SmarterthanYou
rebel
nobody is coercing a right upon anyone, which is a retarded concept at best. I can picture it now, some idiot like desh demanding that the feds remove certain rights because she doesn't want them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
We need National right to carry a concealed weapon Law
- Thread starter SJJRSJJS
- Start date
nobody is coercing a right upon anyone, which is a retarded concept at best. I can picture it now, some idiot like desh demanding that the feds remove certain rights because she doesn't want them.
I don't think of myself as a strict constructionist.
But I consider what you've described here infringements or usurpations of our 2nd Amendment right.
When the law requires us to have a license to speak, I'll reconsider my perspective.
UNTIL the law requires us to have a license to speak, then requiring a license to exercise any other right enumerated in our Bill of Rights seems out of line.
And if it is a "right" then why apply?
An application can be turned down, rejected.
BUT !!
The wording in 2A is: "shall not be infringed".
"Massachusetts has among the strictest gun laws s in the country. My son just got his concealed carry and high capacity long gun permit.
He took many courses, some at police stations, some at rod and gun clubs.
He is well qualified and very well vetted by the government.
How vetted and qualified are those from Arizona or Texas?
I don't know, that's why I am asking." R #31
Lookit:
I'm a pragmatist.
If it is absolutely necessary for all this course taking & vetting then fine. All they need then do is amend the Constitution to list the exceptions for infringing our right to keep and bear arms.
But this LOOK THE OTHER WAY-ISM of pretending we're pure: "... shall not be infringed", and then we infringe the $#@! out of it; that's bad form. Our law enforcers are supposed to enforce the law, not lead the charge in breaking the law; as they do now with these 2A infringements.
In Mass anyone, even a convicted felon,
can carry a muzzle loader with no FID card. That is your 2nd amendment right.
"In Mass anyone, even a convicted felon,
can carry a muzzle loader with no FID card. That is your 2nd amendment right." #42
If "muzzle loader" was the only kind of arm, then I might agree.
It isn't.
So a citizen that wants an auto-loading 9mm handgun denied that right is being denied that right. That is your 2nd Amendment right INFRINGED.
It's unConstitutional.
can carry a muzzle loader with no FID card. That is your 2nd amendment right." #42
If "muzzle loader" was the only kind of arm, then I might agree.
It isn't.
So a citizen that wants an auto-loading 9mm handgun denied that right is being denied that right. That is your 2nd Amendment right INFRINGED.
It's unConstitutional.
#44
The pocket isn't a 20th century invention.
I don't doubt some of the U.S. Founders either occasionally carried concealed, or had the means to do so if they wished. And the Constitutional wording is "arms", not guns.
Does that mean school children should be allowed to carry scimitars to public school, and brandish and flail them on the playground, or in the school library?
I just don't like the hypocrisy. Seems to me the current status quo is quite far from "... shall not be infringed."
The pocket isn't a 20th century invention.
I don't doubt some of the U.S. Founders either occasionally carried concealed, or had the means to do so if they wished. And the Constitutional wording is "arms", not guns.
Does that mean school children should be allowed to carry scimitars to public school, and brandish and flail them on the playground, or in the school library?
I just don't like the hypocrisy. Seems to me the current status quo is quite far from "... shall not be infringed."
Pappy Jones
Verified User
just open carry, it is a constitutional right and has the same affect on those around you
Yeah pretty much. Keep and bear arms, unless you are prohibited due to criminal or psychiatric reasons. But open carry and anything not in the constitution should be decided at lowest level of government as practicable. The more we take care of things closest to home the more we will be able to reduce the federal government, both in size and involvement.