In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

concealed carry permits are immoral and wrong!

NecrotismNecrotism Member Posts: 27 ✭✭
the word permit is a derivitive of permission. Permission is asked of people granting a privilege.. as in "please massa, i'sa be a rea' good sah' jus' don' beat me no mo'"

We, the supposedly FREE citizens of America do not need to ask permission to exercise a right that is protected by the constitution, not granted by the powers that be.

People who advocate concealed carry permits are only fanning the flames of gun control. CCP's ARE GUN CONTROL! You, by applying for a CCP are granting ultimate authority to the civil service, the bureaucracy to deny you the privilege of exercising a liberty..

The CORRECT way to look at it is that you already have the right, secured specifically in the constitution, to defend yourself, and your country against enemies, foreign AND domestic, whether it be thugs on the street or thugs with a badge or thugs in the legislature. If you go and ask them permission to do this, you are granting them the ultimate authority to deny you the free excercise of that right.. by that act, you turn your right into a privilege, which can be regulated, taxed and ultimately taken away.

The MOST that should EVER be "regulated" as a CCP would be putting the government on notice that you intend to carry, and if they see an issue with your notice, they might get 10-30 days to contest it, and show good cause to deny your right to defend yourself. ... ANYTHING LESS IS GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT MORE POWER THAN IT DESERVES OR IS GRANTED BY CONSTITUTION.

Power attracts the corruptable. - Darwi Odrade

Land of the free? Who ever told you that is YOUR ENEMY!! - RATM

Comments

  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    As usual.I must be quarrelsome.

    You were doing fine,in your discourse....until...
    quote:The MOST that should EVER be "regulated" as a CCP would be putting the government on notice that you intend to carry, and if they see an issue with your notice, they might get 10-30 days to contest it, and show good cause to deny your right to defend yourself. ...

    Why SHOULD I HAVE TO DEFEND MYSELF...AGAINST MY GOVERNMENT...to exercise a GOD GIVEN RIGHT ???????
    How much better would it be...if we executed those so lacking in human responsibility as to delibertly cause harm to others with a gun ?

    And yes..that is also my position on CCW.It does indeed reinforce the false belief that government has the right under the Constitution to restrict firarms to whomever they wish.
    Governments,by the way...HAVE NO RIGHTS....

    God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
  • jack85jack85 Member Posts: 211 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Your statement is absolutely correct. CCW is not like drivers or plumbing license. Also, this is what makes U.S. of A. Constitution so unique in the whole world. But, there is a small problem we must address when talking about our Constitution. J. Adams (I think?) once said; "Your freedom, protected by our Constitution is here for you to enjoy it. If you can keep it." I'm pretty confident that Adams wasn't thinking about some oppressive, futuristic foreign invader trying to snatch your rights and make you into a slave, when he said that. I think that, he was trying to warn us about our own people who are not hesitant to abuse "right to be free." I'm talking about anything from "drive by shootings" to exposing us to foreign aggression or even (by deliberate action) inviting the aggressor (in form of nova-days immigration policies) to our country to carry out his objective. Point is that the only way you can destroy our Constitution and our freedom is from within.
  • Shadow83Shadow83 Member Posts: 171 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It all depends on your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It does not say HOW you have the right to bare arms. As a point of law there are no grounds for a CCW to be protected under the 2nd Amendment since there is no specifity as to what methodology "to bare arms" encompasses. The legal definition is to "possess arms" which the requirement for a CCW does not infringe upon (you can still own a gun, just not carry it concealed without a peermit) so therefore a CCW is not legally in violation of the US Bill of Rights.

    One of the first legal arguments for a CCW requirement was back in about the 1850s, I think in Carson City, NV. I am going from memory but I think that Carson City was the first major Western town to ban carrying firearms within the city limits by anyone other than LE officers. Or it may have been Dodge City or Tombstone. This set a precedent which was soon adopted by most western territory towns to combat violence and killings. The death tolls dropped dramatically.

    Just the facts ma'am.


    Shadow83
    I have great love for humanity, it's the people I can't stand.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Here's another observation:

    Because the 2nd Amendment does not formally restrict any specific method of carry, no such restrictions exist, much the same way no specific firearm is restricted from the Keep or possess part of the 2nd, which would mean they are all fair game. Whenever such restrictions as permits, high taxes, waiting periods, licenses, registration or outright denials are in the phrase, the "shall not be infringed" portion of the 2nd is circumvented.

    Check out the 9th Amendment one time. It states that enumeration of the Constitution and the powers within it are not be construed as to disparage other rights not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights from the People. Could it be that this would be true of the ones listed, but not gone into great detail?



    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:But, there is a small problem we must address when talking about our Constitution. J. Adams (I think?) once said; "Your freedom, protected by our Constitution is here for you to enjoy it. If you can keep it." I'm pretty confident that Adams wasn't thinking about some oppressive, futuristic foreign invader trying to snatch your rights and make you into a slave, when he said that.

    I'm fully confident that he was thinking of that when he said that. The people had to be given a way to do it from government, so how is something like that accomplished. It would have never been considered under the Republic they proposed, because the first time our people rattled off that they wanted guns banned, or drugs banned or anything that otherwise might infringe on a minority's freedom, under that Republic, the Feds would have no ability to do so, and they would know it outright.

    Enter the Democracy. Now, nothing safeguards the rights of the individual against majority rule. All rights are no longer considered inherent, and are revocable upon a majority vote.

    I've said this before and I'll say this again. It makes me cringe every time I hear a Republican sounding off about spreading democracy around the world. All who say this are not Republicans, or they would support the Republic, and frown on democracy. Keep that in mind, all of you who are die hard republicans. You now know the real difference between a Standard Republican and a Standard Democrat. They should both be renamed "Statists" because that is their overall goal. That one is autocratic (Democrat) and the other is plutocratic (Republican) should make no difference.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,846 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Necrotism,
    While I agree with you in principal.....

    If one believes in the United States Constitution, and Bill of Rights, wouldn't it follow that this same individual should also believe in the State's Constitution, and Bill of Rights where they reside?

    (IN THE STATE I LIVE IN) our Bill of Rights, while still giving you the basics of the "United States version" it does directly address the "concealed carry" part of our right to keep and bear arms. Thereby necessitating the "shall issue" CCW law that was (finally) enacted here. Personally, I do not feel you should have to have a "permit" but I am NOT ready to move to Alaska or Maine, where they are more sensible. So I will begrudgingly abide by my "State's" Bill of Rights. (now that they HAVE a "shall issue" CCW law) [;)]

    quote:Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    The anti-gun Shadow is certainly amusing,for a lighter moment or two.

    The phrase," Keep and Bear arms " means EXACTLY what it says..but he attempts to 'interpret' it...and his meaning is the same as that of every Shumer/Fiendstein in history.

    Too bad he will not allow the clear thoughts of the Founders penetrate his brain...

    Too bad he trusts the government more then his fellow citizens.
  • JamesRKJamesRK Member Posts: 25,672 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    The anti-gun Shadow is certainly amusing,for a lighter moment or two.

    Highball, that's what I used to think, but his continued refusal to use any logic at all, and his insistence that any disagreement is an attempt to destroy his First Amendment rights has gotten old fast. At this point I just recognize that he is a middle-aged child who was raised (reared for the Yankees) on cartoons and never got over it. At this point I put my time to more productive use, like scratching my *.
    The road to hell is paved with COMPROMISE.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    [:D][:D][:0]

    Some part of me cannot quite let go...I wonder why he keeps posting ?

    Couple reasons,perhaps...he actually is thinking about the problem..[;)]
    Or he wishes for a inflamatory statement.Even more so then ordinary 'flamatory'....
  • NecrotismNecrotism Member Posts: 27 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    Necrotism,
    While I agree with you in principal.....

    If one believes in the United States Constitution, and Bill of Rights, wouldn't it follow that this same individual should also believe in the State's Constitution, and Bill of Rights where they reside?

    (IN THE STATE I LIVE IN) our Bill of Rights, while still giving you the basics of the "United States version" it does directly address the "concealed carry" part of our right to keep and bear arms. quote:Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

    The gene pool needs chlorine.



    Marberry Vs Madison volume 5 US p.137 (1803) (has never been overturned)

    "Any Thing that is in conflict is null and void of law; clearly for a
    secondary law to come in conflict with the Supreme law is illogical, for
    certainly the Supreme law would prevail over all other law, and
    certainly our forefathers had intended that the Supreme law would be the
    basis for all other law, for any law to come in conflict would be null
    and void of law; it would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no
    obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it never existed
    for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law not
    from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to
    uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere
    nullity or a fiction of law."


    getting a concealed weapons permit is tantamount to guilty until proven innocent. The state, by action, assumes all citizens are guilty of some crime that makes them inelligible to carry a weapon, unless they pay a fee, and submit to a background check, that proves their innocence...

    a States constitution can expand the definition of the rights that we have, but cannot restrict the definition of those rights below the threshold of the federal constitution.

    in addition, not sure where you live.. but generally speaking in law... when there is a specific inclusion or restriction, by default, anything not covered in that specificity is by nature, included.

    "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F. 2d 486, 489.

    for instance.. if the law says "including this that and the other" then by definition, anything that is not specifically this that or the other is not included... there is a latin term for it... thats why many laws are written "including but not limited to" clauses.

    your state's constitution specifically says that nothing in that section says someone has the right to conceal carry.. .well by exclusion that means they DO have the right to open carry....

    my state has the clause "the right to bear arms in defense of oneself, or of the state, shall not be impaired..." (the but nothing clause is the formation of a private army) in law, it takes less of an action to "impair" than it does to "infringe" .. therefore my state has a broader right to bear arms..

    that hasn't stopped my state from adopting CCP laws.. however, in their own stupid codes, they have managed to pigeon hole themselves.. because even though one isn't allowed to carry a conceal weapon, they have specific instances in which it is ok... your own home or place of business for example... but my favorite, and the one that i use to carry concealed without a permit all the time is RCW 9.41.050 (revised code of washington) that states that the CCP rules do not apply to people traveling to and or from a target shooting range... well gee ossifer.. i'm just heading out to the range.. or back from the range... as far as you know.


    actually in the city of seattle... the wrote the law so poorly on concealed weapons.. using that inclusion of one is the exclusion of other clauses, they have specifically allowed concealed firearms carrying. (check out SMC 12A.14.080 Unlawful use of weapons sec B)and it has been tried in court (Kurt Riggins is a friend of mine)

    Murdoch vs Pennsylvania volume 319 US p105 (1943)


    "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right guaranteed
    by the Constitution, and that a flat license tax here involved
    restrains in advance the constitutional liberties of the press and
    religion and inevitably tends to suppress the exercise thereof. That the
    ordinance is non-discriminatory in that it applies also to peddlers of
    wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the
    first amendment are, and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in
    question is guaranteed by the federal Constitution and exists
    independently of the States authority the inquiry as to whether the
    state has given something for which it cannot ask a return is
    irrelevant. No State may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and
    issue a license and a fee for it."
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Necro;
    Nice bit of case load you have there...I haven't run across some of it.

    Real World,however...when the seed of manhood has run out..support of the State is all that is left for those afflicted with emasculation.

    Personal freedoms,personal responsibility..terrifing to those eager to embrace the infinate wisdom of those in power. Even the will to question is beat out of most of what passes for manhood in this country.

    God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,846 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    In an idealistic world, what you say would have merit. But in the real world, it doesn't work that way. Bantering case decisions back and forth can go on all day. It doesn't change anything. There have been NUMEROUS judgments that have backed up the constitution, has that stopped them from passing (and ENFORCING) UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws? NO. Sad....isn't it?

    I believe our forefathers foresaw this happening, and tried to protect us with what they wrote. But as time passed, and the nibbling at the constitution went unchallenged, the "elite" saw that they could take chunks out of our rights, as long as they didn't take TOO big of a chunk at a time. Which brings us up to today, where they can pass something as blatant as the un-Patriot Act, and get away with it. Apathy of the people, has gotten us where we are, where the only solution looks to be Highball's.

    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • Shadow83Shadow83 Member Posts: 171 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    The anti-gun Shadow is certainly amusing,for a lighter moment or two.

    The phrase," Keep and Bear arms " means EXACTLY what it says..but he attempts to 'interpret' it...and his meaning is the same as that of every Shumer/Fiendstein in history.

    Too bad he will not allow the clear thoughts of the Founders penetrate his brain...

    Too bad he trusts the government more then his fellow citizens.
    Sorry Highballs (maybe you had one too many). What I listed was just the point on law, nothing more. (It comes from 29 years dealing with attorneys and legal briefs in the defense industry and three years studying law at Nova Law School, one of the leading law schools in the nation. Take a look at my profile bubba). It has nothing to do with my interpretation or personal opinion (you would only hear what you wanted to hear anyway). It IS the law how the United States Judicial System interprets and follows it and how the populous is held accountable to. I suggest you study the law a little more, run for office or go start your own country.

    Face it (that is IF one has a smidgen of common sense). Mr Highball has a history fo violence and often drinks too much. (Fantasy, mmmmmmmm) He doesn't need a CCP so carries a pistol hidden on his person always. He's in a bar that you are in and gets drunk as usual but THIS time he had an argument earlier at work with a co-worker and is pizzed off. After his 8th shot of Wild Turkey he starts mumbling to himself and pulls out his piece and starts shootin up the place and everyone in it like the wild west. How many incidents like this would it take until handguns are totally banned. Sound like stupidity to you? Most laws do have a vehicle, especially where the public safety is concerned. It doesn't mean that you and I gotta like OR agree with them. But they ARE the laws. You know em, you break em, you pay. No surprises.[8]

    (THE STORY ABOVE IS COMPLETE FICTION. THE NAMES WERE CHANGED TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT)


    "Edited due to pickenup's observation. He is correct."


    Shadow83
    I have great love for humanity, it's the people I can't stand.
  • NecrotismNecrotism Member Posts: 27 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    In an idealistic world, what you say would have merit. But in the real world, it doesn't work that way. Bantering case decisions back and forth can go on all day. It doesn't change anything. There have been NUMEROUS judgments that have backed up the constitution, has that stopped them from passing (and ENFORCING) UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws? NO. Sad....isn't it?




    reluctantly I agree.. the current regimes pay minor lip service and nothing more to the constitutions that created their powers in the first place.... district and superior courts are increasingly known for phrases like "we do not discuss constitutional law in our courtrooms"

    our system is broken... the time for a new america has arrived.. however.. there are too many people with power that are armed. police will never side with the citizens.. they are too wrapped up in their "just doing their jobs"... though many of them are sympathetic to the freedom cause.. when it comes to their job, the law, and the system, versus what is morally right... they will side with the former over the latter... putting countless people in jails for victimless crimes against the state..

    no doubt the alphabet soup paranoids in DC will view this message as anti-USA... I love my country, but i fear my government.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    How I laughed when the Justice Dept. churned out a report stating that the Second Amendment meant exactly what it said.

    Then the presidents men stated that Federal Gun laws were Constituional and a good thing.

    Good little Republicans sagely nodded their heads in agreement...

    1984. The book had a lot of good things in it.
    NewSpeak....a person believing that the Constitution and Bill of Rights was, perhaps,save for the Bible,the single greatest instument to liberate mankind from the clutches of madmen..

    Is considered to be full of 'hate'..a drunkard..and wishing to destroy buildings full of children.

    The hate and extremism is indeed out there....those desiring to destroy and weaken the country ARE full of hate..weak little men afraid of their own shadow...afraid to allow freedom.Their own will is weak and frail..so they believe that EVERYBODY gets drunk and 'shoots up bars'....so they embrace government intervention into EVERY facet of their lives.

    What they are afraid of is..when THEY get drunk and stupid..some decent citizen will step in and end the problem...right now.....

    God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
  • Shadow83Shadow83 Member Posts: 171 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It's tough being a messenger around here. I relay the point of law that the Government sees the 2nd Amendment under as it pertains to CCPs along with a broad description of the precedent and get attacked and belittled. I never ONCE said that I agreed with it, (in fact I said that I did not) but that seems to fall on deaf ears. Some people look for any reason to pick a fight. I would hate to be a process server in some of the areas some posters live in.

    I am never in favor of an all or nothing mentality. Extremists just serve to fuel each other's fires thus the fight in never ending. But I would like to just ask two simple yes or know questions and hope to get honest answers. Now remember that these questions are not for the individual but the ENTIRE population if the US, they would apply to EVERYONE!

    1. Would you support no checks at all for purchasing any firearm? I.E.: ANYONE could walk into a store and purchase any firearm at all as easily as they would a bottle of soda.

    2. Would you support anyone carrying any weapon anywhere they wished whether concealed or not? In other words, NO CCP requirements of any type needed no matter who the person is or their history.


    Shadow83
    I have great love for humanity, it's the people I can't stand.
  • JamesRKJamesRK Member Posts: 25,672 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Shadow83, I took a look at your profile as you suggested to Highball. I notice you have changed your occupation again. You are now a Military Defense Systems Engineer. Nothing remarkable about that. I also notice you still claim to be an "Islam warrior" who has fought successfully against infidels (Real Name: Ghazi). Assuming that you really do work for a Defense Systems contractor or subcontractor or are employed by the government, and you are in the PRP program, which you would have to be, this could cause questions from the FBI, DIA and/or NCIS. Assuming your answer will be it was just a joke on the rednecks, it probably won't cause you any major problems, but could very well put you on a "watch list". That's assuming this if your first bonehead play. Don't assume anonymity on the internet. Your name and address is very easy to look up. The easy one is probably bogus or obsolete, but that won't matter much to the Feebies. Just a word of caution.

    Now about your legal opinions. An order by an Arizona part time town Marshall, not even an ordinance, in the 1880s (not 1850s) is hardly a precedent for United States law. You really should learn some U. S. History. I would think you would accidentally learn some history while studying law for three years.

    So, unless you have received a recent appointment to the U. S. Supreme Court, I'll need to see some case law to back up you opinions before I use you as a legal reference.
    The road to hell is paved with COMPROMISE.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    1 quote:. Would you support no checks at all for purchasing any firearm? I.E.: ANYONE could walk into a store and purchase any firearm at all as easily as they would a bottle of soda.

    NO CHECKS ...at all.

    quote:2. Would you support anyone carrying any weapon anywhere they wished whether concealed or not? In other words, NO CCP requirements of any type needed no matter who the person is or their history.
    Yup.

    That is the Constitution.

    One must clarify things a bit,for the challenged amoungh us.Bad guys would dance on the end of a rope...1n about 30-45 days.No MORE 15-20 years bullshi*.

    The ones that made it pass a decent citizen,fed up with rampant crime
    that is....Coming out of prison...you would be handed your .45..and ordered to go live a decent life.....next time will be the finish..

    See..the difference between you and I is...I trust my fellow citizen to do the right thing.The .45 on my hip ENSURES he will 'behave'...because he is right in the same area as me..and I can control that area.

    You trust Government Agents to do right.

    You have absolutely NO knowledge of History...or you would NOT be so quick to trust those you are unable to touch...

    Please don't try to preach to me about 'modern law'..I am fully aware of it.I chose to obey EVERY insane gun law passed by Socialists in power.

    That does NOT stop me from trying to educate folks about what FREEDOM MEANS...and pass on some idea about the Founders dreams for America..
    And just how close to total tyranny we really are.
  • JamesRKJamesRK Member Posts: 25,672 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yes and yes. People who use firearms to commit crime should not be loose in society. They should be pushing up daises or locked up.

    It hasn't been that long ago that it was exactly that way. I haven't seen a dramatic decrease in crime since 1968. In the mid 1950s in North Carolina a man raped a little girl. The state of North Carolina gave him a fair trial, sent him to Raleigh, put him in the gas chamber, buried him, and he never raped another little girl. I think that could work today.
    The road to hell is paved with COMPROMISE.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    I think perhaps that is what convinced me that this society is finished.....the fact that we will allow the most vulnerable to be victimized.. we as a society wring our hands...and do nothing.

    Allowing vicious predators on young children to walk out of prison in a few years...to prey again...

    I also believe that the 'justice' system is shot full of pediphiles..how else could they be treated so laxly ?

    10's of thousands of sexual predators walking the streets..and no reason to stop doing what they do.

    Every decent American is aghast.The problem is..there ain't enough decent Americans.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,846 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Considering this thread is about CCW, I will stay with that.
    Leaving the Constitution out of it.....this time. [;)]

    If citizens are allowed to carry, the streets will be rivers of blood. There will be gunfights over parking places. The OK corral will seem like childs play. Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery will run rampant.
    The sky will fall......THE SKY WILL FALL.

    This kind of rhetoric is what you hear over and over in every state where the question comes up about enacting a CCW law. Right?

    Well, lets look at some facts. FBI PROVEN statistics.
    1. In the states/cities that have the strictest gun control laws, the violent crime rates are the highest.

    2. In EVERY state that has enacted a CCW law, the violent crime rate has dropped.

    Now to the question about ANYONE being able to carry a firearm. All a person has to do is look at the statistics for Vermont and Alaska. Both of these states require NO CCW at all. Essentially ANYONE can carry. (Yes, there are some restrictions, but then criminals by their very nature, DON'T care about laws) Where are the streets that are filled with blood? Where are the gunfights, forecasted to be daily events? Why are the violent crime rates lower than other states, that have strict gun control laws? Why is that? Maybe, do you think, could it be, that citizens ARE responsible? Imagine that, the sky DIDN'T fall.



    JamesRK, YUP!!







    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • NecrotismNecrotism Member Posts: 27 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Shadow83


    1. Would you support no checks at all for purchasing any firearm? I.E.: ANYONE could walk into a store and purchase any firearm at all as easily as they would a bottle of soda.

    Yes

    2. Would you support anyone carrying any weapon anywhere they wished whether concealed or not? In other words, NO CCP requirements of any type needed no matter who the person is or their history.

    Yes


    I would have extremely tough sentences for crimes with a gun... and i'm not talking paperpushing technicality crimes against the state... simple rule... if you commit a crime utilizing a firearm or threatening to use a firearm (whether or not it is a real weapon) YOU DIE....

    Unfortunately, if you look at the departmetn of injustice crime statistics.. .there is a certain type of people who are 7-10 times more likely to commit crimes with guns... however, it is not appropriate to make laws for only one group of people
  • Shadow83Shadow83 Member Posts: 171 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
    Shadow83, I took a look at your profile as you suggested to Highball. I notice you have changed your occupation again. You are now a Military Defense Systems Engineer. Nothing remarkable about that. I see taht someone turned over your rock and let you out!? Nope, just expanded it to be more inclusive. I would tell you more about the B1-B and the F-117 but then the Govt would have to kill you.[:o)]

    quote:I also notice you still claim to be an "Islam warrior" who has fought successfully against infidels (Real Name: Ghazi). I see. Anyone with any type of Arabic name is automatically an "Islam warrior who has fought successfully against infidels"?!?!? And all black people eat fried chicken and watermelon and all jews are cheap, have horns on their heads and have big noses. I get you Archie!! And if you are as observant as you claim you would know that THIS has changed too. I sure don't want to make it easy for any militant self appointed McVey types, (no pun intended) making an effort to park a truck full of fertilizer outside my home.

