Obama and Concealed Carry

[moneymakers]

Can't we can wait until September or October to completely destroy the man?

 

 

+1

[wirehairman]

I may be naive, but given the background check I went through to get my CWP, I highly doubt any of the "bad guys" carrying concealed weapons bothered to get a permit. This is another example of proposed gun control targeting the law abiding sector.

 

If you want to bring common sense into it, Randall, why don't our court systems enforce the literally thousands of gun control laws that already exist and throw the book at anyone convicted of a crime involving a gun instead of slapping criminals on the wrist and making excuses for them that its their parents' or society's fault?

[TheShiznit]

I don't recall the words "hunting" or "fishing" populating the second amendment.

 

All I ask is for my constitutional rights to be honored.

 

Funny the CNSERVATIVE supreme court had their chance to rule on the second ammendment yesterday.....and punted AGAIN.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I don't recall the words "hunting" or "fishing" populating the second amendment.

 

All I ask is for my constitutional rights to be honored.

i dont see anything about 75 round clip in there either....

[Yukon Cornelius]

I may be naive, but given the background check I went through to get my CWP, I highly doubt any of the "bad guys" carrying concealed weapons bothered to get a permit. This is another example of proposed gun control targeting the law abiding sector.

 

If you want to bring common sense into it, Randall, why don't our court systems enforce the literally thousands of gun control laws that already exist and throw the book at anyone convicted of a crime involving a gun instead of slapping criminals on the wrist and making excuses for them that its their parents' or society's fault?

well because the prisons are already full... and im all for using the laws already there... but its doesn't seem to be working out so well right now...

[Kid Cid]

well because the prisons are already full... and im all for using the laws already there... but its doesn't seem to be working out so well right now...

Yes, but the prison are full of drug users, not necessarily drug dealers.

[westvirginia]

How about we take a strict intrerpretation to the constitution and restrict arms to those available when it was written?

 

I'm cool with that.

 

Because the intent was that a standing army would always be outlawed 20-1 by citizen militiamen. Therefore, the arms available to the militia (i.e. able-bodied men between 18-45) today should be M-16's and the like.

 

I'm cool with that...

[westvirginia]

I know no hunters or sportsmen that use an AK47 for hunting. What's next machine guns to catch trout?. Come on Jimmy.

 

The assault weaons ban and more cops on the streets works. I'm all for hunting and fishing but this is crazy.

 

How about a little common sense here.

 

I hate to go all H8tank on you, but you are either stupid or as disingenuous as it comes.

 

The definition the politicians use for "assault weapons" are guns that might LOOK like machine guns, but are functionally identical to your Dad's model 7400 in .308 winchester. And I HAVE seen hi-cap mags for that gun. Just because it's wooden-stocked and has a scope doesn't make it "better", just more palatable to soccer moms, and the men who would be soccer moms. There's your common sense.

 

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will soon plow for those who do not.

[isleseeya]

I hate to go all H8tank on you, but you are either stupid or as disingenuous as it comes.

 

The definition the politicians use for "assault weapons" are guns that might LOOK like machine guns, but are functionally identical to your Dad's model 7400 in .308 winchester. And I HAVE seen hi-cap mags for that gun. Just because it's wooden-stocked and has a scope doesn't make it "better", just more palatable to soccer moms, and the men who would be soccer moms. There's your common sense.

 

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will soon plow for those who do not.

 

 

eh , i have seen better H8tank imitations ..you were too kind and wrote in complete sentences so i would say wasnt good enough

[Furd]

Supports extending the assault weapons ban: - Why is this a bad thing?

 

This is why:

 

What is an assault weapon?

 

You can't really define the things.

 

I think that if the anti-concealed carry persons thought about it for a bit, they'd see that their position is unfounded. Maybe you can find some statistics about how many criminal shootings were committed, let's say in the last decade or so, by a citizen lawfully carrying a concealed weapon.

 

If you're in a mall, or at a university, or wherever, you want a trained, armed person around.

[billay]

The intent of the second amendment was as a defense to state incursiouns on personal liberty. In that light, individuals are obliged to possess arms so that they may be assembled to the common defence, i.e. miliitary action, but there is no reference of an individiuals right to protection against fellow non-peaceable citizens. All references I can find protect the righs of "peaceable citizens" to carry weapons, but infers that non-peaceable citizens do not retain this right. At what point does the second amendment begin to infringe upon the preambles expressed desire to "promote domestic tranquility"?

[DMD]

I know no hunters or sportsmen that use an AK47 for hunting. ...

 

I actually do. It's just a rifle.

[Caveman_Nick]

I actually do. It's just a rifle.

 

Another reason to love DMD.

[Big John]

I actually do. It's just a rifle.

Unofficially, of course.

[westvirginia]

I actually do. It's just a rifle.

 

I've used an SKS with a five-round mag installed. Again, just an autoloading rifle.

[westvirginia]

The intent of the second amendment was as a defense to state incursiouns on personal liberty. In that light, individuals are obliged to possess arms so that they may be assembled to the common defence, i.e. miliitary action, but there is no reference of an individiuals right to protection against fellow non-peaceable citizens. All references I can find protect the righs of "peaceable citizens" to carry weapons, but infers that non-peaceable citizens do not retain this right. At what point does the second amendment begin to infringe upon the preambles expressed desire to "promote domestic tranquility"?

 

My individual rights, to wit, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are paramount, as are yours. The second amendment in and of itself will NEVER encroach upon domestic tranquility. Why can you people not see that guns are just tools? Is anyone so myopic as to think that someone bent on murder will really quail at the thought of breaking a gun law? When you disarm law-abiding citizens (such as on the VA tech campus) you are only creating a zone where a predator knows he has unarmed victims. Can you people really not see this? No law, however well-intentioned, will EVER stop someone bent on destruction. See the current drug laws we have in this country, or the example of prohibition. Curbing honest folks' liberties will not ensure that those bent to dishonesty will not accomplish their goals.

[DMD]

The intent of the second amendment was as a defense to state incursiouns on personal liberty. In that light, individuals are obliged to possess arms so that they may be assembled to the common defence, i.e. miliitary action, but there is no reference of an individiuals right to protection against fellow non-peaceable citizens. All references I can find protect the righs of "peaceable citizens" to carry weapons, but infers that non-peaceable citizens do not retain this right. At what point does the second amendment begin to infringe upon the preambles expressed desire to "promote domestic tranquility"?

 

 

Billay makes a very real point here. The second amendment as it was written has nothing to do with hunting or recreational shooting. It is about the right of the individual to be armed so that the government cannot have total dominion over him. It was expressly written to state that in the US, armed citizenry is an impediment to the government taking total control. This position/definition is further strengthened in the Federalist Papers by numerous of the signees of the Declaration of Independence and framers of the constitution. So really, it is a smoekscreen to even discuss the role of hunting or recreational shooting in the context of the second amendment. It was written to ensure that the citizens would always have the right to possess firearms so that they could defend themselves and not allow their government to disarm them. That is the history and context of why it was written. So if you want to disarm people, the argument should only be framed in why the populace should so trust their governement as to allow them to remove their ability to rise up against it and to defend themselves. The right of individuals to own firearms was something that they expressly wanted in the constitution to ensure that power remained with the populace, not with government.

 

In the event you could disarm everyone, which is a joke since nefarious types would never allow such, then you would have all the power remaining in the hands of the goverment and criminals who would never adhere to the law. Those are two groups that I would never want to have absolute power over me personally. And if they could be disarmed (including criminals which is impossible but for arguments sake), it would have to be done in the expectation that the remaining history of the country/world would never have a reason why people would want to defend themselves in the future. That the federal government could never turn tyrannical or that we could never be invaded by a foreign power and give cause for individuals to want to defend themselves and their country. If a person does not want to own a gun, more power to them. But it is, in my opinion, myopic and incredibly optimistic to make an assumption now that there would never again be a reason why a populace would never have any reason to want to defend themselves. The US is made great as a collection of individuals that come together and make rules and laws, not as merely the herd of cattle on a goverment ranch.

 

Hunting and recreational shooting are further reasons why gun ownership should be presevered, but that is not what the second amendment was created for originally. I have friends who own "black rifles" and they actually do use them to hunt with along with recreational shooting.

 

And if either a foreign government or ours decides to install a totalitarian goverment in our country, I would imagine East Texas would be a poor place to start.

 

"WOLVERINES!!!!"

[tonorator]

And if either a foreign government or ours decides to install a totalitarian goverment in our country, I would imagine East Texas would be a poor place to start.

 

DMD reminds me of this instructor ...

[yo mama]

I don't recall the words "hunting" or "fishing" populating the second amendment.

 

All I ask is for my constitutional rights to be honored.

That's fine. But you and I both know that the 2nd amendment does not afford all citizens unlimited and unregulated freedom when it comes to their right to bear arms. Ergo, not every rule that might affect a gun violates the 2nd Amendment. And the Supreme Court has been a collective bunch of sissys for the last 100 years or so, ducking the opportunity to help clarify and interpret the opaque contours of this constitutional right.

[westvirginia]

Billay makes a very real point here. The second amendment as it was written has nothing to do with hunting or recreational shooting. It is about the right of the individual to be armed so that the government cannot have total dominion over him. It was expressly written to state that in the US, armed citizenry is an impediment to the government taking total control. This position/definition is further strengthened in the Federalist Papers by numerous of the signees of the Declaration of Independence and framers of the constitution. So really, it is a smoekscreen to even discuss the role of hunting or recreational shooting in the context of the second amendment. It was written to ensure that the citizens would always have the right to possess firearms so that they could defend themselves and not allow their government to disarm them. That is the history and context of why it was written. So if you want to disarm people, the argument should only be framed in why the populace should so trust their governement as to allow them to remove their ability to rise up against it and to defend themselves. The right of individuals to own firearms was something that they expressly wanted in the constitution to ensure that power remained with the populace, not with government.

 

In the event you could disarm everyone, which is a joke since nefarious types would never allow such, then you would have all the power remaining in the hands of the goverment and criminals who would never adhere to the law. Those are two groups that I would never want to have absolute power over me personally. And if they could be disarmed (including criminals which is impossible but for arguments sake), it would have to be done in the expectation that the remaining history of the country/world would never have a reason why people would want to defend themselves in the future. That the federal government could never turn tyrannical or that we could never be invaded by a foreign power and give cause for individuals to want to defend themselves and their country. If a person does not want to own a gun, more power to them. But it is, in my opinion, myopic and incredibly optimistic to make an assumption now that there would never again be a reason why a populace would never have any reason to want to defend themselves. The US is made great as a collection of individuals that come together and make rules and laws, not as merely the herd of cattle on a goverment ranch.

 

Hunting and recreational shooting are further reasons why gun ownership should be presevered, but that is not what the second amendment was created for originally. I have friends who own "black rifles" and they actually do use them to hunt with along with recreational shooting.

 

And if either a foreign government or ours decides to install a totalitarian goverment in our country, I would imagine East Texas would be a poor place to start.

 

"WOLVERINES!!!!"

 

 

ETA: Even if you could ensure no nefarious types, and no tyranny, a gun is still the great equalizer. It ensures a 5', 100lb woman can stand toe to toe with a 6'2", 250lb man and keep her purse, virtue, whatever.

Edited February 29, 2008 by westvirginia

[Missoula Griz]

[tonorator]

 

i would imagine that could take out a deer.

[Front Row]

 

Was that a wolf on his shirt?

[yo mama]

Was that a wolf on his shirt?

[Caveman_Nick]

That's fine. But you and I both know that the 2nd amendment does not afford all citizens unlimited and unregulated freedom when it comes to their right to bear arms. Ergo, not every rule that might affect a gun violates the 2nd Amendment. And the Supreme Court has been a collective bunch of sissys for the last 100 years or so, ducking the opportunity to help clarify and interpret the opaque contours of this constitutional right.

 

 

I never said I wanted to own a tank (all coolness of tanks aside...gas is really mofo expensive these days).

 

My response was to Randall and his statement about Hunting and Fishing. Hunting and Fishing have nothing to do with anything, as DMD has already pointed out.