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.
No, it isn't, in spite of what the news implies. It's more like 25% liberal, 30% conservative, and 45% somewhere in the middle. The 45% is the reason there are such things as swing states in national elections, and they are the ones keeping things from going too far to either extreme. If things start getting too far to one side more moderates switch over to bring things back in balance.
But if you listen to only your side it appears to always be 55% [your side] and 45% [other side], with the other side always cheating to get their way. And it doesn't matter which side is yours... it applies either way.
Take carrying... I was in favor of the recent changes allowing carry in restaurants that served alcohol, with removing the local opt-out for carrying in parks, and allowing someone with a HCP to always have a weapon in a vehicle (guns in trunks law). With training, background check, and fingerprints on file I couldn't think of a single good reason why I should have to leave my weapon at home just because one of my stops during the day happened to be to drop off paperwork at school, or taking my kid to soccer practice, or stopping to eat lunch in a restaurant that happened to serve beer.
But now some are trying to go to "constitutional carry", which means even the most dimwitted, mentally deficient, narcissistic adult may carry a loaded weapon anywhere any time (except for schools, etc.) with no knowledge of self-defense law or even how to properly aim and fire. I am totally against this, and if it gets brought up again I will contact my representatives again. I consider it to be the same as driving a car. Anyone of any age may own a car. Anyone may drive a car on private property (my young kids have both driven vehicles and fired weapons on private property). But if you want to operate a deadly weapon in public (either a handgun or a 2-ton missile on wheels) you should have to undergo training and prove you have minimal competency. The second amendment provides a necessary right, but it is not a suicide pact.
I didn't think the person I was replying too meant "election" politics only. Politics in my mind range a wide swath of political subjects and issues that separate the people. Gun control is an example as well as government run health care and illegal immigration. Political divisiveness does not even mean it's a democrat or republican leaning issue in my mind. It just means the people are divided for political gain which could be the goal of both parties.
But now some are trying to go to "constitutional carry", which means even the most dimwitted, mentally deficient, narcissistic adult may carry a loaded weapon anywhere any time (except for schools, etc.) with no knowledge of self-defense law or even how to properly aim and fire. I am totally against this, and if it gets brought up again I will contact my representatives again.
But now some are trying to go to "constitutional carry", which means even the most dimwitted, mentally deficient, narcissistic adult may carry a loaded weapon anywhere any time (except for schools, etc.) with no knowledge of self-defense law or even how to properly aim and fire. I am totally against this, and if it gets brought up again I will contact my representatives again. I consider it to be the same as driving a car. Anyone of any age may own a car. Anyone may drive a car on private property (my young kids have both driven vehicles and fired weapons on private property). But if you want to operate a deadly weapon in public (either a handgun or a 2-ton missile on wheels) you should have to undergo training and prove you have minimal competency. The second amendment provides a necessary right, but it is not a suicide pact.
I was going to start a new topic about this new "Constitutional Carry" law they're considering, but I decided to post here after seeing what you wrote. Constitutional carry might sound great in rural areas and on farms, but it harms large cities. Police pull over people who are obviously up to no good in areas they don't live in, and police can no longer arrest them for having a firearm without a permit. Gang members and others without felony records can drive around your neighborhood all night with firearms, as long as they keep their gun in the car registered to them until they decide to commit a crime. Thank you, TN legislators. I sure feel safer.
Now, we're talking about allowing people to carry firearms because they attained a certain age, without any legal warnings or range training (permit class). Next time you're in Memphis, or any other crime-ridden area, and you see someone who looks like a gang member hanging around your house with a gun strapped to his hip LEGALLY, you can thank the TN legislators if Constitutional carry is passed. The police won't be able to help you until something happens to you.
The NRA has been a disease for the Republican party because reasonable Moderates don't like when Republicans focus on gun legislation all year and talk about having more guns after every murder. I'm all for protecting yourself with a firearm, but only after you've received training and proven your ability to handle a firearm. I'm a registered Republican and gun owner... always have been... but I'm doubting the GOP more and more every year as I watch Republican legislators in TN cater to the NRA's every wants. I carry a firearm every day, everywhere I can, but I want reasonable standards so the people carrying around me know what they're doing.
I guess I have to ask, have you done or read any studies on so-called "constitutional carry" in states like AZ, WY, VT, AK, or many of the western states (such as CO, UT) that allow a person over 21 to legally have a loaded gun in the vehicle without any type of permit? Has there been any problems? Has it done harm to the big cites such as Phoenix?
It's like the gun in schools BS that floats around with the left saying it is a bad idea, and yet, UT has allowed teachers and any adult with a permit (including students in state colleges) to carry a concealed weapon in any state supported school since day one of the issue of permits.
As a person who lived in TN for seven years, I have to ask, do you really believe the minimal training required to obtain a permit (a lot of that from NRA instructors) is really that much greater than those who might carry without a permit? Other than a background check, the requirement for carrying concealed is ludicrous.
When I lived there, had a friend who was a Williamson County Sheriff who taught the handgun carry class, and if I remember correctly the course was something close to...
Familiarization with a handgun (basically how not to shoot yourself in the face)
Basic laws on how you cannot shoot your neighbor for looking at you funny, but you can use deadly force to shoot someone who is pointing a gun at your or coming with a baseball bat screaming he is going to kill you....
And then the shooting test at the range. Something like 48 or 50 rounds shooting at a silhouette target at 9, 21, and 45 feet (something like that) and you have to hit about 36 or 37 out of 48 or 50. Not bulls eyes, just hit inside the target area. Wow that's rough.
And that is considered reasonable standards? From the training the Federal government has given me, it is not even close. But that still does not sway me from the fact that I have no problem with constitutional carry since I know for a fact, the criminal does not care!
I have friends who carry all the time without permits in AZ and WY and they are better trained than most of the people I know who have permits. So having a permit does not make you better trained. Heck, I have a neighbor who has a permit, issued in ID and has never been to the range with his handgun since he obtained the permit four years ago. He shoots his hunting rife two or three times a year, but has not shot his handgun. So just having a permit does not make one better trained then the person without a permit.
And as for the NRA, I'm a member, but I don't agree with all they say. However, I would bet if it wasn't for the NRA, you would not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon! So condemn them all you want; but since there are more anti-NRA groups out there who would just love to have you unarmed, the do create a balance.
I guess I have to ask, have you done or read any studies on so-called "constitutional carry" in states like AZ, WY, VT, AK, or many of the western states (such as CO, UT) that allow a person over 21 to legally have a loaded gun in the vehicle without any type of permit? Has there been any problems? Has it done harm to the big cites such as Phoenix?
It's like the gun in schools BS that floats around with the left saying it is a bad idea, and yet, UT has allowed teachers and any adult with a permit (including students in state colleges) to carry a concealed weapon in any state supported school since day one of the issue of permits.
As a person who lived in TN for seven years, I have to ask, do you really believe the minimal training required to obtain a permit (a lot of that from NRA instructors) is really that much greater than those who might carry without a permit? Other than a background check, the requirement for carrying concealed is ludicrous.
When I lived there, had a friend who was a Williamson County Sheriff who taught the handgun carry class, and if I remember correctly the course was something close to...
Familiarization with a handgun (basically how not to shoot yourself in the face)
Basic laws on how you cannot shoot your neighbor for looking at you funny, but you can use deadly force to shoot someone who is pointing a gun at your or coming with a baseball bat screaming he is going to kill you....
And then the shooting test at the range. Something like 48 or 50 rounds shooting at a silhouette target at 9, 21, and 45 feet (something like that) and you have to hit about 36 or 37 out of 48 or 50. Not bulls eyes, just hit inside the target area. Wow that's rough.
And that is considered reasonable standards? From the training the Federal government has given me, it is not even close. But that still does not sway me from the fact that I have no problem with constitutional carry since I know for a fact, the criminal does not care!
I have friends who carry all the time without permits in AZ and WY and they are better trained than most of the people I know who have permits. So having a permit does not make you better trained. Heck, I have a neighbor who has a permit, issued in ID and has never been to the range with his handgun since he obtained the permit four years ago. He shoots his hunting rife two or three times a year, but has not shot his handgun. So just having a permit does not make one better trained then the person without a permit.
And as for the NRA, I'm a member, but I don't agree with all they say. However, I would bet if it wasn't for the NRA, you would not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon! So condemn them all you want; but since there are more anti-NRA groups out there who would just love to have you unarmed, the do create a balance.
Whether you'll find problems with Constitutional carry in different states doesn't show whether potential criminals aren't being arrested when they're found with a gun. If an officer finds an individual in a neighborhood they don't live in with a firearm, it isn't logged as "a problem with Constitutional carry". Nothing happens. The potential criminal is let go due to the legality of the encounter and is probably spooked and picks another night/location. If Constitutional carry isn't legal, the criminal will be arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm. I can tell you now that bad people are being let go when found with a weapon in their vehicle because police can't do anything about it as long as they don't have a felony conviction.
I don't think the permit class is enough training, but it's better than absolutely nothing. When someone is shot over a stolen parking spot by a permit holder, we know that person went through a class that taught them their life must be in danger. They screwed up, and prosecution is easy. It happened in my city. I have heard several stories of permit holders with itchy trigger fingers who put themselves in danger and then try to claim self defense. We need MORE training (shooting and legal classes) than we currently require, not less. I can't imagine everyone being able to run around with a firearm because they turned 18 or 21, without any training.
Basic laws on how you cannot shoot your neighbor for looking at you funny....
This is the one I'm interested in. I attended a "legalities of self-defense" seminar a while back. It was put on by a local gun shop and the primary speakers were a self-defense instructor and a defense lawyer. It was free and came with a free meal at a steakhouse, so it was very well attended.
I was stunned at the type of questions people were throwing out. I honestly feared for the sanity of one woman who insisted she should be able to shoot in various clearly non-life-threatening situations. I really hope she has a fence and gate to keep any delivery drivers and salesmen out of range. The lawyer made sure to give her a card.
It was also established that the people with the craziest questions did NOT have a TN carry permit. They had weapons at home, they were (legally) able to car-carry, and most likely more than a few illegally carried without a permit. But obviously they had little to zero understanding of the law. I actually had to jump in to help the lawyer translate the legalities into language these people could understand.
And now, both the TN house and senate have introduced "constitutional carry" bills. It's House Bill 1748 and Senate Bill 1483. No, if this passes it won't be a "wild west blood bath" as predicted by the anti-gun types, but it won't be good. At least they should allow cities over a certain size to opt out. Even the wild west usually had rules about random people to carrying in town.
Whether you'll find problems with Constitutional carry in different states doesn't show whether potential criminals aren't being arrested when they're found with a gun. If an officer finds an individual in a neighborhood they don't live in with a firearm, it isn't logged as "a problem with Constitutional carry". Nothing happens. The potential criminal is let go due to the legality of the encounter and is probably spooked and picks another night/location. If Constitutional carry isn't legal, the criminal will be arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm. I can tell you now that bad people are being let go when found with a weapon in their vehicle because police can't do anything about it as long as they don't have a felony conviction.
I don't think the permit class is enough training, but it's better than absolutely nothing. When someone is shot over a stolen parking spot by a permit holder, we know that person went through a class that taught them their life must be in danger. They screwed up, and prosecution is easy. It happened in my city. I have heard several stories of permit holders with itchy trigger fingers who put themselves in danger and then try to claim self defense. We need MORE training (shooting and legal classes) than we currently require, not less. I can't imagine everyone being able to run around with a firearm because they turned 18 or 21, without any training.
Your entire argument is without merit and penalizes the law abiding citizen over a criminals actions.
I'm not for "constitutional carry" either. Knowledge is power. Heck, I don't care if the state wants to spend the money and make the classes free...if it means those carrying have at least a basic understanding of A) how to operate their firearm and B) more importantly, the potential consequences for using that firearm incorrectly, then it is a good thing.
Honestly, even people that just have guns for home defense and never carry should learn the basics of firearm safety and the law.
I'm not for "constitutional carry" either. Knowledge is power. Heck, I don't care if the state wants to spend the money and make the classes free...if it means those carrying have at least a basic understanding of A) how to operate their firearm and B) more importantly, the potential consequences for using that firearm incorrectly, then it is a good thing.
Honestly, even people that just have guns for home defense and never carry should learn the basics of firearm safety and the law.
Does "constitutional carry" actually mean that US citizens can carry a gun anywhere in the USA without any restrictions? The answer is no. States regulate gun laws and requirements within the state. If a state decides to change a gun law it is not a "constitutional carry" change because "constitutional carry" is not a constitutional right. The term is being used to change public opinion on the 2nd amendment and to allow it to be changed with less resistance. Once they open Pandora's box it's over.
Does "constitutional carry" actually mean that US citizens can carry a gun anywhere in the USA without any restrictions? The answer is no.
Wow! just Wow. Constitutional Carry does mean this exactly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumeby
States regulate gun laws and requirements within the state. If a state decides to change a gun law it is not a "constitutional carry" change because "constitutional carry" is not a constitutional right.
Every read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights and states "keep and bear arms" absolutely, it does not say Keep and Bear Arms except for...
Following your logic nothing listed in the the Bill of Rights as a right is really a right? Talk about a dangerous road! Like it or not it is written there and as a right! You nor I can not pick and choose which Rights are rights. Either all contained there are rights or none are!
You are correct,States have written restrictions on weapons but all of these violate the US Constitution! and they are all most definitely Unconstitutional!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumeby
The term is being used to change public opinion on the 2nd amendment and to allow it to be changed with less resistance. Once they open Pandora's box it's over.
Don't really understand your point here at all. Change the 2nd how? by forcing the government to honor what is truly written in it?
The 2nd was not included there for personal protection; it is not there for hunting purposes; it is there because the Founders had just finished a war against an oppressive government and wanted to insure the citizens of the new country that they would have the ability to do it again should the need arise!
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.
That is absolutely absurd.
Next time you're in Memphis, or any other crime-ridden area, and you see someone who looks like a gang member hanging around your house with a gun strapped to his hip LEGALLY, you can thank the TN legislators if Constitutional carry is passed. The police won't be able to help you until something happens to you.
