rodbender
Regular Member
I think that you just said the same thing I said. I just didn't get into the particulars. I don't think his brain is capable of digesting that much info in one sitting.
-
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.
UH-OH! New Yorkers do not have a constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun
- Thread starter hammer6
- Start date
I think that you just said the same thing I said. I just didn't get into the particulars. I don't think his brain is capable of digesting that much info in one sitting.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
Actually I think eye95 is not only very intelligent, but also well educated and read, and well spoken. We all have different ways of looking at things and he and I had a difference of opinion on a constitutional matter about two years ago. But I think we both believe that on those subjects where we may differ, we can agree to disagree.
The thing is to keep this all civil, rational, mature, and respectful in our discourses. I tend to view the Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights in a more finite and absolute light, believing that the Founders knew exactly what they were doing and saying. We should also keep in mind that their use of the English language was exceptional and considerably better than that which we see in our contemporary world.
Just a thought.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
You make a very good point and far more serious than some might think. While your response here might be taken in jest as one of humor, indeed it portends something ominous and is something that worries me greatly.
It is human nature to take along things from one's prior life as they migrate to another state. Furniture, cars, and other items of property are fine. Ideas about things political and social can be dangerous to those who are native to the areas in which the migration is taking place. Please folks, before you jump all over me, hear me out on this.
I have seen the movement of people in recent years to a small town in Virginia and many of those people are coming from areas inside and around the Capital Beltway surrounding Washington, DC. These people have a different outlook than those who are long time residents of this small Virginia town... Culpeper, which has been "discovered" as a desirable place to live.
Well folks in Culpeper own guns.. I would bet the majority of the population there enjoys this right. And along with this, they also enjoyed shooting at targets in their back yard, something many had done for generations. It wasn't long before some of the new residents started invading the town council meetings demanding that laws be passed to curtail this activity for all manner of reasons (have to wonder if one reason was that some of them don't like firearms). I don't know if they were successful in their efforts, but I would guess not.
What this all means is that people coming to an area of the country that is quite different than that from which they originated need to understand that if they are of a mind to shove things down the throats of the locals because "it's just not something they would do", they are not about to ingratiate themselves with the indigenous folks. The old adage, "when in Rome, do as the Romans" comes to mind. And besides, doing this will eventually kill that which was so attractive to many people to begin with. The golden goose just ain't gonna survive this sort of poison.
Last edited:
rpyne
Regular Member
Utah and Idaho have a similar problem with the invasion of Californians who then try and turn their new home into what they left.
Here in Utah we have a phrase that sums it up... Don't Californicate Utah!
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
The very real danger is if enough of them migrate to your state and form a voting block, things that made your states rich in your culture and traditions could very well become a thing of the past. I worry a lot about this for my beloved South. Because we are such an attractive region of the country to move to, we are in real danger of loosing those things that we Southerners hold dear.
Walt_Kowalski
Regular Member
It make s me SICK when I see Bloomberg say its a victory for the constitution. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those activist judges are violating their oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. Everyone from the police officer enforcing laws that violate the 2nd amendment, to the politicians that create them, should be found guilty of violating their oath of office, and IMHO tried for treason. (if I had it my way)
ldsgeek
Regular Member
Same in the East
We have the same problem in New Hampshire. A lot of people get fed up with the mess they created in Mass, so they move north, where they pay MA prices for NH property. Then they want the same kind of benefits they had in Mass (municipal water/sewer, large police presence, etc) and vote for politicians willing to ram it through. It gets old fast.
We have the same problem in New Hampshire. A lot of people get fed up with the mess they created in Mass, so they move north, where they pay MA prices for NH property. Then they want the same kind of benefits they had in Mass (municipal water/sewer, large police presence, etc) and vote for politicians willing to ram it through. It gets old fast.
Dutch Uncle
Campaign Veteran
Don't forget Nevada. Many Californians are leaving their socially and financially bankrupt state to move to nearby Nevada, daspite Nevada's straightened financial circumstances. As usual, they often bring with them the same out-of-control liberalism that is destroying thier once-proud state.
By the way, it is pronounced Nev-aa-da, with the aa sounding like the a in "mad", not Nuh-vah-duh. You can always tell the out-of-towners that way.
P.S. Just returned from Virginia City NV, where my sister got married. They decided on a "Victorian-themed" wedding, so we were all there in period dress. Most of the men were open-carrying at the wedding and the reception.j I overheard one of my brother-in-law's, relatives, who is from Belgium say she was a bit shocked seeing "all those guns" at the wedding, but went on to say that during the reception she "forgot all about it, and no longer felt upset". I didn't carry: a holster just doesn't go well with an old-style tuxedo.
By the way, it is pronounced Nev-aa-da, with the aa sounding like the a in "mad", not Nuh-vah-duh. You can always tell the out-of-towners that way.
P.S. Just returned from Virginia City NV, where my sister got married. They decided on a "Victorian-themed" wedding, so we were all there in period dress. Most of the men were open-carrying at the wedding and the reception.j I overheard one of my brother-in-law's, relatives, who is from Belgium say she was a bit shocked seeing "all those guns" at the wedding, but went on to say that during the reception she "forgot all about it, and no longer felt upset". I didn't carry: a holster just doesn't go well with an old-style tuxedo.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
This!
I absolutely agree with this. Find out what a place is like before you move there and try to shove your wacky ideas down people's throats. Might have more friends that way and that's always good.
rodbender
Regular Member
I happen to think the same way about him. Maybe I should have said that his hard head would not have absorbed it. His real problem is that he refuses to listen to someone that actually took the time and spent the money to do the research to find out what the Constitution and all amendments meant when ratified. I have done the research and paid big bucks to get the material. Their intentions are very clear when you read what the framers of the Constitution, the BOR, and all other amendments were debating at the time they were written. BTW, I find it extremely taxing to be civil to the guy.
okboomer
Regular Member
Nope, that would be a box derringer tucked in the cumberbund or in a pocket :lol: Or possibly even a shoulder rig :lol:
DanM
Regular Member
Huh? What is "reasonable" about broadly banning or restricting concealed carry? If a law which affects a right is not completely and soundly based on compelling reason, it is an infringement on that right. And the availability of open carry, by itself, is insufficient justification to broadly ban or unreasonably restrict another right you have: concealed carry.
Each ban or restriction on the particular exercise of a right must stand alone on its merits. State the language of the ban or restriction on CC you support, then state the compelling reasoning providing foundation for that ban or restriction.
If that cannot be done, it is indeed an infringement on the 2A!
Last edited:
since9
Campaign Veteran
I couldn't agree more, DanM. The RKBA's "infringement" clause is all-inclusive. A mandate to carry openly is an infringement. A mandate to carry concealed is an infringement. Any right restricting the unfettered RKBA is an infringement.
On the other hand, we as a society have allowed restrictions involving the mental acuity and felony status as a way of mitigating access to lawfully-purchased firearms by those persons who pose a clear and present danger to society.
Yeah, I know - it's not very effective.