• 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!

Constitutional carry now in effect in Oklahoma.

lwf said:
Yikes. I'm pro second amendment, but carrying a firearm in public without training of any kind is just asking for trouble. I foresee this as ultimately doing more harm to 2nd amendment rights in OK than good. The 2nd amendment is only as strong as it's dumbest adherent.
Click to expand...

If you are not in favor of Constitutional carry then you are not in favor of the 2nd Amendment.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think his point is not one I'd dismiss out of hand. My position has always been, the second amendment allows open carry. States do not violate the second amendment with SHALL Issue concealed carry laws that require some objective test of competency.
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree. There are no modifiers in shall not be infringed.

I carry, and I do shoot. I think as with anything, some degree of competency is a good idea. However it has never been shown that a prevalence of legally owned firearms contributes in any way to an increase in crime. My observation has been that most legal firearms owners fall into two categories. Those who shoot (and/or practice) those who never remove the weapon from its holster. Neither are involved in malicious use. Criminals by definition are not legal users.
 
jimbo said:
If you are not in favor of Constitutional carry then you are not in favor of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

If you are not in favor of yelling "Fire" in a theater, you are not in favor of the 1st Amendment.


See how stupid that sounds?
 
calamity said:
If you are not in favor of yelling "Fire" in a theater, you are not in favor of the 1st Amendment.


See how stupid that sounds?
Click to expand...

Horrible analogy. There's actually a good reason to prohibit people from yelling "fire" in a theater.
 
TurtleDude said:
That has some merit. People who pack concealed should be trained. The problem is-anti gun activists want harassment not training. My son got his CCW at 21. Every month I give him a case of 9mm. I put him on my membership at the local indoor range and I pay his dues at the other gun club where we shoot steel. A couple times a month, I take him to the range and he trains seriously with me. He also has the benefit of legal advice not only from a retired prosecutor, but also someone who had to shoot someone years ago, and knows what to do in that environment.
Click to expand...

A VERY good point. There are a good amount of people that carry, and have no clue the heart pounding stress involved in a gunfight or shooting an armed attacker. I was shocked at the number of people that have never even been in a fistfight, let alone a gunfight. It's like any skill, you must practice, practice practice. I wonder how many people even practice clearing leather. I know some I talked to don't even do that! An actual gunfight is NOT a good time to find out if you can quickly draw your gun, especially from a shoulder rig.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think his point is not one I'd dismiss out of hand. My position has always been, the second amendment allows open carry. States do not violate the second amendment with SHALL Issue concealed carry laws that require some objective test of competency.
Click to expand...

That is where you and I disagree. Nobody is required to demonstrate their competence with grammar and punctuation in order to write or speak freely. Nobody is required to obtain a license or permit to exercise their religious belief or to associate with others. They are all infringements by the anti-American left against my constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Any State that has any kind of license, permit, or any competency requirements for any individual right is intentionally infringing on that right and oppressing its citizens.
 
lwf said:
I would argue that you are underestimating the power of the MSM to fan the flames of gun hysteria at your own peril.
Click to expand...
Won't argue that , but the MSM do that over anything a gun is involved in so nothing new.
 
TurtleDude said:
How many people actually think that suicide prevention is what motivates the hard core leftist gun control advocates?
Click to expand...
The only motivation is the numbers the wring out of it for gun deaths or rather death by gun. Guns have no life therefore can't die.
 
zsu2357 said:
The only motivation is the numbers the wring out of it for gun deaths or rather death by gun. Guns have no life therefore can't die.
Click to expand...

It's also that for the same reason guns cannot kill.
 
Isn't it about time for the next high profile mass shooting?
 
jimbo said:
I would have to disagree. There are no modifiers in shall not be infringed.

I carry, and I do shoot. I think as with anything, some degree of competency is a good idea. However it has never been shown that a prevalence of legally owned firearms contributes in any way to an increase in crime. My observation has been that most legal firearms owners fall into two categories. Those who shoot (and/or practice) those who never remove the weapon from its holster. Neither are involved in malicious use. Criminals by definition are not legal users.
Click to expand...

Here is the issue. When the second amendment was issued, it was only applicable to the federal government (US v. Cruikshank). The federal government had no power to involve itself in when where and how people carried arms or what arms they could use. STATE GOVERNMENT power was determined by their own constitutions. Most states prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons EVEN IF they had a second amendment.

Along comes the 14th and for some reason, it took over 100 years for the second amendment to be applied to the states through incorporation (McDonald v Chicago). Now we have an amendment conflicting with the proper (in some cases) police power of the states.
 
zsu2357 said:
You really do hope for it don't you? You want nothing more than a bunch of firefights and death to prove some point.
Click to expand...

your claim is certainly justified based on his posts
 
Glitch said:
That is where you and I disagree. Nobody is required to demonstrate their competence with grammar and punctuation in order to write or speak freely. Nobody is required to obtain a license or permit to exercise their religious belief or to associate with others. They are all infringements by the anti-American left against my constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Any State that has any kind of license, permit, or any competency requirements for any individual right is intentionally infringing on that right and oppressing its citizens.
Click to expand...

see my post above (66)
 
lwf said:
What other states allow concealed carry without a license?
Click to expand...
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Kentucky – allow law-abiding individuals to carry a concealed handgun without a government-issued permit.
 
zsu2357 said:
You really do hope for it don't you? You want nothing more than a bunch of firefights and death to prove some point.
Click to expand...

Uh, that is exactly what happened in Missouri. So, what's your point?
 
lwf said:
Yikes. I'm pro second amendment, but carrying a firearm in public without training of any kind is just asking for trouble. I foresee this as ultimately doing more harm to 2nd amendment rights in OK than good. The 2nd amendment is only as strong as it's dumbest adherent.
Click to expand...

Democrats and anti-2nd amendment liberals have caused this with their crazy proposals and blame of legal gun owners for a few nut cases.
 
TurtleDude said:
see my post above (66)
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with your personal requirement to test people's competency? Alaska has no such requirement, for example, but you think we should. Why?

That is just another infringement against my rights.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Democrats and anti-2nd amendment liberals have caused this with their crazy proposals and blame of legal gun owners for a few nut cases.
Click to expand...

40,000 gun deaths per year is a little more than a "few nut cases." :roll:
 
Glitch said:
What has that got to do with your personal requirement to test people's competency? Alaska has no such requirement, for example, but you think we should. Why?

That is just another infringement against my rights.
Click to expand...

I am pointing out that I doubt any court will find that the imposition of the second amendment upon the states will strike down shall issue concealed weapons requirements for permits
 
lwf said:
The 2nd amendment is only as strong as it's dumbest adherent.
Click to expand...
It's actually stronger than that.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the People to keep and bear arms. There are no conditions on the intelligence or proficiency of the People that are protected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom