Reasons _not_ to get a Concealed Pistol License?

[tionico]

Well, Penguin, at bottom ALL law is based on moral law. Some laws are based on misunderstandings of it. At bottom the real job of the civil magistrate is to bear the sword (use lethal force) against those who do harm to others.

Speeding laws? Yep--- don't kill or cause bodily harm to others.
CC permits? Same thing (although a very twisted application/understanding of that)
lynching illegal? Based on requirements for a fare trial, confronting witnesses, etc, for
the accused. (after which the guilty may well be put to death anyway.. but now we all know he was guilty, and the facts to support that declaration).
Capital punishment abolished? Also founded in an understanding of moral law... "don't kill".
Pump your fuel or eat a meal and drive off without paying? Don't steal.
Counterfeiting illegal? Again, "don't steal"
government printing money with nothing behind it? Based on setting aside "don't steal".

EVERY law on the books is based upon some moral standard, or the setting aside of some moral standard.

And remember, "morality" per se is not religion. Although all religions tend to codify and define morality.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Well, Penguin, at bottom ALL law is based on moral law.

Actually that isn't historically accurate. Laws were made throughout history for many different reasons...many of them have nothing to do with moral conduct. In fact many reasons were quite the opposite.

People mistakenly believe the earliest anti-theft laws are because stealing is wrong...when in reality they were written to give the feudal leaders recourse to enslave or punish anyone they felt was withholding goods from them.

People think rape laws originated because rape is naughty...when in fact the earliest rape laws were created more to control women and prevent cross marriages between tribes.

The word "moral" and the idea of "morality" is not bad in itself; it has just become so perverted by many religious faiths over the years. Each one trying to pretend they have the one and only true moral code of behavior. The word "moral" has been so maligned that it is no longer applicable because there is no base moral code any longer. There is just tons of different versions which vary widely from place to place and person to person.

You can find lots of laws that were based on "morality" but even those laws boil down to being more about discrimination and prejudice than about any moral issue. Such as prohibition, sodomy laws, drug laws, etc.

Things should only be illegal when they cause tangible harm to someone or place others in immediate danger...not when they offend someone's delicate sensibilities. Can someone make a case that allowing people to carry unlicensed could cause harm to others or place people in immediate danger? Probably.

 

[NK777]

Okay... I wasn't going to post in this thread anymore but again I feel compelled to at least say a few words.

First a tiny bit of background of my life. I was raised basically without religion. Friends we knew were involved in churches and I was for the most part allowed to go but my father was basically atheist. My father had religion forced on him as a child and it didn't sit well with him. I have no idea what turned him off to religion when he was a boy but whatever it was it left it's mark.

Moral's do not come from religion. You were created with a few hardwired rules in my opinion (like instincts in animals). You can choose to ignore then, pervert them, and twist them but the basic moral code is there at birth. This of course is only true for people that aren't born mentally flawed. I'm only speaking about those of us that fit in the normal spectrum when it comes to sanity, which is obviously the majority.

Now back to laws and morals. Some laws have some morality to them but most just use rationalization in order to try to convince you of their supposed moral bases.

PlayboyPenguin you might now realize we are not so different. I do agree that we don't want said religious leader to dictate to us their perverted version of morality, however we can not and should not ignore our own basic hardwired moral code we were all born with.

 

[tionico]

Laws were made throughout history for many different reasons...many of them have nothing to do with moral conduct.


====not "nothing to do with moral conduct", but strongly based on a different standard of moral conduct.

People mistakenly believe the earliest anti-theft laws are because stealing is wrong...when in reality they were written to give the feudal leaders recourse to enslave or punish anyone they felt was withholding goods from them.


=== so the "moral standard" of "don't steal" was cast aside, being replaced by "I'm the head cheese here, and I want the control, and all the money". Moral standard, just a different one.

People think rape laws originated because rape is naughty...when in fact the earliest rape laws were created more to control women and prevent cross marriages between tribes.


=== same schtick... rather than the moral standard of restricting sex to that between married spouses, the basis became "we have the right to control:, or "women as chattel", and "marriage between tribes is bad". Again, based on morality, just a different one.


The word "moral" has been so maligned that it is no longer applicable because there is no base moral code any longer. There is just tons of different versions which vary widely from place to place and person to person.


===but all the same, even if a "moving target", someone's opinion of right and wrong is still at the base of every law. You are correct, there is rarely any universally accepted moral standard any longer, part of the basis for most of our cultural mess. Who was that guy, sentenced just this last week.. Bernie Madoff, I think, who was sent to prison for 150 years for ripping off millions of dollars in his Ponzi scheme "investment" scams? He somehow thought he was entitled to all the money he could get his hands on. His "personal moral standard" was "make me rich, screw everyone else". Well, the courts managed to impose a different set of standards than his own, and rightly so. The "civil magistrate" did its job, "bearing the sword" against a guy who did serious harm to others.

You can find lots of laws that were based on "morality" but even those laws boil down to being more about discrimination and prejudice than about any moral issue. Such as prohibition, sodomy laws, drug laws, etc.

=== sure.. the "moral standard" those are based on is that "discrimination is wrong", as is "prejudice". In a sense those are traced back to the prohibition against "bearing false witness" against another . He's __________ (fill in with whatever trait, ethnicity, qualifier) therefore he is substandard, worthy of being treated badly, eliminated, etc. At root, a lie. The part of our Constitution that guarantees rights equally to all is simply expanded upon by these laws, defining "equal" clearly. Certainly a moral basis for such laws.

Things should only be illegal when they cause tangible harm to someone or place others in immediate danger...

=== I agree wholeheartedly with this, and truly wish all other laws currently on the books would be repealed. Back to my original statement of WHY civil government exists--- to "bear the sword" against those who do harm to others. ALL other laws need to be scrapped. This would decriminalise a lot of things I personally hold to be wrong... but believe someone else has the freedom to behave as he deems right (barring the doing of harm to another, such as Madoff clearly did).


Can someone make a case that allowing people to carry unlicensed could cause harm to others or place people in immediate danger? Probably.


=== yes, it is likely. BUT, that would still not justify the restrictions on concealed carry for those who have NOT surrendered that right by proving themselves incapable of handling this responsibility. Again, the purpose of civil government is to "bear the sword" against those who DO COMMIT harm upon another. Note, this is NOT "those who MIGHT do harm against another". Thus, for civil government to control who can carry by selling permission slips is outside their purpose. Now, once someone has proven they DO perpetrate harm against others by inflicting violence upon them, a part of their punishment should reasonably include the withdrawal of the right to carry weapons, or even to own them. They've proven themselves incapable of handling the responsibility, thus should lose that right. No one has taken it from them, they have forfeited it by their own actions.
Once more, this goes back to "don't murder", certainly a moral standard. Civil government, in selling permission slips to those who wish to carry arms, had twisted that moral standard into "we have the obligation to determine, in advance, who has this right of self-protection", rather than to only remove the right from those who have proven themselves incapable of handling the responsibility. Such laws also set aside the clear standard of the Constitution, which merely names and defines that our Creator has already endowed each individual with that right. Again, based upon the perversion or setting aside of a moral standard long established.

 

[Trlsmn]

I'm not a poster child for staying On Topic but I must point out that the "Reasons _not_ to get a Concealed Pistol License?" subject is now The Foundation of Law, Morality vs Religion vs Fiefdom.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

yes, it is likely. BUT, that would still not justify the restrictions on concealed carry for those who have NOT surrendered that right by proving themselves incapable of handling this responsibility.

Actually, I think many (if not most) people would have no problem with holding the opinion that allowing just anyone to be armed just anywhere unless they have proven they are incapable to be a danger to the safety of those around them. We do not only make people that have proven themselves incapable of handling a car at 80mph obey the speed limit. Not saying I personally would agree, but the logic is sound.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I'm not a poster child for staying On Topic but I must point out that the "Reasons _not_ to get a Concealed Pistol License?" subject is now The Foundation of Law, Morality vs Religion vs Fiefdom.

In this case, all of this is very relevant to the topic. Some people have asserted that one can somehow be "morally" in the right while disobeying the law...and that somehow excuses (if not glorifies) their civil disobedience. That opens to discussion as to whether that is a sound concept or not.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

PlayboyPenguin you might now realize we are not so different. I do agree that we don't want said religious leader to dictate to us their perverted version of morality, however we can not and should not ignore our own basic hardwired moral code we were all born with.

Where we differ greatly is that I do not believe in a hard wired code of conduct. In all my years of study I have never seen credible evidence of such a thing. There is no evidence that early man acted on any such code. In fact it is quite the opposite.

I do believe there are certain tendencies inbred into certain people. Such as being a kinder or gentler person...but these are not across the board and even they are very likely a aberration that has been allowed to foster through generations due to forced civilized behavior and not the norm. It is acceptable to be kind by today's standards, but it could have been a death sentence to not be aggressive in earlier times.

 

[Trlsmn]

Where we differ greatly is that I do not believe in a hard wired code of conduct. In all my years of study I have never seen credible evidence of such a thing. There is no evidence that early man acted on any such code. In fact it is quite the opposite.

I do believe there are certain tendencies inbred into certain people. Such as being a kinder or gentler person...but these are not across the board and even they are very likely a aberration that has been allowed to foster through generations due to forced civilized behavior and not the norm. It is acceptable to be kind by today's standards, but it could have been a death sentence to not be aggressive in earlier times.

Nature, nurture will be debated as fervently as religion.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Nature, nurture will be debated as fervently as religion.

Except that there is clear evidence in one direction and very little in the other. Nature does decide many thing...skin color, hair color, eye color, size (to a degree), shape, biology, etc. However, nurture has a bigger effect on defining acceptable behavior and ethics. Theories to the contrary (IE: Hive mind or collective consciousness theories) are not widely accepted and quite widely ridiculed as non-science.

 

[NK777]

Some people have asserted that one can somehow be "morally" in the right while disobeying the law...and that somehow excuses (if not glorifies) their civil disobedience. That opens to discussion as to whether that is a sound concept or not.

I submit to you that you can be morally correct and be disobeying the law, but that does not mean there aren't legal ramifications for your actions.

The current law states that you must obtain a permit to carry concealed. Being a lawful person myself I say get the permit if you want to carry, however I do disagree with the law. I am not willing to risk losing that right all together because I disobeyed the law.

I believe in self defense so I also say if you do as well get your permit and carry all the time where legal. You never need a gun until you need one desperately. And if you find yourself in desperate circumstances and you don't have one on your person you are in fact screwed to be the bad guys victim. I myself have no desire to be anybodies victim.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

The current law states that you must obtain a permit to carry concealed. Being a lawful person myself I say get the permit if you want to carry, however I do disagree with the law. I am not willing to risk losing that right all together because I disobeyed the law.

Same here...I am not sure I agree with the law but I know I am not willing to challenge it for a couple of reasons. One of the reasons is my fear of losing my own personal right due to my actions. Another reason is because, in the back of my mind, I kind of feel some people are just not competent to carry a concealed weapon and feel a system of verification is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[NK777]

Same here...I am not sure I agree with the law but I know I am not willing to challenge it for a couple of reasons. One of the reasons is my fear of losing my own personal right due to my actions. Another reason is because, in the back of my mind, I kind of feel some people are just not competent to carry a concealed weapon and feel a system of verification is not necessarily a bad thing.

It is not the law in it's entirety that I am opposed to. It is the practice of creating and keeping a record of CHL/CPL licensed people on file that they have already determined are not a threat to society. Tracking the good people instead of the criminals or potential criminals is of no tangible purpose, unless somebodies have an agenda to disarm all those people who believe in the right to self defense with a firearm. The checking in order to determine whether or not they are a threat I am not opposed to, it is the fingerprinting and record keeping of the lawful that bothers me greatly.

 

[Trlsmn]

Except that there is clear evidence in one direction and very little in the other. Nature does decide many thing...skin color, hair color, eye color, size (to a degree), shape, biology, etc. However, nurture has a bigger effect on defining acceptable behavior and ethics. Theories to the contrary (IE: Hive mind or collective consciousness theories) are not widely accepted and quite widely ridiculed as non-science.

You state clear evidence yet you show opinion, I don't no why you would bring hive mind, collective consciousness into this, that is fringe thinking on the best of days, it has no relevance to real science.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

You state clear evidence yet you show opinion, I don't no why you would bring hive mind, collective consciousness into this, that is fringe thinking on the best of days, it has no relevance to real science.

Because "collective consciousness" was on the front of the "scientific" movement to support the idea of inbred morals and beliefs. Without that theory there is very little else to support that position. Just as with all organisms, humans are biological organisms with only two real drives...survive and propagate. Most everything beyond that is learned behavior.

 

[Trlsmn]

Because "collective consciousness" was on the front of the "scientific" movement to support the idea of inbred morals and beliefs. Without that theory there is very little else to support that position. Just as with all organisms, humans are biological organisms with only two real drives...survive and propagate. Most everything beyond that is learned behavior.

My thinking is you put up an easy to shoot down theory as the counter to your "opinion". A theory I also give zero credibility.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

My thinking is you put up an easy to shoot down theory as the counter to your "opinion".

I fail to see how you support that opinion. Perhaps you would like to supply scientific theory that supports inbred morality?

 

[Randini]

It is not the law in it's entirety that I am opposed to. It is the practice of creating and keeping a record of CHL/CPL licensed people on file that they have already determined are not a threat to society. Tracking the good people instead of the criminals or potential criminals is of no tangible purpose, unless somebodies have an agenda to disarm all those people who believe in the right to self defense with a firearm. The checking in order to determine whether or not they are a threat I am not opposed to, it is the fingerprinting and record keeping of the lawful that bothers me greatly.

I agree and so if you dont like the idea of getting put on a list and being tracked you may not want to get a CHL, what would happen if the goverment went bad, would those CHL holders be the first to get rounded up?

 

[Trlsmn]

I fail to see how you support that opinion. Perhaps you would like to supply scientific theory that supports inbred morality?

Quite the opposite I do not support that theory and I speculate you (the person who brought it up) threw it up there to later use as a tool to refute my position. My position BTW has not yet been stated

 

[Trlsmn]

I agree and so if you dont like the idea of getting put on a list and being tracked you may not want to get a CHL, what would happen if the goverment went bad, would those CHL holders be the first to get rounded up?

When the government gets to the point at which they round up people on lists, your name on a CHL list will be a Moot point.