Poll: Should the government make more requirements in order to get a CHL?

[supergenius]

Once again... LOLs from some of the clowns here. Jesus.

Pro gun? Definately.
Gun controll? No thx... (pretty blatantly obvious 99.9 % of gun crime are committed by illegal arms)
PEOPLE CONTROL... YES PLEASE....

I just cant understand the thought process of some on this site that say they are for the greater advance of firearms rights, but insist any moron should be allowed to carry under the umbrella of the constitution, thats worse and more undermining than the assclowns trying to take away the rights themselves.

 

[eriknemily]

Once again... LOLs from some of the clowns here. Jesus.

Pro gun? Definately.
Gun controll? No thx... (pretty blatantly obvious 99.9 % of gun crime are committed by illegal arms)
PEOPLE CONTROL... YES PLEASE....

I just cant understand the thought process of some on this site that say they are for the greater advance of firearms rights, but insist any moron should be allowed to carry under the umbrella of the constitution, thats worse and more undermining than the assclowns trying to take away the rights themselves.

Not a bad line of thought (although I don't know what Jesus has to do with it). The question is where do you draw the line? There apparently aren't enough gun related laws or regulations yet for you to consider them an inconvenience or infringement on your rights. But when the restrictions get to that point for you how will argue against the people who will use your exact same argument against you?

 

[Bad Droid]

Should firearms or firearm owners be subject to testing to receive a license to carry a firearm?
The Argument Against
Author Nick Smith


No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).

Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.

You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.

You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.

And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.

YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.

We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect.

LIVE FREE OR DIE!

Awesome post, couldn't agree more. I would like to add one more thing. None of us were born with the right to a 100 year long life span free from accidents and idiots.

 

[zeezee]

Should firearms or firearm owners be subject to testing to receive a license to carry a firearm?
The Argument Against
Author Nick Smith


No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).

Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.

You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver's license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.

You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.

And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.

YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.

We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect.

LIVE FREE OR DIE!

Excellent post, well thought out. Thank you

 

[deen_ad]

Not a bad line of thought (although I don't know what Jesus has to do with it).

you haven't read the bible much have you? (neither have I) but there are several passages that pertain to carrying and using weapons for protection. One even said to sell your cloak to buy a weapon. Several years ago the NRA published a story with the sections quoted, wish I could find the magazine when I need it!

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

 

[eriknemily]

you haven't read the bible much have you? (neither have I) but there are several passages that pertain to carrying and using weapons for protection. One even said to sell your cloak to buy a weapon. Several years ago the NRA published a story with the sections quoted, wish I could find the magazine when I need it!

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

Actually I read the Bible every day. Nehemiah 4:15-18 is a great passage about rebuilding the wall around Jerusalem, "15 And it happened, when our enemies heard that it was known to us, and that God had brought their plot to nothing, that all of us returned to the wall, everyone to his work. 16 So it was, from that time on, that half of my servants worked at construction, while the other half held the spears, the shields, the bows, and wore armor; and the leaders were behind all the house of Judah. 17 Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens, loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. 18 Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built. And the one who sounded the trumpet was beside me. "

Sounds like a Biblical command to carry

 

[sigman]

No. If the government can implement strict guide lines, then they can also write those guidelines so only their SWAT team members could pass the test too. I grew up close to Boston Mass. and you couldn't enter a gun store without showing a firearms card. That mean you couldn't even go in to look around. Or out of state people couldn't go buy ammo or anything either. My Dad TRIED to follow Mass's CWP process and was denied the paperwork, even after following ALL the hoops. Now I (supposedly) as a resident of Wa can get up to a 90 temporary permit!

 

[Jamie6.5]

What are your thoughts?
I think they should. Too many gun totting idiots ruin this priviledge for us.

Once again... LOLs from some of the clowns here.
I just cant understand the thought process of some on this site that say they are for the greater advance of firearms rights, but insist any moron should be allowed to carry under the umbrella of the constitution, thats worse and more undermining than the assclowns trying to take away the rights themselves.

You guys must not think to much of Arizona, Vermont or Alaska huh?
Apparently you bought into the Brady bunch's claim that if "shall issue" was implemented in Florida that "blood will run in the streets."
Or Mayor Daley's ilk that claim Chicago's long time gun restrictions make citizens "safer."
Both are a crock!!!

Whaddaya nutz?

Government (and their restrictions) is the problem, not the answer.

 

[Karma]

Once again... LOLs from some of the clowns here. Jesus.

Pro gun? Definately.
Gun controll? No thx... (pretty blatantly obvious 99.9 % of gun crime are committed by illegal arms)
PEOPLE CONTROL... YES PLEASE....

I just cant understand the thought process of some on this site that say they are for the greater advance of firearms rights, but insist any moron should be allowed to carry under the umbrella of the constitution, thats worse and more undermining than the assclowns trying to take away the rights themselves.

So who should be able to carry? Who should decide who should be able to carry?

 

[supergenius]

you haven't read the bible much have you? (neither have I) but there are several passages that pertain to carrying and using weapons for protection. One even said to sell your cloak to buy a weapon. Several years ago the NRA published a story with the sections quoted, wish I could find the magazine when I need it!

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

I could give a crap what the bible says about anything, what does that have to do with a constitutional right??? 0. What does that have to do with anything being discussed in this thread 0.

:huh:




Jamie 6.5:

Me a Brady supporter??? HAHAHA surely you jest. Futile effort at trying to make a futile point

The car license analogy is retarded and laughable at best as well...


Some seem to think that we still live in the 1800s in the wild west.... Even then, some towns required you to check your junk at the door.... Give me a break.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Jamie 6.5:
Me a Brady supporter??? HAHAHA surely you jest. Futile effort at trying to make a futile point

So you must think that only clowns (apparently the evil type) are the only kind of people that live in the 3 states I mentioned,...
Care to compare their gun violence statistics to Chicago or Washington D.C?

Genius?

 

[Jamie6.5]

So who should be able to carry? Who should decide who should be able to carry?

People who believe the dotgov has your best interest at heart, regardless of how the current ruling party views the Constitution and the BoR, will always believe that regulation can save us.
In reality, regulations are being used to strangle us incrementally.

Our liberty resides within the outline laid down in the founding documents.
Not with the current governing body, at any level.

If one believes otherwise, then the answer to your questions would change every 4 years or so,...
Just like the definition of a terrorist changed shortly after Jan. 2009.

 

[Jamie6.5]

From the LawDog Files:
The LawDog Files: Ok, I'll play

1. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

LawDog

 

[wawaverider]

So if you make some laws on the books for CHL that you need a psych eval, shooting test, etc. What the **** makes you think people are going to obey these laws in the first place? Especially if they are some fruitcake? As if criminals have CHL in the first place right?

In fact I disagree with the law that felons can't own guns. Are they not entitled to protect themselves or their families? I know of a perfectly sane good person who made a really stupid choice of stealing more than $500 when he was younger, now he can't own a gun. He was a non-violent felon. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention anything about felons? (as if the violent felons abide by these laws anyways)

 

[wawaverider]

Supergenius, you keep using ad hominem arguments. Such as the car analogy being bubblegum crap, what does the Bible have to do with it? You mentioned Jesus in the first place, Luke 22:38 The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords. That is enough," he replied.

 

[Partsproduction]

I could give a crap what the bible says about anything, what does that have to do with a constitutional right??? 0. What does that have to do with anything being discussed in this thread 0.

A little home made analogy;

There was a plague spreading across the land, a few knew about it and warned everyone that they could scream a warning to, but many "laughed them to scorn". The wise ones fled to an island and lived, the fools who laughed died a horrible death. They said it had nothing to do with them, in the end they had nothing to do with life because they didn't listen.

Psalm 14:1

Is it at all possible that we don't know everything? Is it probable that we know so much that we can dismiss the wisdom of others who may have seen something we haven't. The arrogance of that viewpoint is amazing to me.

"What does that have to do with a constitutional right?"

Well, everything? Yeah! all our rights are given to us by God. That's what the founders said. If you don't believe in God you enjoy the rights anyway, but don't deserve to.

 

[Stomper]

I'm not arguing about the "God" thing (I'm a learn-ed Christian), but the BOR says, "endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights", and one's "deserves" has nothing to do with it.

The way I see it, that was a stroke of genius in using that term, "Creator" because it encompasses EVERYONE and whatever "Faith" or "Belief" they ascribe to... some folks are pantheists, some in this world still worship the ancient "gods", like Odin, Zues, (et al) for crying out loud.

The whole crux of it lies in the truth that these rights were not endowed by any mere mortal (and flawed) member of mankind and can ultimately be boiled down to it being "Natural Law" that those of (whatever) "Faith", and those who are "Secular" can agree upon in peace with one another, and no man (or government) has the right to deprive them from the people without expecting a bloody beat-down. That's something worth laying your life down for, something many on this forum have done with past service, something some us would/will do again if the SHTF in our lifetimes... God Forbid.

 

[Partsproduction]

Creator is but another name for God. Everyone else knows that.

 

[Redcap]

Creator is but another name for God. Everyone else knows that.

Only if you believe in 'God'.

 

[Partsproduction]

So, an accident is a creator? Random chance (A truly ridiculous idea) is the creator?

The meaning of Creator in the founding documents is not subject to later day interpretation. The founders used the word Creator and God in the same way often, and wishing it weren't so can never make it mean random chance. If word meanings migrate like that then the whole second amendment can be redefined to mean the national guard, which is how atheistic liberals view it.

A good example is the "Separation of church and state", which, though it doesn't appear in the constitution can be, in more reasonable terms, extrapolated by "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". But the notion that religion should be opposed by the government is a deliberate and total misreading of the intent.

Madison said "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." And in another place "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.".

Virginia's proposed amendment said it much more clearly, and correctly; "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others".
(Note that word Creator, a person would have to be a total moron to think it meant random chance! They were talking about God pure and simple)

But the amendment that was chosen has been taken to mean somehow that the government should stamp out religious faith. What it actually meant was that the government should not set up a state church, as England had.

You're free in this country to be an atheist, but the constitution protects me from having to go to the Church of England, or of the United States, or whatever.

But trying to make the word Creator mean that somehow the Creator being spoken of wasn't God is a silly disingenuous argument.