Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Constitution carry poll

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Florida, USA
    Posts
    54

    Constitution carry poll

    http://wblk.com/do-you-agree-disagre...ry-poll-video/


    ADD: I'm only posting it here. If you want to put it on other firearms sites, go ahead.
    Last edited by marrandy; 08-30-2012 at 01:52 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member JohnMoses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    America
    Posts
    112
    I voted. On a side note, you can vote as many times as you want.

  3. #3
    Regular Member March Hare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arridzona - Flatlander
    Posts
    355
    I voted.
    So far 70% are in favor of Constitutional Carry.

    -MH
    $2 Bill - Calling Card of the 2A Movement
    If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
    Seriously, who is John Galt?
    Vires et honestas

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Bloomberg must be voting alot .. 9% no carry at all ... hey bloomy, go guzzle down a 44 oz big gulp and relax

  5. #5
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    It was at 95% when I checked with permit and no carry votes tied for 2.5%

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    I tried to vote other but it wouldn't load. Reason I say other is because that article makes it seem like constitutional only covers CC and not OC.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    north carolina
    Posts
    70

    no screening?

    i voted that every state should issue cc permits. i dont believe every one should have that right. what about alchaholics, wife beaters chils abusers.
    mental patients? just because a person was born here doesnt neccesarily mean i want him in traffic next to me with a gun.
    i'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    Well, if YOU also have a gun next to HIM in traffic, then where's the problem?

    And who are YOU to decide who carries and who doesn't? Who am *I* to decide? Or anyone else...the so-called "professionals?" What a joke.

    SO, the solution is EVERYONE carries. Yes, everyone -- unless they refuse, which is fine, but they reap the consequences (if any) some day. And no suing anyone for failing to protect them as they should have protected themselves.

    So...no screening, no training required. Carry whatever you want, wherever you want. No restrictions.

    People who "shouldn't have guns" would be attrited-out over time by other gun carriers dispensing on-the-spot "corrections" that WOULD be required in such a system -- but it's part of the plan. We the People would weed out criminals, bullies, intimidators, tough-guys, gangsters, psychos, and so on as soon as they appeared (by harming or threatening to harm others). After a while, those losers be hard to find anywhere. Except in the History books.

    As for wife beaters, wives should get guns and shoot their wife-beating husbands. Problem solved...no need for useless Restraining Orders or having to go to a battered-women's shelter.

    So, EVERYONE carries.

    Simple.
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 09-10-2012 at 01:39 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    north carolina
    Posts
    70

    lottsa lead

    gee with all that lead flying around i sure hope the lefty's dont read your response.
    i'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    What lead? Sounds like a typical knee-jerk liberal comment. In an armed society, one is unlikely to start trouble as it could be lethally hazardous to do so. One might even want even to avoid talking trash (which usually quickly leads to physical violence anyway, doesn't it). And so it SHOULD be hazardous. Want to bully/strongarm/assault someone? Ask yourself if it's worth dying over. Nobody has any business verbally or physically assaulting/messing with anyone else. Period.

    As for lefties (herds of prey animals), they'd probably move somewhere else to "greener" pastures, where they could enjoy being UNarmed -- and criminals (predators) will follow, as is the natural order of the prey/predator relationship. Good riddance to them both and I couldn't care less about either.

    Everyone being armed puts everyone on an equal footing. Darwinism can take it from there to delete the unfit (trash). And since there are WAY MORE good people than bad out there, it won't be too long before the latter are almost extinct. No more "career-criminals."

    If America could solve only ONE of its MAJOR problems -- CRIME (which certainly IS solvable) -- what a HUGE accomplishment that would be in so many other areas of life.

    P.S. ALL shootings done by citizens would be investigated (of course!) and if NOT found to be self-defense, then the appropriate criminal charges would be made against the shooter...so I'm not talking about shooting people at the least provocation or provoking (setting-up) someone so you could act in "self-defense." Murder would still be murder and an investigation would look at the facts of the incident. I'm just saying a more "liberal approach" (!) to self-defense is in order, to put those who tend to be aggressive towards others on notice that they do so at great risk -- rather than prosecute the people they prey on (the victims) when they defend themselves -- that no longer would it be as safe to assault others as most criminals/bullies find it today. Citizens should not have to worry that the law will find SOME way to prosecute them for defending themselves. Rather, the law should focus on the criminal.
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 09-10-2012 at 08:07 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Shoobee View Post
    Scalia seems to believe more in states' rights than he does in 2A however.

    And 4 on the court, consisting of the 3 NYC ladies plus Breyer, don't believe in 2A at all.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
    The only correlation that I see is Republicans are unwilling, or unable, politically, to put-up a female. Their being female, and anti-whatever, are not necessarily related.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    LOL. Why does the video under that poll that opposes permits show an AZ one?

    @ O.57


  13. #13
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    LOL. Why does the video under that poll that opposes permits show an AZ one?

    @ O.57

    That video is pure fear mongering. Their fearful scenario has people frantically awaiting slaughter while on 911 in their own house. Correct me if I'm wrong, but under Wisconsin law and the Heller and McDonald rulings you have the right to carry a gun in your house with no permit whatsoever. It reminds me of the antis going after gun shows after VT when the guns were transferred through FFLs. Don't stoop to the antis level.

    However I support the constitutional carry concept. I think anyone who's not a prohibited person should be able to carry concealed with no permit. However failing that I think shall issue permitting is a wise idea in the short term with transition to constitutional carry occurring if we can get the GFSZA amended to remove the 1000 foot zone.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  14. #14
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: Constitution carry poll

    Lets remember that there are countries out there that require their citizens to be trained and carry arms every day....all day. And their violent crime rate is the lowest in the world.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: Constitution carry poll

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    That video is pure fear mongering. Their fearful scenario has people frantically awaiting slaughter while on 911 in their own house. Correct me if I'm wrong, but under Wisconsin law and the Heller and McDonald rulings you have the right to carry a gun in your house with no permit whatsoever. It reminds me of the antis going after gun shows after VT when the guns were transferred through FFLs. Don't stoop to the antis level.

    However I support the constitutional carry concept. I think anyone who's not a prohibited person should be able to carry concealed with no permit. However failing that I think shall issue permitting is a wise idea in the short term with transition to constitutional carry occurring if we can get the GFSZA amended to remove the 1000 foot zone.
    It still irks me to think that there needs to be legislation for this. Its already there, and the ink has been drying for over 200 years.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    north carolina
    Posts
    70

    dear cloudcraft

    thank you for explaining in further detail.that, anyone involved in a shooting should be investigated.
    now my only problem is; how many under the radar whacko's, drug adicts and other low life would be able to carry and purchase guns?
    wouldnt it be better to investigate the wacko's first? before they have a chance to go OFF? i was vetted for my cc permit. if you have one then im sure you were also vetted. this is my only problem with just letting anyone buy and carry a gun, which is what i take constitutional carry to mean.
    i'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

  17. #17
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by bellyfat View Post
    i voted that every state should issue cc permits. i dont believe every one should have that right. what about alchaholics, wife beaters chils abusers.
    mental patients? just because a person was born here doesnt neccesarily mean i want him in traffic next to me with a gun.
    Silliness. If you have the right to own a gun why shouldn't you be able to carry it? You really thing a criminal is going to not carry a hidden gun because he wasn't able to get a permit?
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  18. #18
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by bellyfat View Post
    thank you for explaining in further detail.that, anyone involved in a shooting should be investigated.
    now my only problem is; how many under the radar whacko's, drug adicts and other low life would be able to carry and purchase guns?
    wouldnt it be better to investigate the wacko's first? before they have a chance to go OFF? i was vetted for my cc permit. if you have one then im sure you were also vetted. this is my only problem with just letting anyone buy and carry a gun, which is what i take constitutional carry to mean.
    People who don't qualify for a CPL aren't allowed to constitution carry in the states that have it either. The only difference is, you don't pay the state to get the license. because in reality, a CPL is a simple process, at least in the State of Washington, all WA requires is the ability to pass a background check and your sworn statement you're not a druggie or a "habitual drunkard". There is no training requirement in my state for instance. so all it is really is a fee paid to the state. I don't consider it to be an infringement on rights really becuase open carry is mostly unrestricted and the license in WA is not that expensive compared to other states and it is Shall issue.

    But basically anyone who qualifies in my state to own a gun, qualifies to carry it openly no-permit or can get a CPL for a 55 dollar fee to the sheriff's office. so why can't we apply this logic to constitutional carry? if everyone who can own a gun can get a permit no problem anyway, why require a permit? is how I see it.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  19. #19
    Regular Member aa1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Yelm, WA
    Posts
    106
    95%, woo hoo!

