Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry? - Page 11

View Poll Results: Do you support nation wide permitless carry?

Voters
204. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    162 79.41%
  • No

    42 20.59%
Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 251

Thread: Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry?

  1. At the present, 21.36% of this forum's posters don't support and comprehend the Second Amendment.

    Amazing!

  2.   
  3. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by B2Tall View Post
    That's the ticket.

    True story and may God strike me dead if it isn't - Today one of my staff members who knows I'm a gun enthusiast told me that her roommate shot himself in the leg while at a gun range today. At least it was him and not somebody else. That idiot's right to carry a gun does not supercede my right to be safe from such idiots.

    I will never support permitless or unrestricted carry. And on that note I will move on from this thread.
    So your logic is that if the man had had a permit the accident wouldnt have happened?
    My rights should be infringed because some nitwit cant practice safe handling of his gun ?
    What about the tens of millions of us who DONT shoot ourselves in the leg? We should pay over the one moron who does?

  4. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    I will apologize for saying that but the reason you gave for saying no lead me to the statements I made so while you did not say those words that is what I got out of reading your reasons for saying no. And that is what I am apologizing for,

    You also agree with me on the training CCW citizens put in but don't seem that bothered by the police officers your tax dollars go to for providing their services when needed. I know police get supplied with ammo to use for there training that tax dollars paid for. But most of the police are just to lazy to go and practice with it. I know some instructors that get paid with ammo the police depart has left over for teaching the police officers. If any of us could get our ammo paid for we would be at the range at lest once a week. So why is it most of our police officers don't use the ammo provided by tax payers to better their skills when it comes to shoot placement.
    I figured it was just a misunderstanding of that one post. No big deal.
    I am 100% in favor of Constitutional carry.
    When I say that Im 'ok' with training I simply mean that I ENCOURAGE training by the individual, not as a requirement to have my 2nd amendment rights.
    I think as RESPONSIBLE citizens we should WANT to be as trained and knowledgeable as we can be given we're carrying a lethal weapon.

    Ive seen just enough from law enforcement to know that a great deal of them arent as good with a gun as many of us are.
    But, I have to wonder if they simply dont have the time to spend 16 hours on the range a week either.
    I mean, between all the stuff they have to do, I can see just wanting to call it quits at the end of the day instead of hitting the range for another 2 hours a day.

  5. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by missoak View Post
    Better be careful what you wish for. When new legisleation gets drafted, they could take all the worst that states have to offer and lump them all together & make it worse than it is now. Some in Congress would just as soon remove the 2d A altogether.
    Exactly.
    i dont want that small number of congressmen having that much authority over guns.

    Right now we have state congressmen, state AG's and governors all involved in the process. Its not just a group of men in DC.
    Ohios constitution is very clear about guns. I certainly dont want to give a handful of men in DC authority to IGNORE my STATE constitution.
    The Ohio Constitution

    1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)
    The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

  6. #105
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by B2Tall View Post
    That's the ticket.

    True story and may God strike me dead if it isn't - Today one of my staff members who knows I'm a gun enthusiast told me that her roommate shot himself in the leg while at a gun range today. At least it was him and not somebody else. That idiot's right to carry a gun does not supercede my right to be safe from such idiots.

    I will never support permitless or unrestricted carry. And on that note I will move on from this thread.

    Well you tucked tail and ran away. But the person you said shot himself in the leg at the shooting range. Look and see how many police officers have done the same yet you are fine with them walking the streets to protect you. Here in Seattle the police are protected from criminal charges if they murder someone while doing their job as reported by the news last night. The police are suppose to protect and server so if they are going off and shooting without regard to the citizens that they say they are there to protect and serve it makes it hard for the citizens to believe.

    When you go to any gun range they have you sign a wavier saying you know you could get hit by a bullet and accept that risk and will not hold the gun range at fault.

    Well you have no say when it comes to the risk involved with the police performing their duties. That is the problem I see with your statement and reason for saying no. The last example you gave has been done by the police numerous times. Google "I'm the only one in this room, that I know of, professional enough to carry this Glock 40." and click any of the links that pop up and you will see a DEA agent shoot himself in the leg then ask is anyone is hurt meaning that he knew he hit himself but had no idea where the bullet was headed.

    So while you want to sit on your high horse and claim that citizens need to be trained before given their second amendment rights. You over look at the fact that government officers are given the full second amendment rights and can go anywhere with their firearm without getting a level of training that would keep them and us safe.

  7. #106
    Does training = No accidents ?

    DEA Agent shoots himself in the foot.
    YouTube - DEA Agent shoots himself in the foot.
    So much for being 'professional' enough to carry.
    I wonder how many Vermont CCW'er have shot themselves in the foot?

  8. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    South Carolina USA
    Posts
    1,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
    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.
    I can't press the "Like" button enough times to express how I feel about this post.

  9. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    South Carolina USA
    Posts
    1,450
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    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.

    Again, I just can't press the "LIKE" button enough!

  10. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,900
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Add Washington and Montana to your list, Treo.
    Currently, the following states do not require any sort of training before issuing a permit:

    Alabama

    California ( No state rquirement)

    Georgia

    Indiana

    Mississippi

    Montana

    New Hampshire

    Washington

    More to be added I'm sure
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  11. #110
    Have to go with NavyLT on this one.

    ANY restrictions on ANY Bill of Rights item is nothing more than the Government trying to tell us that you are not mature enough to be responsible for the actions you take (or not take) in the exercise of your rights. Sorry, I don't buy into that. (I can't speak for all, but I will be damned if I am to take punishment for anyone else. Nor will I take the implied "insult".)

    Unfortunately, in some cases, they are correct in their assumptions. For every "right" you have, there comes with it a certain level of responsible actions in the exercise of that right. Some people simply refuse to act responsibly in any manner, let alone important things like exercising one's rights. (Or handling guns.)

    Irresponsible actions concerning a right, will only lead to the Government trying to remove/circumvent your rights under the guise of "public safety".

    Therefore, gun safety is a good thing to learn. If for no other reason than to give the Government one less thing to "press" us about. Permits for CC? Nope! Same thing. Only gives the Government a place to interfere in our rights. I'll worry about the incremental personal safety issue without your help. Thanks anyway.

    Although I have seen people handling (and I use the term loosly) guns in a way that frankly scares the crap out of me!

    Six of one, half dozen of another. Ya pays your money and takes your chances. Just keep the Gubbmint outta my rights. Period.

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast