What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

I am applying for a license to carry

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
28,378
Reaction score
4,506
Points
290
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Perhaps self-defense from minor crimes like Simple Assault. This is the most common crime.
So you agree: >100,000 times per year for self-defense.
Your source says so as well.

Now, the question you keep avoiding:
If the use of a firearm in self-defense is "very rare", the the use of a firearm for murder and suicide must then be even MORE rare.
What is more rare than "very rare"?
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
28,378
Reaction score
4,506
Points
290
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Mostly from minor assault.
So you agree: >100,000 times per year for self-defense.
Your source says so as well.

Now, the question you keep avoiding:
If the use of a firearm in self-defense is "very rare", the the use of a firearm for murder and suicide must then be even MORE rare.
What is more rare than "very rare"?
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
63,823
Reaction score
21,655
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
You should NOT have to ask "permission" to carry.
You have the "RIGHT" TO BEAR ARMS. it's in the Constitution.
Americans have so willingly surrendered those rights when those before them fought so hard to secure them.
Compliance with tyranny is acceptance of tyranny..

And because almost everyone complies....tyrants win.
Also, are you aware that by applying, you have just "Registered" yourself into a list that goes straight to the anti-self-defense ATF etc ???

At the rate Americans are bowing to tyranny, you won't have that firearm for long.
The exact same PD you had to beg and grovel for your "permit" will be there soon to take it back. By force.

Yeah...."good luck"
YOU asked for advice. There's some of the best ever.....like it or not.
This is a lie.

No rights have been ‘surrendered’; laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not ‘tyranny’ – such claims are ignorant nonsense and baseless demagoguery.

Laws requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm are perfectly lawful and Constitutional, in no manner violating the Second Amendment:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

 

Batcat

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
2,646
Reaction score
2,551
Points
1,938
Fencing is exercise as is judo and boxing. Perhaps, if you were not so shallow and so violently inclined you might have bought up the javelin as a more appropriate example.

BUT
As soon as you point out the murders committed by criminals using javelins or Olympic bows, or judo, or someone criminally boxing someone to death then you may have a point.

Do you understand your Tiny Minded inability to form a cogent response?

Shallow was not an insult, it was a description of your mental processes.
Target shooting involves physical fitness and is an exercise in concentration.


You will have a hard time find any murders committed by dedicated Olympic target pistols such as the one pictured just as I would have a hard time finding murders involving Olympic bows. Such weapons are not designed for killing which proves my point that firearms have more uses than just killing. It seems you are so biased and closed minded to refuse to accept that fact.

1635124808617.jpeg

However I can find a story about a bow and arrow used in a mass murders and it is rather recent. That doesn’t prove that the only purpose of a bow is to kill. Such a statement is just as ridiculous as saying the only purpose for a gun is for killing.


Judo is the sporting version of jujitsu.


Judo (柔道, jūdō, Japanese pronunciation: [dʑɯꜜːdoː], lit. "gentle way") is generally categorized as a modern Japanese martial art, which has since evolved into an Olympic and Paralympic event. The sport was created in 1882 by Jigoro Kano (嘉納治五郎) as a physical, mental, and moral pedagogy in Japan. With its origins coming from jujutsu, judo's most prominent feature is its competitive element, where the objective is to either throw or take down the opponent to the ground, immobilize or otherwise subdue the opponent with a pin, or force the opponent to submit with a joint lock or a choke. Strikes and thrusts by hands and feet as well as weapons defences are a part of judo, but only in pre-arranged forms (kata, 形) and are not allowed in judo competition or free practice (randori, 乱取り). It was also referred to as Kanō Jiu-Jitsu until the introduction to the Olympic event. A judo practitioner is called a "judoka", and the judo uniform is called "judogi".

The philosophy and subsequent pedagogy developed for judo became the model for other modern Japanese martial arts that developed from koryū (古流, traditional schools). Judo also spawned a number of derivative martial arts across the world, such as Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Krav Maga, Sambo and ARB. Judo also influenced other combat styles such as close-quarters combat(CQC), mixed martial arts (MMA), shoot wrestling and submission wrestling.


However to say that a judo expert can’t kill you is false.


You challenged me to find stories about murders or killings and committed by boxers. I can google pages of articles about just that. Many occurred in the ring.




Spears (javalina)are also used for hinting feral hog as in this video. Knives are also sued to hunt hogs. To say the only use of a knife is for killing is also laughable.


 

Relative Ethics

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2021
Messages
1,807
Reaction score
678
Points
193
So you agree: >100,000 times per year for self-defense.
Your source says so as well.

Now, the question you keep avoiding:
If the use of a firearm in self-defense is "very rare", the the use of a firearm for murder and suicide must then be even MORE rare.
What is more rare than "very rare"?
100,000 times a simple assault was stopped is very rare.

10,000 murders and 20,000 suicides is very many.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
28,378
Reaction score
4,506
Points
290
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Laws requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm are perfectly lawful and Constitutional, in no manner violating the Second Amendment:
Please cite the case where this was held by the USSC.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
28,378
Reaction score
4,506
Points
290
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
100,000 times a simple assault was stopped is very rare.
10,000 murders and 20,000 suicides is very many.
Now, the question you keep avoiding:
If the use of a firearm in self-defense is "very rare", the the use of a firearm for murder and suicide must then be even MORE rare.
What is more rare than "very rare"?
 

Abatis

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
613
Reaction score
262
Points
190
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
Please cite the case where this was held by the USSC.

"Held" is a different thing than the Court recognizing a particular condition of law . . .

SCOTUS has said the state and local laws forbidding concealed carry do not offend / violate the 2nd Amendment, Heller being the most recent.

Heller's take is interesting because while the Court recognizes the long history of laws restricting concealed carry, it does not include those blanket laws in the opinion's famous statement listing examples of "presumptively lawful" restrictions on guns. including restrictions on carrying them, limiting that to "sensitive places":


"For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."​


If the Court actually "held" that state and local laws forbidding concealed carry should be accepted as hard, settled law federally (post McDonald), the Court would not have accepted the NY carry case it is hearing on November 3rd -- after all, no state or local laws restricting concealed carry could possibly offend the 2nd Amendment could they?

What we should interpret those statements by the Court to mean is just the plain, uncontested legal fact that THEN, when those statements of law were made, the 2nd Amendment was not enforceable on those state or local laws . . . Now it is.
 
Last edited:

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
92,329
Reaction score
31,738
Points
2,250
"Held" is a different thing than the Court recognizing a particular condition of law . . .

SCOTUS has said the state and local laws forbidding concealed carry do not offend / violate the 2nd Amendment, Heller being the most recent.

Heller's take is interesting because while the Court recognizes the long history of laws restricting concealed carry, it does not include those blanket laws in the opinion's famous statement listing examples of "presumptively lawful" restrictions on guns. including restrictions on carrying them, limiting that to "sensitive places":


"For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."​


If the Court actually "held" that state and local laws forbidding concealed carry should be accepted as hard, settled law federally (post McDonald), the Court would not have accepted the NY carry case it is hearing on November 3rd -- after all, no state or local laws restricting concealed carry could possibly offend the 2nd Amendment could they?

What we should interpret those statements by the Court to mean is just the plain, uncontested legal fact that THEN, when those statements of law were made, the 2nd Amendment was not enforceable on those state or local laws . . . Now it is.


SCOTUS has said the state and local laws forbidding concealed carry do not offend / violate the 2nd Amendment, Heller being the most recent.

But that is only in the face of citizens being able to freely openly carry a gun......and the concealed carry restrictions can easily be seen as an actual point of view of the time...since everyone at the time was able to carry a gun in public.


The past belief was that good people carried their guns openly, and that criminals hid their guns......this is obviously not the same as today when normal people routinely carry a gun concealed...and can face a fine or loss of the ability to carry a gun if they openly carry it....
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
106,944
Reaction score
15,502
Points
2,180
My grandfather has guns hidden in every room of his house as well as in his vehicle and on his person while he's outside. He's never more than a few feet away from a lethal weapon. He knows how to use them too. God help anybody that tries to rob him.
Does he live in the Sudan?
 

Abatis

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
613
Reaction score
262
Points
190
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
The past belief was that good people carried their guns openly, and that criminals hid their guns......this is obviously not the same as today when normal people routinely carry a gun concealed...and can face a fine or loss of the ability to carry a gun if they openly carry it....

True, I'll repeat here what I said in the other thread:

I think that this -concealed- vs -open- question is a good candidate for the Courts to apply the "modern condition" to the law we so often hear leftists whine about. Without question the sentiment regarding concealed arms has reversed. The modern, enlightened public and many arms bearers, reject open carry and now consider concealed carry to be the responsible and more respectful manner of carry, to the tender sensibilities of the public.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
92,329
Reaction score
31,738
Points
2,250
True, I'll repeat here what I said in the other thread:

I think that this -concealed- vs -open- question is a good candidate for the Courts to apply the "modern condition" to the law we so often hear leftists whine about. Without question the sentiment regarding concealed arms has reversed. The modern, enlightened public and many arms bearers, reject open carry and now consider concealed carry to be the responsible and more respectful manner of carry, to the tender sensibilities of the public.


Keep posting......I enjoy reading your posts, and I can imagine the lefties here pulling their hair out....
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
28,378
Reaction score
4,506
Points
290
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
"Held" is a different thing than the Court recognizing a particular condition of law . . .
Right.
"Held" is what matters.
He cannot cite a USSC decision that held carry permits do not violate the constitution, and he knows it.
SCOTUS has said the state and local laws forbidding concealed carry do not offend / violate the 2nd Amendment, Heller being the most recent.
Heller's take is interesting because while the Court recognizes the long history of laws restricting concealed carry, it does not include those blanket laws in the opinion's famous statement listing examples of "presumptively lawful" restrictions on guns. including restrictions on carrying them, limiting that to "sensitive places":
Correct.
Heller stuck every regulation in question before the court, it upheld exactly zero such regulations.

As you said - this is why the court accepted the appeal of the NY permit laws.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
92,329
Reaction score
31,738
Points
2,250
Right.
"Held" is what matters.
He cannot cite a USSC decision that held carry permits do not violate the constitution, and he knows it.

Correct.
Heller stuck every regulation in question before the court, it upheld exactly zero such regulations.

As you said - this is why the court accepted the appeal of the NY permit laws.

We hope….Thomas retiring or dying puts the court under the control of the democrats again if biden’s controllers pick his replacement. This was why it was so important that Trump win.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
28,378
Reaction score
4,506
Points
290
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
We hope….Thomas retiring or dying puts the court under the control of the democrats again if biden’s controllers pick his replacement. This was why it was so important that Trump win.
Well, let's hope that doesn't happen.
 

Relative Ethics

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2021
Messages
1,807
Reaction score
678
Points
193
Now, the question you keep avoiding:
If the use of a firearm in self-defense is "very rare", the the use of a firearm for murder and suicide must then be even MORE rare.
What is more rare than "very rare"?
My point is that
100,000 times a simple assault was stopped is very rare.
10,000 murders and 20,000 suicides is very many.

Even if 500,000 times a simple assault was stopped is
more rare then
30,000 violent deaths.

Because simple assault is a much more common and less significant event.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
28,378
Reaction score
4,506
Points
290
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
My point is that...
...you hate guns, regardless of th efact they are used in self-defense --far --more othen than to kill someone.
Yes. We know. Your irrational fear is well documented.
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
3,771
Reaction score
1,580
Points
178
They dont. I have linked to the British police stating they cant stop the flood of illegal guns into Britain…..I have linked to the fact that French and other European criminals use fully automatic rifles and grenades…….Sweden is having a major problem with violent gangs also using fully automatic rifles And grenades.

The cultural difference between U.S. and European criminals is the Europeans tend not to murder as often….but that is changing. The immigrant gangs are
More violent and are using guns to kill now.
How about linking to gun crime rates in those countries as compared to the US.
Add some beef to the veggieburger.
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
3,771
Reaction score
1,580
Points
178
Target shooting involves physical fitness and is an exercise in concentration.


You will have a hard time find any murders committed by dedicated Olympic target pistols such as the one pictured just as I would have a hard time finding murders involving Olympic bows. Such weapons are not designed for killing which proves my point that firearms have more uses than just killing. It seems you are so biased and closed minded to refuse to accept that fact.

View attachment 555935
However I can find a story about a bow and arrow used in a mass murders and it is rather recent. That doesn’t prove that the only purpose of a bow is to kill. Such a statement is just as ridiculous as saying the only purpose for a gun is for killing.


Judo is the sporting version of jujitsu.


Judo (柔道, jūdō, Japanese pronunciation: [dʑɯꜜːdoː], lit. "gentle way") is generally categorized as a modern Japanese martial art, which has since evolved into an Olympic and Paralympic event. The sport was created in 1882 by Jigoro Kano (嘉納治五郎) as a physical, mental, and moral pedagogy in Japan. With its origins coming from jujutsu, judo's most prominent feature is its competitive element, where the objective is to either throw or take down the opponent to the ground, immobilize or otherwise subdue the opponent with a pin, or force the opponent to submit with a joint lock or a choke. Strikes and thrusts by hands and feet as well as weapons defences are a part of judo, but only in pre-arranged forms (kata, 形) and are not allowed in judo competition or free practice (randori, 乱取り). It was also referred to as Kanō Jiu-Jitsu until the introduction to the Olympic event. A judo practitioner is called a "judoka", and the judo uniform is called "judogi".

The philosophy and subsequent pedagogy developed for judo became the model for other modern Japanese martial arts that developed from koryū (古流, traditional schools). Judo also spawned a number of derivative martial arts across the world, such as Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Krav Maga, Sambo and ARB. Judo also influenced other combat styles such as close-quarters combat(CQC), mixed martial arts (MMA), shoot wrestling and submission wrestling.


However to say that a judo expert can’t kill you is false.


You challenged me to find stories about murders or killings and committed by boxers. I can google pages of articles about just that. Many occurred in the ring.




Spears (javalina)are also used for hinting feral hog as in this video. Knives are also sued to hunt hogs. To say the only use of a knife is for killing is also laughable.


ALL WEAPONS WERE DESIGNED FOR KILLING.
That's why they call them weapons.
GEEZ.

AND
No I challenged you to find stories of someone committing murders while boxing, fencing, etc.
People have died playing football but that doesn't mean a football is a weapon.
People have died playing basketball but basketballs are not weapons.

But, show me a person convicted of murdering another person with a football or basketball and maybe you have a point.
But, let's face it
Grasping for straws is not going to win the argument.
Admit that firearms are what they are. A device with the singular purpose of killing.

Then try to make your arguments elsewhere.
This "oh but guns are useful for lots of things" crap flies nowhere.
 

Batcat

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
2,646
Reaction score
2,551
Points
1,938
ALL WEAPONS WERE DESIGNED FOR KILLING.
That's why they call them weapons.
GEEZ.

AND
No I challenged you to find stories of someone committing murders while boxing, fencing, etc.
People have died playing football but that doesn't mean a football is a weapon.
People have died playing basketball but basketballs are not weapons.

But, show me a person convicted of murdering another person with a football or basketball and maybe you have a point.
But, let's face it
Grasping for straws is not going to win the argument.
Admit that firearms are what they are. A device with the singular purpose of killing.

Then try to make your arguments elsewhere.
This "oh but guns are useful for lots of things" crap flies nowhere.
You challenged me to find stories where people were killed or murdered with by a boxer, a bow and arrow etc. I did. You lose.

Where you are going wrong is claiming that the only use of a firearm is for killing. You call a firearm “a device with the singular purpose of killing.“

Laying beside my iPad right now is a switchblade knife. You.could argue that a switchblade knife is “a device with the singular purpose of killing.” I have never killed anyone or anything with this knife but it has opened countless cardboard boxes and cut and stripped wire. I could use it to slice a tomato or peel an apple but I don’t because I prefer to use a fixed blade knife for such tasks as they are easier to clean.

1635223415090.jpeg


There are more guns in our nation than people. If their only use was killing we probably would not have any one left alive in our nation and no animals either.

Competition target pistols are very expensive and often fire a low powered round. They were designed to be extremely accurate tools for target shooting not to kill.

Here is a competitive target pistol used in NRA Bullseye Competition and a review of the firearm. Note there is no mention of killing because accuracy is the primary design function.

1635224193715.jpeg

 
Last edited:

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$85.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top