Open Carry Law

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

…And there in a nutshell is the reason for every weapon control measure ever put on the books. Can’t have those uppity […] (fill in the blank with your choice of second-class citizen: blacks, Jews, dissidents, Catholics, Armenians, rebels, Sioux, Carthaginians…) having weapons. Makes them ever so much harder to tyrranize…

[/quote]

Yep.

Akin to these days where our fellow T-Nationeers from MS and Al “know these crazy deer hunters who don’t practice adequate gun safety” so therefore all Mississippians and Alabamians must therefore “prove they are responsible” before exercising a fundamental right given to them by God and backed up with an ironclad guarantee in their state and federal constitutions. You know…“just like we do with automobile drivers.” [/quote]

I never said I thought we “should” in reality. I did say that it would be ideal if you could prevent known idiots from carrying however that was realistically unfeasible without trampling the 2nd and therefore should not be done.

However to be fair, your 1st amendment rights are limited when it comes to the well being of others. Libel, Slander and yelling fire in a theater are all examples of restrictions placed on the first. Also with the right to vote I do believe that some form of ID should be shown because voter fraud is just to freaking easy. And the only reasons dems are against it is because it keeps them winning elections.

102

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

…And there in a nutshell is the reason for every weapon control measure ever put on the books. Can’t have those uppity […] (fill in the blank with your choice of second-class citizen: blacks, Jews, dissidents, Catholics, Armenians, rebels, Sioux, Carthaginians…) having weapons. Makes them ever so much harder to tyrranize…

[/quote]

Yep.

Akin to these days where our fellow T-Nationeers from MS and Al “know these crazy deer hunters who don’t practice adequate gun safety” so therefore all Mississippians and Alabamians must therefore “prove they are responsible” before exercising a fundamental right given to them by God and backed up with an ironclad guarantee in their state and federal constitutions. You know…“just like we do with automobile drivers.” [/quote]

I never said I thought we “should” in reality. I did say that it would be ideal if you could prevent known idiots from carrying however that was realistically unfeasible without trampling the 2nd and therefore should not be done.

However to be fair, your 1st amendment rights are limited when it comes to the well being of others. Libel, Slander and yelling fire in a theater are all examples of restrictions placed on the first. Also with the right to vote I do believe that some form of ID should be shown because voter fraud is just to freaking easy. And the only reasons dems are against it is because it keeps them winning elections.

[/quote]

Exactly. And honestly you are ignorant if you think any politician regardless of which side cares about your rights.

105

So should felons be able to carry guns? They can still exercise their other rights, why not that one?

108

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
So should felons be able to carry guns? They can still exercise their other rights, why not that one?[/quote]

Really? A felon in prison can peaceably assemble? Worship as he pleases? Deny searches without a warrant?
[/quote]

Should have clarified “after” prison.

109

Does it bother you that people vote in elections when they are totally ignorant as to the issues and policies of the people that they are voting for? Not asking if you think these people should have their right to vote restricted, just if it bugs you that they do not take the responsibility that comes with that right seriously.

110

A convicted felon (legally a slave of the state under the 13th amendment) has far fewer rights than an emancipated slave did after the Civil War. A freed slave after the 14th and 15th amendments had, at least on paper, all the rights of full citizenship, including the right to vote. That he was not always allowed to exercise these rights is irrelevant. He was guaranteed these rights under the Constitution. An ex-convict does not have these rights.

And this should give one pause. Throughout history, the one right that slaves did not have was the right to keep and bear arms.

Every infringement on the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of property, conscience and thought is another step toward slavery.

111

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Does it bother you that people vote in elections when they are totally ignorant as to the issues and policies of the people that they are voting for? Not asking if you think these people should have their right to vote restricted, just if it bugs you that they do not take the responsibility that comes with that right seriously.[/quote]

No, it bothers me that others’ freedoms and property can be restricted and/or taken if a majority votes that way. I don’t trust others with my freedom.

112

I would not mind an open carry law around here, seeing how SCOTUS just ordered California to release 10,000 prisoners immediately.

These are not the “low-level drug offenders”, those were already released.

Can’t wait to hear the screams when the crime stats go up, and with some already-strict gun laws passed, I am curious to see if we become Chicaga-fornia.

113

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Or do you mean after prison? If so, you are speaking of situations where one by his actions has willingly forfeited his right(s). Forfeiting his gun rights is part of his sentence even after his prison days have ended.

I DO believe, however, that many convicted felons (non-violent felonies) should NOT receive a lifetime sentence of not being able to defend themselves or their country or their fellow citizens with a weapon that fires a projectile fueled by burning powder.

Do you think a free man who has not committed a violent felony should have to prove beforehand that he’s likely not to do so in order to receive permission from his government to exercise any of his rights?

Do you understand what a “free man” is in this context? A felon is never truly a “free man” again. Like I said, I disagree with this depending on the situation.

[/quote]

There is legislation in motion and I believe actually on the books that allow non-violent felons to obtain all right back to them after a period of 7 years after exiting prison and completing everything required of them. I am all for this. But violent felons not so much. But on the flip side they always end up with guns anyways… so…

114

We have open carry in New Mexico. No license needed. Anywhere but bars, I think.

Very common to see men and women with a large frame semi-automatic on the hip going to the grocery store.

I tend to carry in the field due to critters that need to be shot, but also all over the Reservation/National Forest that backs up to it because of: (1) bears and (2) pot growers like to grow pot up here and will kill you.

Amazingly, we haven’t had mass shootouts since the Lincon County Wars and Billy the Kid, despite what the liberals will tell you.

115

[quote]Bauber wrote:
There is legislation in motion and I believe actually on the books that allow non-violent felons to obtain all right back to them after a period of 7 years after exiting prison and completing everything required of them. I am all for this. But violent felons not so much. But on the flip side they always end up with guns anyways… so…
[/quote]

Your last sentence is exactly right. Now think about this:

Should someone deemed by a court system as safe to release into the general population of this country not be allowed to defend himself? Think about the reasons everybody always gives for owning and carrying a gun. Should others, who are not in custody, not be allowed that right? If someone is too dangerous to exercise any of their freedoms, the others also need to be taken. If you are too dangerous to be trusted with the ability to protect yourself, then you are too dangerous to be trusted to walk amongst the rest of the population.

116

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:
There is legislation in motion and I believe actually on the books that allow non-violent felons to obtain all right back to them after a period of 7 years after exiting prison and completing everything required of them. I am all for this. But violent felons not so much. But on the flip side they always end up with guns anyways… so…
[/quote]

Your last sentence is exactly right. Now think about this:

Should someone deemed by a court system as safe to release into the general population of this country not be allowed to defend himself? Think about the reasons everybody always gives for owning and carrying a gun. Should others, who are not in custody, not be allowed that right? If someone is too dangerous to exercise any of their freedoms, the others also need to be taken. If you are too dangerous to be trusted with the ability to protect yourself, then you are too dangerous to be trusted to walk amongst the rest of the population.[/quote]

I disagree. Citizens get the benefit of the doubt. Felons lost that benefit.

Would I agree with you if life in prison and the death penalty were able to be much more liberally applied (like killing rapists and others who just need to die), sure. But, for whatever reason, we aren’t allowed to do that anymore.

117

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
I disagree. Citizens get the benefit of the doubt. Felons lost that benefit.

Would I agree with you if life in prison and the death penalty were able to be much more liberally applied (like killing rapists and others who just need to die), sure. But, for whatever reason, we aren’t allowed to do that anymore.[/quote]

How much more liberally can life in prison be applied? People can receive it for drug offenses. It’s very easy to take rights from all if all don’t stand up for the rights of some.

118

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
I disagree. Citizens get the benefit of the doubt. Felons lost that benefit.

Would I agree with you if life in prison and the death penalty were able to be much more liberally applied (like killing rapists and others who just need to die), sure. But, for whatever reason, we aren’t allowed to do that anymore.[/quote]

How much more liberally can life in prison be applied? People can receive it for drug offenses. It’s very easy to take rights from all if all don’t stand up for the rights of some.[/quote]

Well, I’m for killing cattle thieves, car thieves, pedohiles, and rapists and legalizing drugs. But the Supreme Court disagrees, so it’s moot.

Felons were stripped of certain rights since before this country was a country. It has not proven to be a slippery slope and there is good reason not to trust felons, given that 3/4 of them return to crime after release from prison.

119

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
Well, I’m for killing cattle thieves, car thieves, pedohiles, and rapists and legalizing drugs. But the Supreme Court disagrees, so it’s moot.

Felons were stripped of certain rights since before this country was a country. It has not proven to be a slippery slope and there is good reason not to trust felons, given that 3/4 of them return to crime after release from prison.[/quote]

It hasn’t? Find a list of felonies then and now, and if it hasn’t greatly increased, then I’ll admit I’m wrong and that it’s not a slippery slope.

What crimes do felons return to? Almost everything is now a crime and felons are on the government radar. Also, what about the 1/4 who doesn’t return to crime? It’s definitely not right to take their rights based on what the 3/4 does. Collectivism is not right.

Again, I’m fine with keeping someone who is definitely going to commit a crime again locked up, but not with taking their rights once they’re free. If they can’t be trusted with freedom, then keep them locked up.

I would prefer not say to the government, “I’m fine with you taking everything from me as long as you don’t imprison or kill me. If you say something is wrong, then it is. If you tell me that it’s a crime to not tell you about my Jewish friend in the basement, then I will not only tell you about him, but bring him to you.” The way things are now, the government can just make the whole country a prison by continuing to increase the number of felonies, and let the prisoners/citizens pay for their own housing.

Government divides and conquers. “You can’t trust your white/black/Hispanic/Asian/felon(caught him trespassing on school property when he was 8) neighbor, and you need me to protect you. Commit your way to me; trust also in me, and I shall bring it to pass.”

120

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
Well, I’m for killing cattle thieves, car thieves, pedohiles, and rapists and legalizing drugs. But the Supreme Court disagrees, so it’s moot.

Felons were stripped of certain rights since before this country was a country. It has not proven to be a slippery slope and there is good reason not to trust felons, given that 3/4 of them return to crime after release from prison.[/quote]

It hasn’t? Find a list of felonies then and now, and if it hasn’t greatly increased, then I’ll admit I’m wrong and that it’s not a slippery slope.

What crimes do felons return to? Almost everything is now a crime and felons are on the government radar. Also, what about the 1/4 who doesn’t return to crime? It’s definitely not right to take their rights based on what the 3/4 does. Collectivism is not right.

Again, I’m fine with keeping someone who is definitely going to commit a crime again locked up, but not with taking their rights once they’re free. If they can’t be trusted with freedom, then keep them locked up.

I would prefer not say to the government, “I’m fine with you taking everything from me as long as you don’t imprison or kill me. If you say something is wrong, then it is. If you tell me that it’s a crime to not tell you about my Jewish friend in the basement, then I will not only tell you about him, but bring him to you.” The way things are now, the government can just make the whole country a prison by continuing to increase the number of felonies, and let the prisoners/citizens pay for their own housing.

Government divides and conquers. “You can’t trust your white/black/Hispanic/Asian/felon(caught him trespassing on school property when he was 8) neighbor, and you need me to protect you. Commit your way to me; trust also in me, and I shall bring it to pass.”[/quote]

The only way I would be for this is if the requirements for execution were lowered to those that were in effect when the founding fathers first constructed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Trespassing is not a felony by the way. However I promote giving felons their guns back upon release from prison, if we can execute rapists, murderers, and child molesters.