Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We Are Forbidden to Come to a Logical Conclusion From More Specific DataAnd also by educating them on firearm safety.
99.9% of people are probably better off just staying away from guns. I can't see spending class time on gun safety.
It all depends on where you live, what your circumstances are, if you are capable of defending yourself without one.........
I never messed with guns when I was younger. My father would never dream of owning a gun and nobody I knew had one as a kid. When I got older, one day I came home after work and my door was broken down and my VCR was gone. I knew who did it and I knew what they were capable of, so I bought a gun.
During the housing bubble, all the lowlifes from the inner-city started moving in. With them came the crime. That's when I decided to get my CCW.
You may not have ever shot a gun in your life, but remember this: one of the reasons you are safe in your home is because we Americans have that right to own a gun. Criminals have no idea if you armed or not, so if they decide to rob your home, they will do what they can to make sure you are not home when they do.
So have you ever used one in defense?
I have shot many, just never out of any necessity.
I don't buy it makes us any safer at all. Gun owners just guarantee more criminals with guns. Many countries with few guns are far safer than us. And just look how many people are accidently shot.
Gun bans didn't work in the countries they were tried. Did you ever take note how mass shootings almost always happen in gun free zones? Why do you suppose gunmen choose gun free zones in the first place?
If you don't believe guns make us safer, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and hang that sign on your front porch. Get back to us in a couple months and let us know how it worked out for you.........if you're still here that is.
You seem to have ignored all the facts. We have the most guns in the world, yet are far from the safest. Many countries with far fewer guns have much lower violent crime rates. Guns aren't making anyone safer.
We Won't Be Safe Until the Gungrabbers Live in FearMore firearms equal less violent crime… FactSo have you ever used one in defense?
I have shot many, just never out of any necessity.
I don't buy it makes us any safer at all. Gun owners just guarantee more criminals with guns. Many countries with few guns are far safer than us. And just look how many people are accidently shot.
Gun bans didn't work in the countries they were tried. Did you ever take note how mass shootings almost always happen in gun free zones? Why do you suppose gunmen choose gun free zones in the first place?
If you don't believe guns make us safer, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and hang that sign on your front porch. Get back to us in a couple months and let us know how it worked out for you.........if you're still here that is.
You seem to have ignored all the facts. We have the most guns in the world, yet are far from the safest. Many countries with far fewer guns have much lower violent crime rates. Guns aren't making anyone safer.
It makes me safer, and that's all that counts.
If not being armed makes you safer, why do our police carry guns?
Our crime is not because of guns, our crime is because of criminals. How long has it been since we outlawed recreational drugs? Yet in spite or our laws, drug usage, overdose and deaths are at a record high.
No it really doesn't make you safer. How many defenses you have?
Police have to apprehend criminals. Completely different than defense.
Not saying crime is because of guns. But accidental shootings are because of guns. And those don't make you safer. Because we have lots of guns we have more armed criminals. Again, doesn't make you safer.
I believe "stand your ground" is a dumb idea.No, I was speaking on behalf of my state who has yet to adopt Stand Your Ground. They were working on it when the George Zimmerman case brought so much uproar in the MSM, so they tossed the idea until a better time.
I do believe in Stand Your Ground.
it goes against all the principles of fighting explained by Bruce Lee in his books.
You always want to keep your distance/interval from your opponent.
You never want your opponent to violate that interval.
You only close distance when you are striking.
And so if you are not striking you never stand your ground.
Stand your ground is some redneck law devised by rednecks who have no idea of how to defend themselves or how to fight.
Amazon.com: Bruce Lee: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle
Diversionary TacticMore firearms equal less violent crime… FactGun bans didn't work in the countries they were tried. Did you ever take note how mass shootings almost always happen in gun free zones? Why do you suppose gunmen choose gun free zones in the first place?
If you don't believe guns make us safer, get a huge sign made that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and hang that sign on your front porch. Get back to us in a couple months and let us know how it worked out for you.........if you're still here that is.
You seem to have ignored all the facts. We have the most guns in the world, yet are far from the safest. Many countries with far fewer guns have much lower violent crime rates. Guns aren't making anyone safer.
It makes me safer, and that's all that counts.
If not being armed makes you safer, why do our police carry guns?
Our crime is not because of guns, our crime is because of criminals. How long has it been since we outlawed recreational drugs? Yet in spite or our laws, drug usage, overdose and deaths are at a record high.
No it really doesn't make you safer. How many defenses you have?
Police have to apprehend criminals. Completely different than defense.
Not saying crime is because of guns. But accidental shootings are because of guns. And those don't make you safer. Because we have lots of guns we have more armed criminals. Again, doesn't make you safer.
We have the most in the world. So why don't we have the least violent crime?
Perhaps but most likely not
It's a states right issue
First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license.
