Concealed Carry a Constitutional Right?

[John Smith]

Once again, kids, a subtle change to the statement. It's a short statement so the modification should be easy to spot.

Laws that don't make sense are not limited to guns.

Here is the problem, despite my views on how the 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted, the fact is that millions of guns are in the hands of the public. Any serious attempt at gun control will accelerate the speed at which more guns make their way into the public's hands.

You cannot "grandfather" in gun laws, as guns don't wear out. Efforts to control guns at this point will be like the good intentions that pave the way to hell.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Yes, I've heard that since. That's why I said "as a student, years ago." I know what an official militia is for, and why it's necessary to a Free State.

If you suppose that the subject of the Amendment is to establish a Government's right to raise an armed force, and that the people in fact have no rights under the amendment but those the Government may or may not choose to give them at some future time, then you have to explain why it's in the Bill of Rights at all, and why infringement is even mentioned. What infringement are they talking about? If they're only saying that the government can raise an armed force--something any idiot would know--they could have saved some ink and had nine Amendments, and saved us all a lot of grief.

Ahem!
Believe it or not the US Constitution was formulated by the Framers who were constantly being besieged by hundred and maybe thousands of parties from the state conventions. The process was very much like any legislation that passes thru the US congress. There were speeches, rallies and even a riot or two. In the end the Framers had to accede to the outside clamor for a bill of rights. The whole process was a political battle from end to end and nobody got everything they wanted. In fact the brevity of the US constitition suggests the Framers said two years was enough and sent the result off to be voted on warts and all.

[wardd]

My wife and I agree that when Illinois legalizes CC, we will post a sign at the front entry saying "No Concealed Firearms Permitted". People who won't comply will be shot.

that's better

[Peerie Maa]

Yes, I've heard that since. That's why I said "as a student, years ago." I know what an official militia is for, and why it's necessary to a Free State.

If you suppose that the subject of the Amendment is to establish a Government's right to raise an armed force, and that the people in fact have no rights under the amendment but those the Government may or may not choose to give them at some future time, then you have to explain why it's in the Bill of Rights at all, and why infringement is even mentioned. What infringement are they talking about? If they're only saying that the government can raise an armed force--something any idiot would know--they could have saved some ink and had nine Amendments, and saved us all a lot of grief.

No, section 8 establishes the governments right to raise the militia. The amendment ensures that those who serve in the militia are armed and well regulated. Neither of us know what was happening at the time to make that amendment necessary all of those years ago. What is for certain is that now there is no need for nor any desire to have a militia under section 8, amendment 2 might as well be repealed as it is redundant.

[WX]

This kind of BS from foreigners contributes nothing to a discussion. As soon as you start blowing people away, you are not law abiding. Duh.

The point is these people obtained their guns legally. The massacres are happening with legal firearms, NOT blackmarket firearms. Duh.

[RonW]

Nicholas Scheuer ---says--

My wife and I agree that when Illinois legalizes CC, we will post a sign at the front entry saying "No Concealed Firearms Permitted". People who won't comply will not be welcome.

This is a blast, I love it..................So cookies and milk will not be served to the strangers in the house at 3;00 a.m. that violated your house rules........good, maybe they won't come back again......

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Sorry I did not qualify my "No CC Permitted" for the obtuse here. I was referring to folks invited for Cocktail Parties; just a little hint that we might "unfriend" them.

"Bad Guys" at 3:00 am must first get past our dog, who sounds twice as large as her 50-lbs when people are lurking outside in the deep dark hours. The next line of defense is our own firearms. This had all been covered before, and Bob Adams, and Warrd, and others well know it.

[hanleyclifford]

In general, carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise, while drinking alcohol is really stupid.

[Phillip Allen]

I'd rethink if I were you. Tell your friends if you must, but to post that will inform the bad guys "here is a defensless victim". It has happened before.

I believe he is defensless in more than just 'arms'

[Phillip Allen]

No, section 8 establishes the governments right to raise the militia. The amendment ensures that those who serve in the militia are armed and well regulated. Neither of us know what was happening at the time to make that amendment necessary all of those years ago. What is for certain is that now there is no need for nor any desire to have a militia under section 8, amendment 2 might as well be repealed as it is redundant.

do you believe that the word 'gay' means, primarily, "light hearted and happy?"

the word 'regulated' has gone through a change also...

[Phillip Allen]

I don't think I'm clueless about the carnage in this country caused weapons of mass destruction (semi-automatics) and easily gotten guns. What's wrong with bolt action rifles with a 5-round clip? A simple handgun with a 5-shot clip? NO ONE needs the massive firepower available today and inconceivable to our founding fathers. Yet the NRA will defend this craziness and turn their backs on the thousands of dead men, women and children caused, in part, by their blind defense of massive firepower.

your understanding of the term 'mass distruction' is wrong...

from wiki:
A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear.

[Phillip Allen]

So leaving the constitution aside, why concealed? If the right to carry is allowed the why not open carry? Surely anything else is subterfuge?

from the concealed part I have ALWAYS understood the hiding was to appease those who are horrified by the sight of a gun... Hard not to understand

[hanleyclifford]

from the concealed part I have ALWAYS understood the hiding was to appease those who are horrified by the sight of a gun... Hard not to understand

Exactly the case in Massachusetts where the firearm must be concealed.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Where do you nut-jobs get the idea that just because we object to CC folks practicing their "constitutional right to bear arms" our house that we are "defenseless"?

[Nicholas Scheuer]

"Horace" has been particularly interested in having this thread "unlocked". Apparently I "locked" it inadvertantly, but needed instruction in how to overcome that.

[Phillip Allen]

GIRD THY LOINS! Here I am to save the day!

[Roger Cumming]

What is wrong with these people?

[Durnik]

What is wrong with these people?

Remember the Saturday morning cartoons? 'Good Guys', 'Bad Guys', Guns, Fighting, Fear, Anger, Killing, Losing, Pouting, Winning, Gloating? Looks to me like some people have never really moved on past those cartoons..

It's all "good guys" & "bad guys" - "us" against "them".. I expect to see body armor & castles all over again.. Wait! We just did!

Something ain't right & that's for sure!

enjoy
bobby

[htom]

The point is these people obtained their guns legally. The massacres are happening with legal firearms, NOT blackmarket firearms. Duh.

Actually, they are happening (the mass killings) with firearms purchased for doing that, in violation of federal law forbidding the sale or purchase of a firearm with the intent of using it in a crime. I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted for that, though; if the charge was laid it was doubtless bargained away pre-trial.

[htom]

There are lots of real problems, as well as inconveniences, to open carry. Children want to touch. Hoplophobes make fusses, drawing attention to you. Criminals try to grab the firearm. Bad weather interferes with retention devices. Belt and holster abrade furniture. Cops want to argue with you about whether your holster "conceals" the firearm. I've been told that an over-the shoulder holster, with the firearm in my armpit, "concealed" a huge revolver.

So ... yes, concealed carry should be allowed, please. Even if it's not concealed.

[George Jung]

Caught this in the news - the Colorado shooter had seen three different mental health consultants before going on that shooting spree. Not a lot of details, though it's suggestd at least one of them reported this guy as 'a threat to others'. At this point, everyone is citing 'privlege' and lawyering up. But I think it points to a bigger problem - not only identifying these folks, but getting them 'locked up', without violating everyone's rights in the process.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/...s.html?_r=1&hp

[Phillip Allen]

Caught this in the news - the Colorado shooter had seen three different mental health consultants before going on that shooting spree. Not a lot of details, though it's suggestd at least one of them reported this guy as 'a threat to others'. At this point, everyone is citing 'privlege' and lawyering up. But I think it points to a bigger problem - not only identifying these folks, but getting them 'locked up', without violating everyone's rights in the process.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/...s.html?_r=1&hp

people can be 'panicked' into anything

[WX]

Actually, they are happening (the mass killings) with firearms purchased for doing that, in violation of federal law forbidding the sale or purchase of a firearm with the intent of using it in a crime. I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted for that, though; if the charge was laid it was doubtless bargained away pre-trial.

Like someone is going to write down their reason for buying a firearm is to commit a mass killing...certainly sir and do you want fries with your purchase.
If you had banned semi automatic firearms there are recently dead people who would be still alive.

[Waddie]

Like someone is going to write down their reason for buying a firearm is to commit a mass killing...certainly sir and do you want fries with your purchase.
If you had banned semi automatic firearms there are recently dead people who would be still alive.

Or they would have been killed by a bomb, which is the preferred method worldwide when guns aren't readily available.

regards,
Waddie

[seanz]

Or they would have been killed by a bomb, which is the preferred method worldwide when guns aren't readily available.

regards,
Waddie

The 2nd amendment grants the right to bear dynamite?

[McMike]

The reality today is that 200 years downstream the people are coming once again to fear the government which has grown into a monster; the fear of government is justified.

I'm sure they, and I, would like to know when you're going to start shooting at them. I'll move outta the way and they'll wipe the floor with you. Good luck.

[Phillip Allen]

The 2nd amendment grants the right to bear dynamite?

do you mean bare as in hairy with a bad temper or bare as in with the paper peeled off? (being an Aukssie you might mean bear as in falls outa trees)

sorry, that the best I can do at the moment, I gotta go to school in a bit

[Phillip Allen]

Like someone is going to write down their reason for buying a firearm is to commit a mass killing...certainly sir and do you want fries with your purchase.
If you had banned semi automatic firearms there are recently dead people who would be still alive.

true, also, if we had banned cars... wasn't gonna happen because even the elite left wants to keep their 'coal-fired-by-proxy-pious-cars'

[WX]

Or they would have been killed by a bomb, which is the preferred method worldwide when guns aren't readily available.

regards,
Waddie

Not true and remember we are talking about the US here, the supposed guiding light in all things civilised and good in the world...but it's not is it? If you can't trust your neighbour, what does it say about your attitude to the rest of the world?
Besides, bombs are tricky, a semi automatic rifle is so much better. A true cowards weapon in an unarmed crowd.
As for using cars to kill, well it's a bit hard to get them inside schools or temples or movie theatres. Dodging the issue is so much easier than facing it and doing something about.

[WX]

Originally Posted by Waddie
Or they would have been killed by a bomb, which is the preferred method worldwide when guns aren't readily available.

regards,
Waddie

In most of the countries where the bomb is used Kalashnikovs are ubiquitous.

[hanleyclifford]

I'm sure they, and I, would like to know when you're going to start shooting at them. I'll move outta the way and they'll wipe the floor with you. Good luck.

Another Bilge troll skipping along the rocks under the bridge, leaping and bounding to conclusions.

[Waddie]

In most of the countries where the bomb is used Kalashnikovs are ubiquitous.

But bombs are so much better when you really need to kill large numbers of people....

WX; As for using cars to kill, well it's a bit hard to get them inside schools or temples or movie theatres

.

Tim McVeigh didn't seem to have any problem.....

regards,
Waddie

[WX]

But bombs are so much better when you really need to kill large numbers of people....

.

Tim McVeigh didn't seem to have any problem.....

regards,
Waddie

Maybe we need to look at why the semi auto is the weapon of choice in the US then? The US has a strong gun culture, bombs don't seem to figure as much. Look at the statistical evidence. besides you have to make the bomb and that requires a certain amount of expertise. With a gun all you have to do is pick it up and load it.

[wardd]

Or they would have been killed by a bomb, which is the preferred method worldwide when guns aren't readily available.

regards,
Waddie

when do you get to the nuclear bomb?

[wardd]

true, also, if we had banned cars... wasn't gonna happen because even the elite left wants to keep their 'coal-fired-by-proxy-pious-cars'

aren't cars registered and insured and driven by licensed drivers that had to demonstrate competence to drive?

[Waddie]

when do you get to the nuclear bomb?

Whenever the Iranians finish it up.....

BTW; didn't the nuclear bomb make mass killing fashionable?

regards,
Waddie

[WX]

Whenever the Iranians finish it up.....

BTW; didn't the nuclear bomb make mass killing fashionable?

regards,
Waddie

It has only ever been used twice in anger and only by a government.
If we are going to get into the but other things can be used to kill too argument then we are wasting our time.

[Waddie]

If we are going to get into the but other things can be used to kill too argument then we are wasting our time.

Anyone wanting to murder other people bad enough will find a way. The Japanese have strict gun control so a terrorist group used Sarin gas in a subway. The IRA found it easier to plant bombs than get guns through security so they blew people up. The basic fact is that some countries/cultures/people are more prone to violence than others. But violent people will find a way to express their violence.

regards,
Waddie

[wardd]

Anyone wanting to murder other people bad enough will find a way. The Japanese have strict gun control so a terrorist group used Sarin gas in a subway. The IRA found it easier to plant bombs than get guns through security so they blew people up. The basic fact is that some countries/cultures/people are more prone to violence than others. But violent people will find a way to express their violence.

regards,
Waddie

but shouldn't we make it as difficult as possible?

[Tom Montgomery]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear concealed firearms shall not be infringed."

It has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?

[Nicholas Scheuer]

If by "we", wardd, you mean "government", be advised that there are plenty here who resent the "government" obstructing their free will in any way. So, NO, they would NOt want to make murder more difficult.

Apparently unlimited killing the price of our "freedom" to do whatever we want, any time we want? After all, "Freedom is not free".

[Phillip Allen]

Tom, how would you define 'concealed' to include the years of our existance as a country? I ask because the 'concealed' part seems to worry a lot of people here and I consider it neither hear nor there... we obviously aren't looking at the same view of Aesop's Ass

[Phillip Allen]

If by "we", wardd, you mean "government", be advised that there are plenty here who resent the "government" obstructing their free will in any way. So, NO, they would NOt want to make murder more difficult.

Apparently unlimited killing the price of our "freedom" to do whatever we want, any time we want? After all, "Freedom is not free".

if you believe that then you are silly. Otherwise you are just being disingenuous

[Tom Montgomery]

Tom, how would you define 'concealed' to include the years of our existance as a country? I ask because the 'concealed' part seems to worry a lot of people here and I consider it neither hear nor there... we obviously aren't looking at the same view of Aesop's Ass

Isn't this thread about whether concealed carry is a constitutional right?

[Phillip Allen]

Isn't this thread about whether concealed carry is a constitutional right?

I never considered that to be the real question or even ligit... it's too trollish

it could be answered with a yes or no and would end discussion for most of us

[Tom Montgomery]

I was just wondering how a "yes" answer would jibe with the second amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear concealed firearms shall not be infringed."

[Phillip Allen]

I was just wondering how a "yes" answer would jibe with the second amendment.

think of it this way

you are hiking along the street of your village after walking between villages with your (gun of any type to be found in the mid 1700's). It's been raining off and on for the last hour and you are wearing a greatcoat and your firearm is under it to keep the flintlock and its priming dry. Do you think that passes as concealed and if so, do you think the village authority would consider such behavior to be bad at all?

[Tom Montgomery]

You make history SO interesting!

[Waddie]

but shouldn't we make it as difficult as possible?

Are you suggesting a total ban on firearms and ammunition? It wouldn't work. H*ll, we can't even keep drugs out of maximum security prisons. How about checking a person's mental history before allowing them to buy a gun? Oh, wait, that's not permitted on the Instant Check. Yet most all of these wacko's had a mental instability history.

regards,
Waddie

[wardd]

movies are not free and there for guns are needed