Goodbye 2nd Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by Al:

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Barnhart:
Besides, it includes fingerprinting and records, not just background check.
I am a gun rights proponent. I fail to understand why providing information to the government, like fingerprinting or identification is a problem. The government is protecting the rights/safety of other citizens by requiring this information(It states in the U.S.Constitution that a pupose [of the Constitution] is to promote the general welfare.
Al,

You are reading the Consitution the way its supposed to be read, not by current interpretation. Now its give away welfare to buy votes as the guiding principle. And giving the government information is dangerous due to the fact that 4th amendemnt freedoms are being decimated and before long one has no privacy rights at all.

when a tyrant takes over, the first thing that goes is gun rights. An unarmed populace is a manageable populace.

Dan
 
It’s sad to see so many people fall into the “reasonable compromise” and “public safety” traps.

Background checks were put in place to deter criminals. Where’s the data showing that criminals who wish to posses firearms are significantly deterred by background checks and find it difficult to obtain guns and commit crimes with guns? No data? Well, who even believes it?

CCW permits are supposed to increase public safety. How? Is someone intent on committing a crime with a gun going to be deterred because they don’t have a permit to carry a gun concealed? Who believes that?

Currently, many States still recognize the people’s right to bear arms openly or concealed when in their house or on their own property. Why should people be forced to give up that right and exchange it for a paid, deniable, revocable, limited privilege when they get into their car or walk away from their house? Very few people in our country shoot their neighbors. Is the average gun owner considered safe around the house, but a great threat to the public when not at home?

As far as the general welfare argument, I suggest it only applies to rights not specifically covered in the document. Everyone who thinks you can use the general welfare clause to limit free speech stand up.

Quite simply, CCW permits and background checks are unreasonable because the proposed reasons to have them fail a logical common sense test.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Brian Barnhart:
It’s sad to see so many people fall into the “reasonable compromise” and “public safety” traps.

Background checks were put in place to deter criminals. Where’s the data showing that criminals who wish to posses firearms are significantly deterred by background checks and find it difficult to obtain guns and commit crimes with guns? No data? Well, who even believes it?

CCW permits are supposed to increase public safety. How? Is someone intent on committing a crime with a gun going to be deterred because they don’t have a permit to carry a gun concealed? Who believes that?

Currently, many States still recognize the people’s right to bear arms openly or concealed when in their house or on their own property. Why should people be forced to give up that right and exchange it for a paid, deniable, revocable, limited privilege when they get into their car or walk away from their house? Very few people in our country shoot their neighbors. Is the average gun owner considered safe around the house, but a great threat to the public when not at home?

As far as the general welfare argument, I suggest it only applies to rights not specifically covered in the document. Everyone who thinks you can use the general welfare clause to limit free speech stand up.

Quite simply, CCW permits and background checks are unreasonable because the proposed reasons to have them fail a logical common sense test.


Well-its obvious that we fail to convince each other here.
grin.gif
grin.gif
grin.gif
.

But I feel very uncomfortable with folks not trained in the proper use and safety of a weapon with CCW. When I go to a gun store I invarably see a prospective gun buyer take the gun from the clerk and in the process or taking it will position it to look at it. Unknowingly (surprise-surprise) the business end of the weapon will be pointed at the clerk. It happens every time. I really don't want to be in a McDonalds with the likes of those chuckleheads. The thought of that new gun owner with a cocked and locked 1911 scares the daylights out of me.

And this " Is the average gun owner considered safe around the house, but a great threat to the public when not at home?"..A home defense weapon is many more times likely to kill a family member by accident or otherwise. Again I'm not sure I trust that person next to me in McDonalds. ... Guess I can stop going to McDonalds
smile.gif
smile.gif
 
well, i agree with al 100%. education and training make weapons many times safer. ccw is one way to achieve this.

the problem with any scheme, such as ccw, is obviously with the people who bypass the process.

the other thing about ccw (at least in michigan) is that if you are divorced, your spouse can get a "restraining order" fairly easily and you lose your ccw for the duration. there is a lot of stuff that goes along with ccw. if you get pulled over and don't declare you're screwed, and if you do declare you may make the officer "nervous."

of course, i don't own a weapon, because of its inevitable use, most likely while driving to work.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Brian Barnhart:
It’s sad to see so many people fall into the “reasonable compromise” and “public safety” traps.

Background checks were put in place to deter criminals. Where’s the data showing that criminals who wish to posses firearms are significantly deterred by background checks and find it difficult to obtain guns and commit crimes with guns? No data? Well, who even believes it?

CCW permits are supposed to increase public safety. How? Is someone intent on committing a crime with a gun going to be deterred because they don’t have a permit to carry a gun concealed? Who believes that?

Currently, many States still recognize the people’s right to bear arms openly or concealed when in their house or on their own property. Why should people be forced to give up that right and exchange it for a paid, deniable, revocable, limited privilege when they get into their car or walk away from their house? Very few people in our country shoot their neighbors. Is the average gun owner considered safe around the house, but a great threat to the public when not at home?

As far as the general welfare argument, I suggest it only applies to rights not specifically covered in the document. Everyone who thinks you can use the general welfare clause to limit free speech stand up.

Quite simply, CCW permits and background checks are unreasonable because the proposed reasons to have them fail a logical common sense test.


First, while "safety" is often misused to abridge gun rights, there are some legitimate safety concerns. I've seen people at the training classes who have no prior experience and their poor gun handling skills are a threat to others. Also at these classes are people with fine gun handling skills but who don't understand the lawful use of deadly force. They too are a threat to others.

It is a well documented fact that CCW permits increase public safety by reducing crime. Of course it's not the permits that reduce crime, but rather that the CCW permit process increases the number of people who are armed, proficient with firearms, and understand the lawful use of deadly force.

You compare to free speech and that is a great example. Libel, slander, fighting words, and obscenity are illegal, in the name of the general welfare. Yet nobody claims this impairs free speech.
 
quote:

Originally posted by msparks:

quote:

Originally posted by Chris B.:
We were just talking at the gun shop the other day about if the government tried to go door to door taking away the peoples guns it would cause a civil war and a lot of people would die. Americans are different then any body else, you just don't walk up to the front door and say "hand em' over" if you want to keep you head and the govenment knows this.

Um the left is much smarter than that. Do you believe that the other countries just handed their guns over?? No, the first instilled a very very liberal government, in schools and other aspects of human development(Social Programs) Therefore about 90% of the population is so brainwashed in to thinking from the left that they will gladly give up thier rights to self protection,(becuase the government will do it for us).

If you look to Australia, yes they had a lot of gun owners too. But did you see people out killing each other before they handed in their guns?? Most Americans are law abiding citizens, when the time is right(about 80% liberal) they will just pass a law and all but a few will gladly turn in their guns. This will happen even fast when the legalize illegal immigration.

I feel this is truley the downslide of the USA. 200+ years is a good record, but we will have a demise "FROM THE EMEMY WITHIN"


Problem with Australia was that it was our CONSERVATIVE party that brought in the new regime as far as gun control goes.

As to conspiracies, they DID have legislation waiting in the wings for a tragedy that they could pin it to. Not necessarily a conspiracy, but manipulation of the public certainly.

Still, gun related crime is up, security guards are being robbed for their sidearms every week, there is 5 month old gang war through the suburbs of Sydney.
 
quote:

A home defense weapon is many more times likely to kill a family member by accident or otherwise.

What exactly do you mean? A defense gun is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder when an intruder is in the house? I doubt there’s much data to support that.

Perhaps you mean a defense gun is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder when an intruder is not in the house. That I’ll buy. Unfortunately, accidents will happen. And in a few cases, people kill other family members intentionally. But who thinks background checks and CCW permits will stop that?

quote:

Again I'm not sure I trust that person next to me in McDonalds. ... Guess I can stop going to McDonalds

You trust him not to run over you in the parking lot. What makes you think he’s more likely to gun you down in the store?

quote:

It is a well documented fact that CCW permits increase public safety by reducing crime. Of course it's not the permits that reduce crime, but rather that the CCW permit process increases the number of people who are armed, proficient with firearms, and understand the lawful use of deadly force.

I believe it would be more accurate to say that crime is reduced when people can carry. Any significant crime reduction results from the presence and/or use of guns. Or from the deterrent effect of people possibly having and using guns against wrong doers. The permit and the permit process itself has very little to do with reducing crime. Training, while beneficial, can only reduce the number of accidents and misuses.

quote:

You compare to free speech and that is a great example. Libel, slander, fighting words, and obscenity are illegal, in the name of the general welfare. Yet nobody claims this impairs free speech.

Laws against murder and assault doesn’t impair the 2nd amendment either. But CCW permits do.

quote:

I've seen people at the training classes who have no prior experience and their poor gun handling skills are a threat to others. Also at these classes are people with fine gun handling skills but who don't understand the lawful use of deadly force. They too are a threat to others.

Prossibly true. But are those perceived threats and possible dangers greater than the actual violence and real dangers touching people’s lives every day? Seems to me there's no good reason to give up a protected right in exchange for a conditional privilege that might offer an alleged increase in safety that a few hours of training may or may not provide.
 
"Bob you just said you have been a NRA member for 20 years?" ChrisB

"No I didn't but I did make a bad by not crediting the source of that statement. I have never been an NRA member but 47HO has." Bob Woods
 
quote:

Originally posted by Brian Barnhart:
Seems to me there's no good reason to give up a protected right in exchange for a conditional privilege

If that were the choice, I agree! But that is not the choice we face.

In states prior to passage of CCW laws, nobody could legally carry a weapon. The 2nd amendment was completely and utterly abrogated.

Seems to me there's no good reason to prefer total abrogation of a protected right, to reasonable checks on its lawful recognition and exercise.
 
States with CCW permits still have abrogation of the right to carry concealed. You just have a limited, revocable privilege in lieu of the right to carry concealed. If it’s a right, permission is not required. With the CCW permit system, only certain people who agree to certain terms and conditions are given permission to carry concealed in certain places. Proponents of CCW permits are saying that carrying concealed can be considered a limited privilege with permission. And those CCW permit holders are agreeing to that in writing.

History will likely prove the CCW permit a great tool for gun control proponent. With it he has established an important precedent and instilled in minds of congressmen, gun owners, and others, the idea that gun rights really only need to exist as limited privileges to those with permission.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Brian Barnhart:
States with CCW permits still have abrogation of the right to carry concealed. You just have a limited, revocable privilege in lieu of the right to carry concealed. If it’s a right, permission is not required. With the CCW permit system, only certain people who agree to certain terms and conditions are given permission to carry concealed in certain places. Proponents of CCW permits are saying that carrying concealed can be considered a limited privilege with permission. And those CCW permit holders are agreeing to that in writing.

History will likely prove the CCW permit a great tool for gun control proponent. With it he has established an important precedent and instilled in minds of congressmen, gun owners, and others, the idea that gun rights really only need to exist as limited privileges to those with permission.


Nothing in the CCW paperwork requires the applicant to forgo his 2nd amendment rights. Those rights still exist -- even if not recognized by the state he lives in.

You're misrepresenting CCW laws. "certain people" means anyone and everyone. "certain conditions" means demonstrating a rudimentary knowledge of guns and gun laws and not being a criminal. "permission" cannot be denied to anyone who meets the basic conditions.

It is not limited, it is not exclusive, granting and revocation are not discretionary.
 
quote:

You're misrepresenting CCW laws. "certain people" means anyone and everyone. "certain conditions" means demonstrating a rudimentary knowledge of guns and gun laws and not being a criminal. "permission" cannot be denied to anyone who meets the basic conditions.

It is not limited

Quite the contrary, I believe I’m giving an accurate view of CCW permits and their restrictions. And my use of “certain people”, "certain conditions", and "limited" are all accurate.

Some people are unwilling to pay, unwilling to be fingerprinted, unwilling to attend training classes, or have been convicted of certain crimes (violent or non-violent), or may be considered by someone important to be mentally questionable, or may be involved in some other situation that disqualify them. Granted, most citizens may not fall into these categories, but many do. Therefore my use of “certain people” better represents the truth than the use of “anyone and everyone". And the above listed "certain conditions" go well beyond not being a criminal and understanding rudimentary gun handling and gun laws as suggested.

