Permit less carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
lovehappiness22 said:
a national gun registry
Click to expand...
Why? What possible good do you think that will do?
lovehappiness22 said:
I believe a written test should be manitory to use a firearm including firearms training.
Click to expand...
Why? Are you aware that in the two original "shall-issue" states, Washington and Indiana (back when there was only one state that required no permit to carry, Vermont), there was NO training requirement to obtain a concealed pistol/weapons license and both states for years had lower rates of firearms accidents, crimes by license-holders and license revocations than the states that required training?
 
lovehappiness22 said:
Wronghanded,

I believe universal Background checks. Mental health check when you buy a firearm including a mental health check up two more times in a year. I believe a written test should be manitory to use a firearm including firearms training.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you even own a firearm. To suggest that every firearm owner has to have a mental health check up 2 times a year is insulting. Post a picture of your firearm with a box of salt so we know you didn't take one off the web. You have an agenda, on your first posts you were trolling to find out the statistics on crimes committed by concealed weapons licensees.
 
I wasn't trolling. I meant what I said about statistics. Every firearms owner who has a gun needs a mental health evaluation twice a year as long as he holds that firearm for public safety. It is not insulting to the firearms owners but justified.
 
lovehappiness22 said:
I wasn't trolling. I meant what I said about statistics. Every firearms owner who has a gun needs a mental health evaluation twice a year as long as he holds that firearm for public safety.
Click to expand...
In the words of our feckless, er, I mean, fearless leader: "C'MON, MAN!"

Do we require twice a year mental health examinations of all those adults who regularly partake of alcoholic beverages?

Do we require twice a year mental health examinations of those 16 and over who drive motor vehicles on public roadways?

Do we require twice a year mental health examinations of those 18 and over who (legally) partake of tobacco products?

Alcohol (and drunks), cars and cigarettes kill many thousands more humans annually than firearms in the U.S.A.

If you want to be taken seriously, respond to the other posts and questions the forum members are asking of you before posting your uneducated opinions.

Maybe next year when you're a sophomore (that'd be 10th grade in the U.S.) you can take a debate class, so you can understand that the affirmative side has the burden of proof.
 
"Do we require twice a year mental health examinations of all those adults who regularly partake of alcoholic beverages?

Do we require twice a year mental health examinations of those 16 and over who drive motor vehicles on public roadways?

Do we require twice a year mental health examinations of those 18 and over who (legally) partake of tobacco products?"



Gun owners with guns commit more mass shootings that is why requiring EVERY gun owner to pass a mental health exam to have a gun is necessary.

Guns are in a different catagory
 
lovehappiness22 said:
Gun owners with guns commit more mass shootings that is why requiring EVERY gun owner to pass a mental health exam to have a gun is necessary.
Click to expand...
You DO realize you are posting on an internet forum comprised of a diverse group of individuals who fully support the right to keep and bear arms in the United States of America, right?

You neglected to answer multiple, pertinent questions posed in good faith by long-term members of this forum.

We are done with you. Please return to your mom's basement and eat the rest of the PBJ sandwich she made for you. Oh, and quit wasting our time.
 
"You DO realize you are posting on an internet forum comprised of a diverse group of individuals who fully support the right to keep and bear arms in the United States of America, right?"

Yes, I bloody well do. But like I said, universal Background checks are necessary as well as mental health check ups are necessary to own a firearm, but I also support the second amendment right. I believe in conceal carry and the right to carry in self defence.

Why are you guys so bloody opposed to simple gun regulations like universal Background checks or a mental health check up?
 
lovehappiness22 said:
"You DO realize you are posting on an internet forum comprised of a diverse group of individuals who fully support the right to keep and bear arms in the United States of America, right?"

Yes, I bloody well do. But like I said, universal Background checks are necessary as well as mental health check ups are necessary to own a firearm, but I also support the second amendment right. I believe in conceal carry and the right to carry in self defence.

Why are you guys so bloody opposed to simple gun regulations like universal Background checks or a mental health check up?
Click to expand...
One last time. I'm getting older and need my beauty sleep.

Here's how internet forums work: you actually respond to what others are saying. Persistent repetition of the same comments does not make your case.

Here's an example for you:
lovehappiness22 said:
Why are you guys so bloody opposed to simple gun regulations like universal Background checks or a mental health check up?
Click to expand...
Because universal background checks only impact those who purchase firearms legally; the preponderance of "gun crime" is committed by those who are in illegal possession of firearms, i.e, convicted felons, under-age, already adjuticated as mentally ill, etc.

As far as "mental health checks" -- in the United States, we have a concept based on the presumption of innocence. If one has never demonstrated potential mental illness, one is presumed to be mentally competent. If you truly believe in a free society, you should understand this. If you cannot comprehend this, well, that may explain some of your previous posts.

Freedom means that citizens do NOT have to prove themselves worthy of exercising their rights as citizens. True freedom means that a society only regulates those who've been proven to have broken the social contract.
 
Why are you guys so bloody opposed to simple gun regulations like universal Background checks or a mental health check up?
Click to expand...
You believe that firearm ownership is a constitutional right, per your several statements on this thread.

Why do you believe that, unlike other constitutional rights, exercising this one requires mental health check ups and background checks. Do you support such measures for people wishing to exercise their right to free speech or their right to vote?

If you believe that guns are in a different category, explain why they are in a different category and, how from that it follows that people who legally own guns should be subject to such extreme intrusion as being forced to be mentally evaluated periodically.

For what purposes does the second amendment exist? Are any of those purposes compromised by a process whereby the government can disqualify persons from firearm ownership even if they have not been found guilty of committing any crime? What other rights do you believe the government should be able to restrict without first finding a person guilty of some crime?

You say that mental health checkups should be required. What sort of mental health problems would disqualify a person from gun ownership, how would those conditions be assessed and quantified to determine if a disqualifying threshold is reached? If a person failed such a mental health evaluation, would they be safe to operate vehicles on public roadways? To buy other potential weapons? To hold jobs with important responsibilities? What I'm getting at is, what kind of person do you think should be disqualified to own guns but is otherwise safe to run around unrestricted in public?
 
JohnKSa said:
You believe that firearm ownership is a constitutional right, per your several statements on this thread.




Why do you believe that, unlike other constitutional rights, exercising this one requires mental health check ups and background checks. Do you support such measures for people wishing to exercise their right to free speech or their right to vote?

The reason why gun control laws need to be passed on this constitutional right, is because mass shootings keep happening in America by the mentally ill and one way to stop them is for every gun owner to undergo a mental health evaluation two times a year. This is to weed out the mentally ill gun owner from sane gun owners.

Background checks served the same purposes to stop bad people from getting guns.

No, I don't support such measures for the right to free speech or the right to vote as they don't rise to the same level of urgency.



If you believe that guns are in a different category, explain why they are in a different category and, how from that it follows that people who legally own guns should be subject to such extreme intrusion as being forced to be mentally evaluated periodically.

Guns are a different category as they are a tool that can kill people and to weed out the mentally ill gun owner from sane gun owners.

For what purposes does the second amendment exist? Are any of those purposes compromised by a process whereby the government can disqualify persons from firearm ownership even if they have not been found guilty of committing any crime? What other rights do you believe the government should be able to restrict without first finding a person guilty of some crime?

The second amendment was originally meant to restrict the federal government from disarming people in the militia and so that people serving in the state militia could not have their guns taken away by a hostile federal government. Outside of serving in the militia, gun control was allowed and the state could control what firearms law abiding citizens had and even carrying defensive arms could be severely restricted.

The government can actually disqualify a person if they have signs of mental illness, even a former law abiding gun owner if he begins to show signs of mental illness.

You say that mental health checkups should be required. What sort of mental health problems would disqualify a person from gun ownership, how would those conditions be assessed and quantified to determine if a disqualifying threshold is reached? If a person failed such a mental health evaluation, would they be safe to operate vehicles on public roadways? To buy other potential weapons? To hold jobs with important responsibilities? What I'm getting at is, what kind of person do you think should be disqualified to own guns but is otherwise safe to run around unrestricted in public
Click to expand...

Mental health checkups would include a psychiatric evaluation. Beating up your spouse or having a violent temper can disqualify you. Being drunk can disqualify you. If they failed, they could still buy a car and failing the test would disqualify someone from buying other weapons. Being a violent person might disqualify you from a job.

In a nutshell, if a person passed a universal Background check, passed the psychiatric evaluation and passed a written test and the police are satisfied that the person passed these requirements, the police cannot deny the person, the conceal carry permit, which is shall issue. I believe permits should be shall issue.
 
Mental health checkups would include a psychiatric evaluation.
Click to expand...
A mental health checkup IS a psychiatric evaluation.
Beating up your spouse or having a violent temper can disqualify you.
Click to expand...
Beating up a spouse is a criminal offense and disqualifies a person from owning firearms.
Being drunk can disqualify you.
Click to expand...
Forever? Just while intoxicated? Are you proposing that people be constantly monitored to determine if they are ever drunk?
If they failed, they could still buy a car and failing the test would disqualify someone from buying other weapons.
Click to expand...
A car is certainly a very effective weapon as has been demonstrated more than once. Why would you allow a person who isn't qualified to own a firearm to own such a potentially dangerous item?
In a nutshell, if a person passed a universal Background check, passed the psychiatric evaluation and passed a written test and the police are satisfied that the person passed these requirements, the police cannot deny the person, the conceal carry permit, which is shall issue.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that, unlike other constitutional rights, exercising this one requires mental health check ups and background checks. Do you support such measures for people wishing to exercise their right to free speech or their right to vote?

If you believe that guns are in a different category, explain why they are in a different category and, how from that it follows that people who legally own guns should be subject to such extreme intrusion as being forced to be mentally evaluated periodically.

What sort of mental health problems would disqualify a person from gun ownership, how would those conditions be assessed and quantified to determine if a disqualifying threshold is reached? Who gets to set those thresholds? If a person is too unstable to own a firearm, why are they safe to remain in society where they can operate vehicles, access or make non-firearm weapons (kitchen knives, clubs, homemade explosives, firebombs, etc.) to use and carry, interact with the general public? If a person is stable enough to drive on the public roads, follow the laws, vote and interact with the general public, why wouldn't they be able to own firearms?

What other rights should the government be able to restrict without any criminal proceedings?

You want to know why people are against some of the things you propose, but when questioned, you simply repeat your position again without actually explaining how it makes sense. Explain how it could be implemented in a free society without horrific invasions into person's lives. Explain how one could justify committing such acts against people who haven't committed any crimes. Explain how it makes sense to allow people who are allegedly so dangerous/unstable that they can't own firearms to otherwise run free in society where they can easily create all kinds of havoc.
 
I have explained my position.
Click to expand...
No, you haven't. You have stated it and restated it, but you have not explained it. I asked you a series of simple questions about your position and you either didn't address them, you responded ambiguously, or you just repeated your position.
As for being drunk, being intoxicated can disqualify you.
Click to expand...
It disqualifies you forever? It disqualifies you just while intoxicated? Are you proposing that people be constantly monitored to determine if they are ever drunk? Do people lose their firearms when they become drunk and get them back when they get sober again? How do you propose to implement that? Explain what you mean by "being intoxicated can disqualify you".

Why would you allow a person who isn't qualified to own a firearm to own such a potentially dangerous item as a motor vehicle?

What sort of mental health problems would disqualify a person from gun ownership, how would those conditions be assessed and quantified to determine if a disqualifying threshold is reached? Answering this requires listing some mental health problems.
Answering this requires providing some method of assessing those conditions and quantifying/grading them to determine if they are severe enough to disqualify a person.

Why is owning firearms in a different category from other rights? Why should gun owners be subject to such invasive requirements to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right?

If a person is too unstable to own a firearm, why are they safe to remain in society where they can operate vehicles, access or make non-firearm weapons (kitchen knives, clubs, homemade explosives, firebombs, etc.) to use and carry, interact with the general public? If a person is stable enough to drive on the public roads, follow the laws, vote and interact with the general public, why wouldn't they be able to own firearms?

What other essential rights should the government be able to restrict without any criminal proceedings?
 
lovehappiness22 said:
Why are you guys so bloody opposed to simple gun regulations like universal Background checks or a mental health check up?
Click to expand...

Personally, my problem with your ridiculous mental health check idea, is that I don't think you've got any plan for what to do with people who fail it.

Because if someone fails a mental health check, they are a danger to society right? If they weren't a danger to society, there's no reason for them not to have a gun, but you think they shouldn't. So what's to stop them driving a truck through a crowded shopping mall, or making IEDs to take to a highschool football game, or stealing guns from a law abiding citizen and then going on a shooting spree?

The problem isn't access to guns. The problem is a society that spends far too much time engrossed in social media BS, and consumed with self-centered vanity and their own personal emotional struggles. Ban social media for 10 years, and see what effect that has.
 
Three pages of stuff I have not read yet, skimmed the first page, sorry if it has been brought up already......

The one thing about a CCW type class is they SHOULD include a section on the law, that covers just what a couple of the first posters talked about. Where you can carry, how you can carry, those kind of things.

It also goes into some of the, "what if's" that you might encounter. You find two guys fighting outside in a parking lot, one guy gets the upper hand and is on top of the other guy, while the guy down is screaming help me help me this guy is going to kill me, he has a gun. You see the gun, do you shoot that guy? Could he be a plain clothes officer?

I know back when the entire CCW thing started we would get the people that wanted to put on the classes, they had to send us their class plans and we would approve them, and if we did not we had to state the why's there.

In the issue of CCW permits there is a lot of gray there as well that I will not get into.
 
lovehappiness22 said:
I have explained my position. As for being drunk, being intoxicated can disqualify you.
Click to expand...

So basically-

A non-gun owner (no pix) dropped by to tell us all what HE (gosh, hope I got your pronouns right) thinks we ought to suffer to own/carry guns. How sweet.

And uses 'bloody' twice, at least suggesting he's British. Again, how sweet.

We had this discussion with the British once. Might want to look up how that ended.

More importantly, why don't you find a Norwegian website and lecture them about gun control; they're FAR ahead of the US in mass shootings. So are nine other countries, in fact:
usranking.png

Larry
 
So, should the person that can press the big red button on the nuclear football be required to get a mental health check-up twice a year?

How about those legislators that pass laws that affect every person in the nation (and others around the world)?

These individuals are far more dangerous than similar individuals that only wish to possess firearms... .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Shanvanvocht
SC passes Constitutional Carry
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
AlexanderA
A
A
  • Locked
North Dakota to allow concealed carry without a permit.
Replies
6
Views
923
Shed
Shed
T
  • Locked
Idaho permitless carry law signed!
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Warp
Warp
C
  • Locked
Alabama 2nd Amendment Win!
Replies
6
Views
424
CherokeeGunslinger
CherokeeGunslinger
alsaqr
  • Locked
Oklahoma Constitutional Carry Passes Senate 40-6
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
Sovblocgunfan
Sovblocgunfan
Back
Top