Why Do You Carry Concealed?

[corneileous]

Discrimination??....[emoji848]

So, kids, the mentally unstable and felons are being discriminated against?..lol.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mikestone967]

Discrimination??....[emoji848]

So, kids, the mentally unstable and felons are being discriminated against?..lol.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link Removed

 

[bofh]

Discrimination??....[emoji848]

So, kids, the mentally unstable and felons are being discriminated against?..lol.

Educate yourself: Link Removed and The Mulford Act.

As for your statements about "kids, the mentally unstable and felons", they are quite ignorant as well.

 

[corneileous]

Educate yourself: Link Removed and The Mulford Act.

As for your statements about "kids, the mentally unstable and felons", they are quite ignorant as well.

Sooooo, what are you telling me, "Oh Great Wise One", other than stating that kids these days are mature enough to carry, mentally unstable people with guns shouldn't be a concern and most comical, felons, being able to carry legally??...lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

You know, if you wish to educate something to someone that they don't know, you can do it without being a douchewad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

Sooooo, what are you telling me, "Oh Great Wise One", other than stating that kids these days are mature enough to carry, mentally unstable people and most comical, felons, being able to carry legally??

What does kids mean in your case and what does that have to do with carry permits? The term "mentally unstable people" is thrown around a lot, but what does that mean and what does have that to do with carry permits? Convicted felons who have served their sentence get their voting rights back immediately in almost all states. Why aren't they getting their right to possess a firearm back? Also, what does that have to do with carry permits? As I said, your post is quite ignorant.

 

[bofh]

You know, if you wish to educate something to someone that they don't know, you can do it without being a douchewad.

I did no such thing. Try to read and understand my posts before replying. The real "douchewad" is you, not realizing how ignorant (at so many levels) your comment was.

 

[corneileous]

What does kids mean in your case and what does that have to do with carry permits?

And your calling me ignorant? Lol. Kids having carry permits, gee whiz.

The term "mentally unstable people" is thrown around a lot, but what does that mean and what does have that to do with carry permits?

Again, you're calling ME ignorant??

People who are suicidal and just plain nuts in the head don't raise an eyebrow to you about a carry permit??...lol.

Convicted felons who have served their sentence get their voting rights back immediately in almost all states. Why aren't they getting their right to possess a firearm back?

I agree, it's a flawed system. People who have done their time should be reconsidered depending on what the crime was that landed the felony.

Also, what does that have to do with carry permits?

....... ok, here goes.....

SR9 said this down below. Then Bikenut responded down below that stating......

Why di I carry concealed? Because I can qualify for a permit and a lot of others can't.

You do understand that you have posted an arrogant elitist point of view that not only is in favor of infringing on the right to bear arms but also supports discrimination... right?

..........that SR9's comment about being able to obtain a permit when others can't was discrimination. Maybe I was way off base assuming that kids, mental case people and felons were what Bikenut was talking about, I dunno.

Who else would be kept from getting a carry permit?

As I said, your post is quite ignorant.

Then explain, without being rude.

I did no such thing.

You did no such thing???....lol. Calling me ignorant is no such thing?? For what reason? Wow, it's utterly amazing just how full of yourself you are sometimes. Lol. You're unbelievable.

Try to read and understand my posts before replying.

I'm still trying to figure out what all this [emoji243] [emoji90]below.......

Educate yourself: Link Removed and The Mulford Act

.........has to do with what I said about kids, felons and mentally unstable people carrying guns.

As for your statements about "kids, the mentally unstable and felons", they are quite ignorant as well.

Explain the ignorance.

The real "douchewad" is you, not realizing how ignorant (at so many levels) your comment was.

For not knowing WTF you were talking about with your links? Wow..lol.

And no, your tone half the time is what hands you the douchewad crown.

And I'm not the only one who thinks so because your demeanor sucks half the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Link Removed

Whatever Mikey, go suck a bug.

While your at it, go back to ignoring me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NavyLCDR]

Who else would be kept from getting a carry permit?


Then explain, without being rude.

I'll bite....

How about the people in New York state and California that don't want their firearms to be registered with the government?

How about people in Deleware that don't want to publish their application including their name and address in a newspaper?

How about people that cannot afford to pay the state for permission to carry? Voter registration fees and poll taxes are illegal because they discriminate against the poor, so why is it legal to tax the right to bear arms? "Costs for a first-time applicant to receive a concealed weapons permit or license to carry, including background check, can vary from zero in Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont—where concealed carry is legal without a permit—to $250 in Providence, R.I, to almost $450 in New York City and up to $480 in some California counties."

Explain to me how having to pay a government for permission to exercise the right to bear arms is not infringing upon the right to bear arms? The Supreme Court has ruled that paying the government for permission to vote infringes upon the right to vote. I'm pretty sure if you had to pay for government permission to go to church, that would be infringing upon the right of freedom of religion - or having to pay the government for permission to post on the internet.

 

[bofh]

And your calling me ignorant? Lol. Kids having carry permits, gee whiz.



Again, you're calling ME ignorant??

People who are suicidal and just plain nuts in the head don't raise an eyebrow to you about a carry permit??...lol.

I agree, it's a flawed system. People who have done their time should be reconsidered depending on what the crime was that landed the felony.


��������....... ok, here goes.....

SR9 said this down below. Then Bikenut responded down below that stating......





..........that SR9's comment about being able to obtain a permit when others can't was discrimination. Maybe I was way off base assuming that kids, mental case people and felons were what Bikenut was talking about, I dunno.

Who else would be kept from getting a carry permit?


Then explain, without being rude.

You did no such thing???....lol. Calling me ignorant is no such thing?? For what reason? Wow, it's utterly amazing just how full of yourself you are sometimes. Lol. You're unbelievable.


I'm still trying to figure out what all this,
.........has to do with what I said about kids, felons and mentally unstable people carrying guns.



Explain the ignorance.



For not knowing WTF you were talking about with your links? Wow..lol.

And no, your tone half the time is what hands you the douchewad crown.

And not the only one who thinks so because your demeanor sucks.

Once again, a complete failure to read and understand my post. Firearm possession and the disqualifiers from possession you mention are already regulated by state and federal laws, so your comments have nothing to do with obtaining carry permits, which SR9's comment was about. That's the ignorance I am talking about.

The may and almost-no issue states and territories, such as the one SR9 lives in, disqualify people from carrying firearms, because the state feels that they don't have the need to carry or because the state feels people shouldn't carry in the first place. SR9 is proud of that fact and stated in prior posts that he is proud about the fact that I can not carry in his state, while he can carry in mine.

What does kid mean? You haven't answered that question, just hurled insults at me. We send kids to war fighting for our country. Think about that for a moment, before replying with another knee-jerk rant.

I assume you have never met a person that suffers from depression or PTS, but refuses to go to the doctor because they fear loosing their rights. A friend of mine lost his wife in a horrific car accident over 20 years ago. After that accident, he had suicidal tendencies and was involuntarily committed. He is now married again has two kids and works in the defense industry with a TS/SCI DOD clearance. He is not allowed to touch a firearm for the rest of his life, because he is apparently one of those "mentally unstable".

You already mentioned the flaws in the system regarding felony convictions.

As for the links I posted, they demonstrate the discrimination you questioned. My "douchewad" comment toward you wasn't about not knowing the discriminatory history of gun control, but about your ignorant "kids, the mentally unstable and felons" statement.

 

[corneileous]

I'll bite....

How about the people in New York state and California that don't want their firearms to be registered with the government?

How about people in Deleware that don't want to publish their application including their name and address in a newspaper?

How about people that cannot afford to pay the state for permission to carry? Voter registration fees and poll taxes are illegal because they discriminate against the poor, so why is it legal to tax the right to bear arms? "Costs for a first-time applicant to receive a concealed weapons permit or license to carry, including background check, can vary from zero in Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont—where concealed carry is legal without a permit—to $250 in Providence, R.I, to almost $450 in New York City and up to $480 in some California counties."

That's a good answer and all but I don't think there's been a set standard on what SR9 was initially talking about but, me personally, I don't think mentally unstable people with a history of wigging out or being suicidal, immature kids and "depending on the felony" felons being able to carry.

Too much liability.

But, since these are state laws, if you're not cool with what the laws are in which the state you live in, move.

Explain to me how having to pay a government for permission to exercise the right to bear arms is not infringing upon the right to bear arms? The Supreme Court has ruled that paying the government for permission to vote infringes upon the right to vote. I'm pretty sure if you had to pay for government permission to go to church, that would be infringing upon the right of freedom of religion - or having to pay the government for permission to post on the internet.

I agree for the most part but, charging voter fees, voter taxes and charging to go to church would be just a piss-poor way to extort money out of people.

But explain this to me; if the Supreme Court says it's an infringement to charge fees to vote, why haven't they said it's an infringement to charge for a gun carrying permit??

For some reason, that part, "A well REGULATED militia", has me intrigued.

But, lets not start a war on what everybody's interpretation of the second amendment is because there's nothing going to be agreed upon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NavyLCDR]

For some reason, that part, "A well REGULATED militia", has me intrigued.

But, lets not start a war on what everybody's interpretation of the second amendment is because there's nothing going to be agreed upon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow. I will politely ask - just whom do you think is "A well regulated militia" in the US?

 

[corneileous]

What does kid mean? You haven't answered that question, just hurled insults at me. We send kids to war fighting for our country. Think about that for a moment, before replying with another knee-jerk rant.

Just as I figured, mine and your idea of kids is apparently two different things.

Since you are talking about 18 year old kids going to the army, maybe the legal age does need to drop down to 18. But then again, maybe it's set where it is because "kids" in the military are being rigorously trained whereas the the degenerate 18 year old teenager bully who has no self decency or respect for anyone probably shouldn't be held to the sane standards as the good kid that wants to serve his country.

But in all honesty, I was initially talking about much, younger children.

I assume you have never met a person that suffers from depression or PTS, but refuses to go to the doctor because they fear loosing their rights. A friend of mine lost his wife in a horrific car accident over 20 years ago. After that accident, he had suicidal tendencies and was involuntarily committed. He is now married again has two kids and works in the defense industry with a TS/SCI DOD clearance. He is not allowed to touch a firearm for the rest of his life, because he is apparently one of those "mentally unstable".

Ok so, another one of those "flaws" in the system.

Need I explain the difference between somebody who is a current whack job and somebody who probably once was twenty years ago who's probably not and is just as sane now, as anyone in the history of being sane?

You already mentioned the flaws in the system regarding felony convictions.

Yes, I did. Please acknowledge that.

As for the links I posted, they demonstrate the discrimination you questioned. My "douchewad" comment toward you wasn't about not knowing the discriminatory history of gun control, but about your ignorant "kids, the mentally unstable and felons" statement.

Well, I explained above. I still don't get what relevance your links up there have to do with this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Wow. I will politely ask - just whom do you think is "A well regulated militia" in the US?

Instead of asking me what I think, why don't you just tell me your thoughts about it?

I have a hard time believing that the second amendment is basically a free-for-all saying anyone period can have and carry guns without some regulation.... But I guess I could be wrong. I don't know. I'm not gonna lie to ya. But, until I do know, I really couldn't care less. As long as the government doesn't take my right away to own and carry guns, I really don't care. If buying a permit was considered so wrong by me, I'd move to a state that doesn't charge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

Just as I figured, mine and your idea of kids is apparently two different things.

Which is why I asked in the first place and your insulting reply was inappropriate.

Since you are talking about 18 year old kids going to the army, maybe the legal age does need to drop down to 18. But then again, maybe it's set where it is because "kids" in the military are being rigorously trained whereas the the degenerate 18 year old teenager bully who has no self decency or respect for anyone probably shouldn't be held to the sane standards as the good kid that wants to serve his country.

You initially didn't say anything about level of training or "degenerates". Not that the lack of training or being a "degenerate" is a disqualifier for a right.

By the way, I have been once myself named a "degenerate" by a government. At that time it meant being for freedom of speech, freedom to travel, free and fair elections, ..., you know the Bill of Rights kind of thing.

But in all honesty, I was initially talking about much, younger children.

You never specified, but insulted me instead. Classy!

Ok so, another one of those "flaws" in the system.

Yes, all three disqualifiers you mentioned turned out to be flaws in the system. Gee, wonder why I said you were ignorant?

Need I explain the difference between somebody who is a current whack job and somebody who probably once was twenty years ago who's probably not and just as sane as anyone in the history of being sane?

You have obviously never dealt with mental illnesses in any form and have no clue about them other than generic name calling (i.e., "whack job"). Is every vet that suffers or suffered PTS a "whack job" that should be disqualified? An estimated 19 million American adults are living with major depression. Should they be automatically disqualified? When or at what point does the disqualification time out? Who does that determination? But hey, it is just easy to call people "unstable" and "whack jobs" and disqualify them from exercising a right when you have no clue.

Yes, I did. Please acknowledge that.

I did in the post you quoted.

Well, I explained above.

Yes, finally.

 

[bofh]

Why di I carry concealed? Because I can qualify for a permit and a lot of others can't.

The odd part of that statement is that the National Carry Reciprocity you are for changes that. Then a lot of out-of-staters suddenly "qualify" to carry in your state without having a permit from or recognized by your state. People from "Constitutional carry" states can then carry in your state without any permit too. :lol:

 

[NavyLCDR]

A primer on the Second Amendment.....although I am sure I am wasting time and bandwidth explaining this, but what the hell, I don't have anything better to do for the next 15 minutes.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

First - the 2nd Amendment contains two completely separate and distinct phrases. The first phrase is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". This is nothing more than a statement of fact that stands by itself and is completely separate for the second phrase, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The reason they are separate and distinct from each other is very simple. Each phrase has it's own, distinct and different subject. The subject of the first phrase is "a well regulated militia". Now - if the second phrase was applicable to only "a will regulated militia" then it would state "the right of the militia.....". But it doesn't. The second phrase applies to a completely different subject. The subject of the second phrase is "the People" - not the militia.

People like corneileous love to claim that the words "well regulated" mean that the government gets to 'regulate' who gets to carry firearms and where they get to legally carry them but that simply makes no sense in the context of the phrase in which it appears. Well regulated in the context of the first phrase of the 2nd Amendment means equipped and calibrated to perform the function for with it was intended. What is the function of the "well regulated militia"? It is stated - to provide the "security of the free state". Does that mean that the government gets to pick and choose who gets to carry firearms and where they can and cannot carry them? No. What well regulated means is that the militia needs to be equipped and guided towards the common function of providing for the security of a free state. If you have 1 million people each doing their own thing with no direction, will they be able to defeat an enemy threatening to destroy the security of the free state? No. That million of people must be guided. Strategic plans must be made a carried out. Imagine if the 11 players on a football team had no "regulation" - no play plan - and they just ran wherever they wanted to. Would that football team win any games?

This can also be seen in the application of a firefighter's or diver's air tank. Is the high pressure air in the tank any good to serve the purpose of providing breathing air to the firefighter or diver? Not without regulation. It is the regulation of that air that makes it useful for breathing. Just like it is the regulation of the militia and the football team - the strategic plan and instructing the various members where to be and when - that makes it effective to provide for the security of the free state, or to win the football game.

The second phrase of the 2nd Amendment has a completely different subject. It refers to "the People" - not to the militia. The second phrase contains a very simple statement that is completely separate and distinct than the first phrase. The second phrase simply says that the right of "the People" (not the militia) to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed. Now I am sorry....but if I have to pay you for your permission to bear arms - and if you can lock me up in jail if I don't pay for your permission - that is infringing upon my right. If you tell me that I can't carry my firearm while visiting my daughter's school - and you can lock me up for doing it - that is infringing upon my right to bear arms.

A lot of people, even conservatives, don't understand why it is necessary for the government to not infringe upon the People's right to keep and bear arms. To understand that, you have to understand who wrote it. It was written by a group of men who either participated in or witnessed the overthrow of their government through armed force. To understand why they felt it necessary to write "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" you have to go back and see why they felt the need to be armed and what they had just used their arms to do. We find this explanation in another very important document. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

The reason for the second phrase in the 2nd Amendment - and why it applies to "the People" and not to just the "well regulated militia" is clear, in light of what is written in the Declaration of Independence. It was written to ensure that "the People" maintained not only right, but the ability to "alter or abolish" the government should the government become destructive to securing the unalienable rights of the governed - "the People".

 

[NavyLCDR]

Instead of asking me what I think, why don't you just tell me your thoughts about it?

I have a hard time believing that the second amendment is basically a free-for-all saying anyone period can have and carry guns without some regulation.... But I guess I could be wrong. I don't know. I'm not gonna lie to ya. But, until I do know, I really couldn't care less. As long as the government doesn't take my right away to own and carry guns, I really don't care. If buying a permit was considered so wrong by me, I'd move to a state that doesn't charge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what I thought. You don't even know who the militia is that you claim the government has the authority to "regulate" - meaning to you to have the authority to say who can and cannot legally carry a firearm and where they legally can and cannot carry it. PRICELESS!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

10 USC 311:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[corneileous]

Which is why I asked in the first place and your insulting reply was inappropriate.

What was inappropriate? You were talking about young adults. I was referring to children.

It's not my fault you assumed different.

You initially didn't say anything about level of training or "degenerates". Not that the lack of training or being a "degenerate" is a disqualifier for a right.

By the way, I have been once myself named a "degenerate" by a government. At that time it meant being for freedom of speech, freedom to travel, free and fair elections, ..., you know the Bill of Rights kind of thing.

Lol, totally not what I was talking about!!


I was talking about the difference in the young adults that YOU were talking about, first. The responsible ones, including the ones who wish to go serve their country, not the degenerate kids, also not the ones who are being trained by professional military trainers.

You never specified, but insulted me instead.

You're right, I didn't, but it's funnier than hell that you assumed I was talking about 18, 19, and 20 year old children. lol.

Classy!

I know, right? You're trying to blame me with your assumption! Epic!

Yes, all three disqualifiers you mentioned turned out to be flaws in the system. Gee, wonder why I said you were ignorant?

Lol no, just your dreamed up nonsense of your assumptions.

You were talking about young adults. I was talking about bonifide children.

You were talking about about a person who probably was mentally unstable long, long ago. I was talking about someone who, IS, NOW.... who is a current danger to themselves and everyone around them. Not somebody who once was.

You were talking about a person who did their time and is out. I was talking about about more or less what the felony was a about regarding earning their right back as a once felon.

You have obviously never dealt with mental illnesses in any form and have no clue about them other than generic name calling (i.e., "whack job"). Is every vet that suffers or suffered PTS a "whack job" that should be disqualified? An estimated 19 million American adults are living with major depression. Should they be automatically disqualified? When or at what point does the disqualification time out? Who does that determination? But hey, it is just easy to call people "unstable" and "whack jobs" and disqualify them from exercising a right when you have no clue.

First off, it's not me doing it. That's our laws at work. Second, there is no "automatically" about it. Certain mentally unstable people are deemed unstable and considered unworthy of it. Not automatically.

Besides, depression isn't automatically related to suicidal tendencies, right off the bat. There has to be a history of it first. You make it sound like I'm saying every ptsd, depression, or anything else of that matter is automatically the mentally unstable that the law disqualifies a person from being deemed a responsible gun owner and carrier.

Yes, finally.

Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk