My Article in The Washington Times (Guns)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

and what portion of government is the most problem IYO?

a combination of a narissistic and uninformed populace with politicians that are the same

(note that many of the 'new age' people claim to have principles and standards, and they are proud that they are directly in conflict with traditional values - however, most of the these principles are self serving and based on self gratification. Real principles tended to be based on self sacrifice and service - not any more.

Frankly, people are smarter today, but it doesn't result in a better society, just a bunch of people REALLY good at rationalization.

So I blame normal animal nature. The more we advance on an global level, the more we regress on an individual level.)

Very good answer, and I agree wholeheartedly!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Personally, I think it's unconstitutional, because like you said, they're definitely firearms. However, courts are weird. Sometimes, something will be seen as constitutional by one court, and unconstitutional decades later. Constitutional interpretation is complicated.

If carrying a concealed weapon is a right, why would you need a permit from the state?

You need a permit because the government infringes on that right, just like they do with free speech which can be limited to a designated protest zone away from media coverage of themain event. Or like how they deprive people of their property without due process to build stores and higher-income housing that may return higher tax revenues. Etc.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The Battle of Athens comes to mind. There's also been instances where the KKK were fought off by the black community - one of the original reasons for gun control laws was to prevent them from getting guns.

I was thinking about the Black Panthers, who self armed to push back on the loss of rights to the Oakland PD. Bit more controversial than stopping the KKK, but just as important to the theme of the question.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you have in mind any specific historical situations, particularly post Civil War, in which the exercise of the 2nd Amendment by non-uniformed civilians was used to enable execution of the other original nine or some of the more contentious later ones, e.g., voting rights?

The Battle of Athens comes to mind. There's also been instances where the KKK were fought off by the black community - one of the original reasons for gun control laws was to prevent them from getting guns.

Thanks - those are both compelling examples.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Personally, I think it's unconstitutional, because like you said, they're definitely firearms. However, courts are weird. Sometimes, something will be seen as constitutional by one court, and unconstitutional decades later. Constitutional interpretation is complicated.

If carrying a concealed weapon is a right, why would you need a permit from the state?

You need a permit because the government infringes on that right, just like they do with free speech which can be limited to a designated protest zone away from media coverage of themain event. Or like how they deprive people of their property without due process to build stores and higher-income housing that may return higher tax revenues. Etc.

Is it an infringement if the Supremes declare that it isn't (or effectively do so by refusing to take up a case). I'm not aware of any CCW permit law being overturned on constitutional grounds.

If you apply for a CCW permit, aren't you implicitly acknowledging that the state has the authority to place restrictions on your so-called rights?

If you REALLY believe you have the right to carry a concelead weapon anywhere you choose, why not tell the state to get lost?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If you REALLY believe you have the right to carry a concelead weapon anywhere you choose, why not tell the state to get lost?

the obvious - 2 felonies hurts.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

If you REALLY believe you have the right to carry a concelead weapon anywhere you choose, why not tell the state to get lost?

the obvious - 2 felonies hurts.

Well, if you're correct the conviction will be overturned by the Supreme Court and CCW permits will be ruled unconstitutional.

Until that happens, I think we must assume laws requiring CCW permits are indeed constitutional (since none have been overturned), and that the state therefore has the authority to apply conditions to them, such as not allowing CCW in state colleges and universities, without violating your 2nd amendment rights

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 798]

The laws I've wondered about - along those same thoughts anyway - how the hell does NYC and Chicago make it illegal to own a firearm?
I don't understand their ability to override federal laws and mandates.
Wouldn't THOSE laws be considered unconstitutional?
Or have they simply not been challenged?

[warpedskydiver 0]

It is not constitutional, and is flat out illegal.

Parker vs. DC is going to be heard, and upheld.

[normiss 798]

So again, it takes one lone wolf to stand out amongst the sheep to make a difference...

[warpedskydiver 0]

Yes it does.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

It is not constitutional, and is flat out illegal.

Parker vs. DC is going to be heard, and upheld.

Parker vs DC is NOT about CCW laws.

How many CCW laws have been overturned by any courts at all?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Parker vs, DC has far reaching implications, one it is upheld as an individual right all the gun laws are going to be held up to that decision and either they will comply, or be thrown out like the shitpaper they were written on.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

If you apply for a CCW permit, aren't you implicitly acknowledging that the state has the authority to place restrictions on your so-called rights?

You're implicitly acknowledging that you're a practical person who'd rather give the government finger prints and $100 than risk arrest + loosing a $500 gun + paying your lawyer $200 an hour to sort the mess out.

Rights exist whether or not the government recognizes them.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

If you apply for a CCW permit, aren't you implicitly acknowledging that the state has the authority to place restrictions on your so-called rights?

You're implicitly acknowledging that you're a practical person who'd rather give the government finger prints and $100 than risk arrest + loosing a $500 gun + paying your lawyer $200 an hour to sort the mess out.

Rights exist whether or not the government recognizes them.

Would that include a right to privacy, and a right to be treated by a physician without government intervention? How about a right to smoke whatever weed takes your fancy? Or a right to exchange sex for money?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Douva 0]

Kallend, since I'm the one who made the original post, why don't you try responding to what I'm saying, rather than responding to only those posts you think you can easily rebut.

I'm not saying that states don't have the authority to make their own laws regarding where people can and can't carry concealed weapons; I'm saying that nobody should be denied the right to do ANYTHING without empirical evidence showing just cause for denying that right. Based on what empirical evidence do you think states that allow concealed handgun license holders to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else should deny CHL holders that right on college campuses?

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Kallend, since I'm the one who made the original post, why don't you try responding to what I'm saying, rather than responding to only those posts you think you can easily rebut.

I'm not saying that states don't have the authority to make their own laws regarding where people can and can't carry concealed weapons; I'm saying that nobody should be denied the right to do ANYTHING without empirical evidence showing just cause for denying that right. Based on what empirical evidence do you think states that allow concealed handgun license holders to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else should deny CHL holders that right on college campuses?

Where has it has been established in law that it IS a right to carry a concealed weapon at all. If it were a RIGHT, no CCW permit would be needed, anywhere.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you REALLY believe you have the right to carry a concelead weapon anywhere you choose, why not tell the state to get lost?

the obvious - 2 felonies hurts.

Well, if you're correct the conviction will be overturned by the Supreme Court and CCW permits will be ruled unconstitutional.

ten years and millions of dollars later, maybe. Or you might get the Dred Scott decision. You know full well that the SC doesn't always make decisions that are "Constitutional;" otherwise it would never reverse itself .

You probably should be cautious about this tract you're taking. Would you prefer an end result where everyone is allowed to carry openly rather than concealed?

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you REALLY believe you have the right to carry a concelead weapon anywhere you choose, why not tell the state to get lost?

the obvious - 2 felonies hurts.

Well, if you're correct the conviction will be overturned by the Supreme Court and CCW permits will be ruled unconstitutional.

ten years and millions of dollars later, maybe. Or you might get the Dred Scott decision. You know full well that the SC doesn't always make decisions that are "Constitutional;" otherwise it would never reverse itself .

I'm sure the NRA and other likeminded organizations would come up with the money. I expect lawyers would be found who would take the case pro bono

Quote

You probably should be cautious about this tract you're taking. Would you prefer an end result where everyone is allowed to carry openly rather than concealed?

I expect you will tell me why that would be bad.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm sure the NRA and other likeminded organizations would come up with the money. I expect lawyers would be found who would take the case pro bono

Legal costs sure. But you have no job, no income, and probably spent part of it in jail. Few people want to play the Jesus role.

Quote

I expect you will tell me why that would be bad.

There are a few negatives, but mostly I think it would be just fine.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

Kallend, since I'm the one who made the original post, why don't you try responding to what I'm saying, rather than responding to only those posts you think you can easily rebut.

I'm not saying that states don't have the authority to make their own laws regarding where people can and can't carry concealed weapons; I'm saying that nobody should be denied the right to do ANYTHING without empirical evidence showing just cause for denying that right. Based on what empirical evidence do you think states that allow concealed handgun license holders to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else should deny CHL holders that right on college campuses?

Where has it has been established in law that it IS a right to carry a concealed weapon at all. If it were a RIGHT, no CCW permit would be needed, anywhere.

Wow! You're really determined to debate the semantics of my wording, rather than debate the facts of the issue, aren't you?

What is a "right?"

Dictionary.com:

a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral

American Heritage Dictionary:

Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law:

something to which one has a just claim: as a : a power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim of enjoyment or possession

Thomas Paine:

"It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice.

"The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist."

Now that we've established that a "right" is not necessarily prescribed by law, what empirical evidence justifies denying concealed handgun license holders the right to carry concealed handguns on college campuses, the same way they carry in virtually all other unsecured locations?

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Now that we've established that a "right" is not necessarily prescribed by law, what empirical evidence justifies denying concealed handgun license holders the right to carry concealed handguns on college campuses, the same way they carry in virtually all other unsecured locations?

More evasion.

Where is it established that carrying a concealed weapon ANYWHERE is a RIGHT prescribed by any means whatsoever? Certainly is is not a right endowed by the Creator, nor in law.

If you, Douva, have ever applied for a CCW permit you have already acknowledged that concealed carry is not a right. Rights do not need permits for their exercise.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[NCclimber 0]

Are you saying that rights that are conditional are not rights at all?

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Are you saying that rights that are conditional are not rights at all?

If you have to ask the government for permission to do something and the government can refuse that permission, then clearly it is not a right.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Now that we've established that a "right" is not necessarily prescribed by law, what empirical evidence justifies denying concealed handgun license holders the right to carry concealed handguns on college campuses, the same way they carry in virtually all other unsecured locations?

More evasion.

Where is it established that carrying a concealed weapon ANYWHERE is a RIGHT prescribed by any means whatsoever? Certainly is is not a right endowed by the Creator, nor in law.

If you, Douva, have ever applied for a CCW permit you have already acknowledged that concealed carry is not a right. Rights do not need permits for their exercise.

I'm not evading anything. I'm trying to get you to answer the question I originally posed. But you'd rather debate whether or not carrying a concealed handgun is a "right" than whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support prohibiting concealed carry on college campuses because you know that if we actually debated the real issue at hand, your argument will be ripped to shreds.

I don't know anywhere where it's written, "People have the right to carry concealed handguns on college campuses." I also don't know anywhere where it's written, "People have the right to carry photos of their loved ones, on college campuses," but I doubt you'd argue that a prohibition against carrying family photos in one's wallet was a perfectly justifiable law. Laws must have solid, well-supported reasons behind them.

If the word "right" is throwing you off, we can call it whatever you want. From the beginning of this discussion, my argument has been that citizens of a free nation should not be told they cannot do something unless there is empirical evidence that doing that thing may unduly infringe upon the rights of others. Based on what empirical evidence do you believe that concealed handgun license holders who are allowed to carry their concealed handguns in virtually all other unsecured locations should be told they cannot carry their concealed handguns on college campuses?

Your opposition to concealed carry on college campuses isn't based on any verifiable evidence that concealed carry would present any greater danger to college campuses than it does to any of the places it's currently allowed; your opposition is based entirely on your disdain for guns and disapproval of gun ownership. You're not arguing against concealed carry on college campuses; you're arguing against concealed carry in general. If this were a debate about whether or not concealed carry should be allowed in movie theaters or shopping malls or banks or office buildings or grocery stores, you'd still be arguing against it.

Unfortunately for you, the fight against concealed carry has already been lost in 80% of the nation. Most states now agree that trained, licensed individuals have the right (or whatever you want to call it) to carry concealed handguns for personal defense. So based on what logic should those states allow concealed carry in most other places but prohibit it on college campuses?

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites