[rubicon]

Originally Posted by twinklesweep

This was my question, and as far as this answer goes, I don't know. I come from a large farm family, and my parents insisted on months of practice time before we were allowed to take our driver's license test. I guess a few hours plus passing an exam would be enough if one "owned" the roads, but would it be enough in a crazy, stressful driving situation with lots of factors? I know someone who in spite of decades of driving experience got caught in what defensive driving instructors call a "collision trap" that also involved bad weather and poor visibility and was killed. The question is if carrying a concealed weapon--just having the permit and carrying it--is similar to carrying a driver's license--just having the license and carrying it. I don't know.




Can anyone answer my other questions?




A parking space?! Is this a joke, or at least an exaggeration? If it's not, then it really can be serious.




Is there any solid info out there about how many homeowners don't carry insurance? Having a mortgage requires it, I think, but how many others say that with the odds so slim, why spend so much each year (especially those living on the edge who might have to choose between a homeowners insurance policy that they've never used and, say, badly needed medical care or prescription meds)? Florida is the lightning capital of the country, yet very few people (to my knowledge, anyway) have a lightning rod system.




Of course owning a gun is a personal choice. I don't get the impression that anyone is "arguing" against someone else owning a gun, since it is legally permitted. Instead they're saying that THEY don't wish to own a gun. I didn't notice a connection between these people and abortion being a personal choice, but remembering an unrelated thread I did notice a connection between being pro-concealed weapons and opposition to health care for all Americans.

Speaking of abortion (not to hijack the topic), it seems to me that there is a difference between "pro-life" and "anti-abortion," just as there is a difference between "pro-abortion" (must say that I have NEVER known anyone to be "pro-abortion" other than for oneself as a personal, legally permitted choice) and "pro-choice."




Is this also a joke, or is it sarcasm?




This is the very concern that prompted my initial question about the required training seeming so little before people can not just carry but actually use a concealed weapon based on their own judgments stemming from the little training they've had. Should this be a concern, or is it a non-issue in light of the law allowing it?




This makes sense. It also speaks worlds about how very, very serious (life-and-death serious!) this all is, not some casual thing about carrying a concealed weapon. I really hope that "parking spot incident" was a joke. We grew up as a hunting family (and it was for food, not sport), and although there were firearms in the house (all inherited from grandparents and earlier) and all us kids had to take a course in firearm safety, our hunting was ONLY with bow and arrow. There were personal family reasons for this, and though some might laugh at this, we were taught to quietly apologize to the animal for having killed it and thank it for providing us with food. Not quite the same thing, though, as a law permitting the carrying of a concealed weapon.




I would like to think that this too is a joke. I'm still thinking of that parking spot and how it was handled, again assuming that wasn't a joke.




Do people feel there is a connection between being a "timid person by nature" and those who are "uneasy around guns," whatever their reasons? "Timid" people might take comfort in carrying a concealed weapon; maybe it would give them self-assurance or serve some other purpose. However, the word "most" in the next sentence about not openly saying that they're armed implies that there are some who do the opposite, and this could explain why some feel "uneasy around guns."


This is no easy subject, and as I say, I now have more questions than answers. But we are a nation of laws, so we must remember that (like abortion mentioned in an earlier posting) we are obliged to respect the laws, including this one.

2excited:

[EdV]

Originally Posted by blueash

I'm listening awaiting a more informative response. I really am interested in what you could mean by this one. What is the "fundamental issue" and what does the second amendment have to say about it if anything of importance.

By your own words: “If you believe that the second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms without governmental infringement, which is the essence of the phrase….” you were showing your fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Where in that simple declaration do you see any words such as give, grant, etc. You don't, and you won’t find it anywhere else in the constitution either. So given that, exactly where did that right that this amendment seeks to protect, come from?

[blueash]

Originally Posted by AutoBike

You have a CCW holder that assessed the situation before pulling the trigger. I venture to guess that was part of the training he received. Had the shooter been standing and firing into the crowd, The CCW holder would have been prepared. That's more than can be said for the sheeple that were being shot at and had no chance to defend themselves.
Remember the Long Island commuter train shooting? A prime example of sheeple.

And the people, or as you derogatorily call them sheeple, who actually did take down the shooter were all unarmed. Lots of people without guns in their pants will go toward danger, see Boston Marathon for example. And FYI the CCW holder in Arizona had exactly zero "training" which you would have known had you read the link I provided.

"When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he'd had, he answered: "My father raised me around guns … so I'm really comfortable with them. But I've never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted."

[blueash]

Originally Posted by EdV

By your own words: “If you believe that the second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms without governmental infringement, which is the essence of the phrase….” you were showing your fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Where in that simple declaration do you see any words such as give, grant, etc. You don't, and you won’t find it anywhere else in the constitution either. So given that, exactly where did that right that this amendment seeks to protect, come from?

No I don't see those words. Nor do I see them in any other of the amendments. You are making the argument, if I read your post correctly, that you have a natural right to bear arms and the sole purpose of the amendments is to assure that the federal government does not take them away. And by your interpretation, it would therefore have been natural that all races would have the vote, and all sexes, and in fact all ages. It would allow individual states to have governmental endorsement of religions and to prohibit a free press and assembly. Your argument was held by some in the late 1800's and that logic led to a SCOTUS decision that upheld the rights of the states to do nearly anything they pleased. The Klan loved it. I am not making it up, please read about the case United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are making the "tenther" argument. For those interested in that belief, start with Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right – Tenth Amendment Center
then google tenther and see what else follows from the interpretation of the constitution given by EdV

Ironically, this same bad decision, which has been mostly overturned, also is the one which allowed the states to enact whatever gun control including complete prohibition of possession. Keep in mind that if the second amendment and all the others only limit the powers of the federal government that leaves the states and localities to do whatever they please, including regulate guns, and prohibit civil rights enforcement, and nullify whatever Federal regulations and laws they believe do not fit in the narrowest definition of powers given the US government.

[billethkid]

[EdV]

Whoa Dude, cool your jets. Have you ever tried decaf?

[Moderator]

The thread has strayed far off from the originally posted topic and is now closed.

Moderator