Constitutional carry now in effect in Oklahoma.

[Glitch]

not seeing it

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.

no regulations on weapons seems like they are bad for regulating the mitias we don't have as well as are security

It doesn't matter whether you "see" it or not. It is history, and more importantly, how the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

(emphasis added)

 

[blarg]

It doesn't matter whether you "see" it or not. It is history, and more importantly, how the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(emphasis added)

not my fault i know better then the court


ther no reason to prioritise unregulated gun ownership over then wellbeing of the people

a civil war is going to turn into gorilla fighting and terrorist actions any way in the mean time people die because you don't want any limits on what toys you can have

 

[Rich2018]

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.

And what makes you think it takes just ONE dumb gun owner when mass shootings run at almost one per day and many accidents don't get reported.

 

[TurtleDude]

not my fault i know better then the court


ther no reason to prioritise unregulated gun ownership over then wellbeing of the people

a civil war is going to turn into gorilla fighting and terrorist actions any way in the mean time people die because you don't want any limits on what toys you can have

that argument does not mean you know better than the court. What you are claiming is you are mad that the second amendment prevents gun bans-gun bans you want. And calling guns toys is pretty silly.

why do people like you want to start a war because you're mad that we gun owners vote against the assholes who pretend that gun bans are crime control.

 

[blarg]

that argument does not mean you know better than the court. What you are claiming is you are mad that the second amendment prevents gun bans-gun bans you want. And calling guns toys is pretty silly.

why do people like you want to start a war because you're mad that we gun owners vote against the assholes who pretend that gun bans are crime control.

court gets a lot wrong ask lots of people roe v wade dred scott

sure the 2nd amendment supports gun ownership based on the right to bear arms which exist for the sake of a national militia being necessary for the severity of a free state

since guns are not being used for the sake of keeping the county free bya militia and can be a threat to the security and freedom of its people

what type of weapons you can have and the qualifications you need to have them can be regulated

and so we can have common sense laws the limit gun ownership to responsible people trained in ther use who have no history of assaulting others ( tracking who legally owns mass produced guns and legally made custom ones should help their ) and we don't have to give people the ability to kill dozens at a time in 1 go.

guns are useful tools for hunting and defense and war and im sure they can be a lot of fun to


no ones personally using them for war and you don't need the same guns you would want to fight in a war with to hunt and to have a deadly defence from attackers

being mad you cant use whatever is being mad about your toys being taken away at best

banning certain kinds of guns and other weapons is crime control having standards for who can own guns and how they are secured is crime control knowing who legally owns what gun is crime control the assholes are the people who would rather start a war for ther toys then prevent deaths, and crazy bastards who think they are going to save democracy and human rights if they can only squeeze off one shots fast enough

and the idiots who think less people would die and be coerced if only everyone who could pick up and use a fire arm was armed with whatever they wanted

 

[TurtleDude]

court gets a lot wrong ask lots of people roe v wade dred scott

sure the 2nd amendment supports gun ownership based on the right to bear arms which exist for the sake of a national militia being necessary for the severity of a free state

since guns are not being used for the sake of keeping the county free bya militia and can be a threat to the security and freedom of its people

what type of weapons you can have and the qualifications you need to have them can be regulated

and so we can have common sense laws the limit gun ownership to responsible people trained in ther use who have no history of assaulting others ( tracking who legally owns mass produced guns and legally made custom ones should help their ) and we don't have to give people the ability to kill dozens at a time in 1 go.

guns are useful tools for hunting and defense and war and im sure they can be a lot of fun to


no ones personally using them for war and you don't need the same guns you would want to fight in a war with to hunt and to have a deadly defence from attackers

being mad you cant use whatever is being mad about your toys being taken away at best

banning certain kinds of guns and other weapons is crime control having standards for who can own guns and how they are secured is crime control knowing who legally owns what gun is crime control the assholes are the people who would rather start a war for ther toys then prevent deaths, and crazy bastards who think they are going to save democracy and human rights if they can only squeeze off one shots fast enough

and the idiots who think less people would die and be coerced if only everyone who could pick up and use a fire arm was armed with whatever they wanted

I think you don't understand the bill of rights in general nor the second amendment specifically. On top of that, you make many silly assumptions-such as pretending banning lawful gun ownership will make us safer. Since you clearly don't understand what the second amendment intended, I am not going to bother with other errors.

 

[Praxas]

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.

This is how I view it as well. Open carry is one thing, concealment is another. I don't think it is a infringement on the 2nd amendment to require training and/or competency for conceal and carry. I am 100% for open carry though, we have that in Nevada.

 

[blarg]

I think you don't understand the bill of rights in general nor the second amendment specifically. On top of that, you make many silly assumptions-such as pretending banning lawful gun ownership will make us safer. Since you clearly don't understand what the second amendment intended, I am not going to bother with other errors.

banning lawful gunship would be dumb and bad for personal defense

banking types of weapons seems fine

seems like the 2nd amendment was for letting the people fight with armies of other people using similar personal weapons that were so inaccurate and slow you had to line up a lot of people across from ther enemies and mass fire then reload over and over for major battles

fighting has changed your not going to stop a tyrannical government with the might of the people your going to have to hit and run and make deadly traps in a grinding years-decades long manny sided battle that will drag on for years until you have exhausted the regime and any international support it has in the best case scenario

your not some hero saving the country from external threats or the government that's a fantasy that is killing the innocent now

 

[lwf]

I am tired of showing people with conceal carry permits how to load their gun or take it off safety. They went trough the training and passed and then 5 years later they decide to actually shoot their gun and have no idea how it even works. The training is a joke at best.

Not sure if your experience but I have more hands on experience firing and training and live fire shooting than most law enforcement. My kids have all been trained by me. But there is no school or what you could call documentable formal training. So what exactly are you asking for training wise? I can tell you that the required class training for current CC holders is a joke.

Any training is better than no training. While obviously the more training the better, I'm not taking issue with poor quality firearms training here, nor am I insisting on criminal justice degrees, I'm taking issue with the simple fact that no training is required in constitutional carry jurisdictions. I take issue with this because even though it's passing under the radar of the liberal masses at the moment, all it will take is one tragic incident during an otherwise slow news week to bring national headlines "Drunk civilian accidentally shoots toddler mistaken for coyote," to "Baby killer had legal right to carry with zero training" and finally "When did 'well regulated militia' become 'well-armed unregulated vigilantes?'"

Constitutional carry may have been the intention of the second amendment, and it may work just fine in smaller communities for years to come. But with the political direction of this country, it is a risk to the second amendment, not a victory for it.

 

[lwf]

And what makes you think it takes just ONE dumb gun owner when mass shootings run at almost one per day and many accidents don't get reported.

Because some do get reported. And sometimes they make national news. And every once in a while they trigger massive public outrage. It only takes one incident at the right (or wrong) time. Bump stocks were outlawed before most even knew they existed, and it isn't like they were secret. The liberal majority are just not well educated on firearms. Constitutional carry is another aspect of firearm safety that largely passes under the radar of many. Second amendment proponents would do well to see that it stays that way. The more it spreads, the less likely this is.

 

[lwf]

Anti-2nd amendment trash claimed the same crap during the 1990s.That Clinton ban that caused democrats to get their asses handed to them in the house and senate.

The Clinton ban should be a flashing neon sign that you don't want to be daring the liberals to take your guns. They outnumber you and are primed to retake control of the government sooner rather than later. If you like the second amendment and you enjoy the right to protect yourself with your choice of firearm, then you need to drop the "over my dead body" tough guy routine, stop underestimating your enemy, and start thinking like him. If liberals are irrationally afraid of guns and distrust those who carry them, maybe the best course of action is to do everything in your power to make sure that you give them no reason to fear guns and no reason to distrust those who carry. A good start would be to show them that you support safety training for those who conceal and carry.

Rub their noses in your right to bear arms with zero restrictions, and all it will take is one tragic incident to induce enough public outrage to create their own sweeping restrictions on their own terms. When this happens it's almost never a restrained, thought-out response involving training and permit system, it's almost always straight to a knee-jerk ban to placate the terrified. "Until we figure out what's going on..."

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Any training is better than no training. While obviously the more training the better, I'm not taking issue with poor quality firearms training here, nor am I insisting on criminal justice degrees, I'm taking issue with the simple fact that no training is required in constitutional carry jurisdictions. I take issue with this because even though it's passing under the radar of the liberal masses at the moment, all it will take is one tragic incident during an otherwise slow news week to bring national headlines "Drunk civilian accidentally shoots toddler mistaken for coyote," to "Baby killer had legal right to carry with zero training" and finally "When did 'well regulated militia' become 'well-armed unregulated vigilantes?'"

Constitutional carry may have been the intention of the second amendment, and it may work just fine in smaller communities for years to come. But with the political direction of this country, it is a risk to the second amendment, not a victory for it.

My argument is before conceal carry most people who carried a gun I felt safe around. Since we take the right to protect yourself when needed by carrying a firearm and turned it into a government granted privilege I am seeing guns falling on the floor, people with guns drunk, people who cannot go to the store without their gun, etc. I wanted to run to the local grocery store to get barbeque sauce and my friend says wait I need to get my gun. I told him if it is that dangerous maybe we shouldn't go. I cannot tell you how many people have handed me a loaded gun to look at. I handed it back and asked the to unload it and they didn't know how. Fact. I never had that happen before concealed carry.

 

[Eriech]

What other states allow concealed carry without a license?

The safest in the country ......

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Rich2018]

Because some do get reported. And sometimes they make national news. And every once in a while they trigger massive public outrage. It only takes one incident at the right (or wrong) time. Bump stocks were outlawed before most even knew they existed, and it isn't like they were secret. The liberal majority are just not well educated on firearms. Constitutional carry is another aspect of firearm safety that largely passes under the radar of many. Second amendment proponents would do well to see that it stays that way. The more it spreads, the less likely this is.

Sadley lawmakers can only pass half measures when the only answer is to ban guns.


There are thousands of cases of dumb gun owners and almost nothing is done.

 

[jamesrage]

The Clinton ban should be a flashing neon sign that you don't want to be daring the liberals to take your guns. They outnumber you and are primed to retake control of the government sooner rather than later. If you like the second amendment and you enjoy the right to protect yourself with your choice of firearm, then you need to drop the "over my dead body" tough guy routine, stop underestimating your enemy, and start thinking like him. If liberals are irrationally afraid of guns and distrust those who carry them, maybe the best course of action is to do everything in your power to make sure that you give them no reason to fear guns and no reason to distrust those who carry. A good start would be to show them that you support safety training for those who conceal and carry.

Rub their noses in your right to bear arms with zero restrictions, and all it will take is one tragic incident to induce enough public outrage to create their own sweeping restrictions on their own terms. When this happens it's almost never a restrained, thought-out response involving training and permit system, it's almost always straight to a knee-jerk ban to placate the terrified. "Until we figure out what's going on..."

You keep telling yourself that. Anti-2nd amendment trash don't give two ****s how responsible gun owners are. They could care less if there was only a thousand murders a year or even a hundred murders a year they will still push for bans. Also if anti-2nd amendment trash outnumbered 2nd amendment advocates then bans on semiautomatic firearms at the federal level would have happened a long time ago.Also the Clinton gun ban proved that Americans don't want firearms banned because it cost democrats the house and senate.

 

[Rich2018]

You keep telling yourself that. Anti-2nd amendment trash don't give two ****s how responsible gun owners are. They could care less if there was only a thousand murders a year or even a hundred murders a year they will still push for bans...

Just how paranoid can you get ?

Why do you think the gun-control lobby wants the ban guns ?
Is it just because they don't like gun owners ? The gun-control lobby just wants to spoil the fun of millions of honest citizens who would never even hurt a fly ?

Or might it be that 40,000 annual firearms deaths, countless firearms injuries per year and mass shootings at almost 1 per day are viewed as just a little bit too many ?


Why do you have a gun ?

 

[jamesrage]

any one in a well regulated militia? letting any one have a gun regardless of ther sanity, criminal history, training , and any negligence, when it comes to securing ther weapons sems stupidly insane how can you even relgiate your milita well with that?

seems to be nothing in the constitution talking about restions on what type of arms you can have or on the state knowing what you have either

dont think you can legally murder for your religion or call for specific peoples death though it seems legal to call for the death penalty for people who offend your religion

The intention of the 2nd amendment is so that average citizens have the arms necessary to defend against invasions and to put a tyrannical government at check. It wasn't created so that you or I can go hunting or shoot burglars. So the idea that the government can tell you what firearms you can and can't have, to have a list of who owns want or to seek permission from the government to exercise your 2nd amendment rights amounts to asking a burglar permission to put a security alarm on your building or that burglar dictating what security measures you can and can't implement for your home or business.

 

[jamesrage]

Just how paranoid can you get ?

Why do you think the gun-control lobby wants the ban guns ?
Is it just because they don't like gun owners ? The gun-control lobby just wants to spoil the fun of millions of honest citizens who would never even hurt a fly ?

Or might it be that 40,000 annual firearms deaths, countless firearms injuries per year and mass shootings at almost 1 per day are viewed as just a little bit too many ?


Why do you have a gun ?

Paranoia is a unjust or unfounded fear of something. People like you have said you want to ban all guns.People like you praise the draconian gun control laws of the UK and Australia. People like call for bans on semiautomatic firearms under the guise of assault weapons ban.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/373451-you-guys-can-exhale-now-3.html#post1070863779

I am calling for a ban on all guns.

Paranoid would be if people like you weren't calling for bans, didn't vote for bans and were praising the gun control laws of the UK and Australia and someone was saying you all want to ban guns. So you aren't fooling anyone when you call 2nd amendment supporters paranoid for believing the words you write or say regarding firearm bans.

 

[Rich2018]

Paranoia is a unjust or unfounded fear of something....

No, that's actually a phobia

...people like you have said you want to ban all guns. People like you praise the draconian gun control laws of the UK and Australia. People like call for bans on semiautomatic firearms under the guise of assault weapons ban....

Yes, yes and yes (though preferring a much more extensive gun ban)

...paranoid would be if people like you weren't calling for bans, didn't vote for bans and were praising the gun control laws of the UK and Australia and someone was saying you all want to ban guns. So you aren't fooling anyone when you call 2nd amendment supporters paranoid for believing the words you write or say regarding firearm bans.

The question is not whether we want to ban guns and take your guns away

It is why we want to disarm you

It is NOT because we dislike gun owners and would never invite them round for coffee it is because of the potential death and destruction of lives their toys can cause.


Why do you want a gun ?

 

[bluesmoke]

In other words you included irrelevant statistics to fraudulently boost the number of people actually die of violent deaths in order to give the false impression of how died from firearm homicides.


All a firearm homicide rate is used for is to make a place that has way more actual homicides which is usually ran by liberals seem way safer than a place with less actual homicides.You are not more likely to die from a firearm homicide in Alaska than you in Illinois. Anyone claiming you are more likely to die from a firearm homicide in Alaska than you are in Illinois is either a liar or a brain dead idiot.





Correlation doesn't equal causation. Those laws didn't ban ropes or prevent people from duying of drug overdoses or jumping from a building.PLus those studies never explain how those laws stop people from committing suicide.

“In other words you included irrelevant statistics to fraudulently boost the number of people actually die of violent deaths in order to give the false impression of how died from firearm homicides.”

No. I gave more relevant statistics to include all deaths related to firearms, which is the greater concern. It would be even more relevant to include injuries. Homicides have much less relevance to do with firearm safety law as the greater, positive impact gun laws have on saving lives is in all areas, not just homicide. Saving more lives is more relevant. Limiting statistics to homicide only is ignoring the whole of the problem of people dying and being injured due to the prevalence of guns in people’s lives.

“All a firearm homicide rate is used for is to make a place that has way more actual homicides which is usually ran by liberals seem way safer than a place with less actual homicides.You are not more likely to die from a firearm homicide in Alaska than you in Illinois. Anyone claiming you are more likely to die from a firearm homicide in Alaska than you are in Illinois is either a liar or a brain dead idiot.”

I don’t think the statistics I gave are wrong. The fact is, if I go into a small town that has twice the ratio of murder rate than that of a large city, I am more likely to be murdered in that small town than that large city. Otherwise, the ratios would be different. If more likely in Illinois than Alaska, the homicide rate in Illinois would be higher. If you don’t get that, then I don’t know how you ever got through math class in school. If you went to school.

“Correlation doesn't equal causation”.

You’re not going to get scientific proof of causation in practically anything. If laws were promulgated on scientific proof only, there would hardly be any law passed. Statistically, when you get many states getting the same results from passing similar law, that is statistical support to say there is a relationship between the law and the result unless you can find another possible impact that is also a correlation relatively timed.

“Those laws didn't ban ropes or prevent people from duying of drug overdoses or jumping from a building.”

The point is, gun suicide went down and so did total suicide. So, it can be said those people that didn’t have easy gun access as before chose not to commit either suicide by gun or by other means. I don’t know what you mean to be the relationship between a gun law not addressing what you say. What’s your point?

“PLus those studies never explain how those laws stop people from committing suicide.”

As an example, requiring a waiting period allows a person bent on suicide time to cool-off. Universal background checks can find out if a person has been determined a danger to themselves or others due to mental condition.

The results, the facts, support stronger gun law to reduce gun-related death. Judging the success of such a law by homicide rate only is taking a small part of the whole as if representative of it all, and it’s not.

 

[blarg]

The intention of the 2nd amendment is so that average citizens have the arms necessary to defend against invasions and to put a tyrannical government at check. It wasn't created so that you or I can go hunting or shoot burglars. So the idea that the government can tell you what firearms you can and can't have, to have a list of who owns want or to seek permission from the government to exercise your 2nd amendment rights amounts to asking a burglar permission to put a security alarm on your building or that burglar dictating what security measures you can and can't implement for your home or business.

your not going to stop and invasion or fight the government head to head your just helping people get hurt and murdered please stop with this stupidity and madness

 

[TurtleDude]

your not going to stop and invasion or fight the government head to head your just helping people get hurt and murdered please stop with this stupidity and madness

you keeping track of what goes on around the world in countries where people normally cannot own firearms? I think there are more Americans with firearms than there are soldiers in the armies of the ten biggest military nations on earth.

 

[blarg]

you keeping track of what goes on around the world in countries where people normally cannot own firearms? I think there are more Americans with firearms than there are soldiers in the armies of the ten biggest military nations on earth.

a lite bit seems even people with guns get ****ed over fighting people with tanks air craft and missiles and other fancy fighting tools and that people who have less resources seem to use hit and run attacks ambushes and traps when fighting a better equipped people


and that during a revolution /civil war people don't seem to picky about who gets hurt

and that other revolutionaries are also the enemy if they don't want the same things

just don't stick those armed americans in 1 spot

 

[TurtleDude]

a lite bit seems even people with guns get ****ed over fighting people with tanks air craft and missiles and other fancy fighting tools and that people who have less resources seem to use hit and run attacks ambushes and traps when fighting a better equipped people


and that during a revolution /civil war people don't seem to picky about who gets hurt

and that other revolutionaries are also the enemy if they don't want the same things

just don't stick those armed americans in 1 spot

1) many in the military will not support a dictatorship trying to seize guns

2) the government cannot carpet bomb cities that have both rebels and collaborators in the same area

 

[blarg]

1) many in the military will not support a dictatorship trying to seize guns

2) the government cannot carpet bomb cities that have both rebels and collaborators in the same area

1) ok?

2) bombing people who you are fighting while they hide next to people you don't want to bomb happens and its humanly possible to blow thing up with a bit more precision as well

bombing any place controlled by rebels seems doable