    quote:it probably won't cause you any major problems, but could very well put you on a "watch list". I have news fer ya bubba. I've been on a "watch list" ever since I refused to sign a loyalty oath to be able to attend a Bush political rally in Tampa.

    quote:Now about your legal opinions.I see your comprehension has not changed but your spindoctoring has improved. Not MY legal opinions bubba, but actual legal points of law which came from a discussion in a law class from a Professor who is a recognized authority on Constitutional Law.

    quote:So, unless you have received a recent appointment to the U. S. Supreme Court, I'll need to see some case law to back up you opinions before I use you as a legal reference.Now hold on to your ego Cheif. I realy could not care one bit less if you do not use anything of mine for any purpose. In fact, I would be offended if you did. I would prefer to distance myself as far as possible from a person such as yourself.[xx(]

    Shadow83
    I have great love for humanity, it's the people I can't stand.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:1. Would you support no checks at all for purchasing any firearm? I.E.: ANYONE could walk into a store and purchase any firearm at all as easily as they would a bottle of soda.


    I support no checks. Reason: All those who would commit such crimes would be locked up, and the key would be destroyed, or just killed outright. The people would be instated all rights inherent to them from the 2nd Amendment (and thus warned of the responsibility of that right) and would be encouraged to use them with no fear of legal repercussion or frivilous civil acts, and criminals would be in fear. Commiting any crime with a gun would be like painting a bulls' eye on your chest.

    quote:2. Would you support anyone carrying any weapon anywhere they wished whether concealed or not? In other words, NO CCP requirements of any type needed no matter who the person is or their history.


    I support any carry. As stated above, backgrounds would be irrelevant, because all those who have broken major malum in se laws would be removed from society, or killed outright. Those who choose to carry openly would supply a reminder to the criminal aspect of society that we are armed, and the ones who make the critical error in the victim selection process can't say they wasn't warned. Would there be a sudden spike in crime? I doubt it, because if there was, it would be followed by a sudden calm caused by major criminal demise and incarceration.

    What's not to love about that?

    ...but in order for this type of system to work, the course of indocrination must be reversed, and gun use must be encouraged. The longer this doesn't happen, the more criminals will rule the day, and the more victims will suffer and die.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."
  • JamesRKJamesRK Member Posts: 25,672 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Shadow83, it must really be frustrating for you being the lone intelligent voice in the wilderness trying to enlighten the masses, and we are too ignorant to fall in behind your advanced leadership.

    As you know, the name Ghazi translates to "Islam warrior who has fought successfully against infidels". The rest of the racial rant came from the voices in your head. If you are in fact a Military Defense Systems Engineer, then you are in the PRP program. If you are who you say you are, then you know, or should know, a statement like that can get you dropped from the PRP program and you will no longer be a Military Defense Systems Engineer, unless of course your name really is Ghazi, which we both know it ain't.

    The "I would tell you more about the B1-B and the F-117 but then the Govt would have to kill you" comment is very original and cute, but it don't work that way. If you are working on the B1-B and the F-117, just telling me that can cause you problems. By the way, the government has tried to kill me before. You ain't coming up with something new.

    I am a former member of the PRP club, so don't try to BS the BSer.

    I lived with Saudi Arabians for four years teaching them how to kill each other more effectively. So now, what do you want to tell me about Arabs.
    The road to hell is paved with COMPROMISE.
  • Shadow83Shadow83 Member Posts: 171 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
    Shadow83, it must really be frustrating for you being the lone intelligent voice in the wilderness trying to enlighten the masses, and we are too ignorant to fall in behind your advanced leadership.Yep, it sure is!! And you are the biggest challenge bubba.[:o)]

    Shadow83
    I have great love for humanity, it's the people I can't stand.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,837
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Necrotism

    I would have extremely tough sentences for crimes with a gun... and i'm not talking paperpushing technicality crimes against the state... simple rule... if you commit a crime utilizing a firearm or threatening to use a firearm (whether or not it is a real weapon) YOU DIE....





    Why would you give someone a tougher sentence, because they committed a crime with a gun, AS OPPOSED TO A BASEBALL BAT???? Person aint any more dead because he was killed with a firearm, as opposed to a baseball bat.
    I never understood that NRA pearl, bout tough sentencing for those who committ crimes with firearms. Not only do I think it is ridiculous, but even dangerous to have special sentencing where a firearm is involved.
    Can yu explain why you would give a murderer who uses a firearm a worse sentence than one who uses a baseball bat?

