Constitutional Carry Petition.

[Bunnykid68]

Completely uneccesary here.

Never can tell with you

 

[Beau]

Here is a question, while signing a petition for constitutional carry, should we also be signing a constitutional same sex marriage as well? It is the same thing, if a LTCH should reciprocate from state to state like a drivers license in turn shouldn't a same sex marriage license also? I've always battled with this idea, but being I support state to state reciprocation for carrying a gun, I HAVE to support state to state reciprocation of gay marriage. Just wondering what "ya'lls" thoughts are

We're not talking about reciprocating LTCH's or CHP's, CCW's ect.. We are talking about constitutional, no license/permit required to carry a firearm anywhere in the US.

To the best of my knowledge, which I admit is not very expansive, there is no right, enumerated or otherwise, to have a government recognized marriage. Are there benefits in place for a married man and woman? Yes. Are those benefits a right? No. Should they automatically be applied to same sex marriage. Don't know. I do know that there is no right to them.

 

[saiga12boy]

Homosexual marriage isn't a right guareented in the Constitution. Keeping and bearing firearms is.

P.S. Cool seeing you on here,Beau.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Homosexual marriage isn't a right guareented in the Constitution. Keeping and bearing firearms is.

P.S. Cool seeing you on here,Beau.

No marriage is guaranteed by the US Constitution, that is a power left to the states.

 

[Bunnykid68]

No marriage is guaranteed by the US Constitution, that is a power left to the states.

That should be left to the church or lack of church and none of the states business

 

[Titanium_Frost]

That should be left to the church or lack of church and none of the states business

If it was purely a religious matter as you contend the state would have to rewrite the tax code and other benefits granted to married couples.

The evangelicals would not be pleased...

 

[Raskolnikov]

We don't need an amendment that allows us to carry. That would be redundant. The Second Amendment, if properly interpreted, already establishes this. What is important is appointments to the courts. When the opportunity arises, get active and write your congressman--urge him to vote against any anti-2A nominee.

 

[Concerned Citizen]

No, but justification of support opens ones self up to forced justification of another thing, even if you do NOT support it. Thats my point, it is incredibly hypocritical to support reciprocation of LTC or CCW license, but not marriage licenses. I will not be a hypocrite, I also believe if more national LTC supporters used this logic and openly support gay marriage reciprocation that the powers to be would open their eyes to it as well. Just my

This is not a valid argument at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying if I support ANY ONE Thing, then I'm hypocritical if I don't support every twisted left wing thing as well?

In that case, you better just label me a hypocrite. Sorry, but I get my moral guidance from The Bible, and it's pretty clear there what God says about marriage. (and self defense.)

 

[Concerned Citizen]

It helps to raise awareness. That and i'm curious to see what their response will be because of the secession petitions. If they say it's up to the states to decide that then they'll have to let the states that got more than 25,000 signatures secede.It pushes them into a corner.

This is not accurate. If they get more than 50,000 signatures, (I think that's the number), then the Gov't has to respond to the petition. It does not mean that they have to allow it, no matter how many signatures they get.

 

[netsecurity]

This petition is absurd in this day and age. Nationwide, unrestricted gun license--yes, this MUST be fought for. Unrestricted guns from the age of 18 without a license--no freaking way! Not even in the realm of possibility.

Maybe John Adams was right:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-President John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade

 

[jedi]

This petition is absurd in this day and age. Nationwide, unrestricted gun license--yes, this MUST be fought for. Unrestricted guns from the age of 1i without a license--no freaking way! Not even in the realm of possibility.

Maybe John Adams was right:

Did you mean to say
"Unrestricted guns from the age of 1 without a license"
as in you are against a one year old from having a firearm?


---
Last I checked you had to be "of age" in order for the the majority of the rights in the constitution to apply.

ie.
Can't vote until you are 18
Defends of the state is by every able man and/or women (that typically means adults)
etc.

 

[netsecurity]

Did you mean to say
"Unrestricted guns from the age of 1 without a license"
as in you are against a one year old from having a firearm?

Ha, no, I fixed it. Just talking about the petition saying anyone over 18 shouldbe be allowed carry without restrictions. I assume they mean felons, lunatics, etc...rediculousness. It makes pro second amendment people appear to be anarchists when this argument comes up.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

This petition is absurd in this day and age. Nationwide, unrestricted gun license--yes, this MUST be fought for. Unrestricted guns from the age of 18 without a license--no freaking way! Not even in the realm of possibility.

Maybe John Adams was right:

Please tell me what government permission to exercise your rights does for you? Government infringements do not keep you safe.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Ha, no, I fixed it. Just talking about the petition saying anyone over 18 shouldbe be allowed carry without restrictions. I assume they mean felons, lunatics, etc...rediculousness. It makes pro second amendment people appear to be anarchists when this argument comes up.

Why do people add in all of this dumb ****? I mean REALLY?

the same people who can legally carry NOW with a state issued permit will be the same ones that can carry legally WITHOUT one. Nothing about possession restriction is being changed though no one should be out walking the street that does not possess the ability to own a firearm. If they are a danger to society then imprison or execute them.

 

[zacdudek]

This is not a valid argument at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying if I support ANY ONE Thing, then I'm hypocritical if I don't support every twisted left wing thing as well?

In that case, you better just label me a hypocrite. Sorry, but I get my moral guidance from The Bible, and it's pretty clear there what God says about marriage. (and self defense.)

