Why exactly are we required to have a CCL ? the 2nd amendment says clearly that "the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" I dont pack a gun but it says what it says, and I would think that a law would not trump a constitutional ammendment , and how long are you we going to tolerate infringing our rights , I would have no problem with congress trying to add an ammendment for CCL or black scary guns that shoot fast that seems like a more legal way of doing things
Why CCL ?
- Thread starter Hilux
- Start date
- Status
revjen45
Member
The BOR has been null and void for some time now.
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
Maybe the law doesn't trump it. Maybe it does. I don't know for sure. Given enough time and money, I could probably even get it to the USSC to make the decision for me. However, I'm not in a position to spend the next few years in prison and several hundred thousand dollars to test the issue. I think most of us fall in that boat.
You seem awfully concerned about infringement when you don't even exercise the right. If you believed in the power of the constitution so strongly, I would imagine that you'd carry all the time, regardless of the law. Give that a shot and let me know how it works out.
See, that's the thing about our systems. If you are really concerned about infringement, you need to partake in a little civil disobedience to get the law tested. Since I'm ok with being licensed and do carry, it's really not worth my time or money to fight a fight for someone else who would rather be unarmed than get a license. However, if you really believe licenses aren't need, take up the cause, brother! Go show them the Constitution is the supreme law of the land! Carry a concealed weapon into an airport and you can get two pesky laws shot down at once.
You seem awfully concerned about infringement when you don't even exercise the right. If you believed in the power of the constitution so strongly, I would imagine that you'd carry all the time, regardless of the law. Give that a shot and let me know how it works out.
See, that's the thing about our systems. If you are really concerned about infringement, you need to partake in a little civil disobedience to get the law tested. Since I'm ok with being licensed and do carry, it's really not worth my time or money to fight a fight for someone else who would rather be unarmed than get a license. However, if you really believe licenses aren't need, take up the cause, brother! Go show them the Constitution is the supreme law of the land! Carry a concealed weapon into an airport and you can get two pesky laws shot down at once.
I have plenty of guns , and just because I dont CC does not mean I dont think others should not , if I was ever on jury for gun arrest I would not be a very good friend for the prosecutor . you seem mighty defensive did I rub you the wrong way because I can read plain english ?
TallPine
Member
To keep people from shooting their guns in a theater, I guess ... 
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
I wouldn't call it defensive. I would call it tired of folks who declare that the RKBA is absolute and that everyone who fills out a 4473, gets a concealed carry permit, or doesn't secretly convert their guns to full auto is some kind of sheep.
You may be able to read plain English, but you fail when it comes to realizing you aren't the first person to make this argument and, in fact, you haven't even brought anything interesting to the table.
You want to know why we get licenses? Because we live in a real world where our actions have consequences and those consequences are greater than what we stand to gain. There are thousands of laws that don't have amendments for them. Do you think we should ignore those as well? It's illegal for me to walk up and tell someone I am going to rape them, however, the 1st Amendment clearly guarantees my right to free speech.
Feel free to bring up the discussion when you've got a plan of attack or a new angle. In the end, I'd rather have hundreds of thousands of permitted folks carrying in 48 states instead of a few thousand non-infringed folks in Alaska and Vermont.
We need to pick our fights carefully. The gains on this one are not worth the time and effort it would take to acheive them. The systems changes incrementally. Going from almost no concealed carry allowed to shall-issue for so many states shows that things are moving in the right direction. Boiling a frog goes both ways, you know.
You may be able to read plain English, but you fail when it comes to realizing you aren't the first person to make this argument and, in fact, you haven't even brought anything interesting to the table.
You want to know why we get licenses? Because we live in a real world where our actions have consequences and those consequences are greater than what we stand to gain. There are thousands of laws that don't have amendments for them. Do you think we should ignore those as well? It's illegal for me to walk up and tell someone I am going to rape them, however, the 1st Amendment clearly guarantees my right to free speech.
Feel free to bring up the discussion when you've got a plan of attack or a new angle. In the end, I'd rather have hundreds of thousands of permitted folks carrying in 48 states instead of a few thousand non-infringed folks in Alaska and Vermont.
We need to pick our fights carefully. The gains on this one are not worth the time and effort it would take to acheive them. The systems changes incrementally. Going from almost no concealed carry allowed to shall-issue for so many states shows that things are moving in the right direction. Boiling a frog goes both ways, you know.
Looks like the L&P looniness is trying to migrate to GGD.
Ain't going to happen on my watch.
Closed.
Ain't going to happen on my watch.
Closed.
- Status