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 presume everyone that carries a gun into court is going to shoot someone. Why shouldn't that same logic extend to the public street? It's ok to shoot someone on a public street but not a court room?
Because if you are in a court, you have already committed a crime....to some extent right? Why give the person you hurt a chance to shoot someone.
If you are behind bars, how is the person gong to get someone (if they were going to try and shoot them), other than in a court room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones
If gun owners can live with common sense laws resticting gun usage, then why all adulation of the Arkansas Law?
Some people follow the law, it does not restrict the 2A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones
One would gather that this law totally restores a gun owners right to use his firearm in any maner in which he chooses...
It does? Not really, but a gun owner knows this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones
Thank you for pointing out that this law does not do that. There are still permits and restrictions on gun ownership and usage.
But does it step on the 2nd? Because you say it does, does not mean it's true.
Arkansas restores constitutional carry – no permit or license required to carry weapons
5 down, 45 to go. Concealed carry is now legal in all 50 states; the logical next step is constitutional carry in all 50 states. No one should have to beg permission or obtain a permit to peacefully exercise a constitutional and fundamental right, so I am a full-throttled supporter of constitutional carry and peaceable journey laws.
5 down, 45 to go. Concealed carry is now legal in all 50 states; the logical next step is constitutional carry in all 50 states. No one should have to beg permission or obtain a permit to peacefully exercise a constitutional and fundamental right, so I am a full-throttled supporter of constitutional carry and peaceable journey laws.
Can you imagine the reaction if someone was forbidden to become a Catholic or Baptist or what have you, unless he first paid a fee to the government and waited for them to grant him permission to do so?
What if a Federal law were passed saying that you would be thrown in jail if you printed up a bunch of pamphlets saying that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush did a lousy job as President and started handing them out... unless you first applied to the govt for permission to print them up and waited for the OK to come back from Washington DC? Or from your state government?
The same people who would scream bloody murder over any suggestion of such laws, are fine with similar laws forbidding you to own a gun or carry it in your pocket, unless you first pay a fee to the govt, fill out a bunch of forms, jump thru other hoops, and then wait for permission to come back from the government. If you carry the gun in your pocket without doing all that, you can be thrown in jail, stuck with LARGE fines, and/or have the govt's "permission" to own and carry, permanently revoked.
BTW, as for the guy who has to get govt permission before publishing and handing out his pamphlet... would he be OK with it if the government permanently DENIED him permission to publish it, because they found out that, thirty years ago, he'd been busted for going on a joyride with some friends in a car that one of them had stolen during a drunken spree in college way back then? Nobody got hurt. But no publishing pamphlets complaining about government for you, buddy... EVER. And no typing in C-D forum about that same subject, either. And if you even try, we'll know, through our contacts in the NSA.
These are merely "reasonable restrictions" on your freedom of religion, and of the press... no worse than the "reasonable restrictions" on that other explicitly guaranteed Constitutional right, to keep and bear arms. How can you object to any of them?
What part of the Constitution mentions law-abiding citizens and concealed carry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199
The same part that says we're one nation under god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
The mythical Articles of Imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke
"bear arms"
The only time citizen is mentioned in the constitution, it is associated as a qualification for both voting and/or holding elected office. Nothing else.
People have rights, but not all people are citizens with privileges granted to them by government
Voting is not a right of people, it is a privilege of citizens, that can be denied by government if they choose.
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.
