- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Finally!
- Thread starter aquariuscsm
- Start date
- Status
Well, I buy most everything on the internet already. If I can find a grocery store that delivers, I won't ever have to leave the house and risk my life. It's not the criminals that I'm afraid of. It's the lunatics who don't know they're crazy.
Open carry has always been legal here in Mississippi (in the sense we had no law saying it was illegal). We finally legalized it about 3 years ago. Didn't really see the need to but who cares.
99.5% of the places (including the beaches) have no weapons signs posted.
99.5% of the places (including the beaches) have no weapons signs posted.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
They were saying (in Houston I think) that the police wanted to have an addendum to the law where they could make someone who has a handgun displayed on their person show their CHL upon request,which I think is a great idea. I have NO problem whatsoever having LEO ask me to see my CHL if I'm openly carrying.
Not sure if this addendum went through though.
I just now realized I posted this in the General forum. I'd meant to put this in the Firearms form,sorry!
Not sure if this addendum went through though.
I just now realized I posted this in the General forum. I'd meant to put this in the Firearms form,sorry!
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: CT8
Sad to need a license for a constitutional right.
I totally agree. But unfortunately there are too many criminals and undesirables that ruin it for the honest ones. Heck,the Constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on these days,look at the First Amendment. Freedom of speech only applies to certain groups,while others don't have it.
Sad to need a license for a constitutional right.
I totally agree. But unfortunately there are too many criminals and undesirables that ruin it for the honest ones. Heck,the Constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on these days,look at the First Amendment. Freedom of speech only applies to certain groups,while others don't have it.
Criminals don't care about laws or brutalizing victims.
Times have changed for the worse and being armed is a good 'choice'
Times have changed for the worse and being armed is a good 'choice'
AZjeff
$50 Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: CT8
Sad to need a license for a constitutional right.
You're 100% correct. See you're in California. Here in the free state of Arizona we don't need government approval to carry a concealed weapon much less a visible one. An it hasn't been carnage in the streets as was predicted...
Pop_Rivit, you're playing the odds. All I can say. 2 weekends ago I was glad to be carrying when an idiot in a Razor decided he was going to be a tough guy and dust me and my wife and dogs. It didn't escalate luckily.
Sad to need a license for a constitutional right.
You're 100% correct. See you're in California. Here in the free state of Arizona we don't need government approval to carry a concealed weapon much less a visible one. An it hasn't been carnage in the streets as was predicted...
Pop_Rivit, you're playing the odds. All I can say. 2 weekends ago I was glad to be carrying when an idiot in a Razor decided he was going to be a tough guy and dust me and my wife and dogs. It didn't escalate luckily.
Last edited:
Violent criminals and crazy people don't care about gun carry laws. Gun carry laws and regulations only apply to law abiding citizens who are ALWAYS put at a disadvantage by gun carry regulations. Violent criminals are NEVER put at a disadvantage by gun carry regulations because they ignore gun laws. Gun carry regulations of any kind only server to lower the chances that a good guy with a gun will be around to protect themselves and others when a violent criminal or a nut case wants to start killing people. Remember that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
In my 71 years, with the exception of the time when Uncle Sam required my services, I've never felt the need to carry a gun.
And I would hope that you would never have to. (If you do not want to that is)
Tough to say if that will still hold true in the near future though...
In my 71 years, with the exception of the time when Uncle Sam required my services, I've never felt the need to carry a gun.
And I would hope that you would never have to. (If you do not want to that is)
Tough to say if that will still hold true in the near future though...
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Here in the free state of Arizona we don't need government approval to carry a concealed weapon much less a visible one.
That's awesome! I never knew that. My aunt and uncle live in Scottsdale. I'll have to ask them if they carry :^) Are there any restrictions?
Here in the free state of Arizona we don't need government approval to carry a concealed weapon much less a visible one.
That's awesome! I never knew that. My aunt and uncle live in Scottsdale. I'll have to ask them if they carry :^) Are there any restrictions?
Fastest way to have 20, 30, 40 dead people... ??? Go to a "gun free" zone. The fact the shooter in Aurora Colorado researched which theater did not allow guns in. That's why he went there. One of the wildest thoughts I heard was a person saying,"more guns is not the answer". I am like hey chief... What are the police going to show up with?? Rubber band shooters, mace, bean bags, paint ball guns, night sticks?? What a complete fool.. The good guys are going to have guns to stop said evil, crazy and murderous person. Having an armed police officer in a school is NOT a bad idea. Furthermore sometimes more guns are the answer to a mass killer.
For the record.. Connecticut had the 5th toughest gun laws on their books... Chicago has very strict guns laws.. How that working out?? How about Washington DC??? Super strict gun laws have not stopped the killing there either. Another factoid many may not be aware of... Number of people killed with guns was the highest in the late 80s into early 90s.. Up to 18,000 people a year during that time dued due to guns. In the last five years that number has been less than 12,000. To further put this in perspective... US population in 1990 was 248,000,000. Now we are over 305,000,000. So that high number in the late 80s and early 90s was statistically a much HIGHER percentage than it has been for awhile now.
What was going on in the late 80s and early 90s?? Drug wars over turf, gangs killing over money and turf. If one takes out the URBAN murders with guns currently then the murder rate for the vast majority of this country is MUCH lower.
Another thought to add to this.... In Mexico it us ILLEGAL for citizens to own guns.. How's that working for them?? Tens upon tens if thousands have died in the last 10 years down there due to the wars between competing drug cartels. The drug dealers,handlers and bosses down there DONT care about the laws.
Having stated a of this... I am certainly not against a number of laws regarding guns. But we need to enforce the laws on the books. Period. In many instances in our URBAN areas the gun violence is just a SYMPTOM of a greater problem. That discussion requires a much deeper discussion that I am not going into right now.
The first ten amendments in our Constitution were debated at the formation of this nation. There were some who felt that these rights could be "understood or implied" rights that did not need to be put to paper. On the other side of this debate were those who felt if these rights were not directly enumerated in the Constitution that the government would have too much power over the people. Thus the Bill of Rights was written up and then sent to colonies for ratification. For those who attempt to suggest that the 2nd amendment was about establishing a military for the country I would strongly suggest a change in context. The 1st amendment speaking to freedom of the press WAS not about establing a national press corps either. These amendments were in regards to what the government could not do or take away from the INDIVIDUAL citizen. Whether it be the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to assemble, right to bear arms, the right to not have to quarter troops, the right to be secure in their papers against illegal search and seizure, the right against being tried twice for the same crime, the right to not testify against oneself, the right to a speedy trial, the right against cruel and unusual punishment are ALL individual rights granted in those amendments. Why would the founders of this nation take a moment in the middle of ALL the enumerated individual rights take a strange curious moment to speak of formation of the military and their right to bear arms??? It strains the limits of credulity to believe that the framers of this nation would have thought to do that in those amendments. In addition to this... Wouldn't it just be common sense that a nations military have weapons?? That DOES not need to be enumerated because it is simply common sense that your military will have arms to fight off foreign invaders or fight internal insurrection. It is my strongest supposition that this construction if the second amendment fails to pass a reasonable standard of interpretation.
The 1st amendment in its own way I'd strongly supported by the second amendment. True freedom comes from being able to stand strongly enough a potential tyrant that the people CAN fight and overcomw that tyrant. "The well regulated militia" spoken if here is the general LAW ABIDING citizens of the country. "Being necessary to the security of a free state" is in regards to the fact that if the general citizenry had the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. That was the mechanism that guaranteed the citizens the freedom of an oppressive state. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is again a unequivocally clear statement of this being an individual right.
There are two interpretations of how the Constitution relates to the government and the citizenry. One side holds that these rights enumerated in the Constitution are "negative" rights in that what the government cannot do to its citizens. The other side holds the view point that these rights enumerated in the Constitution are "positive" rights for the citizenry in which the people hold the power over the government in terms of freedom of speech, right to assemble etc. Going further into which way of interpretation is correct is a whole other discussion.
At the end of the day folks if you do not know your rights they can be taken from you. Period.. What percentage of people remember the New Loudon case and what it decided????? I would seriously estimate 85% of people HAVE ZERO clue what happened in that case. The Supreme Court held that a local government could take private property away from a citizen and give it to a corporation. How can this be?? Because the Court held that because the Corporation was going to build on the land, pay taxes, and the businesses built would create tax income for the government that imminent domain was meet because the public would "benefit" from the tax money brought in. Also meaning that private property rights had been DEALT a massive blow. Again, what percentage of the national electorate even knows anything about this?
Just like the second amendment debate.. It's my strong supposition that many people in this nation has no real understanding of why this amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. Or the history behind it and other amendments.
For the record.. Connecticut had the 5th toughest gun laws on their books... Chicago has very strict guns laws.. How that working out?? How about Washington DC??? Super strict gun laws have not stopped the killing there either. Another factoid many may not be aware of... Number of people killed with guns was the highest in the late 80s into early 90s.. Up to 18,000 people a year during that time dued due to guns. In the last five years that number has been less than 12,000. To further put this in perspective... US population in 1990 was 248,000,000. Now we are over 305,000,000. So that high number in the late 80s and early 90s was statistically a much HIGHER percentage than it has been for awhile now.
What was going on in the late 80s and early 90s?? Drug wars over turf, gangs killing over money and turf. If one takes out the URBAN murders with guns currently then the murder rate for the vast majority of this country is MUCH lower.
Another thought to add to this.... In Mexico it us ILLEGAL for citizens to own guns.. How's that working for them?? Tens upon tens if thousands have died in the last 10 years down there due to the wars between competing drug cartels. The drug dealers,handlers and bosses down there DONT care about the laws.
Having stated a of this... I am certainly not against a number of laws regarding guns. But we need to enforce the laws on the books. Period. In many instances in our URBAN areas the gun violence is just a SYMPTOM of a greater problem. That discussion requires a much deeper discussion that I am not going into right now.
The first ten amendments in our Constitution were debated at the formation of this nation. There were some who felt that these rights could be "understood or implied" rights that did not need to be put to paper. On the other side of this debate were those who felt if these rights were not directly enumerated in the Constitution that the government would have too much power over the people. Thus the Bill of Rights was written up and then sent to colonies for ratification. For those who attempt to suggest that the 2nd amendment was about establishing a military for the country I would strongly suggest a change in context. The 1st amendment speaking to freedom of the press WAS not about establing a national press corps either. These amendments were in regards to what the government could not do or take away from the INDIVIDUAL citizen. Whether it be the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to assemble, right to bear arms, the right to not have to quarter troops, the right to be secure in their papers against illegal search and seizure, the right against being tried twice for the same crime, the right to not testify against oneself, the right to a speedy trial, the right against cruel and unusual punishment are ALL individual rights granted in those amendments. Why would the founders of this nation take a moment in the middle of ALL the enumerated individual rights take a strange curious moment to speak of formation of the military and their right to bear arms??? It strains the limits of credulity to believe that the framers of this nation would have thought to do that in those amendments. In addition to this... Wouldn't it just be common sense that a nations military have weapons?? That DOES not need to be enumerated because it is simply common sense that your military will have arms to fight off foreign invaders or fight internal insurrection. It is my strongest supposition that this construction if the second amendment fails to pass a reasonable standard of interpretation.
The 1st amendment in its own way I'd strongly supported by the second amendment. True freedom comes from being able to stand strongly enough a potential tyrant that the people CAN fight and overcomw that tyrant. "The well regulated militia" spoken if here is the general LAW ABIDING citizens of the country. "Being necessary to the security of a free state" is in regards to the fact that if the general citizenry had the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. That was the mechanism that guaranteed the citizens the freedom of an oppressive state. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is again a unequivocally clear statement of this being an individual right.
There are two interpretations of how the Constitution relates to the government and the citizenry. One side holds that these rights enumerated in the Constitution are "negative" rights in that what the government cannot do to its citizens. The other side holds the view point that these rights enumerated in the Constitution are "positive" rights for the citizenry in which the people hold the power over the government in terms of freedom of speech, right to assemble etc. Going further into which way of interpretation is correct is a whole other discussion.
At the end of the day folks if you do not know your rights they can be taken from you. Period.. What percentage of people remember the New Loudon case and what it decided????? I would seriously estimate 85% of people HAVE ZERO clue what happened in that case. The Supreme Court held that a local government could take private property away from a citizen and give it to a corporation. How can this be?? Because the Court held that because the Corporation was going to build on the land, pay taxes, and the businesses built would create tax income for the government that imminent domain was meet because the public would "benefit" from the tax money brought in. Also meaning that private property rights had been DEALT a massive blow. Again, what percentage of the national electorate even knows anything about this?
Just like the second amendment debate.. It's my strong supposition that many people in this nation has no real understanding of why this amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. Or the history behind it and other amendments.
Last edited:
Well said and accurate bbhero!
Lets assume that once upon a time America belonged to the native indigenous aboriginals we call the American Indian.
The first thing, when taking over someone else's land, is to build a fence around it and put it into production.
At which point in time of American history did that practice become un-acceptable?
The first thing, when taking over someone else's land, is to build a fence around it and put it into production.
At which point in time of American history did that practice become un-acceptable?
You are not wrong.. Point one.. What is the corrective action ?? Would people who feel so guilty be willing to go back to Europe if ALL their family lines are European?? I truly wonder how many of them would really do this.. For the record my grandfather was half Iroquois.. His father was full Iroquois.. I have certainly some native American Indian blood in my family and me.. Maybe explains why I don't blindly trust the government
Where does this thought line comes from is this..TAKE REAL ACTION if someone believes what they saying. Emotion or feeling DOES no good for anyone. Period. Warren Buffet claims NOT to pay enough in taxes... OK ... How about this... Either that Charleton 1) Not hire ANYONE to find every possible tax break so he can pay the government more money 2) Or send the US Treasury the additional money he thinks he should pay 3) IF government will not take his money than how about this... This champion DONATE the millions he thinks the government should get to a charity AND take NO CHARITABLE tax break. LIVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE... NO MATTER WHO IT IS.
Where does this thought line comes from is this..TAKE REAL ACTION if someone believes what they saying. Emotion or feeling DOES no good for anyone. Period. Warren Buffet claims NOT to pay enough in taxes... OK ... How about this... Either that Charleton 1) Not hire ANYONE to find every possible tax break so he can pay the government more money 2) Or send the US Treasury the additional money he thinks he should pay 3) IF government will not take his money than how about this... This champion DONATE the millions he thinks the government should get to a charity AND take NO CHARITABLE tax break. LIVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE... NO MATTER WHO IT IS.
Last edited:
- Status