Please don't turn this into a religious deal. More people have been punished, murdered, pre-judged, and inflicted upon by religion than any thing else in this world. The United States was NOT founded based on Christianity, and the founding fathers did their hardest to separate religion and government. I envy your faith, and do not wish to disrespect it, I just ask that it stay out of a sudo-political conversation.

I was saying if you are going to justify something i.e. reciprocating of licenses whether its guns or driving, you in turn MUST support the reciprocating of marriage licenses. Simple math 1+2=3 therefore 2+1=3 thats not a debate, its a mathematical law.

As noted earlier in the feed, I understand that this is not about licenses reciprocating , but about it being an amendment to the constitution and I understand that. The point I was attempting to make was to help people understand if we all move off our soap box a little bit we may in fact move this country a little bit more forward. It does in fact start with good conversations like this, even though we all may disagree on something we are all Americans, and because of this we have the freedom to debate our opinions with each other. Great talk guys.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Please don't turn this into a religious deal. More people have been punished, murdered, pre-judged, and inflicted upon by religion than any thing else in this world. The United States was NOT founded based on Christianity, and the founding fathers did their hardest to separate religion and government. I envy your faith, and do not wish to disrespect it, I just ask that it stay out of a sudo-political conversation.

You are quite incorrect. The founders tried very hard to keep government out of religion. Not vice versa. However over the last generation or so, your interpretation of history has attracted many followers that wish to progressively change the country into a secular state.

In the 20th century alone, it would be quite easy to make the case that 10's of millions of people have died at the hands of atheists attempting to spread their version of utopia acroos the globe.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You are quite incorrect. The founders tried very hard to keep government out of religion. Not vice versa. However over the last generation or so, your interpretation of history has attracted many followers that wish to progressively change the country into a secular state.

In the 20th century alone, it would be quite easy to make the case that 10's of millions of people have died at the hands of atheists attempting to spread their version of utopia acroos the globe.

GREAT points. Plus Atheism IS a religion, so is a "lack" of religion otherwise known as Humanism or "logic."

 

[arthrimus]

I was saying if you are going to justify something i.e. reciprocating of licenses whether its guns or driving, you in turn MUST support the reciprocating of marriage licenses. Simple math 1+2=3 therefore 2+1=3 thats not a debate, its a mathematical law.

As noted earlier in the feed, I understand that this is not about licenses reciprocating , but about it being an amendment to the constitution and I understand that. The point I was attempting to make was to help people understand if we all move off our soap box a little bit we may in fact move this country a little bit more forward. It does in fact start with good conversations like this, even though we all may disagree on something we are all Americans, and because of this we have the freedom to debate our opinions with each other. Great talk guys.

I see what you're saying, but these two issues are apples and oranges. Our second amendment rights are specifically defined by our constitution. It does not place specific requirements, or conditions on our right to both keep and BEAR arms.

On the other hand, marriage is not a right, and honestly should not be something that the state is entangled with at all. The concept of marriage is derived from religion, and while it has practical functions beyond it's spiritual value, it should not be manipulated or defined by the state in any way.

I have always thought that an effective solution for the whole issue would be to abandon marriage as a legal concept entirely. Replace it with a non sexual orientation specific contractual partnership, much like a business partnership, that carries all of the same benefits of marriage, but without the label. Evangelicals (myself included) can retain the value and significance of marriage, while legally all domestic partnerships are treated equally.

This I believe is the most liberty oriented method, and would help move us forward in the conversation of other issues of liberty without anyone having to sacrifice their principles.

 

[zacdudek]

You are quite incorrect. The founders tried very hard to keep government out of religion. Not vice versa. However over the last generation or so, your interpretation of history has attracted many followers that wish to progressively change the country into a secular state.

In the 20th century alone, it would be quite easy to make the case that 10's of millions of people have died at the hands of atheists attempting to spread their version of utopia acroos the globe.

I never said atheism was not a religion, nor did I state that I was or believed in an Atheist way. I would consider myself a believer in the church of "I don't know". I would be interested to see the examples of 10's of millions of people killed at the hands of atheists (not trying to be sarcastic just have no clue at all about this).

 

[the1kidd03]

I see what you're saying, but these two issues are apples and oranges. Our second amendment rights are specifically defined by our constitution. It does not place specific requirements, or conditions on our right to both keep and BEAR arms.

On the other hand, marriage is not a right, and honestly should not be something that the state is entangled with at all. The concept of marriage is derived from religion, and while it has practical functions beyond it's spiritual value, it should not be manipulated or defined by the state in any way.

I have always thought that an effective solution for the whole issue would be to abandon marriage as a legal concept entirely. Replace it with a non sexual orientation specific contractual partnership, much like a business partnership, that carries all of the same benefits of marriage, but without the label. Evangelicals (myself included) can retain the value and significance of marriage, while legally all domestic partnerships are treated equally.

This I believe is the most liberty oriented method, and would help move us forward in the conversation of other issues of liberty without anyone having to sacrifice their principles.

I won't say the bolded statement is "wrong" in a literal sense, but rather in an ethical sense. Anyone considering themselves a "patriot" should agree that it is your right to love whoever you wish, whether your personal moral/religious views agree are irrelevant because it is NOT YOUR right to choose what's right for OTHERS. THAT is the purpose of this country no matter how you wish to interpret/impose your difference of opinion.

"Marriage" in a legal sense, should not matter. Any priveledges given to one CATEGORY of free people and not another IS discrimination. There should be no place where religion controls law and/or visa versa. Your freedom to CHOOSE for YOURSELF without ill effects from others is what this country is supposed to be about. TOO many people, both religious and not, have lost sight of that fact.