National Constitutional Carry

[Jammer Six]

It would be far easier to just pass a law that says if you use a firearm in a crime, you get executed.

You'd still need a court to interpret "use" and "firearm".

It being illlegal to murder or threaten people is about all the Gun law we need.

You'd still need courts to interpret "murder" and "threaten".

The members of this forum are mostly middle class people with jobs, and home owners. That means atypical in today's society.

Cite, please, for either claim.

 

[SheepDog]

There are already legal definitions of the terms "murder" and "threaten" and the people (of the jury) make the final and individual determination not the court.

 

[Jammer Six]

There are already legal definitions of the terms "murder" and "threaten" and the people (of the jury) make the final and individual determination not the court.

Yes, there are.

And once again, the "how" returns the power squarely to the court. The jury only determines the thing(s) they are allowed to determine. You're confusing theory with reality again.

After reading some of your writing, you and I agree on the overwhelming majority of issues. We're both moderates.

 

[olddav]

Trey Gowdy

Assuming I agree, that's one out of 535.
I like and respect Mr Gowdy but I don't think he will be able to control the process. It will morph and become a monstrosity.

As you might have guessed, this is one mans opinion.

 

[SheepDog]

Yes, there are.

And once again, the "how" returns the power squarely to the court. The jury only determines the thing(s) they are allowed to determine. You're confusing theory with reality again.

After reading some of your writing, you and I agree on the overwhelming majority of issues. We're both moderates.

I would never have labeled myself a "moderate" - militant maybe but probably it depends on whether we are discussing governmental size and power or individual rights. No, actually I am militant on both topics. Everyone has the same rights and government is too big and has taken too much power.

 

[Jammer Six]

The piece of bedrock both of us believe in is respect for the views of others.

 

[Lapua40X]

That, Steve, is the most misunderstood part of the second amendment. It doesn't grant us the right to keep and bear arms....

Your point is one that is often overlooked, Sheepdog. The second amendment doesn't grant us the right, it affirms the fact that the right exists and that it "shall not be infringed".

 

[SheepDog]

Granted... as long as they don't require me to comply - we are good.
Hey I came from a BIG family - I can generally get along with anybody - except a bully. I have no tolerance for bullies - seems I have been standing up to them most of my life. Usually for those who can't or don't know how to fight back.

 

[Jammer Six]

People have asked me why I have such hatred for a man who hits his wife. (Or a wife who hits her husband, for that matter.) It's because they're bullies.

 

[redrockranger]

You'd still need a court to interpret "use" and "firearm".



You'd still need courts to interpret "murder" and "threaten".



Cite, please, for either claim.

Medical examiner determines murder. County attorney files charges. Judge oversees the trial.Jury most often determines guilt.

 

['Freak]

Medical examiner determines murder. County attorney files charges. Judge oversees the trial.Jury most often determines guilt.

However, said maggot wasn’t prosecuted on a one of numerous federal firearms law violations, convicted murderer pulls a mere fraction of the sentence, he/she/he-she-it’s back on the streets illegally armed same as before, and it’s only a matter of time before said maggot kills yet again. But no matter, the gun made ‘em do it ...

 

[DanS]

Many years ago I went to an FFL meeting the ATF put on in Arlington. They informed us that by statute in Texas we were braking the law to have in our possession any firearm in transport for any reason and the state and local police were doing us a favor allowing us to transport firearms to and from the range or anywhere else for that matter. Then they went on to let us know that they had taken over the IRS's duty for collecting taxes on firearms and that anyone that altered a firearm in any way was in fact manufacturing a firearm and we would be required to pay the Pittman-Robertson tax on firearms.

Joe

Under that logic, if I put new tires on my truck, then I would be a manufacturer too.

 

[DanS]

There are in fact idiots and drunks that I prefer don't carry concealed, or possess a permit. Right now our local sheriffs department can deny their permit on the basis of recent convictions. That in itself is a sort of character evaluation.

jd

There are in fact idiots and drunks that I prefer don't vote. That in itself is a sort of character evaluation. (I changed the wording) They still have the right though.

 

[alinwa]

So with all those "variables" in existence, which American citizens should NOT be protected buy the US Constitution?...and why?

Thank You ED3!

Yes, this is the question.....(it shouldn't be, but it is)


I've been owning, shooting, selling, buying, hunting since my childhood using slingshots, rifles, bows, pistols, spears, atlatls, blackpowder arms, traps, sticks, snares or whatever comes to mind. Set me down and I'll throw rocks at a stump. I've eaten grouse killed with a stick and fish caught with my bare hands....

And all my life the rifle hunters have been pitted against the bowhunters

And the bowhunters despise the rifle hunters

And they both envy the muzzleloader guys


IMO the root of the problem is "The Other Guy" syndrome. We've GOT to get beyond this to survive. We Are In This Together!!This whole concept of judging who should and who should not engage in a lifestyle is a slippery slope. IMO we must simply use law, not opinions. What we "think of" certain activities doesn't enter into it. We already HAVE laws upon laws keeping adjudicated 'bad guys' from legal ownership of weapons....

I can honestly say that I'm not afraid to walk anywhere in America, big city or small. Some of the scariest situations I've encountered smacked more of 'Deliverance' than 'Boyz In The Hood' , but I'm a man....women alone are unsafe anywhere. (This is not an "America" nor a "big city" thing) I teach my wife and daughters to react quickly and hard, and arm them with pepper spray. And some of them carry. But mainly, "do not go alone."

And any man in this thread would take a bullet for a woman. We can't help it.

And any man in this thread distrusts in some form the "other guy." We can't help it.

And this is why our Founding Fathers use "presumed innocence" and "inalienable right" etc.....WE HAVE THESE RIGHTS, as affirmed by our Constitution and we need to have a spirit, a belief we live by, that grants the same freedom to all around us.

I don't need nor want some government agency 'vetting' people for me!

And it's a sad day when we've stumbled around BLIND to these rights for so long, and we've voted away so many of them that now we're considering making a law to preserve (bring back?) a granted right....

My whole point with the "machine guns and silencers" comment devolves to this, a comment used by our founders to make the same point. "While I disagree with your beliefs, I'll defend to the death your right to have them"

And furthermore, I, Al Matson, must daily resolve to LIVE that and quit looking crookedy at "the other guy"

Or as my Dad taught me, "never swing first"

 

[jdh47]

All arguments were made at the time of the meeting with the ATF but fell on deaf ears. The great I am stated that's the way it is. Don't know it it's changed but if it hasn't we are all law breakers in the government's eyes just ripe for the taking.

That is why the supreme court is so important and also getting rid of the many government agencies or at least restrict them to stuff that is pertinent to the protection of the United States not making criminals of us in an attempt to confiscate more money and justify their existence.

Joe