Open carry firearms.. Our 2nd amendment right!!

[Missourian]

The Constitution does not grant rights. You, I, and others understand that simple fact. It prevents the federal government from infringing the right of the people to bear arms. It does not prevent the state government from restricting as they will.

I have come across the premise before that the Constitution does not grant rights, I disagree with that. Simply because the word GRANT or a synonym is not used, some say it is not a grant to the people.

WHY was it called the Bill of RIGHTS? If it did not grant rights to not be abridged, then it should have been called the Bill of Prohibitions, as Hamilton suggested.

I am not a law buff, but I'm not sure I agree with that.

IMO the rights themselves exist independently and predate the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights protects those rights from government restriction.

The rights exist outside the Constitution and would exist without the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights no more created the rights themselves than Newton's First Law of Motion created inertia.

Instead, the Bill of Rights, like Newton's Laws of Motion, codifies...not creates.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why?

Who should someone who was in possession of a viagra that some friend of his let him have, also have to lose his 2nd amendment rights, especially if he has served his time, and 10 years have passed, with no other trouble with the law?

Why is this person a danger to society? Explain.

Why should someone in possession of crack cocaine with intent to sell be allowed to go about armed?

Because he paid his debt to society, and having a drug addiction should not and does not carry a life sentence. Therefore, the record should not be a life long haunting of that addiction either.

Why should someone who has been convicted of his 5th assault and battery be allowed to carry a gun legally?

If the person is no longer in prison for it, then why fucking NOT? A person is DONE being guilty when their sentence is over.

I asked YOU. WHY NOT.

Only the punishment part is done with. But there is plenty of non-punitive sentencing. Thus child molesters are barred by life from working with kids. Pete Rose is barred for life from working in baseball. On and on.
People with a demonstrated proclivity to do certain things don't need to be in situations where they are likely to do it again. It is the stupidity of libertarians that would say otherwise.
And if a person really has reformed completely he can apply for restoration of rights.

 

[Diuretic]

Just one thing. I've never used a s/auto shotgun with a laser sight, only the usual point and blast, I just wonder about the need for a laser sight. I mean it might be a good idea, I have no knowledge of that.

The laser sight is because we have kids. The sight is mounted under the barrel and also has a powerful spotlight on it so there's no shooting blind in the dark. We dialed the laser in at the range so the sight is accurate across the largest possible open space in our house, which is less than 45 feet. My pistols have laser sights also.

You can't point and blast when some creep is trying to go after one of your children.

Okay that makes sense. I'm not being nosey (and of course you don't have to respond - I won't take offence) but I assume the kids have been briefed on the plan. I mean depending on the design of your house, the neighbourhood and so on - again details definitely not required, hell this is the internet - you would have a plan in which they have a role, that is, to get into a secure area out of the way of anything else happening in the house.

I know it's a necessity but it's a bit sad you have to go to those lengths to provide security for your family.

 

[Dr Grump]

I know it's a necessity but it's a bit sad you have to go to those lengths to provide security for your family.

Bad neighbourhood??

 

[Diuretic]

A person who JUST turned 20 can't screw his girlfriend who is turning 18 next week.. until next week, in some states. That is a fucking felony.

Indeed it is a fucking felony. Damn stupid too.

Every now and again any society should take a good look at its criminal laws (specifically criminal, not regulatory) and sort out the trash from the useful stuff. However if you ever find a legislature with the courage to do that please tell us, I'd like to move there

 

[CurveLight]

The 2nd Amendment never gave Citizens the right to independently carry and historical evidence aside, this is most obvious how the phrase "...under a well regulated militia..." is re-shaped, caked, and baked everytime the issue comes up.

 

[The Rabbi]

The 2nd Amendment never gave Citizens the right to independently carry and historical evidence aside, this is most obvious how the phrase "...under a well regulated militia..." is re-shaped, caked, and baked everytime the issue comes up.

Geez are you ignorant. Just every post you manage to prove it.

 

[Contumacious]

The 2nd Amendment never gave Citizens the right to independently carry and historical evidence aside, this is most obvious how the phrase "...under a well regulated militia..." is re-shaped, caked, and baked everytime the issue comes up.

That is correct.

That is precisely what our Founding Father, Karl Marx, stated in the Communist Manifesto page 69.

" The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by degrees all capital from the bourgeoisie; to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state. . . ."

.

 

[JD_2B]

Why should someone in possession of crack cocaine with intent to sell be allowed to go about armed?

Because he paid his debt to society, and having a drug addiction should not and does not carry a life sentence. Therefore, the record should not be a life long haunting of that addiction either.

Why should someone who has been convicted of his 5th assault and battery be allowed to carry a gun legally?

If the person is no longer in prison for it, then why fucking NOT? A person is DONE being guilty when their sentence is over.

I asked YOU. WHY NOT.

Only the punishment part is done with. But there is plenty of non-punitive sentencing. Thus child molesters are barred by life from working with kids. Pete Rose is barred for life from working in baseball. On and on.

Pete Rose can still play baseball.. just not in the major leagues. That is administrative, BTW, and I support administrative policy as long as it does not infringe on a person's rights.
Barring someone from working around children for LIFE is also a bit much. Actually, they are only usually put on a sex offender list for a certain amount of time, and not for the rest of their lives, unless they are found to be sexual predators. In that case- why the fuck are they walking free in the first place? Why not give violent criminals LONGER sentences, MORE jail time, and do away with the whole parole and registration process altogether? You CANT say that parole is a good idea, as long as someone who you describe as a "violent offender", also "follows the EXTRA rules" of parole. You CANT say this because YOU are assuming that someone who has been released from jail on parole (or no longer serving out a sentence, even) is STILL a violent criminal offender, and apparently will be for life, due to some violent offense they caused earlier in their lives, and paid their dues for.
You CANT say that someone on parole is safe to even BE on parole, in the first place, then. You cant even say that ANY person convicted of any violence charge is safe to be readmitted into society, without being a danger to others.
So why do you say that they should not have a gun? A broken bottle works.. rope.. a bat, a pair of fists.. a steak knife.. The pencil behind the ear.. A person who intends to hurt someone else WILL hurt someone else, with or without a gun. If they want to hurt to kill, they can and will- with or without a gun.
You CANT justify this kind of ignorance towards anyone's past criminal history, assuming that all violent offenders will absolutely offend again, if they happen to rightfully have possession of a firearm.

People with a demonstrated proclivity to do certain things don't need to be in situations where they are likely to do it again. It is the stupidity of libertarians that would say otherwise.
And if a person really has reformed completely he can apply for restoration of rights.

Ahh the saga of ignorance continues.. So a reformed child molester, or a reformed killer like, uhhh lets see- here.. The 14 year old who was brainwashed into becoming the DC sniper, for instance? Or how about Amy Fisher? Or lets go all out adult with this and say someone like the abusive little pricks who tortured prisoners sexually and otherwise at Guantanamo Bay? Oh I know.. The GB's would be the exception to the rule, of course.. in your mind, anyways.

If the prisoner is not reformed by the time their sentence is up, then they apparently need to be sentenced for a longer period of time to ensure that they will behave themselves in the free world and not commit violent acts. Remember, they can use all kinds of easy to purchase weapons to commit violent crimes. What is going to stop them?

I mean, really.. If we force felons to not be allowed to have a gun, and they get into some situation where they are in a home where a person has a gun in there, and someone breaks in, and the homeowner shoots the burgler- guess who is going back to jail?

The majority of arrests for parole violators are as a result of "technical" issues, like being in "possession" of a firearm, which includes being (not living, just hanging out, even) in the same home as someone with a firearm. So then, the fucking shit for brains cops look at this charge and do a search of the house for guns and weapons, just to find a reason to arrest people, and guess what happens the next time anything happens? BOTH the felon and the person who owns the gun gets arrested for felonies, all because the cops want to put on a fucking show of strength.

It is a DOWNWARD spiral. I don't know how anyone can be so ignorant as to cheer it on.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your post is lacking coherence. This is typical of Lib-tards who bizarrely claim that someone is either a sinner or a saint and all sinners need to be locked up forever.
It is a mindset that puts adherence to philosophical purity over any experience in the real world and dealing with real people. Thus it is like radical Islam, especially in attracting the under 40 crowd.
It cannot be argued with or reasoned with. It can only be mocked.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Your post is lacking coherence. This is typical of Lib-tards who bizarrely claim that someone is either a sinner or a saint and all sinners need to be locked up forever.

You post demonstrates your lack of comprehension.
JD stated that if an individual has served their time then we, as a society, have presumably determined they are no longer a threat. If they are not a threat, then they should have rights. If they are a threat, then they were given the wrong punishment.
Pretty simple to understand if you follow the grammatical construction of If A, then B

As JD pointed out the Probation system is often ludicrous. Consider twin brothers, age 16, who go out joy riding because even though they have learned to drive they cannot afford a car. Typical juvenile offense, which should get typical juvenile punishment. However the judge is contemplating a bid for Congress and needs to toughen his image, so he labels them adults and pushes the DA to wring a plea to Grand Theft Auto from the boys on the assurance they will not be put in jail.

At this point I need some help from JD as I cannot recall the term for the punishment. They get a special type of 'Probation' (I believe) which does not carry a lasting felony conviction with it. Unless they violate the terms of their probation, which includes not associating with known felons.

Here is the catch - the boys live in the same house. The Judge, DA and Public Defender are all aware of this fact, but none push to amend the terms to allow the brothers to live in the same house or go to the same school. As soon as they are on probation the officer in charge of them determines that they are living with a known felon, the twin brother, and are thus in violation. They go before a second judge, who also wants a career in politics, who throws the book at them, sending them to prison for several years, as adults.

I'm sure your response will be some lame "this could never happen in America" or "The twins shouldn't have done the crime" or some equally nonsensical farce, but the reality is this sort of situation does occur, regularly, in the USA. The reality is that unjust solutions like this one are used, regularly, by the US Department of Justice. The reality is that more oversight of our courts is needed to prevent such abuses.

But Rab-tards keep mocking the attempts of reasonable people to try to present a solution.

 

[Missourian]

The fallacy in the logic is that just because they are released, they are rehabilitated.

Recidivism rates

As reported on BBC Radio 4 on 2 September 2005, the recidivism rates for released prisoners in the United States of America is 60% compared with 50% in the United Kingdom but cross-country statistical comparisons are often questionable. The report attributed the lower recidivism rate in the UK to a focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners compared with the US focus on punishment, deterrence and keeping potentially dangerous individuals away from society.
The United States Department of Justice tracked the rearrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of former inmates for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 states in 1994.[10] Key findings include:

• Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
  
• Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.
  
• The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
• Recidivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CurveLight]

The 2nd Amendment never gave Citizens the right to independently carry and historical evidence aside, this is most obvious how the phrase "...under a well regulated militia..." is re-shaped, caked, and baked everytime the issue comes up.

Geez are you ignorant. Just every post you manage to prove it.

Why don't you save some time and just put "I don't like CurveLight" in your sig? It's better than quoting me in every thread just to show your affinity for returning to the first grade.

Let's do something crazy and look at the Second.....

"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."

Explain how a bunch of individuals who never meet fall under the category of a well regulat
ed militia.

 

[CurveLight]

The fallacy in the logic is that just because they are released, they are rehabilitated.

Recidivism rates

As reported on BBC Radio 4 on 2 September 2005, the recidivism rates for released prisoners in the United States of America is 60% compared with 50% in the United Kingdom but cross-country statistical comparisons are often questionable. The report attributed the lower recidivism rate in the UK to a focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners compared with the US focus on punishment, deterrence and keeping potentially dangerous individuals away from society.
The United States Department of Justice tracked the rearrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of former inmates for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 states in 1994.[10] Key findings include:

• Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
  
• Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.
  
• The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
• Recidivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The premise is if they have been released then they should be rehabilitated. But, we have one of the most fucked up penal systems in the world and it is profit driven so rehabilitation is never the goal.

 

[The Rabbi]

The fallacy in the logic is that just because they are released, they are rehabilitated.

Recidivism rates

As reported on BBC Radio 4 on 2 September 2005, the recidivism rates for released prisoners in the United States of America is 60% compared with 50% in the United Kingdom but cross-country statistical comparisons are often questionable. The report attributed the lower recidivism rate in the UK to a focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners compared with the US focus on punishment, deterrence and keeping potentially dangerous individuals away from society.
The United States Department of Justice tracked the rearrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of former inmates for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 states in 1994.[10] Key findings include:

• Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
  
• Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.
  
• The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
• Recidivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The other fallacy is that the purpose of prison is rehabilitation rather than punishment for a specific crime.
But there are no end to the fallacies of libertarianism.

 

[The Rabbi]

The 2nd Amendment never gave Citizens the right to independently carry and historical evidence aside, this is most obvious how the phrase "...under a well regulated militia..." is re-shaped, caked, and baked everytime the issue comes up.

Geez are you ignorant. Just every post you manage to prove it.

Why don't you save some time and just put "I don't like CurveLight" in your sig? It's better than quoting me in every thread just to show your affinity for returning to the first grade.

Let's do something crazy and look at the Second.....

"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."

Explain how a bunch of individuals who never meet fall under the category of a well regulat
ed militia.

There was this case decided in some rinky dink court about a year or so ago. It's called "Heller." The majority decision was written by a cat named "Scalia." Go look up the case and see his discussion of the "militia". If you have any other questions after that please come back and ask.

 

[Contumacious]

The fallacy in the logic is that just because they are released, they are rehabilitated.

Recidivism rates

As reported on BBC Radio 4 on 2 September 2005, the recidivism rates for released prisoners in the United States of America is 60% compared with 50% in the United Kingdom but cross-country statistical comparisons are often questionable. The report attributed the lower recidivism rate in the UK to a focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners compared with the US focus on punishment, deterrence and keeping potentially dangerous individuals away from society.
The United States Department of Justice tracked the rearrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of former inmates for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 states in 1994.[10] Key findings include:

• Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
  
• Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.
  
• The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
• Recidivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The other fallacy is that the purpose of prison is rehabilitation rather than punishment for a specific crime.
But there are no end to the fallacies of libertarianism.

HUH?

And you concluded that LIBERTARIANS support rehabilitation HOW?

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Reading challenged much?

 

[CurveLight]

Geez are you ignorant. Just every post you manage to prove it.

Why don't you save some time and just put "I don't like CurveLight" in your sig? It's better than quoting me in every thread just to show your affinity for returning to the first grade.

Let's do something crazy and look at the Second.....

"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."

Explain how a bunch of individuals who never meet fall under the category of a well regulat
ed militia.

There was this case decided in some rinky dink court about a year or so ago. It's called "Heller." The majority decision was written by a cat named "Scalia." Go look up the case and see his discussion of the "militia". If you have any other questions after that please come back and ask.

Typical. You never attempt to support anything you and and completely ignore anything that shows you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is a right to bear arms.. Not a privilege that you "retain" only "if" you follow all the rules all the time, or one that you should lose AFTER you have paid your penance to society by spending time in jail.

I do not believe that carrying a weapon is a trait that people should have to get a permit for, because they have to hide the weapon somehow, based on the ever-growing laundry list of legislation that has very much infringed on our right to bear arms.

A well regulated militia means the GOVERNMENT, and in regulating that, THE PEOPLE, which the 2nd amendment states very clearly, have the right to bear arms.

"Due process" does not include state or federal legislation that would make gun ownership, especially open carry, illegal or criminal.

Concealed carry is a different issue. At least with open carry, people know in advance that you are packing heat. To be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, and therefore be "sneaky".. that I agree- should continue to be a permitting designation.

To be clear- I am against parole. I think parole is a good program, but if we are going to release people for good behavior, work achieved, and other noble deeds, proving that the convicted prisoner is rehabilitated, then why even mess around with a parole system? Let them out and set them free. Its not fair to a parolee that they cannot have a gun.

It is also not fair that someone who has been served an order for protection of an accuser, should also suddenly lose their rights to carry a deadly weapon.. and people who are released and awaiting trial, also..
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"??

And as for the people who are mentally ill.. For God's sake, don't the sick ones have guardians? And the ones who aren't too sick to go to school, work, etc.. well guess what? If they want to go around killing everyone in sight in a fit of psychosis, they WILL find a way. Outlawing guns results in only the outlaws having guns.

I do not care so much about the "unsafe" aspect of it. I realize this will result in more shootings and very likely a lot more accidental homicides..

But it will also DRASTICALLY reduce the amount of overall violent crime, as well as theft that occurs in this country on a daily basis..

Who's going to even CONSIDER fucking with you, if you have a .45 pistol strapped to your side.

Cops suck. I say BUY A GUN.

Whose going to fuck with you? Well, moron, maybe the guy with the scoped deer rifle 200 yards away.

That'd be me.

And I'm focusing on you right now. Not her.

I understand that a cowardly bastard might very well shoot me from afar - I live not in fear of you or other such wimps. One on one, my only fears of a cowardly bastard are hurting my hands or being pissed on when they panic.
Wear a diaper and you will assuage one of my concerns.