CDZ Gun laws

Should concealed carry, castle doctrine, and stand your ground, be nationwide?

  • 1. Yes

    Votes: 24 82.8%
  • 2. No

    Votes: 5 17.2%
  • 3. Unsure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    29

Damaged Eagle

I've got one more silver dollar
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
15,258
Reaction score
21,174
Points
2,445
Location
the road goes on forever
1610235972413.png


Our progressive legislators felt so threatened by the protestors on 6 January 2020 that they had a unarmed woman shot down like the Thug our president elect thinks those who didn't vote for him are. Well there's others who feel threatened when their windows are knocked out, their stores looted, their buildings burnt, etc, etc, etc,... Since progressives feel that shooting unarmed and armed people is allowed when that Thug is being aggressive then perhaps its time to give the people the means to defend themselves from such threats also.

Isn't it time for the progressive legislators to institute gun laws so other people can feel safe also?

It's time for Congress to pass laws that make concealed carry, castle doctrine, and stand your ground, nationwide.

*****SMILE*****


:)
 

night_son

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
8,278
Reaction score
7,521
Points
2,095
Location
The Full Moon
View attachment 440349

Our progressive legislators felt so threatened by the protestors on 6 January 2020 that they had a unarmed woman shot down like the Thug our president elect thinks those who didn't vote for him are. Well there's others who feel threatened when their windows are knocked out, their stores looted, their buildings burnt, etc, etc, etc,... Since progressives feel that shooting unarmed and armed people is allowed when that Thug is being aggressive then perhaps its time to give the people the means to defend themselves from such threats also.

Isn't it time for the progressive legislators to institute gun laws so other people can feel safe also?

It's time for Congress to pass laws that make concealed carry, castle doctrine, and stand your ground, nationwide.

*****SMILE*****


:)
Emphatic YES to all three. Concealed carry enables everyday citizens (with some training) to stand in for law enforcement officers/agents in extreme crisis situations. Further, concealed carry is the apex flavor of the ability to defend one's self and family—and fellow Americans. Stand your ground laws empower everyday citizens with the right to plant their feet, wherever they happen to be, and defend themselves, their families and other Americans without fear of prosecution for not running away from evil men, from wolves stalking the streets. And castle doctrine laws complete the experience of owning a home or even renting one; they enable us and our families to feel absolute safety whilst in our own homes. No state government in the union should be legally capable of denying concealed carry, stand your ground or castle doctrine laws. In fact, they should be enshrined as God given rights in our Constitution.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,607
Reaction score
4,595
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".
 
OP
Damaged Eagle

Damaged Eagle

I've got one more silver dollar
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
15,258
Reaction score
21,174
Points
2,445
Location
the road goes on forever
Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".
1610237640496.png


So now you're saying that the capitol police, security details, and bodyguards, should be defunded and replaced with social workers to deescalate somewhat peaceful protests and other potentially volatile situations?

After all that's what many progressives in Congress, governors, and mayors, have called for when it comes to other law enforcement agencies elsewhere. Seems only fair that the capitol should set the example for the rest of the nation.

*****CHUCKLE*****


:)
 

Attachments

RodISHI

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
23,356
Reaction score
8,538
Points
900
Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".
Actually as a member of the Republic each state agrees to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and laws and all judges should know what our rights as citizens are.
 

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
14,884
Reaction score
6,767
Points
400
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".
The Tenth Amendment speaks of powers (rights) that belong to the federal government, that belong to the states, and that belong to the people.

To whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does the Second Amendment speak of a right of the states, and forbid that right from being infringed?
 
Last edited:

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
8,916
Reaction score
3,386
Points
345
Location
USA
I can not answer the poll question because it assumes / portrays the notion that our rights to keep and bear arms, defend ourselves and our property, or carry a concealed weapon are all rights that come FROM the government's permission, through laws.

I prefer to stick with the fact that my rights on all of the above PRE-DATE the Constitution itself. I do not look for the fucking government's permission to exercise a right that I know does not come from their (unreliable) "authority."

The government's job is to secure and to protect my rights. It is not the job of government to ration or issue my rights to me in a way that I have to beg for them, argue for them or otherwise make compromises to keep them.

"Give me liberty or give me death."
 
Last edited:

WillHaftawaite

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
63,494
Reaction score
21,588
Points
2,250
Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".
The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws.
"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."

Not seeing it.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
26,399
Reaction score
11,929
Points
950
Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".
wrong again,,, unless youre saying that states can change other amendments like the 5th and jail or execute people without trial or due process
 

andaronjim

Platinum Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
25,755
Reaction score
11,505
Points
950
Location
Floor E Da
Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".
The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws.
"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."

Not seeing it.
The government got a wake up call as those chicken shit politicians ran in fear, they have no idea they opened Pandora's box.
thomas-jefferson-when-the-people-fear-the-government.jpg
 

andaronjim

Platinum Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
25,755
Reaction score
11,505
Points
950
Location
Floor E Da
Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".
wrong again,,, unless youre saying that states can change other amendments like the 5th and jail or execute people without trial or due process
You shouldnt bother with Daryl, he doesnt know the difference between Australia and Austria....
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,597
Reaction score
3,453
Points
195
Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".
The Tenth Amendment speaks of powers (rights) that belong to the federal government, that belong to the states, and that belong to the people.

To whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does the Second Amendment speak of a right of the states, and forbid that right from being infringed?
The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people not the states
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,607
Reaction score
4,595
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".
View attachment 440353

So now you're saying that the capitol police, security details, and bodyguards, should be defunded and replaced with social workers to deescalate somewhat peaceful protests and other potentially volatile situations?

After all that's what many progressives in Congress, governors, and mayors, have called for when it comes to other law enforcement agencies elsewhere. Seems only fair that the capitol should set the example for the rest of the nation.

*****CHUCKLE*****


:)
I don't have time for fruitcake rtwinggunnutters. Have a nice day.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,607
Reaction score
4,595
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".
Actually as a member of the Republic each state agrees to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and laws and all judges should know what our rights as citizens are.
And the biggest recipient of the 2nd amendment's limitation is the Federal Government. The original intent was to not give the Federal Government the power to prevent the States from defending themselves from a Federal Government that was out of control. You have no idea just how close we just came to that becoming a reality. In regards to the States, they have their own Constitutions and Laws that not only the People have to follow but the Judges have to follow. And that is separate from the laws that the Federal Government must follow. Again, the original intent was to limit the powers of the Federal Government in the case of a KING taking control over it. If you want the 2nd amendment to be interpreted the way you want you are going to have to rewrite it to that affect. Or we can leave it alone (at least the last 1/3 of it)
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,597
Reaction score
3,453
Points
195
Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".
Actually as a member of the Republic each state agrees to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and laws and all judges should know what our rights as citizens are.
And the biggest recipient of the 2nd amendment's limitation is the Federal Government. The original intent was to not give the Federal Government the power to prevent the States from defending themselves from a Federal Government that was out of control. You have no idea just how close we just came to that becoming a reality. In regards to the States, they have their own Constitutions and Laws that not only the People have to follow but the Judges have to follow. And that is separate from the laws that the Federal Government must follow. Again, the original intent was to limit the powers of the Federal Government in the case of a KING taking control over it. If you want the 2nd amendment to be interpreted the way you want you are going to have to rewrite it to that affect. Or we can leave it alone (at least the last 1/3 of it)
then tell me why the second says "the right of the people" not the right of the states
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,607
Reaction score
4,595
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".
The Tenth Amendment speaks of powers (rights) that belong to the federal government, that belong to the states, and that belong to the people.

To whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong? Does the Second Amendment speak of a right of the states, and forbid that right from being infringed?
One must look at the original intent. Only then does the wording of the 2nd amendment make full sense. It was written to prevent the Federal Government from disarming the States and the Citizens. The biggest failure of the Articles of the Confederation was that it did that too well and left the Federal Government completely at the whim of the state. That was pretty well corrected in the United Stated Constitution. Or as near as humanly possible. From 1791 to about 1916, the Federal Government couldn't even legally put up an army with enough force to defend the nation without the states providing the troops. Yes, Dorathy, most of the Union Troops were sent by the States for the Civil War.

The State has to decide what is in it's best security interests. The Federal Government is barred from doing that. We just went through a period where the Federal Government sent in it's own "Troops" into the Cities without the States permission. Luckily, the States stood up and said, "Enough". It proves that our Federal Republic works.

Now, to answer your question. If a State makes gun laws, no city, perish, town or county can override those laws. Some have tried and received rebuke in the Court Systems. They can add to but never attempt at reversing the States laws. Only through a state wide vote can that happen or in a State Legislative/Governor venue. The days of the helter skelter gunlaws ended when Heller was handed down.

Heller ruled that inside your own home, you had the right to have a "Normal" weapon (meaning a conventional defense weapon) to defend your home against intruders. It also ruled that the "State" can require you to have special licensing and storage if it's deemed necessary but those licensing and storage cannot exceed a citizens means to obtain them. To be specific, it ruled that a normal Handgun is applicable. Now, the States can expand that to include almost any other weapon. But the word "Normal" comes into play. And the Courts have ruled what is Normal using the "Heller Law". Many states do not require you to have any special licensing to have a gun in your home. Heller merely ruled that the Stated "MAY" require it. Just like many states have limited the number of rounds any weapon may have in it's cylinder, tube or magazine. The 22 cal tube fed rifles being the exception.

You have the right to protect your home and family against intruders. That is the only real right you have. You have the right to have any "Normal" weapon to do this job with. Sorry, the the AR has been excepted from the "Norm" on this one. But it's the State that deems what is "Normal", not the Federal Government whom the State must guard against the Federal Government form becoming so powerful that it can military overthrown any given state. We have just came back to the 2nd Amendment and it's original intent.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,607
Reaction score
4,595
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Every big government tends to adopt an authoritarian style of rule. What the US needs is more sovereignty of the States.
We just went through a period where the Feds overstepped it's boundaries. The States took it's powers back. Our Federal Republic may be scary and slow but it ends up working.
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
3,251
Reaction score
376
Points
140
Every big government tends to adopt an authoritarian style of rule. What the US needs is more sovereignty of the States.
We just went through a period where the Feds overstepped it's boundaries. The States took it's powers back. Our Federal Republic may be scary and slow but it ends up working.
Well, I dont understand what you say about the States taking the powers back. Can you give some examples?

I think that the problem is more fundamental and cant be solved without the US Constitution being amended. In particular, I think that the 14th amendment prevents the States to be really sovereign in their internal matters.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,607
Reaction score
4,595
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".
The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws.
"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."

Not seeing it.
When you look at why it was written in the first place it does make sense. Today, not as much as it did back then. It wasn't written to limit the state. It was written to limit the Federals to prevent them from taking over the States. It left the power in the hands of the States and the People.

Back in those days, a Well Regulated Militia was controlled by the State. We are talking ground forces. The Feds were limited by a specific number for it's Army. But not it's Navy which was thought to never to be able to overthrow a given stated. At the time, it worked well. When the Whiskey Rebellion (what a joke) happened, the Feds requested the States send in their Militias. Given that Whiskey was one of the very few ways for the Feds to raise money to operate, it had to be done. 3 States provided the troops and they boldly marched into the Whiskey region of Pennsylvania only to find that the Whiskey makers had relocated to the Ohio River Region which was outside of the United States. Some went to what later became known as West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee and the birth of some of the worlds best Whiskey was born. The States could have said no to sending in those troops and there would have been nothing that the Feds could have done about it.

It wasn't until 1896 that the States and the Feds noted that they weakness of the Federal Government could no longer stand. The US barely was able to fight in the Spanish American War. Hence the first part of the National Guard Act that was passed in 1898 and then finally finished in 1916 and signed into law in 1917 for WW1. This shifted the State Guard to be able to be Federalized and become the "Property" of the Federal Government. Before 1917, Federal Troops WERE used on domestic soil against domestics. But with that change, another set of laws had to be introduced to prevent a President from using those same troops against any given state. We both know those prevention laws and they work. Just ask the 82nd Airborne.

There were also other things that changed the way that our Troops were armed for WWI. The introduction of Artillery of the magnitude it was used and the automatic weapons. And yes, the introduction of Military Specific Semi Auto Weapons to come later. There came a time when the weapons made available to the Military were far deadlier and powerful than ever before and the average joe could not even come close to affording them. Even the states had difficulty in affording them. Hence the Guard Armories that were once scattering the Nation. The 2nd Amendment wasn't an issued because the States assumed their responsibility in acquiring the necessary weapons, ammo, and equipment to meet those requirement. The real problem is, almost ALL the states have completely abandoned that requirement for the most part. Due to the protections built into the Federal Laws, the States no longer fear the Federal Government from over throwing them. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two States that have not done this and that would be California and Texas. There are more but we just don't hear about those in the news.

I'll say this again, the reason you believe that you need to protect your rights against the Federal Government yourself so much about guns is that your State has failed you. We just came very close in realizing those fears but the States finally stood up and enforced out Federal Republic. It also tells me that the 2nd amendment needs to be rewritten to apply to today. As of 1898 or earlier (Possibly 1861) and the States abandoning their responsibilities that the 2nd amendment no longer really applies.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top