Should people be required to know concealed carry laws before getting a permit?
- Thread starter nogods
- Start date
Yeah, this site doesn't have very many true 2nd Amendment warriors participating. You should get along just fine here.
I'm as enthusiastic about 2a rights as the next guy. But I stand by my assertion that criminals, mentally unstable, and idiots shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Axeanda45
Banned
I'm as enthusiastic about 4a rights as the next guy. But I stand by my assertion that criminals, mentally unstable, and idiots shouldnt be allowed to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures....
I could go on all day.....
I just LOVE idiots that think that which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED should be infringed, because they are SCARED of what others might do.... ESPECIALLY when they CLAIM they are supporters of RIGHTS..... Talk about hypocrisy.....
I could go on all day.....
I just LOVE idiots that think that which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED should be infringed, because they are SCARED of what others might do.... ESPECIALLY when they CLAIM they are supporters of RIGHTS..... Talk about hypocrisy.....
I'm as enthusiastic about 5a rights as the next guy, but I stand by my assertion that criminals, mentally unstable, and idiots shouldn't have 5th Amendment protection, should not be allowed to remain silent, and any means the government should be able to extract confessions from them by any means the government chooses.
Why is the 2nd Amendment not equally applied as the 5th? (or, equally apply your infringements to the 2nd Amendment to the rest of the Bill of Rights.)
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Quite obviously, no you're not.
DavidWhite
Banned
Who is the one who gets to be the judge of competency determinations?
How do you know if an individual is a criminal?
Unless or until they are convicted of breaking the law, they are not criminals in the eyes of the law.
How do you "pre-judge" criminality?
What about idiocy? I am sure that all of us here have different viewpoints. As such, our threshold for stupidity varies.
Who gets to judge that one?
No.
Unless or until conditions are met that preclude ownership of guns, you don't get to decide who's armed.
Axeanda45
Banned
ANY "law" that does not line up with the Constitution and BOR isnt a "law" at all..... Ignorance of that is widespread in the entire nation, ESPECIALLY among cops and people that think there should be infringements on that which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.... The courts are NO LONGER a place where JUSTICE and the True "LAW" of this land are practiced or even recognized... THAT is why I will never allow myself to be taken to one... (for being guilty of following the constitution and ignoring the fake laws that infringe on it)...
DavidWhite
Banned
"UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW NULL & VOID
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void, Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 5, U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)."
Link Removed
"Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO
rule making or legislation which
would abrogate them."
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void, Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 5, U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)."
Link Removed
"Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO
rule making or legislation which
would abrogate them."
Axeanda45
Banned
Sigh......
Let me get this straight... YOU think that Shall not be infringed doesnt mean what it says? You must be a special kind of stu***.....
IF someone is let out of whatever "institution" they are in, be it a mental one or a jail or penitentiary, THEN they have been deemed "safe" to be out among the public... If they arent "safe" to be out among the public, then they SHOULDNT BE OUT HERE.... The problem is NOT should they be "allowed" to be "armed" (which anyone of adult age is, it is a very BASIC HUMAN RIGHT)the PROBLEM is THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BE OUT IN PUBLIC!!! If that concerns YOU, then help get the laws changed that ALLOW THEM OUT ON THE STREETS...... and STOP trying to infringe on that which shall not be..... Get it through your darn thick skull that GUNS ARE NOT THE DAMN PROBLEM!!!! CRIMINALS ARE THE PROBLEM!!!
So let me get this straight...you think "shall not be infringed" means ANY thing that gets in the way of anyone possessing a firearm at anyplace at anytime is a violation of the "right to bear arms"?
How about having to pay for a firearm?
How about imposing sales tax on a firearm or ammo?
What about the bridge and road fees someone had to pay to ride their horse to the gun shop in 1789?
Thankfully our founders weren't mental midgets when they wrote the bill of rights.
The phrase "the right to bear arms" does not "any arms, any place, anytime, by anyone."
"Infringe" does not mean "anything that gets in the way of my owning a firearm."
And our founders designed a system to interpret and apply the constitution because they were smart enough to know that words only mean what men subscribe them to mean. They designed a system so that "we the people" would determine the meaning of those words and phrases - not some bunker boys.
A person is not released because he's been deemed safe. He's released at the end of his sentence. A violent convict is rarely "safe" for society just because he's been released. Worked in the justice system for decades an can tell you it's not working. Here's a thought for all criminal types. Go forward knowing if you commit a violent crime against another you will lose certain rights. Among them are the right to vote and bear arms. If you commit the crime anyway? There you have it.
Yes. Correct. And "we the people" interpret those enumerated rights through a Supreme Court appointed by the people through their elected President. One can't complain about the justices if hey didn't vote.
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
Ignorance of the law is "No" excuse in all states in the union.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I suppose you have a law that says that too? I've been active in political speech since long before I was of age to vote. I can even complain about the idiotic speech that comes out of private individual's mouths/keyboards without fear of retribution, or while lacking the ability to vote on what they say/type. As a retired attorney, one might expect you to know the truthfulness of that statement since the legal basis for it is the very 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. That attorneys can say such idiotic and untrue things with the imprimatur of legitimacy only serves to emphasize what politicians and judges believe they can get away with against The People's interests and in direct contravention to the Constitution that they're all sworn to protect, defend and uphold.
Most people on this site do vote. I happen to be one who doesn't because I know for a fact that the whole government, and its attendant institutions (elections being one of them), is corrupt beyond any minuscule hope of repair. I don't volunteer to engage in activity that I know is nothing more substantial than mental masturbation. But if you disagree with someone's criticisms of SCOTUS justices or the unconstitutional edicts (rulings) they hand down from their Ivory Tower, you would take them no more seriously than you'd take my criticisms now knowing that I am not a voter. To say that no one can complain for whatever reason you conjure up in your own mind is just a way to dismiss that person's thoughts without having to actually respond to the substance of them. I now lodge a complaint about your intellectually lazy discussion tactics, and in case you didn't notice, you cannot do anything to stop me from complaining about it.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a right is dependent upon participation in a failed and corrupt system before that right can be exercised openly and freely. You have no right to say what rights of speech can or cannot be exercised, and neither does government, so even as a retired attorney your edict of "can't complain" is completely contradicted by the actual law of the land. Pure, unadulterated sophistry. I'll complain/criticize/excoriate/name-call/judge-as-traitors any politician, judge or individual who deserves such critical speech whether I ever voted for or against them in my entire life, and you Sir, can't do a damned thing about it but spew meaningless platitudes and slogans in response.
Blues
