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

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

I am not implying that we should repeal all laws.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: butcherguy

Yep. Misread it. You had said "training", but followed it with "Not shooting guns in schools"..

There are gun violence education programs in schools, mostly inner city. No issue with general gun education in schools, safety etc. But am not sure that would limit idiots owning guns. Permitting helps with that.

I would like to see a list kept of idiots that shouldn't own guns.
I do already fill out plenty of paperwork to buy a gun legally, but that doesn't stop and idiot that is so inclined from obtaining a gun.

The population of Australia is also 24 million versus 320 million in the US. Of course gun deaths would be a lot less. We have 100 million unemployed, an economy in the toilet, debt of 17 trillion and a corrupt government. My question is have you bought a gun today??

NM

a reply to: Indigo5

back in the day Hunter education was mandatory in middle school along with boater education.
In fact
Anyone born after Dec. 31, 1986 must successfully complete a DNR-offered hunter education class to purchase a hunting license. Indiana

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: butcherguy

Yep. Misread it. You had said "training", but followed it with "Not shooting guns in schools"..

There are gun violence education programs in schools, mostly inner city. No issue with general gun education in schools, safety etc. But am not sure that would limit idiots owning guns. Permitting helps with that.

I would like to see a list kept of idiots that shouldn't own guns.

Me too. Can we start with guy?

a reply to: Indigo5
Yep.
I was hoping that we could get the people on the list rounded up and away from the rest of society. If they can't be trusted to own a gun, they can't be trusted to possess a car, an axe, a knife, any blunt instruments or for that matter a rock.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that possibly the reason why cops seem to 'fear for their lives' every time they perform a mundane task (and often subsequently kill an unarmed, and usually guiltless individual) is the fear that everyone might have a gun?

a reply to: FromRussiaWithLove

WE KNOW ...remember ME ... I am legion.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Ok,how do we do that,when the bar of impairment or dimensia ,can't measured accurately, or fairly, not politically, to be claimed legally?
Not to mention what ever the hell is going on with antidepressants.
HOW do you stop the social stigmata of such an illness so they can make an upwardly mobile living?
A description of what is needed has already long been spoken.

No need to change the 2nd amendment, we just need to follow it.

Any "concealed permit" or permit of any kind is infringement. 100 % concealed or open carry is already covered, it's legal!

Let's take the Gay marriage issue and apply it to gun control.

The government shouldn't 'regulate' marriage. Meaning it doesn't get to tell people who they should get to marry.

But when it comes to guns. The people. The State has no quams about enforcing LAWS that say the mob has MORE RIGHTS than others.

No the second amendment doesn't need revisiting.

As it is the only permit any American needs to own a firearm.

It was quite clear.

originally posted by: neo96
Let's take the Gay marriage issue and apply it to gun control.

The government shouldn't 'regulate' marriage. Meaning it doesn't get to tell people who they should get to marry.

I imagine shortly after children understand speech and what words mean...they can tell you the difference between a marriage vow and a Beretta 9mm.

Not really possible to have a rational discussion with someone that can't tell the difference.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5
Yep.
I was hoping that we could get the people on the list rounded up and away from the rest of society. If they can't be trusted to own a gun, they can't be trusted to possess a car, an axe, a knife, any blunt instruments or for that matter a rock.

Yes...cuz if blunt instruments are equally as dangerous as guns...perhaps you should trade yours in for a butter knife? ...Right?

a reply to: Indigo5

Is that so?

Let's quote the 14th amendment that people can read.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Care to try again?

So not only do gun owners have their second amendment protections, They have the rest of the bill of RIGHTS.

And they have that pesky 14th amendment RIGHT.

But as we know most adults don't even bother to read the BILL of RIGHTS.

Especially those that created gun control, and ESPECIALLY those that support gun control.

a reply to: neo96

I am certain you don't understand what you are reading. Not interested in debating something that you are willfully confused by.

If you think that somehow the 14th amendment makes gun owners not subject to laws, you are incorrect.

I think you are claiming the equal protection clause? Which at best means that the law be applied equally to gun owners and non-gun owners.

You logic makes as much sense as car owners suddenly declaring they are being discriminated against for having to submit to emissions testing or the speed limit.

Lord...the arguments your ilk come up with damages peoples brains..

No...the 14th amendment does not apply to things people own...it ensures the law be applied equally to all citizens...if they own a dog and the law requires they get their dog rabies shots...they haven't been discriminated against.

I'll exit the crazy town at this stop if you don't mind...

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

A rigorous psychological screening for the permitted use of a firearm is a must, it would be more than a simple questionnaire that any sociopath could lie about. It would be an in-depth psycho-analysis,behavioral analysis and diagnosis with clinical psychologists and maybe neurologists that could be applied to other aspects of society for the purpose of keeping on eye out on the mental well being of citizen's.

No. This totally flies in the face of another Amendment. The Fourth.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, no. On a personal level I will not/would not submit to anything of the sort. Because I've done nothing wrong. There is no reason to believe that I will. So I would not submit.

Section One of the 14th Amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Again, your proposal is in clear violation of this Amendment, too.

a reply to: Indigo5

I am certain you don't understand what you are reading. Not interested in debating something that you are willfully confused by.

Nope.

If you think that somehow the 14th amendment makes gun owners not subject to laws, you are incorrect.

Gun owners are not subject to law because of the BILL OF RIGHTS. That drew a line in the sand, and says the government SHALL NOT PASS.

Shall not be infringed as it clearly said in the second.

The fourth amendemt through the 10th amendments about DUE PROCESS.

And the doubled down on EVERYTHING in the 14th.

Where it clearly says:

. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Basically saying a person has to be charged with a CRIME, and get their days in court in front of a jury of their peers, and a crime be proven beyond all REASONABLE doubt.

A person can not be held accountable for the crime of someone else.

That is why the BILL OF RIGHTS was written.

That's why the 14th amendment was written.

There is no confusion.

Only those that are WILLFULLY ignoring the highest law in the land.

That tells the mob to basically get lost.

Because of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

a reply to: neo96

Indeed.

The 14th amendment does, as you say, double down on 4th through 10th amendments.

a reply to: seagull

So, no. On a personal level I will not/would not submit to anything of the sort. Because I've done nothing wrong. There is no reason to believe that I will. So I would not submit.

No one should.

They think for whatever reason. Mostly out of willful ignorance our rights are forfeit to the state because of the actions of someone else.

Which flies in the face of 'innocent until proven guilty in courts of law'.

Shall not be infringed in the second.

Deny, and Disparage in the ninth.

And the 14th amendments clearly spell it out.
'