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.
I think alot of times these issues are pushback over the continued chipping away of the Second Amendment by politicans rather than a true intent to cause harm. IMHO, the issue isn't owning arms but baring them. CCW should be limited to rural/suburban areas where police prescence is spotty at best.
It is on record that the cops are not for your defence...
So, every CRIMINAL can have a gun on the inner city, because everyone else is not allowed to have a CCW?
I think alot of times these issues are pushback over the continued chipping away of the Second Amendment by politicans rather than a true intent to cause harm. IMHO, the issue isn't owning arms but baring them. CCW should be limited to rural/suburban areas where police prescence is spotty at best.
Why should you need to conceal in rural areas? The entire concept of concealing firearms is derived from the need to carry in urban areas where open carry has never gone over real good. Up until the early 20th century people carried concealed in urban areas with no need of a permit & no absurd restrictions. Guess what? Violent crime was much much lower than it is today. Despite antigun propaganda the truth is that crime started increasing with the advent of firearm carrying restrictions and has never gone back down. I cant say that gun control is the cause of this increase, but it certainly looks like it & it sure didn't help.
A person in NYC or any other big city needs a gun at least as much as farmer Jones does.
I'm not arguing with anyone about the Second Amendment. I think it all hinges upon what one considers a 'militia' to be. It's all the modifiers that have been in effect tacked onto the Second Amendment which concern me, be they unconstitutional or not. I could afford a select-fire weapon, but I don't think I could afford to shoot it much in full-auto. A .22 WMR (or even LR) select-fire would be great, though.
My apologies if I took your comment the wrong way.
At any rate it doesn't matter what we think the militia is. Federal law says its EVERY healthy free man between 18 & 45 I think, but the right isn't limited to those in the militia anyway. It is for everyone as noted by recent SC decisions, its for ALL legal uses of firearms & all citizens. Had the framers realized the way we would twist things they woulda left the militia clause out I think. If we drop all of our own prejudices & just read it it doesn't even remotely sugest that ONLY the militia has a RKBA. It says we ALL do so that a militia is a realistic possibility. In other words the only way you can raise a militia is if you have an armed populace.
Yes, I agree. The "militia" designation is just too vague. Funny, while I was reading yor post, at first I wondered why South Carolina court decisions would be binding on the rest of us. Then I realized that 'SC' meant 'Supreme Court'.
Yeah, I know, I'm showing my age but when I was in High School, no one thought twice about me bringing a rifle, shotgun or pistol to school and putting it, and the ammunition, in my locker. They just expected I would either be going hunting after classes, or I was target shooting. No one got upset, no one was threatened, and no one was hurt. Hell, a part of the time the asst principal would be going bird hunting with me, or a math teacher or a history teacher. It was a non-event, I believe that is how it should be.
One question. Bush and his cohorts NEVER allowed anyone with a gun near them, so why all of the sudden these "gun rights" advocates want to show up with guns at rallies for the most threaten President in history?
One question. Bush and his cohorts NEVER allowed anyone with a gun near them, so why all of the sudden these "gun rights" advocates want to show up with guns at rallies for the most threaten President in history?
Thats not a correct statement. Nobody was afraid Bush would ban guns so people did not demonstrate like this. Has nothing to do with anything except the policies & agendas of different Presidents, Bush was a dope but he wasn't a control freak.
Why would you say Obama is the most threatened President in history? So far nobody has tried to kill him, nobody has ever assasinated a Black President either, so far I think its clear that we kill White politicians much more frequently than Black ones.
One question. Bush and his cohorts NEVER allowed anyone with a gun near them, so why all of the sudden these "gun rights" advocates want to show up with guns at rallies for the most threaten President in history?
Bush never tried to take all the guns rights away....Did anyone ever try and show up to a Bush rally with a rifle strapped to their back?
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime
so why all of the sudden these "gun rights" advocates want to show up with guns at rallies for the most threaten President in history?
I only know of 1 gun at 1 rally, do you know different?
Why do you feel the need to not be able to openly carry, when there is no law against it?
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Having brothers and other family that are LEO's currently, I can attest to that.
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.
