Yeah, I'm not for arming morons. Spin that however you like.

Then why have laws of any kind? Why outlaw murder? Why outlaw stealing? Why have punishments for breaking those laws?

I don't want to get off topic, but without regulations you have anarchy. Personal responsibility is bullshit, there's no incentive or consequence when it comes to personal responsibility.

If you want to carry concealed without a permit, just move to Arizona in the next 90 days, assuming Gov Brewer doesn't veto it (very unlikely, based on her track record!)

My father 'bought' me a CCW class for Xmas, but we've been having a hard time scheduling it...Guess I can spend that money on a nice holster setup instead!

In order to ensure that everyone knows "the rules of the game" and has no excuse for breaking them.

Because they unprovokedly harm others without their consent, which is breaking the rules.

In order to;
1: Remove serious threats from society (long term imprisonment, exile, outlawry, execution) either permanently or until they accomplish
2: Rehabilitation where possible.

Bullshit. Do you need regulations telling you not to murder people? No, because you're a normal, functional human being. The more people there are like you out there (and the more heavily they are armed and trained), the less there will be of the far more dangerous type which is inclined towards murder and rape and violence and violation of all types, laws and regulations be damned. Regulations have never stopped those who simply didn't care about them.

There is when certain types of irresponsibility will get you sued or ostracized, others will get you imprisoned, and the most serious varieties will get your face shot off. I dunno about you, but I have (all other considerations aside) a purely selfish attachment to my money, my freedom, and my supraorbital taurii. I'd like to keep all three, if possible; so would most people. And while I may feel for the families of those who shoot themselves accidentally, and for the memories and tortured souls of those who likewise end the lives of others, I have never had any luck summoning up any pity for those who by idiocy end their own lives with a firearm. Likewise those shot in self-defense by their intended victims.

Your entire argument here comes down to saying that the only reason people don't rampantly murder, rape, and rob one another in a Cthulian orgy of looting and rapine is that we have laws against it. This is to say that the only thing preventing -you- from acting in such a way is said laws. I think we both know this is crap, because we both know you'd do no such thing unless you're one of those brain-fucked few who make life miserable for the rest of us. I don't know you, so I'm giving you benefit of the doubt by virtue of the fact that the vast majority of humanity is not represented by my neighbors. However, I'm willing to lay fairly heavy odds to my being right.

Social contract theory?

Dunedan, I understand what you are trying to say, but it's just not how it works in the real world. If it did there would be no morons doing stupid things, but alas there are so regulations are needed. If even a single life was saved by requiring people to undergo a basic firearms safety class in order to obtain a ccw then it's worth it. I don't/didn't see the harm in attending the class, and I feel alot better knowing that if someone has a ccw, they have atleast some basic training.

And since when have regulations stopped morons from doing stupid shit? Trust me, I sell guns for a living; they haven't. They never will. Morons will always be morons, and they will -always- think that the laws of natural selection don't apply to them. They will always be wrong.

I absolutely disagree. Without mandatory training in order to obtain a ccw(in most states)there would probably be alot more accidental discharges as well as a lot more brandishing charges. Since it is impossible to actually prove how many lives have been saved by mandatory training, I can only assume that it is working the way it was intended. Natural selection is kinda irrelevant here because we are talking about people who may not actually realise they need training.

Any evidence to support this? Like, say, a greater incidence of negligent discharge or brandishing in Vermont and Alaska vs other CCW states? No? Didn't think so.

So you're dead sure that requiring formal training saves lives, despite the fact that you admit having no evidence for this, and admitting that your position is based upon an assumption which you acknowledge as not only unsupportED but unsupportABLE with evidence. This -in addition- to the fact that the Police (trained and rated, every one of them, with the taxpayers paying for training, range time, and ammo) negligently shoot themselves, their co-workers, suspects and bystanders at rates which -far- exceed those of civilian carriers.

