Do you REALLY believe in the 2nd Amendment?

[vito]

On this forum and elsewhere I often see evidence of those who say they believe in and support the 2nd Amendment, but clearly do not trust others to be responsible in their exercise of this natural right. Its almost like they are saying "the 2nd Amendment gives ME the right to keep and bear arms, but maybe it should not give YOU or others in the unwashed public masses that same right because I KNOW that I am a responsible person but I doubt that the rest of you are as well". I know that there are some places where the public seems to really walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I was in a western state last year where while waiting on line in a coffee shop, an odd looking gentleman with a huge handlebar mustache and cowboy hat walked in, carrying a very large caliber revolver openly on his belt and a short barreled AR on a sling hanging on his chest. Not only did no one panic or look alarmed, but I overheard one of the employees of the shop say that he felt safer whenever this gentleman came in for his morning coffee. I compare this to the almost hysterical reaction to open carry expressed by supposed gun rights supporters on certain gun related forums. The 2nd Amendment is a right OF THE PEOPLE, not just of some self identified gun elitists.

[hatt]

Most people don't, but I think it's getting better. 15 years ago you got dirty looks walking around a gunshow with an AK. Now all those guys own AKs and ARs.

[RobertJ.]

So correct me if I'm wrong- this was really about OC vs. CC?

That subject, along with Bigfoot and the .380 ACP as a defensive round, have been beaten to death here at least several times that I'm aware of. Those subjects are in the "we should agree to disagree" category.

If you want to open carry, fine, I have no problem with it. I just choose not to.

Even the most ardent supporter of OC would have to agree that sometimes the manner in which it's done hurts our cause more than helping it.

[RobzGuns]

Originally Posted by vito

On this forum and elsewhere I often see evidence of those who say they believe in and support the 2nd Amendment, but clearly do not trust others to be responsible in their exercise of this natural right. Its almost like they are saying "the 2nd Amendment gives ME the right to keep and bear arms, but maybe it should not give YOU or others in the unwashed public masses that same right because I KNOW that I am a responsible person but I doubt that the rest of you are as well".

The underlined, Bold section is the key phrase that pops up in almost every OC vs CC thread. It amazes me how many write "I wholeheartedly support our Second Amendment Rights, BUT..." There should be no 'BUT' about it.

To rephrase what RobertJ wrote:
"I support 2A, but I don't like OC"... Okay... So choose not to OC and keep CCing... But Don't restrict others' rights

[tobimaru]

If you don't want a gun, you shouldn't have one. Few things are more dangerous than an apathetic person behind the trigger.

While it may be your right to go purchase a new gun, load it up with ammo, throw it in a safe, and hope it saves your life when the times comes; I also think it's bad gun ownership. Practice with it, improve your shooting skills, make sure it's reliable, make sure it's clean, etc. These are all good ideas.

You can absolutely exercise your right to own and bear arms and be a BAD GUN OWNER.

I always think of a motorist who can't change a flat tire, can't change the oil, can't change a wiper blade, etc. Sure, he can legally operate that car and own it but hes' not really good at it!

Is it a requirement that someone who carries knows how to SAFELY clear a malfunction/jam with their weapon? No. Maybe grandma has the right to tote her .357 revolver, but no one ever showed her how to eject the shells and she can't even get the cylinder open. I feel like this kind of gun ownership is too prevalent and it gives a false assumption of safety. The gun is only going to work as well as the person behind it.

I guess my point is I believe all citizens should have the right to bear arms, and as armed citizens we also have the responsibility to educate and train ourselves. Exercising your right without responsibility, is bad gun ownership.

[CaptRon956]

The one thing that makes the US great is our freedom of choice. If you want to OC then you have the right to choose or not. If you allow the government to make that choice for you then we will all lose our rights little by little... The US consitution is full of "checks & balances".. The 2nd amendment is a vital part of that system of checks & balances and it clearly states, "shall not be infringed".

Our rights are indeed being "infringed" and if it wasn't for the people standing up for their rights, we wouldn't have OC pass in Texas.

[LoboGunLeather]

The OP has put his finger directly on the point. Many people are simply unwilling to extend to the general population the same rights they assume for themselves.

This is the heart of Modern American Liberalism (MAL), which exists as a means for the self-perceived MAL to believe himself superior, intellectually and morally, to the common man. The real danger of this arises when the MAL, knowing himself to be superior, assumes the responsibility for dictating to others how they may live their lives and conduct their affairs (all for their own good, of course).

This applies not only to 2A rights, but to every aspect of every citizen's life. The elitist MAL's demand absolute control, and believe they are performing a public service in doing so. Public education becomes public indoctrination. Freedom of speech exists only when everyone agrees and no one is offended. The right to keep and bear arms becomes a system of licensing, permits, and endless restrictions.

Orwell's "1984" was only off by a few decades in its predictions.

[SMSgt]

Vito...

Do you honestly think everyone you know, or know of, should handle a gun? Would you feel safe with anyone having a loaded gun?

It may be a right, but it may be hazardous to your health also.

[ladder13]

Alot of people say there are, but preface their statement with one or more of the following:

" I'm an NRA member, but....."

" I'm a strong supporter of the 2A, but......"

" I support the 2A but why does anyone need that?......"

" I saw this guy at the range......"

"Ever see the people of Walmart?...."




LOBO nailed it, elitism

[hatt]

Originally Posted by tobimaru

If you don't want a gun, you shouldn't have one. Few things are more dangerous than an apathetic person behind the trigger.

While it may be your right to go purchase a new gun, load it up with ammo, throw it in a safe, and hope it saves your life when the times comes; I also think it's bad gun ownership. Practice with it, improve your shooting skills, make sure it's reliable, make sure it's clean, etc. These are all good ideas.

You can absolutely exercise your right to own and bear arms and be a BAD GUN OWNER.

I always think of a motorist who can't change a flat tire, can't change the oil, can't change a wiper blade, etc. Sure, he can legally operate that car and own it but hes' not really good at it!

Is it a requirement that someone who carries knows how to SAFELY clear a malfunction/jam with their weapon? No. Maybe grandma has the right to tote her .357 revolver, but no one ever showed her how to eject the shells and she can't even get the cylinder open. I feel like this kind of gun ownership is too prevalent and it gives a false assumption of safety. The gun is only going to work as well as the person behind it.

I guess my point is I believe all citizens should have the right to bear arms, and as armed citizens we also have the responsibility to educate and train ourselves. Exercising your right without responsibility, is bad gun ownership.

I've read plenty of stories of little old ladies and other novices neatly shooting daylight through their attackers. And plenty of stories of the "educated and trained" recklessly shooting themselves and others. If you notice the pattern of civilian encounters. Having a gun and being willing to use it is by far the most important thing to stopping attacks. Pinpoint precision, speedy reloads, etc rank way down the list.

Common sense alone can allow safe handling of guns, which is many people's complaint. And a little, or lot, of training isn't going to help an idiot be safe.

[hatt]

Originally Posted by SMSgt

Vito...

Do you honestly think everyone you know, or know of, should handle a gun? Would you feel safe with anyone having a loaded gun?

It may be a right, but it may be hazardous to your health also.

What's your point? Everyone knows people who don't need to be within a mile of a firearms. Many of those are employed and trained by .gov to carry one every day. Always going to be irresponsible people. The solution isn't to punish the people who didn't do it. You have to hold people accountable for their ACTIONS.

[rwsmith]

I think it's a good idea that violent felons aren't allowed to have have guns, or the certifiable insane. If someone is guilty of theft without use of a weapon, I don't have a problem with them and their guns. So, it's not a perfect world, but there are only a few exceptions where people should NOT be able to carry. I have an idea about this I'll bring up in another thread.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Originally Posted by SMSgt

Vito...

Do you honestly think everyone you know, or know of, should handle a gun? Would you feel safe with anyone having a loaded gun?

It may be a right, but it may be hazardous to your health also.

You didn't ask me... but I'll give it a shot.

The answer is no. But them having the freedom to is a heck of a lot better than government deciding who should. THAT has proven to be hazardous to the health of countless millions buried in mass graves and enslaved throughout history.

[Biginge]

If an oc,cc, illegal carried gun is mishandled it could prove worse than second hand smoke. Makes no difference the manner of carry. A great deal of responsibility is generally associated with a right. I think ole Bill Shakespeare wrote a bit "Much ado about nothing." I think the open carry concept will parallel the concealed carry history. Seldom/few issues.

[k22fan]

Shucks. I'm disappointed the O.P. used a fellow open carrying as his example. We have indeed beaten to death the wisdom of open carry and mandated training. I was hopping we'd touch on every bureaucrat and school or public institution administrator jumping to the conclusion they can make me safer with rules requiring me to leave my gun in the car and park it out in the public street. The phrase "going postal" refereed to crimes committed by post office employees, not their customers. We've seen more than enough examples of how safe gun free schools make students. I realize the Supremes allowed these regulations to continue but that does not make them good ideas.

[BC38]

I sure do - but that doesn't keep SOME people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights from making me a little nervous some times.

[vito]

Hatt and some others got it right. With rights come risks, but I'd rather risk the problems of irresponsible people with firearms than have some government know-it-all decide who can, and who can't own a firearm. What started this thread was my disgust with those who claim to be on the freedom side of our Constitution, but want to decide who else should enjoy that freedom rather than recognize it is a freedom for all of us. Those who do not act responsibly can be legitimately punished for such actions under the law and the rest of us will need to tolerate this for the sake of preserving our freedoms.

[BB57]

One of the tenets of western civilization is that rights come with responsibilities.

I am consequently fully supportive of the second amendment - and the responsibilities that go with it.

If enough of us exercise our second amendment rights in an irresponsible manner - in a manner that infringes on the rights of others by making them feel unsafe - then we will ultimately lose our 2A rights, or at a minimum have them significantly curtailed.

The Open Carry demonstrations a year or so ago should have been a wakeup call to the 2A extremist crowd. They carried out 2A open carry demonstrations at businesses without their permission, made their customers uncomfortable, cost those businesses money, and forced those companies to ask people not to open carry in their businesses anymore. This very quickly became a very consistent and predictable pattern.

Rather than figuring out they were being unreasonable heels expecting business owners to pay the freight for their rather juvenile 2A demonstrations, they instead bashed those same businesses for being "anti-gun", while at the same time feeding the anti-gun press all the ammo the needed to portray gun owners as unreasonable and irresponsible rednecks who don't care about other people's rights. Thank God the 2A extremists seem to have gotten most of that out of their systems.

The reality is that those people are a small percentage of the gun owning population, but their stink sticks to all of us, and it threatens the preservation of the 2A.

Like it or not there are 330,000,000 people in the US and not all of them like firearms. All of them however have as much right to feel safe - just like we do. For that reason I conceal carry, and don't even consider open carry in public places. The 2A allows that right to open carry, but just having a right does not mean it is a good idea to exercise that right in an extreme manner that others find offensive when you've got other, better, options. The words used to describe the practice of responsibly exercising a right are words like "common sense", "smart", "civil", and "forward thinking".

[rock_castle]

I'm tired of people whining about open carry. You have to take the good with the bad, folks.

[hatt]

2A extremist crowd

WOW.

Anyway. OC was illegal in TX for 140 years. Then the "2A extremists" came along. OC legal.

THANK YOU 2A EXTREMISTS. WE NEED MORE LIKE YOU.

[ladder13]

Words taken right out of the Bloomberg playbook, along with "reasonable" gun control.

