Support for carry permits - Page 4

View Poll Results: Are carry permits a good thing?

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, they are good, all states should have them.

    7 12.73%
  • No, there is nothing good about the government requiring a permit to carry a gun.

    32 58.18%
  • Some benefit: such as providing proof the person carrying the gun is legal to do so.

    16 29.09%
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 107

Thread: Support for carry permits

  1. #31
    I can live with the permit system only if it is a shall/must issue. In other words as long as I qualify, no criminal history for example, the government MUST issue me a permit. What goes on now in many states that pretend to be within the law is ludicrous.

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    I can live with the permit system only if it is a shall/must issue. In other words as long as I qualify, no criminal history for example, the government MUST issue me a permit. What goes on now in many states that pretend to be within the law is ludicrous.
    So, basically you can live with a 2nd Amendment permit system. Could you also live with a 4th Amendment permit system as long as it was shall issue? Let's say that a law was passed which said that you must submit to a search of your vehicle when stopped for a traffic infraction, unless you possessed a permit or an attachment to your driver's license that you had to pay to obtain a background check for. Wouldn't that be even more reasonable than requiring a permit for self defense? After all we are only talking a few minutes of inconvenience when you are stopped by a police officer anyway vice affecting your ability to defend yourself or your family assuming you are a "good guy" and "have nothing to hide". Could you equally live with that permit system only if it was shall/must issue?

    Or how about a 1st Amendment permit that required you to pay for permission from the government to post on the internet or go to the church of your choosing, or even not to go to church at all? Could you live with that as long as it was shall issue?
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,487
    Why should any government impede my rights? What's next, stop & frisk without probable cause? Oh wait they're already doing that.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  5. Quote Originally Posted by no2gates View Post
    but I really like the fact that only law abiding citizens can carry guns.
    Can you honestly say that you are 100% law abiding? Have you never intentionally gone 5 mph over the speed limit because you were in a hurry and thought you could get away with it because of some "grace tolerance" allowed by law enforcement or never intentionally broke any laws at all due to convenience or whatever justification you chose for yourself?

    So where do we draw the line? At felonies? What about the guy who writes too many bad checks or doesn't pay enough taxes or embezzles too much money from a company or insurance fraud? Completely non-violent crimes 100% unrelated to using a firearm....
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    I can live with the permit system only if it is a shall/must issue. In other words as long as I qualify, no criminal history for example, the government MUST issue me a permit. What goes on now in many states that pretend to be within the law is ludicrous.
    Please help me understand. Did you really just say that you are for gun control for other folks as long as it doesn't affect you? That it is Ok to restrict the rights of other people as long as you agree with those restrictions?

    If a person has paid their debt to society (been released from prison/jail) for the crimes that are in their criminal history shouldn't they be able to exercise all of their natural rights? What purpose does restricting their rights serve after they have paid for their crimes other than giving people the illusion they are safe from a criminal because the law says the criminal isn't "allowed" to have/carry a gun? But then, if a person thinks about it, the law said the criminal wasn't "allowed" to commit the crime that put him in prison/jail in the first place ... so much for the law preventing criminals from committing crimes... or carrying guns.

    Another consideration is that many poor folks would "qualify" because they have no criminal history but because a permit system... shall issue or not... costs too much they are unable to pay for that permit. And because those poor folks can't afford to pay for a permit.... isn't that permit system controlling their ability to exercise the right to bear arms? Otherwise known as "infringe"? Or the common term is.... gun control? And their only .. crime.. is they are too poor to pay for the classes and fees?

    And how about the idiocy that 18 year olds can join the military and handle all sorts of weaponry including tanks... yet here in Michigan an 18 year old can legally possess (and open carry) a pistol/long gun but cannot have a carry permit until they reach the age of 21? That is also gun control for those between the ages of 18 and 21.

    Bottom line... if a person must ask the government for permission to carry a gun or carry a gun in a special manner then the person is unable to exercise the right to carry a gun... they only have the privilege of having the government's permission to carry a gun.

    Permission from/by the government.. permission of any kind for any person(s)
    in any degree regardless of who agrees with it for whatever reasons they agree with it is................................. governmental gun control.

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by dad45acp View Post
    Do you have any concept on how many felons re-offend when they're out of jail? Or how many of them continue with lifelong substance abuse problems and have sociopathic behaviors that never get counseling and/or fail to comply with taking their prescription meds? Just because they "pay their debt" to society in a jail doesn't mean they're cured from being a danger to society. Granted, if they want to get their hands on a gun they probably will someway or somehow regardless but having their "rights restored" is just outrageous to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    I agree. Felons should stay in prison until their debt is paid, and when released if it's safe to do so, should have their Rights restored...unfortunately they release felons well before their debt is repaid. Fixing the justice and prison system though doesn't affect that felons aren't allowed firearms.
    I bolded the text you failed to understand.

    Do you have any concept of rehabilitation? Not released, UNTIL SAFE TO DO SO.

    There is no guarantee someone will truly be rehabilitated, then again there is no guarantee a non felon won't snap and kill 50 people either.
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    I bolded the text you failed to understand.

    Do you have any concept of rehabilitation? Not released, UNTIL SAFE TO DO SO.

    There is no guarantee someone will truly be rehabilitated, then again there is no guarantee a non felon won't snap and kill 50 people either.
    I might have mentioned this story before, but back in the early '80's I worked with an older guy who got busted in the '50's for two already-rolled joints. Back then it was a felony. He was sentenced to two years, one for each joint is what the judge told him. He lost his right to voting and gun rights. It actually bugged me more than it bugged him. He just wanted to live out his days without having to deal with the justice system again, so he never sought to restore his rights.

    I've thought about him often though, as these subjects come up. The guy was just a good-hearted old man. He did his time and didn't get in any trouble. These days, getting through a prison stint without affiliating yourself with gangs for protection, seems to be a near impossibility. Assuming someone manages to do that though, won't they almost certainly make enemies of the gangs that they refused to pay off, or to commit further crimes for in prison? If that's true, then the ones who are successfully rehabilitated need the most ability to protect themselves post-release, yet it is denied to them just as if they made no positive changes to their lives in and since prison.

    Even ignoring that the "good guys" in prison make dangerous enemies, why should they or their families be made to be defenseless victims anymore than the rest of us who have never had any serious trouble with the law?

    There are WAY too many people who don't have the slightest understanding of what it means, or what it takes, to be free. This is just one among many issues that supports that conclusion.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  9. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Please help me understand. Did you really just say that you are for gun control for other folks as long as it doesn't affect you? That it is Ok to restrict the rights of other people as long as you agree with those restrictions?

    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy
    I can live with the permit system only if it is a shall/must issue. In other words as long as I qualify, no criminal history for example, the government MUST issue me a permit. What goes on now in many states that pretend to be within the law is ludicrous.

    where did you read/see anything mentioned in the post that I made that says ANYTHING about GUN CONTROL?.
    to try and help you along, I was comment on the issuance of permits to carry a CONCEALED weapon in public, not about the right to possess or own guns.

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy
    Where did you read/see anything mentioned in the post that I made that says ANYTHING about GUN CONTROL?.
    to try and help you along, I was comment on the issuance of permits to carry a CONCEALED weapon in public, not about the right to possess or own guns.
    To keep and BEAR arms.

    Permit systems ARE gun control.

    *sarcasm*...just one of those "acceptable, reasonable, common sense, etc etc" forms of gun control *sarcasm*

    Would you be okay with a background checks on ammo purchases? Firearm accessories? Reloading equipment? I mean...as long as it's shall issue...the added expense and infringement doesn't bother you? Delay periods are okay as long as eventually they don't find anything wrong, and they must issue the merchandise?

    What is it about, Shall not be infringed, that doesn't make sense?
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Please help me understand. Did you really just say that you are for gun control for other folks as long as it doesn't affect you? That it is Ok to restrict the rights of other people as long as you agree with those restrictions?
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy
    I can live with the permit system only if it is a shall/must issue. In other words as long as I qualify, no criminal history for example, the government MUST issue me a permit. What goes on now in many states that pretend to be within the law is ludicrous.

    where did you read/see anything mentioned in the post that I made that says ANYTHING about GUN CONTROL?.
    to try and help you along, I was comment on the issuance of permits to carry a CONCEALED weapon in public, not about the right to possess or own guns.
    Where did I see where you said something about gun control?

    Originally Posted by apvbguy
    I can live with the permit system only if it is a shall/must issue. In other words as long as I qualify, no criminal history for example, the government MUST issue me a permit. What goes on now in many states that pretend to be within the law is ludicrous.
    Right there where you said you could live with a permit system. You do understand that if you have to ask permission then whoever controls the permission controls the guns? And that is......... gun control.

    And the right to bear arms is simply the right to bear arms... bearing an arm in public isn't any different than bearing an arm in private. The right to bear arms is ... the right to bear arms. And being in favor of needing permission to carry a gun, whether in public or not, IS being in favor of gun control.

    What is really disturbing though is the idea that gun control is Ok as long as a person agrees with who's guns are being controlled... especially as long as it isn't their own guns... or where guns are controlled, or even why guns are controlled. Like it or not... if a person is in favor of denying someone the right to bear arms for whatever reason(s) then they are in favor of gun control for that someone. And... here is the really bad thing about that...

    The only difference between a rabid anti gunner who wants to use gun control to deny everyone the right to bear arms and someone who wants to use gun control to deny the right to bear arms only for just those folks they consider "unacceptable"................................ .. is the degree of gun control wanted. Both still want gun control and both want to use it for the purpose of denying those they consider "unacceptable" their rights.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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