Ballocks. Natural selection is never irrelevant, under any circumstances. Just ask anyone who's ever lost an argument with a train, or that DEA agent who shot himself in front of a classroom of grade-schoolers. Natural selection is always in play, whether a person is a genius or an ignoramus.

Edited to add: All this aside, I wonder how well it would go over if people were required to take formal training and purchase a license in order to "qualify" to write a book or sign a petition?

i'd say training is required by the constitution (well regulated militia), but you can continue to ignore that point (since it goes against your assertions that the 2nd amendment is a limitless right)

If you were referring to training with militia arms (full-auto shoulder arms, field artillery, ATGMs, etc) you would be half-right; the Constitution calls for Congress to provide for the training of the militia. However, nowhere does the Constitution say that such training is or should be mandatory (although the Militia Act gets close), that it has any bearing upon the right of the people to keep and bear non-militia arms, or that any presence or lack of training has any bearing on the ability of a person to exercise their rights. Again, imagine having to get "proper training" before you could write or read a book.

I do not ignore it, I discount as incorrect, invalid, and formed from within a paradigm of culturally-imperialist leftism which holds that all Rights are subject to popular fiat and State approval, and that the rights of some groups are more important that identical rights for other groups. All of the aforementioned I regard as, at best: dangerous, poorly thought-out, and prone towards every variety of the same totalitarian excesses produced by the Statist right. The recent calls from various leftist commentators (HuffPo, the Tea Party Crashers (infiltrators) etc.) calling for the imprisonment, extraordinary rendition, torture and disenfranchisement of their political opponents is proof of this.

so the fact that the Constitution doesn't make any mention of non-militia rights has no bearing on your thinking?

The Constitution also does not tie arms-related rights to the militia. An appreciation for the finer workings of English grammar is in order here, but he's some help from a kind professor at UCLA:

The Commonplace Second Amendment

And the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/op...6freedman.html

And for some help with the finer points:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Bottom line: the first part of the Amendment, from a linguistic and grammatical standpoint, is meaningless. The second part, that bit that comes after the comma, is the only bit that matters. This is part of why it helps to study not only the historical, but also the cultural, legal, and linguistic contexts and commentaries in question.

Clearly when reading the amendment they thought enough to include the militia (well regulated) AND the people (right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed). Now if it was just to refer to the militia why would they include 'the people' as they did in the other amendments?

Furthermore if you read the 9th amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." When reading this I think you have to conclude that if the 2nd amendment grants the right to bear arms to the militia, it still cannot be used to deny the right to bear arms to the people.

Perpetual'd!

...

I would encourage all gun owners to apply for a permit. The action of many speaks louder than the words of the few.

Flood the offices of those issuing permits with legit requests to exercise your right and see the issue promote itself.

Word, brother. It would seem to me that in the murky light of a constitutional amendment with sloppy writing, it would make sense as a gun owner to get one of these permits, follow the rules, and happily carry your fucking weapon.

There's idealism, and then there's pragmatism.

Writing a book or signing a petition is a far cry from having the ability to kill someone with great ease.

I'm not arguing against guns here, I've been a life member of the NRA for 27 years. And I own several weapons. But I am for mandatory training. You can train an idiot to be a little safer.

Mssrs. Hitler, Marx, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Amin and Duvalier would dispute this. Likewise Mssrs. Marat, Danton, and Robespierre. Their writings can arguably be said to have contributed to the very easy (for the authors) deaths of hundreds of millions of people.

This aside, the right to read/write/speak/worship is, just like the right to keep and bear arms, enumerated within the Bill Of Rights. If permission may be required to exercise -one- aspect of -one- right, permission may perforce be expanded to cover -all- aspects of -all- rights. This is, even now as we write, transpiring: an unfortunate state of affairs which has been ongoing for most of the past century, and was an on/off affair for most of the preceding time.

Given that the NRA functions as the US's largest, best-funded, and most effective gun-grabbing organization, your membership therein carries less water than a spagetti strainer.

