Nation wide concealed carry. - Page 3
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 98

Thread: Nation wide concealed carry.

  1. #21

    Nation wide concealed carry.

    Let me get this right. More laws . No disrespect but have you seen the idiots making these laws. I swear all they do all day long is figure out how to take good ideas and rights and put them to there own personal agenda.
    FUNNY HOW PEOPLE ALWAYS WANT THE TRUTH AS LONG AS IT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whiteeagle-wpm View Post
    I believe that all the states should get together to build uniform concealed carry laws for all 50 states. This would make it easier for law biding citizens to conform to inter state travel without having to be a lawyer to figure out what is right.
    The problem is, right now in Washington, I pay my $52.50 (or something like that, it has been a while), fingerprints, quick background check and it's issued. If we start talking about the states "compromising", some states will want to add a training requirement, other states will want to add letters of reference, some states will want a court judge to sign off on it, some states will want a compelling reason for the permit. Meanwhile, the people from Vermont will be asking, "Permit? Permit for what? Are you serious?!?"

    NO THANK YOU.
    This.

    15 Characters.

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by timtheref View Post
    Which is why I suggested national reciprocity over a national permit. States can set their own standards on obtaining a drivers license, and they are accepted in all 50 states as long as you follow local laws.
    Why are you trying to compare a privilege (driver's license) with a God given right (to keep and bear arms)? There should be no permit, since that is an infringement on a right. Therefore, there should be no NEED for a reciprocity plan since every state should be upholding the Constitution. Those states not upholding the Constitution should be held liable and the citizenry needs to take back their states.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    Why are you trying to compare a privilege (driver's license) with a God given right (to keep and bear arms)? There should be no permit, since that is an infringement on a right. Therefore, there should be no NEED for a reciprocity plan since every state should be upholding the Constitution. Those states not upholding the Constitution should be held liable and the citizenry needs to take back their states.
    Is traveling freely among the world God created not a God given Right as well? I touched on this earlier in another thread. From what I dug up, the first required drivers license was in 1913. The earliest automobiles were created around 1796, what then, made driving a privilege between those years? In 1913 our Right to travel went from a Right to a privilege. Lest we forget that, our 2A will follow suit. It's a good comparison, if we are to learn from our history of mistakes.
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    Is traveling freely among the world God created not a God given Right as well? I touched on this earlier in another thread. From what I dug up, the first required drivers license was in 1913. The earliest automobiles were created around 1796, what then, made driving a privilege between those years? In 1913 our Right to travel went from a Right to a privilege. Lest we forget that, our 2A will follow suit. It's a good comparison, if we are to learn from our history of mistakes.
    I haven't seen in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that traveling freely among the world was an inalienable right granted to us by our Creator.

    That was the historic and legal answer.

    If you look up Judaic law, traveling was indeed limited on the Sabbath, so I would have to say it was not a right.

    That was the religious answer.



    You assume that there are only two choices, right or privilege. This is not the case. One can be free to do something without giving it the special distinction of classifying it as a right under the Constitution. Something only becomes a privilege when one has to ask permission for it. Also, you assume that just because there was not a driver's license that then made driving a right. I do not agree with this assessment. It is not a right unless it has been declared a right under the Constitution in this country. You may have been free to do so and had the liberty to gallivant in your new iron buggy, but driving was never given the special distinction as being a right. This was made ever clear by the inception of the driver's license; now we went from being free to do something to asking permission. However, using that same logic, the permit system has indeed TAKEN our right's away concerning the 2A.

    Let me give another example. I love veal Romano. If a restaurant can cook it up well, I will invariably order it and let that tasty dish melt in my mouth. I love it. I am free to eat veal Romano anytime I wish. There is, however, no right granted to me to eat veal Romano. I am just free to do so and have the liberty to pursue my happiness in doing so. But this country hasn't granted us the right to eat veal Romano. If suddenly, the FDA decided that raising veal was illegal... could I demand that they stop this because they are stomping on my rights? The answer, no.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    I haven't seen in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that traveling freely among the world was an inalienable right granted to us by our Creator.

    That was the historic and legal answer.

    If you look up Judaic law, traveling was indeed limited on the Sabbath, so I would have to say it was not a right.

    That was the religious answer.



    You assume that there are only two choices, right or privilege. This is not the case. One can be free to do something without giving it the special distinction of classifying it as a right under the Constitution. Something only becomes a privilege when one has to ask permission for it. Also, you assume that just because there was not a driver's license that then made driving a right. I do not agree with this assessment. It is not a right unless it has been declared a right under the Constitution in this country. You may have been free to do so and had the liberty to gallivant in your new iron buggy, but driving was never given the special distinction as being a right. This was made ever clear by the inception of the driver's license; now we went from being free to do something to asking permission. However, using that same logic, the permit system has indeed TAKEN our right's away concerning the 2A.

    Let me give another example. I love veal Romano. If a restaurant can cook it up well, I will invariably order it and let that tasty dish melt in my mouth. I love it. I am free to eat veal Romano anytime I wish. There is, however, no right granted to me to eat veal Romano. I am just free to do so and have the liberty to pursue my happiness in doing so. But this country hasn't granted us the right to eat veal Romano. If suddenly, the FDA decided that raising veal was illegal... could I demand that they stop this because they are stomping on my rights? The answer, no.
    I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on what a Right is. I do not believe a Right is granted to us by the Constitution or our country. I believe the Constitution recognizes certain Rights they felt strongly enough to write on paper, but I believe the founders knew we had more Rights than what they could list, hence the 9th amendment. There was a debate before the Constitution was even written as to whether or not it was a good idea, because there would be a mindset that the Constitution could be misconstrued as limiting, when it was not written in that manner.

    But to address where is it written in the Constitution? The 9th Amendment.

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[69]
    The Ninth Amendment protects rights not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. "

    I feel, the country can only oppress our God given Rights, and could never grant. I believe, everyone on this planet has the God given right to arms, to free speech, etc, and only the countries governments oppress and control those Rights. A middle eastern woman may be controlled more harshly on her freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the Right isn't there.

    And I do agree, the permit system has taken away our 2A right.

    As for eating certain foods. I feel it is a Right we retain to eat whatever food we want. The government doesn't grant us the Right to eat, we just have it, it's God given. There are countries though, and maybe the USA will become one herself, that rations out food. At which point, it becomes a privilege to eat, but that Right is still there, it's just ignored.

    To each his own :)
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by sdprof View Post
    If we accept that permits to carry won't go away, the only acceptable national criteria MUST be to the lowest common denominator. Like my state: small form, no training, no prints, no photo, $10 bill, and away you go. Anything more intrusive or restrictive is not acceptable.

    In other words, not gonna happen.
    I disagree with ya Blues. In the America I live in a national law would be one that appeases the most restrictive states. Ergo, I do agree that it'll never happen. I think the only acceptable national gun law would be the one that reminds all the states that since guns are covered in the bill of rights, the 10th applies and all state laws are declared null and void.
    Chief

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on what a Right is. I do not believe a Right is granted to us by the Constitution or our country. I believe the Constitution recognizes certain Rights they felt strongly enough to write on paper, but I believe the founders knew we had more Rights than what they could list, hence the 9th amendment. There was a debate before the Constitution was even written as to whether or not it was a good idea, because there would be a mindset that the Constitution could be misconstrued as limiting, when it was not written in that manner.

    But to address where is it written in the Constitution? The 9th Amendment.

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[69]
    The Ninth Amendment protects rights not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. "

    I feel, the country can only oppress our God given Rights, and could never grant. I believe, everyone on this planet has the God given right to arms, to free speech, etc, and only the countries governments oppress and control those Rights. A middle eastern woman may be controlled more harshly on her freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the Right isn't there.

    And I do agree, the permit system has taken away our 2A right.

    As for eating certain foods. I feel it is a Right we retain to eat whatever food we want. The government doesn't grant us the Right to eat, we just have it, it's God given. There are countries though, and maybe the USA will become one herself, that rations out food. At which point, it becomes a privilege to eat, but that Right is still there, it's just ignored.

    To each his own :)
    I appreciated the way you commented when you disagreed with me because you made me think about my own position. I'm still mulling over what you have said and may at some point change my mind, but your comments spurred me to dig deeper and I found this page. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights [ushistory.org]

    I thought you'd appreciate the read. :)
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement on what a Right is. I do not believe a Right is granted to us by the Constitution or our country. I believe the Constitution recognizes certain Rights they felt strongly enough to write on paper, but I believe the founders knew we had more Rights than what they could list, hence the 9th amendment. There was a debate before the Constitution was even written as to whether or not it was a good idea, because there would be a mindset that the Constitution could be misconstrued as limiting, when it was not written in that manner.

    But to address where is it written in the Constitution? The 9th Amendment.

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[69]
    The Ninth Amendment protects rights not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. "

    I feel, the country can only oppress our God given Rights, and could never grant. I believe, everyone on this planet has the God given right to arms, to free speech, etc, and only the countries governments oppress and control those Rights. A middle eastern woman may be controlled more harshly on her freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the Right isn't there.

    And I do agree, the permit system has taken away our 2A right.

    As for eating certain foods. I feel it is a Right we retain to eat whatever food we want. The government doesn't grant us the Right to eat, we just have it, it's God given. There are countries though, and maybe the USA will become one herself, that rations out food. At which point, it becomes a privilege to eat, but that Right is still there, it's just ignored.

    To each his own :)
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    I appreciated the way you commented when you disagreed with me because you made me think about my own position. I'm still mulling over what you have said and may at some point change my mind, but your comments spurred me to dig deeper and I found this page. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights [ushistory.org]

    I thought you'd appreciate the read. :)
    I like your 9th Amendment argument. And I would have to agree the 9th Amendment does make your case and I do agree with you, but in a limited fashion. Do you not have the right to drive your vehicle anywhere on your property? Do you not also have the right to drive your vehicle at any age on your property? The answer is yes, you are free to drive as much as you want at any age with no restrictions on your property as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights. Heck, you can even drive your vehicle without it being registered to the state or be inspected if you are driving on your property only. Therefore, agreeing with your assessment of a right, you still do have that right. What you do not have the right to do is drive your vehicle on someone else's property. The highway systems and roadways are not owned by you, but by state and local governments (yes, this is another argument for another time as to whether the road systems belong to the people). As such, they have the right to regulate how they are being used. That, my friend is how it is allowed to be a privilege. You do not have the right to travel on other owned property without permission. The driver's license then becomes permission.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    I like your 9th Amendment argument. And I would have to agree the 9th Amendment does make your case and I do agree with you, but in a limited fashion. Do you not have the right to drive your vehicle anywhere on your property? Do you not also have the right to drive your vehicle at any age on your property? The answer is yes, you are free to drive as much as you want at any age with no restrictions on your property as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights. Heck, you can even drive your vehicle without it being registered to the state or be inspected if you are driving on your property only. Therefore, agreeing with your assessment of a right, you still do have that right. What you do not have the right to do is drive your vehicle on someone else's property. The highway systems and roadways are not owned by you, but by state and local governments (yes, this is another argument for another time as to whether the road systems belong to the people). As such, they have the right to regulate how they are being used. That, my friend is how it is allowed to be a privilege. You do not have the right to travel on other owned property without permission. The driver's license then becomes permission.
    You have said nothing wrong. You are correct in your assessment. You are wrong in determining how this applies to the Constitution. Roads and bridges are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Their administration is also not denied to the states. This means that the 10th Amendment allows the states to regulate these things. Guns are mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and the states should therefore be forbidden from regulating them.
    Chief

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

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