State Considers Law to Bypass Gun Permits

None of it matters if this turd is re-elected:

www.washingtontimes.com... g/inside-politics/2012/feb/10/nra-official-obama-wants-outlaw-guns-2nd-term/

An armed society is a polite society....

But we are very much an armed society today.

Far from polite.

For those people that believe the west was like what Hollywood portrayed it, please. Research the reality of the 'wild west' again. The true violence was between rival families, gangs and deputies, and thieves. The natives only protected their tribes by the most part. Most immigrants were struggling to survive. Even after civilization arrived.

I do not broadcast to others that I am carrying a weapon. Nor would I. Therefore, should I begin to place my firearm on my side, as others begin to do, I can only imagine a movie western shootout with everyone on the street getting to spray their ammo into the crowd to show their right to carry and use arms. Absurd and irresponsible.

I want the governing federation to stand down. Allow the states to dictate what is best for their own interests. Then, those of the federation will then have to justify their jobs. Meaning? Do the job they were placed there to do. Not "Change", then, "More Change". If someone is elected into a position, they must fulfill any and all promises they made prior to gaining said position. Until then, no one will be held liable for their actions.

(I want everyone to fight for their freedom. I cannot grasp why people want others to fight in their stead.)

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by FusionPower

 

NH.

It's a dem governor but the house and senate are like 90% reps. No reason the bill shouldnt have passed.

Unless they're just waiting until we get a rep governor who wont just veto it.

Even if the governor didn't like it, with enough support, a veto could be overridden

A permit to carry concealed never made sense to me. What difference does it make if it's concealed or out in the open.

Originally posted by sean
A permit to carry concealed never made sense to me. What difference does it make if it's concealed or out in the open.

concealed the criminal does not know if your armed while open he does. open may act as a deturent it may also (if society was used to it) be used to make crime easier in some cases. example if your used to see open carry folk walk in and out of your store daily and suddenly there only one in your store and his firearm is in your face because you thought nothing of it when he walked in.

however ccw permit also adds somethign else to tack onto a crooks record if imprisioned,

reply to post by pteridine
you seem to think this is the wild west, where the call is "meet me in the center of main at noon and draw", not so seeing one carry would make the bad guy think twice, but then there are drugs to effect ones judgment, CCW one does not know and some be slow to act, how fast could you pull from under a coat or out of a purse? side armed? try it.

reply to post by sean
it is a tax plain and simple! for if your a "bad guy" it does not matter, they will always have guns, no matter what the laws says

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by pteridine
[CCW one does not know and some be slow to act, how fast could you pull from under a coat or out of a purse? side armed? try it.

With the adrenaline rush due to the combat factor of actually being in danger take whatever action you practice and decrease its effectiveness by about 30%

my drill sergeant taught me that.

it also depends on where you carry. in the waist,small of back, shoulder ect. how big the firearm is also determines the speed of draw. a snubby is easier pulled than a smith and wesson 500.

i have a stoeger couger8000(formerly a berretta cauger 8000) 15 rounds of 9mm. How well will i be able to use it?

the one time i was robbed at home i had nothing to protect me but a dog and a cheap flea market sword that wasnt sharp. the dog did all the work

when i was robbed at the jobcorps dorm i had a broom handle.

when i was robbed at a local gas station someone else had a ccw and didn't bat an eye to pull his peice.

these were all failed attempts at robbing me. most due to my luck.

so i do not become a statistic i practice with my 9. currently im using a nylon shoulder holster and a nylon in the waist holster.

with my in the waist holster i can have that firearm pointed at centermass rather quickly.

but under stress how would i fare? i might drop the damn thing or fail to disengage the safety. hell i might even accedentally press the mag release.

your going to react diffrently under stress.

that noted. some people do the oppisite and thrive under it

I support the idea of any responsible law abiding adult citizen of the states carrying firearms, open or concealed, but I will have to acknowledge what member pteridine said and add that I would only want to see them at least take a basic weapons operation and safety course... Which results in a permit. But the point is that if we have a bunch of guns in the hands of a whole bunch of citizens, at the very least they ought to be proven proficient enough to at least be able to prevent negligent discharges and the like. See many here are military trained individuals, and I'm sure they, like I, take the occasional trip to the range - and without fail, every time, someone does something that causes us trained folks to cringe as some range safety officer rushes over to correct them.

TL;DR: Fully support exercising Second Amendment rights, but mandatory safety courses first when it comes to open or concealed carry for untrained individuals - For everyone's safety.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by sean

 

it is a tax plain and simple! for if your a "bad guy" it does not matter, they will always have guns, no matter what the laws says

england is proof of that. theres an outright ban on handguns and yet every crook that wants one can get it real easy

Originally posted by randomname
"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 second amendment is not to protect peoples right to bear arms but to protect a militia's ability to be armed for the security of the state.

people conveniently ignore the first half of the amendment.

so unless you're in a militia, ready to defend your country, you have no right to a firearm.

edit on 10-2-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)

You might want to re-read the decision in Heller vs DC if you believe that. I'll sum it up for you: the US Supreme Court has ruled that the citizen's right to keep and bear arms is unconnected to militia service.

Not that it matters much. You can also look up the legal definition of 'militia' under US Code and see that it basically includes any citizen of draft age.

And just to add...

The whole argument about the interpretation of the Second Amendment is actually asinine. It doesn't matter. The 2nd Amendment is merely a protection of a right, it doesn't actually grant that right. Lets say the 2nd Amendment is repealed tomorrow. It changes nothing. There are still *very* few laws on the books in this country banning firearms, and all of those are limited to a few large municipalities like Chicago. Until those laws are passed, Jim Bob out in Alabama can still own his collection of AR-15s as long as he wants. Even without the 2nd Amendment, there's no law against it!

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by pteridine

 

you seem to think this is the wild west, where the call is "meet me in the center of main at noon and draw", not so seeing one carry would make the bad guy think twice, but then there are drugs to effect ones judgment, CCW one does not know and some be slow to act, how fast could you pull from under a coat or out of a purse? side armed? try it.

Actually, it is other posters who seem to think that this is the wild west if a statement includes "how fast could you pull from under a coat."
My position is that CCW with permits is better for reasons I explained. First, states with permits won't recognize those without for reciprocal carry so that, alone, is a good reason to table the legislation. Second, open carry invites those without to acquire firearms from an obvious source or those with to identify and eliminate a potential adversary during a planned event. "Shall issue" CCW states have the right idea. No one knows who is carrying and those that carry don't provide an obvious source of weaponry to anyone who wants to take advantage of someone open carrying as they go about their daily routine. Further, open carry is disturbing to many people and establishments. Open carry in a bar seems to be asking for trouble, and other places will likely be off limits, so there will be many more rules that the proposed legislation will have to impose on people.

reply to post by BulletShogun
you will do just fine when the time comes, why do i know this your no brag a doe sha.

reply to post by pteridine
the next time you in a bar ask your self this how are a CCW how many are "packing" now how many would use it or be in the shape to use it if it came down to it.

Originally posted by randomname
"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 second amendment is not to protect peoples right to bear arms but to protect a militia's ability to be armed for the security of the state.

people conveniently ignore the first half of the amendment.

so unless you're in a militia, ready to defend your country, you have no right to a firearm.

edit on 10-2-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)

Big Sigh! You should look up the meaning of a "comma" in the English language. Then after that you might want to try studying some history on what the founders (you know the guys who wrote the constitution) had to say about the peoples individual right to keep and bear arms. Then you might want to contemplate the fact that the constitution does not grant any rights it simply illustrates rights the exist inherently. Then you might want to ask yourself if the first amendment right to free speech is an individual right and are all the others listed in the bill of rights individual rights. Then ask yourself why if all of them are individual rights does it make any sense that the second amendment would be an exception.

If you do all those things sincerely it might possibly prevent you in the future from making completely asinine stupid and ridiculous statements like the one quoted above and embarrassing yourself profusely.

Originally posted by Kenrichaed
reply to post by texas thinker

 

The Constitution was written to give the Federal Government more power not less.

where did you get that ridiculous idea? ^^^
if this is what you believe, you'd be seriously mistaken.
the US Constitution specifically restricts the authority of government.
it does not give it more power, it limits and or restricts it, explicitly.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by pteridine

 

the next time you in a bar ask your self this how are a CCW how many are "packing" now how many would use it or be in the shape to use it if it came down to it.

What is your point?
I would say that taking a firearm into a gin mill should be prohibited. Booze facilitates bad decision making and amplifies the emotions. Note how many drunks think that they can safely drive themselves home and manage to kill others on the way. Most people in a bar would be in the "shape to use it."

there is no need in a modern society to carry a gun ..just thinking in bar brawl where a guy pulls out a gun ,,does not bare thinking about..they are plenty of non lethal devices that can be carried if you feel the need to defend ya self..just my opinion