Why does anybody think concealed carry is a good idea?

[Flash]

Heller is like Dredd Scott or Plessy.

A decision which will be repealed as soon as common sense hits the supreme court.

Well maybe common sense will hit the supreme court one day and the right of a mother to kill her child on demand will be overturned or maybe the 1964 Civil Rights that prohibits freedom of choice in hiring and firing or running a business.

Heller is the law of the land and until it is overturned it is the right of an individual to keep and bear arms and if you don't like it then leave.

The more cowards that leave the country the better, don't you think?

 

[Hossfly]

The NC concealed carry law says you cannot conceal carry at parades, sporting events. government buildings, schools and a host of other places. You can only use the weapon for self defense against an attack or to save another persons life. You can't produce the gun to stop a robbery unless the robber shoots someone or points the gun at you with the intent to shoot or he states an intent to shoot or kill you. When accosted by an officer you must inform him you have a CC permit.At no time can you CC a weapon if you have been drinking, even a glass of beer. If you fire the weapon under any circumstances you will be taken into custody and appear before a judge. If you do shoot someone in self defense or to stop an assault you might not be charged in criminal court but there's a great likelihood you will be charged in civil court by the victim or his family. There's a great responsibility for concealed carry and it's not to be taken lightly. Gun grabbers think we are a crazed , drunken berserkers looking for victims but that's far from the truth. I've been carrying for over 35 years and never pulled my gun one time and I was in 2 banks while they were being robbed and once in a Food Lion. I wasn't threatened nor was anyone shot. Had there been I would have pulled a gun. Any other questions, Statistikhengst ? Fire away!

Now, THIS is the kind of information response I have been looking for. Real information that people can actually work with. I have to say, this kind of CC is something I can live with, because it seems quite reasonable to me. Thanks, Hossfly - Bloodrock44 - I think you should chime in, too.

Oh, and another thing. If you get a ticket for speeding or reckless driving or any of a number of misdemeanors, you can lose your CC permit. On top of all this if your county has a Democrat for sherrif, he's like Barney Fife just looking for an excuse to take your license. Ordinary cops and deputies are easy to get along with.

 

[hjmick]

Letting people carry guns in public will obviously lead to more people using guns in public.

At this point, I'm all in for both CC and OC. Why? Because you are dead set against it, you have proven yourself to be an ignoramus, so it must be a great idea...

 

[Statistikhengst]

Oh, and another thing. If you get a ticket for speeding or reckless driving or any of a number of misdemeanors, you can lose your CC permit. On top of all this if your county has a Democrat for sherrif, he's like Barney Fife just looking for an excuse to take your license. Ordinary cops and deputies are easy to get along with.

Interesting. I am not so sure about the Barney Fife thing, however.... but on the whole, I find that information very helpful. Thanks, Hoss.

 

[TooTall]

If the police and the crooks thinks it is a good idea to carry a weapon then what is wrong with a citizen doing it?

This thing about freedom always is perplexing to Libtards. They can't quite figure it out.

Freedom has limits, something you little morons never figure out.

And the right to bear arms talks about MILITIAS... aka the national guard. NOT YOU!

The Supreme Court held:

(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.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Impotent little Mighty Mouse wannabes who don't have the balls to open carry and just aching for the excuse to blast the life outta some uppity darkie in a hoodie.

All looking to earn their Mighty Mouse patch.

How did you get an image of that? That's supposed to be for members only.

Lol....

 

[ninja007]

Letting people carry guns in public will obviously lead to more people using guns in public.

youre ok with criminals having them though, right?

 

[Katzndogz]

If someone threatens me I can't blow their head off with a lipstick tube.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Letting people carry guns in public will obviously lead to more people using guns in public.

That must be true. Look how many people drive cars in public, and how many of those are used to deliberately run over people, kill them etc.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And the right to bear arms talks about MILITIAS... aka the national guard. NOT YOU!

I love it when Libtards show their ignorance with stupid statements like this.

That issue was settled in the Heller case. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right the same as the right to free speech and freedom of religion. Justice Scalia explained the militia issue very well in his dissertation.

That is not even open for discussion any more.

However, facts like that will never stop a Liberal from making an ass of themselves, will it?

Heller is like Dredd Scott or Plessy.

A decision which will be repealed as soon as common sense hits the supreme court.

Perhaps you would care to answer what the males age 17 to 45 are to do for weapons if firearms are banned? EVERY male age 17 to 45, with a couple exceptions ,are BY LAW part of the militia.

 

[2aguy]

Here we go.....Dr. Gary Kleck speaking on the subject of law abiding people owning guns......he explains at the beginning how he came to research gun violence....

Why Campus Carry 8220 Guns in the hands of non-criminals 8230 reduce violence. 8221 8211 FSU Professor Dr. Gary Kleck All Nine Yards



He gets to the heart of the matter at 2:13

 

[ninja007]

OP is a newbie and EVERY post is about gun control guys.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And in politics. Wish a Mod would explain to him the rules since obviously he can not read.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, on the off chance you were serious despite the ridiculousness of your OP.....

If concealed carry was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother. But a few would.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. And he wouldn't know which ones they were.

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If concealed carry is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of concealed carry.

In case you weren't being facetious with your OP.

 

[2aguy]

BTW, on the off chance you were serious despite the ridiculousness of your OP.....

If concealed carry was allowed or all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother. But a few would.

An the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. And he wouldn't know which ones they were.

So he would know that if he slugged and old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know who might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminals change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If concealed carry is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of concealed carry.

In case you weren't being facetious with your OP.

Criminals also switch from approaching a victim to breaking into places where no one is home......which is why criminals spend more time finding empty houses in America, while in Britain and Canada they don't worry so much about people at home......

 

[Little-Acorn]

Letting people carry guns in public will obviously lead to more people using guns in public.

Conservatives generally have this idea that they're secretly action heroes

As you can see, a silly question asked by one liberal, is frequently replied to with a made-up lie by another liberal.

That's why threads like this are referred to by normal people, as "Liberal-fanatic circle jerks".

 

[The Rabbi]

The NC concealed carry law says you cannot conceal carry at parades, sporting events. government buildings, schools and a host of other places. You can only use the weapon for self defense against an attack or to save another persons life. You can't produce the gun to stop a robbery unless the robber shoots someone or points the gun at you with the intent to shoot or he states an intent to shoot or kill you. When accosted by an officer you must inform him you have a CC permit.At no time can you CC a weapon if you have been drinking, even a glass of beer. If you fire the weapon under any circumstances you will be taken into custody and appear before a judge. If you do shoot someone in self defense or to stop an assault you might not be charged in criminal court but there's a great likelihood you will be charged in civil court by the victim or his family. There's a great responsibility for concealed carry and it's not to be taken lightly. Gun grabbers think we are a crazed , drunken berserkers looking for victims but that's far from the truth. I've been carrying for over 35 years and never pulled my gun one time and I was in 2 banks while they were being robbed and once in a Food Lion. I wasn't threatened nor was anyone shot. Had there been I would have pulled a gun. Any other questions, Statistikhengst ? Fire away!

Now, THIS is the kind of information response I have been looking for. Real information that people can actually work with. I have to say, this kind of CC is something I can live with, because it seems quite reasonable to me. Thanks, Hossfly - Bloodrock44 - I think you should chime in, too.

Oh, and another thing. If you get a ticket for speeding or reckless driving or any of a number of misdemeanors, you can lose your CC permit. On top of all this if your county has a Democrat for sherrif, he's like Barney Fife just looking for an excuse to take your license. Ordinary cops and deputies are easy to get along with.

North Carolina sounds liek a suck-ass state.
In TN you lose your permit if intoxicated/impaired while in possession of the gun. You cant lose it just for a speeding ticket. You can carry anywhere except where posted and schools and court proceedings (which are posted anyway) You can carry into bars but of course cannot drink. You dont need to tell an officer you have a permit or are armed but if they run your license they'll know. Usually it isnt an issue and the couple of times I was stopped for out of date tag no one said a word.
Personally I think it's no one's business if I'm carrying or not.

 

[Little-Acorn]

And the right to bear arms talks about MILITIAS... aka the national guard. NOT YOU!

(sigh)

Yet another ignoramous who can't read the normal English in the Constitution.

Time for another reprint.

From http://hematite.com/dragon/Schulman.html

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The 'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

------------------------------------------

©1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

 

[80zephyr]

And the right to bear arms talks about MILITIAS... aka the national guard. NOT YOU!

I love it when Libtards show their ignorance with stupid statements like this.

That issue was settled in the Heller case. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right the same as the right to free speech and freedom of religion. Justice Scalia explained the militia issue very well in his dissertation.

That is not even open for discussion any more.

However, facts like that will never stop a Liberal from making an ass of themselves, will it?

Heller is like Dredd Scott or Plessy.

A decision which will be repealed as soon as common sense hits the supreme court.

I have a serious, honest question for you. When the Constitution was being ratified, the country was fresh off fighting a war of independence. Do you really believe that the states would have ratified any agreement that would take away an individual right to bears arms? I find even the suggestion of such absurd.

Mark

 

[OKTexas]

I dunno. Instead of Lefties screaming at Righties and Righties screaming at Lefties, I have an idea.

Let's talk about the actual topic.

Is concealed carry necessary? Why do some states have it?

That could be a good starting point.

Think about it.

All states have it in one form or another, start there.