Two.....Maybe one person will read this
Florida - New Permitless Carry for Qualified Citizens Signed into Law - How is this Constitutional Carry?
- Thread starter Snattlerake
- Start Date
Just as every child has access to k-grade 12 and is encouraged to attend, regular firearms training and access to areas to practice should be almost equal. Not just a few specific gun clubs for "members" but an orginized show up and get an education on firearms safety, training, and practice when you can and are willing to do that. Yep, most likely impossible to do, but many people do not have access to a place to shoot, and or resources to instructors like the K-12 kids. Nope, have no way to suggest how to get that started, but I think it certainly would be a help. While we are at it, how about teaching people how to drive also.
I didn't read past the first couple of sentences, but in case you took my post wrong, I'm in favor of constitutional carry.Here are some indisputable facts about "GUN CONTROL" (Civilian Disarmament).
You cannot support Strict Adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America and support Government Gun Control, period. Government Gun Control and NOT INFRINGING on the Inalienable Individual RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms are clear and mutually exclusive. Just as it is a FACT that you cannot support FREE SPEECH and also support CENSORSHIP. There is no special decoder ring, you don't have to have a law degree or be a history professor to understand basic simple English language and the CLEAR concepts outlined in our Constitution. All that is required is the cognitive acuity, focus and attention to preform basic logic and reasoning tasks. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is 100% Unambiguous, it means EXACTLY what it says. There is ZERO constitutional or acceptable level of infringement.
All gun control laws violate the CLEAR constitutional prohibition against government infringement of Americans Inalienable Individual RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms. Regardless of the excuse, until the constitutional second amendment has been repealed, All Government Gun Control and Restriction laws are by definition Unconstitutional. FACT!
When you see the Evil Dishonest Un-American (not characteristic of or consistent with American customs, principles, or traditions) Civilian Disarmament Campaigns role the disingenuous "gun owners" or worse the Pathetic Disgraceful Military Veterans who in absolute defiance of the OATH (I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the samethey SWORE, saying that "they are a gun person" but they want you to vote to VIOLATE their fellow Americans "Constitutionally protected" Inalienable Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms WITHOUT Government Infringement, know one indisputable fact about them; Anyone who professes to be a "gun person", or worse SWORE an OATH to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic but supports "reasonable gun control" to make us more safe is either incredible stupid or willfully dishonest and either way they VIOLATED their OATH and are Un-American.
You never hear anybody who claims to be a "gun person" and supports gun control invoking the Constitution, because the two are mutually exclusive. You cannot support the Constitution and support gun control (Civilian Disarmament)! That is a FACT!
We are here (squabbling about what level of infringement we will accept) today because most people who believe they are or claim to be "Pro-Second Amendment", do NOT really understand what that actually means. The "Pro-Second Amendment" crowd keeps getting lost in the weeds and allowing the Civilian Disarmament Crowd to dictate the terms of the conversation.
Concealed Carry without a "government issued permit" is called Constitutional Carry for a reason. It is the codification of an Inalienable Individual Right to carry a firearm without a permit or license as enshrined by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Meanwhile we spend our time debating what level of UNCONSTITUTIONAL federal, state and local government infringement we must submit to in order to buy, have, carry or use a gun. STOP debating about what level of infringement is OK and start demanding that the literal terms of the Second Amendment be STRICTLY ADHERED TO! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! There is ZERO constitutional or acceptable level of infringement.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is Unambiguous!
The original text is written as such: In BOLD
Amendment II 1791
“A well regulated (Means well equipped and well trained) sorry Civilian Disarmament proponents, "WELL REGULATED" as used in the Second Amendment in 1791, absolutely did NOT mean controlled or restricted. Militia, (all men age 18 to 64. The Militia is nearly irrelevant because Militias DO NOT have RIGHTS, Individuals have rights. The Second Amendment enumerates the Inalienable Individual RIGHT of THE PEOPLE, (all of the people) NOT the Militia.) being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people (Inalienable Right "incapable of being surrendered or transferred" Inalienable Individual Rights supersede all governments and all Laws and apply to All of The People) to keep and bear Arms, (All ARMS, firearms, AR15s, M16s, M4A1s, selective fire, fully automatic, machine guns, canons, rocket launchers, all parts (100 % receivers), triggers, suppressors, bump stocks, etc. all sights/optics both night and day, all ammunition, and all magazines, all blades, knives, swords, axes, LITERALLY All ARMS!) shall not be infringed. (Shall NOT be taxed, tracked, recorded, monitored, "licensed", "permitted", restricted or controlled);”
All gun laws are Unconstitutional.
The Bill of Rights expanded upon the Constitution by establishing clear Inalienable Individual rights, limiting the government's power, and further laying the foundation of American Freedom. Americans' Inalienable Individual RIGHT to keep and bear arms WITHOUT the government’s permission, knowledge, involvement, or record keeping is required for FREEDOM and LIBERTY to exist. It is the most important Inalienable Individual Natural Right because it alone provides the people with the only real means to actually protect all of our other rights.
The entire point of the Second Amendment explicitly stating that The Peoples Inalienable Individual RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is so that The People can maintain ACTUAL CONTROL (rather than only theoretical control) over "the people’s government". (For those of you struggling to understand what kind of weapons (arms) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED) This means that "The People" should have equal to or better weapons than the weaponry "the government" has. The Second Amendment is specifically talking about The People KEEPING and BEARING WEAPONS OF WAR. United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Your Inalienable Individual RIGHT to Arms is Inalienable, meaning it can NOT be surrendered or transferred and is NONE of the Governments Business, Period! "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means exactly what it says! All gun laws are Unconstitutional!
We Americans have been being conditioned for just shy of 100 years now that our Inalienable Individual Right to Arms is no longer protected by the constitution from ALL GOVERNMENT INFRINGEMENT, somehow without the Second Amendment ever being repealed. This absolutely is NOT the case. All gun laws are Unconstitutional. FACT!
You are born with your Inalienable Individual Rights, they are like your fingerprints, they exist as part of your individual being. These “natural.” Inalienable Individual Rights are part of what it means to be a person. Inalienable Individual Rights predate and supersede all groups and governments (This is why all collectivism, socialism, communism etc. are 100% incompatible with FREEDOM and Inalienable Individual Rights). Governments, groups and even Constitutions do not establish (give you) Your Inalienable Individual Rights. They can recognize and codify and as our US Constitution demands, Protect Inalienable Individual Rights, but Nobody, least of all government "permits Inalienable Individual RIGHTS", supervises Inalienable Individual RIGHTS or controls Your Inalienable Individual RIGHTS. The incredibly smart Founding Fathers of this GREAT Constitutional Republic considered Inalienable Individual Rights so essential that they warranted specific statutory protection from interference. It is up to you to KNOW what your Inalienable Individual Rights are and to defend them.
IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT RIGHTS YOU HAVE, YOU DO NOT HAVE THEM!
FREEDOM and LIBERTY and RIGHTS, unique to one single nation in all of the history of mankind on planet Earth, our magnificent unprecedented Constitutional Republic. Created to support and defend Rule of Law, Individual Rights, Individual Sovereignty, Freedom and Liberty. If you are struggling to understand why our Founding Fathers instituted the greatest system on earth to promote the INDIVIDUAL'S INALIENABLE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, FREEDOM and LIBERTY and LIMIT the POWERS and functions of Government. A Government they believed was legitimate to the extent that it protected Inalienable Individual Rights. Governments that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral authority. Please Educate yourself, start here:
All Americans should read these documents, if you haven't read the Constitution of the United States of America, The Federalist Papers and The Anti-federalist Papers, or just need or want a refresher, here they are:
Constitution of the United States - Preamble, Articles & Summary
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
https://www.archives.gov/founding.../constitution-transcript
https://constitution.findlaw.com/articles.html
Constitution of the United States - Amendments 1-27
The following is a list of the 27 constitutional amendments. Twenty-five of these constitutional amendments are currently active. The two amendments of the constitution that are inactive are the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) and the 21st Amendment (Repeal of Prohibition).
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendments.html
Constitution of the United States - Bill of Rights 1- 10
The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) spells out that powers not explicitly granted to either level of government are reserved for the people.
The Bill of Rights is not a list of privileges the government gives you or must provide for you. It is a list of things government must protect and cannot take away. If you don't understand the difference, you are part of the problem.
https://www.archives.gov/foundi.../bill-of-rights-transcript
https://constitution.findlaw.com/bill-of-rights.html
To put these important documents that codify FREEDOM and LIBERTY and RIGHTS into context, go here:
The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution.
In total, the Federalist Papers consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. All of the essays were signed "PUBLIUS" and the actual authors of some are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote 52, James Madison wrote 28, and John Jay contributed the remaining five.