I also own several cats. This no more makes me an expert on lions and the legality of their ownership, much less the risks involved and the likelihood of those risks transpiring, than does your ownership of firearms. Numerous rancid gun-grabbers have, quite embarrassingly, outed themselves are gun-owners over the years. Your protestation simply places you in the company of Diane Feinstein, Sean Penn, R. C. Soles, and Michael Moore.

Despite the fact that, as you admit above, you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your position. I could as easily, and with as much authority, advocate a law requiring everyone to wear pink tutus because I feel like it'll cut down on drunken driving.

You obviously haven't encountered many idiots. Idiots are dangerous because they'r idiots; morons, ignoramii, dumbasses, dipshits...they can no more be cured than a psychopath. The ignorant can be educated and their ignorance removed, stupid goes clean down to the bones.
Furthermore, punishing the competent many for the mistakes of the incompetent few (aka collective punishment) is antithetical to the spirit of both the Constitution in general and Bill Of Rights in particular.

Enough of the circular argument/circle jerk going on in this thread.

If you are carrying a firearm, in public, without the proper permit (i.e., illegally), and I am aware of it and happen to be sharing that public space, I will call 5-0 on your cowboy ass, and you can argue constitutional law with the judge.

Because circumventing the law is not responsible ownership, no matter how you spin it.

An informer. Aha. So tell me, since someone need not actually -harm- anyone for you to "drop a dime" on them...what other victimless, nonviolent acts will you inform for? Medicinal cannabis use? Taking TEFL courses overseas on a Tourist visa? Sedition?

And enforcing, obeying, or giving assent to immoral, unworkable, and blatantly unconstitutional laws is not good citizenship, no matter how you, or the Stukachi and Ustasi in Gov't and media, spin it.

"The law is the law is the law!" Is ever the excuse of those who find it more convenient to oppress others than to uplift themselves.

You don't decide constitutionality, Dunedan; that responsibility belongs to SCOTUS, as outlined by Article 3 of the Constitution. So, yes, I would turn your illegal, criminal, dare I say treasonous, ass in.

1: How would you know if I was carrying illegally? NC is an open-carry State; try to have me arrested for doing something legal and I'll sue your balls/tits off for everything I can think of. If I was illegally concealing a weapon, how would you know? Unless I walked right up to you and said "Hi, I'm Dunedan, and I'm illegally carrying a concealed weapon without a permit," you'd have no way of knowing. So your bluster about "calling 5-0" is nothing but meaningless mental masturbation. Some people carry outsized handguns as their form of compensation; methinks we've found yours: threatening people with the cops.

2: As regards treason: are you aware of the Constitutional definition of Treason? If so, how do you square anything I've said or advocated with Treason? Unless I've waged open war against the US, adhered to the enemies of the US during a declared war, or given material "aid and comfort" to said enemy in said declared war, no Treason appertains.

3: You still have not answered my question. What other victimless, non-violent crimes will you inform on? Do you just have a hard-on for gun owners, or are other undesirable groups in your sights as well?

Well I've clearly hit a brick wall here, so I'll finish up with this. You have in no way demonstrated that ccw laws are some how detrimental. Speaking strictly for myself, I feel much better knowing that a good law abiding citizen who is armed, has passed atleast a basic firearms safety and proficiency class.

I totally dismiss all slippery slope arguments because they are "what if" arguments that hold little to no water.

I agree to disagree

/thread jack

Yeah, too bad the "Don't tread on me!" line doesn't hold up very well in court.

How do you guys feel about driver's licenses? Hunting licenses? Those bad too?

...

We're all pro-gun here.

This is so absurd...

Glad you're not my neighbor when the date expires on the plate of my THREE TON KILLING MACHINE KNOWN AS A CAR!!!! FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZEN TO DEADLY CRIMINAL IN NO TIME AT ALL!!!

I'm not in NC, so you carry a bazooka for your personal protection if you like, and I'll catch it on the news. If I was in NC, and happened to be in your vicinity, then yes, you damn well better keep your concealed weapon [edit: illegal; if you are carrying legally, carry away] very well concealed if you wouldn't want me to turn you in. It's illegal and dangerous, genius, and yeah, I'd be doing a public service. I don't care if you don't like it, it doesn't change the fact.
I'll retract "treasonous", although, if I'm not mistaken, I do remember you tip toeing the line of "armed dissent" a few months ago, and you shut up pretty quickly when you were asked exactly what you meant; I'm not going to bother to look it up, and if I attributed it to you in error, I apologize.
I'm not concerned about a stoner assaulting me with a hitter box because I cut him off at the bar while ordering a beer; the clown that carries his machismo on his hip is another matter though.

---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

And thankfully the majority are representative of gun owners as a whole. IF the US ever decided to abolish the second amendment, you would have people like Dunedan to thank for it, not hippie picketers.

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------

Samcol, you advertise your ignorance with your avatar; your opinion is as valid as that of a pile of dog shit.

classy

Hey, enough of this. Personal politics (should) have very little to do with people following the law.

Do you "Concealed Carry without a permit is dangerous and shouldn't be legal" guys think training should be required for open carry?

Aaah, that's a paradox, though. If it's open carry and anybody can do it (by law), there are no credentials aside from not being a felon when the cops bust you up for carrying visibly and run your background for scaring soccer moms and the elderly.

If it's open carry and only trained individuals can do it when they have a credential, what's the point? Just carry concealed instead of being an attention whore in a society that loves guns on TeeVee and craps their pants when they see them in real life.

...

My dumbass idea? I think there should be a universal firearm carry credentialing system that allows me to carry however I want, wherever I want. Open, concealed, car, college, etc. Some of the same no-nos are the CCW permit, as long as they make sense. I go take some class, pay my silly fees, and I'm good to go. It couldn't be any more difficult than a police academy range (which is a joke).

I very much agree with this.

Too bad I'm a sellout liberal toolbag that wipes his ass with the Constitution though, right?

/Airborne!

Credentials are an unfortunate part of life today, I figure. They're an order maintenance function.

I like this. How stringent should requirements be, 9? I think it should mirror the requirements for becoming a police officer (background checks, familiarity with firearm regulations, hands on range/firearm training), if it is that liberal.

Are you guys serious or trolling? I really can't tell at this point...Next you're going to say we need to rerestrict magazine size, and take Ranger SXT's off the market for being cop killers.

It should be; you should be required to have training when you register a weapon (which, of course, gangbangers and "patriots" don't do.)

The "my guns ain't none yer bizness" crowd expect the public to trust them with their weapons; I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

I don't register my guns because it's not required in the state in which I live. Does that make me a gangbanger or a "patriot"?

I have open carried, and I will concealed carry without a permit when it becomes legal in a few months or sooner, does that make me a danger to you, and do you not trust me as far as you can throw me?

My guns indeed are none of your business, and the only time they will be your business are if you pose a threat to me and mine.

"don't break the law" is sentiment I can agree with.

"most gun owners are dangerous idiots" is not.

The only thing I take issue with is that your guns are none of my business(you being collectively not necessarily you personally). I have every right to fear those who are untrained. And if you are carrying without a ccw, then I have to assume that you don't have any training. Which scares me, and is very much my business if I'm in the vicinity of an untrained carrier.

I think we're clear on one thing: guns aren't dangerous, people are.

This may be a good way to look at the conversation.

If it's not required that you register your firearm, you're not breaking the law, and that doesn't apply to you, does it?

Possibly. Are you a nutjob? Because I don't know that, do I? You think I'm going to take your word for it that you're not?
Hmm. You're carrying a firearm, and it ain't for shooting squirrels. It is my business, whether you like it or not. See "nutjob" above.
I think I made it clear in an earlier post that most gun owners are responsible. Most is not all. If mandatory training/license will weed out that many more irresponsible gun owners, I couldn't care less about your inconvenience or hurt feelings; as a responsible gun owner, you should embrace it as well.

deleted