Conceal & Carry Without a Permit: Do We Need to Change the Second Amendment?

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

No thats an absurd reductionist argument. Clearly anything that violates the rights of others without their consent is a criminal offense. Thats common law and in reality we dont need it written down. What we would write down would be the punishment for those crimes. For generations there was no such thing as a county prosecutor, ask yourself what changed that?

a reply to: seagull

Investing more money and effort into mental health institutions and its research. Also reduce the stigma behind mental health by providing information and education freely to those who so choose. A rigorous psychological screening for the permitted use of a firearm is a must, it would be more than a simple questionnaire that any sociopath could lie about. It would be an in-depth psycho-analysis,behavioral analysis and diagnosis with clinical psychologists and maybe neurologists that could be applied to other aspects of society for the purpose of keeping on eye out on the mental well being of citizen's. It would be a long term solution requiring some collective effort, this issue is not something that can be patched up quickly with a simple legislation proposal for a ban or permit ffor OCW.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: butcherguy

So having a slip of paper in your wallet makes you a safe driver? Does a drivers license make you a sober driver too? Laws don't make sober drivers either.... just like they don't prevent murders.

So again should we just decriminalize murder since your logic seems to dictate legislation is redundant? If so how do propose we prevent people from killing each other? And please do not say we should just arm everyone and give them Kevlar vests...

See my later posts.
I didn't say that at all.
But feel free to put words in my mouth.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5

People can have the "right" to own guns...and be required to complete appropriate training in order to exercise that right....and more so when they wish to carry those guns in public spaces where other innocent folks are at risk of being a victim of their ignorance.

So, are you for or against firearms safety training in schools?

Against if mandated as part of the curriculum. There is the rub. Force everyone to take firearms training? If not then we are back to training them as adults prior to permit.

And, did you take your drivers test on an ice covered interstate highway?

My older sister taught me at the age of 12 on drives to and from school. A lesson plan that came to an abrupt halt when we passed my mother at 60 MPH going the other direction.

originally posted by: butcherguy

But feel free to put words in my mouth.

OK

originally posted by: butcherguy

I like to wear women's underwear and nothing else during target practice.

Please explain the above?

a reply to: Indigo5

Against if mandated as part of the curriculum.

Sex education. Are you for it being mandated?

a reply to: Indigo5

Please explain the above?

It seems to indicate that you think I would be ashamed of it.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Indigo5

Not sure how to unpack an ignorant post like this?

Start off with name calling, of course

Why do you want to keep someone from possessing a tool? An object?

Because it's scary? Then get one for yourself.

There are two types of people, armed realists and unarmed victims.

And I disagree that all rights are subject to regulation, that goes against the very definition of a right.

Uhh...What good would an Anti-aircraft rocket launcher do me while I am flying in a plane and my ex-wife cracks off a shot with her anti-aircraft rocket from her backyard?

Won't even enter a nuclear weapons discussion...which is apparently OK with you too under the unlimited rights to "tools" scenario.

a reply to: butcherguy

How am I misconstruing this? Are you not implying that laws against murder are unnecessary as they don't prevent murders?

So having a slip of paper in your wallet makes you a safe driver? Does a drivers license make you a sober driver too? Laws don't make sober drivers either.... just like they don't prevent murders.

a reply to: Dragoon01

What argument are you referring to?

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5

Against if mandated as part of the curriculum.

Sex education. Are you for it being mandated?

Yes...cuz everyone is born with those weapons and they should learn about proper use and safety.

God mandated ownership in that scenario.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: butcherguy

How am I misconstruing this? Are you not implying that laws against murder are unnecessary as they don't prevent murders?

So having a slip of paper in your wallet makes you a safe driver? Does a drivers license make you a sober driver too? Laws don't make sober drivers either.... just like they don't prevent murders.

Show me where I said that we should make murder legal.
Seems pretty simple.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5

Against if mandated as part of the curriculum.

Sex education. Are you for it being mandated?

Yes...cuz everyone is born with those weapons and they should learn about proper use and safety.

God mandated ownership in that scenario.

So you think that if a kid finds a weapon in a home, they shouldn't know anything about it?
What if they find one that was discarded after being used in a crime?
Oh, that's right... we shouldn't educate about the dangers of heroin use.... because we aren't born with heroin? Right?

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Indigo5


There are two types of people, armed realists and unarmed victims.

If you had ever visited something akin to a war zone you would realize how inane that statement is.

It is a delusion held by folks whose exposure to real-life gun violence is limited to GTA like your avatar.

In the real world you can be unarmed and survive and you can be armed and a victim. And it's what's between your ears, not what's in your holster that decides the outcome. That is what a "realist" knows.

Again...I am for gun ownership, but the less idiots owning guns the better for me and the better for everyone.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: Metallicus

No compromise on gun control...none. imagine me saying we need to come to a compromise on abortion laws. There would be a lot of angry abortion rights people. My compromise is if you don't want a gun don't buy one.

That's a bit of a...Misguided point of view. Should we just allow people to drive cars with out a license as they have the right to do so? I'm sure in you libertarian mindset you're probably more than likely for that but correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm sorry but not everyone deserves the right to own a firearm, people who are mentally disturbed and convicted criminals should be prevented from owning firearms. Kind of how like people who are not fit to drive should not practice that right, or mentally fit enough to choose to use legal and/or illegal substances. Just because you have the right to have access to certain things doesn't give you the right to just abuse it for your idealized purposes.

You don't need a license to drive...you just can't go on public roads. When I was growing up in the south, kids (12 yrs old or so) drove cars all the time around the farms / lands. They just couldn't legally take the cars out on the public roads.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5

Against if mandated as part of the curriculum.

Sex education. Are you for it being mandated?

Yes...cuz everyone is born with those weapons and they should learn about proper use and safety.

God mandated ownership in that scenario.

So you think that if a kid finds a weapon in a home, they shouldn't know anything about it?
What if they find one that was discarded after being used in a crime?

Kids are taught about the dangers of guns? I thought you were talking about training and safe use?

Either wouldn't have helped this child?
Police: Hamilton 3-year-old found gun in mom's purse, shot self
www.wlwt.com...

Oh, that's right... we shouldn't educate about the dangers of heroin use.... because we aren't born with heroin? Right?

Not if the education involves using Herion?

a reply to: Indigo5

Either wouldn't have helped this child?

All or nothing, eh?
Can't save everyone, so don't try to save any?

Not if the education involves using Herion?

If you remember, I specifically stated that I wasn't talking about training kids to use firearms. Maybe you misread it?

a reply to: butcherguy

Show me where I said that we should make murder legal. Seems pretty simple.

I'm asking if that's what your implying? If not then what's the problem with having laws against murder and being permitted a driver's license before driving a car on public roads? Sure laws don't directly prevent people from getting behind the wheel drunk, your cognitive ability to think responsibly about your actions does. Those laws are there to keep dunces from getting behind the wheel because they'd be too stupid to even get a license legally. So indirectly they prevent further incidences from being perpetuated by morons.

a reply to: butcherguy

Yep. Misread it. You had said "training", but followed it with "Not shooting guns in schools"..

There are gun violence education programs in schools, mostly inner city. No issue with general gun education in schools, safety etc. But am not sure that would limit idiots owning guns. Permitting helps with that.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: introvert

thank you, I'm well aware of that.

But time for compromise is over. Why is it that I'm the one who has to "compromise"? When a compromise only goes one way, how is it a compromise?

Maybe I'm dumber than I think I am, but I just don't see how compromise does us, legal gun owners, any favors. Why do I have to be the one. I've done nothing wrong, nor have any of the gun owners I know personally.

I already jump through enough hoops. I'm done, as best I'm able, allowing more hoops to be thrown up.

I think we have to open to compromise because that is the only way we can get people to sit down at the table, discuss the issue and walk away with our rights back.

As of now, most pro-2nd people scream "shall not infringe" and when asked to define arms that should not be infringed upon, cannot agree among themselves what defines arm. There is a fight inside the pro-2nd group itself.

We have to come to some sort of compromise on definitions and other areas before we can approach the right overall. Otherwise, we just keep letting the politicians define our right for us and slowly give the right away.