Calling a CCW permit "limited" is also accurate. A CCW permit is no good for carrying concealed in your car, on your boat, on any public state owned or leased property, many other public places, the properties of most publicly owned companies, or anywhere else the private property “owner” says you can’t. Perhaps it might be easier to list where a CCW permit allows one to carry a concealed gun.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Brian Barnhart:
A CCW permit is no good for carrying concealed in your car, on your boat, on any public state owned or leased property, many other public places, the properties of most publicly owned companies, or anywhere else the private property “owner” says you can’t. Perhaps it might be easier to list where a CCW permit allows one to carry a concealed gun.

Once again you are incorrect. The law varies by state, but in most states a CCW does allow you to carry in any vehicle (car, boat, motorcycle, etc.), on most public transportation (buses, trains, ferrys, taxis, etc.) and on most public and private property.

Where you can't carry: courthouses, bars, and schools (though you can usually enter the parking lot to pick up & drop off your kid while armed).

It's true a private property owner can exclude CCWs. But he can exclude people from exercising their 1st amendment rights on his property too.
 
quote:

Once again you are incorrect. The law varies by state, but in most states a CCW does allow you to carry in any vehicle (car, boat, motorcycle, etc.), on most public transportation (buses, trains, ferrys, taxis, etc.) and on most public and private property.

Where you can't carry: courthouses, bars, and schools (though you can usually enter the parking lot to pick up & drop off your kid while armed).

I believe I've accurately conveyed Ohio's new CCW law, which is patterned after the laws in several other states. However, it looks like it's tough to make broad statements about CCW Permits since the specifics appear to vary significantly from state to state. In the case of Ohio, and probably other states, a CCW Permit is just as limited and restricted as I stated.

For those living in states with different CCW permit laws, I apologize for misrepresenting your state's laws.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Brian Barnhart:

quote:

Once again you are incorrect. The law varies by state, but in most states a CCW does allow you to carry in any vehicle (car, boat, motorcycle, etc.), on most public transportation (buses, trains, ferrys, taxis, etc.) and on most public and private property.

Where you can't carry: courthouses, bars, and schools (though you can usually enter the parking lot to pick up & drop off your kid while armed).

I believe I've accurately conveyed Ohio's new CCW law, which is patterned after the laws in several other states. However, it looks like it's tough to make broad statements about CCW Permits since the specifics appear to vary significantly from state to state. In the case of Ohio, and probably other states, a CCW Permit is just as limited and restricted as I stated.

For those living in states with different CCW permit laws, I apologize for misrepresenting your state's laws.


Ohio's new CCW law hasn't passed yet, and when it does it won't take effect for several months. So it's a little premature to pass judgement. But whatever they do eventually get, it's better than what they had before, which was nothing (e.g. no recognized right to carry whatsoever), and it may be expanded and improved in the future, as it has been in other states, where they have expanded the law by removing restrictions that proved to be onerous to CCW holders.

Even Vermont, whose gun laws you seem to like, has more restrictions than most CCW states. No guns allowed on any state institution or grounds (except parks). No loaded guns while traveling in your car.

Here is a very useful web site for learning about the gun laws of various states:
http://www.packing.org
 
Been following these posts with interest.

Never fall into the trap of trying to read too much into the US Supreme Court's refusal to hear a case. I've studied constitutional issues and Supreme Court decisions for some years, and here's what most scholars on these issues take pains to point out: The Supreme Court will avoid deciding basic constitutional issues whenever it can. That's as opposed to deciding whether aspects of new legislation meet constitutional requirements, etc.

The body will decide a basic issue such as this case only when it is forced to, such as when federal appellate courts in different parts of the country issue conflicting rulings on such an issue, which does not happen often. Actually, this Court as currently made up seems to have a libertarian streak, which could be a good thing if it decides to take on the issue of whether the 2d Amendment means what it seems to say.
 
A long time ago on the freedom of speech issue, Justice Douglas said that laws can restrict it, unless the Supreme Court objects.

Remember this in November, and vote for a president and senators that support the constitution. Guns, speech, and freedom to practice Christianity are all under attack.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top