Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry? - Page 9

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 9 of 26 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 251

Thread: Do You Support Nation Wide Constitutional Carry?

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,900
    Quote Originally Posted by B2Tall View Post
    I will gladly (and easily) point out your ignorance.

    My post was in response to "Treo" who has repeatedly stated that the 3 states that require no permit to carry are no more dangerous (or possibly even safer) in terms of firearm deaths than the states that do require a permit. The stats that I presented proved that "Treo" is absolutely wrong in his assertaions. Refuting his claim was my only goal. I succeeded.

    I'm fully aware that many factors can influence a stat like firearm deaths.
    Arizona just got constituional carry and has a high amount of gang and drug related crime. Your stats would be more meaningful if they reflected deaths as a result of safety issues
    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

  2.   
  3. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    Arizona just got constituional carry and has a high amount of gang and drug related crime. Your stats would be more meaningful if they reflected deaths as a result of safety issues
    The words you used were "firearm related deaths". That's what I was going on.

    A lot of areas in this country have gang and drug related crime. You stated repeatedly that the "geographical majority" of the country has permitless carry with no apparent detrimental effect. The stats I posted contradict that. Feel free to post something that backs your assertation.
    (Insert random tough-guy quote here)
    "See my gun?? Aren't you impressed?" - Anonymous sheepdog
    The hardware is the same, but the software is vastly different.

  4. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    The CCW citizens have a lower number of missed shots and bystanders hit by the misplaced bullets.
    Id believe it.
    Id say that Id also believe that private citizens with guns spend FAR more time on the range practicing than MOST LEO's ever will.
    Guys who shoot for hours every weekend are certainly getting more practice in than any cop on any force in the nation.

    Sure the cops get training we civilians dont, but most of what will help me hit a target it going to come from learning to control my gun at the range.
    Knowing when to shoot might be a different matter, but even cops make mistakes.

    So you want citizens to have training before being allowed to carry a gun but don't care that the police officers are trained and are the people you should be worried about being shot by. The training they receive is not at the level that most CCW citizens pay for.
    I think you need to stop, take a deep breath and read my post again. :)
    I said nothing of the sort.
    I SAID Im 'not against' training....and Im not sure that said training has made anyone any safer because states like Vermont dont have to have training and they certainly seem to be ok without it.

    Try reading and understanding what is being said before jumping the gun next time. Id hate to have to start putting trigger happy folks on ignore here already.

  5. For all you people arguing that the government requiring training is a "reasonable restriction" allowed by the Constitution, one of the Founding Fathers disagrees with you:

    "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 29

  6. #85
    I voted no for the simple reason that the FEDS would F#@K it up royally. They would use this "New Freedom" to place more restrictions on us, not less. It would be a farce. I have the freedom to carry how I want in my State with reciprocity in all my neighbor States. Don't need the FEDS involved!!.....
    Ruger Alaskan, .44 Mag
    Ruger GP100, .357 Mag
    XDM, 9mm---XDsc 40SW

  7. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by B2Tall View Post
    The words you used were "firearm related deaths". That's what I was going on.

    A lot of areas in this country have gang and drug related crime. You stated repeatedly that the "geographical majority" of the country has permitless carry with no apparent detrimental effect. The stats I posted contradict that. Feel free to post something that backs your assertation.
    But your argument is the need for safety training for carry. Don't use his oversight to further your argument.

    The stats you posted do not contradict what he said....yet and I'm not saying they will either way. I'm curious as to the result, not that it changes how I feel about it.

    Try to find the breakdown for the deaths and keep the facts accurate please.
    One must be wary of the mentality creating the problem or the law creating the crime.

    I love America and the Constitution, if you don't then get out!

  8. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,900
    Quote Originally Posted by ljenkmd View Post
    I voted no for the simple reason that the FEDS would F#@K it up royally. They would use this "New Freedom" to place more restrictions on us, not less. It would be a farce. I have the freedom to carry how I want in my State with reciprocity in all my neighbor States. Don't need the FEDS involved!!.....

    I think I miss worded the question, or at least the OP statement.

    I specifically am not talking about a federal law ( other than the 2nd Amendment) allowing concealed carry nation wide.

    I'm talking about the movement that appears to be sweeping across the states to do away w/ permits
    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

  9. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by ljenkmd View Post
    I voted no for the simple reason that the FEDS would F#@K it up royally. They would use this "New Freedom" to place more restrictions on us, not less. It would be a farce. I have the freedom to carry how I want in my State with reciprocity in all my neighbor States. Don't need the FEDS involved!!.....
    ~bigthumbsup~

  10. #89
    I voted "no". I would rather have nation-wide reciprocity than permit-less carry, for one reason and one reason only: the rest of the people with whom I took my CCH qualification class.

    I firmly believe in our 2nd Amendment and the rights it grants to us to be armed, protected and free, but I swear to all that's holy I sincerely hoped some of the people I was on that firing line with would never be allowed to ever hold another gun. Completely missing the paper at 3 yds. Not knowing how to load or unload their firearms. Accidental discharges. You name it. And these were the folks who owned guns and felt confident enough to stand and be judged with them.

    Honestly, I feel lucky to have survived that training session, but survive I did, and so did the rest of my classmates. They also learned a few things, which might (might) keep them and everyone around them safe when they hit the streets packing heat.

    I voted no because I'm glad that somebody (usually an NRA-trained somebody) stands in the way of complete incompetents and the right to concealed carry. If that makes me a bad person, then so be it.

  11. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
    For all you people arguing that the government requiring training is a "reasonable restriction" allowed by the Constitution, one of the Founding Fathers disagrees with you:

    "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 29
    Wow. interesting reading.

    "But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.".

    The Federalist #29

Page 9 of 26 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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