Carry Consealed Weapons?

[Turd Ferguson]

Carry Concealed Weapons?

Do you think it should be legal in all states to carry a concealed weapon if you have the proper registration and training?

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Quite group here today. I'll start then.

Some people feel ( and have studies to attribute their opnion ) That if we have an armed citizenship it will actually deter crime. Criminals will not want to commit crimes for fear of getting shot.

My feeling is that it is extreamly unlikely that you would be a victim of a violent crime that would require you to have a gun to prevent. I also feel that if you arm everybody it's asking for trouble. People are human ( regardless of being a law abiding gun owner ) and make errors in judgement especially when angered that can be compounded by haveing a gun in every waking moment.

I understand the constitutional right pro-gunner speak of. I agree that you should have that right to protect your home. I just don't think crime is so bad that it requires us all to arm ourselves.

 

[Y_lifter]

Many states that allow CCW also support/ack other states as well. Not all states honor all others

Reciprocity agreements

Texas and Fla honor each others CCW permits as an example..

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Anit-guns slant on More Guns Less Crime

Pro Gun God John Lott.

 

[sh4dowf4lcon]

yes - like Texas

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Many states that allow CCW also support/ack other states as well. Not all states honor all others

Reciprocity agreements

Texas and Fla honor each others CCW permits as an example..

From the states i've studied the law on, most all of them support reciprocity and have that in the language of the bill. That way you can drive interstate and carry as long as they have it in the law. If not then you just have to lock it up in a box and unload.

 

[Becoming]

It is easy to get here in AZ... a short class and some paper work, along with a small fee I think.... as long as you are not a total scumbag.... I think I am going to go pick mine up tommorrow during lunch...

 

[gtrcivic]

Gun should be like your American Express card.. Never leave home without it....

 

[XBiker]

It's a crime deterrent and I support it.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Gun should be like your American Express card.. Never leave home without it....

I respect your opnion but do you have children? I find it hard to explain to my 11 year old or my baby why Daddy needs to carry a gun around all the time. If I were a cop thats one thing but I think it sets a bad example for children.

I try to teach my children that violence isn't the answer for anything and you always have other options. I realize this is hard to practice but the message is a good one. I honestly don't see how we can tell our kids that violence is o.k. when I say it is.

Why do you feel like you need to carry and do you have a CCW?

 

[Turd Ferguson]

yes - like Texas

Check this out then.

Hypocrocy

 

[biteme]

absolutely. They feared it would turn into the Wild West when they passed the law in TExas. But violent crime actually decreased. When the scum doesn't know if Ur packin heat, they are far less likely to try and rob, kill.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

absolutely. They feared it would turn into the Wild West when they passed the law in TExas. But violent crime actually decreased. When the scum doesn't know if Ur packin heat, they are far less likely to try and rob, kill.

I'm not so sure criminals are packing up and moveing to Missouri because they don't have a CCW yet. I also refute the crime rate statistic. Many reasons contribute to the crime rate decrease or increase. Not just a CCW law. I could argue that the economy is the reason just as well.

 

[digger]

There was a spate of tourists being picked off in Florida because rental cars had identifiable plates, and the criminals knew the locals were likely to be packing. Crime follows the path of least resistance.

(The obvious solution to that is to let the visitors carry as well.)

"Violence never solved anything" is a very simplistic answer. No, violence is not the ideal we long to pursue; yes, we want to build a just society with diversity and tolerance.

But there are lots of people who share your idealism whose genes are not going to be represented in that wonderful new world, because they lacked the means to stop a pit bull, or a sicko who thought their kid's head would make a fun soccer ball.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

There was a spate of tourists being picked off in Florida because rental cars had identifiable plates, and the criminals knew the locals were likely to be packing. Crime follows the path of least resistance.

(The obvious solution to that is to let the visitors carry as well.)

"Violence never solved anything" is a very simplistic answer. No, violence is not the ideal we long to pursue; yes, we want to build a just society with diversity and tolerance.

But there are lots of people who share your idealism whose genes are not going to be represented in that wonderful new world, because they lacked the means to stop a pit bull, or a sicko who thought their kid's head would make a fun soccer ball.

The fact is none of us know how we will react if put into a situation where we have to defend our family or our lives. But my point was with regard to the teaching of children.

If only Frodo could be here with us Digger to help save the world!

 

[Buddy_Christ]

Why do you feel like you need to carry and do you have a CCW?

i served my country for 4 years, i'll carry concealed any time that i want, with no need to explain why. i'm allowed to by the laws that i swore to defend.

that is why.

 

[lucidblue]

Yes, I absolutely believe you should be able to carry a concealed weapon with the proper registration and training.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

i served my country for 4 years, i'll carry concealed any time that i want, with no need to explain why. i'm allowed to by the laws that i swore to defend.

that is why.

Not in the state I live in unless you want to do it illegally. Since you won't talk about it, I just suppose you want to carry because your scared that some gang memebers will jump you and they you can go Rambo all over there asses. Or perhaps you are trying to make up for inadaquacies in other areas. Or you got beat up in highschool all the time and just want to be cool.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

I just suppose you want to carry because your scared that some gang memebers will jump you and they you can go Rambo all over there asses. Or perhaps you are trying to make up for inadaquacies in other areas. Or you got beat up in highschool all the time and just want to be cool.

This isn't how to start off in EF. Don't be a retard pseudo-psych -- it doesn't work.

 

[RottenWillow]

I live in Acworth Ga and the suburb that is immediately ajacent this one, Kennesaw, passed a law about 10 years ago that requires that every household own at least one gun.

Briefly made national news back then.

 

[digger]

The fact is none of us know how we will react if put into a situation where we have to defend our family or our lives. But my point was with regard to the teaching of children.

You teach children by example. You teach them a gun is not a toy. You teach them that killing is not funny make believe. You teach them that there are right and wrong ways to express their anger, that they can do so without hurting people, and that they have the right to defend themselves.

I find it very disquieting that some pacifist adults refuse to learn how to UNLOAD a weapon that they might find discarded.

I find it disturbing that the antigun types will try to keep their kids from hearing the Eddie Eagle safety message ('Stop, don't touch, leave the area, tell and adult') "because it reinforces the idea that guns have a place in our society." The nature of their place in society may be debatable, but denying the fact that guns exist is, quite literally, insane.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

This isn't how to start off in EF. Don't be a retard pseudo-psych -- it doesn't work.

I'll be me and you be you. If the person was going to waste time in my thread maybe they should elaborate on their view.

If not My mind just go wild with the possibilites.

 

[BO-DEN]

Do you think it should be legal in all states to carry a concealed weapon if you have the proper registration and training?

absolutly


BO-DEN

 

[Turd Ferguson]

You teach children by example. You teach them a gun is not a toy. You teach them that killing is not funny make believe. You teach them that there are right and wrong ways to express their anger, that they can do so without hurting people, and that they have the right to defend themselves.

I find it very disquieting that some pacifist adults refuse to learn how to UNLOAD a weapon that they might find discarded.

I find it disturbing that the antigun types will try to keep their kids from hearing the Eddie Eagle safety message ('Stop, don't touch, leave the area, tell and adult') "because it reinforces the idea that guns have a place in our society." The nature of their place in society may be debatable, but denying the fact that guns exist is, quite literally, insane.

I find the same things when it comes to most of the simpletons that apply for CCW's. You know the types i'm sure. But I do agree with you in the part of education of weapons. That IMO is a whole different circumstance then you carrying it around every day. Why not just carry a samari sword then?

 

[Code]

I hope part of the test includes spelling concealed properly.

 

[Sebby]

I understand why people would want to. I think it is just asking for trouble. How can you determine who has the maturity, and self control to use it only in a case of emergency. I say move to Canada and forget about it.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I hope part of the test includes spelling concealed properly.

I hope so too. I'd flunk I guess.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I understand why people would want to. I think it is just asking for trouble. How can you determine who has the maturity, and self control to use it only in a case of emergency. I say move to Canada and forget about it.

Good point. All you have to do is take an 8 hr class and have a fairly clean record. They do some screening, like you can't have a current order's of protection, be a felon etc. But that dosen't test the judgement and basically is like the honnor system with guns.

 

[Tiervexx]

I noticed something about gun control debates. Pro gun people list evidence to support their claims. Pro gun control only try to discredit the pro gun evidence because they don’t seem to be able to find any evidence to support their own claims.

 

[hardrock]

I'm all for it. maybe make them take a psyche test as well if that helps ease peoples minds.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I noticed something about gun control debates. Pro gun people list evidence to support their claims. Pro gun control only try to discredit the pro gun evidence because they don’t seem to be able to find any evidence to support their own claims.

I've seen it from both sides acutally. Were you speaking of a claim I made specifically or were you just generalizing?

 

[atlantabiolab]

Problems encountered in this debate are:

1. The idea that if CCW laws are implemented, then the extreme scenario of all individuals will carry a gun will ensue.

This slippery slope argument is false, since we know that all homes do not have a gun, even with the legality of gun ownership. These same individuals would not carry a gun even in the case of CCW laws.

2. The idea of rights vs. "costs/benefits" analysis.

The pro-gun/anti-gun debate is very much centered around the idea of "proving" that guns in the hands of individuals "harm" society or "help" society. This whole debate misses the very nature of the 2nd Amendment, which entails "the RIGHT to bear arms...".

Rights are innate, inherent claims man has on his person and his efforts, that are boundaries protecting him from becoming another individual or group's "means to an end". Man has a right to defend himself and his property by reasonable means (thus nuclear weapon ownership is invalidated, since its use would infringe upon the rights of neighbors). It matters not that other members of society act in violation of law, with the use of a gun, as the law is designed to punish this type of action; this does not argue for the restriction of rightful possession of property.

There is no moral argument for the denial of men from protecting themselves through reasonable means.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Problems encountered in this debate are:

1. The idea that if CCW laws are implemented, then the extreme scenario of all individuals will carry a gun will ensue.

This slippery slope argument is false, since we know that all homes do not have a gun, even with the legality of gun ownership. These same individuals would not carry a gun even in the case of CCW laws.

2. The idea of rights vs. "costs/benefits" analysis.

The pro-gun/anti-gun debate is very much centered around the idea of "proving" that guns in the hands of individuals "harm" society or "help" society. This whole debate misses the very nature of the 2nd Amendment, which entails "the RIGHT to bear arms...".

Rights are innate, inherent claims man has on his person and his efforts, that are boundaries protecting him from becoming another individual or group's "means to an end". Man has a right to defend himself and his property by reasonable means (thus nuclear weapon ownership is invalidated, since its use would infringe upon the rights of neighbors). It matters not that other members of society act in violation of law, with the use of a gun, as the law is designed to punish this type of action; this does not argue for the restriction of rightful possession of property.

There is no moral argument for the denial of men from protecting themselves through reasonable means.

But is it reasonalbe to carry a gun on one's person when we have a police force and the likelyhood of you actually being in a position to need to use a gun to protect yourself is very very slim.

 

[collegiateLifter]

I think a large problem with CCW is that most people are douchebags.

So if I'm on the street packin or otherwise and some guy comes up behind to rob me, some vigilante might see this and pull his gun out and shoot me in the face and kill me.

 

[digger]

But is it reasonalbe to carry a gun on one's person when we have a police force

...who are not legally required to protect any individual citizen. Someone once tried to sue the local police for failure to protect them (they already had an order of protection, etc; called the cops and they never showed up) -- the court said, "oops, sorry, the cops just protect people in general. You get NO guarantee that they will protect YOU. None."

If you live out in the sticks, a lot can happen in a half hour. Maybe longer.

and the likelyhood of you actually being in a position to need to use a gun to protect yourself is very very slim.

The odds of you being born were slim -- literally billions of sperm to one -- but here you are.

You can fill up a pretty good sized monthly magazine with reports of bad guys armed with knives and clubs as well as the occasional gun, being driven off not by shots fired, but simply by the good guy showing a gun.

By the way -- many pro-defense people (including me) see it as a failure when the trigger has to be pulled; you should stay aware of your surroundings and never let things get to the point you have to shoot your way out.

We're not talking about movies here, okay?

 

[atlantabiolab]

But is it reasonalbe to carry a gun on one's person when we have a police force and the likelyhood of you actually being in a position to need to use a gun to protect yourself is very very slim.

It is reasonable if I so choose to have one, as I have every moral right to self-defense. Police are not a right and as Digger pointed out, not required to "prevent" any harm that may befall me.

There is no reasonable argument against me having a gun, only the fear-mongering used by anti-gun nuts who feel that their safety hinges on a defenseless society; not a society where criminals are devoid of weapons, but one where the law-abiding citizens are prevented from gun ownership. I do not argue that my world is more safe with more guns, for I am not concerned with the empirical evidence, which may prove to be true, possibly false; my argument is founded on my "right" of protection.

 

[Hangfire]

I try to teach my children that violence isn't the answer for anything and you always have other options. I realize this is hard to practice but the message is a good one.

What are those other options when your life or your safety are being threatened? Reason? Capitulation? Neither is a very good idea.

 

[boscoe wilson]

Gun should be like your American Express card.. Never leave home without it....

I live in a state where this is legal as well.

 

[Island Son]

if everyone has a concealed weapon permit there must be mandatory shooting practice every year or lose the permit.
oh and like Chris Rock said, make bullets $5000 each
or make all "consumer guns" non-reloadable

 

[manny78]

Re: Carry Concealed Weapons?

Do you think it should be legal in all states to carry a concealed weapon if you have the proper registration and training?

It is a right granted by the Constitution and by natural law, so any laws, by-laws or BS trying to limit this, is unconstitutionnal and against human nature.

 

[digger]

Nice avatar: "If repulsor rays are outlawed, only outlaws will have repulsor rays."

I'm pro-choice. If you have the gun, you can still choose not to use it; you can still try talking, or running away, or using your fists.

"But you can't afford to lose a fist fight when there's a gun there!" True; that gives you a lot more incentive to avoid fights in the first place. (See earlier thread from a guy who didn't beat the crap out of a couple of other guys, because they might have been packing. I said it then: "That's how it's supposed to work.")

If all the alternatives come out crap, though, it's unAmerican for a politician to tell a citizen to lie down and die. "It's for the greater good! We'll catch that criminal and put him in jail, and even though you're dead, you can die with a clear conscience because you obeyed the law."

That's not the greater good. Stopping that rapist, thug, or murderer from completing his crime is the greater good.

 

[Buddy_Christ]

Originally posted by Turd Ferguson Not in the state I live in unless you want to do it illegally. Since you won't talk about it, I just suppose you want to carry because your scared that some gang memebers will jump you and they you can go Rambo all over there asses. Or perhaps you are trying to make up for inadaquacies in other areas. Or you got beat up in highschool all the time and just want to be cool.

Originally posted by Deus Ex Machina This isn't how to start off in EF. Don't be a retard pseudo-psych -- it doesn't work.

Dues Ex, you said it right. i feel compelled not to waste my time, but i guess i will.

are you finished? well then, allow me to retort......

scared that gang members are going to beat me up? no, that thought has never crossed my mind. i don't live with fear. do me a favor and tell me what fear is, because honestly, i don't know.

go rambo on their asses? if i wanted to be "Rambo" i'd go back into the Marine Corps, but i have no desire to. I've got too much going for me right now to go back in, whether there is a war going on right now or not. i've done my time, and if they need me back, i'll go back willingly. but since i have no desire to go back into the Marine Corps, that doesn't make me any less of a man.

beat up in high school a lot? sorry, you got me wrong there. thinking about your own life maybe?

inadaquacies in other areas? i'm a MAN. i know that not because of how i look physically, but because of what's INSIDE of me. i don't hide behind the anonymity of the internet and try to start flame wars because no one knows who i am. THAT is a sign being inadequate in "other areas," and you are displaying that all by yourself, don't need any help from me. being a MAN comes from what's inside, not on the outside. i'm VERY proud of who i am. no need to make up for it in other areas.

some day you too will grow up and become a man. until then, have a nice life.

 

[biteme]

I recall a case in Dallas a few years back. A tough guy got out of his truck because he was pissed at another motorist because of the way he was driving. The tough guy reached through the other drivers window and grabbed and him and starting punching. The other driver reached into his glove compartment, pulled out a pistol and blew the dumbass away. He was not indicted, it was considered self defense as well it should have been. He had a license to carry the gun.

 

[Taps]

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of every yahoo packing heat, but at the same time I think people have a right to defend themselves.

