If you exclude felons and kiddie twiddlers doesn't that exclude democrats by default?
Florida - New Permitless Carry for Qualified Citizens Signed into Law - How is this Constitutional Carry?
- Thread starter Snattlerake
- Start Date
No, sadly the right and the middle have plenty of those.
I like what you are saying, but I wonder what is going on with the first paragraph. I was a deputy in Texas and got my CHL in 1997. I do not get treated bad when I have been stopped. Usually let go with a warning. When stopped my hands go to the top of the steering wheel and when the ask for my DL, I let them know I have a permit to carry. I treat them with respect, i show them both cards and let them know where it is when they ask.
Well stated, and I appreciate the links for background. Thank you.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 Regardless of the excuse, until the constitutional second amendment has been repealed, All Government Gun Control and Restriction laws are by definition Unconstitutional.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 promised myself a long time ago that I wouldn’t engage in any fruitless internet arguments. Apparently I lied, because I can’t resist. If this turns into a wall of text, I apologize. I’ll make an effort to keep it shorter than the impressive wall already in the thread.
First, the “I’m a veteran so my opinion means more” thought is garbage. I’m a veteran as well, and my opinion is worth the exact same as any other. The fact that you chose to serve in the military is fantastic and I appreciate your service. But that’s the end. This isn’t Starship Troopers, you don’t get superior rights because of it. I loved my time in the Marines, and I love fellow Marines like family, no matter where they come from politically. Doesn’t mean they are right though.
Now- second amendment absolutism… I am perplexed why anyone would claim that “nobody thinks X”. If you can think it someone believes it. My personal view is that you should be able to own anything from a pointy stick to an LGM-30 Minuteman missile. If you have the desire and the means the only permission slip you need is the second amendment. The only exception is the same as any other- liberty may be restricted after due process of the law. If you commit a crime you can be sentenced to prison. Likewise due process could theoretically restrict your ability to keep and bear arms- though a blanket prohibition against felons owning firearms is an infringement in my view. In reality if someone can’t be trusted to own a gun they probably shouldn’t be let out of prison. They’ve proven they are willing to break laws- why would a law against them owning a gun be the one they chose to follow?
And finally- why do we all have to be so hostile? Lord knows I’m guilty of this more than anyone- but I’m trying. If someone doesn’t agree we start throwing insults. That has changed exactly zero opinions in the history of the world. (True fact- I saw a video of Thomas Jefferson telling Ronald Reagan that exact thing on the YouTubes!!)
First, the “I’m a veteran so my opinion means more” thought is garbage. I’m a veteran as well, and my opinion is worth the exact same as any other. The fact that you chose to serve in the military is fantastic and I appreciate your service. But that’s the end. This isn’t Starship Troopers, you don’t get superior rights because of it. I loved my time in the Marines, and I love fellow Marines like family, no matter where they come from politically. Doesn’t mean they are right though.
Now- second amendment absolutism… I am perplexed why anyone would claim that “nobody thinks X”. If you can think it someone believes it. My personal view is that you should be able to own anything from a pointy stick to an LGM-30 Minuteman missile. If you have the desire and the means the only permission slip you need is the second amendment. The only exception is the same as any other- liberty may be restricted after due process of the law. If you commit a crime you can be sentenced to prison. Likewise due process could theoretically restrict your ability to keep and bear arms- though a blanket prohibition against felons owning firearms is an infringement in my view. In reality if someone can’t be trusted to own a gun they probably shouldn’t be let out of prison. They’ve proven they are willing to break laws- why would a law against them owning a gun be the one they chose to follow?
And finally- why do we all have to be so hostile? Lord knows I’m guilty of this more than anyone- but I’m trying. If someone doesn’t agree we start throwing insults. That has changed exactly zero opinions in the history of the world. (True fact- I saw a video of Thomas Jefferson telling Ronald Reagan that exact thing on the YouTubes!!)
What I actually said in my comment (post #22) was that " In some things my opinion does carry more weight than that of a non-vet. ".
As a veteran I would certainly know more about military training or the power of a grenade than a non-vet, for example. That is why I specifically named only certain weapons like an RPG-7 or 'Claymore', among others, in my comment.
I am NOT against 'civilians' being able to have most weapons for personal use, but I am against the typical citizen having some of those weapons because they are much more powerful than most 'civilians' realize. Again, as stated before, I certainly would not want someone prone to 'road-rage' and fits of anger to have access to a Light Anti-Tank Weapon (LAW) in the event that I accidentally cut that person off in traffic. I'm not willing to sacrifice myself and my family based on the principle of " . . . shall not be infringed." for any reason.
I don't tend to just slap words into a comment without THINKING first about what I am putting out there. I'm NOT anti-2A but I am anti-stupid.
The key word is potential.Technically you are correct except that anyone with a ***** may have the capability to be a rapist, but capability alone is not enough - there also has to be the desire to **** someone.
Same with being a 'mass' shooter. Just possessing firearms does not automatically make a person a killer - there also has to be a desire/need to attack/shoot/kill someone. That's why previous comments referenced 'anger issues', 'schizophrenia', or 'sociopath tendencies' when I questioned whether people with these afflictions should own firearms.
Nice try though and thank you for participating. Be sure to come back again when you actually have something worthwhile to contribute
Having the ability to take an action makes that action a potential action.
If you have a gun, you have the potential of being a mass shooter, just as having a ***** gives you the potential to be a rapist.
If I happen to be pissed off at a situation, and I loudly verbally express my displeasure, let’s say at the lack of customer service at a particular retailer, and someone “thinks” because I own a gun that I might snap and kill everyone working there, in no way directly relates to the likelihood of me actually taking such action.
I happen to vent frustrations that way and then it’s over. Steam vented, pressure gone.
Because my language get colorful, doesn’t make me a threat, although like every single person in the world, I have the potential to commit violence.
Who is the decision maker in the stripping away of my God given RIGHT to defend myself?
So many scream about other taking away their rights to defend themselves. Democrats don't care about whether you defend yourself or not, they just want to control which tools you get to use to do so
I was a cop for 28 years and I think it’s great.
Having knowledge isn’t an opinion. Sure, you know more about the capabilities of an RPG or a claymore than someone that’s never been instructed on those things. That isn’t opinion. But then, that isn’t at all what you were talking about when you said your opinion mattered more. You talked about having skin in the game when it comes to defending the Constitution and others not walking the walk. That isn’t about your knowledge of weapons systems. That’s a belief that people should believe you’re right because you once signed on the dotted line. That’s simply not how it works. And it shouldn’t.
