-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
It seems illogical
- Thread starter Downriver
- Start date
JT
Regular Member
imported post
Downriver wrote:
Downriver wrote:
I concur. Your question above is illogical.
Nikki_Black
Regular Member
imported post
Hmm.. I concur as well. His question is illogical. I could come back with any number of witty remarks, but I'll just say, "shoo troll."
Hmm.. I concur as well. His question is illogical. I could come back with any number of witty remarks, but I'll just say, "shoo troll."
Superlite27
Regular Member
imported post
Downriver wrote:
Probably because my right to carry is an actual, pre-existing right specifically referenced in the Constitution.
Whereas, your foggy, made-up, hypothetical "right to take your family out" doesn't exist anywhere but in your brainwashed police dependent head.
If you want to know about the whackos packing deadly weapons, why don't you go down to your local prison and ask those who do so irresponsibly. Asking law abiding citizens who reponsibly choose to potect themselves from these whackos instead of foisting the responsiblity for their personal safety onto another human being with a shiny diskwill probablyonly get you a rational intelligent response.
You're probably too much of a troll toenjoy rational, intelligent, logical responses. Go mindlessly sell hoplophobia somewhere else. We don't like the taste of it here.
Downriver wrote:
Probably because my right to carry is an actual, pre-existing right specifically referenced in the Constitution.
Whereas, your foggy, made-up, hypothetical "right to take your family out" doesn't exist anywhere but in your brainwashed police dependent head.
If you want to know about the whackos packing deadly weapons, why don't you go down to your local prison and ask those who do so irresponsibly. Asking law abiding citizens who reponsibly choose to potect themselves from these whackos instead of foisting the responsiblity for their personal safety onto another human being with a shiny diskwill probablyonly get you a rational intelligent response.
You're probably too much of a troll toenjoy rational, intelligent, logical responses. Go mindlessly sell hoplophobia somewhere else. We don't like the taste of it here.
imported post
This is not a troll and you nor the previous poster are answering the question. I own firearms, but I do not see the need to pack when I go to town.
If you can't provide a reasoned response you simply reinforce the point.
This is not a troll and you nor the previous poster are answering the question. I own firearms, but I do not see the need to pack when I go to town.
If you can't provide a reasoned response you simply reinforce the point.
MetalChris
Regular Member
imported post
Downriver wrote:
Downriver wrote:
Perhaps there is no need, but it is our right. :celebrate
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
Downriver wrote:
I'd like to live there.
Downriver wrote:
Really? Where do you live that's completely 100% crime-free?
I'd like to live there.
imported post
I see your point, that you would obviously send a message that you are not a "soft" target. But, nonetheless, it does not seem beyond the realm of possibility that a criminal or the criminally insane, seeing you carrying a firearm, could not simply whack you upside the head and take it from you. Then you have created an armed criminal.
I see your point, that you would obviously send a message that you are not a "soft" target. But, nonetheless, it does not seem beyond the realm of possibility that a criminal or the criminally insane, seeing you carrying a firearm, could not simply whack you upside the head and take it from you. Then you have created an armed criminal.
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
imported post
Folks. The boy isn't going to change his mind no matter what you say. Let him starve for the attention he's craving.
Folks. The boy isn't going to change his mind no matter what you say. Let him starve for the attention he's craving.
Nikki_Black
Regular Member
imported post
AbNo wrote:
"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."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
On another point, why do you think that we are wackos for wanting to carry a firearm for personal protection? Whether open or not. Some of us are too young to get a CC permit, like myself. Also, why are you scared of guns? Hmmm? Do you plan on assaulting my family, friends, or me? The only people who should be scared of my weapon are people who plan on harming me and mine. A gun is an inanimate object, it's not gonna take itself out of it's holster and fire wildly in your direction, and I'm not going to make it unless a person or animal threatens my life. I personally don't care if you own guns or not, that's your business. It's not your business if I decide to wear a firearm. If it bothers you, then ignore it. Posting on this board, or coming up to me in person to chastise me or anybody about the gun on our hip is intentionally creating a problem that isn't even real. It's a tool. I'm gonna carry it. Get over it. Go on with your day. Let's hear your witty comeback. Oh, and just to let you know. I am a cop, and I endorse open carry.
AbNo wrote:
Me too. Also, the Constitution recognizes the right to carry right here:Downriver wrote:Really? Where do you live that's completely 100% crime-free?
I'd like to live there.
"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."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
On another point, why do you think that we are wackos for wanting to carry a firearm for personal protection? Whether open or not. Some of us are too young to get a CC permit, like myself. Also, why are you scared of guns? Hmmm? Do you plan on assaulting my family, friends, or me? The only people who should be scared of my weapon are people who plan on harming me and mine. A gun is an inanimate object, it's not gonna take itself out of it's holster and fire wildly in your direction, and I'm not going to make it unless a person or animal threatens my life. I personally don't care if you own guns or not, that's your business. It's not your business if I decide to wear a firearm. If it bothers you, then ignore it. Posting on this board, or coming up to me in person to chastise me or anybody about the gun on our hip is intentionally creating a problem that isn't even real. It's a tool. I'm gonna carry it. Get over it. Go on with your day. Let's hear your witty comeback. Oh, and just to let you know. I am a cop, and I endorse open carry.
