[outlaw]

Originally Posted by cologal

Not my intent... There is a problem with a law if this man's right to Open Carry trumps the general publics safety

I don't recall any verbiage in the 2nd amendment to a right to open carry correct if I am wrong.

"shall not be infringed". if you believe open carry is a form of bearing arms, just like concealed carry, then banning one form of bearing arms (open carry) could be considered "infringing" on a person's choice on how to bear arms. I'm not advocating open carry, just debating why many think it is a violation of the 2nd A.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by TNLAKEPANDA

So sick and tired of these ultra liberal anti gun people wanting more laws thinking the laws will protect them and solve everything. How stupid can you be. Apparently pretty darn stupid. The criminals and crazy people out there do not follow any laws let alone gun laws. Guns are not at fault people are! Why can you understand this?

As for open carry there are good and bad points. Most people who carry a gun prefer to keep it concealed for obvious reasons.

Now we hear that Hillary favors the government taking all guns from the people regardless of the 2nd amendment. Get ready for the second American Revolution folks. How many people will die then?

Where do you get this Hillary myth?

And some people following the laws about guns will result in fewer guns out there and fewer mentally ill people having access to them. It is like the NRA has people brainwashed. Use your common sense.

How the hell could any politician confiscate all the guns in the hands of people in the US? That's an impossible proposition.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Except an automobile's purpose is transportation not killing and maiming. There are weapons that are more appropriate on battlefields than on the streets of various cities. Common sense should show which guns/rifles/pistols these are.

Criminals will still get their hands on these but not as easily if there are more enforced laws. The mentally ill would get less of these in their control too if there were more well written laws that take into account the rights of those with various mental illnesses.

If you believe that one of the purposes of the 2nd A is to defend against an oppressive government, then what better weapon for the citizen to possess than than those used on the battlefield?

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Where do you get this Hillary myth?

And some people following the laws about guns will result in fewer guns out there and fewer mentally ill people having access to them. It is like the NRA has people brainwashed. Use your common sense.

How the hell could any politician confiscate all the guns in the hands of people in the US? That's an impossible proposition.

If you feel so strongly about gun ownership, why not work to change the 2nd A instead of trying to circumvent it or water it down with new laws and creative interpretations?

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by outlaw

If you believe that one of the purposes of the 2nd A is to defend against an oppressive government, then what better weapon for the citizen to possess than than those used on the battlefield?

The rebels would be taking on the police SWAT teams, the military, and the like.

I do not believe the 2nd Amendment was even written with such a scenario in mind. It was written in case the British or some power like the Canadians or Mexicans came at the fledgling US like with the War of 1812, battles along the Mexican-American border and various Indian Wars. They wanted militias that were well armed in the very real possibility that attacks would come as they had before in the lifetimes of the Founding Fathers.

They wanted Minute Men not terrorists like those fighting in the French and other Revolutions. https://history.state.gov/milestones...800/french-rev

First and foremost these were people who fought with the pen and not the sword.

National Constitution Center

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

The rebels would be taking on the police SWAT teams, the military, and the like.

I do not believe the 2nd Amendment was even written with such a scenario in mind. It was written in case the British or some power like the Canadians or Mexicans came at the fledgling US like with the War of 1812, battles along the Mexican-American border and various Indian Wars. They wanted militias that were well armed in the very real possibility that attacks would come as they had before in the lifetimes of the Founding Fathers.

They wanted Minute Men not terrorists like those fighting in the French and other Revolutions. https://history.state.gov/milestones...800/french-rev

First and foremost these were people who fought with the pen and not the sword.

Then I guess my comment doesn't apply to you.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by outlaw

If you feel so strongly about gun ownership, why not work to change the 2nd A instead of trying to circumvent it or water it down with new laws and creative interpretations?

Common sense interpretations of laws not so much creative. What does this weapon do, what's its rate of fire, how easily can it be changed to automatic, etc?

It is like saying the Billionaire Donald Trump should have a nuclear weapon in case the Federal Government becomes oppressive. Trump can do more work in changing things with his mouth than using violence.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Common sense interpretations of laws not so much creative. What does this weapon do, what's its rate of fire, how easily can it be changed to automatic, etc?

It is like saying the Billionaire Donald Trump should have a nuclear weapon in case the Federal Government becomes oppressive. Trump can do more work in changing things with his mouth than using violence.

When you say something like that, it shows you have no understanding the 2nd A, nor do you understand the difficulty in a government fighting its own citizens, pitting citizens against citizens (military/police/etc.).

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by outlaw

When you say something like that, it shows you have no understanding the 2nd A, nor do you understand the difficulty in a government fighting its own citizens, pitting citizens against citizens (military/police/etc.).

Except for various rebellions like the US Civil War.... Civil War Armories

Ever hear of John Brown, Robert E. Lee and Harper's Ferry? John Brown's Harpers Ferry Raid

[Walter123]

I thought this thread was about open carry? It figures.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

The rebels would be taking on the police SWAT teams, the military, and the like. They already do in any one of the cities listed to have the most strict gun laws in the country!

I do not believe the 2nd Amendment was even written with such a scenario in mind. It was written in case the British or some power like the Canadians or Mexicans came at the fledgling US like with the War of 1812, battles along the Mexican-American border and various Indian Wars. They wanted militias that were well armed in the very real possibility that attacks would come as they had before in the lifetimes of the Founding Fathers.

They wanted Minute Men not terrorists like those fighting in the French and other Revolutions. https://history.state.gov/milestones...800/french-rev

First and foremost these were people who fought with the pen and not the sword.

National Constitution Center

It would be very helpful when folks are discussing gun control just exactly what it is they want to accomplish.
The anti gun folks always paint with the broadest brush possible when proposing more controls.

Additionaly they never contrast how having more gun control laws does not work as demonstrated in Chicago, Los Angeles, NYC, et al.

There needs to be more specifics as in how to keep mentally ill from getting guns. How to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Those two alone would all but elinate the so called gun problem here in the USA. And of course in our permissive, don't offend anybody society there is no chance to make either work (as proven in Chigao, Los Angeles and NYC).

However to have something to say to appeal to the anti gun voter base, politicians and most all other anti gun people go broad brush. The merry go round continues to spin, hence nothing changes.....

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by billethkid

It would be very helpful when folks are discussing gun control just exactly what it is they want to accomplish.
The anti gun folks always paint with the broadest brush possible when proposing more controls.

Additionaly they never contrast how having more gun control laws does not work as demonstrated in Chicago, Los Angeles, NYC, et al.

There needs to be more specifics as in how to keep mentally ill from getting guns. How to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Those two alone would all but elinate the so called gun problem here in the USA. And of course in our permissive, don't offend anybody society there is no chance to make either work (as proven in Chigao, Los Angeles and NYC).

However to have something to say to appeal to the anti gun voter base, politicians and most all other anti gun people go broad brush. The merry go round continues to spin, hence nothing changes.....

I am not for broad brush policies but more contextual solutions. More power to local governments to get various weapons off the streets through more common sense approaches like perhaps putting a reasonable New Yorker, Chicagolander, etc. in as a test to what guns/weapons/etc. they should get out of the community. Cases would decide what the "reasonable" Chicagolander would actually sound like.

What works in New York City would not really work that well in the Villages.

Colorado Springs would be a different standard as well. I assume there are a lot of avid hunters in that area of Colorado as well as Air Force personnel.

Criminals-- gangs primarily- do get around various City, State and Federal laws in places like Los Angeles. I do not believe armed gangs like these are what the Founding Fathers had in mind with a well regulated militia and the right to bear arms. They seemed more to be addressing the National Guard that at times might be called in to deal with various riots in cities like Los Angeles. Watts Riots

[justjim]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Except an automobile's purpose is transportation not killing and maiming. There are weapons that are more appropriate on battlefields than on the streets of various cities. Common sense should show which guns/rifles/pistols these are.

Criminals will still get their hands on these but not as easily if there are more enforced laws. The mentally ill would get less of these in their control too if there were more well written laws that take into account the rights of those with various mental illnesses.

Open carry is a law in some States. I think many are getting this and our "Constitutional right" to have a gun mixed up. It's like apples and oranges---both fruit but not the same.

If I understand the OP was not saying you shouldn't own a gun---just thought "open carry" was a bad idea. I own a gun, three of them, but I keep them in my possession but not outside in my yard or at the golf course or park waving them around. Such is a real slippery slope.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by justjim

Open carry is a law in some States. I think many are getting this and our "Constitutional right" to have a gun mixed up. It's like apples and oranges---both fruit but not the same.

If I understand the OP was not saying you shouldn't own a gun---just thought "open carry" was a bad idea. I own a gun, three of them, but I keep them in my possession but not outside in my yard or at the golf course or park waving them around. Such is a real slippery slope.

I usually carry my rifle in a gun slip when moving it from the house to the car and back. I also always treat if as if it were loaded even when I am fairly certain it is empty.

If I saw a guy with a rifle acting strange here in the Villages, I would call 911.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

I am not for broad brush policies but more contextual solutions. More power to local governments to get various weapons off the streets through more common sense approaches like perhaps putting a reasonable New Yorker, Chicagolander, etc. in as a test to what guns/weapons/etc. they should get out of the community. Cases would decide what the "reasonable" Chicagolander would actually sound like.

What works in New York City would not really work that well in the Villages.

Colorado Springs would be a different standard as well. I assume there are a lot of avid hunters in that area of Colorado as well as Air Force personnel.

Criminals-- gangs primarily- do get around various City, State and Federal laws in places like Los Angeles. I do not believe armed gangs like these are what the Founding Fathers had in min with a well regulated militia and the right to bear arms. They seemed more to be addressing the National Guard that at times might be called in to deal with various riots in cities like Los Angeles.

While I am not familiar with the specifics of differing cities, I assume they are each somewhat tailored to their areas needs/wants.

Using Chicago as the example; clearly demonstrates that what ever they intended with all the current gun legislation, it is not working.

I do really think there is an air of accomplishment by too many politicians....that they feel they have addressed and issue or a problem, some by merely talking about it; others by passing more laws/rules. The failing is in the accountability of following up to determine what effect has there been. In Chicago as the example, it is clear they have not solved anything with more, stricter gun legislation. One conclusion being they missed the mark. They are thinking and acting general population when they should be addressing the specifics of criminals and others that should not have access to guns. Perhaps they know these in out current environment are not solveable. So they feel a need to "do something" even if it does not work....which it is not in Chicago (and others like it).