Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just because you feel the need to carry concealed because you're scared doesn't give you the right to do so. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say you have a right to conceal your weapon.
As usual, the anti-gun-rights people feel that their whole lives are structured around government, instead of the other way around. This one is insisting nothing can be done with guns unless the govt (in this case the Constitution) grants us permission.
That's not how the Const is written, of course. It creates the Fed govt and gives it its powers... and also restricts them. People are free (there's that word the leftists hate) to do what they want about owning and carrying guns unless the Const specifically says they can't... and it doesn't say. In fact, it forbids all govts in the U.S. from infringing the people's right.
Nice try. But we have ALL rights to conceal our weapons. All the Const does, is forbid government from infringing that right.
California requires you to state the reason you need a CCW. You can't just say because you're scared to go out without a gun.
Nice snark. You guys are amusing. You suffer from psychological projection.
There's no fear involved in wanting to partake in rights to keep and bear arms. You guys fear guns that's clearly obvious...
It's more so for me at least a matter of convenience and independence.
I carry on occasion, more than 10k in cash to deposit.
I have 125k sitting in my driveway.
I have alot of things worth protecting that have both sentimental and equitable value, some things like family heirlooms don't have a price tag that the insurance can cut a check for...
Then there's the last significant factor, protection of my life and lives of others. (Stand your ground)
Difference between you and I, I can protect what's mine without having to wait for police to arrive.
My sister is a nurse practitioner. She carries too.
My 70 year old mother, she was a nurse too. She carries every day.
I've trained them both. Both are easy pickings for a mugger or car jacker.
Then there's my girlfriend who has had her CCW since 21...
Do any of them live in fear? Were they compelled by fear?
No.
Misconception due to your projection. "If I'm terrified of firearms, they must be too, therefore they get firearms to combat others who have firearms"
Fact-When seconds matter, a badge and a gun are only minutes away.
Fact-There is far more incentive to obey laws as many offenses will revoke your rights to keep and bear arms plus access to CCW.
(DWI conviction domestic abuse/violence)
Fact-The use of firearms in self-defense is prevalent. According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by criminologists from Florida State University, Americans use guns in self-defense an estimated 2.2 to 2.5 million times a year, or every 13 seconds. This same study found that, in general, simply brandishing a gun or firing a warning shot is sufficient to defend against an attacker in most cases of self-defense involving a firearm. Only 24 percent of people surveyed reported firing a gun in self-defense, and just eight percent reported wounding an assailant with a gun.
See. With carrying concealed, I guarantee someone tries to mug you, car jack you, rape you, whatever, the sight of a weapon will stop that action on a dime. You guys confuse "fear" for independence, and refusal of being reliant upon a flawed system.
I'll play your sides emotional mental gymnastics with you.
A legitimate hypothetical for you.
Have a daughter in college get raped. Are you going to file a lawsuit against the police agency for not arriving on time to prevent it/stop it?
Or would you rather
She carry and train for an event like this to occur and have a means of protection that would equalize the odds of her vs her attacker?
Honestly that's about the same as we should ban guns because our broken system of gun free zones and waiting for police to arrive doesn't work.
We should ban guns because parents looking to win the Darwin parenting Award leave loaded weapons for junior to find. Muh childrunz! Do it for the childrunz!
Look, your side and my side want the same things. Just have different means of going about it to accomplish it. You and your side seek ridiculous protection measures this mentality the government should protect us from ourselves like a big brother.
Me and my side refuse to have to be reliant on a 3rd party to do it for us. We value rights we value independence. We acknowledge the world is far from perfect. We just would rather handle our own problems as they arrise. Or prevent them all together.
I know the world isn't rainbows unicorns and puppy dogs. I don't believe your right or anyone's for that matter, shall fall to subjective interpretation via what some restrictive utopian state law declares as moral or dangerous. I acknowledge the risks.
Should I, a small business owner, change my quality of life, to fly under the radar of a would be car jacker, mugger, or become a possible victim at the hands of a deranged loon, or terrorist? Should I just get rid of the flashy trucks, the Harley, the jetskis that sit in my back yard, the Rolex my father left me when he passed away? Refuse cash as payment and set up a credit/debit card payment system and pay around 5% fees for goods and services rendered or rely solely on checks to prevent bank bags drawing attention? Ditch the house and go live in a slum lord apartment?
Nope.
If I had kids, would I feel comfortable with them in a school with a sign posted no firearms allowed when how many school shootings have occurred? I'd find more comfort knowing they are safe in the hands of an armed and trained teacher. For the teacher would have the means to thwart evil.
I don't live with fear. I've been told many times areas I often conduct business are plagued with crime, that I'd be nuts to risk even driving through those areas. No. I don't see it that way. I'm very comfortable working in those areas. I don't fear anything or anyone. What I do find ridiculous is the fact if I were to go back to NY with a pistol in my waistband, should I be stopped for whatever reason, I become an instant felon. 7 year conviction for just magazine capacity plus whatever other unconstitutional clauses that exist in the safe act that have been added.
Would you find any comfort in knowing I train and compete and handle/fire my weapons more often than some police departments require from their officers? Probably not, but this backwards assumption that those who carry
1. Live in fear
2. Can't hit the broad side of a barn
3. Freeze/flee in real life and are otherwise key board commandos
I promise you I have more invested in training than NY or CA requirements for concealed carry permits.
Would either state acknowledge that? Nope. Probably not.
And the training I participated in and continue to, supercedes that of NRA safety and static target practice to demonstrate proficiency in weapons handling and shot placement by a long shot. But alas it will fall onto feeble shoulders time and time again as a means to mock me and others so flame away and put your ignorance on display. Prove my point for me.
The word you're looking for is California is a may issue/conditional issue state much like NY. NY it's an expensive PITA too. Been there. Tried that.
For all of those that abandoned upstate NY I beat you all. I left in 1967 just after I returned from Boating on the Mekong. It was blindingly apparent that there were no jobs available except low level construction. I found much better paying work as a machinist in Connecticut. Apparently leaving NY but not NYC is still a good idea. You can make a lot of money in NYC!
FWIW - I completely agree with the arguments posted by NY_Refugee87. I live in New Hampshire where there is no license requirement to carry a gun concealed or open. We decided that trying to regulate the rights of regular citizens to be able to defend themselves is a complete absurdity and against the spirit of our Republic.
If I decided to travel to or through one of these heavily regulated states I would have to get some sort of paperwork to prove I had a right to carry a gun. I have that already. It is called a US Passport. The annoying part is even that is not enough. Talk about proven guilty without any cause.
On just about all the other issues I am a Liberal Democrat. My biggest difficulty is convincing my Democrat friends the Liberal is derived from Liberty and dictatorial gun control is contrary to the basic Liberty of being able and responsible for defending yourself by yourself and for yourself without having to wait for the "authorities" approval.
My reasons at the time were more economic in nature, but even back then I could see where the state was heading with the high taxes and crappy economy in Upstate.... even back then companies were shutting down and leaving in droves.
It didn't take a lot of convincing my wife and I that that there was just no future for us there.
The Startup NY program is a joke.
What they don't tell you in the commercials for it is that to receive the tax breaks, your business has to serve the university system in some way.
So, want to open a coffee shop on campus? You get the tax breaks.
Want to open a widget manufacturing company ?.....sorry you're SOL.
We go back home occasionally to visit relatives.... but every time we do, it doesn't take long to see that we made the right decision..... Upstate still sucks economically speaking.
And crap like the SAFE act is just another turd on the pile of NY's BS. .
Yeah must be within 30 miles of a SUNY campus and hire SUNY students/graduates for internships. Bonus points if it's in a STEM field. Who subsidised that? Small Businesses already were in existence. Property owners with their towns tax accessors going Willy Nilly. Hmm. We valued your property+dwelling at 115k last year... nothing changed? 135k this year. Happened to me due to cityiots flocking upstate and putting weekend/summer homes up. Drove my property taxes through the roof.
Well regulated militia>Note the word "Regulated"
Just because you feel the need to carry concealed because you're scared doesn't give you the right to do so. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say you have a right to conceal your weapon. States rights under the 10th Amendment come into play.
If you feel like you need a weapon in public, maybe you should just stay home as the public would be much safer.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
It does state.
Quote:
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
What does infringed mean? Infringe-actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.) act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
What does bear mean? There's 2. Bear-(of a person) carry. support.
Once again a liberal tries to make arguments that have been refuted and debunked numerous times on this forum. I guess he figures that enough time has gone by since these "arguments" were last spanked, that he can start announcing them again as "fact", as though they had never been refuted at all.
So I guess it's time to refute them yet again, for the 1,396th time:
The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue of Gun Week, and also appears under the title "The Text of The Second Amendment" in The Journal on Firearms and Public Policy, Summer 1992, Volume 4, Number 1.
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter on July 26, 1991:
I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
The text of the Second Amendment is, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying " militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
[Copperud:](3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
[Copperud:]To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."
[Schulman:] As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate"- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
ProfessorCopperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
(C) 1991 by TheNew Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.
Well regulated militia>Note the word "Regulated"
Just because you feel the need to carry concealed because you're scared doesn't give you the right to do so. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say you have a right to conceal your weapon. States rights under the 10th Amendment come into play.
If you feel like you need a weapon in public, maybe you should just stay home as the public would be much safer.
Mike, have you read the Federalist Papers lately (or at all) in regard to the framers intent regarding the 2nd Amendment?
As to states rights, if the state already allows concealed carry or open carry, why should it be limited to just the citizens of that state, rather than those of other states who also allow it and have permits?
I mean you do not think people from other states who have valid drivers licences should not be allowed to drive into other states unless they are licenced in that state, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike
Seeing some of the gun nut extremists on this board, it wouldn't be a bad idea.
I find it funny how people who purport to be pro-2nd Amendment feels as if anyone whose view is a little more accepting of gun rights, is a nut or extremist. Or conversely, if you do not think like someone who is for no restrictions at all, you are some commie gun grabber.
I am very pro-2nd Amendment, and understand the Founding Father's wanted and even demanded an armed citizenry to protect our Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Thus some people think any citizen should be allowed to have any weapon.
So one day I participated is a poll asking if regular non military citizens should be allowed to have XYZ. The most deadly weapons in the poll were WMD's (which I presumed to mean Nuclear/Chem/Bio ). The bottom of the list had a butter knife, and there were categories of everything in between.
Now I of course did not vote for the top few slots, but did come in at defensive weapons that were select fire, (i.e. a genuine "assault weapon") vs. what the media calls semi-auto.
Yet because I did not vote for RPG's, tanks, F16's and the like, some were calling me a commie. Now on the one hand I understand their reasoning about an armed citizenry fighting off a tyrannical government run amok and needing some substantial firepower to do so. However, if we put that type of firepower into Joe sixpacks hands, a few nut jobs could lay waste to thousands.
I tried to explain that short of the government using WMD's on American citizens, no military could defeat an armed citizenry made of of at least 150 million gun owners spread across this vast country.
My point is that one persons gun nut, is another persons commie pinko, depending on ones perspective.
Seeing some of the gun nut extremists on this board, it wouldn't be a bad idea.
I take it you haven't reflected on the words and encouragement of actions against those who are part of the NRA...
Gun nut extremists? We just want acknowledgement of constitutional rights. Your side? Just here...
I warned everyone who was posting in here that I would capitalize on their ignorance... Well... Heres an example... Just here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
I think you meant to write "gun nuts are such hypocrites". People who support gun control are rational, thoughtful human beings.
Gun nuts have no problem with these massacres; in fact they support them.
Yet, I haven't seen a single person here support the actions of evil and heinous scumbags...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
The NRA is not the same organization it started out to be. It needs to be reclassified as an active terrorist organization. The actions of the NRA have killed far more people in this country than ISIS.
Yet I haven't seen One member of the NRA commit these atrocities...
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469
If Wayne La Pierre's family were gunned down, would he change his stance on guns. I doubt it. Pretty sad.
Im not sure what is sadder, a hypothetical scenario involving someones family members to adopt a supercilious emotional stance, or the fact someone would actually have the nerve to come out and suggest such an event occur to change someone else's stance...
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggunsmallbrains
Over 1,700 dead and nearly one mass shooting a day since Sandy Hook, but Congress has done nothing.
Are you saying we can solve this problem if we make guns more available? No wonder Trump is a Republican.
Fall back being Sandy Hook/school shootings. I have always argued in favor of having trained and armed teachers/school faculty to thwart acts of evil on innocent children. Not one. Not a single one of your side of the argument has posted anything of use other than hyperbolic sensationalist emotional drivel. Such drivel like false equivalent of PRO 2A folks = mass shooters (who shall not be referred to by name but by the town/city they committed their heinous acts followed by the word Scumbag. Their names are not worth repeating)
Example-Sandy Hook Scumbag. Vegas Scumbag. Texas Church Scumbag.
Not a single person has given praise for these scumbags actions. Not a single one.
So what have these "gun nut extremists" posted here that has you concerned? I haven't seen anything here that should cause you concern unless you yourself engage in criminal enterprise.
Car Jacking
Dope Dealing
Rape
Mugging
Gang warfare
Entering the country illegally
Murderer
Kidnapper
Terrorist (whether a religious zealot, bigot, or plain old lunatic)
Unless you are guilty of the above... what has anyone who is PRO 2A posted, compel you feel unsafe?
The fact we as a collective, refuse to be reliant on a flawed system?
Would rather be independent and responsible for our own safety and well being?
We refuse to allow rights to be eroded to fit a fad of emotional knee jerk responses?
We refuse to become victims?
We refuse to have our rights subjectively interpreted whats legal here is a felony conviction without parole there?
What has you so concerned? Seriously?
Those of us who have CCW/CHL/CPL are held to high standards. Can't engage in criminal enterprise, some states can't even be present in a bar while carrying let alone consume alcohol while in the possession of a weapon. Catch a DWI forget it.
What I have found ironic as all get out, some of your side of the argument have grandstanded for a training requirement. Problem is, what you require often the case, whenever government gets their hands involved=astronomically expensive and deterring. Yet... The training I have participated in, the training I have had loved ones participate in, supersedes the training you require... By a long shot... That's what happens when there is not an asinine requirement to demonstrate proficiency... Your states requirements as well as NYs are lower standards than what I have participated in. Much lower. And much more expensive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You suffer from psychological projection.
