Obama and Concealed Carry

[Jimmy Neutron]

know anyone with barrels of sks rifles poured full of cosmoline?

 

I mean I don't

 

Excellent! The SKS is a fine rifle - every kid should have one. The best thing about them (aside from their $100-150 price tag) is that you can actually find ammo for them right now, unlike .223 or 5.56.

 

I hope I have not offended anyone by my yapping in this thread. I am a wee bit passionate on the issue and enjoy the discussiuon.

Edited March 3, 2008 by Jimmy Neutron

[Ursa Majoris]

The bottom line is that curtailing gun ownership is a completely lost cause, politically. Our country is what it is and whether we like it or not, it's awash with guns that aren't going away. Quite honestly, I worry more about the stupid cow in the giant SUV tailgating and yapping on her cell phone on my commute than I do about guns.

[Hugh 0ne]

I hate to go all H8tank on you, but you are either stupid

 

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

 

Gotta go read the rest of the thread, just got to this point and felt obligated to comment.

[TheShiznit]

More like Vermont without question.

 

I don't want the government trying to protect me. It does a miserable job trying to do so in areas it has fully assumed that mantle. Those borders are sure secure, eh? How about the purview of the FDA, feel protected? Homeland security - the seem more adept at interior decorating with their love of color and all. I'm not nearly as hard on FEMA as others were after Katrina, but you get the idea. How about that DEA - glad they have such a vice grip on the illegal drug trade!

 

Please understand my point, I'm not trying to slam the hard working men and women that work for these agencies. I am trying to point out that our government is ill-equiped to discuss these issues intelligently, let alone going about solving these problems. Why waste the taxpayer money?

 

The gun registration program in Canada is a fine example. Good idea, peopel thought - we should know who has what guns. While Canada does not have quite the gun culture the US does, most of my fine Canadian brothers in arms have simply said, "F**k that!" Compliance levels are very low and the project is nearing $1 billion in cost overruns. Brilliant! Let's do the same thing here!

 

So, are you saying that government is failing in admistering Driver's Licenses? Is your solution at keeping meat safe for consumption is trusting the producers to "do the right thing?" You are very adept at picking out certain scenarios which may illustrate failure of a certain agency or program....but not so adept at providing for the "fix" to the problem. Why would what I describe be so difficult...how could gov't F@*k that up. I really do not see it. Again, I am only suggesting this for concealed carry. Anyway, we may just have to agree to disagree....knowing we are not that far apart on this issue.

[yo mama]

You are very adept at picking out certain scenarios which may illustrate failure of a certain agency or program....but not so adept at providing for the "fix" to the problem.

Along these lines, most hard core 2nd Amendment proponents fail to reconcile competing constitutional provision when the 2nd Amendment is involved. The best example is the states' constitutionally granted "police powers." (Though, the commerce clause could also be implicated). From a federal constitutional law perspective, states have general police powers, except where restricted by the federal Constitution.

 

So if a state elects to exercise its police powers in a way that affects firearms, it has the constitutional grant of authority to do so unless it "infringes" upon a citizen's 2nd Amendment "right to bear arms." Lets further say a state chooses to implement a new law that requires a ballistics test of every gun sold or imported in that state in order to make it easier and more efficient to obtain ballistics matches in gun-related crimes. You can still buy and own your guns and ammo, just like you always could. No change there, so your right to "bear" arms is the same as it was before. Except now the government knows a little bit more about your gun than it did before, though its knowledge is directly tied to legit law enforcement.

 

Most gun rights advocates would flip their lid at this kind of a proposal, arguing that it violates their 2nd Amendment rights. (Hogwash, IMO: the government knowing about your guns does not impede your right to acquire or own them, but I know lots of people feel that way). Regardless, few will attempt to reconcile that such a law might be lawfully enacted pursuant to the state's constitutionally granted police powers. It would be nonsense to argue that the 2nd Amendment completely preempts the states' police power when it comes to rules and regulations pertaining to fire arms: the plain language of the 2nd Amendment doesn't say that, and no court has ever held otherwise.

 

I think its pretty common sense that for any one provision of the constitution to be respected (like the 2nd Amendment) all provisions of the constitution must be equally respected (like the 10th Amendment). But there is such a heavy bias on both sides of the issue that I find it virtually impossible to have a rational discussion on this without triggering the largely irrational paranoia on both sides. Bottom line: the only way for any one Constitutional right to have real meaning is for them all to have meaning. We don't get to pick and choose.

Edited March 3, 2008 by yo mama

[Jimmy Neutron]

So, are you saying that government is failing in admistering Driver's Licenses? Is your solution at keeping meat safe for consumption is trusting the producers to "do the right thing?" You are very adept at picking out certain scenarios which may illustrate failure of a certain agency or program....but not so adept at providing for the "fix" to the problem. Why would what I describe be so difficult...how could gov't F@*k that up. I really do not see it. Again, I am only suggesting this for concealed carry. Anyway, we may just have to agree to disagree....knowing we are not that far apart on this issue.

 

To the contrary, the government does a great job issuing DLs. What they do not do well is keep non-licensed drivers off the road. Issuing CCW permits with stringent requirements is all fine and dandy (for arguments' sake), but it won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

As someone else mentioned, it's much more difficult to drive a car than to shoot a gun. I guess I'm not clear on why you think the CCW permit process should be more in depth. There is an in depth FBI background check. The Utah class is about 6 hours and covers the technical ins and outs of different types of guns and Utah law on personal defense, but no range time is required. I believe the assumption is that if you want to carry a gun, you must shoot and be comfortable with a gun. Maybe I'm wrong, but would someone not familiar with guns want to pack one?

 

No worries about the argument - I appreciate your thoughts.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Along these lines, most hard core 2nd Amendment proponents fail to reconcile competing constitutional provision when the 2nd Amendment is involved. The best example is the states' constitutionally granted "police powers." (Though, the commerce clause could also be implicated). From a federal constitutional law perspective, states have general police powers, except where restricted by the federal Constitution.

 

So if a state elects to exercise its police powers in a way that affects firearms, it has the constitutional grant of authority to do so unless it "infringes" upon a citizen's 2nd Amendment "right to bear arms." Lets further say a state chooses to implement a new law that requires a ballistics test of every gun sold or imported in that state in order to make it easier and more efficient to obtain ballistics matches in gun-related crimes. You can still buy and own your guns and ammo, just like you always could. No change there, so your right to "bear" arms is the same as it was before. Except now the government knows a little bit more about your gun than it did before, though its knowledge is directly tied to legit law enforcement.

 

Most gun rights advocates would flip their lid at this kind of a proposal, arguing that it violates their 2nd Amendment rights. (Hogwash, IMO: the government knowing about your guns does not impede your right to acquire or own them, but I know lots of people feel that way). Regardless, few will attempt to reconcile that such a law might be lawfully enacted pursuant to the state's constitutionally granted police powers. It would be nonsense to argue that the 2nd Amendment completely preempts the states' police power when it comes to rules and regulations pertaining to fire arms: the plain language of the 2nd Amendment doesn't say that, and no court has ever held otherwise.

 

I think its pretty common sense that for any one provision of the constitution to be respected (like the 2nd Amendment) all provisions of the constitution must be equally respected (like the 10th Amendment). But there is such a heavy bias on both sides of the issue that I find it virtually impossible to have a rational discussion on this without triggering the largely irrational paranoia on both sides. Bottom line: the only way for any one Constitutional right to have real meaning is for them all to have meaning. We don't get to pick and choose.

 

Good post Yo - hard to agrue with any of it. It is interesting how differently states approach this and other problems.

[westvirginia]

Along these lines, most hard core 2nd Amendment proponents fail to reconcile competing constitutional provision when the 2nd Amendment is involved. The best example is the states' constitutionally granted "police powers." (Though, the commerce clause could also be implicated). From a federal constitutional law perspective, states have general police powers, except where restricted by the federal Constitution.

 

So if a state elects to exercise its police powers in a way that affects firearms, it has the constitutional grant of authority to do so unless it "infringes" upon a citizen's 2nd Amendment "right to bear arms." Lets further say a state chooses to implement a new law that requires a ballistics test of every gun sold or imported in that state in order to make it easier and more efficient to obtain ballistics matches in gun-related crimes. You can still buy and own your guns and ammo, just like you always could. No change there, so your right to "bear" arms is the same as it was before. Except now the government knows a little bit more about your gun than it did before, though its knowledge is directly tied to legit law enforcement.

 

Most gun rights advocates would flip their lid at this kind of a proposal, arguing that it violates their 2nd Amendment rights. (Hogwash, IMO: the government knowing about your guns does not impede your right to acquire or own them, but I know lots of people feel that way). Regardless, few will attempt to reconcile that such a law might be lawfully enacted pursuant to the state's constitutionally granted police powers. It would be nonsense to argue that the 2nd Amendment completely preempts the states' police power when it comes to rules and regulations pertaining to fire arms: the plain language of the 2nd Amendment doesn't say that, and no court has ever held otherwise.

 

I think its pretty common sense that for any one provision of the constitution to be respected (like the 2nd Amendment) all provisions of the constitution must be equally respected (like the 10th Amendment). But there is such a heavy bias on both sides of the issue that I find it virtually impossible to have a rational discussion on this without triggering the largely irrational paranoia on both sides. Bottom line: the only way for any one Constitutional right to have real meaning is for them all to have meaning. We don't get to pick and choose.

 

Maryland already has such a law and process on the books. Have for five years or better. Setting aside for the moment that it hasn't yet solved a single thing (running a steel brush down the barrel, replacing a firing pin, replacing a barrel, there's a million ways to fudge this data, and oh yeah, criminals typically don't buy their arms legally, something anyone with sense will typically agree with) and that it's cost-prohibitive, What's the point? Are you willing to bet that you're living under the one government that we can always trust to respect our rights? That this isn't a back-door registration scheme? That registration won't precede confiscation, just this one time in history, by just this one government? Bullfrog. Yo, you are very slippery indeed. I agree that ALL the BoR should be respected. It's just that the second is the one that makes sure all the others stay in effect. If you don't recognize that fact (or refuse to) then I can't help ya pal...

 

I'm with the boy genius - Molon Labe...

[detlef]

Maryland already has such a law and process on the books. Have for five years or better. Setting aside for the moment that it hasn't yet solved a single thing (running a steel brush down the barrel, replacing a firing pin, replacing a barrel, there's a million ways to fudge this data, and oh yeah, criminals typically don't buy their arms legally, something anyone with sense will typically agree with) and that it's cost-prohibitive, What's the point? Are you willing to bet that you're living under the one government that we can always trust to respect our rights? That this isn't a back-door registration scheme? That registration won't precede confiscation, just this one time in history, by just this one government? Bullfrog. Yo, you are very slippery indeed. I agree that ALL the BoR should be respected. It's just that the second is the one that makes sure all the others stay in effect. If you don't recognize that fact (or refuse to) then I can't help ya pal...

 

I'm with the boy genius - Molon Labe...

OK, but when do those of us without swords get to plow you?

[yo mama]

Maryland already has such a law and process on the books. Have for five years or better. Setting aside for the moment that it hasn't yet solved a single thing (running a steel brush down the barrel, replacing a firing pin, replacing a barrel, there's a million ways to fudge this data, and oh yeah, criminals typically don't buy their arms legally, something anyone with sense will typically agree with) and that it's cost-prohibitive, What's the point? Are you willing to bet that you're living under the one government that we can always trust to respect our rights? That this isn't a back-door registration scheme? That registration won't precede confiscation, just this one time in history, by just this one government? Bullfrog. Yo, you are very slippery indeed. I agree that ALL the BoR should be respected. It's just that the second is the one that makes sure all the others stay in effect. If you don't recognize that fact (or refuse to) then I can't help ya pal...

 

I'm with the boy genius - Molon Labe...

See, now you're arguing against the efficacy of my ballistics "fingerprinting" hypothetical. But I'm *not* advocating that any state should do that. I'm simply stating that states have the power to do so, if they choose, and not run afoul of our 2nd Amendment rights. It doesn't matter if you or I think its correct or not; it just is.

 

In addition to the potential conflicts between the 2nd Amendment and the states' constitutional police power (or commerce clause), whatever the 2nd Amendment may mean it is only a bar to federal action. The 2nd Amendment does not bar state action. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886); Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894); Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-282 (1897); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F. 2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983). Nor does the 2nd Amendment bar private restraints. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

 

I'm not trying to advance a "gun control" agenda. I just think it would be great if people on both sides of the issue recognized the natural boundaries of what is and is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. (You might be surprised by what kind of arms I'd defend your right to own). While you are certainly free to argue what you think the law *ought* to be, that does not change what the law actually *is.*

 

And don't get me started on registration laws. Molan Labe or not, at a minimum, we know from United States v. Miller (registration law upheld for sawed off shot guns) that they're legal when it comes to weapons that are not the type typically used by a militia. The whole reason we have a 2nd Amendment in the first place is because the constitutionally protected brand of gun ownership was conditioned on participation in a well-organized militia. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Supreme Court has observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.'' United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Id. at 179. I'm not saying such a registration list couldn't be used against you; it clearly could. But how the hell else are we supposed to call upon gun owners such as yourself if we don't know who the gun owners are?

 

Perhaps you'd be more amenable to a Bat Signal?

 

ETA: thanks for calling me slippery. I think. I can only assume that means I've made a point with which you begrudgingly agree.

Edited March 4, 2008 by yo mama

[I Like Soup]

I mean really, I understand the Constitution and its intent (and yes, I believe we should have the right to bear arms and am not opposed to stricter requirements of getting those weapons), does anyone really think that if 200 of your closest friends who are pissed off about what the government is doing that they stand a chance against an F-18 dropping a bomb on your head or an AC-130 strafing your position? The times have changed on the revolution front against a well-armed government.

 

There is some good discourse in this thread, sorry to have derailed it.

[Ursa Majoris]

I mean really, I understand the Constitution and its intent (and yes, I believe we should have the right to bear arms and am not opposed to stricter requirements of getting those weapons), does anyone really think that if 200 of your closest friends who are pissed off about what the government is doing that they stand a chance against an F-18 dropping a bomb on your head or an AC-130 strafing your position? The times have changed on the revolution front against a well-armed government.

 

There is some good discourse in this thread, sorry to have derailed it.

Good point but either we have a Constitution or we don't. The further away we get in time, the less plausible it is to rely on the 18th century idealism of a bunch of middle aged white men as a bedrock set of principles since they can hardly be blamed for not foreseeing the atom bomb, the machine gun and the aircraft.

 

That said, if anyone has a better idea, they are keeping it very quiet.

[i_am_the_swammi]

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

 

Yes, a constitution that was written 240+ years ago should definitely be honored word for word.

 

Things have changed a little in a couple centuries boys....

[Big John]

Yes, a constitution that was written 240+ years ago should definitely be honored word for word.

 

Things have changed a little in a couple centuries boys....

Written in 1787, 221 years ago.

 

Ratified in 1789, 219 years ago.

 

The 2nd amendment was in the Bill of Rghts was ratified in 1791, 217 years ago.

 

[Ursa Majoris]

Yes, a constitution that was written 240+ years ago should definitely be honored word for word.

 

Things have changed a little in a couple centuries boys....

See above.

[Jimmy Neutron]

I mean really, I understand the Constitution and its intent (and yes, I believe we should have the right to bear arms and am not opposed to stricter requirements of getting those weapons), does anyone really think that if 200 of your closest friends who are pissed off about what the government is doing that they stand a chance against an F-18 dropping a bomb on your head or an AC-130 strafing your position? The times have changed on the revolution front against a well-armed government.

 

There is some good discourse in this thread, sorry to have derailed it.

 

Hardly - the example of Iraq is valuable here again. Despite millions of pounds of our best bombs being dropped on insurgent targets (only a few thousand, BTW) these guys aren't going away. Our military is now learning the same lesson we taught the Brits in the 1770s - the most powerful military in the world just might lose against a mobile enemy using unconventional tactics.

 

Yes, times have changed swammi - but the more things change, the more they stay the same..... Some folks realize that and some don't.

[I Like Soup]

Hardly - the example of Iraq is valuable here again. Despite millions of pounds of our best bombs being dropped on insurgent targets (only a few thousand, BTW) these guys aren't going away. Our military is now learning the same lesson we taught the Brits in the 1770s - the most powerful military in the world just might lose against a mobile enemy using unconventional tactics.

 

Yes, times have changed swammi - but the more things change, the more they stay the same..... Some folks realize that and some don't.

Then again, I would point out they aren't exactly accomplishing anything either.

[yo mama]

Then again, I would point out they aren't exactly accomplishing anything either.

Um, they're doing a pretty good job f'ing up our economy with the economic drag the war is having on our economy. All they have to do to "win" is get us to leave before we want to. They can do that by making continued occupation more costly than we're willing to stomach.

Edited March 4, 2008 by yo mama

[Clubfoothead]

With all due respect, whever I read these types of posts that advocate groups rights to arm themselves to the point of being able to create a new government, my first question is always you and what army?

 

When a person wants me to support their second amendment right to be in possession of enough weaponry to out fight the United States military, I naturally have a few questions about your militia and I believe I have a right to answers.

 

What is the militia's positionon stem cell research? NAFTA? Illegal immigration. Legal pot, yes or no? Universal health care? What is that milita going to do for me when I turn 65? I'm no fan of the federal government but if you want me to be in favor of your militia being allowed an arms race with the federal government, I need to know it's position on certain issues. Shool vouchers? What is your milita's position on other militias with different ideologies, fight it out like we are in Bagdad? Are competing militias allowed military and financial support from foregin nations?

 

I also wonder what your militia's boiling point is going to be to begin the revolution. And I think to myself, since the United States has more citizens in prison than any other industralized democracy on the planet, where the f*ck you guys been?

 

Finally, it seems impractical. Unless there's treason en masse among active duty military, I don't give any milita a chance, particularly a milita packing a bunch of concealed handguns.

 

State your milita's position and I'll let you know if I think your milita's second amendment rights need respecting.

[Jimmy Neutron]

With all due respect, whever I read these types of posts that advocate groups rights to arm themselves to the point of being able to create a new government, my first question is always you and what army?

 

When a person wants me to support their second amendment right to be in possession of enough weaponry to out fight the United States military, I naturally have a few questions about your militia and I believe I have a right to answers.

 

What is the militia's positionon stem cell research? NAFTA? Illegal immigration. Legal pot, yes or no? Universal health care? What is that milita going to do for me when I turn 65? I'm no fan of the federal government but if you want me to be in favor of your militia being allowed an arms race with the federal government, I need to know it's position on certain issues. Shool vouchers? What is your milita's position on other militias with different ideologies, fight it out like we are in Bagdad? Are competing militias allowed military and financial support from foregin nations?

 

I also wonder what your militia's boiling point is going to be to begin the revolution. And I think to myself, since the United States has more citizens in prison than any other industralized democracy on the planet, where the f*ck you guys been?

 

Finally, it seems impractical. Unless there's treason en masse among active duty military, I don't give any milita a chance, particularly a milita packing a bunch of concealed handguns.

 

State your milita's position and I'll let you know if I think your milita's second amendment rights need respecting.

 

Revolutions do not begin under "normal" circumstances. The founding fathers authored the Declaration of Independence long before they completed the Constitution.

 

Ya damn Tory.

[yo mama]

Revolutions do not begin under "normal" circumstances. The founding fathers authored the Declaration of Independence long before they completed the Constitution.

 

Ya damn Tory.

Could you at least text message me before you begin the revolution? A modern day "one if by land, two if by sea," if you will.

[polksalet]

I mean really, I understand the Constitution and its intent (and yes, I believe we should have the right to bear arms and am not opposed to stricter requirements of getting those weapons), does anyone really think that if 200 of your closest friends who are pissed off about what the government is doing that they stand a chance against an F-18 dropping a bomb on your head or an AC-130 strafing your position? The times have changed on the revolution front against a well-armed government.

 

There is some good discourse in this thread, sorry to have derailed it.

 

what if I also have 200 friends in the Air Force?

[lions suck]

+1

 

The right to bear arms is an important one, as there is no better deterrent to governmental tyranny than a well-armed citizenry. But there's no freakin' way: (1) congress would pass such a law; (2) it would survive presidential veto; AND (3) there'd be any sane individual who'd be willing and able to enforce such a law. Because most of the folks with the muscle to pull that off (e.g., military and police) are 2nd Amendment supporters themselves.

 

It will never happen in this country.

 

 

+2

 

This government was based upon checks and balances with the right of the PEOPLE to bear ams being the largest c+b of them all against a tyannical government. Ummm didn't this happen before around the 18th. century? Hmmm...I wonder where the minute men got their guns.

[Hugh 0ne]

Hmmm...I wonder where the minute men got their guns.

 

Wal-mart.

[TheShiznit]

To the contrary, the government does a great job issuing DLs. What they do not do well is keep non-licensed drivers off the road. Issuing CCW permits with stringent requirements is all fine and dandy (for arguments' sake), but it won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

As someone else mentioned, it's much more difficult to drive a car than to shoot a gun. I guess I'm not clear on why you think the CCW permit process should be more in depth. There is an in depth FBI background check. The Utah class is about 6 hours and covers the technical ins and outs of different types of guns and Utah law on personal defense, but no range time is required. I believe the assumption is that if you want to carry a gun, you must shoot and be comfortable with a gun. Maybe I'm wrong, but would someone not familiar with guns want to pack one?

 

No worries about the argument - I appreciate your thoughts.

 

No doubt Jimmy....I completely agree that none of this would even pertain to criminals. It would help promote a safer gun toting public is all. Criminals are gonna be criminals. And yes those gun laws should be enforced....with that you get no disagreement. But I would feel it would be much harder to ACCURATELY fire a gun thatn to drive a car within a lane.

 

Anyway....you are right...it has been an amicable discussion. However, I am not a crazy take away your guns phobe either....so maybe there washope for me in your regard!!!!