We need National right to carry a concealed weapon Law

SJJRSJJS

SJJRSJJS

Verified User
An armed society is a polite society, like Arizona for instance. Awhile back, I gave my son a .380 Walther PP and found out that the great State of AZ does not require a CCW permit to carry a handgun either open or concealed. If you have a "clean" record, you can carry a handgun. What does this all prove... don't mess around in AZ if you don't want to get your ass shot off. A National CCW law would mean that the good guys would be able to defend theirselves and their families against potential terrorists anywhere in the USA. The bad guys carry guns anyway because they are by definition "bad" guys, so we need to counter their ability to create chaos like in Orlando Florida and San Bernardino CA, etc. with our own weapons.
 
SJ #1

The Bushies located Gitmo on Cuba as a legal fig-leaf, in case those imprisoned there were later deemed to have rights in the U.S. that might not apply, outside the U.S.
Lame I know, and it's cost the tax payers a fortune.

I've wondered about a similar fig-leaf on 2A. 2A says "the right to keep & bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

BUT !!

We also have 1A rights, such as religion and speech. We don't need to apply for a permit to speak, or attend church. Requiring that of gun owners is an "infringement"!

BUT !!

2A is federal. And the feds have left much of the infringements & usurpations of 2A to the States, and in the case of New York State, to the counties. My neighbor says county sheriffs handle that here.

The wording of the resolve: We need National right to carry a concealed weapon Law

Do you mean that it MUST be federal statute?

Or would having each State recognizing the concealed carry license issued in another State, exactly as we now do with automobile driver's licenses suffice?

"A National CCW law would mean that the good guys would be able to defend theirselves and their families against potential terrorists anywhere in the USA."

I've never seen a one-sided coin. Pro-gunners cite this, as if there is no down-side. Obviously if it was this simple, national concealed carry would ALREADY be the law of the land.

The statistical complication is, the mass-murders that would have been committed had it not been impossible for the prospective terrorist to get a gun; those non-existent massacres never make the newspaper.

We needn't pretend reality is imponderable.
Locations such as Canada, England, and Australia have imposed severe restrictions on private firearms carry & ownership.
The statistics I've read indicate there's far less gun violence there than there is in the U.S., where guns (as you cite in your AZ example), and less gun violence now than before their stricter restrictions were imposed.

Beware confirmation bias. Reinforcing your own prejudice is an inadequate substitute for objective analysis. It is a titanic self-deception to mistake the former for the latter.
 
SJJRSJJS said:
An armed society is a polite society, like Arizona for instance. Awhile back, I gave my son a .380 Walther PP and found out that the great State of AZ does not require a CCW permit to carry a handgun either open or concealed. If you have a "clean" record, you can carry a handgun. What does this all prove... don't mess around in AZ if you don't want to get your ass shot off. A National CCW law would mean that the good guys would be able to defend theirselves and their families against potential terrorists anywhere in the USA. The bad guys carry guns anyway because they are by definition "bad" guys, so we need to counter their ability to create chaos like in Orlando Florida and San Bernardino CA, etc. with our own weapons.
Click to expand...

Good people carrying firearms is a good thing, which was proven recently when the Highway Patrol man was shot and being physically assaulted by someone and a citizen stepped in and shot the criminal.
If that citizen had been unarmed, not only would the Officer probably be dead; but the good Samaritan also.
 
#3

a) Splendid. But

b) out of a nation of over 300 million, that's known as an "anecdote". It's statistically irrelevant.

c) It's unwise to structure national policy on anecdotes.

It's vastly more prudent to assess prevailing trends on basis of reliable statistical data.
 
Queen Snowflake said:
I thought you were a state's right kind of guy?
Click to expand...
I am, but the Feds should protect US when it comes to terrorists, etc. I doubt that a terrorist would try to "take over" a mall or restaurant in Arizona because every tenth guy would be "packing" and would shoot back. I love the Arizona Republic.
 
Arizona is the 10th least peaceful state in the nation. In addition to an above-average violent crime rate, the incidences of property crime, larceny, and motor vehicle theft in Arizona are each among the 10 highest compared with other states. So far this year, data collection and research group Gun Violence Archive has tracked four mass shootings in the state in which a total of 12 people were killed. Just seven other states have had a higher number of deaths from mass shootings.
Click to expand...


http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2016/07/30/where-does-arizona-rank-among-americas-most-violent-states/87747274/
 
SJJRSJJS said:
An armed society is a polite society, like Arizona for instance. Awhile back, I gave my son a .380 Walther PP and found out that the great State of AZ does not require a CCW permit to carry a handgun either open or concealed. If you have a "clean" record, you can carry a handgun. What does this all prove... don't mess around in AZ if you don't want to get your ass shot off. A National CCW law would mean that the good guys would be able to defend theirselves and their families against potential terrorists anywhere in the USA. The bad guys carry guns anyway because they are by definition "bad" guys, so we need to counter their ability to create chaos like in Orlando Florida and San Bernardino CA, etc. with our own weapons.
Click to expand...

