Carry Permit?

[ToneGrail]

As a productive member of society that who.

If you were walking down the street and saw someone getting ready to walk out in front of a speeding truck, would you try to stop them so they would not get killed, or would you say...."Hay, who am I to tell them not to cross the street or where and when they can walk?".

Don't you think we should stick together and look out for each other? Or is it Ok with you as long as you have your CCW you could not care less if a few very stupid people across town are shooting their feet off or killing a few people around them because just maybe they were not ready to have a CCW?

How about if the person who can't handle the gun/CCW lives next door to you. And because of their stupidity and their inability of handling a gun they end up shooting one of your family members because they were outside walking up and down your street showing your other neighbors how fast they can draw like the old gun singers do on TV?

You either have a very vivid imagination or watch too much TV. Such cases are few and far between.

 

[Mason-Dixon Baseball]

The same could be said for some drivers. Do we prohibit them from obtaining licenses?

Actually we do-- it's called driver's education and the driver's license exam.... not really a good argument....

Everone has rights, but sometimes those rights must be verified... For instance any American 35 or older that can prove they were born in the US or it's holdings can run for President................ uhhh wait a minute ...scratch that....

 

[Mason-Dixon Baseball]

Just curious (not trying to provoke an argument)--- did the Hollywood shootout guys--up until the point of the shootout--- have their guns legally? I know it's a little different issue than CCW, but just curious...

 

[HardHatMan]

Just curious (not trying to provoke an argument)--- did the Hollywood shootout guys--up until the point of the shootout--- have their guns legally? I know it's a little different issue than CCW, but just curious...

I'm not sure if they purchased the guns legally but I recall them being modified illegally. They were originally semi autos that were modified to shoot full auto.

 

[HardHatMan]

Actually we do-- it's called driver's education and the driver's license exam.... not really a good argument....

Everone has rights, but sometimes those rights must be verified... For instance any American 35 or older that can prove they were born in the US or it's holdings can run for President................ uhhh wait a minute ...scratch that....

Could you point out where in the constitution it says that? Thanks.

 

[Mason-Dixon Baseball]

Could you point out where in the constitution it says that? Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

I know it's Wiki, but it's quick.....

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

[HardHatMan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

I know it's Wiki, but it's quick.....

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

My bad, I didn't mean the part about the president, I meant just the part in bold:

Everone has rights, but sometimes those rights must be verified...

Referring specifically to the 2A.

 

[ToneGrail]

Actually we do-- it's called driver's education and the driver's license exam.... not really a good argument....

Everone has rights, but sometimes those rights must be verified... For instance any American 35 or older that can prove they were born in the US or it's holdings can run for President................ uhhh wait a minute ...scratch that....

I meant to say drivers who already have licenses. Do we let some bureaucrat arbitrarily revoke their driving priveleges because he deems them of "unfit moral character"? If we did there would be a lot less people on the road today.

 

[HardHatMan]

I meant to say drivers who already have licenses. Do we let some bureaucrat arbitrarily revoke their driving priveleges because he deems them of "unfit moral character"? If we did there would be a lot less people on the road today.

Using driving and getting driving licenses is a bad example when talking 2A rights. Driving is not a constitutional right, it's a privilege granted by the state you live in.

 

[ToneGrail]

Using driving and getting driving licenses is a bad example when talking 2A rights. Driving is not a constitutional right, it's a privilege granted by the state you live in.

Yeah, but my point is that most people would go ape shit if you even suggest arbitrarily restricting someone's right to drive based on some bureaucrat's subjective opinion of their character and driving isn't even a right. On the other hand, they have no problem arbitrarily restricting someone from carrying a firearm, which is a right.

 

[04RWon]

You all are crazy, the U.S. Constitution has NOTHING to do with todays society. I cant believe they still teach it in schools....it has very little revlence to our current laws and system. And you dern gun nuts need to relax, only the Military and Police need guns, and they are here to protect us. All you need is your cell phone, you know the lifeline that you cant peel away from your ear while driving(which is against the law but its no big deal to break that one) and in a matter of minutes the Police will be to your aid. Maybe then youll understand that if we take guns away that crime will stop completely. Then a crook will never be able to walk into a gunshop and purchase a firearm to rob someone.

 

[Dead Eye]

You all are crazy, the U.S. Constitution has NOTHING to do with todays society. I cant believe they still teach it in schools....it has very little revlence to our current laws and system. And you dern gun nuts need to relax, only the Military and Police need guns, and they are here to protect us. All you need is your cell phone, you know the lifeline that you cant peel away from your ear while driving(which is against the law but its no big deal to break that one) and in a matter of minutes the Police will be to your aid. Maybe then youll understand that if we take guns away that crime will stop completely. Then a crook will never be able to walk into a gunshop and purchase a firearm to rob someone.

He says, VERY sarcastically...

 

[Mason-Dixon Baseball]

I think I've found the 'sticking point' or semantics or whatever you want to call it----- this is directly from from NRA literature--- " (the NRA) ...stands directly behind the premise that lawful ownership of firearms must not be denied American citizens of GOOD REPUTE."

Now the question is how is "GOOD REPUTE" fairly and safely defined?

 

[Dead Eye]

I think I've found the 'sticking point' or semantics or whatever you want to call it----- this is directly from from NRA literature--- " (the NRA) ...stands directly behind the premise that lawful ownership of firearms must not be denied American citizens of GOOD REPUTE."

Now the question is how is "GOOD REPUTE" fairly and safely defined?

Our society can no longer make that distinction. Previous generations used the Bible as the standard for that definition.

 

[04RWon]

He says, VERY sarcastically...

And I put the crack pipe down

 

[HardHatMan]

I think I've found the 'sticking point' or semantics or whatever you want to call it----- this is directly from from NRA literature--- " (the NRA) ...stands directly behind the premise that lawful ownership of firearms must not be denied American citizens of GOOD REPUTE."

Now the question is how is "GOOD REPUTE" fairly and safely defined?

Responding to the statement in bold: That is the problem. Can we trust the lawmakers to deem someone of good repute? This is where the "elitism" from politicians come into play. They think they know what's best for us citizens. The only requirement for lawful ownership of a gun should be "a US citizen". If you have read through this whole thread, you probably have caught my gist of how I think things should work when it comes to the second amendment .

 

[booker]

Arizona as well

No blood in the streets

hmm

 

[booker]

Why does population matter when you are talking about crime rates as in per capita? And there are probably at least 10 states that allow open carry on top of those who allow concealed carry without having to buy a permit. Basically your right to legally own a gun is your carry permit. And yes they have low crime rates, go figure?

And if your leaning toward the urban areas have higher crime rates thing, there's data regarding firearms and crime rates for those areas as well. The more restrictive the carry laws, the higher the crime rates. It may not be true in every single case, but it's pretty overwhelmingly apparent what the trend is.

He's connecting population density with crime rates, which is valid.

 

[swinokur]

Quote:
Originally Posted by swinokur
Arizona as well

No blood in the streets

hmm

ONE deranged nut case doesn't represent blood in the streets. This could have occurred anywhere, including states with draconian gun control laws.

It would be disingenuous for anyone to use the Giffords shooting as a reason not to have constitutional carry.

If that was the point of your post...

 

[booker]

If that was the point of your post...

Just an observation, no "point" being made.