    Like said, what's the point of having the right to own guns if you can't legally carry it?

    That would be like buying a new car but then you couldn't drive it on public roadways.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066

    Hit this poll!

    Here's another poll on their site.

    I can't believe mayo is losing. It's a travesty!

    http://wblk.com/do-you-prefer-mayo-o...cle-whip-poll/

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    2

    how to make a fair law

    we all know about the laws that the government makes to force us to be safe right? like the seat belt law, and the helmet law. which protect us from ourselves and forces us to protect ourselves under consequence of penalty of law. well if that is the way they feel then perhaps they should make a new protection law that whenever you leave your home you must at minimum be open carrying one firearm, and as many more as desired open or consealed without any liscensing or permitting. and any violaters who leave the house without being armed can and will be imprisoned for a minimum of 5 years for instigating a crime. i know what you are thinking, how can not carrying be instigating, well it it like when i was in boot camp we had to keep a lock on our footlockers at all times, because if we didn't we were inviting a thief to steal our belongings and that we not the thieves were negligent. the same should apply to not carrying if you don't you are inviting someone to do you harm, and therefore you are more at fault than the one commiting the crime.


    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    What lead? Sounds like a typical knee-jerk liberal comment. In an armed society, one is unlikely to start trouble as it could be lethally hazardous to do so. One might even want even to avoid talking trash (which usually quickly leads to physical violence anyway, doesn't it). And so it SHOULD be hazardous. Want to bully/strongarm/assault someone? Ask yourself if it's worth dying over. Nobody has any business verbally or physically assaulting/messing with anyone else. Period.

    As for lefties (herds of prey animals), they'd probably move somewhere else to "greener" pastures, where they could enjoy being UNarmed -- and criminals (predators) will follow, as is the natural order of the prey/predator relationship. Good riddance to them both and I couldn't care less about either.

    Everyone being armed puts everyone on an equal footing. Darwinism can take it from there to delete the unfit (trash). And since there are WAY MORE good people than bad out there, it won't be too long before the latter are almost extinct. No more "career-criminals."

    If America could solve only ONE of its MAJOR problems -- CRIME (which certainly IS solvable) -- what a HUGE accomplishment that would be in so many other areas of life.

    P.S. ALL shootings done by citizens would be investigated (of course!) and if NOT found to be self-defense, then the appropriate criminal charges would be made against the shooter...so I'm not talking about shooting people at the least provocation or provoking (setting-up) someone so you could act in "self-defense." Murder would still be murder and an investigation would look at the facts of the incident. I'm just saying a more "liberal approach" (!) to self-defense is in order, to put those who tend to be aggressive towards others on notice that they do so at great risk -- rather than prosecute the people they prey on (the victims) when they defend themselves -- that no longer would it be as safe to assault others as most criminals/bullies find it today. Citizens should not have to worry that the law will find SOME way to prosecute them for defending themselves. Rather, the law should focus on the criminal.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by marrandy View Post
    http://wblk.com/do-you-agree-disagre...ry-poll-video/


    ADD: I'm only posting it here. If you want to put it on other firearms sites, go ahead.
    I voted "other" and in the comment section that its a natural right

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    95.12% say "Yes" to Constitutional Carry
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    While the results of the poll are thrilling, remember polls usually have a predetermined outcome. This one is a no brainer, it circulates gun sites, and other places where freedom loving people exist and it only shows our bias, not a true indication of any change of the public. I doubt it has any affect in influencing the people who are responsible for changing laws, but I'll cross my fingers anyway.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    While the results of the poll are thrilling, remember polls usually have a predetermined outcome. This one is a no brainer, it circulates gun sites, and other places where freedom loving people exist and it only shows our bias, not a true indication of any change of the public. I doubt it has any affect in influencing the people who are responsible for changing laws, but I'll cross my fingers anyway.
    Undoubtedly a goodly number of the choir have voted there, but I do see it as representative of ever growing numbers, a swelling of the ranks if you will.

    The states with Constitutional Carry has moved from 2 to 5 in recent times and more and more state legislatures are feeling the pressure to join the club - that is a good thing.

    If nothing else, this poll keeps the fires burning, keeps people thinking.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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