Why are some gun owners afraid of permitless concealed carry?

[Bill of Rights]

Darwinism IS NOT a good idea sometimes, particularly if lets say your children are playing in the yard when some hilljack accidentally shoots off a round b/c he didn't bother to read the manual. The good ol days of folks learning to shoot properly from parents are gone, replaced with "I gotta have a gun befo' Obummer gets rid of 'em". Simple situation laced with someone who never knows what a gun is capable. For the one person that comes to a range and actually gets help in learning to shoot and maintain and safety from me, there are a thousand who wont, cannot or are egotistically opposed to getting help.

As if firearms ownership is a mental disorder that needs treating.

Re-read his position. I think he's talking about those who won't, cannot, or are egotistically opposed to getting help with shooting, kinda like the stereotype of men who won't stop and ask directions to somewhere when they're lost.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Absolutely wrong! Poll taxes, at heart, are an attempt to deny some segment of the polity their right to have a say in the government. Carry permits are the same thing; they deny a segment of the population their right to bear arms. I don't even agree that criminals should be stripped of their right to bear arms or any other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights ; there should be other remedies (anyone killed while in commission of a felony is bought and paid for, for instance).

I agree that once released from jail, they should have the ability to lawfully exercise all of their rights restored. Of course, that presumes that they're released from jail. Depending on the crime, I'm not so sure that should always happen.

Curious: What did you mean that someone killed in the commission of a felony is "bought and paid for"? I'm missing to what you're referring. As Jetgirl sometimes says, "'splain it like I'm four."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Prometheus]

Also: Voting taxes aren't based in the same concept as above. Firearm carry permits are based upon folk's lack of knowledge of firearms. Voting taxes are based upon racism.

When I use the word ignorance to describe your position and attempts to justify it, that is a perfect example.

The first gun laws in this country were enacted for one reason: to stop the freed slaves from owning guns. It was what we now call a "Jim Crow Law".

Gun control in this country (since we kicked the King out) was 100% based upon racism.

You can no longer claim ignorance on this fact now as you have been educated. For those simpletons who may think I am insulting by using the term ignorant, please google it's definition. Claiming gun control is not racist is an ignorant statement.

Disposable, please understand teh anger you illicit from a person such as myself. A person who believes that the Right to defend themselves is ABSOLUTE. The most effective means of defending oneself in 2010 is with a firearm. You are telling me and hundreds of millions of Americans we cannot defend ourselves without permission. It's that simple.

You are saying that no one should be allowed to defend themselves without prior permission from the government. Can you honestly not see how ridiculous a concept that is?

Let us take it a step further in that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment so we could over throw the government by force if it ever became necessary. Can you not see how completely ridiculous a concept it is to first ask permission from the entity in which is to be possibly overthrown one day?

 

[Hornett]

I wish I had more time.

Regarding

I'd be comfortable with contacting the various firearms manufacturers and requesting that they make the case that their guns are carried in with the Four Rules molded into the plastic or cut into the wood of the case, the idea being that if we can at least get the Four Rules out there for people who aren't on online forums or otherwise exposed, we might prevent some of the negligent discharges.

That is the exact reason that I quit buying Rugers back in the day when they started stamping a whole paragraph of warnings on the side of the gun.

I just want to quickly address the drivers license issue.
The Constitution does not grant any the right to drive a car.
Since it was written before the car existed, it does not even grant the right to ride a horse, drive a carriage, or a wagon.
We applied laws and limits because cars are dangerous, yes we did.
But since the Constitution does specifically grant the right to bear arms "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" then it follows that the LTCH must be an infringement and therefor unconstitutional even though we have drivers licenses for many of the same reasons,

And Kudos to DH for being so brave...

 

[PatriotPride]

Comments like Libtard, ignorant or clueless would be well deserved.

Look at your argument. Here in Indiana the only requirement for getting a LTCH is money... and yet you still like and want the permit scheme?

Why should my Rights be contingent upon what makes you "feel good" any more so than what makes a total anti-gunner "feel good".

I'm doing my best to temper my response. Lets start charging a tax to vote, to go to church, to be safe from illegals searches or seizures!

Don't you realize how INSANE those ideas are!?!?!

Your feelings are incompatible with those of a Constitutional Republic.

My unalienable Rights are NOT predicated upon your feelings!

I tend to agree. Regulation of the RTKBA regarding law-abiding citizens is unConstitutional on the face of it. "Shall not be infringed." Seems simple enough to me. I can't decide if people don't understand this simple statement, or refuse to. I don't know which is worse.

The idea that a governement on ANY level tries to tell you if you can exercise your right is repugnant.

 

[printcraft]

Permitless carry either concealed or open is the only constitutionally acceptable option.

You don't need to go any further than that.

 

[PatriotPride]

By some of the logic I've seen here:

We need a permit to exercise our rights to exercise our faith. After all, people have been hurt when they used religion incorrectly.

We need a permit to vote. After all, it's a great responsibility and it should be taxed and regulated.


Can you imagine what would happen if they attempted these unConstitutional measures? So WHY, in the name of all that is sacred, would you advocate an unConstitutional restriction on our RTKBA?

Something in the thought process is just not adding up.

 

[88GT]

Re-read his position. I think he's talking about those who won't, cannot, or are egotistically opposed to getting help with shooting, kinda like the stereotype of men who won't stop and ask directions to somewhere when they're lost.

Blessings,
Bill

I read it. And it doesn't change a thing. Not only is he projecting his opinion on what constitutes a superior choice, but he's proposing making exercise of the right contingent on making *his* choice.

I reject both assumptions.

 

[Eddie]

By some of the logic I've seen here:

We need a permit to exercise our rights to exercise our faith. After all, people have been hurt when they used religion incorrectly.

We need a permit to vote. After all, it's a great responsibility and it should be taxed and regulated.


Can you imagine what would happen if they attempted these unConstitutional measures? So WHY, in the name of all that is sacred, would you advocate an unConstitutional restriction on our RTKBA?

Something in the thought process is just not adding up.

Cool. Then rich guys could pay to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures. They could have big parties with guns and beer and drugs and hookers but the police would be busy down conducting door to door searches in the poor neighborhoods. Poor guys would go to jail and get all kinds of cruel and unusual punishments done to them because they couldn't afford their permit to protect them. No one could complain about the injustice either unless they had their license for free speech and had passed the courses on public speaking and normative ethics. Our military could save tons of money too by just sending the soldiers to live in the poor folk's homes instead of building costly housing facilities. We could pass all kinds of new laws prohibiting religions we didn't agree with and require constly permits for private churches.

Now that would be a nice world to be rich in!

 

[infidel]

The 2nd Amendment was created as a last line of defense against a tyrannical government. Why some people think that the government, the very institution that the Amendment was made to protect us from, should have the right to regulate that Amendment, it bewilders me...It simply does not make logical sense.

When people in favor of the government regulating the RTKBA speak about it, I honestly don't know what to feel.

Hatred? Fear? Sorrow?

Yes.



Sorry OP, I know this doesn't have to do specifically with carrying without a license/permit.

 

[PatriotPride]

Cool. Then rich guys could pay to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures. They could have big parties with guns and beer and drugs and hookers but the police would be busy down conducting door to door searches in the poor neighborhoods. Poor guys would go to jail and get all kinds of cruel and unusual punishments done to them because they couldn't afford their permit to protect them. No one could complain about the injustice either unless they had their license for free speech and had passed the courses on public speaking and normative ethics. Our military could save tons of money too by just sending the soldiers to live in the poor folk's homes instead of building costly housing facilities. We could pass all kinds of new laws prohibiting religions we didn't agree with and require constly permits for private churches.

Now that would be a nice world to be rich in!

Sounds a bit like California. I'm sure we want our state to follow their example.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I agree that once released from jail, they should have the ability to lawfully exercise all of their rights restored. Of course, that presumes that they're released from jail. Depending on the crime, I'm not so sure that should always happen.

Curious: What did you mean that someone killed in the commission of a felony is "bought and paid for"? I'm missing to what you're referring. As Jetgirl sometimes says, "'splain it like I'm four."

Blessings,
Bill

Sorry, paraphrase from an H. Beam Piper novel. It means that if a person is killed while committing a crime of violence against another, the person who kills him is not liable for any censure, suit, or punishment as a result of his death. In other words, the old "he had it coming to him".

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

I think it's pretty stupid that we have to pay for the right to bear arms. Can you really consider it a right if you have to pay for it?

You don't have to pay for the right to bear arms. You can carry a shotgun or rifle with you all day long....you don't need a license. In fact you don't even need a license to carry a blackpowder wheel gun pistol. You don't need a license to carry a regular pistol with you on your property or in your home.

 

[cosermann]

Well, this turned into a lively thread, eh?

 

[INMIline]

Well, this turned into a lively thread, eh?

 

[PatriotPride]

You don't have to pay for the right to bear arms. You can carry a shotgun or rifle with you all day long....you don't need a license. In fact you don't even need a license to carry a blackpowder wheel gun pistol. You don't need a license to carry a regular pistol with you on your property or in your home.

Yet if I want to carry a "modern" pistol outside my property I have to "pay to play". Why is that? How is that right? Some may say that it is a SMALL limitation on our rights---I argue that ANY limitation on our rights is heinous and repugnant.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

Yet if I want to carry a "modern" pistol outside my property I have to "pay to play". Why is that? How is that right? Some may say that it is a SMALL limitation on our rights---I argue that ANY limitation on our rights is heinous and repugnant.

While I am in total agreement with you on this, suffice it to say that your right to bear arms is not contingent upon you "paying to play". In the game of government, you are only paying to play if you want the "premium channels".

I agree with Vermont, AK and any other state who aspires to be like them...Vermont is the only one that TRULY understands.

No permit required TO ANYONE in the state, natives and visitors alike.

 

[indykid]

As far as I am concerned, that pink piece of paper in my wallet just verifies that I have paid my tax to maintain my second amendment right. Nothing more that one of the millions of ways our government has found to tax us.

 

[rjstew317]

this seems to be touchy subject. while i do agree that it would be nice to not have to deal with the bureaucratic red tape in order to carry a sidearm, i believe that that such inconveniences are necessary for public safety. without such rules every idiot and their brother would be wearing their gun like a badge of honor. this might not be a big deal in a rural area, but in the larger cities it would pose a problem. not to mention it would be a lot easier for the left to lump gun owners into one large category (although they already do). without permits there would be no way to prove that less than .10%(if even that) of gun crimes are committed by licensed gun owners. i for one do not want to be compared to your run of the mill thug.

 

[PatriotPride]

this seems to be touchy subject. while i do agree that it would be nice to not have to deal with the bureaucratic red tape in order to carry a sidearm, i believe that that such inconveniences are necessary for public safety. without such rules every idiot and their brother would be wearing their gun like a badge of honor. this might not be a big deal in a rural area, but in the larger cities it would pose a problem. not to mention it would be a lot easier for the left to lump gun owners into one large category (although they already do). without permits there would be no way to prove that less than .10%(if even that) of gun crimes are committed by licensed gun owners. i for one do not want to be compared to your run of the mill thug.

We are ALREADY being compared to "thugs", so that argument is moot. I do NOT understand why people condone unConstitutional laws---believe me, it's not "necessary for the public safety". That is the same anti-freedom garbage that is spewed to us from the Left.

Defend your assertion that everyone wearing their firearm "would pose a problem". So you are saying only a select few that YOU feel comfortable with should be afforded the privilege to exercise their rights?

For the life of me I cannot find a single coherent or logical assertion in your post. Please explain.