifles such as an M16?

I bet they set you back a pay check or two

Uhhhhhh....no. Since when does a rifle have to be full-auto to be classified as an assault rifle?? Even numerous examples of military issue M16s weren't full-auto (all the A2s and several variants of the current A4.).

Oh, and before you respond with one of your typical hair-splitting, petty-semantic rants.....all of my rifles in question were covered under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Now back to the thread.......

 

[B2Tall]

Practicing medicine and driving a car are not constitutionally protected rights, I really shouldn't have had to point that one out.

6 year olds don't have rights, they are property by definition of law, not citizens. The rights in the US Constitution don't apply to minors. If a state law allows someone younger than 18 to carry, that's fine, because state law is supposed to trump Federal law unless it limits something in the bill of rights.

Mentally incompetent people, would fall under the same ideology as minors. They are the responsibility of their caregivers, not the Federal government. They become de facto property of their caregivers by definition of law as well.

Criminals have become property of the state or federal government when convicted, they are no longer citizens. However, they should have all rights restored once they have served their time. If they can't be trusted to have those rights restored, then they should remain property.

Now are you seeing a pattern here yet? In all three options, you are referring to property which do not have constitutional rights as opposed to citizens, who do.

Practicing medicine is absolutely covered by the 1st Amendment. Practicing medicine is all about imparting information in the form of giving medical advice and instruction. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression. Yet I would have to be licensed in order to legally do so. Ditto if I was a driving instructor or a building contractor telling somebody what would be needed to put an addition on their house. A person's right to free speech and expression does not allow them to legally do these things w/o the proper licensing.

As I mentioned in another thread a while back, constitutional amendments are not unimpeachable nor are they carved in stone. The Supreme Court has made that very clear time and time again over the last 200+ years. That applies to the 2A as well. Both conservative and liberal Supreme Courts have repeatedly upheld restrictions on the 2A such as forbidding certain people from arming themselves and restricting what weapons can be posessed. It's not going to change any time soon. Get over it.

Children and the mentally incompetent don't have rights under the Constitution?? Who decided that...you?? Now you're just making stuff up to fit your very weak argument. Go read the 14A.

 

[handgonnetoter]

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:

 

[B2Tall]

These aren't yes or no questions.

1. Should a 6-yr old be allowed to carry firearms unrestricted in public, concealed or not??

Shouldn't mom and dad have some responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen?

2. Should an elderly person who suffers from dimentia be allowed to carry a firearm?

Would such a person be allowed to legally own a weapon?

3. Should someone convicted of a felony involving a firearm be allowed to carry?

If you can't trust them w/ a gun why are they out of prison?

I haven't kept that close of an eye on the news but I haven't seen a lot of stories about toddlers packing in Arizona nor old demntedpeople either. As for the felons, well, they're doing it anyway no matter what the law says

1. And how would you propose we hold mom and dad responsible?? Would that be <gasp!>....a law?? Kinda like the ones we already have in place. Correct me if I'm wrong, Treo, but did you just agree to a restriction on carrying?? It is a yes or no question. You're just afraid to agree with me! Talk about cutting off your nose just to spite your face!

2. It is illegal for the mentally incompetent to posess a gun. But if somebody legally owned a weapon and then became senile/demented/etc. how would you propose we deal with that without a law restricting it?? Sounds like you've just supported another firearm regulation.

3. Your next door neighbor threatens you at gunpoint because your dog pooped in his yard. He's arrested, convicted, and serves his time including any parole or probation. Once again he is now your next door neighbor and the day he arrives home he make it clear that if your dog poops on his lawn again that you'll be in serious trouble. He goes to his car and removes a box that says "Smith & Wesson" on it along with a box of ammunition and goes into his house without saying another word. Are you telling me you'd have no problem with this scenario?? After all - he's no longer in jail so according to you he should be allowed to own/carry a firearm, right??

P.S. Google "5 yr old takes gun to school" and tell me what you think should happen to the owner of that weapon.

 

[Unfettered Might]

Practicing medicine is absolutely covered by the 1st Amendment. Practicing medicine is all about imparting information in the form of giving medical advice and instruction. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression. Yet I would have to be licensed in order to legally do so. Ditto if I was a driving instructor or a building contractor telling somebody what would be needed to put an addition on their house. A person's right to free speech and expression does not allow them to legally do these things w/o the proper licensing.

..and I'm making things up? Freedom of speed, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion do not apply to practicing medicine, nor do they apply to someone giving someone else instructions on how to perform a task. That is the most ridiculous interpretation that I have ever heard for the first. It is intended for us, as citizens, to not be limited by our government in expressing our ideas when they run contrary to that government or anyone else for that matter.

Comments such as the 1st does not grant the right to induce panic by yelling fire in a crowded theater COMPLETELY miss the intention and don't even apply.

As I mentioned in another thread a while back, constitutional amendments are not unimpeachable nor are they carved in stone. The Supreme Court has made that very clear time and time again over the last 200+ years. That applies to the 2A as well. Both conservative and liberal Supreme Courts have repeatedly upheld restrictions on the 2A such as forbidding certain people from arming themselves and restricting what weapons can be posessed. It's not going to change any time soon. Get over it.

They are carved in stone, unless 2/3s of the senate and 3/4s decide otherwise. That the SCOTUS has determined otherwise is actually treasonous and is not supposed to be within their station to decide so. This was not the intention of the Founding Fathers. Congress and the states were to be the only ones to determine what was in the Constitution. The SCOTUS is supposed to use the Constitution as a STRICT guideline to those rulings if and when it applied. I will not get over it and you sound like your becoming a little flustered there.

Children and the mentally incompetent don't have rights under the Constitution?? Who decided that...you?? Now you're just making stuff up to fit your very weak argument. Go read the 14A.

Do they have civil rights? Yes of course, as do criminals and I think that's what you have in mind when your asking that question. Allow me to change "children" to "minors" for the purposes of this discussion.

1st amendment
Minors do not have freedom of religion, their parents decide, or there would be obvious problems.
Minors do not have freedom of speech, their parents decide, or they could backtalk their parents without fear of repercussion.
Minors do not have freedom of assembly, their parents decide, or they would never come home from playing.

2nd amendment
Minors cannot possess firearms, their parents decide, or there would be obvious problems.

3rd amendment
Minors obviously do not own homes, so this would not apply.

4th amendment
Minors are not secure in their persons or possessions, as a parent to my children, I can search them any time I so feel inclined and you won't find anyone else (school officials, police) in a civil lawsuit for searching them , at least not a successful one.

I could go down the whole list, but that would be asinine.
Minors do not have constitutional rights, period.

Now for the mentally deficient.

Have you ever cared for someone that has a mental deficiency? When someone had been determined to be so by a court of law, their care is entrusted to a caregiver. Be that a family member or a facility if it is outside the abilities or desires of a family member to care for them. At that point they become just like minors, they are the responsibility of their caregiver and their caregiver determines what they can and cannot do.

As for the 14A, that was an amendment for the segregation problems in the US at the time. A court ruling occurred that stated that blacks could not become citizens, which was completely ridiculous and obviously racist. That amendment was to ensure that all citizens were entitled to the same rights.

Key word being "citizens", not minors, criminals or the mentally deficient which are not considered "citizens", but "property" by definition of law.

 

[B2Tall]

..
1st amendment
Minors do not have freedom of religion, their parents decide, or there would be obvious problems.
Minors do not have freedom of speech, their parents decide, or they could backtalk their parents without fear of repercussion.
Minors do not have freedom of assembly, their parents decide, or they would never come home from playing.

2nd amendment
Minors cannot possess firearms, their parents decide, or there would be obvious problems.

3rd amendment
Minors obviously do not own homes, so this would not apply.

4th amendment
Minors are not secure in their persons or possessions, as a parent to my children, I can search them any time I so feel inclined and you won't find anyone else (school officials, police) in a civil lawsuit for searching them , at least not a successful one.

I could go down the whole list, but that would be asinine.
Minors do not have constitutional rights, period.

Wow. You have an active imagination. Exactly what constitution are you talking about?? Can't be the U.S. Constitution. It doesn't contain any of that stuff. Like I said, you're just making stuff up. I might have popped a hernia from laughing so hard at your post!

As for the rest of your rambling post, go to any of the numerous pro-1st Amendment sites out there and look at all the things the Supreme Court has upheld in the name of the 1A.