Here's Why I Don't Favor Everyone Carrying
- Thread starter biku324
- Start date
- Status
AJ
US Veteran
Obviously! I do not like emoji's, so is there a rule I should use them?
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.
otis24
Member
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????
CalmerThanYou
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2017
- Messages
- 296
- Reaction score
- 578
Adding some new regulation, restriction, or mandatory training exercise to the acquisition of a license we should not require in the first place seems extra burdensome and no doubt ineffective.
Neither the constitution or any of the amendments guarantees anyone the right to vote.
15th prevents denying voting rights because of race creed or color
19th prevents denying vote based on sex
23rd allows vote by residents of Washington DC
26th establish voting age limit at 18
Nowhere does it say everyone gets to vote
You can be denied as a felon, why not because your dumb or have a misdemeanor?
But, then the 2nd prevents the government from infringing on your right to keep and BEAR arms and you lose that if you have a misdemeanor domestic assault. How is a permit not an infringement. I believe you should not need a permit to carry a fully automatic weapons. I am not in favor of everyone doing so however.
15th prevents denying voting rights because of race creed or color
19th prevents denying vote based on sex
23rd allows vote by residents of Washington DC
26th establish voting age limit at 18
Nowhere does it say everyone gets to vote
You can be denied as a felon, why not because your dumb or have a misdemeanor?
But, then the 2nd prevents the government from infringing on your right to keep and BEAR arms and you lose that if you have a misdemeanor domestic assault. How is a permit not an infringement. I believe you should not need a permit to carry a fully automatic weapons. I am not in favor of everyone doing so however.
Hair Trigger
US Veteran
I quoted a portion of your post mainly because it went along with my own thoughts about how I feel that although we are all able to buy, carry and use a gun through our 2A rights, but don't particularly think everyone should exercise the right.
I favor less government intrusion.
I also favor my mother.
I also favor my mother.
crstrode
Member
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?
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
Member
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.
OP
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.
Last edited:
Well, you are entitled to YOUR OPINION. I disagree completely!!
fatcat3
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2016
- Messages
- 476
- Reaction score
- 1,034
AMEN!!!!!!!!
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.
Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed in my Constitutional conservative view, some "gun owners" can think whatever they like.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
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
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,530
- Reaction score
- 3,250
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.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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...
- Status