    Can you explain why a person who commits a robbery with a gun should die, but a person who committs robbery with a knife, shouldnt?

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man
  • NecrotismNecrotism Member Posts: 27 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    quote:Originally posted by Necrotism

    I would have extremely tough sentences for crimes with a gun... and i'm not talking paperpushing technicality crimes against the state... simple rule... if you commit a crime utilizing a firearm or threatening to use a firearm (whether or not it is a real weapon) YOU DIE....





    Why would you give someone a tougher sentence, because they committed a crime with a gun, AS OPPOSED TO A BASEBALL BAT???? Person aint any more dead because he was killed with a firearm, as opposed to a baseball bat.
    I never understood that NRA pearl, bout tough sentencing for those who committ crimes with firearms. Not only do I think it is ridiculous, but even dangerous to have special sentencing where a firearm is involved.
    Can yu explain why you would give a murderer who uses a firearm a worse sentence than one who uses a baseball bat?

    Can you explain why a person who commits a robbery with a gun should die, but a person who committs robbery with a knife, shouldnt?



    I did not mean it to be exclusionary... that is to say only applying to guns.... just that that should be the ONLY type of gun law on the books, as opposed to what is today... like selling pot is like a year in prison, but if you are wearing a gun, you get 50 years.. that isn't what i mean... thats the way things are now.. i'm saying that crimes with a victim, that involve a gun, should have swift and severe sentencing. crimes with a victim, that do not involve a gun, should have swift and severe sentencing. crimes that do not have a victim, and only "offend" the state, should not be crimes.

    as far as the NRA reasoning goes.. i am only guessing that with great freedom comes great responsibility.. when you utilize a firearm in a negative way, you are taking responsibility for that misuse, and it could cost you your life...

    the problem i have with the NRA is that they are a bunch of cop lovin constitution bashing right wingers. they want heavy enforcement of federal guns laws, when there shouldn't BE any federal gun laws. They want heavy enforcement of crimes that dont' even have victims... under the current laws if i give as a gift to my cousin in another state a gun, and fail to file the appropriate paperwork... i can go to JAIL!! .. stupid laws.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    The NRA position on harsh punishment for 'gun crimes' is perfectly understandable.

    It called 'shuck and jive'.".yessa boss..we'uns DESERVE exter punishment for violating your administrative rules.." Yessa,Boss..that ol' Constitution don't really apply at all..."..

    quote:... i can go to JAIL!! .. stupid laws.
    Laws are neither stupid..nor smart.

    The people that blindly obey them,however..that is a different story.

    Always remember..blind obedience is NEVER the hallmark of an American.

    Every insane regulation passed by the empty little men in the halls of power should bring an American ever closer to that moment of truth...do I submit...or not ?
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:If one believes in the United States Constitution, and Bill of Rights, wouldn't it follow that this same individual should also believe in the State's Constitution, and Bill of Rights where they reside?


    No sir. Any insertation of the right to keep and bear arms in a State Constitution is irrelevant. The reason: Amendment 10.

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    The right to keep and bear arms IS covered in the Bill of Rights, namely Amendment 2. Any further mention of it is restating the obvious, and cannot be rewritten in a State Constitution, because the Federal Constitution is the Law of the Land. Prohibiting a method of bearing arms while the mother law states no such restriction exists is contrary, and thus negated.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Necrotism, your post was looking good until you mentioned the "inform the government" part. Keep and bear arms. No room for government permission in there.

    The GOA is the only group fighting for unlicensed concealed carry rights. The NRA wants you licensed. They claim to be against registering guns, but are fully in favor of registering gun owners.

    I support GOA on everything they do. Repeal the laws that stop non-violent citizens from getting any type of firearm.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,846 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    gunphreak,
    I have been trying to come up with some way to defend my statement. Without going into a long drawn out post, I will just say that, as of yet, I am unable to do so.

    That is one of the things I REALLY like about participating in these forums. It makes you stop and think (or re-think) your position on certain topics. I have learned a lot since the advent of the internet (and these forums) and have changed my mind on a number of occasions. This may well be another one.

    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,846 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Beantownshootah,
    I will stand by the proven statistics that, when more guns are put in the hands of law abiding individuals, there is LESS violent crime. I did not say "NO" crime. In every state that has enacted a "shall issue" concealed carry law, the violent crime rate has gone down. It did not matter whether it was Wyoming (with wide open spaces) or Florida (where there are many very densely populated cities) or anyplace in between. The more law abiding people there are that are carry firearms, the less violent crime there is. With or without a "permit."


    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Yes,indeed;
    Pickenup;

    Reasonable men,discusing a pressing issue.That is the method used by the Founders to put forth a revolutionary turning point in mens' affairs.
    America.

    When one is having a disussion with decent people..those that actually believe in freedom..and have no ulteriour motives of profit or control over other people..that is when ideas can take shape and become the full blossom of rational thought.

    Anti-Gunners have proved without a shadow of a doubt that they are incapable of rational thought..prefering to exist in a netherworld of emotions and fuzzy 'feelgoodisms'..thereby destroying the very thing sustaining them in their insanity....

    I believe the Founders,having just thrown off the yoke of a tyannical King..central government...had no intension of EVER allowing ANY group of politicians the power to enslave them again..thus the freedom to 'keep and bear arms..'

    At least..most of them,anyway,,traitors walked amoung them even then....

    God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
  • rkd3rkd3 Member Posts: 14 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Shadow83
    It's tough being a messenger around here. I relay the point of law that the Government sees the 2nd Amendment under as it pertains to CCPs along with a broad description of the precedent and get attacked and belittled. I never ONCE said that I agreed with it, (in fact I said that I did not) but that seems to fall on deaf ears. Some people look for any reason to pick a fight. I would hate to be a process server in some of the areas some posters live in.

    I am never in favor of an all or nothing mentality. Extremists just serve to fuel each other's fires thus the fight in never ending. But I would like to just ask two simple yes or know questions and hope to get honest answers. Now remember that these questions are not for the individual but the ENTIRE population if the US, they would apply to EVERYONE!

    1. Would you support no checks at all for purchasing any firearm? I.E.: ANYONE could walk into a store and purchase any firearm at all as easily as they would a bottle of soda.

    2. Would you support anyone carrying any weapon anywhere they wished whether concealed or not? In other words, NO CCP requirements of any type needed no matter who the person is or their history.


    Shadow83
    I have great love for humanity, it's the people I can't stand.


    first let me say that this has been a very good discussion! now to the answers: Yes and Yes
    as previously stated i also feel that anyone should have the right to buy a firearm of choice at will.
    and as for anyone carrying a firearm, i feel that a result of this would be alot more respect for everyone from everyone else. the wrong people would still have guns but then so would all the right people. and even though bill clinton was voted into office twice?? i still feel that there are more good people than bad. furthermore I also feel that this would help the prison overcrowding problem too! as the bad guys would not live on my dime (and yours) while waiting for several appeals etc. if they don't even make it to jail.

    COLD DEAD FINGERS
    'nuff said
  • RamtinxxlRamtinxxl Member Posts: 9,480
    edited November -1
    With regard to what the Founders may have intended/envisioned regarding the Bill of Rights, I found great insight in the final chapter of Teddy Roosevelt's book, "The Wilderness Hunter." The chapter is entitled: "Outdoor Lore" or something to that effect. In it, he quotes from a letter written by Daniel Webster, he quotes from the journals of George Washington, he cites anecdotal snippets from others of the "Founding Fathers" with regard to their PASSION and DEVOTION to the "sporting life" that included hunting and shooting in general. Obviously, the free and wide-spread POSSESSION and USE of firearms was INTENDED and PROTECTED.

    Granted, TR was NOT present when the Constitution was drafted but he was a full century closer to that mentality than we are today.
  • travismainetravismaine Member Posts: 1 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Wow you guys are harsh .

    Debate the second all you want it has nothing to do with the RIGHT to carry . You are looking in the wrong place you need to look to the top of these documents and see where the important answer to this question is .

    "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." - Thomas Jefferson

    You will note that we have unalienable rights this means unquestionable , never ending , not debatable or infringed upon by anyone for any reason ! Please note what those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness .All three depend on your ability to defend yourself and your country by any means . I would also remind all of you that these great men that wrote these documents where all gun owners and all believed that is was not only your GOD given right to own a gun and carry it with you to defend your family your town and your country . It is also your DUTY as an American .

    Travis
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    ...the Right to Keep and BEAR Arms Shall Not be Infringed.

    It most certainly is about carrying. Not a word of this says it must be open carry (neither mode is addressed, and therefore, should be assumed, thanks to the 9th and 10th Amendments), and it clearly states to bear them is a Right! Yeah, bear them.. to wield them, carry them, and use them, if necessary.

    And a permit to carry is an infringement of the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments, and more specifically, against the right to carry, against the right of privacy, and against the right of self-incrimination.



    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    In AK a permit is no longer required to CCW![8D] But I renewed mine because I travel out side alot. I realy don't need one at all since HB 218 passed and I stay current on my quals.[^]
    But I too agree that any law which restricts ANY law adiding citizen from being armed (ccw or not) is a direct violation of the US Constitution!!![:(!]

    Self defence is an ablsolute and natural right. Keep your powder dry! J. Rau, Alaska
Sign In or Register to comment.