Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Bill's Blog: Defending the Second Amendment

  1. #1
    Regular Member S&W_Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    28

    Bill's Blog: Defending the Second Amendment

    I hadn't seen this posted yet and wanted to share with everyone.
    http://www.billrandles.com/billsblog...cond+Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Randles
    As conservatives we are all justly or rightly concerned about the erosion of so many of our personal freedoms. But one bright spot recently has been an increased awareness of our rights under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court recognized, finally, that the Second Amendment does indeed protect the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms. We have seen a tremendous expansion in the number of states permitting citizens to lawfully carry concealed weapons. These are good trends, but we can do better, and we must not grow complacent.

    Despite these recent positive trends, no serious person can fail to recognize that we have in Washington the most hostile to gun rights administration in American history. The antics and agenda behind such stunts as "fast and furious" should rightly alarm all citizens who value the Second Amendment. I fear that much of the recent progress in terms of gun rights could be lost in Missouri if Obama and his lapdog, Jay Nixon, are elected to second terms.

    Those who question whether a lawfully armed citizenry deters crime seem to ignore the facts and basic human nature. Bullies prey on the weak and avoid the strong. If deterrence could keep the peace between the USSR and USA for more than forty years, it should certainly serve well in our neighborhoods. The less inviting target usually gets left along.

    The threats to the Second Amendment throughout our history have been based on a false premise. If we restrict guns, the argument goes, everyone will be safer and violence will go down. Well-intentioned folks even on the Republican side have even fallen for this argument. After President Reagan was shot, and his press secretary severely injured, the gun control movement got a tremendous burst of energy in this country. Some of those are well-intentioned folks, but their position makes little sense. I remember when I was a kid seeing bumper stickers that read "If we outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns." To me the irrefutability of that logic remains at the core of this discussion.

    Anyone who has seriously researched the question can find numerous examples of citizens who would not be alive today had they not used handguns to protect themselves from violent criminals. But we don't have to debate the wisdom of one public policy over another in a vacuum. Our founders weighed these issues and decided that one of the best guarantees of a free citizenry against all kinds of threats is the right to keep and bear arms. So, both the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, empirical evidence, and common sense establish the importance of protecting and encouraging gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.

    Expanding Missouri's Conceal Carry Law

    My administration will press to make conceal carry rights more accessible to Missouri citizens. The current requirement of an eight hour class means that citizens have to spend a significant amount of money just to attend the first class. My class was $125.00; some are more; some are less. I believe a well planned four hour class would be sufficient to cover all the necessary subjects and would of course be more affordable. The fee at the sheriff's office is $100.00 - which I assume is a reasonable reflection of their costs in doing the paperwork and the background check. But I think an honest discussion with the Sheriff's Association as to whether we could knock $25.00 or $50.00 off of that cost would be productive. So, adding in the $5.50 cost at the licensing bureau, an average Missouri citizen currently has to spend somewhere around $230.00 to simply satisfy the requirements of the statute. I think reducing those costs by a third to a half would make a CCW permit more accessible to the average, hardworking citizen.

    Additionally, the recent requirement in the law that students must demonstrate proficiency in shooting both revolvers and semi-automatics makes little sense. Why should a student be required to use a type of gun in the class that they neither own nor will choose to use for their personal protection. We do not require drivers to show up to drivers tests with cars having both automatic transmissions and stick shifts. The recent requirement in the statute raising the number of rounds that must be fired to 100 apart from the actually target qualifying round should also be eliminated. So, we should have a less expensive process, a four hour class, and a student should only be required to shoot one type of weapon and show proficiency with 20 rounds through that weapon. I also support the notion of extending the period for which a concealed carry permit is valid from six years to ten years.

    I believe Missouri should be the state most friendly to and protective of Second Amendment rights. As a country boy who grew up shooting guns of various types for entertainment for my entire childhood and teenage years, I believe it is an important right and wholesome activity. Like millions of Missourians, I enjoy owning guns for recreation and self-defense. That was the view of gun rights held by our founders and a view I will vigorously protect in this state.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Griz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    He's getting close. But I don't believe in paying ANYTHING for the right to protect myself.

  3. #3
    Regular Member S&W_Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    28
    I don't mind it so much. It proves responsibility when you think about it.

    Imagine if they did something like SR-22s for guns.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    south central MO, USA
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W_Guy View Post
    I don't mind it so much. It proves responsibility when you think about it.

