Someone explain to me how our right to bear arms is NOT infringed?

This is a general question about the POLITICAL MADNESS that's been going on.

Someone explain to me where the Constitution says you need a permit to carry a gun.
Then explain to me why I can't carry a gun anywhere and everywhere I go.
While you are at it, explain to me why the citizens of the USA aren't outraged?
Because this is has been happening for decades, not days.

Infringed Definition

in·fringe: (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

When you HAVE to obtain a permit to carry a weapon, this right is officially INFRINGED.
Did I miss something here? I DON"T NEED A PERMIT!
When did we give this constitutionally backed right away?

Why aren't the citizens of this country just carrying guns regardless of these unconstitutional laws?


Please don't give me the, "Oh...you need laws to govern the criminals." crap...
Criminals carry guns regardless of laws!
Or the, "You shouldn't have a gun at a bank, court, or church."
Why not? Have you heard about any shootings lately?
"You need to register your gun or have a license for it, or both."
NO YOU DON'T!

I should be able to carry ANYWHERE. Not where they deem its OK.
If you look at your local or state laws, you can carry a gun, but only certain places?
You can only carry with a permit. Except in Arizona. (great news?)

Criminals get guns and carry them everywhere.
But, a law abiding citizen, can't? We call that right.....being INFRINGED!

HOW....HOW AMERICA? How did we let them do this?!
WHY?

(I could go on for pages with this, but I'll keep it short.)

I live in Ohio, and we can open carry here, plus, we have been advised, due to the recent firing of many police, to arm ourselves. I carry at all times when I am out, concealed under a vest to keep people from freaking out. No, I do not have a "license," that is a thing they give you when they take away a right. You need to file a Notice of Right and Understanding, friend. Put the locals on notice that you will carry, and if they try to stop you, there will be hell to pay, such as legal action and suspension of surety bonds. Works for me!

Criminals get guns and carry them everywhere.
But, a law abiding citizen, can't?
We call that right.....being INFRINGED!

Criminals carry weapons everywhere...Law abiding citizens don't
For if they did, they would be the same as the criminals.
We call that "respecting the law"
Logic FTW!

maybe when you see these figures you'll have a different look on things
Since America has the most armed citizens/nation on earth it should in your warped logic be the safest... which it clearly isn't

Country Gun Death Rate per 100,000

Japan 0.07
Singapore 0.24
Taiwan 0.27
Kuwait 0.37
England/ Wales 0.4
Scotland 0.49
Netherlands 0.55
Spain 0.74
Ireland 1.24
Germany 1.44
Italy 2.27
Sweden 2.27
Denmark 2.48
Israel 2.56
New Zealand 2.67
Australia 2.94
Belgium 3.32
Canada 3.95
Norway 4.23
Austria 4.48
Northern Ireland 4.72
France 5.48
Switzerland 6.2
Finland 6.65
USA 13.47

Source: W. Cukier, Firearms Regulation: Canada in the International
Context, Chronic Diseases in Canada, April, 1998 (statistics updated
to reflect most recent figures, January 2001)
www.guncontrol.ca...

How does the bible say it again:
He who lives by the sword..... (replace sword by handgun....)

"When you HAVE to obtain a permit to carry a weapon, this right is officially INFRINGED"

I never engage in gun control debates because I simply can't get beyond this point. Any further discussion seems to be just an excuse for infringement.

reply to post by havok


you have the right to bear a coat of arms if you want.

guns were a complete obvious usage back then, they didn't need to talk about them.

another reason WE NEED TO REWRITE THE DOCUMENTS.

one of the reasons i might move to the UK, *Snip*

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 4/20/2010 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by XyZeR
Criminals carry weapons everywhere...Law abiding citizens don't
For if they did, they would be the same as the criminals.
We call that "respecting the law"
Logic FTW!

No, this is terrible logic.
You're telling me that a law abiding citizen would be equal to a criminal just because he has a gun?
Please tell me that's a sarcastic statement.
Or you aren't American.

maybe when you see these figures you'll have a different look on things
Since America has the most armed citizens/nation on earth it should in your warped logic be the safest... which it clearly isn't

Why are you saying I have warped logic?
This is why its NOT the safest.
Because we (law abiding citizens) get in trouble for carrying in public.
People are scared to carry openly for fear of the police intervention.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by tylermbell
reply to post by havok

 

you have the right to bear a coat of arms if you want.

guns were a complete obvious usage back then, they didn't need to talk about them.

another reason WE NEED TO REWRITE THE DOCUMENTS.

one of the reasons i might move to the UK, fat losers pretending they understand what is written in our greatest documents. f**k

I think I have read this out of context.
I'm hoping you are meaning the fat losers in Washington pretending they understand what is written.

