JulietTango
Member
No. Just plain no.
What the Government gives it can take away. The right to carry laws are successfully being passed on the State level and being won in the Courts.
+1
No. Just plain no.
What the Government gives it can take away. The right to carry laws are successfully being passed on the State level and being won in the Courts.
Will NEVER happen. period.Whats your idea on allowing people to carry nation wide then? we should be allowed to carry nation wide without stupid restrictive laws.
No. But, thanks. I think that the ACLU almost had heart failure (more's the pity) at the prospect of a national ID card. We are a nation embedded in gun ownership and privacy. Historically and culturally.
Not really my idea idea originally. Bunch of dudes in the late 1700's wrote part of a document summing it up well. Basically says the government doesn't have any business messing with the right of the people to own and carry weapons.Whats your idea on allowing people to carry nation wide then?
Not really my idea idea originally. Bunch of dudes in the late 1700's wrote part of a document summing it up well. Basically says the government doesn't have any business messing with the right of the people to own and carry weapons.
FLTC. No.
License: permission to do that which would otherwise be unlawful.
My lawful right to carry arms does not come under federal authority to grant or deny. It’s jsut not theirs to regulate. The 2nd A says they need to keep their cotton pickin’ hands off of it .
Remember, the act of applying for a license is an acknowledgment that the grantor has the right to give you ‘temporary permission’ or the prerogative to deny.
Admittedly the nuances to ccw when crossing state lines is a hassle... but I’m happy enough to deal with the implications of those rights being (as they are,) reserved to the states.
Next I will say that it’s a good idea to have understanding of what the laws are when it comes to use of a firearm. A little education goes a long way. The way I see it, the federal gooberment should set a minimum standard to which people should follow to be licensed to carry which includes some basic education and competency test. The states should then by law be required to either accept the federal standard or establish their own which meets or exceeds the standard, but they MUST allow licensed carry, then like drivers licenses it should be honored in all states.
So your stance is to just give everybody a gun, and hope for the best. Sounds like you want it to be government provided and funded too so let’s see what we get for the lowest bid, how effective is it? How durable is it? How can it not be taken advantage of? Is there free ammo to train with? How do we keep granny from giving her ammo to the kids that go out robbing others? Sounds like we have some new standards to meet that way too.In other words you support Jim Crow laws.
What you are proposing is discrimination of anyone that does not meet your standards.
Too poor to afford to take the required tests - skip things like putting food on the table and a roof over their head.
Cannot afford to take time off of work - go get a better job then.
Cannot afford to hire someone to babysit the kids - should have thought about that before having children.
Can not read the course materials - go back to school and learn to read. What’s that you say? You did graduate from a public school. Well it is no wonder that you can’t read.
In fear of a abusive ex-spouse or boyfriend - well you should stay married or live with him and avoid making him mad.
The real world is a lot different than your Internet one.
I will start this off by saying that I don’t have as much of a tinfoil hat as some do, but I do believe that Uncle Sam has a good handle on who owns and uses firearms. Internet searches are tracked and I guarantee that sites like THR, TFB, ARF, RFC, and a whole bunch of the manufacturer sites are monitored in some way or another, so if you have ever posted on here or elsewhere then there is at least that much evidence to show that you are a firearm owner/user.
Next I will say that it’s a good idea to have understanding of what the laws are when it comes to use of a firearm. A little education goes a long way. The way I see it, the federal gooberment should set a minimum standard to which people should follow to be licensed to carry which includes some basic education and competency test. The states should then by law be required to either accept the federal standard or establish their own which meets or exceeds the standard, but they MUST allow licensed carry, then like drivers licenses it should be honored in all states.
So in a roundabout way, I think we should keep our state permits, but there should be a federal mandate for other states to honor state issued licenses.
So your stance is to just give everybody a gun, and hope for the best. Sounds like you want it to be government provided and funded too so let’s see what we get for the lowest bid, how effective is it? How durable is it? How can it not be taken advantage of? Is there free ammo to train with? How do we keep granny from giving her ammo to the kids that go out robbing others? Sounds like we have some new standards to meet that way too.
