Here's Why I Don't Favor Everyone Carrying

[crstrode]

Thank you the right question. I could care less who carries so long as they understand that a firearm is not a magic wand, and that poor judgement on their part one way or the other will have consequences. Don't carry if you don't have the requisite skills and judgement.

So who is it that will decide when a person understands what you want them to understand? Will it be some fellow that believes the world hasn't changed since the first half of the last century?

 

[delcrossv]

You sir are wrong. Just because someone does not favor something does NOT mean they favor restrictions on it. I for one do not favor French dressing on my salad. I do not wish for any restrictions on French dressing. In other words,even though, I am not in favor of YOUR interpretation, I am not calling for it to be banned or restricted.

Exactly. Unfortunately a goodly number of people equate their preferences with "the way things should be". Hence the problem.

Rights, being rights, should by their nature be unrestricted. Hence my opposition to the NFA, GCA , Red Flag, CC permits, location restrictions etc.

Privileges are permissive; therefore they are restrictable. E.g driver's licenses, vehicle insurance requirements etc.

I'll take "dangerous liberty" over "servile safety" any day.

 

[crstrode]

I would favor not everyone being able to cast a vote. Perhaps they need to take a competency test showing that they understand the basics of the Constitution and the electoral process????

Yup. There are also those that would prohibit free expression of opinion, or the freedom to associate with whom they choose, or to exercise their chosen religion.

Thank God for the Constitution . . . All of it.

 

[biku324]

So who is it that will decide when a person understands what you want them to understand? Will it be some fellow that believes the world hasn't changed since the first half of the last century?

Damifikno. Frankly, we shooters as well as the firearms and retail industry could do a much better job of mentoring new shooters and focusing on what happens after shootings to you, your family, your finances, etc. Ensuring folks know 'self-defense' is not a sport that requires one to buy, buy, buy would be helpful.

I'm not interested in trying to make up laws or systems.

 

[Road Rat]

I've said it before here and elsewhere, a gun is not a magic wand. Pointing one at someone who isn't deterred or who is drunk, high, enraged, or crazy means you need to be able to make an immediate decision. I don't believe many folks are.

Well, you are entitled to YOUR OPINION. I disagree completely!!

 

[fatcat3]

Thank you for your service in the Corps. I respect your experience and training immensely. I'm sure that there are still things I could learn from you. However, I respectfully disagree completely with "would like to see more training required to be allowed to carry." It's the required part that I have a strong objection to. Would I prefer people to get more training, absolutely. But like a poll tax to vote, I believe government mandates (requirements) to exercise a Right under the Constitution in an infringement on that right (particularly to poor people, those with limited access, etc.). Therefore, i will never support "required" training regardless of how desirable more training might be.

AMEN!!!!!!!!

 

[ladder13]

Just because something has been accepted as Constitutional does not mean it is, imo. Clearly, the courts are biased and political.

Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed in my Constitutional conservative view, some "gun owners" can think whatever they like.

 

[steelslaver]

Another thing about "Requirements"

My main concern is who gets to set those "requirements" It may well start out well intended and simple, it will never sty that was. Those who oppose our right to bear arms would and in places do use such things as a club.

Its like laws to keep your guns locked up etc, it never ends simply or do such laws always get interpreted in the manner in which intended.

A state passes a "simple" law that all gun transfers have to go through an FFL with the "ideal" that it will prevent criminals from buying guns.

The next think you know a liberal Attorney General interprets this and Bob can't lend Frank his shot gun to go duck hunting.

 

[S-W4EVER]

IMHO second guessing the deceased Pastor serves no purpose. He's not here to defend his decision.

In the "Street Survival" movement in LE, we believe we should learn from other people's mistakes so we don't repeat them. We are all born with the right to keep and bear arms and IMHO any law that interferes with that right (for a law-abiding citizen) is unjust. The Bill of Rights says what it means and means what it says. Nonetheless, some people for whatever reason don't have it in them to shoot another person.

Carrying a firearm for protection is a personal decision and (IMHO) everyone should do some soul-searching before deciding to CCW. Bad guys are really good at deciding who's bluffing.

 

[steelslaver]

BTW, the Constitution does not grant anyone the Right to Bear Arms

The Constitution establishes that this is an existing human right that is not to be infringed upon. In fact the Constitution does very little in the way of "Granting People Rights"

The Constitution is much more of a document that states what the government is allowed to do and less about just what the people are allowed. Plus, many of the governmental restrictions in the US Constitution are only restrictions on the Federal government. Anything NOT established in the Constitution is reserved for the States or the People. In other words a state is still able to mess some stuff up if the people of that state allow it.

Bill of Rights, Amentment10.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

 

[Ziggy2525]

The 14th Amendment and subsequent SCOTUS rulings changed that (as Constitution applies to states and 2A applies to states).

 

[steelslaver]

The 14th Amendment and subsequent SCOTUS rulings changed that (as Constitution applies to states and 2A applies to states).

Actually that is not completely true. It does make everyone a citizen of the US, and grant all the citizens protection under the Constitution

But, it does not prohibit States or the People from making laws that were NOT restricted by the constitution, which is what the 10th is about.

 

[ladder13]

BTW, the Constitution does not grant anyone the Right to Bear Arms

The Constitution establishes that this is an existing human right that is not to be infringed upon. In fact the Constitution does very little in the way of "Granting People Rights"

The Constitution is much more of a document that states what the government is allowed to do and less about just what the people are allowed. Plus, many of the governmental restrictions in the US Constitution are only restrictions on the Federal government. Anything NOT established in the Constitution is reserved for the States or the People. In other words a state is still able to mess some stuff up if the people of that state allow it.

Bill of Rights, Amentment10.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

That's correct. People keep bringing up laws imposed by the states and say "look, your rights can be infringed".

Read the Constitution, know what it says and how it is supposed to work.

We have strayed way too far.

 

[steelslaver]

Liberal vs Conservative

I am a conservative in that I take a very conservative view when reading and interpreting the US Constitution and Amendments. To me it says what it says and things like the Federalist papers pretty well establish the legislative intent of the Framers.

A liberal takes a liberal view of the meaning of these Documents. These days both "conservatives" and "liberals" are taking a very liberal view to support their positions. Those that take the "Living Document" view being the worst of the lot.

 

[Ziggy2525]

Prior to the 14th, the Constitution only applied to the feds, not the states. Unless you're considering the Bill of Rights separate from the Constitution, it specifically recognizes rights of the people. Free Speech. Freedon to Peaceably Assemble. Freedom of Worship. Right of People to be Secure in their Households. Freedom from Double Jeopardy. Yada yada. Those are all rights recognized in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution, so became part of the Constitution.

 

[ladder13]

Liberal vs Conservative

I am a conservative in that I take a very conservative view when reading and interpreting the US Constitution and Amendments. To me it says what it says and things like the Federalist papers pretty well establish the legislative intent of the Framers.

A liberal takes a liberal view of the meaning of these Documents. These days both "conservatives" and "liberals" are taking a very liberal view to support their positions. Those that take the "Living Document" view being the worst of the lot.

The Constitution is brilliant in that it provides a means of changing it, called an Amendment.

The Living, Breathing Document folks know they cannot change the Constitution right now by amending it, they simply do not have the votes required.

What they do have are willing judges.

 

[Donn]

It'll be interesting in the days ahead, should the edict come down from D.C. to see how many here will be lined up to register/turn in their AR's, AK's, and hi-cap auto loading pistols. Then, come to these pages, thumping themselves on the chest as to how they, "did the right thing," and roundly condemn anyone who doesn't comply. No, it's not off topic. It's all under the same umbrella.

 

[delcrossv]

It'll be interesting in the days ahead, should the edict come down from D.C. to see how many here will be lined up to register/turn in their AR's, AK's, and hi-cap auto loading pistols. Then, come to these pages, thumping themselves on the chest as to how they, "did the right thing," and roundly condemn anyone who doesn't comply. No, it's not off topic. It's all under the same umbrella.

"I was just following orders"

 

[dockmurgw]

All the constitutional stuff aside, nothing in the news report indicated that the Pastor or anyone in that church was in imminent risk of bodily harm. It says the Pastor found the perp hiding in the bathroom, and nothing in that news report indicates that the pastor couldn't...or shouldn't...have just walked away and summoned the police that were actively looking for the guy. A very unfortunate and tragic event, and likely very preventable.

 

[BC38]

All the constitutional stuff aside, nothing in the news report indicated that the Pastor or anyone in that church was in imminent risk of bodily harm. It says the Pastor found the perp hiding in the bathroom, and nothing in that news report indicates that the pastor couldn't...or shouldn't...have just walked away and summoned the police that were actively looking for the guy. A very unfortunate and tragic event, and likely very preventable.

Hear HEAR! Well said!
If the pastor was not prepared to shoot the guy he should not have pulled a gun on him. If the guy wasn't presenting an immediate unavoidable threat, retreat and call the cops.
Discretion is the better part of valor and live to fight another day...