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.

 

Arizona to allow concealed weapons without permit

page: 4
45
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by whatwasthat
 



What will the reaction be from traffic cops in States the have strict gun control laws? Maybe they will hesitate to stop out of State driver with AZ tags.


Ever hear of Reciprocity laws? AZ gun laws apply to AZ only - each state sets their own laws.

Better be very careful if you carry across state lines without knowing what reciprocity is being granted, if any.

And believe me, LEO will not hesitate to stop a car just because of it's license plate.




posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ReelView
 



I think you are referring to natural vs legal rights, or in other words inalienable vs statutory rights.

The inalienable rights that come to mind are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, Second Amendment rights don't qualify as a natural right. I wish they did.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 

Oh i agree!


Did the law pass where they could pick up all illegals there? Concealed weapons without permits...illegals picked up...Wow! That could make for a real fun time in my old neighborhood. I am afraid for my mother and brother even though they are citizens they have Hispanic names.

Its the OK Corral all over again. I do not like the "politics" there.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
This is a great day for our country and the Constitution. Everyone in their respective states should push for similar laws to be passed. The government doesn't want the general public to be armed without permit because they cant keep track of who has what, and where you live. The more states that pass laws like this one, the better chance the revolution has of succeeding.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mwood
 


I may have over exaggerated the point to get peoples attention.

But seriously....

If your NOT Paranoid, why do need to carry a .44 "Everywhere" you go.
If you were living in Iraq, fair enough.
If your in a Post Office and a guy goes Postal, You would have to take him down
on the first shot without killing anyone else. And that would make you his Number
one Target. And anybody near you is also a Target, just because you want to play Bruce Willis.
These crazies don't care if they die, and are usally more prepared than
you are, more guns, lot more bullets.

If I'm in Public place, how do I know your not going to go Postal.


In some regards, your just like the Government trying to
Police the World, except your trying to Police the Neighborhood.
But in both cases, does it really need Policing for a threat that's not
actually there.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 



In some regards, your just like the Government trying to
Police the World, except your trying to Police the Neighborhood.
But in both cases, does it really need Policing for a threat that's not
actually there


So you can guarantee that the threat is "not actually there", can you?

Or shall I dig out the Sunday Papers and start citing the many cases of random violence that occur everyday?



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by skeptic_al
 



In some regards, your just like the Government trying to
Police the World, except your trying to Police the Neighborhood.
But in both cases, does it really need Policing for a threat that's not
actually there


So you can guarantee that the threat is "not actually there", can you?

Or shall I dig out the Sunday Papers and start citing the many cases of random violence that occur everyday?


You can't guarantee it, so why don't you wear body armor everywhere you go?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Now, who's Paranoid then you or me?
There are no Guarantees, but never the less you are just making
yourself a bigger target for a Once in a Blue Moon event.

If you have to wear a gun 24/7 to give yourself a nice fuzzy feeling
then perhaps your just living on the wrong side of town. Maybe
you would be more safer living in Afghanistan.

What if there two perps taking on Petrol Station, you going to be hero
and take on both of them or lay on floor and tell him to take the money.
I am guessing correct, you'll be playing the part of Bruce Willis.

And yes, take the money, it's only money.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by skeptic_al
 



In some regards, your just like the Government trying to
Police the World, except your trying to Police the Neighborhood.
But in both cases, does it really need Policing for a threat that's not
actually there


So you can guarantee that the threat is "not actually there", can you?

Or shall I dig out the Sunday Papers and start citing the many cases of random violence that occur everyday?


You can't guarantee it, so why don't you wear body armor everywhere you go?


What guarantee would I have being a Unarmed Civilian,
that these fools carrying guns for their protection arn't going to go Postal.

You are not solving the Problem, you are part of the Problem.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Well, the wild west has very edgy people, and i believe in the right to carry but concealed?

One little traffic jam downtown Phoenix ought to do it.



If someone shoots someone because of road rage, that person was crazy...it has nothing to do with the right to carry.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard

Originally posted by dgtempe
Well, the wild west has very edgy people, and i believe in the right to carry but concealed?

One little traffic jam downtown Phoenix ought to do it.



If someone shoots someone because of road rage, that person was crazy...it has nothing to do with the right to carry.


Sure, and if the crazy had a gun he'd use it, if he didn't he'd have to
do something else. But I don't think you would need to be crazy to do
it. Just the heat of the monent could just trip him over edge for not
giving him the thankyou wave after you let him in.

The more people that carry guns, the greater the chance of simple
incident getting way out of control.


And I've seen a few shows on TV about the Open Gun Nutters.
All the ones I've seen thus far, all look like they've gone
to Maccas just a few too many times, if you know what I mean.
It looks a lot more like, I can't get out of this Chair in less than
5 Minutes so I'd better get a gun.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


Turn off the facking TV! Everything you think you know about gun owners based on what you claim you saw on TV is BS!

Owning a gun doesn't suddenly turn people into lawless criminal crazies. People are already either law abiding or not. It's already been proven time and again the more liberal the gun laws the less crime. Simply because criminals don't care about laws and can and will get guns and use them despite any laws. When they know citizens are armed too they avoid armed citizens.

Anti-gun laws have never ever reduced crime period! In every case they increased crime. If gun control actually worked NY City and LA would be some of the safest places on the planet since they have some of the most draconian anti-gun laws but they are just the opposite and some of the most dangerous places on the planet. NY City has a higher murder rate the Baghdad Iraq.

Armed citizens stop more crime then all law enforcement agencies in America combined. Usually because they are the intended victim. Also Law enforcement (LE) has a higher crime rate among them as a group then concealed weapons holders. And no one has a problem with LE carrying guns.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by ReelView
 



I think you are referring to natural vs legal rights, or in other words inalienable vs statutory rights.

The inalienable rights that come to mind are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, Second Amendment rights don't qualify as a natural right. I wish they did.


Ehhhh! Wrong!

The right to self defense is the most fundamental right of them all! The right to bear arms in ones defense or collectively is an inherent natural right! The idea that it is not is just amazing to me. That anyone could be convinced otherwise is extremely sad.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Originally posted by skeptic_al
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by skeptic_al




What guarantee would I have being a Unarmed Civilian,
that these fools carrying guns for their protection arn't going to go Postal.

You are not solving the Problem, you are part of the Problem.


If some fool wants to go postal do you think some law written on a piece od paper is going to stop him? Wait let me guess you think outlawing guns will stop him from having one... Yea right just like outlawing drugs has stopped people from getting them... Sigh!



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I don't know where you are getting facts/figures from but...

The US wouldn't know what a GUN Law was even if tripped over it.
Even Saddam had better gun control than what the US has.
Fact: The US has the lamest Gun laws in the Western World
Fact. Other countries that have banned guns, has had a decrease in
accidental gunshot deaths and decreased armed robberies. It takes
about 5-10 years after the change to become effective.

There are still guns out there, but only the hardened crims have them
now. It's only a matter when there are no more buwits



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Now, who's Paranoid then you or me?
There are no Guarantees, but never the less you are just making
yourself a bigger target for a Once in a Blue Moon event.

If you have to wear a gun 24/7 to give yourself a nice fuzzy feeling
then perhaps your just living on the wrong side of town. Maybe
you would be more safer living in Afghanistan.

What if there two perps taking on Petrol Station, you going to be hero
and take on both of them or lay on floor and tell him to take the money.
I am guessing correct, you'll be playing the part of Bruce Willis.

And yes, take the money, it's only money.


Well in the case of a violent crime happening (which is very common in places like Phoenix btw) the person that is packing is likely to have a positive outcome, while the person that just meekly takes what the criminal gives him is likely to be dead.

I know what side I am going to be on, and it isn't the dead.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Originally posted by skeptic_al
Originally posted by RestingInPieces
Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by skeptic_al




What guarantee would I have being a Unarmed Civilian,
that these fools carrying guns for their protection arn't going to go Postal.

You are not solving the Problem, you are part of the Problem.


If some fool wants to go postal do you think some law written on a piece od paper is going to stop him? Wait let me guess you think outlawing guns will stop him from having one... Yea right just like outlawing drugs has stopped people from getting them... Sigh!


Your Right, a piece of paper will not stop those using guns for criminal activities.
Just like a Permit to own gun does not mean it will never be used for
the wrong reasons.

Reducing the number of guns in circulation will severlly limit criminal activities.
More guns, will not decrease criminal activities.

In your world, If you subscribe to the theory that everybody would be safer
if every man, woman and child carried a gun, like in the 1800's.
Then you must also believe the world would be safer if every country had at
least 100 Nukes on hand. It's just not logical to think, one is ok and the other
is not.

Both follow the Mutually Assured Destruction train of thought.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join