Then work to get a new amendment ratified to the Constitution, which overturns the Second Amendment and gives power to the government to violate the people's right to keep and bear arms. Until that is done, the Second Amendment, as written, stands as part of the highest law in this nation.
Getting a license to carry a gun is not a violation of the Constitution. Not allowing felons to possess firearms is more of an infringement than a license.
I don't see how people can complain about getting a license to carry a gun, but say you need Voter-ID to vote. It's basically the same thing. I'm in favor of both a firearms license and Voter-ID.
The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public
Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.
Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.
Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.
Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.
On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.
The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.
What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?
Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.
How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...
This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.
I would doubt this. As much as they might want to make this something, they'd find it hard to justify such a thing.
Not only that, if they agree, they'll have to turn back on their Heller case, where they basically said the 2A does NOT grant a right to carry guns around, as they upheld Presser, which specifically said so.
Would one member of the court change everything so much? No, doubtful.
Perhaps but most likely not
It's a states right issue
It's not a states rights issue because it is addressed in the US Constitution.
But it's not, you see.
There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that says anything about any right to carry arms.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
It's pretty clear here
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
What, declare people religious scrupulous of carry arms around in public, in order to destroy the constitution. Er... what? No....
"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
As Mr Gerry said, it's "militia duty", not "carry arms around".
"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
Or, "render military service".
Nothing about carry arms.
Also, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) said:
"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Okay, so, men associating together as military organizations isn't protected, not is drilling or parading with arms in towns or cities.... that is basically "carrying arms".
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation."
They won't be changing their view any time soon on this one. This is too hot for them to handle, they'll probably reject it.
OMG.I believe "stand your ground" is a dumb idea.No, I was speaking on behalf of my state who has yet to adopt Stand Your Ground. They were working on it when the George Zimmerman case brought so much uproar in the MSM, so they tossed the idea until a better time.
I do believe in Stand Your Ground.
it goes against all the principles of fighting explained by Bruce Lee in his books.
You always want to keep your distance/interval from your opponent.
You never want your opponent to violate that interval.
You only close distance when you are striking.
And so if you are not striking you never stand your ground.
Stand your ground is some redneck law devised by rednecks who have no idea of how to defend themselves or how to fight.
Amazon.com: Bruce Lee: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle
Poll taxes and lit taxes do not launch a high vel projectile that can't be called back.And firearm training is not a tax.------------------------------------------------------------------- keep government out of it . All that will happen is that training will become expensive with gov mandated rules and hoops and possibility of failure imposed by government employees . Government mandated training for motorcyclists is a good example of gov mandated training Mike .Since firearms are no longer the same kind of tool they were at the beginning of this country, people have been stupidified so much about guns by the media, and those people who know nothing about guns, I think some form of training to carry would be a good idea. I don't propose to know how it would work or whatever, but lots of people have never fired a gun. Once a year at the prison we had firearms training. There was one armed post at the prison and that was the mobile unit that drove around the prison 24 7. It was always filled by the most crippled up old person they had.
It was the scariest day of the year as there was always several people who had NEVER even held a gun. The gun was a S&W .38 special, and we had several that could not hit the standard DPS target at 7 yards. What was even more scary was that there was talk of going to semi autos. God the horror.
So some proficiency is a good idea.
Don't even ask about the mobil patrol officer that obliterated the roof of the vehicle they were driving with the shotgun.
Think of the “literacy tests” and “poll taxes” that were once used to restrict voting rights.
The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public
Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.
Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.
Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.
Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.
On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.
The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.
What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?
Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.
How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...
This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.
Perhaps but most likely not
It's a states right issue
It's not a states rights issue because it is addressed in the US Constitution.
But it's not, you see.
There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that says anything about any right to carry arms.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
It's pretty clear here
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
What, declare people religious scrupulous of carry arms around in public, in order to destroy the constitution. Er... what? No....
"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
As Mr Gerry said, it's "militia duty", not "carry arms around".
"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
Or, "render military service".
Nothing about carry arms.
Also, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) said:
"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Okay, so, men associating together as military organizations isn't protected, not is drilling or parading with arms in towns or cities.... that is basically "carrying arms".
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation."
They won't be changing their view any time soon on this one. This is too hot for them to handle, they'll probably reject it.
I have no idea what religion has to do with this, but the court did rule against Washington's gun ban. They found that yes, individual rights to possess and carry firearms is Constitutionally protected. State restrictions? Yes, they can apply restrictions, but not to the point of total disarmament of most citizens. They kept their rights to restrict guns from kids and criminals.
No, they found there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. But bear arms isn't carry arms.
In Heller they said:
"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."
Okay, so, carry and conceal is not protected by the 2A. So having said this a few years back, are they going to change under the same court? Doubtful.
The fact that carry and conceal permits are legal, shows that there is no right to carry arms.
In fact, what they did there was quite cunning.
They said "a right to keep and carry any weapon", but it's used in the negative. At no time did they say there was a right to carry, however they mentioned the two of them together, but in a negative. "It is not a right to.... carry any weapon....", no, it's not, because it's not a right to carry at all.
"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
This part is actually eve worse on that. The first is that the 2A protects an individual right to possess a firearm, ie, own a weapon. The second part is "to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes", they're basically saying you have the right to use your weapon LAWFULLY. Which is therefore not a right at all.
Self defense "within the home" is not "carry arms".
So, in the whole thing they sort of pandered to the "Second Amendment crowd", by hinting at things, but never actually going out and saying them. It's basically keeping people on their side by being mischievous, but never actually saying what the people they're pandering to think they're actually saying. Quite clever really, immoral, but clever.
Getting a license to carry a gun is not a violation of the Constitution. Not allowing felons to possess firearms is more of an infringement than a license.
I don't see how people can complain about getting a license to carry a gun, but say you need Voter-ID to vote. It's basically the same thing. I'm in favor of both a firearms license and Voter-ID.
By definition, one does not need a license or a permit to exercise a right. If one requires a license or a permit to do something, then that makes it, not a right, but a privilege, with government having the authority to grant or deny that privilege. The Second Amendment does not say anything about any privilege. It speaks of a right, belonging to the people, and forbids government from infringing that right. To allow government the power to treat it as a privilege, and usurp the power to grant or deny it by way of licensing, is a clear and blatant violation of the Constitution.
If you do not like that, then try to get an amendment ratified to overturn the Second Amendment. As it is, yours is a position of outright corruption and lawlessness.
Then let me ask: what is your position on Voter ID? Because if you are against carry licensing, then you must be against Voter ID. After all, voting is just as much of a right as guns are and probably more so.
Peruta is unique to California however.The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public
Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.
Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.
Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.
Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.
On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.
The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.
What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?
Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.
How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...
This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.
California is an anti-gun state which although not as bad as NYS or DC does not allow any kind of public carry, whether openly or concealed, without a permit. And few jurisdictions there will grant the permit. The new sheriff of Sacramento Co has been issuing several thousand of them however the other sheriffs and police chiefs issue very few -- maybe only a dozen or so in each of their jurisdictions.
Scalia's write up of Heller (an earlier DC case which focuses on buying and owning and keeping firearms in the home for self defense there) fairly clearly spells out that *public carry whether openly or concealed may be regulated by the States*.
So short of a miracle I do not see Peruta at the SCOTUS level being won by Peruta.
Naturally I could be wrong about that. There are 9 justices on the SCOTUS again and they all have different views. And Souter, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg (all appointed by Democrat presidents and confirmed by Democrat Senates) themselves do NOT believe in the 2nd Amendment at all -- these 4 fruitcakes believe the Militia reference voids the 2nd Amendment due to the state National Guard organizations now.
We'll just need to wait and see.
My state is a shall-issue state and I have a CFP and carry my 45ACP 24/7/365 everywhere I go. So in my state there are no Peruta issues.
But California and the other bad states like NYS are different.
Like I said, Heller clearly states that the States may regulate public carrying anyway they like.You and bob be sure and email your opinion to SCOTUS. In the meantime, Heller was quite clear in affirming the states had the right to enact legislation within the purview of the constitution.No, it isn't. As a citizen of the United States I have a right to keep and bear arms. Hopefully the next lawsuit will get rid of the infringement NYC does by making a person wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 in fees for a freaking home use revolver permit.Perhaps but most likely not
It's a states right issue
Meaningless statement. Heller affirmed that States can restrict felons and mentally adjudicated people from owning firearms, it didn't say NYC can infringe to the degree it is doing.
Heller implies that possession in the home is a right however which cannot be infringed.
People should be registered to vote and own guns, yes.Thank you. You agree people have to prove citizenship to vote then. I do also.But not without proving they are "one of the people".
Hence the 14th amendment.
Of course it is. Within the purview of Heller, SCOTUS leaves this issue to the states.Perhaps but most likely not
It's a states right issue
No..it isn't.
Are guns registered by sale in the USA? Have they been confiscated?Nope......registration of guns leads to confiscation...we know this because it has already happened around the world....People should be registered to vote and own guns, yes.Thank you. You agree people have to prove citizenship to vote then. I do also.But not without proving they are "one of the people".
Hence the 14th amendment.
Excellent idea !!In high school, I participated in the JROTC program. Among other things, this program included training in marksmanship and gun safety.
I think the answer is to make such training part of every standard high school curriculum, along witb some education about the ethics and legalities of justifiably using deadly force. That way, every adult who had completed high school could already be presumed to have received tnis training, obviating the need and the excuse to require any separate training to exercise one's rightsrig under the Second Amendment.
I'm pretty old and have never needed a gun. Why would we waste time in school?
