WV house overrides Governors veto of pro gun bill

[Rustic]

The federal government is an forever fucked up place, it's best to leave the important everyday decisions in other hands...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The repubs keep proving they are owned by the nra. We have real problems and they just keep selling guns. Meanwhile cops and kids are getting shot regularly. Never mind the mass shootings. No wonder the party is imploding.

Even the most moderate attempts to control guns are shot down. Conceal carry is one good example. There's a checkerboard of laws on that, differing by state. Some require a training course on safety and expertise, and a permit. What the hell is wrong with that?

So you would be ok with a test to exercise your right to vote right? I mean whats the problem?

There is a minimum age required to vote. It's not an unlimited right. In addition in some states, convicted felons lose their right to vote. It's not an unlimited right. Unlike the 2nd Amendment voting is a requirement of a functional democracy. Poll taxes and tests were ruled unconstitutional.

Why would a common sense approach to concealed carry bother you? People have to pass a test to drive a car but not to carry a gun?

Why is it that the 2nd Amendment is viewed by people like you as the only right in which there should be no restrictions or limits?

Be VERY specific, list for me the Constitutional Right to drive......And there are restrictions, felons and certain crimes convicted of lose the right. One must undergo a background check to buy a firearm. There is an age limit. Getting the point yet?

A background check means only that the person is clean - no indication of knowledge.

What's wrong with requiring knowledge for a concealed carry?

Whats wrong with requiring ID to vote? Whats wrong with requiring knowledge to vote?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So you would be ok with a test to exercise your right to vote right? I mean whats the problem?

There is a minimum age required to vote. It's not an unlimited right. In addition in some states, convicted felons lose their right to vote. It's not an unlimited right. Unlike the 2nd Amendment voting is a requirement of a functional democracy. Poll taxes and tests were ruled unconstitutional.

Why would a common sense approach to concealed carry bother you? People have to pass a test to drive a car but not to carry a gun?

Why is it that the 2nd Amendment is viewed by people like you as the only right in which there should be no restrictions or limits?

Driving the car is not a right, the Second Amendment is a right...
We already have plenty of laws on the books no reason for dumbass repetition.

What laws are on the books "for no reason" requiring a minimum of knowledge on how to operate a dangerous weapon responsibly?

Why do you oppose this?

There are limits on other rights. Why not gun rights?

Enforce the current laws, no need for new laws....
We don't have the time, money or patience for frivolous behavior like the gun control nutters want...

What is "frivolous" about requiring a simple bit of education and a test that indicates you know how to operate a firearm safely and legally?

You guys act like you're being asked to cut off your right hand. Such babies.

Whats wrong with requiring a test to ensure one is knowledgeable enough to vote? Whats wrong with a bit of education on voting?

 

[Coyote]

There is a minimum age required to vote. It's not an unlimited right. In addition in some states, convicted felons lose their right to vote. It's not an unlimited right. Unlike the 2nd Amendment voting is a requirement of a functional democracy. Poll taxes and tests were ruled unconstitutional.

Why would a common sense approach to concealed carry bother you? People have to pass a test to drive a car but not to carry a gun?

Why is it that the 2nd Amendment is viewed by people like you as the only right in which there should be no restrictions or limits?

Driving the car is not a right, the Second Amendment is a right...
We already have plenty of laws on the books no reason for dumbass repetition.

What laws are on the books "for no reason" requiring a minimum of knowledge on how to operate a dangerous weapon responsibly?

Why do you oppose this?

There are limits on other rights. Why not gun rights?

Enforce the current laws, no need for new laws....
We don't have the time, money or patience for frivolous behavior like the gun control nutters want...

What is "frivolous" about requiring a simple bit of education and a test that indicates you know how to operate a firearm safely and legally?

You guys act like you're being asked to cut off your right hand. Such babies.

Whats wrong with requiring a test to ensure one is knowledgeable enough to vote? Whats wrong with a bit of education on voting?

Because voting is an integral function of being a democracy. Courts already ruled you can not impose tests or poll taxes.

Now, can you answer the question I asked?

 

[Coyote]

Even the most moderate attempts to control guns are shot down. Conceal carry is one good example. There's a checkerboard of laws on that, differing by state. Some require a training course on safety and expertise, and a permit. What the hell is wrong with that?

So you would be ok with a test to exercise your right to vote right? I mean whats the problem?

There is a minimum age required to vote. It's not an unlimited right. In addition in some states, convicted felons lose their right to vote. It's not an unlimited right. Unlike the 2nd Amendment voting is a requirement of a functional democracy. Poll taxes and tests were ruled unconstitutional.

Why would a common sense approach to concealed carry bother you? People have to pass a test to drive a car but not to carry a gun?

Why is it that the 2nd Amendment is viewed by people like you as the only right in which there should be no restrictions or limits?

Be VERY specific, list for me the Constitutional Right to drive......And there are restrictions, felons and certain crimes convicted of lose the right. One must undergo a background check to buy a firearm. There is an age limit. Getting the point yet?

A background check means only that the person is clean - no indication of knowledge.

What's wrong with requiring knowledge for a concealed carry?

Whats wrong with requiring ID to vote? Whats wrong with requiring knowledge to vote?

See above answer.

Can you answer the question?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Even the most moderate attempts to control guns are shot down. Conceal carry is one good example. There's a checkerboard of laws on that, differing by state. Some require a training course on safety and expertise, and a permit. What the hell is wrong with that?

So you would be ok with a test to exercise your right to vote right? I mean whats the problem?

There is a minimum age required to vote. It's not an unlimited right. In addition in some states, convicted felons lose their right to vote. It's not an unlimited right. Unlike the 2nd Amendment voting is a requirement of a functional democracy. Poll taxes and tests were ruled unconstitutional.

Why would a common sense approach to concealed carry bother you? People have to pass a test to drive a car but not to carry a gun?

Why is it that the 2nd Amendment is viewed by people like you as the only right in which there should be no restrictions or limits?

Be VERY specific, list for me the Constitutional Right to drive......And there are restrictions, felons and certain crimes convicted of lose the right. One must undergo a background check to buy a firearm. There is an age limit. Getting the point yet?

A background check means only that the person is clean - no indication of knowledge.

What's wrong with requiring knowledge for a concealed carry?

Whats wrong with requiring ID to vote? Whats wrong with requiring knowledge to vote?

Nothing, if the ID is provided first and the knowledge acquired from day one...

 

[Coyote]

ALL rights have some limits.

Look at voting - you must be a certain age, you must be a resident in specific districts, you must be registered to vote and you must be a citizen. Arguments can be made to add further requirements and they are either struck down in courts or upheld (for example voter ID). Lists are kept of registered voters.

2nd Amendment advocates oppose almost any restrictions - however benign. If one carries a gun in public, one should be able to prove they are knowledgeable in it's safe use and in legal issues surrounding it's use. They should be able to handle it safely. This is where individual rights intersect the rights of the public to be safe. In the same manner, the right of Free Speech also has specific restrictions - you can not foment a riot, you can not affect public safety by yelling fire in a crowded theatre and you can be sued for libel or slander under the law.

We keep a record of registered voters....but not of gun owners.
We insist that free speech can be limited by public safety concerns...but not with guns.
We track people who purchase sudafed in large amounts in case they might be meth makers.

Background checks, certifying a minimum bit of knowledge for those who wish to conceal carry, tracking who is buying large amounts of high velocity weapons and ammunition is fought tooth and nail.

How did the San Bernadino shooters manage to build up such a huge arsonal? If there was a tracking system in place that red flagged those kinds of purchases - could it have been prevented?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Those are the republicans biggest issues. They are working to make abortions illegal, gay marriage illegal, and selling guns. But budgets they are not balancing. They do nothing for the big issues that really effect people. Making guns easier to get when everyone already has easy access helps nobody, just a distraction from the real issues they have no answers to.

Federal government should have nothing to do with these things, they do not have the moral fiber to know what's best for anyone.
The only way to balance the budget is to pay off the debt in full, we can all see how that's been going on over the last century or so, it's went up every year...

The States know what's best? So, if they ban abortions, gay marriage, and guns, that's best?

Easy live in the state you like

So, if they ban abortions, gay marriage, and guns, that's best? Yes, or no?

Those things are states issues, let each state duke it out amongst themselves...

Yes or no?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

ALL rights have some limits.

Look at voting - you must be a certain age, you must be a resident in specific districts, you must be registered to vote and you must be a citizen. Arguments can be made to add further requirements and they are either struck down in courts or upheld (for example voter ID). Lists are kept of registered voters.

2nd Amendment advocates oppose almost any restrictions - however benign. If one carries a gun in public, one should be able to prove they are knowledgeable in it's safe use and in legal issues surrounding it's use. They should be able to handle it safely. This is where individual rights intersect the rights of the public to be safe. In the same manner, the right of Free Speech also has specific restrictions - you can not foment a riot, you can not affect public safety by yelling fire in a crowded theatre and you can be sued for libel or slander under the law.

We keep a record of registered voters....but not of gun owners.
We insist that free speech can be limited by public safety concerns...but not with guns.
We track people who purchase sudafed in large amounts in case they might be meth makers.

Background checks, certifying a minimum bit of knowledge for those who wish to conceal carry, tracking who is buying large amounts of high velocity weapons and ammunition is fought tooth and nail.

How did the San Bernadino shooters manage to build up such a huge arsonal? If there was a tracking system in place that red flagged those kinds of purchases - could it have been prevented?

To the right guns are safe, abortions are dangerous...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Driving the car is not a right, the Second Amendment is a right...
We already have plenty of laws on the books no reason for dumbass repetition.

What laws are on the books "for no reason" requiring a minimum of knowledge on how to operate a dangerous weapon responsibly?

Why do you oppose this?

There are limits on other rights. Why not gun rights?

Enforce the current laws, no need for new laws....
We don't have the time, money or patience for frivolous behavior like the gun control nutters want...

What is "frivolous" about requiring a simple bit of education and a test that indicates you know how to operate a firearm safely and legally?

You guys act like you're being asked to cut off your right hand. Such babies.

Whats wrong with requiring a test to ensure one is knowledgeable enough to vote? Whats wrong with a bit of education on voting?

Because voting is an integral function of being a democracy. Courts already ruled you can not impose tests or poll taxes.

Now, can you answer the question I asked?

Owning a firearm is in fact a protected right Voting is not, it is left up to Congress to determine who and why someone gets to vote, or perhaps you can cite for us the passage in the Constitution that protects voting for any specific group? The question is stupid. MY RIGHT are not subject to your approval and are not subject to illegal laws that seek to prevent my rights.

One can argue that having firearms is an integral right that in fact protects all other rights from a Government usurpation of said rights.

 

[Conservative65]

y father in law and brothers in law are concealed carry folks and have been since I have known them.

Do you happen to know how many crimes they have stopped.
You know there are over 5000 defensive gun uses per day. I bet they stopped at least a couple.

That number is such obvious garbage...

Obvious because YOU say so? Your statement, much like you, is obvious garbage.

 

[Conservative65]

ALL rights have some limits.

Look at voting - you must be a certain age, you must be a resident in specific districts, you must be registered to vote and you must be a citizen. Arguments can be made to add further requirements and they are either struck down in courts or upheld (for example voter ID). Lists are kept of registered voters.

2nd Amendment advocates oppose almost any restrictions - however benign. If one carries a gun in public, one should be able to prove they are knowledgeable in it's safe use and in legal issues surrounding it's use. They should be able to handle it safely. This is where individual rights intersect the rights of the public to be safe. In the same manner, the right of Free Speech also has specific restrictions - you can not foment a riot, you can not affect public safety by yelling fire in a crowded theatre and you can be sued for libel or slander under the law.

We keep a record of registered voters....but not of gun owners.
We insist that free speech can be limited by public safety concerns...but not with guns.
We track people who purchase sudafed in large amounts in case they might be meth makers.

Background checks, certifying a minimum bit of knowledge for those who wish to conceal carry, tracking who is buying large amounts of high velocity weapons and ammunition is fought tooth and nail.

How did the San Bernadino shooters manage to build up such a huge arsonal? If there was a tracking system in place that red flagged those kinds of purchases - could it have been prevented?

To the right guns are safe, abortions are dangerous...

Millions have owned guns for years with nothing happening. EVERY abortion takes a life.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

ALL rights have some limits.

Look at voting - you must be a certain age, you must be a resident in specific districts, you must be registered to vote and you must be a citizen. Arguments can be made to add further requirements and they are either struck down in courts or upheld (for example voter ID). Lists are kept of registered voters.

2nd Amendment advocates oppose almost any restrictions - however benign. If one carries a gun in public, one should be able to prove they are knowledgeable in it's safe use and in legal issues surrounding it's use. They should be able to handle it safely. This is where individual rights intersect the rights of the public to be safe. In the same manner, the right of Free Speech also has specific restrictions - you can not foment a riot, you can not affect public safety by yelling fire in a crowded theatre and you can be sued for libel or slander under the law.

We keep a record of registered voters....but not of gun owners.
We insist that free speech can be limited by public safety concerns...but not with guns.
We track people who purchase sudafed in large amounts in case they might be meth makers.

Background checks, certifying a minimum bit of knowledge for those who wish to conceal carry, tracking who is buying large amounts of high velocity weapons and ammunition is fought tooth and nail.

How did the San Bernadino shooters manage to build up such a huge arsonal? If there was a tracking system in place that red flagged those kinds of purchases - could it have been prevented?

To the right guns are safe, abortions are dangerous...

Millions have owned guns for years with nothing happening. EVERY abortion takes a life.

Potential life, and abortion is safe but guns are for killing things but you love them. The fact that most aren't used means most aren't needed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

y father in law and brothers in law are concealed carry folks and have been since I have known them.

Do you happen to know how many crimes they have stopped.
You know there are over 5000 defensive gun uses per day. I bet they stopped at least a couple.

That number is such obvious garbage...

Obvious because YOU say so? Your statement, much like you, is obvious garbage.

No one has a good number and that truly is obvious garbage. It's not possible to even get a good number. Everybody who thought they pulled a gun and then someone ran away means they protected themselves would be counted, when what actually happened is they pulled a gun, when they didn't need to, and someone ran for their lives away from the crazy fucker holding a gun...

 

[jon_berzerk]

Great news for the average criminal, no permit needed so, you can't be charged with that any longer...

They are called criminals for a reason. Do you really think they care about whether a permit is required?

One less thing to charge them with. Handgun down your pants, have a nice day, Sir...

unless they are a felon of course

 

[Rustic]

Like it or not firearms are here to stay, thank God for that.

 

[Conservative65]

y father in law and brothers in law are concealed carry folks and have been since I have known them.

Do you happen to know how many crimes they have stopped.
You know there are over 5000 defensive gun uses per day. I bet they stopped at least a couple.

That number is such obvious garbage...

Obvious because YOU say so? Your statement, much like you, is obvious garbage.

No one has a good number and that truly is obvious garbage. It's not possible to even get a good number. Everybody who thought they pulled a gun and then someone ran away means they protected themselves would be counted, when what actually happened is they pulled a gun, when they didn't need to, and someone ran for their lives away from the crazy fucker holding a gun...

So you say.

 

[Rustic]

My firearms permit is the second amendment, concealed or otherwise… LOL

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Coyote can not answer why the 2nd Amendment should be more restrictive then any other right. Keeps asking why voting has age limit, while firearms do too, why felons can not vote, while felons can not own firearms either.