Nikki_Black
Regular Member
imported post
Downriver wrote:
Downriver wrote:
"Whack me upside the head?" Seriously? Ever heard of SITUATIONAL AWARENESS? I can guarantee you that 99% of OCers aren't going to let somebody get close enough to club them in the head and take their gun. Even if they did get close enough to me to club me in the head, my wife also has a gun.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
imported post
Downriver wrote:
BTW, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grant any rights at all. The Bill of rights recognizes rights which already exist and which belong to the People. Governments cannot grant rights; only power, authority, and privilege.
Downriver wrote:
Same place where one might find the right to conceal carry. Nowhere. The Bill of Rights uses the word "bear" which meant, "to carry on or about the person".
BTW, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grant any rights at all. The Bill of rights recognizes rights which already exist and which belong to the People. Governments cannot grant rights; only power, authority, and privilege.
Nikki_Black
Regular Member
imported post
TheMrMitch wrote:
TheMrMitch wrote:
I know, I just like a good debate. Even if I can't win
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
imported post
You are certainly welcome to take a decision to carry or not to carry a defensive arm when out and about in the public arena. That is your choice to take. However, you cannot expect, demand, or restrict another's right to carry a firearm which they have deemed appropriate for their defense.
You are certainly welcome to take a decision to carry or not to carry a defensive arm when out and about in the public arena. That is your choice to take. However, you cannot expect, demand, or restrict another's right to carry a firearm which they have deemed appropriate for their defense.
elixin77
Regular Member
imported post
My rights are protected by the constitution, both US and NC. I am legally part of the militia (between 17 and 49 years of age), and I also don't feel like being at the whim of a criminal.
Thats reason for me right there.
My rights are protected by the constitution, both US and NC. I am legally part of the militia (between 17 and 49 years of age), and I also don't feel like being at the whim of a criminal.
Thats reason for me right there.
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
Downriver wrote:
Does the word 'bear arms' ring a bell? SCJ Ruth Bader Ginsburg (of all people) wrote this 'opinion' as a result of the Heller case.:
Bearing Arms: “Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."
Secondly... your entire premise that tha Constitution grants you anything is wrong. The Constitution grants nothing...but is a set of enumerated recognition of pre-existing rights. In regard to the 2A:
"The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed.": SCJ A. Scalia 2008
Regarding 'rights'... I wrote this for my sister-in-law who is a high school teacher:
Rights
"All free people are born with certain inalienable rights. Such rights would exist in the presence of Government or none. Government does not have rights. Government has ‘authority’. Authority of government is derived from the people (the governed) and is not separate and autonomous.
Government does not grant Rights. Government can only recognize the legitimacy of a right, codify and enumerate them; protect and defend them (or) deny them. Rights (as codified and enumerated by the U.S. Constitution) become the basis for ‘The Law of the Land’. From this body of laws, all other laws are compared.
Government cannot grant ‘Rights’. Rights are not to be confused with ‘Permit’, ‘License’, ‘Privilege’ or ’Allowance’ or other contrivance. Rights cannot be ’purchased’ nor can government extract fees for the free exercise thereof. Rights are inherent and eternal w/o interference, infringement, impairment or regulation when exercised responsibly by the individual. The free exercise of a Right requires personal responsibility and moderation.
Absolute denial of a right in a free society is tyranny."
Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
Rule by such governments headed by absolute monarchs, oligarchs or dictators do not recognize individual rights and often deny them as 'they alone' control and determine such liberties as the people may enjoy or not. Such governments abrogate personal responsibility to the authority of the State.
'Open Carry' is historically the preferred mode of bearing arms. Concealed carry (not that long ago) was considered 'sneaky'... to put it simply. The government contrivance of 'permit' (CCW/CWP et al) is to conceal... not to carry. The right to carry (bear arms) in many states is restricted to concealment alone. This is an actual infringement upon the free exercise of the right while not denying it altogether.
The Arizona Constitution is identical in wording to many state constitutions and has been in effect since ratification in 1912. AZC Sec 2 Art 26: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."
Concealed permits were not in existance in Arizonauntil 1994. The right to bear arms was never questioned. You do not state your location, but I suspect you live in a historically prohibitive state.
Do you take your family on the highways surrpounded by persons of unknown mental states...competency or intent... operating 4,000 lbs of glass, steel and rubber at 60 fps or better? Of course you do...
Downriver wrote:
Does the word 'bear arms' ring a bell? SCJ Ruth Bader Ginsburg (of all people) wrote this 'opinion' as a result of the Heller case.:
Bearing Arms: “Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate
Secondly... your entire premise that tha Constitution grants you anything is wrong. The Constitution grants nothing...but is a set of enumerated recognition of pre-existing rights. In regard to the 2A:
"The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed.": SCJ A. Scalia 2008
Regarding 'rights'... I wrote this for my sister-in-law who is a high school teacher:
Rights
"All free people are born with certain inalienable rights. Such rights would exist in the presence of Government or none. Government does not have rights. Government has ‘authority’. Authority of government is derived from the people (the governed) and is not separate and autonomous.