Indeed every democrapic car smasher needs at least one concealed weapon so they can defend themselves if they get hassled by the police
 
"I thought you were a state's right kind of guy?" QS #5

Me?
I'm diligently trying to avoid explaining what I am, because I've done so at other current events sites; and had no end of squabbling about labels ever after. No thanks.

But I think bells & whistles should be left to children's tricycles; not U.S. federal government. To avoid anarchy, the rule of the frontier (might makes right), I think government should protect us from force or fraud, to reasonable degree.

Jefferson opined that governments are instituted among men for such purpose. I don't recall Jefferson saying whether it should federal, or State.

What's more important to me is that the right is preserved, than which echelon of government preserves it.
 
sear said:
"I thought you were a state's right kind of guy?" QS #5

Me?
I'm diligently trying to avoid explaining what I am, because I've done so at other current events sites; and had no end of squabbling about labels ever after. No thanks.

But I think bells & whistles should be left to children's tricycles; not U.S. federal government. To avoid anarchy, the rule of the frontier (might makes right), I think government should protect us from force or fraud, to reasonable degree.

Jefferson opined that governments are instituted among men for such purpose. I don't recall Jefferson saying whether it should federal, or State.

What's more important to me is that the right is preserved, than which echelon of government preserves it.
Click to expand...

She was addressing the OP.
See the confusion caused by not quoting?
 
the 2nd Amendment is to prohibit the feds from having any power over our firearms. it's meaningless now because of the hoplophobes and freedom cowards.

Each state has their own state constitutions as well. most of them prohibit, or severely limit, a states power over individual firearms. A national concealed carry recognition should be implemented in such a way as drivers licenses are, not that I think those are constitutional either.

If a state objects to outsiders legally carrying in their states, then they should be given ZERO reciprocity if they travel outside their state.
 
"See the confusion caused by not quoting?" R #11

Totally.
It's why I'm compulsive about making direct, unmistakable reference to the comment I'm responding to, as I do here in this case. Please note the quotation marks, with both alpha and numeric attribute.
 
Rune said:
The OP is a shit stirrer.
Every state is different so a national policy is inappropriate.
Click to expand...

Agreed. We should have different environmental laws in every state. For example small crowded states like Massachusetts should have much more stringent vehicle emission laws since the car or truck next to you sitting in traffic is so close. But wide-open states like Montana should have far less stringent laws.
 
"Every state is different so a national policy is inappropriate." R #12

At first I didn't understand the apparent intended meaning of this comment.
My initial reaction was to reply that it's BECAUSE every State is different that one national policy is appropriate.

But I now deduce what you mean is, the standards for rural Wyoming might not be optimal for a metropolis like New York City, or vice versa.
If that's your intended meaning, I'm inclined to agree.

BUT !!

That's no rational reason to deny State to State reciprocity for concealed carry licenses already issued.
And that could be handled at:
- county level, or
- State level, or
- federal level.
 
"We should have different environmental laws in every state. For example small crowded states like Massachusetts should have much more stringent vehicle emission laws since the car or truck next to you sitting in traffic is so close. But wide-open states like Montana should have far less stringent laws." R #15

That would be an absolute nightmare for automakers.

It's bad enough that congress imposes a vast slew of requirements:
- seatbelts
- air bags
- catalytic converters
- tempered glass windows
- safety glass windshields
- collapsible steering column
- on, and on, and on

Federal (congressional) regs. at many $Thousands to the cost of each new car bought in the U.S.

California has yet different standards, and that alone complicates for bot automobile production, and sales. The dealerships have to contend with all that.
Varying the standards further could potentially drive the per vehicle cost up dramatically.

The obvious counter would be for automakers to simply produce all their vehicles to meet the most stringent standard.
But that alone would cost more for Montana truck purchasers.
 
sear said:
"We should have different environmental laws in every state. For example small crowded states like Massachusetts should have much more stringent vehicle emission laws since the car or truck next to you sitting in traffic is so close. But wide-open states like Montana should have far less stringent laws." R #15

That would be an absolute nightmare for automakers.

It's bad enough that congress imposes a vast slew of requirements:
- seatbelts
- air bags
- catalytic converters
- tempered glass windows
- safety glass windshields
- collapsible steering column
- on, and on, and on

Federal (congressional) regs. at many $Thousands to the cost of each new car bought in the U.S.

California has yet different standards, and that alone complicates for bot automobile production, and sales. The dealerships have to contend with all that.
Varying the standards further could potentially drive the per vehicle cost up dramatically.

The obvious counter would be for automakers to simply produce all their vehicles to meet the most stringent standard.
But that alone would cost more for Montana truck purchasers.
Click to expand...

whoooosssshhhhh!!!
 
G #19
You have my sympathy sir or m'am.
Consult your physician.
There may be useful treatment available to you.

#18
"Precision & clarity in the use of language leads to precision & clarity of thought." G. Gordon Liddy

The obvious interpretation of your sub-literate post is that my posted point/s flew far over the heads of most posters here.
If that is not your intended meaning, than the communication problem is not my capacity to interpret, but in your ability to specify.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top