• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Constitution carry poll

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

bellyfat

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
69
Location
north carolina
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.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
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:

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
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:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
LOL. Why does the video under that poll that opposes permits show an AZ one?

@ O.57

[video=youtube_share;B3MaC12dglg]http://youtu.be/B3MaC12dglg[/video]
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
LOL. Why does the video under that poll that opposes permits show an AZ one?

@ O.57

[video=youtube_share;B3MaC12dglg]http://youtu.be/B3MaC12dglg[/video]

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.
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
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.
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
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.
 

bellyfat

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
69
Location
north carolina
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.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
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?
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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.
 

aa1911

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
106
Location
Yelm, WA
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.
 
Top