Concealed Carry Permits Should be Treated Like Driver's Licenses

[Pete7469]

I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right.

All you have is lies and ignorance.

The government established itself as a revolutionary state based on the the people themselves being a standing army. The army that defeated the most powerful imperial state on earth at the time.

The founders reflected on that point that in order for the states to remain free, the citizenry needed to be unencumbered in their rights to bear weapons.

It's because of servile bed wetters like you that believe the whole point of being alive is to serve the state that such vapid opinions even exist. If not for mindless tools like you the stalins, maos, pol pots and hitlers of human history would never have existed.

 

[RKMBrown]

My License to Carry is the 2nd Amendment.

That's your federal licence. State licensing might be a bit more restrictive.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't think. I know that unregulated ownership or use of a machine gun is illegal. There are many specific rules for owning one of them. Are you saying that isn't regulation? It can be done, but you have to jump through the hoops.

Those "hoops" are infringements.

Ayup... we need to change it up. Makes no sense that only criminals and cops can be armed with newer automatic fire weapons.

 

[Pete7469]

Ayup... we need to change it up. Makes no sense that only criminals and cops can be armed with newer automatic fire weapons.

Thus my advocacy for a 28th Amendment that repeals all local, state and federal ordinances, restrictions, regulations and laws regarding small arms. Forbidding the stop, detention of or arrest of anyone based on the possession of any small arms, components or ammunition, and further strips the government from preventing the importation of any small arm, component or ammunition.

If the bed wetters want to "compromise", we can limit private unrestricted weapons ownership to small arms 41 mm or more as the federal government is restricted to under current law for domestic enforcement operations.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right.

All you have is lies and ignorance.

The government established itself as a revolutionary state based on the the people themselves being a standing army. The army that defeated the most powerful imperial state on earth at the time.

The founders reflected on that point that in order for the states to remain free, the citizenry needed to be unencumbered in their rights to bear weapons.

It's because of servile bed wetters like you that believe the whole point of being alive is to serve the state that such vapid opinions even exist. If not for mindless tools like you the stalins, maos, pol pots and hitlers of human history would never have existed.

says who; someone who Only has fallacy for his Cause. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Only that Body politic which is necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ayup... we need to change it up. Makes no sense that only criminals and cops can be armed with newer automatic fire weapons.

Thus my advocacy for a 28th Amendment that repeals all local, state and federal ordinances, restrictions, regulations and laws regarding small arms. Forbidding the stop, detention of or arrest of anyone based on the possession of any small arms, components or ammunition, and further strips the government from preventing the importation of any small arm, component or ammunition.

If the bed wetters want to "compromise", we can limit private unrestricted weapons ownership to small arms 41 mm or more as the federal government is restricted to under current law for domestic enforcement operations.

If the feds can give do that they can also take them away. I prefer it the way it is. Let the states that want to... kill their kids with their gun free zones, aka easy target zones. Let the states that get a clue rebel from this idiocy.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right.

All you have is lies and ignorance.

The government established itself as a revolutionary state based on the the people themselves being a standing army. The army that defeated the most powerful imperial state on earth at the time.

The founders reflected on that point that in order for the states to remain free, the citizenry needed to be unencumbered in their rights to bear weapons.

It's because of servile bed wetters like you that believe the whole point of being alive is to serve the state that such vapid opinions even exist. If not for mindless tools like you the stalins, maos, pol pots and hitlers of human history would never have existed.

says who; someone who Only has fallacy for his Cause. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Only that Body politic which is necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.

You're a moron that can't read a simple sentence.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right.

All you have is lies and ignorance.

The government established itself as a revolutionary state based on the the people themselves being a standing army. The army that defeated the most powerful imperial state on earth at the time.

The founders reflected on that point that in order for the states to remain free, the citizenry needed to be unencumbered in their rights to bear weapons.

It's because of servile bed wetters like you that believe the whole point of being alive is to serve the state that such vapid opinions even exist. If not for mindless tools like you the stalins, maos, pol pots and hitlers of human history would never have existed.

says who; someone who Only has fallacy for his Cause. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Only that Body politic which is necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.

