.

Carryover of a GD Topic For Further Discussion

n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
I C&P'd a portion of a topic from the general discussion side. It evolved into a somewhat esoteric discussion on the meaning of the Constitution and government's ability to restrict our rights. Another member and I had a little "back and forth" on the issue, as seen below.

Thoughts, comments?
_________________________________________________________
From sig:


Thanks "PA" that clears up a lot, in my opinion.

O'Reilly is a supporter of gun rights the majority of the time. He does have a big ego and sometimes gets off track! But he stands with us to protect the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, as does the NRA!
________________________________________________________________

From lt496:

If you only support gun-rights "the majority of the time", then you are NOT a supporter, you are a compromiser. This includes the NRA.

"Support" like this does nothing but confuse people and weaken perceptions and opinions of the "absolute fact", that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", period.
Facts are facts and it is what it is.
__________________________________________________________

From sig:

The problem is we are all different and see problems different. One person calls "X" a compromise and the next person sees it as "Y". It ain't as Black and White as you make it. Its not that simple.

If we take your position that there can be no gun regulations, then you stand alone in the corner. There are not many people in this great nation that will agree with you that it is OK for citizens to own a Abrams Tank, or a mini-gun on your truck, or a fully loaded F-18 with all the goodies. Yea there are a few but not many. So you see that is a compromise. As is ownership of machine guns outlawed since the 1929 Sullivan law. 99% of Americans would agree today that machine guns should not be in the hands of individual citizens.
I disagree with that position but I accept the compromise. All changes in society are compromises, all laws are compromises, otherwise nothing gets done in Congress. Thats how our system works.

Your idea of gun control is different from 99% of the rest of this country based on what you said, your strict definition.

The real problem is, how do all of us come up with a reasonable compromise that makes sense that we can all agree to accept. We are a long way from this point, in my opinion.

Loss of all gun rights is not acceptable, right? But then access to all military hardware is not acceptable on the other side, right?

You either compromise somewhat or you will be unhappy hiding under the stairs of your basement surrounded by your guns.

So my point is its all about compromise, life is about compromise. Very few of us get everything they way we want without some compromise.

The NRA has to do what it has to do to win most of its battles. Since most gun owners don't support the organization it has to compromise with the more powerfull lobby of anti-gun congressmen or simply back away and let them do as they may.

I blame gun owners for their lack of support for most of the compromises that we have today.
_______________________________________________________________
From lt496:

sig,

I see we are at it again.

Seeing things as different is not the problem. The problem is having an accurate understanding of the meaning of the Bill of Rights. It is indeed that simple.

Setting aside the fact that I never addressed the issue of private ownership of fighter aircraft, tanks, nukes, mini-guns etc, I want to keep this debate clean and to the point, so lets talk basic firearms, handguns, rifles, shotguns, real basic stuff.

You see, with the exception of a couple very minor hiccups throughout our history, it was pretty clearly understood and practiced, that Americans had the clear, simple right to keep and bear arms. That was written, very simply, into the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. Infringement is an easy word to comprehend, so by and large, those who chose to do so, happily exercised their God given rights.

Guns could be purchased basically in any manner, face to face, in the mail and on and on....You see, it was understood that this was a RIGHT, not a privilege granted by government. We still had the occasional mass murder, shooting of an innocent, nut case with a gun etc, but the difference was that people UNDERSTOOD that keeping and carrying firearms was a RIGHT, so people and behavior were punished.

I'll fast forward until your stated example of machine gun "compromise". You toss out a figure of 99% of Americans agreeing that they should be kept from individual citizens. I'll give you one and not dispute the percentage, it really doesn't matter. The point is that you disagree with "Sullivan", but agree with the compromise.

That, my friend, is my point and the problem.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are not open to "compromise" through judicial fiat, executive whim, legislative tyranny, or any other process but amending the document through the means established within the document, period.

The term "reasonable compromise" is nothing more than "herd-speak" for "I don't understand the Constitution, its implications and its restriction on government and society".

See, the founders knew that there would be people in society at large and elements in the government, that would always try to restrict what you and I could and should be allowed to do. The founders came up with a constitutional "leash" to prevent this, or at least make it so difficult to change, that many hoops must be jumped through before ANY changes could be made. Thus, the check and balance of change taking a long time and being required to stand the scrutiny of the citizens and their accountable, elected representatives.

You go on to equate the Constitution to other laws, legislated by Congress. You state that compromise is the way business is done and that we wouldn't get anything through congress without compromise.

Sig, no disrespect, but this illustrates my point, that most (yourself included I fear) just don't understand the real issue. You can not legally legislate away the US Constitution, period.

Normal legislation is all about compromise. The rights enumerated under the Constitution are not. It really is that simple.

I'll let everyone in on a little secret.....the Constitution and Bill of Rights are NOT authorized to be compromised, barring an amendment to said document, period.

Apply the same principal of "interpretation and compromise" (read infringement) to any of the other amendments and see the howls begin.

I agree that we are a long way from agreeing on an "acceptable" amount of infringement on the 2A and, frankly, the remainder of the document. I understand it for what it is and understand that it restricts government. It does not grant me my rights, I already have them. It simply enumerates the things that government has to keep away from, period.

I have to take another exception to your attempt to equate the simple issue of private firearms to "military hardware" I assume we are back to nukes and fighter aircraft with missiles and bombs.

Your attempt to say "we don't accept the total loss of all gun rights", but then again, we don't agree with total access to everything in a military's arsenal, is the same issue.

This is a straw-man, or red herring, argument and I won't go there. Keep it on topic. I don't see any past, or pending legislation, or proposed Constitutional Amendment to restrict private ownership of nukes, fighter jets or Abrahams tanks. It simply has no bearing on efforts to deny, restrict, nickel and dime, or otherwise infringe on a citizens right to keep and bear arms.

You close by inferring that I am destined to be some paranoid, unhappy little man, hiding under my stairs with my guns, unless, of course, I compromise my Constitutional Rights away.

You seem to infer that I can't understand the concept of compromise in life. I have been lectured, as if a small child, on the need for compromise in most situations. I shouldn't get into this point, but here goes.... Please don't mistake my stance on individual rights under the US Constitution, with my ability to function in society. You simply are commenting out of ignorance about me. You do not know what I do, or anything about my professional or personal life which would qualify a statement like that, period.

We will never agree on this issue. I see the Constitution for what it is, others see it for something else. There is no room for middle ground, or compromise, where my very freedom and my inherent, God-Given Rights are involved.

This is the fine line between us.

Many seem to lump Constitutional Rights in with general societal issues and do not draw a distinction between the Bill of Rights and some simple legislation, that the legislature has the authority to put in place.

Sig, I enjoy the debate with you and once again want to go on record that I believe you want to do the right thing. I simply don't see that you have an understanding of the core issue.

No disrespect intended sir.
«1345

Comments

  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    If the NRA critics expected the same amount of perfection from their own family as they do from the NRA, there would be few NRA critics that had a family; at least a family that stayed together.

    The NRA is an organization that has 4 million different viewpoints. It is impossible for the NRA to make/not make a move and please/not anger someone. When I was younger and lived in the urban city with my grandparents, they did not have a car and therefore had to ride the bus. I soon noticed that it is IMPOSSIBLE to find a bus that will pick you up at your door and take you to exactly where you want to go. The bus system was a large "organization" and it took many "members" to make the system work. For many reasons it could not be/ was not the most perfect, convenient or best it could be, BUT IT WORKED REASONABLE WELL. Overall the NRA has advanced gun rights. And it is still the largest, most powerful, best known, most feared (by the anti-gunners) and has the most programs working everyday to maintain and/or introduce new shooters to the sport of shooting.

    Spending time disparaging the NRA is fruitless. It would be far better to spend that time going out and recruiting a new member to the shooting sports or get a new member to join a pro-rights organization YOU DO BELIEVE IN. When you spend so much time and effort disparagin the NRA you are helping the anti-gun people do their work.
  • Marc1301Marc1301 Member Posts: 31,822 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Lt496,.......very good at making your points, which are absolutely on track!
    Along with TRFox, though,.......I still continue to support the NRA, and now GOA also. I think like you do, obviously, but still am willing to support the above organizations for the time being,..........one mistake though,.........I don't think we have any "Abrahams" tanks![:D]
    No offense meant,.....just joking with you, and once again, a very good job of getting the point across![;)]
    "Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:Overall the NRA has advanced gun rights.
    This, Mr Fox, is utter nonsense.
    Please think about what you say here for a moment.

    Lt496;
    Superb job of thinking and writting, here...You know how I love to argue...and wish I could find something to pick on, so I don't seem so 'follower'.
    Just wish there was a place in a National organization for the likes of you. Would sure make it easy to send money, again, knowing that the banner was carried by someone that actually UNDERSTOOD the Constitution...
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    quote:Overall the NRA has advanced gun rights.
    This, Mr Fox, is utter nonsense.
    Please think about what you say here for a moment.

    Lt496;
    Superb job of thinking and writting, here...You know how I love to argue...and wish I could find something to pick on, so I don't seem so 'follower'.
    Just wish there was a place in a National organization for the likes of you. Would sure make it easy to send money, again, knowing that the banner was carried by someone that actually UNDERSTOOD the Constitution...


    With a front row seat, I credit the NRA with FINALLY getting a KS CCW passed. Is that worth NOTHING?
  • RockatanskyRockatansky Member Posts: 11,175
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    With a front row seat, I credit the NRA with FINALLY getting a KS CCW passed. Is that worth NOTHING?


    i think the idea is that neither NRA nor anybody else cannot advance a right since rights aren't granted. CCW on the other hand is something granted, hence it's not a right but something of a privilege, if NRA went out and fought for _RIGHTS_ and not something that is granted by politicians it would be viewed a bit differently and probably would have a lot more supporters.
  • nyforesternyforester Member Posts: 2,574 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Do you people think we would be in a better position in respect to our guns rights than we are now if the NRA and other like lobby groups never existed. I would think the gun grabbers would have gobbled them up years ago and you would now be fighting to own a wrist rocket or spit straw.


    Maybe that is exactly what we need to awake the sleeping giant !
    Abort Cuomo
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:Do you people think we would be in a better position in respect to our guns rights than we are now if the NRA and other like lobby groups never existed. I would think the gun grabbers would have gobbled them up years ago and you would now be fighting to own a wrist rocket or spit straw.


    Maybe that is exactly what we need to awake the sleeping giant !
    Well. gosh, NY;

    Unless you are perfectly comfortable crawling on your belly to buy a gun..(Daddy, kin I buy a gun ?...I would prefer absolutely NO guns as the situation we have now. Those whinning that we have 'freedoms' would have to shut the he++ up...or wade into that river of blood that awaits us.
    For the Compromisers... STOP pretending that we are a free people. Stop pretending that you are upholding American values.

    STOP PRETENDING...you have no idea how demeaning it is.

    HE** NO...CCWs are NOT advancing Rights..there is the basic flaw in your thinking.
  • RockatanskyRockatansky Member Posts: 11,175
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by nyforester
    Do you people think we would be in a better position in respect to our guns rights than we are now if the NRA and other like lobby groups never existed. I would think the gun grabbers would have gobbled them up years ago and you would now be fighting to own a wrist rocket or spit straw.

    Maybe that is exactly what we need to awake the sleeping giant !


    you could playing the guessing game forever. right now all we have are some historical facts, such as that NRA did negotiate 2 biggest gun control laws and supported a lot of legal infringements of the 2A. follow up on cases when its help was needed, see if they will stand up for Matt Corwin or anyone else for that matter who haven't done anything wrong but exercise their rights.

    now which giant are you talking about?
  • Marc1301Marc1301 Member Posts: 31,822 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hey Sneaky,........we disagree once again!
    CCW is not granted, IF you read the Constitution,......literally.
    The right to keep and bear arms,.......think for a minute, and you will see where your thought process went wrong.
    In modern "lingo", I believe that means the right to buy, own, and carry,.....arms.
    Explain where I am wrong on this point.
    What does "bear" mean?[;)]
    "Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
  • nyforesternyforester Member Posts: 2,574 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
    quote:Originally posted by nyforester
    Do you people think we would be in a better position in respect to our guns rights than we are now if the NRA and other like lobby groups never existed. I would think the gun grabbers would have gobbled them up years ago and you would now be fighting to own a wrist rocket or spit straw.

    Maybe that is exactly what we need to awake the sleeping giant !


    you could playing the guessing game forever. right now all we have are some historical facts, such as that NRA did negotiate 2 biggest gun control laws and supported a lot of legal infringements of the 2A. follow up on cases when its help was needed, see if they will stand up for Matt Corwin or anyone else for that matter who haven't done anything wrong but exercise their rights.

    now which giant are you talking about?

    The sleeping Giant I speak of is WE THE PEOPLE ! The people are peed off but not yet at the end of the rope. My rope is getting shorter, is yours ?

    I am beginning to see things your way Highball.
    Abort Cuomo
  • RockatanskyRockatansky Member Posts: 11,175
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
    Hey Sneaky,........we disagree once again!
    CCW is not granted, IF you read the Constitution,......literally.
    The right to keep and bear arms,.......think for a minute, and you will see where your thought process went wrong.
    In modern "lingo", I believe that means the right to buy, own, and carry,.....arms.
    Explain where I am wrong on this point.
    What does "bear" mean?[;)]


    sorry, i don't understand what you're trying to say here.
  • RockatanskyRockatansky Member Posts: 11,175
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by nyforester
    The sleeping Giant I speak of is WE THE PEOPLE ! The people are peed off but not yet at the end of the rope. My rope is getting shorter, is yours ?


    that would be nice if it were true. this came up here before and i was blamed for all the evils of the land, so i am not going to get into it [:)]

    and i don't have any rope left, i am just waiting for a few more with (or in?) the same condition.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Please remember always....NOT MY WAY...I did not evolve it.

    The way of the Founders..giants of men...we moderns slink about in their shadows...and mostly we are unfit to shine their boots or hold their horses.

    I merely grieve over the loss of freedoms..OUR freedoms...and the pis+++ on the precious legacy of those magnificent trail blazers...I merely wish to cause some small amount of shame in those willing to give it up...and a quiet, shimmering, banked RAGE in those man enough to understand what the Founders were saying...

    Always facing the day of the Hour of the Time...The Time of the Pale Horse...
  • Marc1301Marc1301 Member Posts: 31,822 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:CCW on the other hand is something granted, hence it's not a right but something of a privilege,

    That is your quote that I was referring to,........I know you were in a "discussion" about the NRA, but I was pointing out that I do not believe, and why, that CCW, is granted,.........and not a right. It is a "right", to me, just as being able to own firearms, I am just jumping through hoops.
    "Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    It496, you, my friend, get it! Makes the light at the end of the tunnel a little brighter when I see that more people UNDERSTAND the constitution. Some here get that there is NO middle ground. Some are even mad enough, they are ready to water the tree. I for one, am tired of seeing the tree wither and droop. Those that don't get it, probably never will. Remember we are a society that allows the mentally challenged to walk amoung us.[:D]
  • RockatanskyRockatansky Member Posts: 11,175
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
    quote:CCW on the other hand is something granted, hence it's not a right but something of a privilege,

    That is your quote that I was referring to,........I know you were in a "discussion" about the NRA, but I was pointing out that I do not believe, and why, that CCW, is granted,.........and not a right. It is a "right", to me, just as being able to own firearms, I am just jumping through hoops.


    well, i guess in states where they can't deny it unless you're psycho or a convict it might look like it's a right with some hoopla. what's the general name for this thing? permit or license? which would already imply it's not automatically issued but rather granted. the only two states where it's still a right like it should be are Vermont and Alaska, unless other states pass the same laws and NRA would be the major driving force behind these type of legislations one can't credit NRA for anything but collecting membership fees.
  • Marc1301Marc1301 Member Posts: 31,822 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    That is all I was saying,...........the right to "keep and BEAR arms", is why I think "carrying, or bearing", is a right, and not a "privilege". Yes,.........they have gotten it to the point of a privilege in most states, but that is not how it should be.
    "Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
  • RockatanskyRockatansky Member Posts: 11,175
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
    That is all I was saying,...........the right to "keep and BEAR arms", is why I think "carrying, or bearing", is a right, and not a "privilege". Yes,.........they have gotten it to the point of a privilege in most states, but that is not how it should be.


    depends on which logic you're using. one way or another, only 2 states got it right, 10 states have it on a privilege system where for the most part the right is denied.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    With a front row seat, I credit the NRA with FINALLY getting a KS CCW passed. Is that worth NOTHING?


    i think the idea is that neither NRA nor anybody else cannot advance a right since rights aren't granted. CCW on the other hand is something granted, hence it's not a right but something of a privilege, if NRA went out and fought for _RIGHTS_ and not something that is granted by politicians it would be viewed a bit differently and probably would have a lot more supporters.


    Sounds like nothing but perfection will do. Again. At one time in the recent past only a couple of states provided CCW to their citizens. Now, to some degree or another, all but 2 states provide CCW for their citizens. No matter how you slice and dice that fact, major gun "rights" have been gained. Meaning that before hardly ANYONE was carrying concealed and now hundreds of thousands are carrying concealed. Folks, you may hate to say the word, but that is gun rights PROGRESS. Maybe not the "perfect" kind of progress you demand, but progress by any standard.

    Now, lets start working on the "perfect" kind of progress that you, and me too actually, want.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    Now, lets start working on the "perfect" kind of progress that you, and me too actually, want.


    Oh, now your gonna convince the NRA to rollback gun laws? A right is ONLY a right when it can be exercised openly albeit with responsiblity.
    Truth be told the NRA will NEVER roll back gun laws. It would not be a good "Business" move on their part. What could they "fight" if there were nothing to fight? To say we have PRIVILAGE ccw's, and THATS progress is intellecually dishonest. When you have to apply for permission that is not a right. You have to apply for a drivers license, and we all would agree driving is NOT a right, even under the constitution.
  • RockatanskyRockatansky Member Posts: 11,175
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    At one time in the recent past only a couple of states provided CCW to their citizens. Now, to some degree or another, all but 2 states provide CCW for their citizens. No matter how you slice and dice that fact, major gun "rights" have been gained. Meaning that before hardly ANYONE was carrying concealed and now hundreds of thousands are carrying concealed.


    on a different not, when did states start not allowing citizens to carry arms? does anyone have a coherent link or source where facts are stated without agenda? i have a clue of when it started in California, but can't find any links to when permissions and registrations were enacted in the rest of the states.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    Now, lets start working on the "perfect" kind of progress that you, and me too actually, want.


    Oh, now your gonna convince the NRA to rollback gun laws? A right is ONLY a right when it can be exercised openly albeit with responsiblity.
    Truth be told the NRA will NEVER roll back gun laws. It would not be a good "Business" move on their part. What could they "fight" if there were nothing to fight? To say we have PRIVILAGE ccw's, and THATS progress is intellecually dishonest. When you have to apply for permission that is not a right. You have to apply for a drivers license, and we all would agree driving is NOT a right, even under the constitution.




    If you find yourself in a position you do not like, and somebody comes in and improves it for you, I would think you would call that improvement "progress" and not accept that improvement all the while complaining that the improvement was not do as per your idea of the only right way to do it.

    It would be wiser to gratefully accept that "improvement" and then join forces to push for more such "improvements' and even push for those "improvements" to only be performed in the way you think they should be performed.

    But I guess it is easier to complain and gripe and hope for civil war to solve your problems.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    At one time in the recent past only a couple of states provided CCW to their citizens. Now, to some degree or another, all but 2 states provide CCW for their citizens. No matter how you slice and dice that fact, major gun "rights" have been gained. Meaning that before hardly ANYONE was carrying concealed and now hundreds of thousands are carrying concealed.


    on a different not, when did states start not allowing citizens to carry arms? does anyone have a coherent link or source where facts are stated without agenda? i have a clue of when it started in California, but can't find any links to when permissions and registrations were enacted in the rest of the states.




    First state issued CCW was in Fla in about 1989 and was the result of the actions of a woman Marion Hammer, member and past president of THE NRA.
  • RockatanskyRockatansky Member Posts: 11,175
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
    on a different not, when did states start not allowing citizens to carry arms? does anyone have a coherent link or source where facts are stated without agenda? i have a clue of when it started in California, but can't find any links to when permissions and registrations were enacted in the rest of the states.

