Constitutional carry now in effect in Oklahoma.

[bluesmoke]

When they say "actual gun deaths" do they mean actual number of homicides and death from accidental shootings, not suicides or rates ? I am not asking about the firearm homicide rate because a tiny populated state like Alaska in 2017 had 78 homicides but a homicide rate of 10.6 while California had 2,022 homicides but a homicide rate of 5.1. I am asking about actual number of homicide and accidental deaths commited with the use of a firearm. I know how anti-2nd amendment trash love to talk about how Illinois has a lower homicide rate than say Alaska as though somehow the roughest part in an Alaskan city is somehow more dangerous than the roughest part in an Illinois city.

I don't give a rats ass about suicide seeing how stricter gun laws can't stop someone from committing suicide because a couple dozen or so other countries with way stricter gun laws than the US proves that. I know some anti-2nd amendment trash poster once posted a link trying to claim stricter gun laws lowered suicides even though him and the study he posted couldn't prove how it stopped someone from getting a rope, jumping off a building or some other means of committing suicide.

“When they say "actual gun deaths" do they mean actual number of homicides and death from accidental shootings, not suicides or rates ?”

No. It’s all firearm-related deaths.

“I am not asking about the firearm homicide rate because a tiny populated state like Alaska in 2017 had 78 homicides but a homicide rate of 10.6 while California had 2,022 homicides but a homicide rate of 5.1. I am asking about actual number of homicide and accidental deaths commited with the use of a firearm. I know how anti-2nd amendment trash love to talk about how Illinois has a lower homicide rate than say Alaska as though somehow the roughest part in an Alaskan city is somehow more dangerous than the roughest part in an Illinois city.”

All the homicide rates above indicate is that a person in Alaska is about twice as likely, 106/51, to die of firearm homicide than a person in Illinois.

“I don't give a rats ass about suicide seeing how stricter gun laws can't stop someone from committing suicide because a couple dozen or so other countries with way stricter gun laws than the US proves that.”

Speaking for the US, states that enact stronger gun law result in lower overall suicide rate, including lower suicide by firearm.

“I know some anti-2nd amendment trash poster once posted a link trying to claim stricter gun laws lowered suicides even though him and the study he posted couldn't prove how it stopped someone from getting a rope, jumping off a building or some other means of committing suicide.”

If someone should so choose for lack of access to a firearm, they may do so. It just happens less often with stronger gun law.

 

[lwf]

And you think that media fed hysteria is a good thing?

Of course not. That's why I am against no-permit carry. The media is apt to pounce on a story of an untrained civilian carrying without a permit who accidentally shoots and kills someone, stirring up a wave of anti-gun hysteria that is likely to increase federal gun control measures. Those who aren't against no-permit carry are underestimating the danger that media fed hysteria poses to second amendment rights.

 

[lwf]

That's what people said when 80% of states went to shall issue permitting, and then again more than a dozen other states went constitutional carry over the past 10 years. So far it hasn't panned out.

And I hope it stays that way, but I don't believe that it will.

 

[lwf]

It is? So why does this trouble not manifest in the many open carry States?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It only takes one incident.

 

[lwf]

If you are not in favor of Constitutional carry then you are not in favor of the 2nd Amendment.

I am not in favor of constitutional carry because I am in favor of the second amendment. While I believe it should be a right, I am not convinced that it will be in the America of the future. Constitutional carry runs the risk of hastening this process.

 

[lwf]

Won't argue that , but the MSM do that over anything a gun is involved in so nothing new.

That should be a flashing neon sign that constitutional carry is a terrible idea. America is drifting left. The MSM capitalizes on this and sensationalizes any news that frightens the left and plays into their agenda. No-permit, no-training, carry is pulling the rubber band too far to the right. The inevitable snap back to the left when there is an inevitable accident worthy of "national outrage" is going to be much harder than it otherwise would have been.

 

[lwf]

Democrats and anti-2nd amendment liberals have caused this with their crazy proposals and blame of legal gun owners for a few nut cases.

No argument. But rather than finding some common ground between conservatives and liberals, conservatives are playing tug-of-war and yanking hard to the right with no-permit, no-training conceal and carry. This is foolish. Liberals are stronger than conservatives and will continue to get stronger. If they decide to make conceal and carry their token outrage and yank the rope back to the left, it will be the conservatives who are in the mud. All it will take is a tragic accident by someone untrained who is nonetheless legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm.

 

[lwf]

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.

No it isn't. This is naive. The strength of the second amendment is subject only to the will of those bound by it, in spite of what hardcore constitutionalists may think. Any amendment can be struck down or modified with enough public support. Liberals are a powerful political force, and gaining in power every year. They will decide whether or not future Americans have a right to bear arms, and if they do, they will decide the conditions Americans must meet to do so.

 

[SkyChief]

Liberals are a powerful political force, and gaining in power every year. They will decide whether or not future Americans have a right to bear arms, and if they do, they will decide the conditions Americans must meet to do so.

It is unimportant how powerful you think you liberals are. You will NOT decide whether or not Americans have a right to keep and bear arms.

Government didn't give us that right. God did.

The 2nd Amendment only recognizes the right to keep and bear arms - it doesn't give us the right.

You really need to learn the difference between rights and privileges.

 

[lwf]

It is unimportant how powerful you think you liberals are. You will NOT decide whether or not Americans have a right to keep and bear arms.

Government didn't give us that right. God did.

The 2nd Amendment only recognizes the right to keep and bear arms - it doesn't give us the right.

You really need to learn the difference between rights and privileges.

God gave us the right to carry RPG launchers and black tar heroin too...

 

[TurtleDude]

God gave us the right to carry RPG launchers and black tar heroin too...

a most silly point. the fact is, the only way liberals can try to get rid of guns is an incremental whittling away of our rights. But as some point, a line in the sand will be drawn. And if it comes to that, i doubt the left will prevail. Most of the people who are well versed in using arms are not liberals

 

[SkyChief]

God gave us the right to carry RPG launchers and black tar heroin too...

King George III sent his redcoats to the colonies to tax them and take their guns.

He learned an important lesson about gun confiscation.

If you gun-grabbers can muster the courage to take our guns, we'll be obliged to teach this lesson again.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms!” - Thomas Jefferson

:ind: :ind:

 

[lwf]

a most silly point. the fact is, the only way liberals can try to get rid of guns is an incremental whittling away of our rights. But as some point, a line in the sand will be drawn. And if it comes to that, i doubt the left will prevail. Most of the people who are well versed in using arms are not liberals

And I can think of no better way to trigger liberals to incrementally whittle away our right to bear arms than by allowing civilians with zero training to carry them.

 

[lwf]

King George III sent his redcoats to the colonies to tax them and take their guns.

He learned an important lesson about gun confiscation.

If you gun-grabbers can muster the courage to take our guns, we'll be obliged to teach this lesson again.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms!” - Thomas Jefferson

:ind: :ind:

Why risk going this way when you can meet in the middle? Permit carry is a good compromise.

 

[TurtleDude]

And I can think of no better way to trigger liberals to incrementally whittle away our right to bear arms than by allowing civilians with zero training to carry them.

well there is a very good argument that once the second amendment was incorporated, that is what the law requires.Now if we have a big spike in untrained gun packers shooting the wrong people, your point could well have merit

 

[Rexedgar]

It is unimportant how powerful you think you liberals are. You will NOT decide whether or not Americans have a right to keep and bear arms.

Government didn't give us that right. God did.

The 2nd Amendment only recognizes the right to keep and bear arms - it doesn't give us the right.

You really need to learn the difference between rights and privileges.

Can you direct me to the passage in the Bible that supports this?

 

[TurtleDude]

Can you direct me to the passage in the Bible that supports this?

His point is one that the founders agreed to-that natural rights of man are endowed by the creator and not the government. While one can debate the actual "truth" of this until the second coming, the fact remains that the founders set up the constitution based on this ideal and it is true that they never intended to second amendment to "GIVE RIGHTS" but merely to prevent the government from interfering with rights that the federal government had no business involving itself with

 

[jimbo]

Why risk going this way when you can meet in the middle? Permit carry is a good compromise.

For the left there is no middle. There is only incremental steps toward outright bans.

 

[Rexedgar]

His point is one that the founders agreed to-that natural rights of man are endowed by the creator and not the government. While one can debate the actual "truth" of this until the second coming, the fact remains that the founders set up the constitution based on this ideal and it is true that they never intended to second amendment to "GIVE RIGHTS" but merely to prevent the government from interfering with rights that the federal government had no business involving itself with

Where does it say that “keep and bear” comes from whatever God you worship?

 

[TurtleDude]

Where does it say that “keep and bear” comes from whatever God you worship?

I am agnostic. but I am more than happy to edify you about constitutional theory because I have a professional background in it-though I believe you are probably familiar with the arguments despite the silly question you posed.

The second amendment was intended to guarantee and ratify what the founders believed was a right man had since the dawn of time-the right of self defense (which is why those who ask why we don't support people owning Nukes or anthrax or MOABS are either dishonest or ignorant of this topic). The founders intended keeping and bearing as protecting the rights of free men to possess arms and carry them

 

[d0gbreath]

Texas is probably raking in too much money with our licensing fees.

 

[TurtleDude]

Texas is probably raking in too much money with our licensing fees.

I don't think any court will apply the second amendment to a state law that requires a permit to carry concealed. The second amendment prohibitions come to play if a state bans both concealed and open carry or requires a permit to do either. A law that permits open carry without a license but requires a permit for concealed carry will-IMHO-not be found conflicting with the McDonald Incorporation. However, i believe that the Shall issue states will ultimately face court interference since "shall issue" reeks of arbitrary and capricious infection.

 

[lwf]

For the left there is no middle. There is only incremental steps toward outright bans.

So why bother finding common ground? Might as well push the limits as hard as we can to the right and force their hand?

That hasn't worked very well for conservatives. I'd rather have a century of grudgingly-tolerated permit carry than a decade of controversial constitutional carry followed by 90 years of a draconian, over-reaching ban on all conceal and carry in the wake of a tragic accident involving an untrained moron and a baby.

 

[Rexedgar]

I am agnostic. but I am more than happy to edify you about constitutional theory because I have a professional background in it-though I believe you are probably familiar with the arguments despite the silly question you posed.

The second amendment was intended to guarantee and ratify what the founders believed was a right man had since the dawn of time-the right of self defense (which is why those who ask why we don't support people owning Nukes or anthrax or MOABS are either dishonest or ignorant of this topic). The founders intended keeping and bearing as protecting the rights of free men to possess arms and carry them

Everyone is familiar with your resume. I was asking the poster who posted this:

Sky Chief

Instead of you trying to make “his point,” why not let them reply. I fail to see the logic in admitting to being an agnostic and then turn around and make an argument as the “God given “ right.

Silly question snark noted.

 

[TurtleDude]

So why bother finding common ground? Might as well push the limits as hard as we can to the right and force their hand?

That hasn't worked very well for conservatives. I'd rather have a century of grudgingly-tolerated permit carry than a decade of controversial constitutional carry followed by 90 years of a draconian, over-reaching ban on all conceal and carry in the wake of a tragic accident involving an untrained moron and a baby.

what common ground/ we want to own and use guns and we vote against those who push gun control that impacts our rights. They want to ban guns and pander to the sheeple by passing gun bans. In fact, I believe many of the leaders of the anti gun movement are motivated mainly about punishing pro gun voters

so what is the common ground?