• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think a concealed carry license should be national like a drivers license?

Do you think a concealed carry license should be national like a drivers license?

  • Total voters
    44
Lursa said:
Interesting...does someone's property rights supersede my right to privacy (looking in my purse when I enter a home or business?) We know that some 'events' and venues do, as do some places like courthouses and federal buildings.
Click to expand...

Supercede it? no
I can't force you to let me look in your purse but I can require it to be on my property and now the choice is yours to agree or not to be on my property

So your right to privacy would still be 100% in tact
 
AGENT J said:
Supercede it? no
I can't force you to let me look in your purse but I can require it to be on my property and now the choice is yours to agree or not to be on my property

So your right to privacy would still be 100% in tact
Click to expand...

So you would ask me, automatically, to leave my purse in my car or not bring it?

Would you automatically search every male and female that came in as well? (for on-body carry).
 
Lursa said:
1.)So you would ask me, automatically, to leave my purse in my car or not bring it?

Would you automatically search every male and female that came in as well? (for on-body carry).
Click to expand...

I wouldnt ask you to do anything lol but i could. In general it would be fine by me if you carried on my property.
I also could subjective everybody to a pat down if they wanted in, but again i couldn't force them.
 
Lursa said:
Interesting...does someone's property rights supersede my right to privacy (looking in my purse when I enter a home or business?) We know that some 'events' and venues do, as do some places like courthouses and federal buildings.
Click to expand...

when you are on the property of another person you have no exercisable rights......none.
 
I'm mixed.

I don't like the idea of a person getting a felony because he had a legal gun with a legal permit and just happened to be in the wrong state. I think it's a waste of time to arrest people like this. They didn't harm any body and they didn't misuse their fire arm.

On the other hand, I don't like the idea of telling states that they can't govern their own state.


I lean towards the idea that we have a national concealed carry permit that works everywhere, but I do think it would be smart to require a safety course first before you receive it.
 
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
 
Lutherf said:
That would probably need to be done on a state by state basis.

My contention is that if the FedGov has to issue a license to carry concealed then the right to keep and bear arms has already been infringed. If I was going to vote for any kind of fed permit it would have to allow universal carry. I'm talking planes, schools, the White House, you name it.
Click to expand...




Luther, I love ya bro, but I think you're letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good" and "better".


Principle is all very well and good, but we live in a democratic republic where compromise is necessary to achieve political gains.


Think about the public relations coup AGAIN when the anti's scream "blood in the streets! Wild West!!1!" ... and AGAIN it doesn't happen...
 
ernst barkmann said:
when you are on the property of another person you have no exercisable rights......none.
Click to expand...



Oh yes you do.

You have a right to life they cannot infringe upon (unless you threaten theirs).


You have a right to your own property... just because you are on their property does not mean that anything on your person suddenly belongs to them, or that your car parked in their lot belongs to them, assuming you're their by invitation.


And again there is a HUGE difference between "PRIVATE property" and "privately owned property that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC".
 
Goshin said:
Oh yes you do.

You have a right to life they cannot infringe upon (unless you threaten theirs).


You have a right to your own property... just because you are on their property does not mean that anything on your person suddenly belongs to them, or that your car parked in their lot belongs to them, assuming you're their by invitation.


And again there is a HUGE difference between "PRIVATE property" and "privately owned property that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC".
Click to expand...


life and liberty are not exercisable.....because you cannot die today and live tomorrow.

i can own a firearm today and keep its for years, then sell it and be without one for years, then buy another so i am exercising the right off and on, it the same with free speech or protesting i can choose to do them or not.

government is created to secure property of every sort, it has no authoirty to dicate private property for the public or not, unless it causes a violation of someone rights, or threaten the health and saftey of the public.
 
ernst barkmann said:
life and liberty are not exercisable.....because you cannot die today and live tomorrow.

i can own a firearm today and keep its for years, then sell it and be without one for years, then buy another so i am exercising the right off and on, it the same with free speech or protesting i can choose to do them or not.

government is created to secure property of every sort, it has no authoirty to dicate private property for the public or not, unless it causes a violation of someone rights, or threaten the health and saftey of the public.
Click to expand...



Disarming me needlessly is a threat to my safety.
 
Lursa said:
How does that infringe on their rights? Do you have to ask everywhere you go?Is it ok if a person doesnt have a sign up on their home or business? How does it does it infringe if they are not aware of it, anymore than they are aware of your political or religious views, for ex., if they dont know you have it? Are gay people infringing on every Christian's rights when they enter their home or business? Only if the Christians are aware of it? And what if they dont?
Click to expand...

I dont know why this concept is so contentious: In a free swociety, I have no authority to force property owners let me practice any amendment freedom on their private property. It does not matter whether I wish to carry a weapon, hold a church service, distribute poltical fliers, publish a newspaper, or give a speech.

Rather, I need the owner's permission to do any of these things. The owner then decides whether or not he wants to give me permission. A refusal can be for any reason, or for no stated reason. Likewise the owner can set conditions on the permission: "pass out the political fliers away from the door", "pistols are OK, but no rifles allowed here", "no megaphones" etc
 
States should be free to set up reciprocity between themselves. The only exception would be uniform rules for transporting firearms across a state for the purposes of going from one state to another.
 
Goshin said:
Luther, I love ya bro, but I think you're letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good" and "better".


Principle is all very well and good, but we live in a democratic republic where compromise is necessary to achieve political gains.


Think about the public relations coup AGAIN when the anti's scream "blood in the streets! Wild West!!1!" ... and AGAIN it doesn't happen...
Click to expand...

I guess where I'm coming from is that if a permit must be issued then I'd prefer that the states choose how/whether to do so than to hand that authority over to the feds as well. I like the option of moving to a state where they believe in liberty if I need to but if this whole thing is dictated by the feds we'll all be screwed.
 
Goshin said:
Disarming me needlessly is a threat to my safety.
Click to expand...

The ability to excersize any amendment freedom (carry a weapon, hold a church service, hold a poltical protest etc.) is always at the discretion of the property owner. As no one is obligated to enter the property, there is no restriction on rights, and any threats to safety are taken voluntarily.
 
Zyphlin said:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Click to expand...

Like with gay marriage.
 
ernst barkmann said:
when you are on the property of another person you have no exercisable rights......none.
Click to expand...

So I am carrying my First Amendment rights with me at all time. If I exercise them, and you dont like what I say, you can ask me to leave. However you have no idea what my opinion is on any issue until I express it. Same with my religion. I am a Christian....if you object to Christians in your home, and dont know I'm a Christian....I am still exercising my right to practice my religious beliefs....but if you see my cross necklace and object, you can ask me to leave.

Same thing if I am concealing my firearm. If you learn, somehow, that I am carrying it, you can ask me to leave. And I would. My firearm is no different than my 'beliefs'
 
roughdraft274 said:
I lean towards the idea that we have a national concealed carry permit that works everywhere, but I do think it would be smart to require a safety course first before you receive it.
Click to expand...


Very much the wrong direction IMO. That gives the feds the control over the requirements for the permits. Some states dont even have permits. Some only require a background check. In states where training is required, it's different in every state...no one knows how much training is 'enough.'

It gives the feds more power, period. And mandatory training requirements have not been shown to make any difference in gun incidents/accidents so we dont need them adding that bs either.
 
ernst barkmann said:
life and liberty are not exercisable.....because you cannot die today and live tomorrow.

i can own a firearm today and keep its for years, then sell it and be without one for years, then buy another so i am exercising the right off and on, it the same with free speech or protesting i can choose to do them or not.
.
Click to expand...

Liberty is exercisable and the various levels of govt can remove it for cause and do so all the time.
 
Goshin said:
Disarming me needlessly is a threat to my safety.
Click to expand...

Exactly, unless he or a business owner can guarantee my right to life on their property.
 
Cryptic said:
I dont know why this concept is so contentious: In a free swociety, I have no authority to force property owners let me practice any amendment freedom on their private property. It does not matter whether I wish to carry a weapon, hold a church service, distribute poltical fliers, publish a newspaper, or give a speech.

Rather, I need the owner's permission to do any of these things. The owner then decides whether or not he wants to give me permission. A refusal can be for any reason, or for no stated reason. Likewise the owner can set conditions on the permission: "pass out the political fliers away from the door", "pistols are OK, but no rifles allowed here", "no megaphones" etc
Click to expand...

Cool, and if I dont know the property owner's wishes, I do what I want. I most certainly never assume a person hates Christians, gays, guns, etc.

If it's a business, again, they arent responsible for my right to life...*I am*. And unless they are planning on guaranteeing it, I will exercise my right *privately*. Let's face it, if they have security, it's to protect them and *their property.* Not my life.
 
ernst barkmann said:
on my property you have no right to bear a firearm, you have a choice leave the firearm outside or do not enter my property.....its your freedom of choice.
Click to expand...

Slightly tangential...is that your personal choice on your property?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom