Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry?

[Midnight]

Some of you are saying that the Second Amendment is about self-defense. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or self-defense. It's about protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government and ensuring that we have the means to fight them if necessary. Strength in numbers has proven to be the most deadly weapon of all throughout history. 300 million armed Americans would make the federal government shake in its boots.

[B2Tall]

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

Three very simple questions for you, LT. Yes or no.

1. Should a 6-yr old be allowed to carry firearms unrestricted in public, concealed or not??

2. Should an elderly person who suffers from dimentia be allowed to carry a firearm?

3. Should someone convicted of a felony involving a firearm be allowed to carry?

[NavyLCDR]

300 million armed Americans would make the federal government shake in its boots.

And B2Tall as well...

[NavyLCDR]

Three very simple questions for you, LT. Yes or no.

1. Should a 6-yr old be allowed to carry firearms unrestricted in public, concealed or not??

2. Should an elderly person who suffers from dimentia be allowed to carry a firearm?

3. Should someone convicted of a felony involving a firearm be allowed to carry?

You are asking questions to which there are no real yes or no answers.

1. The parents should be responsible for restricting the child's behavior, and should be responsible for their children's behavior, not the government.

2. See question #1. Same answer. If the elderly person has dementia to the extent that they are a danger to themselves and others, their appointed caregiver should be responsible for restricting their behavior, and be responsible for their behavior, not the government.

3. If the government feels that convicted felon is safe enough to walk the streets as a free man, then the answer is yes. If the convicted felon is so damn dangerous to society, then why are we letting them walk the streets freely? And is a permit requirement going to stop the dangerous felon from carrying/using a firearm anyway?

The problem is, B2Tall, that you have swallowed the pill that causes you to believe that Joe Q. Public should not be responsible for anything. You apparently believe that the answer to any social problem is government regulation. Government regulation doesn't work. We've proven that time and time again. What works is holding people responsible for their actions and making them suffer the consequences of their actions. Committing a crime with a gun is still committing a crime! Making a law abiding citizen have to get government permission to carry a gun isn't going to affect the criminal committing the crime with a gun. That's why they are called criminals - they don't obey laws. Government regulation will, however, limit and hinder Joe Citizen's ability to defend themselves against those criminals.

[B2Tall]

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

Everything is protected by the constitution. It's called "freedom of expression" (to say nothing of the Declaration of Independence which makes it clear that our nation was being formed in order to ensure the pursuit of happiness, among other things.). So by your interpretation, the fact that you would need a license to practice medicine or drive a car is an infringement on your constitutional rights (i.e. an infringement on your freedom of expression). Don't think that stuff is covered by the 1st Amendment?? Think again. Everything from nude dancing to teaching has come under the umbrella of freedom of expression at one time or another.

It's all about reasonable restrictions.

[B2Tall]

You are asking questions to which there are no real yes or no answers.

1. The parents should be responsible for restricting the child's behavior, and should be responsible for their children's behavior, not the government.

2. See question #1. Same answer. If the elderly person has dementia to the extent that they are a danger to themselves and others, their appointed caregiver should be responsible for restricting their behavior, and be responsible for their behavior, not the government.

3. If the government feels that convicted felon is safe enough to walk the streets as a free man, then the answer is yes. If the convicted felon is so damn dangerous to society, then why are we letting them walk the streets freely? And is a permit requirement going to stop the dangerous felon from carrying/using a firearm anyway?

The problem is, B2Tall, that you have swallowed the pill that causes you to believe that Joe Q. Public should not be responsible for anything. You apparently believe that the answer to any social problem is government regulation. Government regulation doesn't work. We've proven that time and time again. What works is holding people responsible for their actions and making them suffer the consequences of their actions. Committing a crime with a gun is still committing a crime! Making a law abiding citizen have to get government permission to carry a gun isn't going to affect the criminal committing the crime with a gun. That's why they are called criminals - they don't obey laws. Government regulation will, however, limit and hinder Joe Citizen's ability to defend themselves against those criminals.

Weak. Weak and totally predictable.

1. And what if the parent chooses not to restrict a child from carrying a gun to school or anywhere else?? According to you it would be an infringement on the rights of the parents and the child to prohibit such things (after all, there is no age restriction mentioned in the 2nd Amendment). We know you wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's constitutional rights. 6-yr old packing. Nice.

2. See above. Substitute "dimentia-stricken elderly person" for "child" and "caregiver" for "parent".

3. And here's the chink in your armor. You said "If the government...". Wow. You're letting the government decide on whether a particular citizen should be allowed to carry. You may not know it but you just agreed to a restriction.

I don't think you're an irrational loon so that leaves the other option: Are you so spiteful that you'll disagree with somebody even on the most basic common sense issues with regards to carrying firearms?? Apparently yes.

[Mr.357Sig]

Who are the 10 who voted "no"?

[B2Tall]

And B2Tall as well...

5 pistols, 4 assault rifles, 2 shotguns, and 2 long guns. Always looking for more. I've passed the reasonable restrictions. I'm good to go.

[Mr.357Sig]

I see this thread ending badly...

[Treo]

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.

Are you aware that in the (geographic) majority of this country no permit what ever is required to carry a firearm? The permit is to conceal it . Yet , I don't see constant news stories about law abiding gun owners haveing NDs or blowing their feet off at Starbucks.

I'm all for individuals who violate basic safety rules being punished but why should an entire class be preemptively made to pay for the crimes of the few?