You're a moron that can't read a simple sentence.

you are worse for having nothing but fallacy for your Cause.

 

[Pete7469]

says who; someone who Only has fallacy for his Cause. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law; A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Only that Body politic which is necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.

Says a bed wetter that only cares about empowering the state.

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

No where else in the COTUS are the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE more clearly defined, but collectivist morons want to pretend that the founders were marxists and only cared about the state. The SCOTUS rejected that asinine argument, and it's time we rolled the leftist agenda back and liberated our ability to arm ourselves. They aren't opposed to it because that care about "the children". They oppose it because we care about our children.

They abort theirs.

They also shit where they eat.

 

[Pete7469]

you are worse for having nothing but fallacy for your Cause.

You are a mindless servile piece of worm shit that should have been aborted and flushed down an inner city toilet.

 

[BULLDOG]

Funny, but hardly a realistic answer to the question.

I see a dozen questions... I answered the one that is answerable.

It's OK, he's a gun owner, he's one of us. So he can be against them, no problem

You think everything is all or nothing don't you?

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't think. I know that unregulated ownership or use of a machine gun is illegal.

Proving once again that you're an idiot.

From your use of "unregulated", given that if automatic weapons were unregulated they'd be perfectly legal to own... And being regulated there's nothing illegal about ownership of an automatic weapon. It merely takes a class 3 FFL.

There are many hoops to jump through if you own one. They are well regulated. This entire discussion was from the premise that the constitution doesn't provide for regulation of guns. It plainly does.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Supreme Court has determined that restrictions on firearms are constitutional.

Really? Which ones? Cite, please.

Look it up yourself.

In other words, you know you're just making things up.

Surely you are smart enough to know that fully automatic rifles are just as illegal as RPG's

Wait.... you think machineguns are illegal?
Bwwwahahahhhahah!
Way to prove to the world that you have no idea what you;re talking about.

I don't think. I know that unregulated ownership or use of a machine gun is illegal.

Surely you know that your original statement here was that "fully automatic rifles are just as illegal as RPG's"
Surely you know that your statement, above, is you moving the goalposts.
Surely you know that no one here is surprised by this.

Now, cite for us again those restrictions on firearms that are constitutional and the SCotUS decisions that held them to be.

No, that wasn't my original statement, but obviously it was a mistake to make a blanket remark that automatic rifles are illegal. I admit that. They are illegal to own or use them in ways that don't conform to the regulations. I was responding to the idea that the constitution precludes any gun regulation. Automatic weapons are well regulated. I have no doubt that that regulation has been questioned at some point. Perhaps I will track that down tomorrow. The constitution doesn't preclude reasonable regulations for automatic weapons, why would It preclude reasonable regulation for other types of weapons?

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't think. I know that unregulated ownership or use of a machine gun is illegal. There are many specific rules for owning one of them. Are you saying that isn't regulation? It can be done, but you have to jump through the hoops.

Those "hoops" are infringements.

Constitutional infringements.

 

[The Rabbi]

Funny, but hardly a realistic answer to the question.

I see a dozen questions... I answered the one that is answerable.

It's OK, he's a gun owner, he's one of us. So he can be against them, no problem

You think everything is all or nothing don't you?

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

 

[bgr39]

If a black guy had a concealed carry permit in Baltimore, and the cops found a gun on him, would they let him live long enough to prove it was legal?

It would depend on a bunch of things.

Why? If you can legally walk around with a gun, don't the police have to leave you alone?

The police have a right to ask for an I.D. to make sure you are legally able to have/own a firearm at all.
It depends on the state, some states don't recognize open-carry, some states you cannot open carry in the major cities, and in some states you can CCW in the statehouse while the legislature is in session.
It depends on the state law ................ STATES is where the guns laws belong, NOT the federal government.

 

[Seawytch]

Really? Which ones? Cite, please.

Look it up yourself.

In other words, you know you're just making things up.

Surely you are smart enough to know that fully automatic rifles are just as illegal as RPG's

Wait.... you think machineguns are illegal?
Bwwwahahahhhahah!
Way to prove to the world that you have no idea what you;re talking about.

I don't think. I know that unregulated ownership or use of a machine gun is illegal.

Surely you know that your original statement here was that "fully automatic rifles are just as illegal as RPG's"
Surely you know that your statement, above, is you moving the goalposts.
Surely you know that no one here is surprised by this.

Now, cite for us again those restrictions on firearms that are constitutional and the SCotUS decisions that held them to be.

No, that wasn't my original statement, but obviously it was a mistake to make a blanket remark that automatic rifles are illegal. I admit that. They are illegal to own or use them in ways that don't conform to the regulations. I was responding to the idea that the constitution precludes any gun regulation. Automatic weapons are well regulated. I have no doubt that that regulation has been questioned at some point. Perhaps I will track that down tomorrow. The constitution doesn't preclude reasonable regulations for automatic weapons, why would It preclude reasonable regulation for other types of weapons?

“nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” (Heller decision)

 

[bgr39]

(1) There is no justification in the second amendment for ANY license - either to own or carry.

(2) Several states (Kansas being the latest) have done away with license requirements altogether and good for them.

I have carried a pistol for the last 45 or so years. It was my job, then after retiring, I continued to carry and will continue to do so from time to time. Where I live - in Montana - guns are a way of life. Sorry us "great unwashed" aren't as "sophisticated" as the rest of the country - but it works out well for us. VERY LOW murder rate, as opposed to those cities and states with rigid laws.

The second amendment was written 200+ years ago. This country is a much different now.

The entire constitution needs to be updated.

What you REALLY mean is "The entire constitution needs to be updated, to comply with liberal agenda". BULLSHIT!!!
The Constitution is great just like it is.

 

[Seawytch]

(1) There is no justification in the second amendment for ANY license - either to own or carry.

(2) Several states (Kansas being the latest) have done away with license requirements altogether and good for them.

I have carried a pistol for the last 45 or so years. It was my job, then after retiring, I continued to carry and will continue to do so from time to time. Where I live - in Montana - guns are a way of life. Sorry us "great unwashed" aren't as "sophisticated" as the rest of the country - but it works out well for us. VERY LOW murder rate, as opposed to those cities and states with rigid laws.

The second amendment was written 200+ years ago. This country is a much different now.

The entire constitution needs to be updated.

What you REALLY mean is "The entire constitution needs to be updated, to comply with liberal agenda". BULLSHIT!!!
The Constitution is great just like it is.

It's good...but I wouldn't say "great". It could use a campaign finance amendment.

 

[bgr39]

Yes, liberals are all gun owners. You were all in the military. And you're all Republicans, or at least you used to be. It's amazing. I'm convinced now that W won his first term unanimously, apparently no one in the country voted against him

Never said all liberals were gun owners, but I am and have been since I was a kid.

I didn't you said all liberals do. But you said you do. Every discussion every liberal says I don't hate guns, I am a gun owner. Most of you are lying. I'm not saying it's you specifically, but I'm not saying I believe you either. Just apparently you all vote for lefties then go out and buy guns and vote for people who want to prevent you from doing that.

All I can say is sure you do...

That's just stupid. Gun nuts are like a little kid whose mother tells them they can't have a cookie before supper, and they start crying because they think they will never have another cookie. Responsible gun owners know that owning a gun requires reasonable precautions for safety's sake. That's what the NRA used to teach.

Exactly, you love guns, you're a gun owner, so when you're against them somehow we're supposed to take you more seriously. It doesn't work with me, it doesn't work with any other 2nd amendment advocate I see on the board. Give it up, it's lame. Just admit to you Constitutional rights are not equal and move on, don't claim to be one of us, which is why you know and are against us

I like my car too, but I don't think unrestricted use of it is a good idea.

The Constitution doesn't give you the RIGHT to own a motor vehicle!!