Concealed Carry Permits Should be Treated Like Driver's Licenses

[Little-Acorn]

The Constitution does NOT forbid governments in the U.S. from restricting your right to drive on public streets. Such as by requiring you pass tests, granting you a license (which they can refuse if they want to), etc.

It DOES forbid governments from restricting your right to keep and bear arms, such as by requiring you to pass tests, granting you a license (which they can refuse if they want to), etc.

The Constitution does not create rights. It creates, and restricts, governments.

See the 9th amendment. It says that, just because a certain right isn't mentioned in the Constitution, that doesn't mean people don't have that right.

10th amendment: The Fed govt's powers ARE limited to only what is specified in the Constitution.
9th amendment: The people's rights are NOT limited to only what is mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

Do you think states should be forced to accept same sex marriages from other states too?

Yes. Either states have to recognize the legal marriage of another state or they don't. If 40 year old Bubba marries his 15 year old 1st cousin Mary Sue, they are married in all 50 states...even if they don't allow 1st cousins or 15 year olds to marry.

Instead of forcing states to have the same policy, on something as personal as marriage,
why not write laws so Constitutionally that all people consent to them freely and democratically?

Why this obsession with having to FORCE people?
Especially with liberals who don't believe in FORCING people to go through conversion therapy
or FORCING people to have a baby. If you believe in free choice and trusting people to make
the right decision, why not trust people to come up with a uniform policy if they WANT it for all states.

Seawytch if you wouldn't want a state that banned same sex marriage to impose that on all other states, why would you take a different version of marriage laws and impose that either???

It should be well written where all states adopt it, especially something like marriage where
people ought to have equal rights to their beliefs if this is going to be through the states!

What happened to writing laws Constitutionally where people could agree?
Not everyone agrees on how to apply the Second Amendment,
but even as written, people can interpret it to get what they want out of it.
Why not with marriage laws, to write them neutrally where everyone is included?

 

[BULLDOG]

so should weapons qualification for well regulated militia.

Oh look... "Well regulated militia" nonsense.

It's always something, isn't it?
Hell, I qualified on a range at every post I was ever stationed at, at every Embassy, at Fort Meade, At Bolling AFB, shoot, everywhere. I have been shooting since I was 6 years old - I think I can say, with some authority, that I KNOW how to shoot. Their argument is a little "bogus".

So you have experience with guns. Do you think everybody has that same experience? More importantly than knowing how to shoot a gun is knowing when to shoot a gun. Do you think everybody knows that? Do you think every one of the protesters in Ferguson or Baltimore should have been armed?

None of this is relevant to the point made here.

Indeed. How many aren't qualified to throw rocks? Didn't stop them from doing that in Baltimore, now did it? These leftists always forget that murder has been around since the beginning of time. Doesn't take a gun to kill someone. It takes a murderous heart.

So you think all the peaceful protesters in Baltimore and Ferguson, the vast majority, should have all taken advantage of their second amendment rights?

 

[M14 Shooter]

why not write laws so Constitutionally that all people consent to them freely and democratically?

What terms do you think a CCW law would need for all people to consent to it, freely and democratically?

 

[S.J.]

The second amendment is a right, not a privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Get it straight.

 

[danielpalos]

The second amendment is a right, not a privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Get it straight.

It is Only a right for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Holding a peaceful demonstration is a right - not a privilege. You still may have to get a permit for it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

why not write laws so Constitutionally that all people consent to them freely and democratically?

Because some people directly and adamantly oppose the principles the Constitution was designed to protect. And so if you write laws "constitutionally", those people will inevitably oppose them.

For example, if you wrote law calling for the repeal of Obamacare (an unconstitutional program according to the Supreme Court), you would get screams of outrage, twists, and lies from the Left. They would fight with everything they have (that is, screams of outrage, twists and lies) to prevent that law from being enacted

 

[westwall]

The second amendment is a right, not a privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Get it straight.

It is Only a right for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

Yes, the FREE is the important part. The Bill of Rights is 9 limitations on what government is ALLOWED to do, and one final option should they overstep their authority. Get used to it. The Founders disliked, and didn't trust government. They realized that corrupt people are drawn to power like moths to flame and they wished to ensure we had the means to remove them when they got too onerous.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

 

[danielpalos]

The second amendment is a right, not a privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Get it straight.

It is Only a right for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

Yes, the FREE is the important part. The Bill of Rights is 9 limitations on what government is ALLOWED to do, and one final option should they overstep their authority. Get used to it. The Founders disliked, and didn't trust government. They realized that corrupt people are drawn to power like moths to flame and they wished to ensure we had the means to remove them when they got too onerous.

why do gun lovers believe they are necessary to the security of a free State if they don't love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”
― G.K. Chesterton

 

[westwall]

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?

Gee, I don't know. What is the experience in states where people are allowed to defend themselves? Are black men being murdered by cops all over the place? Why no, no they aren't. I wonder how they are able to survive?

 

[westwall]

The second amendment is a right, not a privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Get it straight.

It is Only a right for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

Yes, the FREE is the important part. The Bill of Rights is 9 limitations on what government is ALLOWED to do, and one final option should they overstep their authority. Get used to it. The Founders disliked, and didn't trust government. They realized that corrupt people are drawn to power like moths to flame and they wished to ensure we had the means to remove them when they got too onerous.

why do gun lovers believe they are necessary to the security of a free State if they don't love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”
― G.K. Chesterton

The Republic is under attack by progressives like you. We DO love our Republic. You wish to tear it apart.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The second amendment is a right, not a privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Get it straight.

It is Only a right for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

Yes, the FREE is the important part. The Bill of Rights is 9 limitations on what government is ALLOWED to do, and one final option should they overstep their authority. Get used to it. The Founders disliked, and didn't trust government. They realized that corrupt people are drawn to power like moths to flame and they wished to ensure we had the means to remove them when they got too onerous.

why do gun lovers believe they are necessary to the security of a free State if they don't love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”
― G.K. Chesterton

The Republic is under attack by progressives like you. We DO love our Republic. You wish to tear it apart.

Has nothing to do with the OP
Stay on topic or fuck off

 

[NYcarbineer]

why not write laws so Constitutionally that all people consent to them freely and democratically?

Because some people directly and adamantly oppose the principles the Constitution was designed to protect. And so if you write laws "constitutionally", those people will inevitably oppose them.

For example, if you wrote law calling for the repeal of Obamacare (an unconstitutional program according to the Supreme Court), you would get screams of outrage, twists, and lies from the Left. They would fight with everything they have (that is, screams of outrage, twists and lies) to prevent that law from being enacted

When did the Supreme Court rule Obamacare unconstitutional?

 

[bgr39]

Oh look... "Well regulated militia" nonsense.

It's always something, isn't it?
Hell, I qualified on a range at every post I was ever stationed at, at every Embassy, at Fort Meade, At Bolling AFB, shoot, everywhere. I have been shooting since I was 6 years old - I think I can say, with some authority, that I KNOW how to shoot. Their argument is a little "bogus".

So you have experience with guns. Do you think everybody has that same experience? More importantly than knowing how to shoot a gun is knowing when to shoot a gun. Do you think everybody knows that? Do you think every one of the protesters in Ferguson or Baltimore should have been armed?

None of this is relevant to the point made here.

Indeed. How many aren't qualified to throw rocks? Didn't stop them from doing that in Baltimore, now did it? These leftists always forget that murder has been around since the beginning of time. Doesn't take a gun to kill someone. It takes a murderous heart.

So you think all the peaceful protesters in Baltimore and Ferguson, the vast majority, should have all taken advantage of their second amendment rights?

They sure should, IF they are not banned by law from owning firearms.
People that have been convicted of felonies and people that have been declared as mentally unstable, cannot legally own or possess firearms.
other than those banned by law from owning firearms, everyone that is old enough should be able to buy and carry firearms (CCW).

 

[westwall]

The second amendment is a right, not a privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Get it straight.

It is Only a right for that which is necessary to the security of a free State.

Yes, the FREE is the important part. The Bill of Rights is 9 limitations on what government is ALLOWED to do, and one final option should they overstep their authority. Get used to it. The Founders disliked, and didn't trust government. They realized that corrupt people are drawn to power like moths to flame and they wished to ensure we had the means to remove them when they got too onerous.

why do gun lovers believe they are necessary to the security of a free State if they don't love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”
― G.K. Chesterton

The Republic is under attack by progressives like you. We DO love our Republic. You wish to tear it apart.

Has nothing to do with the OP
Stay on topic or fuck off

Is on topic. Now you can piss off junior.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Oh look... "Well regulated militia" nonsense.

It's always something, isn't it?
Hell, I qualified on a range at every post I was ever stationed at, at every Embassy, at Fort Meade, At Bolling AFB, shoot, everywhere. I have been shooting since I was 6 years old - I think I can say, with some authority, that I KNOW how to shoot. Their argument is a little "bogus".

So you have experience with guns. Do you think everybody has that same experience? More importantly than knowing how to shoot a gun is knowing when to shoot a gun. Do you think everybody knows that? Do you think every one of the protesters in Ferguson or Baltimore should have been armed?

None of this is relevant to the point made here.

Indeed. How many aren't qualified to throw rocks? Didn't stop them from doing that in Baltimore, now did it? These leftists always forget that murder has been around since the beginning of time. Doesn't take a gun to kill someone. It takes a murderous heart.

So you think all the peaceful protesters in Baltimore and Ferguson, the vast majority, should have all taken advantage of their second amendment rights?

Why the hell not? If they are carrying and no one knows it (as I will bet you a thousand dollars 90% of them were) who do they hurt? When I was with the Army (and specifically) the DIA - When I wasn't working - I carried credentials that identified me as an Intelligence Operative. I NEVER had to show it anywhere but the Police station that I might be working with on a given time frame. I carried all the time. 7 days a week, 365 days a year and not ONCE was my weapon ever seen.

Hell, outside of Europe, I never pulled the weapon and only killed with it, when it was necessary in the performance of my mission.

A Black man, like myself, who, in the prime of his life - (and looked like the proverbial greek god in those days) and not once - not once did anyone suspect that I was carrying.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's always something, isn't it?
Hell, I qualified on a range at every post I was ever stationed at, at every Embassy, at Fort Meade, At Bolling AFB, shoot, everywhere. I have been shooting since I was 6 years old - I think I can say, with some authority, that I KNOW how to shoot. Their argument is a little "bogus".

So you have experience with guns. Do you think everybody has that same experience? More importantly than knowing how to shoot a gun is knowing when to shoot a gun. Do you think everybody knows that? Do you think every one of the protesters in Ferguson or Baltimore should have been armed?

None of this is relevant to the point made here.

Indeed. How many aren't qualified to throw rocks? Didn't stop them from doing that in Baltimore, now did it? These leftists always forget that murder has been around since the beginning of time. Doesn't take a gun to kill someone. It takes a murderous heart.

So you think all the peaceful protesters in Baltimore and Ferguson, the vast majority, should have all taken advantage of their second amendment rights?

They sure should, IF they are not banned by law from owning firearms.
People that have been convicted of felonies and people that have been declared as mentally unstable, cannot legally own or possess firearms.
other than those banned by law from owning firearms, everyone that is old enough should be able to buy and carry firearms (CCW).

Without background checks, how are you going to know which ones are legally carrying? Do you expect the cops to take down everybody with a gun, or to respect their rights until a single thug in the crowd, who isn't allowed to have a gun, takes a shot? If or when that thug does that, what do you think should happen?

 

[RandallFlagg]

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?

Gee, I don't know. What is the experience in states where people are allowed to defend themselves? Are black men being murdered by cops all over the place? Why no, no they aren't. I wonder how they are able to survive?

Honestly, if that "black man" is legally carrying (by THEIR law) and he is waving his weapon around - the odds are that he would run into a great deal of problems. Probably DEADLY problems. One does not go to a riot with the intention of brandishing a firearm unless he has a death wish.