AlexanderA
Member
Whoa.
Perspective on Constitutional Carry Progress (Moved from Legal)
- Thread starter Craig_AR
- Start date
- Status
Do not expect "constitutional carry" on the fed level ever taking place. State by state we can legislate how carry is regulated, liberally or conservatively, but there will never be Federal "constitutional carry".
Whoa. Let's stop a moment. We already have "Constitutional Carry" by the highest law of the land and which is "incorporated to the States."
The problem is we have rogue tyrannical States which won't allow us to bear arms according to the highest law of the land.
Terry, 230RN
The problem is we have rogue tyrannical States which won't allow us to bear arms according to the highest law of the land.
Terry, 230RN
aaaaa
Member
Exactly!
AlexanderA
Member
Let's stop using the word "tyrannical" loosely. The fact is, those states are doing exactly what their population wants. That's the opposite of "tyranny." Tyranny would be if a minority of the people could impose their will on the majority.
theotherwaldo
Member
Nope.
Tyranny is simply imposing oppressive power.
If a majority decides to oppress the rights of a minority then it is still tyranny... .
I differ. It doesn't matter how the leadership / tyrants got into power, they're still running tyrannies. Think mid-Europe mid thirties. So let's stop glossing over "tyrannies" and call them what they are, notwithstanding the source of their power. In the meat world, that's called propagandizing.
I refuse to succumb to that.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
Will Munny
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
- Messages
- 336
Argumentum ad populum, tyranny is imposing by force any immoral conditions or laws. Depriving law abiding American citizens of rights they are guarenteed by our founders is tyranny, reguardless of how the population is manipulated into voting for it or how popular it is.
AlexanderA
Member
Just to play Devil's Advocate, the antigunners are saying that gun owners are the tyrants for imposing their will on the majority, who want gun control. I'm not saying that this is true. My point is simply that this name-calling cuts both ways.
In ancient Greece, where the term originated, "tyrants" were not necessarily a bad thing. They were autocrats who seized power in some illegitimate way (not, for example, by being hereditary monarchs), but as rulers they were often beneficial. Republican Rome had a similar thing, where power was turned over to a dictator, when needed to confront some national emergency. Most of those dictators relinquished power voluntarily once the national emergency was over. I believe Julius Caesar was the first dictator to permanently usurp power. (That's why Brutus and his friends assassinated him.)
Anyway, we're better off avoiding loaded terms like this.
Alex: Have you ANY empirical data to suggest that the 'populations' want this sort of rule structure.............is it not just as likely (actually more so) that a power elite have decided that stringent control is 'best' for the overall good.
I seem to recall that our republic was so structured to AVOID the tyranny of a democracy.......or were my history teachers wrong?
I seem to recall that our republic was so structured to AVOID the tyranny of a democracy.......or were my history teachers wrong?
Very true. Two aspects of the Constitution were for this very purpose:
1. The Electoral College.
2. Senators representing the States equally in Congress, without regard to size or population, to be selected by the state legislatures rather than popular vote.
The change to electing senators by popular vote is a key point in the progressive effort to empower the tyranny of the majority in a simple democracy.
AlexanderA
Member
This country has always had a democratic impulse. This goes back to the Mayflower Compact, where the first settlers set up the rules for self-government.
Thereafter, it was an ongoing process, always tending toward more democracy. Big landmarks in this were the administrations of Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln. Read Lincoln's speeches -- they're full of references to democracy.
A "republic" simply means that it's not a monarchy. This refers to governmental structure. The underlying principle is democracy -- that is, self-rule by the people.
theotherwaldo
Member
No.
Republic means literally 'of the people'.
It includes moderation of some sort if it is to last more than two generations.
Otherwise, it tends to devolve into democracy, which is functionally mob rule.
-Read more de Tocqueville.
If a person or an organization has to tell you that they are good, honest, just or democratic then they probably aren't.
It is always easy to find a group that finds it in their interests to remove the rights of another group and then to do so in the name of justice and democracy.
Currently, the coalition that is in power wants to disarm the common folk as a prelude to imposing whatever it is that that particular group wants to impose.
This would not end well for the common folk... .
lsudave
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,042
I would add Louisiana to the list of "least likely to approve Constitutional Carry".
And sadly, it has nothing to do with political (Left/Right) leanings, as the state is quite Red overall. It's all about the money. Too many people are making a nice tidy profit with classes. There are a LOT of gun owners here, a LOT of people who get their concealed license. I've seen a few places, they are running classes every weekend, and there are 10-11 people in each class. Not once in awhile, these guys are making an extra $1k every weekend, often more. And they don't want to lose that.
As for the NEED to be "taught"... 95%, probably higher, of the people who would enjoy Constitutional Carry already own firearms. In Louisiana at least, your car is an extension of your home, so you already can be carrying in your car. It's an Open Carry state, so you can carry openly if you wish; and I have seen a few at times, in hardware stores or even grocery stores. After natural disasters such as hurricanes (which we've been hit with a lot recently), that open carry number jumps way up. Power out and you're trying to get needed supplies, fuel for generators etc, the percentage of people carrying probably goes close to 50% in places.
No craziness has occurred. The gun violence here remains as it always has, criminals usually shooting at each other. Civilized people remain civilized.
No, the issue is it's a gravy train for some, and they have influence. Usually sheriffs and whatnot.
And sadly, it has nothing to do with political (Left/Right) leanings, as the state is quite Red overall. It's all about the money. Too many people are making a nice tidy profit with classes. There are a LOT of gun owners here, a LOT of people who get their concealed license. I've seen a few places, they are running classes every weekend, and there are 10-11 people in each class. Not once in awhile, these guys are making an extra $1k every weekend, often more. And they don't want to lose that.
As for the NEED to be "taught"... 95%, probably higher, of the people who would enjoy Constitutional Carry already own firearms. In Louisiana at least, your car is an extension of your home, so you already can be carrying in your car. It's an Open Carry state, so you can carry openly if you wish; and I have seen a few at times, in hardware stores or even grocery stores. After natural disasters such as hurricanes (which we've been hit with a lot recently), that open carry number jumps way up. Power out and you're trying to get needed supplies, fuel for generators etc, the percentage of people carrying probably goes close to 50% in places.
No craziness has occurred. The gun violence here remains as it always has, criminals usually shooting at each other. Civilized people remain civilized.
No, the issue is it's a gravy train for some, and they have influence. Usually sheriffs and whatnot.
AlexanderA
Member
Most of the countries of the world are "republics." They range from France and Germany all the way to North Korea. In modern usage, all "republic" means is that it's not a monarchy. This refers to the structure of government, not to its underlying philosophy.
This shows a profound misunderstanding of the term "democracy." The ancient Greeks, who originated democracy, had another word for mob rule -- "ochlocracy." "Democracy," on the other hand, was an orderly way for the people to express themselves politically. The Athenian assembly was actually fairly limited as to who could participate.
In America, the purest expression of democracy is the New England town meeting. Nobody would say that Vermont town meetings are "mob rule."
The coupling of gun control with various nefarious further goals is a right-wing fantasy. If you are opposing gun control, do so based on its own merits (or lack thereof). Bringing in a conspiracy theory is counterproductive, and won't persuade anybody outside the narrow right-wing circles. Impose gun control in order to further universal medical care? Get serious.
theotherwaldo
Member
This isn't a right/left thing.
The majority of our leadership despises the common folk and are afraid of them.
They distrust us and want to put us into our place - as a weak, disarmed peasantry that they can lord it over.
They will then feel secure behind their walls and private armies/security details.
Then they will be the new aristocrats and do with us as they will.
The only ones that could oppose them would be their fellow aristos that only disagree with them on minor matters... .
You mean that the leadership class worries about the "basket of deplorables" as "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
??
theotherwaldo
Member
Well, yes and no.
Their plan appears to be to treat the illegal immigrants as untermensch that can be denied citizenship indefinitely and then be used to inspire friction between the lower classes and the un-citizens.
This worked so well in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, after all.
-And the illegals are already unarmed, as far as the laws are concerned... .
Funny you should mention that aspect. A few years ago in Arkansas the legislature was considering a permit-less carry bill (our current Constitutional Carry status is based on two opinion letters from our Attorney General, not a law or state constitution directly). The Arkansas State Police opposed the legislation specifically of the potential loss in CHCL fees.
lsudave
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,042
Going to try to respond without going off the rails here, as this is a relevant discussion.
I'm over 50, laid back, at times have supported both sides of the political spectrum; in the 80's I leaned against some of the overly religious Rightwing guys, who didn't like Rock music or other "decadent" stuff. I remember them blocking Journey(!) from having a concert locally, because it was 'devil music. I'm not right or left wing, I am freedom-oriented.
I have never espoused conspiracy theories, usually considered them totally nuts.
All that said, we've seen some things over the past several years that are eye-opening, downright shocking and disturbing. Riots and looting employed by, endorsed by established politicians who you'd trust to "know better". Anti-assembly orders against churches, while again it was fine to go riot and burn downtown. Extreme loss of personal freedom attached to a pandemic outbreak, where the mortality numbers never seemed to materialize at the scale they pushed.
We've seen the covid camps implemented by Australia, coincidentally not that long after the populace was disarmed. That was something I never expected to see from a Western nation, and it was VERY disturbing.
We're now seeing the anti-gasoline push, which it totally impractical. Whatever your feelings on global warning, the nation's power grid can not support swapping over to EV. We see rolling blackouts as it is, saw it happen last year in a blizzard.
I do NOT trust those in power now, as they push a lot of things that just don't add up. And they've been very eager to ostracize any dissenters. That's a disturbing trend. I hope never to see the need to have the 2A engaged as it was written (defend the people against a tyrannical government), but I will say it seems now is not the best time to blindly disarm and go along with everything that's been spouted.
lsudave
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,042
Yeah- it's right out in the open. It's a revenue producer.
In states like where I am, I suspect true 'anti-gunners' are very scarce. I know a few Democrat politicians and lawyers personally, and they all own guns. I know a female lobbyist with a S&W titanium .357 that she carries. Most of the guys have ARs, a few in pistol-configuration... and yes, the brace hits their shoulder when they shoot. Whenever we've discussed ARs, the topic tends to swing to Daniel Defense vs PSA or BCA etc, because they have the disposable money to get $1500 guns. But as I said, these are Southern, rural 'Dems' in a state where most of the political machine was rigged and Dem, and you had to be one to get ahead.
But the guys you'd hope would push for your right to Constitutional Carry, they're the most actively opposed, because they stand to lose the most money on it. Nobody here seems opposed to carry (as long as you fork over your fees). But we've had bills shot down, because the guys want to keep taking money for it.
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,613
What the republic has that the monarchy and democracy do not have is the "rule of law." The monarchy has the tyranny of the monarch, and democracy has the tyranny of the majority -- the proverbial two wolves and one lamb voting to decide what's for lunch. The republic shields the lamb from the tyranny of the majority by the rule of law. There are laws that the majority cannot overrule. The 2nd Amendment is one such law. No majority can overturn it. It is not impossible to repeal it, but it will take a lot more than a majority. These laws a critical because without them we just have mob rule.
If we had mob rule, and to the degree that we do, we would have would-be tyrants fomenting instability and chaos in order to sway public opinion towards a desperate need for a solution -- a solution the tyrants are ready to offer. It's nothing but a protection racket. We see this with crime and personal security, with healthcare costs and statist insurance schemes, with housing costs, mortgage interest rates and fed-backed schemes (Fanny, Freddie etc.). We see it with public education. It's in just about every effort to convince people that the state is their savior that will protect them from insidious "private" interests as well as every risk of nature.
If we had mob rule, and to the degree that we do, we would have would-be tyrants fomenting instability and chaos in order to sway public opinion towards a desperate need for a solution -- a solution the tyrants are ready to offer. It's nothing but a protection racket. We see this with crime and personal security, with healthcare costs and statist insurance schemes, with housing costs, mortgage interest rates and fed-backed schemes (Fanny, Freddie etc.). We see it with public education. It's in just about every effort to convince people that the state is their savior that will protect them from insidious "private" interests as well as every risk of nature.
Last edited:
Shanvanvocht
Member
Not surprising, considering the media market you're in. Both the New York and Philadelphia media are aggressively anti-gun and, depending on your location in NJ, those are your choices. Here, in a more permissive environment, we frequently hear reports of DGUs and, often, with no charges filed.
AlexanderA
Member
Again, democracy is a principle (government by the consent of the governed), while republic / monarchy is a structure through which the underlying principles are put into effect. For example, Britain is a monarchy but nobody is saying that it's not also a democracy. On the other hand, North Korea is a "republic" but nobody is saying that it is a democracy. Your conceptual framework is simply incorrect. Your main mistake is equating democracy with mob rule. That has never been the case, not in ancient times, and not today.
- Status