How does being allowed to carry a concealed weapon across State borders

callinectes said:
Let's see, I carry a spare tire in my car(fun fact: I've never had a flat, not skill, luck)and a first aid kit(used 3 times to help other people). I keep 5 days of food and water in a bug out bag, along with a stove, lantern, radio and other hurricane stuff. I carry a knife, and I use it everyday. I've even memorized the phone number for 911, and I carry a gun, sometimes, not everywhere I go that's for damn sure. I am prepared for a lot of different shit, and that's all. This "cognitive dissonance" crap is getting old. Your studies and facts are old, and I'm not saying there are new studies and facts to refute them, I'm saying they have been force fed to me for a long time and I have rejected them as having little or no weight in my decision to own and carry firearms. There is no dissonance in my cognition, and I seriously doubt you are qualified to diagnose something like that over the Internets. Here's yer flail back
Click to expand...

You sound like a prepared and squared away individual. Nice!
 
Teflon Don said:
Pregnant mom thwarts intruder via Second Amendment – Hot Air
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/11/pregnant-mom-thwarts-intruder-via-second-amendment/
Click to expand...

I can match you story for story.

Toddler shoots, kills mom at Hayden Wal-Mart

Miller said the woman's two-year-old son, who was sitting in the shopping cart, grabbed a handgun that was concealed in her purse and fired the gun, hitting the woman.

Rutledge died at the scene.

http://www.kxly.com/news/local-news...t-hayden-wal-mart_20161121080454845/177509165
 
Teflon Don said:
Diner seems to be the one that is paranoid. He seems afraid of getting shot.

Are you afraid of getting shot Domer?
Click to expand...

Sure don't, little willie. I'm no paranoiac that needs a popgun to make you feel braver, give you that false sense of security and compensate for your small dick.
 
domer76 said:
Sure don't, little willie. I'm no paranoiac that needs a popgun to make you feel braver, give you that false sense of security and compensate for your small dick.
Click to expand...

Then why do you worry so much about others exercising their God given rights?

What business is it of yours?

Nobody is hurting you? How does my carrying a concealed weapon impact you?

My gun decisions are between me and my gun dealer
 
callinectes said:
Let's see, I carry a spare tire in my car(fun fact: I've never had a flat, not skill, luck)and a first aid kit(used 3 times to help other people). I keep 5 days of food and water in a bug out bag, along with a stove, lantern, radio and other hurricane stuff. I carry a knife, and I use it everyday. I've even memorized the phone number for 911, and I carry a gun, sometimes, not everywhere I go that's for damn sure. I am prepared for a lot of different shit, and that's all. This "cognitive dissonance" crap is getting old. Your studies and facts are old, and I'm not saying there are new studies and facts to refute them, I'm saying they have been force fed to me for a long time and I have rejected them as having little or no weight in my decision to own and carry firearms. There is no dissonance in my cognition, and I seriously doubt you are qualified to diagnose something like that over the Internets. Here's yer flail back
Click to expand...

lol

Be careful! Those first aid kits, extra food, lantern and spare tire are more likely to harm you than help you! No, wait. Check that. That would be your gun.

Flail away...
 
Teflon Don said:
Then why do you worry so much about others exercising their God given rights?

What business is it of yours?

Nobody is hurting you? How does my carrying a concealed weapon impact you?

My gun decisions are between me and my gun dealer
Click to expand...

Worried? Naw.

God given? Really? Where did your god grant you the right to carry your pissant popgun? Did your god grant that right before or after the invention of the gun? If your god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why would you even need your popgun?

Carry on, Barney Fife. One bullet at a time!
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this only gives more assumed power to the feds where they have no constitutional power to begin with.
Click to expand...

The feds only have the power that THE PEOPLE grant them.....any law regulating the 2nd amendment should be nothing but a reflection of the THE PEOPLES will. Those congress critters that are sent to DC are there for a reason, to represent the people from their districts. Thus if THE PEOPLE should pass such a regulation through the representative process in not limiting the 2nd amendment but making it legal for law abiding citizens to apply for the right to carry and conceal there would be no constitutional conflict whatsoever, as that representation is exactly what the the 10th amendment addresses in defining the fact that the feds have only the authority granted them through represented common law..etc.,
 
domer76 said:
Sure don't, little willie. I'm no paranoiac that needs a popgun to make you feel braver, give you that false sense of security and compensate for your small dick.
Click to expand...

if you got ambushed by 4 street thugs demanding cash, you'd wilt like a little flower and piss your panties. that doesn't make you 'brave'
 
Ralph said:
The feds only have the power that THE PEOPLE grant them.....any law regulating the 2nd amendment should be nothing but a reflection of the THE PEOPLES will. Those congress critters that are sent to DC are there for a reason, to represent the people from their districts. Thus if THE PEOPLE should pass such a regulation through the representative process in not limiting the 2nd amendment but making it legal for law abiding citizens to apply for the right to carry and conceal there would be no constitutional conflict whatsoever, as that representation is exactly what the the 10th amendment addresses in defining the fact that the feds have only the authority granted them through represented common law..etc.,
Click to expand...

there's only one way to AMEND the constitution, and having elected representatives write and pass a law isn't one of them.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
there's only one way to AMEND the constitution, and having elected representatives write and pass a law isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

One does not have to amend the constitution to regulate any right.....all rights are subject to common laws to include life and liberty, voting, etc., One does not have to do away with the 2nd to regulate it with common law and common sense as long as its the PEOPLE making the regulations through their guarantee of STATE'S RIGHTS found in the Constitution.

Right now....how many states have made common law that regulates the right to carry...and its been found to be constitutional time and time again. The one thing the Feds or no one can do is TAKE YOUR arms away....but they can regulate where you have the right to use those arms..right now you have the right of self defense and there is no right of seizure void of the due process of demonstrating a just cause for a search warrant in the privacy of your own property.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
there's only one way to AMEND the constitution, and having elected representatives write and pass a law isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

One does not have to amend the constitution to regulate any right.....all rights are subject to common laws to include life and liberty, voting, etc., Example: The death penalty, and indentured servitude in the prison system. One does not have to do away with the 2nd to regulate it with common law and common sense as long as its the PEOPLE making the regulations through their guarantee of STATE'S RIGHTS found in the Constitution. What no one can do is take away your arms void of due process because it.....just like life and liberty are guaranteed rights found in the constitution. But..those rights in no way place limits upon due process.
 
Ralph said:
One does not have to amend the constitution to regulate any right.....all rights are subject to common laws to include life and liberty, voting, etc., One does not have to do away with the 2nd to regulate it with common law and common sense as long as its the PEOPLE making the regulations through their guarantee of STATE'S RIGHTS found in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
now this is part of the problem in our nation today. some people don't like certain rights, so they approve of whatever infringements they can get past an idiot populace and then say 'rights can have reasonable restrictions', but what dictionary defines 'shall not be infringed' as 'reasonable restrictions'? Also, if one were to objectively, and without any intellectual dishonesty at all, read the commentaries on the bill of rights (specifically the 2nd Amendment) they would see that 'we the people' ratified an amendment that effectively PROHIBITED the feds from having any power over our firearms.

Ralph said:
Right now....how many states have made common law that regulates the right to carry...and its been found to be constitutional time and time again. The one thing the Feds or no one can do is TAKE YOUR arms away....but they can regulate where you have the right to use those arms..right now you have the right of self defense and there is no right of seizure void of the due process of demonstrating a just cause for a search warrant in the privacy of your own property.
Click to expand...
found to be constitutional time and time again? so if the courts found that they could constitutionally re-establish slavery, you're ok with that? take away womens right to vote? abortion? what's your line on constitutionality? where would you say that 'the courts are wrong on this one'?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
now this is part of the problem in our nation today. some people don't like certain rights, so they approve of whatever infringements they can get past an idiot populace and then say 'rights can have reasonable restrictions', but what dictionary defines 'shall not be infringed' as 'reasonable restrictions'? Also, if one were to objectively, and without any intellectual dishonesty at all, read the commentaries on the bill of rights (specifically the 2nd Amendment) they would see that 'we the people' ratified an amendment that effectively PROHIBITED the feds from having any power over our firearms.


found to be constitutional time and time again? so if the courts found that they could constitutionally re-establish slavery, you're ok with that? take away womens right to vote? abortion? what's your line on constitutionality? where would you say that 'the courts are wrong on this one'?
Click to expand...

FYI: 'those people' have the same rights as you sport....and its the people et.al., that make up the moral reflections that are called LAWS in this nation. No one person's rights surpass any one/single persons rights. :) Regardless of any disagreement you might have...each individual carries the exact same weight...in reflecting or making common law.

A nation that contains moral people make moral laws. Laws do not create morality....they simply define what the people consider moral and what they do not. Morality either exists or it does not...and it begins at home...not on the web, not in school, but at home....not with any law. If laws stopped immorality there would be no crime.
 
Ralph said:
FYI: 'those people' have the same rights as you sport....and its the people et.al., that make up the moral reflections that are called LAWS in this nation. No one person's rights surpass any one/single persons rights. :) Regardless of any disagreement you might have...each individual carries the exact same weight...in reflecting or making common law.
Click to expand...

then you can explain how laws can restrict a right to bear arms to selected weapons, using language of 'shall not be infringed'? because if you can justify laws doing that, what's to stop a government entity from limiting your choice of weapons to a taser, because you're still not being infringed?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then you can explain how laws can restrict a right to bear arms to selected weapons, using language of 'shall not be infringed'? because if you can justify laws doing that, what's to stop a government entity from limiting your choice of weapons to a taser, because you're still not being infringed?
Click to expand...

Its simple...its called represented COMMON LAW. Again, it was your representative congress critter that allowed that type of regulation. Any right is subject to regulation though common law. As demonstrated even Liberty and Death are subject to regulation through due process. When your congress critters ratified those acts that regulated the 2nd....that's called due process. Its not like Big Brother came out one day and spoke...this, this and that type of firearm is now illegal. These type of regulations are represented acts of laws that made these laws Constitutional as per the rights of the states/people found in the 10th amendment. THE PEOPLE granted BIG BROTHER the right to regulate the 2nd in such a fashion. If it were not so...it would be un-constitutional. And clearly its not. One thing that I agree with you about the subject.....give Big Brother an inch and he attempts to take the proverbial mile.

Example: The left attempting to define a copy of the AK47 or M16A1 that was designed to function only in a semi-auto mode......as a military weapon simply because it looks like a military weapon. That is the attempt to take the proverbial mile.
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
if you got ambushed by 4 street thugs demanding cash, you'd wilt like a little flower and piss your panties. that doesn't make you 'brave'
Click to expand...

(laughing) More of your wishful "if/would" feces. The sign of no arguement. Tell us the last time an "if/would" scenario was ever reality, dimwit.
 
Ralph said:
Its simple...its called represented COMMON LAW. Again, it was your representative congress critter that allowed that type of regulation.
Click to expand...
no, it was the COURTS that allowed that type of regulation.

Ralph said:
Any right is subject to regulation though common law.
Click to expand...
then we don't have RIGHTS, we have permissions.

Ralph said:
As demonstrated even Liberty and Death are subject to regulation through due process. When your congress critters ratified those acts that regulated the 2nd....that's called due process.
Click to expand...
due process comes from the courts, not congress. unconstitutional laws come from congress, with YOUR approval i might add.

Ralph said:
Its not like Big Brother came out one day and spoke...this, this and that type of firearm is now illegal.
Click to expand...
actually, that's pretty much exactly what happened. you don't know much about 2nd Amendment history, do you?

Ralph said:
These type of regulations are represented acts of laws that made these law Constitutional as per the rights of the states/people found in the 10th amendment. THE PEOPLE granted BIG BROTHER the right to regulate the 2nd in such a fashion. If it were not so...it would be un-constitutional. And clearly its not. One thing that I agree with you about the subject.....give Big Brother an inch and he attempts to take the proverbial mile.
Click to expand...
again, if the courts decree something as constitutional, doesn't make it so. the courts have been wrong many times......dred scott, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top