    First state issued CCW was in Fla in about 1989 and was the result of the actions of a woman Marion Hammer, member and past president of THE NRA.


    are you saying that before 1989 all states prohibited concealed carry?
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    quote:Originally posted by thesneakyrussian
    on a different not, when did states start not allowing citizens to carry arms? does anyone have a coherent link or source where facts are stated without agenda? i have a clue of when it started in California, but can't find any links to when permissions and registrations were enacted in the rest of the states.

    First state issued CCW was in Fla in about 1989 and was the result of the actions of a woman Marion Hammer, member and past president of THE NRA.


    are you saying that before 1989 all states prohibited concealed carry?



    Vermont has long allowed concealed carry without a permit. 1989 was the first year I believe that any state issued a CCW to the general population.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
    Lt496,.......very good at making your points, which are absolutely on track!
    Along with TRFox, though,.......I still continue to support the NRA, and now GOA also. I think like you do, obviously, but still am willing to support the above organizations for the time being,..........one mistake though,.........I don't think we have any "Abrahams" tanks![:D]
    No offense meant,.....just joking with you, and once again, a very good job of getting the point across![;)]


    Yeah, you got me on the "abrahams tank thing.[:I] I got all carried away focusing on my argument and it slipped by.

    Just a point of clarification Marc, I am a life member of NRA and have been for some time. I am also a life member of GOA.

    I guess if I had it to do over again, knowing what I know now, I wouldn't join the NRA because of their support and facilitation of past and present gun-control, but they already have my money and they are stuck with me and my frequent calls and letters for them to get their crap together.[:o)]
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,397 ******
    edited November -1
    lt496,
    You have a firm grasp on the reality of the situation, and you express it well. Keep up the good fight.

    **********

    Many states have had some form of a concealed carry law for many years. You just had to be the governor's brother (or someone as close) to get one. Florida was the first to pass a "shall issue" concealed carry law in 1987. This prevented the local authorities from groundlessly refusing ANY application.

    Since then, 39 states have followed suit, passing a "shall issue" law. Not one of these states have rescinded this law. 9 states have a "may issue" law, requiring the applicant to demonstrate a specific "need." Often this is used to deny an applicant, where there is no valid reason. These 9 states range from a shall issue in practice, to states like Hawaii, which, while it has a state law that allows for the issuance of a "permit" it NEVER does.

    As of 2006, two states (Wisconsin and Illinois) have not passed a law allowing for any concealed carry "privileges." Legislation was passed in 2004 and again in 2005, but vetoed by the respective governors. They are still fighting for one.

    Finally in March 2006 the Kansas legislature overrode the veto by the governor Kathleen Sebelius) and enacted a concealed-carry law effective July 1.

    2 states (Alaska and Vermont of course) can READ AND UNDERSTAND the constitution, allowing any legal resident to carry at will.

    Hmmmmmmmmm
    Wanting perfection......NO.
    We just want what others states have acknowledged. That we have the legal RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms. Maybe if THAT was the policy that the NRA was fighting for, instead of the "turning a RIGHT into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE" that they presently advocate, they would have more members/backing. Throwing a bone to placate the public, in the form of a CCW law, is a slap in the face to anyone who can READ AND UNDERSTAND the constitution.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    lt496,
    You have a firm grasp on the reality of the situation, and you express it well. Keep up the good fight.

    **********

    Many states have had some form of a concealed carry law for many years. You just had to be the governor's brother (or someone as close) to get one. Florida was the first to pass a "shall issue" concealed carry law in 1987. This prevented the local authorities from groundlessly refusing ANY application.

    Since then, 39 states have followed suit, passing a "shall issue" law. Not one of these states have rescinded this law. 9 states have a "may issue" law, requiring the applicant to demonstrate a specific "need." Often this is used to deny an applicant, where there is no valid reason. These 9 states range from a shall issue in practice, to states like Hawaii, which, while it has a state law that allows for the issuance of a "permit" it NEVER does.

    As of 2006, two states (Wisconsin and Illinois) have not passed a law allowing for any concealed carry "privileges." Legislation was passed in 2004 and again in 2005, but vetoed by the respective governors. They are still fighting for one.

    Finally in March 2006 the Kansas legislature overrode the veto by the governor Kathleen Sebelius) and enacted a concealed-carry law effective July 1.

    2 states (Alaska and Vermont of course) can READ AND UNDERSTAND the constitution, allowing any legal resident to carry at will.

    Hmmmmmmmmm
    Wanting perfection......NO.
    We just want what others states have acknowledged. That we have the legal RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms. Maybe if THAT was the policy that the NRA was fighting for, instead of the "turning a RIGHT into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE" that they presently advocate, they would have more members/backing. Throwing a bone to placate the public, in the form of a CCW law, is a slap in the face to anyone who can READ AND UNDERSTAND the constitution.


    Thank you sir, for the compliment and a big fat X-RING on your comments.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Most of the NRA members are people that actually BELIEVE that taking a Right and making it a privilege is 'advancing gun rights.'

    Thuse the support for CCWs'.

    These folks refuse to admit that words have meaning..they wish to believe as they are told to believe by men in expensive suits...

    One cannot fault such folks too much...children will refuse to face facts, after all. They are the victims of very sophisticated propaganda campaigns...paid for out of their very own pockets, by the way..

    The point being... adults dam+++ well better get in the game...and soon.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Most of the NRA members are people that actually BELIEVE that taking a Right and making it a privilege is 'advancing gun rights.'

    Thuse the support for CCWs'.

    These folks refuse to admit that words have meaning..they wish to believe as they are told to believe by men in expensive suits...

    One cannot fault such folks too much...children will refuse to face facts, after all. They are the victims of very sophisticated propaganda campaigns...paid for out of their very own pockets, by the way..

    The point being... adults dam+++ well better get in the game...and soon.


    Excellent point and absolutely correct, on all counts.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    To those who claim the CCW laws are a bad thing. If you could run the tape of history backwards, would you be happy if I ran that tape back and cancelled the CCW laws in 48 states? And then you would have the same sad state of gun right affairs that you have and have had now, regarding not having your "pure" constitutional gun rights but at the same time you would not have the 48 states CCW law.

    Would you be in favor of that? Would that make you happy and be a good and constitutional thing?
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    To those who claim the CCW laws are a bad thing. If you could run the tape of history backwards, would you be happy if I ran that tape back and cancelled the CCW laws in 48 states? And then you would have the same sad state of gun right affairs that you have and have had now, regarding not having your "pure" constitutional gun rights but at the same time you would not have the 48 states CCW law.

    Would you be in favor of that? Would that make you happy and be a good and constitutional thing?


    TR,

    Why so touchy???? Is it the simple statement of fact, i.e., that CCW laws are a privilege, granted by government and not a right, that has you so excited?

    What exactly is the point, in your eyes, of "pure" -vs- non-pure Constitutional rights?

    It is either a right, freely exercised, or not.

    I am personally happy that more citizens are carrying firearms. I am, conversely, not happy that so many people accept, with no qualm, the FACT that CCW is a privilege. If it was a right, you wouldn't need the blessing of government to exercise it, period.

    The underlaying danger, is the continuing conditioning of the populace, into the acceptance that owning, carrying and using firearms, is a privilege, which can be restricted (read infringed) by government at all levels.

    Where goes the "fight" for "gun rights", once we have accepted the restrictions and compromises, benevolently bestowed upon us by our blessed government?

    If government's kindly offerings are accepted and agreed to, we have no right, merely the temporary privilege, which of course, can be taken away at any time.

    I call it "the big picture"

    Where, oh where, have all the rugged individualists gone? I could cry for America, but it wouldn't do me any good.

    One final point on your post.

    Yes, I would indeed like the tape of history rolled back, rolled back to before the AWB, before the multiple sell-outs of NRA and our government in the 90's, 80's and 70's, before the 1968 GCA, before the other gun control abortions in the 30's and 20's.

    I think then, that we would be closer to your "pure" description of the meaning and understanding/intent of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, particularly Amendment II.[;)]
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    I just get tired of people refusing to admit that CCW in 48 states IS PROGRESS. Sure, it is not perfect progress and I wish it were. But it is hypocritical of people to complain about CCW laws as being unconstitutional (They probably are) and then go ahead and go out and get their own CCW and happily carry their firearm around. Something BTW they could not do before their states's CCW (In most places) went into effect. I fail to see how anyone can refuse to admit that is at least a kind of progress.

    So let's all work together, go ahead and happily get our CCW and be able to own/carry guns and then also work together to create a situtuion where the 2A is the law of the land. Either that or the complaininers can at least be honest about it and refuse to apply for and obtain a CCW and/or start lobbying for a cancelletion of all states CCW laws, go back to what it was like before, start over struggling for CCW rights and demand that this time we do it the constitutional way.

    Admit some progress in the existance of CCW laws, get your CCW, continue to fight for true 2A constitutional rights or stop using CCW and instead loudly demand that all CCW laws be revoked because they are unconstitutional. One way or the other. Please.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    I fail to see how anyone can refuse to admit that is at least a kind of progress.




    Speaking for MYSELF:
    I see it this way. Once upon a time we we HAD the RIGHT to carry arms, concealed or not. Sometime past that point UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws were passed RESTRICTING us from exercise of that RIGHT. Now fast forward to today, we have PERMISSION to carry arms concealed IF the GOVERNMENT says we can. That permission can be revoked at any time, for any reason, whereas before it could NOT. You see progress. I see removal of RIGHTS and restoration of PERMISSION. If they did the same with free speach or exercise of religion, do you not think the MAJORITY would be screeming bloody murder? How many states issue permits to exercise those said rights? After all they are enumerated rights too. Should not the same rules apply?
    Just my side of the issue.
  • Marc1301Marc1301 Member Posts: 31,822 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Must say,.......good point!
    "Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    OK, to demonstrate our anger at having lost so many constitutional gun rights, how about if we all sign a petition and request that all the 48 states CCW laws be voided?
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    I will sign that petition, TR;
    I really think you and the rest of the NRA membership SHOULD be disarmed.
    Either you boys find the fury in your guts that some of the rest of us do...or you go quietly into the long dark night your government has planned for you.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    I will sign that petition, TR;
    I really think you and the rest of the NRA membership SHOULD be disarmed.
    Either you boys find the fury in your guts that some of the rest of us do...or you go quietly into the long dark night your government has planned for you.


    That fury in your gut is mostly causing you a stomachache Highball. And us NRA boys are not being as quiet as our government would like. For example CCW in 48 states, right to use force against attacker, No city can pass a gun law stricter than that state's laws, Washington D.C. gun ban recently ruled unconstitutional and the court making that ruling refuses to reconsider, etc. My God when are the complainers going to admit to seeing some progress in gun rights? And when are those complainers gonna start helping so we can all achieve more gun rights? Maybe if we all worked together we could even restore the 2A to its rightful status.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    You are so saturated with propaganda that no amount of discussion or facts can help you understand that the CCWs' are a giant leap into the dark ages...giving absolute proof to all and sundry that no citizen is competant to carry a gun unless government approved.

    Congratulations for all your hard work.
    The last major court case MAY be a step in the right direction...again...no thanks to your rganization, the NRA...working tirelessly, as always, to water down gun rights.

    Again...any time you want to join forces..repeat after me...NO GOVERNMENT CONTROLS ON FIREARMS...NONE !!!!
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    You are so saturated with propaganda that no amount of discussion or facts can help you understand that the CCWs' are a giant leap into the dark ages...giving absolute proof to all and sundry that no citizen is competant to carry a gun unless government approved.

    Congratulations for all your hard work.
    The last major court case MAY be a step in the right direction...again...no thanks to your rganization, the NRA...working tirelessly, as always, to water down gun rights.

    Again...any time you want to join forces..repeat after me...NO GOVERNMENT CONTROLS ON FIREARMS...NONE !!!!



    Uh.....you're too late. There are thousands of government controls on firearms. So where has your attitude gotten you if that is the case? At least millions of other pro-gun people are trying to find ways to get more and more freedom for gun rights without going to a shooting war with our own countrymen over it.
Sign In or Register to comment.