It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conceal & Carry Without a Permit: Do We Need to Change the Second Amendment?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
DP
edit on 29-10-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

So having a slip of paper in your wallet makes you a safe driver?
Does a drivers license make you a sober driver too?

Laws don't make sober drivers either.... just like they don't prevent murders.


If laws don't make safe drivers or sober drivers....we should allow anyone of any age to drive without screening and either drunk or sober?

Strange argument.


It is the binary nonsense folks engage in for these debates. If outlawing murder doesn't stop all murders...we shouldn't outlaw murder.

I am not opposed to concealed carry. I am opposed to idiots, drug addicts, drunks and generally untrained individuals carrying guns in public. A stupid, drunk or untrained individual with a gun makes a dangerous situation infinitely more dangerous, not safer.
edit on 29-10-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-10-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator




I guess rape,murder and larceny should no longer be criminalized right?


Lol, why does it always have to go there?

Those are all crimes. A gun is a tool. Not a crime.

There is nothing about bans on full-auto weapons, or background checks, or felons being restricted in the constitution.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: NateTheAnimator




I guess rape,murder and larceny should no longer be criminalized right?


Lol, why does it always have to go there?

Those are all crimes. A gun is a tool. Not a crime.

There is nothing about bans on full-auto weapons, or background checks, or felons being restricted in the constitution.


And yet we don't allow the public access to tools like Anti-Aircraft Rockets?

To assume any right is not subject to "regulation" within reason and public safety is stupid.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5



If laws don't make safe drivers or sober drivers....we should allow anyone of any age to drive without screening and either drunk or sober?

Hardly.
You just missed the gist of it, I suppose.
Training is the answer. Many states do not mandate drivers training. You pass the test and you get your license. Did you have to merge on an Interstate Highway on an ice-covered road when you took your drivers test? No, they made you stop at a stop sign and parallel park.... ooooh, now you are a safe driver.

Many states issue permits for carrying a firearm (permission to have a 2nd Amendment), but most do not mandate any kind of safety training. Hunting, however is usually different. Most states mandate a hunters safety course in order to get a hunting license.
It is a very murky thing.
Can we mandate training in order to get a permit to have a 2nd amendment?
Maybe the answer is to train all school children in firearms safety. I am not talking about shooting guns in schools, but learning about what is and isn't safe, and how firearms work. Maybe even show the results of gunshot wounds, they did that in the hunters safety course that I took at school in 6th grade.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5



And yet we don't allow the public access to tools like Anti-Aircraft Rockets?

But there are no federal restrictions on owning a flamethrower.
How did they let that slip through?



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

An Anti-Aircraft weapon would be safe in my hands. It is still just a tool.

There are already laws that make committing crimes with these tools illegal.

The second amendment is for defense, not offense. Ironically, the thought of it is offensive to you.

Rights are rights, regulation of a God given right is infringement.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Compromise?

Nope.

You are free to not have one, just as I'm free to have one. How's that? Seems equitable to me.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5



If laws don't make safe drivers or sober drivers....we should allow anyone of any age to drive without screening and either drunk or sober?



Many states issue permits for carrying a firearm (permission to have a 2nd Amendment),


Rights, 2nd amendment or otherwise, do come with qualifications.

Permission to have a 2nd amendment? Every day in every way...lest we issue firearms to the prison population.

People can have the "right" to own guns...and be required to complete appropriate training in order to exercise that right....and more so when they wish to carry those guns in public spaces where other innocent folks are at risk of being a victim of their ignorance.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: reldra

Compromise?

Nope.

You are free to not have one, just as I'm free to have one. How's that? Seems equitable to me.


It's not that simple and that sort of stance does not do anything to help take back our 2nd amendment right.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Indigo5

An Anti-Aircraft weapon would be safe in my hands. It is still just a tool.

There are already laws that make committing crimes with these tools illegal.

The second amendment is for defense, not offense. Ironically, the thought of it is offensive to you.

Rights are rights, regulation of a God given right is infringement.


Not sure how to unpack an ignorant post like this? I support the 2nd Amendment. And every ignoramus that has accidentally or intentionally shot someone they shouldn't of...first thought a gun "would be safe in my hands".

And not sure what to do with the idea that you think Anti-aircraft weapons should be available to the public?

And all constitutional rights are subject to regulation...That's what the SCOTUS is for....determining that line.
edit on 29-10-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5



People can have the "right" to own guns...and be required to complete appropriate training in order to exercise that right....and more so when they wish to carry those guns in public spaces where other innocent folks are at risk of being a victim of their ignorance.

So, are you for or against firearms safety training in schools?

And, did you take your drivers test on an ice covered interstate highway?



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz




Lol, why does it always have to go there?


Yeah I went there.. Those lovely crimes can also be observed by our brethren in the animal kingdom and to do away with regulation and legislated policies to prevent these crimes from happening makes a society no better than a troop of hairless chimps.



Those are all crimes. A gun is a tool. Not a crime.


A firearm is a weapon, it's designed to kill,maim and/or stun a target. I never said nor implied that owning a firearm is somehow a crime, I'm simply stating that regulation is needed to keep them out of the hands of those who are not mentally stable to use it.



There is nothing about bans on full-auto weapons, or background checks, or felons being restricted in the constitution.


The reason it doesn't say that anywhere is because the founding fathers were only familiar with single shot muskets that could only be used in certain conditions. They had no idea future American defense contractors would develop automatic assault rifles let alone semi-automatic rifles that fire 800 RPM. You're also missing the part of the constitution in the 2nd amendment where it mentions the words "well regulated" and "militia". It was clearly not intended as being an individual right for the purpose of self defense but a cheaper replacement for a national standing army.



regulation of a God given right is infringement.


Your rights aren't God given...There made up by policy makers who have no association with God in their profession.
edit on 29-10-2015 by NateTheAnimator because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
It's a shame they had to pass a "law" for a personl freedom "right" that is already ours. Why do you need a "permit" anyway? For what reason? The permit is just a registration system anyway. Why does the citizen, have to fork out hard earned money for a right that has been thiers, from this counties foundation? I know, it stops "crime". The only people that bother with the system are the law abiding. They're just throwing money at TPTB..for what? "Permission"?



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




Not sure how to unpack an ignorant post like this?


Start off with name calling, of course


Why do you want to keep someone from possessing a tool? An object?

Because it's scary? Then get one for yourself.

There are two types of people, armed realists and unarmed victims.

And I disagree that all rights are subject to regulation, that goes against the very definition of a right.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy




So having a slip of paper in your wallet makes you a safe driver? Does a drivers license make you a sober driver too? Laws don't make sober drivers either.... just like they don't prevent murders.


So again should we just decriminalize murder since your logic seems to dictate legislation is redundant? If so how do propose we prevent people from killing each other? And please do not say we should just arm everyone and give them Kevlar vests...



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Compromise? The whole reason our rights are enumerated and written as unchangeable "law". Is so they can not be compromised, legislated or "democratically" removed. If you swear to uphold something and then do your best to undermind it...what does that make you/you? "Compromise"? Only people without standards want to compromise. ..



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator




I'm simply stating that regulation is needed to keep them out of the hands of those who are not mentally stable to use it.


How are you going to do this?

There are well north of 300 federal/state, and innumerable local/municipal, laws already on the books. How well are those working? What good is unenforceable laws going to do? I submit, none.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

thank you, I'm well aware of that.

But time for compromise is over. Why is it that I'm the one who has to "compromise"? When a compromise only goes one way, how is it a compromise?

Maybe I'm dumber than I think I am, but I just don't see how compromise does us, legal gun owners, any favors. Why do I have to be the one. I've done nothing wrong, nor have any of the gun owners I know personally.

I already jump through enough hoops. I'm done, as best I'm able, allowing more hoops to be thrown up.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Indigo5

An Anti-Aircraft weapon would be safe in my hands. It is still just a tool.

There are already laws that make committing crimes with these tools illegal.

The second amendment is for defense, not offense. Ironically, the thought of it is offensive to you.

Rights are rights, regulation of a God given right is infringement.


Not sure how to unpack an ignorant post like this? I support the 2nd Amendment. And every ignoramus that has accidentally or intentionally shot someone they shouldn't of...first thought a gun "would be safe in my hands".

And not sure what to do with the idea that you think Anti-aircraft weapons should be available to the public?

And all constitutional rights are subject to regulation...That's what the SCOTUS is for....determining that line.




You could not be more wrong, dont feel bad though most think like this. Your rights are only limited by their scope. Their scope ends where others rights begin. So owning any type of offensive weapon up to and including Nuclear weapons is in and of itself within the rights of everyone. That said, HOWEVER the use of those weapons would at a specific point infringe on the rights of others. The analogy between firearms and cars is a good one and many anti-gun folks use it to push licensing schemes and regulatory burdens. There are clear differences however if you look at them. We have a right to travel on common routes and with that right we have the right to utilize the most modern means possible (cars) we should not need government permission and expose ourselves to all manner of government sanctioned highwaymen activity. The government has convinced you that you NEED regulations and licensing because they want the ability to use police to impose law enforcement upon you if you travel. The Licensing and regulatory scheme in no way prevents accidents or stupid driving behavior. Just as licensing and regulations in no way prevent any accident in any field. The government requires a permit or license but in no way assumes any liability for the holder of that licenses. Why cant you sue the government if another driver hits you and causes severe damage or injury? Didnt the license that the government issued assure us that this driver was qualified and capable of driving safely? No you cant, so the motivation is not public safety it is control and revenue.

For example in my state to purchase a handgun you only need to pass a background check. You then can carry that handgun with a "permit" if you pass yet another background check and pay a fee. There is no training requirement. Yet we do not have streets running with blood due to accidents and wild west shootouts, so clearly either we are freakishly capable of being personally responsible or a room temp IQ is all that is required to carry safely.







 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join