The Federalist Papers No. 1 through No. 85 here:
https://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm
https://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
The Anti-Federalist Papers is the collective name given to works written by the Founding Fathers who were opposed to or concerned with the merits of the United States Constitution of 1787. Starting on 25 September 1787 (8 days after the final draft of the US Constitution) and running through the early 1790s, these anti-Federalists published a series of essays arguing against a stronger and more energetic union as embodied in the new Constitution. Although less influential than their counterparts, The Federalist Papers, these works nonetheless played an important role in shaping the early American political landscape and in the passage of the US Bill of Rights.
The Anti-federalist Papers No. 1 through No. 85 here:
http://resources.utulsa.edu/.../AntiFederalist/antifed.htm
If you are lucky enough to live in the Greatest Nation in the History of Mankind, the United States of America then you are blessed with more protected Rights, Liberty and Freedom than any other human beings on the face of the earth ever. If you don't appreciate the gravity of this, Shame on you.
I never leave him without one with me and I carry concealedNot the registry BS again!
I’m saying if people want to protect themselves in public they should take some initiative and get off their lazy @sses and get at least a little training, and a d*mn CHL class isn’t much.
I don’t care if everyone “owns” a gun, but I don’t believe everyone should be able to carry one in public. Heck, I’m even for non violent felons having their right to own guns restored after serving their time.
Sounds like commie **** to me lol
It’s based on irrational fear, nothing more.
You,
The NFA was enacted by a Democratic ruled Congress back in 1934 (almost 90 years ago), and the AWB was enacted by a Republican controlled Congress in 2004 (almost 20 years ago). So yes the Federal government restricted weapon use a long time ago.
" No regular person can carry a "PDW" given by definition a "PDW" is a select fire sub gun or stocked pistol . . . "
"PDW" has several different definitions, one of which 'Personal Defense Weapon, is the one I was referring to which can be applied to any firearm carried on the person.
" My wife can't see very well without her glasses so in your opinion, she shouldn't be allowed the right to defend herself against and attacker. "
At no point in any of my comments have I ever stated that a person did not have the right to defend themselves. What my non-hypothetical question ask was whether it would be considered okay for a person that was almost blind to carry a Personal Defense Weapon (firearm) under 'Constitution Carry'?
Thank you for giving your opinion on the question I posed, though the real reason I did include that question is to try and get people to actually start to think about the ramifications of carrying rather than to just continue to parrot the same " . . . shall not be infringed." mantra that, for many, just roll off the tongue without thought.
" Let's see here who enacted the NFA, and the AWB? Pretty sure those are/were federal. "
The NFA was enacted by a Democratic ruled Congress back in 1934 (almost 90 years ago), and the AWB was enacted by a Republican controlled Congress in 2004 (almost 20 years ago). So yes the Federal government restricted weapon use a long time ago.
" No regular person can carry a "PDW" given by definition a "PDW" is a select fire sub gun or stocked pistol . . . "
"PDW" has several different definitions, one of which 'Personal Defense Weapon, is the one I was referring to which can be applied to any firearm carried on the person.
" My wife can't see very well without her glasses so in your opinion, she shouldn't be allowed the right to defend herself against and attacker. "
At no point in any of my comments have I ever stated that a person did not have the right to defend themselves. What my non-hypothetical question ask was whether it would be considered okay for a person that was almost blind to carry a Personal Defense Weapon (firearm) under 'Constitution Carry'?
Thank you for giving your opinion on the question I posed, though the real reason I did include that question is to try and get people to actually start to think about the ramifications of carrying rather than to just continue to parrot the same " . . . shall not be infringed." mantra that, for many, just roll off the tongue without thought.
Should an almost blind person carry a firearm? No, probably not. Should that person be be prohibited from doing so under constitutional carry? No.
So you believe that every person that falls under the purview of the United States Constitution should be able to own and operate any weapon, whether that be a .17 cal air gun to a 20mm Chain Gun, an RPG-7 to a tactical nuclear weapon, and ownership (and operation) should have absolutely no restrictions whatsoever, even those that could be based on mental or physical capacity?
WOW, I can't wait for me and my family to run across a 'road rage' driver with anger issues carrying an RPG just looking for an excuse to use it against someone.
Yes unless, as I said before, a law that has been deemed Constitutional applies. Don't pretend that I didn't say anything different. You're being disingenuous in your zeal to argue against the Constitution and utterly facetious and stupid.
That's probably the stupidest response to date.
Last edited:
