Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry?

[NavyLCDR]

I voted yes but I change it to no. I would rather you just need one nation wide permit.

Why? Why require a permit to exercise a right protected by the US Constitution?

[PaxMentis]

Personally, I would rather see the 14th amendment repealed and a return to real state's rights.

So I have to say no.

[NavyLCDR]

Personally, I would rather see the 14th amendment repealed and a return to real state's rights.

So I have to say no.

So you don't feel that the right to self-protection is an inalienable right, equal to freedom of religion, freedom from gender discrimination, freedom of speech, freedom from race discrimination? Or should states have the right to regulate those to? Should a state have the right to legalize slavery? Should a state have the right to prohibit Judaism or Christianity? Or, maybe a state could prohibit males or females within it's borders?

Should the right to self protection using a gun be equal with those other rights, or not?

I am seriously asking these questions to try to figure out the thought process...

[Unfettered Might]

Why? Why require a permit to exercise a right protected by the US Constitution?

Because even some people, apparently 20% here as of this posting, who are pro 2A aren't really pro 2A.

The key word is "infringed" and ANY infringement is contradictory to the 2A and they just don't understand that licensing and/or required training is an infringement.

Some just can't wrap their minds around the concept LT.

[NavyLCDR]

Because even some people, apparently 20% here as of this posting, who are pro 2A aren't really pro 2A.

The key word is "infringed" and ANY infringement is contradictory to the 2A and they just don't understand that licensing and/or required training is an infringement.

Some just can't wrap their minds around the concept LT.

Or, how about this one.... is requiring a permit to carry or conceal a gun REALLY going to stop criminals from carrying guns and hiding them?!?

[B2Tall]

No.

I support a nationwide permit but not unrestricted carry. I believe in reasonable restrictions when it comes to carrying. So does everybody else here unless you're a completely irrational loon or just being spiteful (6-yr olds carring in school?? Nope. How 'bout a criminal defendant being allowed to carry in court?? Uh-uh....not happening. Hand grenades and rocket launchers available to the public?? No way. Nukes to anyone who can afford one?? Etc., etc. Yeah....right. Anyone care to disagree with those restrictions?? There are plenty of others as well that are just plain common sense). I don't think having to attend and pass a 3 hour firearm course is unreasonable at all. That's why I don't support unrestricted carry. I don't think every Tom, Richard, and Harriet should be allowed to pack unless they've proved themselves at least minimally competent.

I'm pretty sure that there were reasonable restrictions 200+ yrs ago as well. I doubt very much if babbling idiots, habitual drunks, senile old folks, etc. were allowed to carry loaded weapons around in 1791. There may not have been a written law against such people carrying firearms but I'd bet that their fellow citizens made sure they were disarmed and not a danger to the public.

[NavyLCDR]

No.

I support a nationwide permit but not unrestricted carry. I believe in reasonable restrictions when it comes to carrying. So does everybody else here unless you're a completely irrational loon or just being spiteful (6-yr olds carring in school?? Nope. How 'bout a criminal defendant being allowed to carry in court?? Uh-uh....not happening. Hand grenades and rocket launchers available to the public?? No way. Nukes to anyone who can afford one?? Etc., etc. Yeah....right. Anyone care to disagree with those restrictions?? There are plenty of others as well that are just plain common sense). I don't think having to attend and pass a 3 hour firearm course is unreasonable at all. That's why I don't support unrestricted carry. I don't think every Tom, Richard, and Harriet should be allowed to pack unless they've proved themselves at least minimally competent.

I'm pretty sure that there were reasonable restrictions 200+ yrs ago as well. I doubt very much if babbling idiots, habitual drunks, senile old folks, etc. were allowed to carry loaded weapons around in 1791. There may not have been a written law against such people carrying firearms but I'd bet that their fellow citizens made sure they were disarmed and not a danger to the public.

I can hear the Brady Campaign standing, cheering and applauding your efforts.....they appreciate your support. Permits do not stop criminals. Permits only stop law abiding citizens.

The 3 states that have Constitutional Carry and the 24 other states that have unlicensed open carry just don't have any more firearms problems than New York, Illinois, California, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Florida, or Washington D.C.

[B2Tall]

I can hear the Brady Campaign standing, cheering and applauding your efforts.....they appreciate your support. Permits do not stop criminals. Permits only stop law abiding citizens.

You get the gold medal for overreaction. Yet another constitutional Chicken-little running around in a panic. What next - will the U.S. collapse into anarchy if I don't excercise my constitutional right to have croutons on my salad!

Just like a license to drive, practice medicine, or be an electrician......a permit to carry a deadly weapon just makes sense.

[Kasper]

No.

I support a nationwide permit but not unrestricted carry. I believe in reasonable restrictions when it comes to carrying. So does everybody else here unless you're a completely irrational loon or just being spiteful (6-yr olds carring in school?? Nope. How 'bout a criminal defendant being allowed to carry in court?? Uh-uh....not happening. Hand grenades and rocket launchers available to the public?? No way. Nukes to anyone who can afford one?? Etc., etc. Yeah....right. Anyone care to disagree with those restrictions?? There are plenty of others as well that are just plain common sense). I don't think having to attend and pass a 3 hour firearm course is unreasonable at all. That's why I don't support unrestricted carry. I don't think every Tom, Richard, and Harriet should be allowed to pack unless they've proved themselves at least minimally competent.

I'm pretty sure that there were reasonable restrictions 200+ yrs ago as well. I doubt very much if babbling idiots, habitual drunks, senile old folks, etc. were allowed to carry loaded weapons around in 1791. There may not have been a written law against such people carrying firearms but I'd bet that their fellow citizens made sure they were disarmed and not a danger to the public.

That is where you are wrong. 200 years ago subjects had the same weapons as the King that ruled over them. Also back then we where under the rule of a king who decided he wanted to tax us for things but would not allow us representation for what the tax money would be used on. That is why when our government was formed the 2nd amendment was placed behind the first so that we the people could have a way to protect the first amendment.

Unfortunately most Americans are ignorant when it comes to this and are willing to give up their liberties for what safety they think it will give them but as it has been shown gun free zones are the best place to go if you want to murder lots of people without having to worry about being shot until the police officers show up.

Due to us giving up our liberty to protect ourself lots of people died without a way of fighting for their life. Just as most Americans think the TSA by molesting us before we board an airplane will keep us safe. The pilot that showed the American public that they were not safe due to the TSA not securing the airplane and staff that work the airplane. But since the ignorant Americans feel safe they will keep taking away our liberties till we lose them.

Laws are made for the law abiding citizens to follow for criminals do not follow the laws that is why in the old west they were called law breakers. Their is not a law on the books that has ever stopped a crime from happening.

As for the legal law abiding citizens the laws keep them from breaking the law due to wanting to remain a law abiding citizen.

[NavyLCDR]

What next - will the U.S. collapse into anarchy if I don't excercise my constitutional right to have croutons on my salad!

Isn't that the exact same claim that you are making if citizens DO exercise their Constitutional rights to carry firearms?