    Imagine if they did something like SR-22s for guns.
    Would you pay for tthe right to exercise your freedom of speech (1 st amendment rights), the right to practice the religion of your choice. Or any of the numerous God given rights recognized by our constitution.
    I hope you don't take this the wrong way. But if we are to pay for the God given rights,,,, to prove responsibility. I wish they would've started with the first amendment--- freedom of speech.
    The price of freedom is on the wall.

  5. #5
    Regular Member S&W_Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom 1st View Post
    Would you pay for tthe right to exercise your freedom of speech (1 st amendment rights), the right to practice the religion of your choice. Or any of the numerous God given rights recognized by our constitution.
    I hope you don't take this the wrong way. But if we are to pay for the God given rights,,,, to prove responsibility. I wish they would've started with the first amendment--- freedom of speech.
    I don't take it the wrong way at all, but if you're gonna say "God given rights," you should correctly say, "Founding father given rights," God had nothing to do with the Constitution. The Founding father's were very anti-organized religion, and most of them, blatantly despised Christianity.

    The Constitution doesn't grant the right to CC. It is a privilege. No where in the Constitution does is grant the right to conceal a weapon on your personage.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    The constitution of the US does not address the mode of carry, it simply states that we may bare arms, and it also simply states that that 'right' shall not be infringed.

    Please consider reading this document.

    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

    A small excerpt:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
    I believe that the rights that 'our Creator' endowed us with are enumerated in another document of some importance.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    south central MO, USA
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W_Guy View Post
    I don't take it the wrong way at all, but if you're gonna say "God given rights," you should correctly say, "Founding father given rights," God had nothing to do with the Constitution. The Founding father's were very anti-organized religion, and most of them, blatantly despised Christianity.

    The Constitution doesn't grant the right to CC. It is a privilege. No where in the Constitution does is grant the right to conceal a weapon on your personage.
    The founding fathers believed that the first 10 ammendments to our constitution (The Bill Of Rights) were inheirant rights, natural rights, that every person is born with, and just RECOGNIZED by government as rights given by: Nature, God, Allaha, Budda, Frank the little talking pug bulldog off of "Men in Black", what ever the hell one wishes to believe,,, If we are actually going to be correct.

    For me it is rights given by "God". You choose what ever you like. But I will not recognize the idea of a "man" giving me those rights, as I am not willing for a "man" to be able to take them away. If you are, speak for yourself and yourself only

    For anyone to say that the founding fathers despised christianity is about as big a misconception as one can possibly make, IMO. As there were christians, agnostics, episcopalians, and deist among others, as well as athiest. Hence the separation of church and state, as it should be.

    Mo constitution does not recognize CC as a method of carry, you are correct. Hell as far as that goes, I do not believe Mo constitution recognizes OC either as they allow for every municipality in the damn state to ban it. But the constitution of the United States makes not a mention of method of carry, openly or concealed. And I don't believe you can tell me where it does. If you can,,,,,,, tell me, I'll be waiting.

    Edit: I incorrectly stated Mo constitution does not recognize our right to keep and BEAR arms. It is just our law makers do not recognize our own constitution. LOL.
    Last edited by Freedom 1st; 06-22-2012 at 08:06 PM. Reason: after thought
    The price of freedom is on the wall.

  8. #8
    Regular Member S&W_Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    28
    I don't want to get in a semantics argument, which will easily happen if we go into the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. We'll just leave at agree to disagree and leave it at that.
    "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John Adams

    "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Griz View Post
    He's getting close. But I don't believe in paying ANYTHING for the right to protect myself.
    The 2nd amendment has little to do with crime .... were the British unable to control crime?-uh, no....

    Its so we can control or overthrow our own gov't .... gov't don't like that nowadays.

  10. #10
    Regular Member S&W_Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    28
    Being a fan of law debate, I wanted to share something that altered my opinion from yesterday.

    Quote Originally Posted by brolin_1911a1 from the MSSA Forum

    "For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing [of] concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing of such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise."
    "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss v. Commonwealth 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

    Unfortunately for us today, the recognition of the above-stated fact has been steadily eroded, first by so-called slave codes, then Jim Crow laws, then by the extension of the restrictions contained in those laws to apply to the entire populace at large. But the right has never changed, only the amount of impairment of that right to which we, the People, have quietly acquiesced.
    "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John Adams

    "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    I've met Bill a couple times, and once even asked him point blank (in front of a crowd) if he supported OC. The short version is yes. He's a solid candidate and a good 2A supporter.

    Also, I don't like paying for a permit either. But I don't like having to have a permit at all. Sadly, in our current political climate going from where we are not to Constitutional Carry is very unliklely. That being said, I'll certainly take any gains we can get, and if those gains are a reduction in pricing and increased permit length, so be it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •