CDZ Law abiding citizens should be able to carry a gun, open or concealed in any state...

[Pogo]

Law abiding citizens should be able to carry a gun, open or concealed in any state...

Actually, law abiding citizens should be able to go about their lives without a relentless culture that continually glorifies guns and violence, that's what they should be able to do.

Sure.

This also has nothing to do with the statement made by the OP.

Directly, no it doesn't. I'm looking bigger picture, as always.

And I do that because the issue as the OP frames it is fatally restricted in its context, or rather lack thereof. He frames it as if this is a solely legal question and that's it. So I filled in the part he left out.

I don't believe in discussions absent their own context. It can't go anywhere.

As, I submit, this thread and others before it have demonstrated.

 

[FA_Q2]

Would you require a literacy test for voting? Or a test on the U.S. political system before voting?

Absolutely, and one demonstrating knowledge of the local, state, [band[/b] Federal political system. Those who can't pass all three can vote in those areas they did pass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government.

The entire concept goes against the very foundations of what America is supposed to stand for - rights and freedom that are intrinsic to man rather than as a gift from government.

 

[Pogo]

Would you require a literacy test for voting? Or a test on the U.S. political system before voting?

Absolutely, and one demonstrating knowledge of the local, state, [band[/b] Federal political system. Those who can't pass all three can vote in those areas they did pass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government.

The entire concept goes against the very foundations of what America is supposed to stand for - rights and freedom that are intrinsic to man rather than as a gift from government.

"When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government."

True. And that's sound, lucid reasoning.

But one will immediately notice that "firearms" is not found among "Life, LIberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". On the contrary, since firearms are designed to produce death, loss of liberty and the negation of happiness-- there's a direct conflict.

Whelp ---- given that government as we define it stands to protect those inalienable rights, such tests arguably become not only its domain, but its duty, if such restrictions be deemed necessary to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity.

Short version --- victims have rights too.

 

[FA_Q2]

Would you require a literacy test for voting? Or a test on the U.S. political system before voting?

Absolutely, and one demonstrating knowledge of the local, state, [band[/b] Federal political system. Those who can't pass all three can vote in those areas they did pass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government.

The entire concept goes against the very foundations of what America is supposed to stand for - rights and freedom that are intrinsic to man rather than as a gift from government.

"When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government."

True. And that's sound, lucid reasoning.

But one will immediately notice that "firearms" is not found among "Life, LIberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". On the contrary, since firearms are designed to produce death, loss of liberty and the negation of happiness-- there's a direct conflict.

Whelp ---- given that government as we define it stands to protect those inalienable rights, such tests arguably become not only its domain, but its duty. if such means be deemed necessary.

No, it is not.

Those rights that are protected are listed under the BoR and the amendments that follow. It is not a complicated concept. Should that list no longer become valid then there is an obligation for the people to amend them and change the government. At this point, the people do not agree that there is a need to change the governmental protected rights. Until that time, such rights are protected.

Edit: BTW, firearms is located under LIFE - namely the right to protect that life.

 

[2aguy]

Would you require a literacy test for voting? Or a test on the U.S. political system before voting?

Absolutely, and one demonstrating knowledge of the local, state, [band[/b] Federal political system. Those who can't pass all three can vote in those areas they did pass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government.

The entire concept goes against the very foundations of what America is supposed to stand for - rights and freedom that are intrinsic to man rather than as a gift from government.

"When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government."

True. And that's sound, lucid reasoning.

But one will immediately notice that "firearms" is not found among "Life, LIberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". On the contrary, since firearms are designed to produce death, loss of liberty and the negation of happiness-- there's a direct conflict.

Whelp ---- given that government as we define it stands to protect those inalienable rights, such tests arguably become not only its domain, but its duty, if such restrictions be deemed necessary to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity.

Short version --- victims have rights too.

The Declaration of Independence is not the Bill of Rights...where the Right to keep and bear arms is catalogued as being off limits to government infringement...specifically, since it was outright named in the Bill of Rights....

Guns are there to save life, protect freedom and to help insure happiness by keeping tyrants from gaining power.....

The fascists would agree that it is their job to protect rights...and to determine what measures they want to use to protect those rights, even to the point of ending them in order to protect them....

 

[Pogo]

The Declaration of Independence is not the Bill of Rights

Never said it is. Again, your crutch fallacy is the Strawman. Fix that.

Guns are there to save life, protect freedom and to help insure happiness by keeping tyrants from gaining power.....

Nope. That's your fantasy extension. What guns are designed for is to send a high speed projectile for the purpose of wounding and/or killing.

Now if you've developed this magical "smart gun" that can only be fired at "tyrants", however that may be defined, then by all means be at the patent office tomorrow morning when they open. I'll come and give you a ride.

 

[Pogo]

Would you require a literacy test for voting? Or a test on the U.S. political system before voting?

Absolutely, and one demonstrating knowledge of the local, state, [band[/b] Federal political system. Those who can't pass all three can vote in those areas they did pass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government.

The entire concept goes against the very foundations of what America is supposed to stand for - rights and freedom that are intrinsic to man rather than as a gift from government.

"When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government."

True. And that's sound, lucid reasoning.

But one will immediately notice that "firearms" is not found among "Life, LIberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". On the contrary, since firearms are designed to produce death, loss of liberty and the negation of happiness-- there's a direct conflict.

Whelp ---- given that government as we define it stands to protect those inalienable rights, such tests arguably become not only its domain, but its duty. if such means be deemed necessary.

No, it is not.

Those rights that are protected are listed under the BoR and the amendments that follow. It is not a complicated concept. Should that list no longer become valid then there is an obligation for the people to amend them and change the government. At this point, the people do not agree that there is a need to change the governmental protected rights. Until that time, such rights are protected.

Edit: BTW, firearms is located under LIFE - namely the right to protect that life.

Edit part: Firearms take life away. That's what they're designed to do. And they work. Whatever purpose that taking a life or threatening to take a life may be, that's up to the operator.

So within the confines of your previous post, without having to expand its scope beyond where it started as you just attempted ---- the point stands. And that is, the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness may not be infringed by a law, by a tyrant ------- or by a firearm.

Suppose a tyrant, using a tyrannical law, moved to take Liberty away. With what instrument would that authority enforce it on the ground?

---- A firearm.

There's the rub.

 

[anotherlife]

This should be obvious to anyone who understands the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and how we catch criminals.......if you are a law abiding citizen, you should be able to carry a gun either concealed or open......in any state in the union without fear of arrest or prosecution...why don't you anti gunners get that?

I have worked in hosptals almost all of my adult life-------I have seen mothers lying on the emergency room floor screaming (some kid found dad's gun)

Is that a bad thing?

 

[anotherlife]

Would you require a literacy test for voting? Or a test on the U.S. political system before voting?

Absolutely, and one demonstrating knowledge of the local, state, [band[/b] Federal political system. Those who can't pass all three can vote in those areas they did pass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government.

The entire concept goes against the very foundations of what America is supposed to stand for - rights and freedom that are intrinsic to man rather than as a gift from government.

"When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government."

True. And that's sound, lucid reasoning.

But one will immediately notice that "firearms" is not found among "Life, LIberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". On the contrary, since firearms are designed to produce death, loss of liberty and the negation of happiness-- there's a direct conflict.

Whelp ---- given that government as we define it stands to protect those inalienable rights, such tests arguably become not only its domain, but its duty. if such means be deemed necessary.

No, it is not.

Those rights that are protected are listed under the BoR and the amendments that follow. It is not a complicated concept. Should that list no longer become valid then there is an obligation for the people to amend them and change the government. At this point, the people do not agree that there is a need to change the governmental protected rights. Until that time, such rights are protected.

Edit: BTW, firearms is located under LIFE - namely the right to protect that life.

Edit part: Firearms take life away. That's what they're designed to do. And they work. Whatever purpose that taking a life or threatening to take a life may be, that's up to the operator.

So within the confines of your previous post, without having to expand its scope beyond where it started as you just attempted ---- the point stands. And that is, the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness may not be infringed by a law, by a tyrant ------- or by a firearm.

Suppose a tyrant, using a tyrannical law, moved to take Liberty away. With what instrument would that authority enforce it on the ground?

---- A firearm.

There's the rub.

Not a problem. Some authority will always remind you that they have the right to put you away. So why shouldn't you have your right to shoot back then?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This should be obvious to anyone who understands the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and how we catch criminals.......if you are a law abiding citizen, you should be able to carry a gun either concealed or open......in any state in the union without fear of arrest or prosecution...why don't you anti gunners get that?

I have worked in hosptals almost all of my adult life-------I have seen mothers lying on the emergency room floor screaming (some kid found dad's gun)

So? What does that have to do with carrying in public?

 

[FA_Q2]

Would you require a literacy test for voting? Or a test on the U.S. political system before voting?

Absolutely, and one demonstrating knowledge of the local, state, [band[/b] Federal political system. Those who can't pass all three can vote in those areas they did pass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government.

The entire concept goes against the very foundations of what America is supposed to stand for - rights and freedom that are intrinsic to man rather than as a gift from government.

"When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government."

True. And that's sound, lucid reasoning.

But one will immediately notice that "firearms" is not found among "Life, LIberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". On the contrary, since firearms are designed to produce death, loss of liberty and the negation of happiness-- there's a direct conflict.

Whelp ---- given that government as we define it stands to protect those inalienable rights, such tests arguably become not only its domain, but its duty. if such means be deemed necessary.

No, it is not.

Those rights that are protected are listed under the BoR and the amendments that follow. It is not a complicated concept. Should that list no longer become valid then there is an obligation for the people to amend them and change the government. At this point, the people do not agree that there is a need to change the governmental protected rights. Until that time, such rights are protected.

Edit: BTW, firearms is located under LIFE - namely the right to protect that life.

Edit part: Firearms take life away. That's what they're designed to do. And they work. Whatever purpose that taking a life or threatening to take a life may be, that's up to the operator.

So within the confines of your previous post, without having to expand its scope beyond where it started as you just attempted ---- the point stands. And that is, the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness may not be infringed by a law, by a tyrant ------- or by a firearm.

Suppose a tyrant, using a tyrannical law, moved to take Liberty away. With what instrument would that authority enforce it on the ground?

---- A firearm.

There's the rub.

That is your moral interpretation and utterly meaningless in the context of this conversation. You failed to address the relevant point that the second still stands. That really is the nail in the coffin of your argument. Far from being the government's duty it is specifically barred from doing so.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Would you require a literacy test for voting? Or a test on the U.S. political system before voting?

Absolutely, and one demonstrating knowledge of the local, state, [band[/b] Federal political system. Those who can't pass all three can vote in those areas they did pass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government.

The entire concept goes against the very foundations of what America is supposed to stand for - rights and freedom that are intrinsic to man rather than as a gift from government.

"When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government."

True. And that's sound, lucid reasoning.

But one will immediately notice that "firearms" is not found among "Life, LIberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". On the contrary, since firearms are designed to produce death, loss of liberty and the negation of happiness-- there's a direct conflict.

Whelp ---- given that government as we define it stands to protect those inalienable rights, such tests arguably become not only its domain, but its duty. if such means be deemed necessary.

No, it is not.

Those rights that are protected are listed under the BoR and the amendments that follow. It is not a complicated concept. Should that list no longer become valid then there is an obligation for the people to amend them and change the government. At this point, the people do not agree that there is a need to change the governmental protected rights. Until that time, such rights are protected.

Edit: BTW, firearms is located under LIFE - namely the right to protect that life.

Edit part: Firearms take life away. That's what they're designed to do. And they work. Whatever purpose that taking a life or threatening to take a life may be, that's up to the operator.

So within the confines of your previous post, without having to expand its scope beyond where it started as you just attempted ---- the point stands. And that is, the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness may not be infringed by a law, by a tyrant ------- or by a firearm.

Suppose a tyrant, using a tyrannical law, moved to take Liberty away. With what instrument would that authority enforce it on the ground?

---- A firearm.

There's the rub.

Here's where you are wrong: Firearms DO NOT "take life away". Only another person can do that. Firearms may be a tool for the action of taking another's life, but then, so are knives, axes, automobiles, baseball bats, phone cords, and on and on. Firearms may also be a means of preventing someone from taking you life, or the lives of you family and friends. Government has proven ineffective as a protection of innocents from the evil, so you would further prefer that government remove (by force) an effective tool for my own self defense against predators they are unable, or unwilling, to protect me from?

 

[Pogo]

Here's where you are wrong: Firearms DO NOT "take life away". Only another person can do that.

I thought you were going to say "the gun doesn't do it, the bullet does" and then we go down that hole. It's not the gun -- it's the bullet; it's not the bullet; it's the wound; it's not the wound; it's the blood loss or organ failure...

But no, I'm not wrong. It's exactly what firearms are designed to do --- kill and maim. Obviously they don't shoot themselves, nor do they do what they're designed to do without ammunition. These are givens.

Firearms may be a tool for the action of taking another's life, but then, so are knives, axes, automobiles, baseball bats, phone cords, and on and on.

Now you've reversed yourself and agree with me. Kewl.

Firearms may also be a means of preventing someone from taking you life, or the lives of you family and friends.

--- only as a coercive tool based on what the firearm is designed for --- to kill and maim. The only "protection" comes from the psychological intimidation brought by the thought, "if I go on with what I was about to do, I'll be killed or maimed by a gun".

OK, not by a gun but by a bullet. OK not by a bullet but by a wound. Etc.

Government has proven ineffective as a protection of innocents from the evil, so you would further prefer that government remove (by force) an effective tool for my own self defense against predators they are unable, or unwilling, to protect me from?

You must not have read a thing of what I posted yesterday on the same question ---and for the entirety of the four years I've been here. I said from the start that throwing laws at this issue is at best well-meaning but wrongheaded and ultimately ineffective. Laws are complied with voluntarily; those who wish to break them will do so. And those who wish to acquire a firearm despite personal restrictions on them, will do so too.

That's why I've said since the day I got here, this is not a legislative/law issue ---- this is a cultural/spiritual issue. I do not believe relief can come from the law. I believe it comes from a revision of social values. That's exactly why I refer to gun culture and gun fetishism. I'm identifying the disease at the root of it.

And that's a very different approach, with which the law has no relationship. But for a cognate, consider the practice of smoking. 75 years ago it was cool, it was expected, it denoted a certain status, and even doctors were recommending this brand or that. Today it's shunned, isolated and not even advertised, and the practice is a fraction of what it was. That's a social values change. And the law didn't make it happen; the People did. That's real power.

 

[irosie91]

This should be obvious to anyone who understands the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and how we catch criminals.......if you are a law abiding citizen, you should be able to carry a gun either concealed or open......in any state in the union without fear of arrest or prosecution...why don't you anti gunners get that?

I have worked in hosptals almost all of my adult life-------I have seen mothers lying on the emergency room floor screaming (some kid found dad's gun)

So? What does that have to do with carrying in public?

I have no idea

 

[Picaro]

Would you require a literacy test for voting? Or a test on the U.S. political system before voting?

Absolutely, and one demonstrating knowledge of the local, state, [band[/b] Federal political system. Those who can't pass all three can vote in those areas they did pass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government.

The entire concept goes against the very foundations of what America is supposed to stand for - rights and freedom that are intrinsic to man rather than as a gift from government.

We know this spin is nonsense because firearms statutes have been on the books of most colonies and states from the beginning, as have restrictions on voting rights, and our first Republican President pretty much eliminated the 'state's rights' myth in 1861. None of the 'Original Intent' arguments made by 'libertarians' have ever been accurate, just cherry picking, and that includes the 'Founding Era' fathers and Jefferson.

 

[oldsoul]

Would you require a literacy test for voting? Or a test on the U.S. political system before voting?

Absolutely, and one demonstrating knowledge of the local, state, [band[/b] Federal political system. Those who can't pass all three can vote in those areas they did pass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government.

The entire concept goes against the very foundations of what America is supposed to stand for - rights and freedom that are intrinsic to man rather than as a gift from government.

"When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government."

True. And that's sound, lucid reasoning.

But one will immediately notice that "firearms" is not found among "Life, LIberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". On the contrary, since firearms are designed to produce death, loss of liberty and the negation of happiness-- there's a direct conflict.

Whelp ---- given that government as we define it stands to protect those inalienable rights, such tests arguably become not only its domain, but its duty. if such means be deemed necessary.

No, it is not.

Those rights that are protected are listed under the BoR and the amendments that follow. It is not a complicated concept. Should that list no longer become valid then there is an obligation for the people to amend them and change the government. At this point, the people do not agree that there is a need to change the governmental protected rights. Until that time, such rights are protected.

Edit: BTW, firearms is located under LIFE - namely the right to protect that life.

Edit part: Firearms take life away. That's what they're designed to do. And they work. Whatever purpose that taking a life or threatening to take a life may be, that's up to the operator.

So within the confines of your previous post, without having to expand its scope beyond where it started as you just attempted ---- the point stands. And that is, the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness may not be infringed by a law, by a tyrant ------- or by a firearm.

Suppose a tyrant, using a tyrannical law, moved to take Liberty away. With what instrument would that authority enforce it on the ground?

---- A firearm.

There's the rub.

You are correct there, and what tool would you wish to have to resist that force? A knife? A 2x4? your own hands? Of course not, you would want a gun as well. This is the reason we have the 2nd.

The difference is, (a) those things are not an endlessly central character in your typical movie, TV show, comic book, video game, novel, etc etc etc, and (b) those things don't kill people.

If there is an aboundance of such things that have a gun as the "star" I am not aware of even one. Movies star actors/actresses, video games, and comic books have a "hero", novels have a "hero. I have played a lot of games, watched a lot of movies, and have even read a bunch of books, yet I do not recall even one where a gun was the "star". Can you name a few for me?

But again ---- detonating an IED isn't what a phone is designed for. Just as wrapping around a telephone pole isn't what a car is designed for.

And guns (other than military, which are generally illegal to have in working condition) are not designed to kill people.

Absolutely, and one demonstrating knowledge of the local, state, [band[/b] Federal political system. Those who can't pass all three can vote in those areas they did pass.

Fortunately, such tests will never again happen. Jim Crow laws didn't stand and either would yours.

 

[FA_Q2]

Would you require a literacy test for voting? Or a test on the U.S. political system before voting?

Absolutely, and one demonstrating knowledge of the local, state, [band[/b] Federal political system. Those who can't pass all three can vote in those areas they did pass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government.

The entire concept goes against the very foundations of what America is supposed to stand for - rights and freedom that are intrinsic to man rather than as a gift from government.

We know this spin is nonsense because firearms statutes have been on the books of most colonies and states from the beginning, as have restrictions on voting rights, and our first Republican President pretty much eliminated the 'state's rights' myth in 1861. None of the 'Original Intent' arguments made by 'libertarians' have ever been accurate, just cherry picking, and that includes the 'Founding Era' fathers and Jefferson.

I never stated an original intent argument. I simply stated facts and concepts that our nation and its law are founded upon.

The very concept of rights is that you intrinsically have them. The state 'allowing' you to have your rights once you have passed whatever metrics they want in place is utterly counter to that concept. That makes rights into privileges - a power that I am not willing to hand over to the state.

 

[Picaro]

Fortunately, such tests will never again happen. Jim Crow laws didn't stand and either would yours.

Doesn't have anything to do with Jim Crows, just basic civics. If one doesn't care enough to learn the basics, then they don't need to be voting, especially if they can't pass a basic high school level civics test.

 

[miketx]

Law abiding citizens should be able to carry a gun, open or concealed in any state...

Actually, law abiding citizens should be able to go about their lives without a relentless culture that continually glorifies guns and violence, that's what they should be able to do.

No such culture exists.

 

[Picaro]

Would you require a literacy test for voting? Or a test on the U.S. political system before voting?

Absolutely, and one demonstrating knowledge of the local, state, [band[/b] Federal political system. Those who can't pass all three can vote in those areas they did pass.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

When the government is is given the power to test people before granting them protected rights, those rights are no longer endowed on those people by their creator. They are endowed by the government.

The entire concept goes against the very foundations of what America is supposed to stand for - rights and freedom that are intrinsic to man rather than as a gift from government.

We know this spin is nonsense because firearms statutes have been on the books of most colonies and states from the beginning, as have restrictions on voting rights, and our first Republican President pretty much eliminated the 'state's rights' myth in 1861. None of the 'Original Intent' arguments made by 'libertarians' have ever been accurate, just cherry picking, and that includes the 'Founding Era' fathers and Jefferson.

I never stated an original intent argument. I simply stated facts and concepts that our nation and its law are founded upon.

The very concept of rights is that you intrinsically have them. The state 'allowing' you to have your rights once you have passed whatever metrics they want in place is utterly counter to that concept. That makes rights into privileges - a power that I am not willing to hand over to the state.

Well, the Federal state is doing just that, allowing certain rights via the Bill of Rights. As we all know, or should know, the state govts. themselves took decades and longer in some cases right up to the 1950's, to adopt all of those rights in their own legal principles. This is why 'states' rights' was just a method for instituting a quasi-feudal form of aristocratic control of state houses for the local politically powerful and wealthy, and bound by the Federal Bill of Rights only gradually over many years. They determined who could vote and who couldn't, and they were just as enthusiastic about restricting white voting as black; see how Lincoln handled elections, for instance.

The number of states should be reduced, at the very least, to around 12 or 13, and laws across the country made more uniform. It isn't 1787 any more.