House passes Right to Carry

You americans and your guns, maybe it's a small penis syndrome thing I'm not sure. I just know I don't need a gun to be a man.

reply to post by ReeceIkyle


No, but to be a man in the way God intended, you need the freedom to decide if you want a gun or not. For me, it is about connecting to the hunter in me.

Besides, as a hobby it is great. The only other person I know that can hit a 16.9 fl oz soda bottle from 200 yards 5 times in a row besides myself is my son. The bonding and comeraderie that we have had while practicing marksmanship has been an important part of the father/son relationship for us.

reply to post by neo96


This bill is good, but violates the states rights.

What congress should do instead is make sure the Supreme Court ruling about the second amendment applies to all states.

Yes there's state rights, but states like California and NY cannot violate the constitution if they feel like it.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I can almost hear POTUS saying" I had to veto it because there are those who sole intent is to kill others with firearms." "Just look at the incident outside the White House window............"

Because keeping me from pocketing a .38 snubnose is going to ensure that some murderous SOB isn't going to carry his.

The thing about these laws is that they only effect people who pay attention to them. This is the 1000lb gorilla in the room when we talk about legislation.

And we, as The People, have asked for this. Everytime something happens that shocks us, we demand laws to address it. SO these laws are trotted out to maintain the appearance that the elected idiots are doing something. Everyone nods with approval at this point, and the politician gets reelected.

"Something bad happened! There MUST be a law that can address it!!!"

I have friends and family I havent seen in years because I'd have to travel unarmed through anti-gun states that do not honor my permit(s).

Shame, if this passes I'd have one less excuse to stay home.

On to the Senate!! This is good solid legislation to finally end the confusion when traveling armed to protect ones family and self.

I am my family's bodyguard and they are the reason that I carry responsibly.

While I agree this would be a good thing in some ways, but I am not sure that I would want the Federal Gov't involved with my Concealed Handgun License. I have the ability to carry in the states that I like and want to travel to.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by neo96

 

Shouldn't everybody be allowed to carry guns everywhere? Or is my understanding of the extremely simple and easy to understand Second Amendment right to bear arms skewed? Here's how the process should go: "The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms. Meeting adjourned."

the right to bear arms, not bullets! thats one thing they didnt think through when they made the constitution. i dont agree with it one bit, we should be able to carry what we want when we want as long as its not for something criminal. we should be able to carry state to state, and in to what ever store we desire to carry a gun in to. meaning them little no gun signs need to go away also.

how do we succeed at getting something passed while half the government is paid off by the 1percent?

reply to post by neo96


I agree with you OP, except for one statement you made;

Which brings up the last point if state rights are state rights and they deem not to want carry then that is infringing on that state rights.

Negative, the right to own and carry fire arms is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights;

Amendment II ~ A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now let's look at the Amendment Governing State's Rights;

Amendment X ~ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since Amendment II does in fact prohibit infringement and Amendment X does in fact deny jurisdiction to the States to regulate in this matter, the US Government is within it's rights to create the legislation in question.

Indeed, since Amendment II declares that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, States Rights to legislate in this matter do not exist. This would in turn make States laws governing firearms and the transport between states unconstitutional for all intents and purposes and could be approached in that manner. In this case though, I feel the Congress is taking the path of least resistance since declaring each of these laws unconstitutional would be a debacle which would have to be fought over for years in court.

State's rights is a double edged sword, as it rightly should be.

reply to post by ReeceIkyle

You americans and your guns, maybe it's a small penis syndrome thing I'm not sure. I just know I don't need a gun to be a man.

It is not about being a man, it is about protecting ourselves from our Government. And since we have obviously lost control of our Government, this is more important now than it has been since the Revolutionary War.

Originally posted by NISMOALTI

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by neo96

 

Shouldn't everybody be allowed to carry guns everywhere? Or is my understanding of the extremely simple and easy to understand Second Amendment right to bear arms skewed? Here's how the process should go: "The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms. Meeting adjourned."

the right to bear arms, not bullets! thats one thing they didnt think through when they made the constitution. i dont agree with it one bit, we should be able to carry what we want when we want as long as its not for something criminal. we should be able to carry state to state, and in to what ever store we desire to carry a gun in to. meaning them little no gun signs need to go away also.

how do we succeed at getting something passed while half the government is paid off by the 1percent?

You are hiding depraved mendacity in a cloak of pseudo clever.

Bullets ARE arms. So are nukes, F-22's, a rolled up magazine, and your fists. If it is a weapon, or can be used as a weapon, it is "arms" and the 2nd Amendment supports your right to having it.

If it exists, then the "militia" needs it to defend the country. The "militia" is any able bodied male of age, according to legal precedent.

reply to post by TupacShakur

Shouldn't everybody be allowed to carry guns everywhere? Or is my understanding of the extremely simple and easy to understand Second Amendment right to bear arms skewed? Here's how the process should go: "The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms. Meeting adjourned."

Once again we find ourselves in agreement.

Gotta love the Constitution, especially when it is honored.

Originally posted by fishman1985

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

What the constitution says and what the lawmakers pass and local restrictions no the right to bear arms isn't what it use to mean.

Simple fact the military is better armed the criminals are better armed and there is the average john doe caught in the middle.

Should be simple but this is America where simple ain't the status quo.

Im aremed to the teeth my brother... come to the great commenwealth of PA and you can have any gun you want. They guy down the road sells .50 cal sniper rifles good for a 2 mile range or you can get a tripod mounted 10mm or anything in between. The thing I really want but isnt allowed is an automatic gernade launcher, that would be sick.

I too love our great state of PA, I've bought 7 or 8 guns this year alone.
But, being able to travel and carry would be great. To other states.
When I first got my license to carry it was very confusing when going to other states, VERY!!!!

One of my friends actually met our family at the Smithsonian and the museums in DC a few years back, we were having lunch in the cafeteria at the Museum if Natural History (Downtown DC) talking about the exhibits, got into gun ownership convo, he says "I'm carrrying right now" flashes under his blazer, a Kimber 45 .... WOW
he thought his permit to carry concealed was national permit. lol

anyhow it would be great to see this pass.

reply to post by pointr97

This is election year BS, aimed at getting votes, nothing more.

Sad to say, you are right on this matter. That doesn't change the fact that, that is what should be done. Still, the Repugs might surprise us, remember when semi-automatic rifles came back under the Bush Admin.? I hope they do it, and do not care about the motivation in this case.

They take every inch they can get from us. Why shouldn't we take some back when we can?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Actually, the framers specificly used the word "arms" because in it's definition at the time arms was essentially a classification of weapons to include muskets, rifles, pistols, bayonets and swords. "Ordanance" was the classification for heavier weapons, particularily cannon, morters etc. So, specificlly "arms" are protected "ordanance" is not. So no F-22's, tanks, howitzers, or nuclear weapons for civillians. It gets sticky today because while federal law puts heavy restrictions and tax requirements on things like full auto weapons and explosive devices such as grenades and such, one could make the argument that any small arm today that isn't say, crew served, could fall under the 2nd amendment. So while it's either heavily regulated or illegal, a case could be made for things like an M203, SAW, AT-4's, etc to be available to civillians. I am not necessarily advocating that, just sayin'.

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by ReeceIkyle

 

You americans and your guns, maybe it's a small penis syndrome thing I'm not sure. I just know I don't need a gun to be a man.

It is not about being a man, it is about protecting ourselves from our Government. And since we have obviously lost control of our Government, this is more important now than it has been since the Revolutionary War.

Also, we Americans secretly can't wait to be the savior during an armed bank robbery...laying face down while the masked bandits are doing their thing...hand inching towards our concealed handgun. Jump up and take 'em out with perfect head shots! ...I'll have to start actually going into the bank again, wait I use a credit union now...do they get robbed?

reply to post by SrWingCommander


Multiple court opinions by SCOTUS members would disagree, as would their rulings.

reply to post by neo96


S&F, Neo, good find.

Due to the Tenth amendment, it should never be under the auspices of the Federal government.

If a State grants the right to conceal carry, then it should be decided by negotiations between the States, whether concealed carry should be allowed across State lines, and open carry should be legal nationwide due to the Second Amendment.

reply to post by ReeceIkyle


You're absolutely right, you don't need a gun to be a man, but you may need one to defend you and yours.

Remember, never bring a knife to a gun fight, or you lose.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


What weapon?

Someone with very little experience could do that with the right weapon.

Oh, and it will always come down to freedom, the freedom of choice.

Will I chose to exercise my god-given freedoms, or will I chose to let someone take them from me?

I will always chose the former.