The Supreme Court disagrees and interprets this as an individual right...not a right within an organized group...
problems with concealed weapons
- Thread starter friendly_jacek
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Astro14
The Supreme Court disagrees and interprets this as an individual right...not a right within an organized group...
Fair enough.
The Supreme Court disagrees and interprets this as an individual right...not a right within an organized group...
Fair enough.
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: Astro14
The Supreme Court disagrees and interprets this as an individual right...not a right within an organized group...
Fair enough.
SCOTUS leaves to the 50 States/Commonwealths the right to make their own gun laws.
The 2nd says I have the right to have one. PA says I need a LTCF to have a loaded weapon on me in the car, or to carry one openly in Philadelphia, (Class III city actually. Philly is the only one.), or to carry concealed.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
The Supreme Court disagrees and interprets this as an individual right...not a right within an organized group...
Fair enough.
SCOTUS leaves to the 50 States/Commonwealths the right to make their own gun laws.
The 2nd says I have the right to have one. PA says I need a LTCF to have a loaded weapon on me in the car, or to carry one openly in Philadelphia, (Class III city actually. Philly is the only one.), or to carry concealed.
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: Trajan
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Yap, people forget the well regulated militia part a lot. The examples I posted were apparently not well regulated.
I'm thinking to be true with the constitution intend, people with permits should be organized in some kind of reserve force.
"Well regulated" did not at all mean the same thing in the 1780's as it does not. Please look it up. Well regulated meant: well running, good shape, on time (like a clock) - not regulated by the government as we would say today. The meaning has been twisted over the years.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Yap, people forget the well regulated militia part a lot. The examples I posted were apparently not well regulated.
I'm thinking to be true with the constitution intend, people with permits should be organized in some kind of reserve force.
"Well regulated" did not at all mean the same thing in the 1780's as it does not. Please look it up. Well regulated meant: well running, good shape, on time (like a clock) - not regulated by the government as we would say today. The meaning has been twisted over the years.
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: Trajan
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Yap, people forget the well regulated militia part a lot. The examples I posted were apparently not well regulated.
I'm thinking to be true with the constitution intend, people with permits should be organized in some kind of reserve force.
Also, remember, the prefatory statement is not law. (the prefatory statement being ( "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" ) It is simply one of the POSSIBLE and VALID reasons why the right Shall Not Be Infringed.
We can, and do understand what that statement means. As the militia is typically defined as all able bodied men (generally under 45 years old) . It has nothing to do with anything related to government.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Yap, people forget the well regulated militia part a lot. The examples I posted were apparently not well regulated.
I'm thinking to be true with the constitution intend, people with permits should be organized in some kind of reserve force.
Also, remember, the prefatory statement is not law. (the prefatory statement being ( "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" ) It is simply one of the POSSIBLE and VALID reasons why the right Shall Not Be Infringed.
We can, and do understand what that statement means. As the militia is typically defined as all able bodied men (generally under 45 years old) . It has nothing to do with anything related to government.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
We can, and do understand what that statement means. As the militia is typically defined as all able bodied men (generally under 45 years old) . It has nothing to do with anything related to government.
EXCELLENT analysis. Thanks for the insight.
We can, and do understand what that statement means. As the militia is typically defined as all able bodied men (generally under 45 years old) . It has nothing to do with anything related to government.
EXCELLENT analysis. Thanks for the insight.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
I'm thinking to be true with the constitution intend, people with permits should be organized in some kind of reserve force.
And you would be completely wrong. The prefatory phrase is simply a declaration of principle, the expression of the right follows that declaration. It is important to note that the right is not just to keep arms, but to bear them.
The recent supreme court decisions on this subject are history lessons as much as legal precedent ( as many court decisions are ). They are good reading just for that reason alone.
None of the rights enumerated in the bill of rights are absolute and all are subject to some infringement. Many of the current infringements on the second amendment would be better characterized as curtailments and will fail over time.
I'm thinking to be true with the constitution intend, people with permits should be organized in some kind of reserve force.
And you would be completely wrong. The prefatory phrase is simply a declaration of principle, the expression of the right follows that declaration. It is important to note that the right is not just to keep arms, but to bear them.
The recent supreme court decisions on this subject are history lessons as much as legal precedent ( as many court decisions are ). They are good reading just for that reason alone.
None of the rights enumerated in the bill of rights are absolute and all are subject to some infringement. Many of the current infringements on the second amendment would be better characterized as curtailments and will fail over time.
ever hear about " IDENTIFI THE TARGET"? that was NOT a life or death situation!!!! about Cujet. never herd it said better, two thumbs up.
Last edited:
Starting just 8 or 9 months ago, Mississippians are allowed to get an "enhanced carry" sticker on their CCW licenses. This enhanced carry sticker permits us to carry ANYWHERE, except for active courtrooms and police stations. Courthouses are OK. Schools are OK. Even businesses that post "No Guns Allowed" signs... Well, it's totally fine to ignore those signs now!!
And national parks & forests already permit you to carry if the state permits it, so we're good there, too. We just can't carry in those federal "enclaves", like rest centers, bathrooms, etc.
Pretty awesome to live in Mississippi sometimes.
As for the rest of the country and the 2nd Amendment, let's see here...
- U.S. v. Miller (1939); As a potential member of the militia, you are allowed to have ANY weapon that the military uses.
- D.C. v. Heller (2008); This right is an individual right that applies to U.S. citizens.
- McDonald v. Chicago (2010); This right is an individual right that also applies to state citizens.
It's up to the state ("people") to decide whether or not you can carry concealed. If you are a state citizen, your right to open carry exists so long as you claim it. I'm not so sure this right applies to those who reside in federal territories, however.
It's not socially acceptable to open carry here, but it is lawful to do so. I will more than likely be getting my enhanced CCW license, however... because I don't want to be the first target in the event that having a gun will actually help myself or those around me.
I think it's most important to realize that killing over property is not the most moral path, even if stand your ground laws are on your side. Enhanced carry classes will more than likely cover such ground. Killing a thief who's running away from you, even if permitted by the law, is not the right choice.
And national parks & forests already permit you to carry if the state permits it, so we're good there, too. We just can't carry in those federal "enclaves", like rest centers, bathrooms, etc.
Pretty awesome to live in Mississippi sometimes.
As for the rest of the country and the 2nd Amendment, let's see here...
- U.S. v. Miller (1939); As a potential member of the militia, you are allowed to have ANY weapon that the military uses.
- D.C. v. Heller (2008); This right is an individual right that applies to U.S. citizens.
- McDonald v. Chicago (2010); This right is an individual right that also applies to state citizens.
It's up to the state ("people") to decide whether or not you can carry concealed. If you are a state citizen, your right to open carry exists so long as you claim it. I'm not so sure this right applies to those who reside in federal territories, however.
It's not socially acceptable to open carry here, but it is lawful to do so. I will more than likely be getting my enhanced CCW license, however... because I don't want to be the first target in the event that having a gun will actually help myself or those around me.
I think it's most important to realize that killing over property is not the most moral path, even if stand your ground laws are on your side. Enhanced carry classes will more than likely cover such ground. Killing a thief who's running away from you, even if permitted by the law, is not the right choice.
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
America has a huge issue with guns. I dont want to make it into a gun debate because i know there are alot of responsible gun owners out there.Personally the only reason you need a gun to defend yourself is if someone else carries one and is threatening your life. That mentality results in everyone needing a gun for safety but in the end more guns doesnt make your life safer. It is possible an intruder breaks in and doesnt have a gun, i have a couple baseball bats to take care of that. If intruder breaks in and has a gun what chances do you have to go and get it in time?
Rolla, how about the shootings in toronto like this one:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/02/12/toronto-shooting-grassway.html
Should all the inhabitants of this apt complex feel safe carrying a baseball bat?
America has a huge issue with guns. I dont want to make it into a gun debate because i know there are alot of responsible gun owners out there.Personally the only reason you need a gun to defend yourself is if someone else carries one and is threatening your life. That mentality results in everyone needing a gun for safety but in the end more guns doesnt make your life safer. It is possible an intruder breaks in and doesnt have a gun, i have a couple baseball bats to take care of that. If intruder breaks in and has a gun what chances do you have to go and get it in time?
Rolla, how about the shootings in toronto like this one:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/02/12/toronto-shooting-grassway.html
Should all the inhabitants of this apt complex feel safe carrying a baseball bat?
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: Trajan
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Yap, people forget the well regulated militia part a lot. The examples I posted were apparently not well regulated.