How much does it cost to get basic drivers license training through a pamphlet handed out for free from the DMV? On the rare occasion that a person is completely illiterate they (govt) will pay a proctor to read the material for training and questions during the exam to the person. The basics can apparently be taught in 90 minutes in Tennessee so call it 2 hours after exam. If a person can’t find 2 hours once a decade then they probably can’t find time to be out and about. I guarantee that they have found that much time to sleep in, watch tv, or some other leisure activity. As for cost, if they can’t afford X but can afford cigarettes and booze then that’s a personal choice.
Be careful who you tag with racist comments too. There are a whole lot of things that I have been called but that’s certainly not one of them. Jim Crow laws are what they are, but other laws equally discriminate and are highly approved. Want to vote? Wait til your 18. Want to drink? Wait til your 21. That’s discrimination on age. Get a divorce and see what legal mechanisms are truly equal as most favor the female. Go through a custody battle and see how discriminatory that is towards the father. He’ll go get a drivers license and see if you can pass the test if you want your Jim Crow laws based on education.
I post an honest answer and I get called a racist and my answer has been twisted and contorted to a “nightmare”. I’m probably done here. You folks with your hard right stance are doing so well in the polls and in the legislatures that I guess you all can take care of us all. Realistically, does anybody think it a good idea to airdrop a crate of glocks into the tribal lands where people have never seen a gun before? They have no clue as to function, operation, or otherwise. They may figure it out, they may not. That is exactly the same as just giving people blanket ability to carry a pistol. They need to understand a few things. Basics. How to aim, how to reload, when they can legally do what. I guarantee that anyone here will either get a bit of information online or from a family member or friend before they just start carrying a gun, and that probably happened as a kid when you got introduced to guns by a father/grandfather/uncle/neighbor... Many states provide free classes for a hunters safety class which is now a requirement to be able to hunt. I guess that free class of basic information is a Jim Crow requirement designed to hold down the poor and is a nightmare to the hunting community. Likewise there should be a very basic and either cheap or free class for carry purposes. Go spend an hour or two learning the basics. If you don’t want to do that then don’t carry. Yes a idiotic fascist dictator like Virginia has now might try to foul things up, but that’s who got voted in and that’s who needs to be voted out and controlled through the legal system. Common sense is not a universal term as it means one thing to a certain group and something else to another, but I think that we can all agree that common sense tells us that the blind shouldn’t drive cars, and people who are mute should not be required to speak. Similarly a very basic understanding of what your doing should be a requirement. Carrying a gun can be great to protect yourself, but if you aren’t proficient with it and use it in a crowded mall or supermarket then things probably aren’t going to work out well.
We have to get over ourselves and start being rational. Explain a need and it may be met. Explain a controversial want and your going to be told to go pound sand. In the UK people are required to give up their firearms at a given age. Maybe if we can effectively argue the point that senior citizens are targeted because they are typically less able to fight back effectively then we can justify that law not taking root here in a few years when the left wing groups start pushing that as part of red flag laws as our seniors are the ones most likely to suffer from dementia or other mental deficit. The stance we see here and in other places far too often is the simple “I want it, and your not saying no” which serves no purpose in todays society aside from isolating and drawing attention to the behaviors and making it more likely that what you oppose is going to happen.
The 2A is in our constitution not because it’s something that anybody simply wanted. It is in there with justification that it be there to prevent the other unalienable rights to not be infringed. There is an explanation for its existence, and a rationale for its need. Why is it that we suddenly forget this and open our arguments not with actual argument but with demand and ultimatum. We need to focus, we need to argue, and we need to provide evidence.
Back to topic... do we dump crates of AKs and glocks into the streets and hope for the best, or do we tell folks that in order to do X you must first do Y. I propose that our current licensing methodology be amended to be more convenient, affordable, and available, but still be a requirement of basic education in firearms should a person choose to carry one in public. I believe that this should be established at a federal level and much like other laws (Occupational safety for instance) the state branches will either adopt them as they are, or if they feel a need then they will go above and beyond. By establishing a federal basis that gives common ground to work from to further protect ourselves but also allows states the ability to go beyond where they see fit.
Illinois Democrats have used "licensing" requirements to put about half of our LGS' out of business. They play games with our FOID and CC permits by short staffing the group responsible for processing those requests and renewals. By way of example it takes approximately 120 days for them to process CC renewals, but we can't apply for the renewal until we're within 90 days of the expiration date. This has led to a lot of speculation as to under what circumstances you can carry if you applied for your renewal, your permit expired and you have not received your new permit. That department does not answer their phones, so it's not possible to call them for clarification. The cost of the CC 16 hour class, application fee and FOID is hundreds of dollars. If you're poor and live in Illinois obtaining a CC permit is financially prohibitive. Examples of what they've done using "licensing" to make gun ownership and CC difficult go on. Those of you who live in less restrictive states do not want Illinois politicians having a say in your 2A rights.
Tennessee... $39 for the class, online, and $65 application fee. $104. Keep spewing your ridiculous numbers and pushing the panic speeches. Again, people with your stance are doing abundantly well for us in legislatures and elections. And again, make it like the hunters safety card where the training is available and easy to complete.THIS. All of it. Guns are not like cars. The government wants everyone to drive which is why driving has licensing, mandatory insurances, taxes etc. Government makes money of people driving, so it is regulated. Government wants to sell back your rights to you. And they don't want guns in the hands of the public, unless they pay for it. Want an application? Pay $30. Call it a "copy fee." Completed application with fingerprints? Pay $150. Mandatory training class (because government says so in order to have a right back) it costs $300 and is only held on the last Tuesday at midnight with a full moon, because he is the trainer the government picked. This is how "common sense" gun control works. Make it too expensive or too difficult to exercise a right, and it is gone. It is working great in Mexico.
Whats your idea on allowing people to carry nation wide then?
Tennessee... $39 for the class, online, and $65 application fee. $104. Keep spewing your ridiculous numbers and pushing the panic speeches. Again, people with your stance are doing abundantly well for us in legislatures and elections. And again, make it like the hunters safety card where the training is available and easy to complete.
Its off topic, but I heard of a move proposed at one point that state fees be normalized to hours of minimum wage. Put that into effect and see how things shake up. Drivers license in Tennessee would be roughly 2 hours. Hunting license 3 hours. Watch people try to figure out what they want minimum wage to be when it is going to hit them in their wallet when it comes time to do normal stuff, and watch the public freak out when somebody wants to raise minimum wage so that a burger flipper makes $20. Still set a application for carry permit at what has been considered reasonable for a drivers license since it is a similar process with a basic background check to exclude prohibited people and has similar paperwork requirements.
They've also upheld that people who have African ancestry aren't people. Just because they "uphold" something doesn't mean that it can't be changed later or that it was a valid ruling to begin with.I agree with you, but sadly even when we have staunch conservatives who are even gun owners on the bench, even they won’t give the 2A all that it’s due. We should be completely permitless, but they have upheld that permits were not unconstitutional.
They've also upheld that people who have African ancestry aren't people. Just because they "uphold" something doesn't mean that it can't be changed later or that it was a valid ruling to begin with.
Tennessee... $39 for the class, online, and $65 application fee. $104. Keep spewing your ridiculous numbers and pushing the panic speeches. Again, people with your stance are doing abundantly well for us in legislatures and elections. And again, make it like the hunters safety card where the training is available and easy to complete.
Agreed.In a perfect world we would have permitless carry across the entire United States and ALL of its Territories. However... that won’t happen by an act of Congress... only by an act of our Supreme Court. Even they won’t ever say permits will be unconstitutional.