That's the way I take it.
Which is exactly right.
But the documents don't need re-written, they need enforced.

reply to post by 23refugee


I must have misintertpreted this post. Pardon the kneejerk reaction.

"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, I would like to call attention to the first part of the 2d Amendment. Back in the day, you might be called by your local Govenor to serve in the militia, and as such had to provide your own weapon, powder, and ball. There was no standing army at the time, so this was the first and only line of defense.

Also pay attention to "well regulated". This means that your State makes the rules. Nowadays you don't need to call the "militia", aka conscription, in so they can regulate however they want.

This was written over 200 years ago when there was no Federal army, the state and even towns had to provide their own defense. It was intended for you to keep a gun ready so you can serve in the State militia. Can you honestly say that is what you need your weapon for now?

"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, I would like to call attention to the first part of the 2d Amendment. Back in the day, you might be called by your local Govenor to serve in the militia, and as such had to provide your own weapon, powder, and ball. There was no standing army at the time, so this was the first and only line of defense.

Also pay attention to "well regulated". This means that your State makes the rules. Nowadays you don't need to call the "militia", aka conscription, in so they can regulate however they want.

This was written over 200 years ago when there was no Federal army, the state and even towns had to provide their own defense. It was intended for you to keep a gun ready so you can serve in the State militia. Can you honestly say that is what you need your weapon for now?

Originally posted by Awory
This was written over 200 years ago when there was no Federal army, the state and even towns had to provide their own defense. It was intended for you to keep a gun ready so you can serve in the State militia. Can you honestly say that is what you need your weapon for now?

This was also written as an amendment to the existing US Constitution...the same Constitution that authorizes the creation of a Federal army.

Additionally, the 'militia' argument was decided in Heller vs DC a couple of years ago. The Supreme Court found that firearms ownership for the citizenry is a right unconnected to militia membership.

Originally posted by Awory


Also pay attention to "well regulated". This means that your State makes the rules.

The archaic meaning of "well regulated" is continually debated. I lean toward the " to facilitate" definition.

Originally posted by Awory
... Can you honestly say that is what you need your weapon for now?

Can I say honestly? YES

Honestly, when I see crimes take place that effect my persons, or property, or liberty...
I need a gun.
When a trespasser tries to break in to my home.
I need a gun.
When I am filling my freezer with game that I am legally allowed to harvest.
I need a gun.

Need I say more?

Edited to add that I see your perspective view.
You are saying that there is no State Militia forming now, so we don't need to bear arms.

Ok.



(still doesn't change my views)

[edit on 19-4-2010 by havok]

reply to post by 23refugee


i'm speaking of america in general.

we follow documents written in the creation of your country...out of context.

it wasn't written for modern times, they were saying that you have the right to have loyalty to you family name, you can bear the coat of arms.

guns were a given back then, you needed them for survival.

our gun system is perfect, get a license and if their is no criminal activity you can have a gun; i have many guns. but if you attack the government for going against the constitution; remember that it can be read in many ways...usually wrongly.

yes we need to rewrite the documents??
it needs to take opinion out of it, it needs to say things literally so this debate can be overrided.

you need a license for a gun, WHAT is wrong with that??

Originally posted by tylermbell
reply to post by 23refugee

 

you need a license for a gun, WHAT is wrong with that??

There purpose of an armed populace is to prevent tyrrany by the government. If the government controls the arming of the populace there can be no prevention of tyrrany. This simple mechanism is what ensures that your vote counts.

reply to post by 23refugee


Oops! the purpose...
Obviously, I couldn't check my spelling due to the spittle covering my screen.

Originally posted by tylermbell
you need a license for a gun, WHAT is wrong with that??

If you can guarantee that the government will not abuse it, I would be in favor of a licensing system. Unfortunately, I have no confidence that the government would apply it fairly.

As an example, I've heard many people complain that, while living in cities that require licensing of handguns, in particular, they could never obtain a license simply because the county clerk's office never had the form available for them to fill out and that was the ONLY place you could obtain one. The city was basically abusing the system to all but enact a handgun ban.

reply to post by 23refugee


1000's of stars for that post alone.
The purpose of this right was to fight against a tyrannical gov't.
Period.

reply to post by havok


You would think that after the Hurricane Katrina gun harvest this point would end any gun rights arguement