Nationwide CCW (almost)

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

Thank god this failed...I understand peoples obsession with the full faith and blah blah blah clause, but! that addresses public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, I don't see Laws in that list of fancy words. Besides this all hinges on whether or not you believe you have to have a permit to carry period. If you want to talk constitutional, how bout the 2nd, and 9th & 10th amendment. If we just followed these 3 we would not need a cpl, nor would we need legislation to carry concealed from state to state. I tend to stay away from clauses, they tend to leave room for the Feds. to wiggle into our god given rights...any one remember the Interstate commerce act clause. Some how the Gov. thinks that allows them to regulate sawed off shot guns....any hoo thats my 2 cent!

Click to expand...

CPLs are part of the gun carrying world. Reality.

I am always amazed at the obstinacy of the purists.

We live in reality not theoritical land....

Too bad the bill got voted down. Passage would have been a significantadvancingstep in the institutionalization of legal gun carry.

Kudos to Sen. Thune, et al.

imported post

HankT wrote:

CPLs are part of the gun carrying world. Reality.

I am always amazed at the obstinacy of the purists.

We live in reality not theoritical land....

Click to expand...

A lot of great men died to secure the rights protected under the constitution. It took all kinds of hardship and suffering to bring that document into existence and protect it. It's an unprecedented achievement, which was then and still is worth laying your life down to protect if the need arises. And good grief, certainly when it gets pissed on by Congress that's the time to speak up, not nod your head in subtle agreement or indifference.

It is a shame you don't respect the importance of that more.

imported post

Michigander wrote:

HankT wrote:

CPLs are part of the gun carrying world. Reality.

I am always amazed at the obstinacy of the purists.

We live in reality not theoritical land....

Click to expand...

A lot of great men died to secure the rights protected under the constitution. It took all kinds of hardship and suffering to bring that document into existence and protect it. It's an unprecedented achievement, which was then and still is worth laying your life down to protect if the need arises. And good grief, certainly when it gets pissed on by Congress that's the time to speak up, not nod your head in subtle agreement or indifference.

It is a shame you don't respect the importance of that more.

Click to expand...

Actually, I meant psuedo-purists.

imported post

"Pseudo-purist"???

Hank T.... I expected better from you.

Labels are bandied about in today's culture that have gone from objectively placing people into certain groups and demographics towards full scale propaganda.

Purist, fundamentalist, progressive, reformer, conservative, liberal, neo-conservative, capitalist, communist, socialist, Keynesian capitalist, Marxist, left, right, and all that's left, right? What once were labels now serve as pejoratives, mis-characterizations, and Orwellian double speak.

Just because you claim some some information as "fact" and "reality" does not make it so. Ask gun owners in WI or IL if a license to carry concealed is part of the "gun carrying world" or "reality". Also, many here do not have a CPL and never will, what is their "reality"?

Although I too was OK with this proposal if it had gone through, I will strongly defend another member's right to question the issue, even on it's most basic assumptions.

Perhaps you don't see what you wrote as pejorative. I would disagree, however. By calling a member a "pseudo-purist", your intent appears to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from a true examination of the facts of the matter; an attempt to thwart rational discussion.

I expected better here.

imported post

There's a reason they call him Dr.

imported post

If we all were purist, and held our representatives to that same purist principals, we would not be discussing whether or not we need a permit to carry concealed, or whether or not states have individual sovereignty. I respect Dr. Todd's fortitude, his ability to research, and his difference of opinion. It creates mature debate. I also respect hanks opinion, what I find ironic is that the very same right that gives Hank the right to disagree, and regrettably to name call, was granted by god & guaranteed by George a "purist"

I understand the foot in the door theory, if others wish to accept this, as a means to forward the agenda I support your cause, but I don't have to support the means. That is my right. Remember I'm pulling for ya, We're all in this together!