I'm thinking to be true with the constitution intend, people with permits should be organized in some kind of reserve force.
"Well regulated" did not at all mean the same thing in the 1780's as it does not. Please look it up. Well regulated meant: well running, good shape, on time (like a clock) - not regulated by the government as we would say today. The meaning has been twisted over the years.
Recall, pls, that the Nat’l Guard (the most-oft used iteration of “well regulated militia” by the anti’s) was not in place at the time of the writing of the constitution. Well-regulated militia” was the trained populace of able bodied men, 16-60 (approx.) All were expected to purchase a firearm and attend training on the square.
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: Trajan
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Yap, people forget the well regulated militia part a lot. The examples I posted were apparently not well regulated.
I'm thinking to be true with the constitution intend, people with permits should be organized in some kind of reserve force.
"Well regulated" did not at all mean the same thing in the 1780's as it does not. Please look it up. Well regulated meant: well running, good shape, on time (like a clock) - not regulated by the government as we would say today. The meaning has been twisted over the years.
Recall, pls, that the Nat’l Guard (the most-oft used iteration of “well regulated militia” by the anti’s) was not in place at the time of the writing of the constitution. Well-regulated militia” was the trained populace of able bodied men, 16-60 (approx.) All were expected to purchase a firearm and attend training on the square.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: stockrex
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
America has a huge issue with guns. I dont want to make it into a gun debate because i know there are alot of responsible gun owners out there.Personally the only reason you need a gun to defend yourself is if someone else carries one and is threatening your life. That mentality results in everyone needing a gun for safety but in the end more guns doesnt make your life safer. It is possible an intruder breaks in and doesnt have a gun, i have a couple baseball bats to take care of that. If intruder breaks in and has a gun what chances do you have to go and get it in time?
Rolla, how about the shootings in toronto like this one:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/02/12/toronto-shooting-grassway.html
Should all the inhabitants of this apt complex feel safe carrying a baseball bat?
I'm not trying to be an a$$, but:
Quote:
Housing building located just south of Jane Street and Finch Avenue West.
That area is the worst area in all of Canada, if there's going to be crime, that's where it is going to happen.
This is akin to me pointing to a shooting death in Compton as indicative of a gun problem south of the border. Wouldn't hold much water would it?
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
America has a huge issue with guns. I dont want to make it into a gun debate because i know there are alot of responsible gun owners out there.Personally the only reason you need a gun to defend yourself is if someone else carries one and is threatening your life. That mentality results in everyone needing a gun for safety but in the end more guns doesnt make your life safer. It is possible an intruder breaks in and doesnt have a gun, i have a couple baseball bats to take care of that. If intruder breaks in and has a gun what chances do you have to go and get it in time?
Rolla, how about the shootings in toronto like this one:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/02/12/toronto-shooting-grassway.html
Should all the inhabitants of this apt complex feel safe carrying a baseball bat?
I'm not trying to be an a$$, but:
Quote:
Housing building located just south of Jane Street and Finch Avenue West.
That area is the worst area in all of Canada, if there's going to be crime, that's where it is going to happen.
This is akin to me pointing to a shooting death in Compton as indicative of a gun problem south of the border. Wouldn't hold much water would it?
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Your thread is titled incorrectly. It should read, "Problems with Idiots". The two incidents you link really have nothing to do with gun ownership or carrying concealed. It does point out that some people with permits do not understand the term "defensive". Those of us who carry are not vigilantes or cop-wannabes. Responsible gun owners would have known better than to draw weapons in either situation.
And you better know your state and local laws. In my state, it is a felony to point a loaded gun at a person and yet it is legal to kill a person who presents "the imminent threat of bodily harm" to you or a third party in your company. The lesson? Don't draw unless your own safety is at risk and when you do, make sure you kill the perp.
This! Those idiots should not have had weapons on them.
Your thread is titled incorrectly. It should read, "Problems with Idiots". The two incidents you link really have nothing to do with gun ownership or carrying concealed. It does point out that some people with permits do not understand the term "defensive". Those of us who carry are not vigilantes or cop-wannabes. Responsible gun owners would have known better than to draw weapons in either situation.
And you better know your state and local laws. In my state, it is a felony to point a loaded gun at a person and yet it is legal to kill a person who presents "the imminent threat of bodily harm" to you or a third party in your company. The lesson? Don't draw unless your own safety is at risk and when you do, make sure you kill the perp.
This! Those idiots should not have had weapons on them.
AND there is only one cure for STUPID an it ain't legal.
Smoky
Smoky
And I would happily deny 2nd amendment and concealed carry rights to the stupid...if we could only deny them the right to vote first...
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
stockrex said:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: clarkflower
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
stockrex said:
Originally Posted By: MinamiKotaro
Originally Posted By: Rand
but IF I was carrying and I saw someone rob a store and run out with a gun past me would I do something? Should I do something?
How about if said person was trying to run over a security guard?
where do you draw the line?
I'd flee and not look back whether I was armed or not. The bad guy can run over or shoot as many people as he wants, as long as it isn't me or someone I care about.
See if your local library can get you a copy of "In the Gravest Extreme". If they can't, buy a copy, it is a paperback and low cost, an easy read and well worth the cost.
A) The robbery suspect running from the scene of the crime with a gun is not threatening anyones life, and therefore if you killed that person it would be murder.
B) The person using a vehicle as a lethal weapon is trying to kill someone. If you killed that driver you would be saving a victim from getting killed.
Originally Posted By: Rand
but IF I was carrying and I saw someone rob a store and run out with a gun past me would I do something? Should I do something?
How about if said person was trying to run over a security guard?
where do you draw the line?
I'd flee and not look back whether I was armed or not. The bad guy can run over or shoot as many people as he wants, as long as it isn't me or someone I care about.
See if your local library can get you a copy of "In the Gravest Extreme". If they can't, buy a copy, it is a paperback and low cost, an easy read and well worth the cost.
A) The robbery suspect running from the scene of the crime with a gun is not threatening anyones life, and therefore if you killed that person it would be murder.
B) The person using a vehicle as a lethal weapon is trying to kill someone. If you killed that driver you would be saving a victim from getting killed.
Originally Posted By: stockrex
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
America has a huge issue with guns. I dont want to make it into a gun debate because i know there are alot of responsible gun owners out there.Personally the only reason you need a gun to defend yourself is if someone else carries one and is threatening your life. That mentality results in everyone needing a gun for safety but in the end more guns doesnt make your life safer. It is possible an intruder breaks in and doesnt have a gun, i have a couple baseball bats to take care of that. If intruder breaks in and has a gun what chances do you have to go and get it in time?
Rolla, how about the shootings in toronto like this one:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/02/12/toronto-shooting-grassway.html
Should all the inhabitants of this apt complex feel safe carrying a baseball bat?
I know of a woman who lives alone. Someone broke in during the night and she was upstairs in her bed-room. She got her gun and waited at the top of the stairs. The intruder started up the stairs and she hollered get out of my house I have a gun. The intruder started up the stairs and she shot. She missed and the intruder ran out of the house. The gun was a single shot, but the intruder did not know that. Her brother then bought her a gun that holds more than one cartridge.
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
America has a huge issue with guns. I dont want to make it into a gun debate because i know there are alot of responsible gun owners out there.Personally the only reason you need a gun to defend yourself is if someone else carries one and is threatening your life. That mentality results in everyone needing a gun for safety but in the end more guns doesnt make your life safer. It is possible an intruder breaks in and doesnt have a gun, i have a couple baseball bats to take care of that. If intruder breaks in and has a gun what chances do you have to go and get it in time?
Rolla, how about the shootings in toronto like this one:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/02/12/toronto-shooting-grassway.html
Should all the inhabitants of this apt complex feel safe carrying a baseball bat?
I know of a woman who lives alone. Someone broke in during the night and she was upstairs in her bed-room. She got her gun and waited at the top of the stairs. The intruder started up the stairs and she hollered get out of my house I have a gun. The intruder started up the stairs and she shot. She missed and the intruder ran out of the house. The gun was a single shot, but the intruder did not know that. Her brother then bought her a gun that holds more than one cartridge.
To the Canadians: How many mass shootings have you had in Canada in the last ten years?
It would be interesting to know the number of deaths of innocent people per population numbers of Canada verses the United States for the last ten years.
Is an innocent citizen safer walking in a city in Canada or in the United States?
It would be interesting to know the number of deaths of innocent people per population numbers of Canada verses the United States for the last ten years.
Is an innocent citizen safer walking in a city in Canada or in the United States?
- Status