Government does not grant Rights. Government can only recognize the legitimacy of a right, codify and enumerate them; protect and defend them (or) deny them. Rights (as codified and enumerated by the U.S. Constitution) become the basis for ‘The Law of the Land’. From this body of laws, all other laws are compared.
Government cannot grant ‘Rights’. Rights are not to be confused with ‘Permit’, ‘License’, ‘Privilege’ or ’Allowance’ or other contrivance. Rights cannot be ’purchased’ nor can government extract fees for the free exercise thereof. Rights are inherent and eternal w/o interference, infringement, impairment or regulation when exercised responsibly by the individual. The free exercise of a Right requires personal responsibility and moderation.
Absolute denial of a right in a free society is tyranny."
Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
Rule by such governments headed by absolute monarchs, oligarchs or dictators do not recognize individual rights and often deny them as 'they alone' control and determine such liberties as the people may enjoy or not. Such governments abrogate personal responsibility to the authority of the State.
'Open Carry' is historically the preferred mode of bearing arms. Concealed carry (not that long ago) was considered 'sneaky'... to put it simply. The government contrivance of 'permit' (CCW/CWP et al) is to conceal... not to carry. The right to carry (bear arms) in many states is restricted to concealment alone. This is an actual infringement upon the free exercise of the right while not denying it altogether.
The Arizona Constitution is identical in wording to many state constitutions and has been in effect since ratification in 1912. AZC Sec 2 Art 26: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."
Concealed permits were not in existance in Arizonauntil 1994. The right to bear arms was never questioned. You do not state your location, but I suspect you live in a historically prohibitive state.
Do you take your family on the highways surrpounded by persons of unknown mental states...competency or intent... operating 4,000 lbs of glass, steel and rubber at 60 fps or better? Of course you do...
JT
Regular Member
imported post
Downriver wrote:
A reasoned response is generally reserved for a reasonable question. Your question is is illogical because your premise is illogical for the following reasons.
1. You don't have a right to be free from worry. To worry or not is achoice you make. Your choice to worry does not trump the right to keep and bear arms.
2. Law abiding citizens aren't generally "whackos." In fact "whackos" will carry guns regardless of the laws that are passed so even if we all left our guns home, your family would still have to worry about the "whackos."
3. Ignorance of firearm safety doesn't make a person a "whacko."
Your question shows that youdon't have the understanding of anyone who is familiar with firearms. You may well own some firearms but your question shows that that you are most likely the very ignorant person you profess to worry about.
In short, according to the standard of your originalquestion, you are a "whacko" ... or a troll.
Downriver wrote:
A reasoned response is generally reserved for a reasonable question. Your question is is illogical because your premise is illogical for the following reasons.
1. You don't have a right to be free from worry. To worry or not is achoice you make. Your choice to worry does not trump the right to keep and bear arms.
2. Law abiding citizens aren't generally "whackos." In fact "whackos" will carry guns regardless of the laws that are passed so even if we all left our guns home, your family would still have to worry about the "whackos."
3. Ignorance of firearm safety doesn't make a person a "whacko."
Your question shows that youdon't have the understanding of anyone who is familiar with firearms. You may well own some firearms but your question shows that that you are most likely the very ignorant person you profess to worry about.
In short, according to the standard of your originalquestion, you are a "whacko" ... or a troll.
imported post
Reading your posts leads me to believe you are delusional, that somehow you think you and even your wife are somehow to "situationally aware" to be a victim. That is total BS, and if you indeed think that, then you have no business carrying a firearm and most definitely no business as an LEO, which I doubt.
If I ever feel the need to pack, it will because of people like you.
Reading your posts leads me to believe you are delusional, that somehow you think you and even your wife are somehow to "situationally aware" to be a victim. That is total BS, and if you indeed think that, then you have no business carrying a firearm and most definitely no business as an LEO, which I doubt.
If I ever feel the need to pack, it will because of people like you.
Nikki_Black
Regular Member
imported post
JT wrote:
JT wrote:
Both, more than likely.Downriver wrote:
A reasoned response is generally reserved for a reasonable question. Your question is is illogical because your premise is illogical for the following reasons.
1. You don't have a right to be free from worry. To worry or not is a choice you make. Your choice to worry does not trump the right to keep and bear arms.
2. Law abiding citizens aren't generally "whackos." In fact "whackos" will carry guns regardless of the laws that are passed so even if we all left our guns home, your family would still have to worry about the "whackos."
3. Ignorance of firearm safety doesn't make a person a "whacko."
Your question shows that you don't have the understanding of anyone who is familiar with firearms. You may well own some firearms but your question shows that that you are most likely the very ignorant person you profess to worry about.
In short, according to the standard of your original question, you are a "whacko" ... or a troll.