I figure it's better to have a gun and not need one, than need a gun and not have one. Honestly, if it were legal to carry where I live I'd do it.

 

[gtrcivic]

I respect your opnion but do you have children? I find it hard to explain to my 11 year old or my baby why Daddy needs to carry a gun around all the time. If I were a cop thats one thing but I think it sets a bad example for children.

I try to teach my children that violence isn't the answer for anything and you always have other options. I realize this is hard to practice but the message is a good one. I honestly don't see how we can tell our kids that violence is o.k. when I say it is.

Why do you feel like you need to carry and do you have a CCW?

Whats so hard to explain to your kids??? Think it will be harder for your wife to explain to your kids why daddy got robbed and killed if that happens one day

Remember the Lubys Cafe shooting in Texas ?? Well the lady who saw both her parents get gunned down in front of her and others while out eating was so upset that she left her gun in her car. If she had it on her, she could have stopped the carnage that was happening.

What about the guy in Kalifornia who shot up the Mickey D's with an AK-47 killing several kids and others...maybe a CCW holder could have intervened and prevented further carnage.

And you say cops are here to protect you/us??? Well where the heck were they They can't protect every single one of us, so its up to you to protect yourself. LEO's are never there when you really need them, but always around when you don't need them......

Alot of CCW owners are not the ones that are out starting fights , but the ones that walk away to keep things from escalating.

 

[Becoming]

If all the alternatives come out crap, though, it's unAmerican for a politician to tell a citizen to lie down and die. "It's for the greater good! We'll catch that criminal and put him in jail, and even though you're dead, you can die with a clear conscience because you obeyed the law."

That's not the greater good. Stopping that rapist, thug, or murderer from completing his crime is the greater good.

Awesome post- first time I agree with digger

Originally posted by gtrcivic
What about the guy in Kalifornia who shot up the Mickey D's with an AK-47 killing several kids and others...maybe a CCW holder could have intervened and prevented further carnage.

Exactly... bu then again this might be empowering the citizens... and we all know how some of you feel about that...

 

[Turd Ferguson]

If all the alternatives come out crap, though, it's unAmerican for a politician to tell a citizen to lie down and die. "It's for the greater good! We'll catch that criminal and put him in jail, and even though you're dead, you can die with a clear conscience because you obeyed the law."

I agree to a certain extent. I'm not saying to ban guns. I just don't think CCW is required. Keep your guns in your house.

As far as us all being vigilanties and the judge, jury, and executioner for each confrontation were not trained for that and really I don't necessarily trust the world to do that job.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I agree to a certain extent. I'm not saying to ban guns. I just don't think CCW is required. Keep your guns in your house.

As far as us all being vigilanties and the judge, jury, and executioner for each confrontation were not trained for that and really I don't necessarily trust the world to do that job.

Your whole belief system and arguments are against all empirical evidence. Please show us the evidence that in areas which allow CCW that your scenarios form.

Because you can rationalize extreme situations does not mean that reality supports these ideas.

 

[manny78]

Your whole belief system and arguments are against all empirical evidence. Please show us the evidence that in areas which allow CCW that your scenarios form.

Because you can rationalize extreme situations does not mean that reality supports these ideas.

Veront is actually the safest place in the US, and they have no CCW licensing system. ANyone with no criminal record or no mental disease can conceal carry a handgun/SMG/shotgun.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Your whole belief system and arguments are against all empirical evidence. Please show us the evidence that in areas which allow CCW that your scenarios form.

Because you can rationalize extreme situations does not mean that reality supports these ideas.

I'm not trying to change the laws set out by the constitutions of the states. The gun lobby is.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I'm not trying to change the laws set out by the constitutions of the states. The gun lobby is.

I am only replying to your posts concerning the idea that CCW laws lead to "Wild West" scenarios. No evidence exists to support this.

 

[XBiker]

I am only replying to your posts concerning the idea that CCW laws lead to "Wild West" scenarios. No evidence exists to support this.

It's official.

ATLBL actually has some common sense on one issue.

Now, we just need to have you work on the rest.

 

[collegiateLifter]

Problems encountered in this debate are:


2. The idea of rights vs. "costs/benefits" analysis.

The pro-gun/anti-gun debate is very much centered around the idea of "proving" that guns in the hands of individuals "harm" society or "help" society. This whole debate misses the very nature of the 2nd Amendment, which entails "the RIGHT to bear arms...".

Rights are innate, inherent claims man has on his person and his efforts, that are boundaries protecting him from becoming another individual or group's "means to an end". Man has a right to defend himself and his property by reasonable means...

some rights you may say are innate, such as life liberty and pursuit of hapiness. As well as self defense.

The right to bear arms is not an innate right but rather a derrivative right.

Ultimately it is up to the people to decide then what constitutes reasonable means of self protection. It does not neccessarily follow that the right to have arms in your house guarantees a right to arms anywhere.

 

[Hangfire]

The right to bear arms is not an innate right but rather a derrivative right.

Not according to the Bill Of Rights. Refer to Amendment 2.

 

[atlantabiolab]

some rights you may say are innate, such as life liberty and pursuit of hapiness. As well as self defense.

The right to bear arms is not an innate right but rather a derrivative right.

Ultimately it is up to the people to decide then what constitutes reasonable means of self protection. It does not neccessarily follow that the right to have arms in your house guarantees a right to arms anywhere.

Correct, and the Founders established this very early in the Constitution, that this derivative was not to be infringed.

Seems to me that all laws regulating gun possession are nothing more than "infringements" on this liberty.

 

[collegiateLifter]

Correct, and the Founders established this very early in the Constitution, that this derivative was not to be infringed.

Seems to me that all laws regulating gun possession are nothing more than "infringements" on this liberty.

Not quite so simple though.


If we put it in context, the right to bear arms was largely included in the bill of rights to secure a free state.

Or you could argue its derivative from the self defense right.

In the latter, people could argue that it is unreasonable to need to defend yourself with a gun.

The former as well presents a whole whost of problems.

-------

As a side note do you think violent criminals should have the right to bear concealed uzis and the like?

 

[atlantabiolab]

Not quite so simple though.


If we put it in context, the right to bear arms was largely included in the bill of rights to secure a free state.

It was placed in the Bill of Rights, because it was considered so necessary that it must be codified in writing that the Federal Government would be restrained from infringing upon this right. Do not misconstrue the Constitution as a right "granting" document, it is a power constraining document.

Or you could argue its derivative from the self defense right.

In the latter, people could argue that it is unreasonable to need to defend yourself with a gun.

The former as well presents a whole whost of problems.

What you are presenting is simply that, arguments, rationalizations, obfuscations, and not the essence of what the Founders implied with their very straightforward wording. Washington, Jefferson, Madison all wrote about the value of arms, as a means of defense, personal and collectively.

As a side note do you think violent criminals should have the right to bear concealed uzis and the like?

No. It is reasonable to deprive men of certain rights, once they have proven themselves to be threats to society, they have demonstrated that as freemen they do not feel bound to the codes of moral conduct which are necessary for the security of individual and collective interactions. Freedom can be infringed upon when you, individually, show a disregard for the liberty of others.

As for the idea of carrying an Uzi, if you are not a violent offender, I see it as no more offensive than seeing military men in airports with rifles. Also remember that just because government may not abridge the rights of individuals, this is not the case of private establishments, so one who decides to carry his Uzi everywhere will soon find that he is not allowed to enter into too many locations. But if the scenario is one of concealed, then I guess I would be oblivious to this action, and probably have been oblivious to people who have done this very thing in the past.

 

[Silent Method]

My feeling is that it is extreamly unlikely that you would be a victim of a violent crime that would require you to have a gun to prevent.

#1. In America, the 2.5 million people per year who use firearms to halt a violent crime (FBI statistics), without even firing a shot mind you, would disagree. There are many more who use firearms, having fired them, that stop violent crimes as well.

#2. The RIGHT to BEAR arms is not contingant on one's status as a criminal target.

 

[collegiateLifter]

It was placed in the Bill of Rights, because it was considered so necessary that it must be codified in writing that the Federal Government would be restrained from infringing upon this right. Do not misconstrue the Constitution as a right "granting" document, it is a power constraining document.

I am not sure where you are going with that last line but it is incorrect.

The original Constitution was in fact designed as a way to describe the limmitted powers of government. Jefferson and others wouldn't sign on until they got the gaurantee of a Bill of rights granting and designating rights to citizens of the US. That was the point of the Bill of Rights, to list the rights of the people.

What you are presenting is simply that, arguments, rationalizations, obfuscations, and not the essence of what the Founders implied with their very straightforward wording. Washington, Jefferson, Madison all wrote about the value of arms, as a means of defense, personal and collectively.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Only mentions security of the state.
I have read reports by political analysts at the Founding and they too advised for right to bear arms so that citizens could secure themselves against governmental tyranny. I have not read about Jefferson and Madison advocating other positions as well. If they have (and i would be interested in reading articles on them) then that opens a whole other can of worms, but atleast it opens it.

Freedom can be infringed upon when you, individually, show a disregard for the liberty of others.

you are walking a tight rope here in that you can now deprive a man of an inaleinable right once he has broken his contract with society. In effect if having a gun is neccessary to ones personal security, then you are advocating a type of Clockwork Orange scenario where offenders can become eternally unable to defend themselves.

Not neccessarily totally wrong thinking, but something to consider.

 

[Buddy_Christ]

i think the biggest thing that's forgotten when it comes to owning guns is this -

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE! PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!

i have yet to see, hear, or read of an instance where a gun loaded itself, levitated, aimed, and fired a shot at somebody. the laws we have about purchasing and owning guns are farily good. however, anyone can obtain a gun through illegial sources. that's where the real problem lies.

 

[WalkingBeast]

There was a spate of tourists being picked off in Florida because rental cars had identifiable plates, and the criminals knew the locals were likely to be packing. Crime follows the path of least resistance.

(The obvious solution to that is to let the visitors carry as well.)

"Violence never solved anything" is a very simplistic answer. No, violence is not the ideal we long to pursue; yes, we want to build a just society with diversity and tolerance.

But there are lots of people who share your idealism whose genes are not going to be represented in that wonderful new world, because they lacked the means to stop a pit bull, or a sicko who thought their kid's head would make a fun soccer ball.

......... I thought the soccer ball thing was just between us? Last time I tell you anything man.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I am not sure where you are going with that last line but it is incorrect.

The original Constitution was in fact designed as a way to describe the limmitted powers of government. Jefferson and others wouldn't sign on until they got the gaurantee of a Bill of rights granting and designating rights to citizens of the US. That was the point of the Bill of Rights, to list the rights of the people.

Simply because they demanded to have the most valuable rights of man enumerated in the Bill of Rights does not mean that the document is a "right granting" document. The Founders were adherents to the concept of Natural Law, this would be antithetical to their beliefs. They simply wanted a codification of those rights which government could NOT infringe upon. The Declaration of Independence states plainly "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" not granted by government.

This demand was due to the Anti-Federalist's fear of Madison's early Constitution, which did not enumerate the limitations of the Federal government.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Only mentions security of the state.
I have read reports by political analysts at the Founding and they too advised for right to bear arms so that citizens could secure themselves against governmental tyranny. I have not read about Jefferson and Madison advocating other positions as well. If they have (and i would be interested in reading articles on them) then that opens a whole other can of worms, but atleast it opens it.

Too often people misconceive the Constitutional Convention as a great event where decisions where made unanimously, no dissent occuring. This is far from the truth. The Federalists were more imperialists than libertarians. Madison and Hamilton favored the idea of a strong central government and a military empire to rival that of England and France, while Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists were the state's rights advocates, they favored a weaker federal government and greater power of the individual. The Federalists wished to maintain a constant standing army, while the Anti-Federalists fearing the trouble that this persented, forced a compromise with the idea of the 2nd Amendment. The right of the people to maintain arms would be protected to ensure the formation of militias in times of war.

you are walking a tight rope here in that you can now deprive a man of an inaleinable right once he has broken his contract with society.

This is done all the time, it is called prison.

In effect if having a gun is neccessary to ones personal security, then you are advocating a type of Clockwork Orange scenario where offenders can become eternally unable to defend themselves.

I never stated that a gun was "necessary" for personal protection, merely that it was a reasonable means of personal protection and thus a viable option. No one HAS to own a gun, but no one can force society to relinquish this right.