Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chuckie" data-source="post: 4011210" data-attributes="member: 42584">You,&quot; Let&#039;s see here who enacted the NFA, and the AWB? Pretty sure those are/were federal. &quot;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).&nbsp; So yes the Federal government restricted weapon use a long time ago.&quot; No regular person can carry a &quot;PDW&quot; given by definition a &quot;PDW&quot; is a select fire sub gun or stocked pistol . . . &quot;&quot;PDW&quot; has several different definitions, one of which &#039;Personal Defense Weapon, is the one I was referring to which can be applied to any firearm carried on the person.&quot; My wife can&#039;t see very well without her glasses so in your opinion, she shouldn&#039;t be allowed the right to defend herself against and attacker. &quot;At no point in any of my comments have I ever stated that a person did not have the right to defend themselves.&nbsp; 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 &#039;Constitution Carry&#039;?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 &quot; . . . shall not be infringed.&quot; mantra that, for many, just roll off the tongue without thought.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chuckie, post: 4011210, member: 42584"] You, " [B]Let's see here who enacted the NFA, and the AWB? Pretty sure those are/were federal. [/B]" The NFA was enacted by a Democratic ruled [B]Congress [/B]back in 1934 (almost 90 years ago), and the AWB was enacted by a Republican controlled [B]Congress [/B]in 2004 (almost 20 years ago). So yes the Federal government restricted weapon use a long time ago. " [B]No regular person can carry a "PDW" given by definition a "PDW" is a select fire sub gun or stocked pistol[/B] . . . " "PDW" has several different definitions, one of which '[B]P[/B]ersonal [B]D[/B]efense [B]W[/B]eapon, is the one I was referring to which can be applied to any firearm carried on the person. " [B]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. [/B]" At no point in any of my comments have I ever stated that a person did not have the right to [B]defend [/B]themselves. What my [U]non-hypothetical[/U] question ask was whether it would be considered okay for a person that was almost blind to carry a [B]P[/B]ersonal [B]D[/B]efense [B]W[/B]eapon (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. [/QUOTE]

Verification