[smokindog]

Don't forget "common sense measures".

ANYONE who believes the government should regulate your rights is helping to erode the rights of all. NONE of the adjectives used have EVER been demonstrated by politicians.

I agree with all the statements of responsibility but that word does NOT equate to REQUIREMENT and most CERTAINLY does not extend to government MANDATE. Give a politician room to wiggle and someone, someplace, will regret it.

If you exercise a right to the detriment of another, we have courts. Unfortunately, the courts are now tied up with all the other "common sense" measures that have been enacted.

Change the target of this discussion to ANY of the other rights we have and tell me if you are willing to make the SAME arguments. An IQ test to vote? An grammar exam to print? A NEED for privacy for that search? How about a speedy trial? Do you really need to own that private property? Catch my point?

Originally Posted by ladder13

Words taken right out of the Bloomberg playbook, along with "reasonable" gun control.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Originally Posted by hatt

WOW.

Anyway. OC was illegal in TX for 140 years. Then the "2A extremists" came along. OC legal.

THANK YOU 2A EXTREMISTS. WE NEED MORE LIKE YOU.

Amen.

Let's not forget that at the time Texas gun rights lobbyists were saying that they didn't even have OC on the radar, and were taken by surprise at the grassroots support. Of course they then launched into criticism of the grassroots folks who put it on the radar among the people of Texas.

Results count.
OC demonstrators used methods to bring their grievance to the attention of the good people of Texas.
They won. Naysayers lost.

[keith44spl]

There may be some, that for one reason or another,
may not be responsible firearm owners.

But, some fail to be responsible in other areas of life as well.

I am not my brothers' keeper....He needs to carry his own means of self protection.

It takes all of my waking hours to tend to my business....I jest don't have the extra time to mettle in other folks' affairs.

So, if one is not committing a felonious act, I don't feel the need to get involved.

The haunts that I frequent, folks bear arms as naturally as putting on their britches.

I know there are accidents in life...And sometimes they are well deserved, sometimes not.

I fully support the right of the people to bears arms....to the very extent that
I gave my crazy MIL a snubnose'd Taurus for her self protection.


.

[Biggfoot44]

I got the OP's point. He was unfortunate in his particular illiustration example , as it predictably threatened to devolve into multifacited discusion of OC per se. ( And the rumors of my being beaten to death are greatly exagerated ).

The point is NOT about the tactical or public relations ramifications of OC vs CC generally , or in certain circumstances. Nor what various of *us* feel to be wise and prudent levels of knowledge and useful skills for either handling of firearms specifically or how to provide for one's personal defense. It's not about weather we personally know anyone who is foolish/ irresponsable/ similar. It's not about the concept that everyone *should* exercise a great deal of responsability in every facet of their lives.

It IS about recognizing that a Fundamental Right actually is a Fundamental Right. [ Insert several comparisons of other fundamental rights. No a/c , too steamy to whip of the extra paragraphs before falling asleep.]

But "Right to Feel Safe" ? Which translates into " Right to not be out of one's comfort zone " . Ah , that one's not in the Bill of Rights. Either today , or relatively recently that could hypothetically include : having blacks , american indians , immagrants, rednecks in pickup trucks , working class people, etc in THEIR neighborhood/ business districts. Political speach for/ against any issues , from any viewpoint could well have someone within sight/ hearing be uncomfortable with various messages. Real threats = abd thing. Legal activities or protected speach that might displease or upset = Life in a free society.

[ladder13]

Let me know when 330 million Americans agree on anything.

[Absalom]

I fully support everybody's right to open-carry. There is no doubt in my mind that it is protected by the Second Amendment.

I expect everybody to support my right to say that I think open-carry is a dumb idea for several reasons. There is no doubt in my mind that that's protected by the First Amendment.

If you don't want to hear people "whining" about open-carry, that's too bad; they probably don't want to see you carry. So you're both being annoyed by someone else exercising a constitutional right; in other words, you're even.

The "Islamic State" executes a lot more Muslims than non-Muslims, because it suspects them to not be really "true believers".

I don't think discussions based on the same underlying approach within the 2nd Amendment community are going to be particularly helpful to our cause.

[ladyT]

Originally Posted by SMSgt

Vito...

Do you honestly think everyone you know, or know of, should handle a gun? Would you feel safe with anyone having a loaded gun?

It may be a right, but it may be hazardous to your health also.

I think they call that Life. As far as someone you don't think should own a gun that's simply an opinion and until said person has had their Rights revoked they can have a gun.

[ladyT]

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

Amen.

Let's not forget that at the time Texas gun rights lobbyists were saying that they didn't even have OC on the radar, and were taken by surprise at the grassroots support. Of course they then launched into criticism of the grassroots folks who put it on the radar among the people of Texas.

Results count.
OC demonstrators used methods to bring their grievance to the attention of the good people of Texas.
They won. Naysayers lost.

No one in Texas won a single thing. The act of carrying a firearm which is guaranteed by the Second Amendment as a Right is nothing more then a privilege in the State of Texas. Plus you have to pay for said privilege. Just like a Poll Tax.
As with any privilege it can be revoked or denied by the State for no reason other than they can.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Originally Posted by ladyT

No one in Texas won a single thing. The act of carrying a firearm which is guaranteed by the Second Amendment as a Right is nothing more then a privilege in the State of Texas. Plus you have to pay for said privilege. Just like a Poll Tax.
As with any privilege it can be revoked or denied by the State for no reason other than they can.

Geeez... what a Debbie Downer.

Were you so glum about Shall Issue becoming law in Texas?

[k22fan]

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

Geeez... what a Debbie Downer. [...]

I Liked your post but apparently she has a point. She seems to imply you can only legally open carry in Texas with a concealed carry license which I vaguely recall from the news.

In Washington we've been legally able to open carry without a license for at least as long as I've paid attention to gun laws. However, prior to wide spread publicity about people open carrying in other states I rarely saw it happen other than while hunting. It was rumored that if you open carried in metropolitan areas you were bound to get a hard time from the police. That fear is mostly gone so the demonstrators benefited us in a round about way. In the last few years the only surprising thing is that no one gives any indication of noticing a pistol on another customer's hip while waiting in a store check out line or similar situation.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Originally Posted by k22fan

I Liked your post but apparently she has a point. She seems to imply you can only legally open carry in Texas with a concealed carry license which I vaguely recall from the news.
.

That's the point about asking if LadyT was so glum about Shall Issue passing. You see, Shall Issue is about requiring a permit to carry. Must be that Shall Issue sweeping the country was also another non-win, right?

[hatt]

The same folks this thread was started about would question constitutional carry. "Do we really want just anyone carrying?" I've seen it happen time after time. I'm sure someone has posted about here recently.

"Assault weapons," CC, OC, Constitutional, whatever. It's always the same narrative.

[ladyT]

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

Geeez... what a Debbie Downer.

Were you so glum about Shall Issue becoming law in Texas?

No. I'm a firm believer in the Second Amendment. It's clearly written and does not need interpretation. It says I not only can own a firearm but I can carry that firearm and that RIGHT cannot be infringed upon.

The Bill of Rights are protections of the individual citizens. Our own government even says so.
Bill of Rights

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens

[ChattanoogaPhil]

LadyT,

When Shall Issue passed in Texas, did you also declare that a no-win?

[RobzGuns]

So, Lady T...
I guess you're an "Anything short of HB195 is a total loss" kinda person? If so, that's too bad.

Since HB195 never made it out of Committee, I think we did just fine getting HB910 and SB11 as a 'Next Step' advance.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by hatt

The same folks this thread was started about would question constitutional carry. "Do we really want just anyone carrying?" I've seen it happen time after time. I'm sure someone has posted about here recently.

"Assault weapons," CC, OC, Constitutional, whatever. It's always the same narrative.

Constitutional carry??? Heavens no.

Mandatory training, licensing and fees, or no soup for you.

And if you can't afford the monetary outlay or do the training, like an elderly person living alone for instance, tough, find a way.

Oh if you can afford a gun you can afford training and license fees.

[ladyT]

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

LadyT,

When Shall Issue passed in Texas, did you also declare that a no-win?

Again you come from the position that the State gets to determine who can exercise their guaranteed Constitutional Rights.


Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that a State can turn a Constitutionally Guaranteed Right into a Privilege?

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Originally Posted by ladyT

Again you come from the position that the State gets to determine who can exercise their guaranteed Constitutional Rights.


Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that a State can turn a Constitutionally Guaranteed Right into a Privilege?

Just a minute. I'm in the process of nailing down your sour grapes on OC passing.

This is what you previously posted here.


"Texas will not pass Open Carry. Won't happen. In fact this open carry issue most likely will scuttle the very progress we have made since the SCOTUS decision. In fact we will be very lucky to retain the progress we have made to date as the result of OCT's recent actions. They have played right into our opposition's hands. They have given the anti's all of the ammunition they need to stop the progression and expansion of our Second Amendment Rights."


So there you are championing past "progress" and fear mongering over losing it, and then lamenting about OC groups jeopardizing future "expansion" of 2A rights. But when your predictions turn out to be completely wrong and OC passes as well as other 2A "expansion" you scoff at it and imply that anything less than 100% of what the founders intended is a no-win.

Care to explain?

[ladyT]

Originally Posted by RobzGuns

So, Lady T...
I guess you're an "Anything short of HB195 is a total loss" kinda person? If so, that's too bad.

Since HB195 never made it out of Committee, I think we did just fine getting HB910 and SB11 as a 'Next Step' advance.

Yes. Anything short of the ability to fully exercise one's Constitutional Rights is unacceptable. Way to many people have died and sacrificed to protect those Rights. I will not Dis Honor those who have made such sacrifices.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Originally Posted by ladyT

Yes. Anything short of the ability to fully exercise one's Constitutional Rights is unacceptable. Way to many people have died and sacrificed to protect those Rights. I will not Dis Honor those who have made such sacrifices.

So the past 2A "progress" and "expansion" you were so concerned with losing as you were attacking OC activists for jeopardizing, was actually nothing more than unacceptable no-win dishonor progress and expansion?

Please... doth protest too much.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

Just a minute. I'm in the process of nailing down your sour grapes on OC passing.

This is what you previously posted here.


"Texas will not pass Open Carry. Won't happen. In fact this open carry issue most likely will scuttle the very progress we have made since the SCOTUS decision. In fact we will be very lucky to retain the progress we have made to date as the result of OCT's recent actions. They have played right into our opposition's hands. They have given the anti's all of the ammunition they need to stop the progression and expansion of our Second Amendment Rights."


So there you are championing past "progress" and fear mongering over losing it, and then lamenting about OC groups jeopardizing future "expansion" of 2A rights. But when your predictions turn out to be completely wrong and OC passes as well as other 2A "expansion" you scoff at it and imply that anything less than 100% of what the founders intended is a no-win.

Care to explain?

Is that what they call a "gotcha" moment?

[ladyT]

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

That's the point about asking if LadyT was so glum about Shall Issue passing. You see, Shall Issue is about requiring a permit to carry. Must be that Shall Issue sweeping the country was also another non-win, right?

Shall issue is not the point. In fact there is no reason for it. You have the Right to own and CARRY a firearm according to the Second Amendment. When you get that conceal carry permit you accept that the Second Amendment is not a Right but nothing more than a privilege granted by the State.

You know HB195 would have passed if it wasn't for an OC activist that made a scene in a House members office, scaring staff and the House Rep. At that point Republicans and Democrats became one and HB195 never saw the light of day.

[keith44spl]

Originally Posted by ladder13

Constitutional carry??? Heavens no.

Mandatory training, licensing and fees, or no soup for you.

And if you can't afford the monetary outlay or do the training, like an elderly person living alone for instance, tough, find a way.

Oh if you can afford a gun you can afford training and license fees.

Right thar it is folks.....It's not about Our Rights....It's about the.......wait for it.....

























.


The Money!!!






*

As in any other government decided issue, jest follow the money.

There's no profit (revenue) in a inalienable Right.

Revenue must be legislated, by tax and privilege.

It's a sad fact of life....



.
If'n ya want to dance in Texas....Ya got to pay the fiddler!


.
If there's a buck to be made off'n it....It will always be a privilege.


Next step,
Lobby to reduce CHL fees to a level where it is no longer the cash cow it is now and constitutional carry will follow....


In the mean time CC or OC and eat more chicken fried steak !!!


Gig Em Aggies

Hook Em Horns

God Bless Texas.


.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Originally Posted by ladyT

You know HB195 would have passed if it wasn't for an OC activist that made a scene in a House members office, scaring staff and the House Rep. At that point Republicans and Democrats became one and HB195 never saw the light of day.

I don't know that. Based on your track record here of being wrong on all counts I'll ask that you forgive my doubt.

Originally Posted by ladyT

Shall issue is not the point. In fact there is no reason for it. You have the Right to own and CARRY a firearm according to the Second Amendment. When you get that conceal carry permit you accept that the Second Amendment is not a Right but nothing more than a privilege granted by the State.

Being the purist all-or-nothing you present yourself to be, does this mean you refuse to obtain a carry permit?

I share the goal of complete victory no infringements, but wars are fought battle by battle. Freedom loving gun owners won this one, and continue to win in most parts of the country. That's a good thing.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Originally Posted by ladder13

Is that what they call a "gotcha" moment?

I think of it as providing "context".

Now it's the fault of OC activists that HB195 (Constitutional Carry) didn't become law. Them fellers sure do get a lot of credit.

[BB57]

Originally Posted by ladder13

/....And if you can't afford the monetary outlay or do the training, like an elderly person living alone for instance, tough, find a way.

Oh if you can afford a gun you can afford training and license fees.

The unreasonable (far above actual cost) fees for the application, fingerprint and back ground check some states impose can create a financial burden that disproportionately affects some populations - but let's be honest here. These fees are not targeting the elderly, they are targeting poor folks.


Just image what happens if Republicans started getting on the "no unreasonable fee for CCW" bandwagon as a means of making concealed carry permits easier to obtain. It would put the Dems in a very uncomfortable position.

We need to stop playing to the strengths of the anti-gun camp and start taking some positive steps to show the benefit to all people, rather than standing back and guarding our own very extreme right sounding view points to the exclusion of others. Showing those others that they have skin in the game will get us much better results.

[BB57]

Originally Posted by ladyT

You know HB195 would have passed if it wasn't for an OC activist that made a scene in a House members office, scaring staff and the House Rep. At that point Republicans and Democrats became one and HB195 never saw the light of day.

It's a good example of what happens when well meaning but short sighted or misguided start putting what they feel are "God given" rights in front of simple common sense.

Like the various store and restaurant 2A demonstrations, it's guaranteed to backfire.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

I think of it as providing "context".

Now it's the fault of OC activists that HB195 (Constitutional Carry) didn't become law. Them fellers sure do get a lot of credit.

They just make folks shiver in their pants, they're downright scary

[vito]

When I started this thread it had absolutely nothing to do with open carry, and I am sorry I even brought that into the discussion. It really was all about those who claim to be 2nd Amendment supporters but are not too sure that they really believe it is a right that belongs to all of us but rather only to those who they deem to be responsible and trustworthy. Sort of like, everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.