Concealed weapons. Yes or No ???

[iamkeri1]

No gun(s) No way.

The right to bear arms was enshrined in the consitution at the same time that the phrase all men are equal. We all know that phrase was and is, hooey!
Women were not equal, blacks were not equal, gays were so unequal we were pretty much being killed/ostracized when outed. The interpretations of these elements of our constitution have, and are still being changed as we become more modern in our thought. When the constitution was written, people needed guns to hunt, to survive. In most cases this is no longer true, though I do not have any problem with people owning single action rifles for hunting if they need them, Automatic weapons of any kind are scary, and very much not necessary for hunting. The point is, we are growing and changing as a society, and the right to bear arms is, to me, no more sacrosanct that any other part of the consitution.

The text of the Second Amendment is, "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."

In 2008, The (US Supreme) court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally-organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "...

Well regulated meant regulated by government, not by vigilantis, no matter how organized they were. Most State militias have been subsumed in to the National Guard, and The Federal militia exists under the names of the army. navy, marines, and air force. The folks in theses military organizations clearly have the right to bear arms. Other people - this is my opinion folks - another right protected by the bill of rights - do not have the same clearly defined right to bear arms.

Because of the limitations placed on the right to bears arms by the writers of the constitution, I believe that the ability to limit this right is clearly constitutional - and a damn good idea besides!!!
Smooches,
Keri

[Corkey]

No, I don't own a weapon any longer. Yes, I am a sharp shooter, military Law Enforcement training. I fought for the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, the right to bare arms being one of them. Though I support the 2nd amendment, I also support not limiting, but regulating the gun industry, the people who apply for gun ownership and federal laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. If we take away the rights of legal gun ownership, then the only people who will have guns are the police, the militias, and yes criminals. The way these last few years have been going, I support legal gun ownership, combined with training on legal usage of the fire arm as well as training for every one in the house hold. I also support the ATF in eradicating criminal guns from the US.
My.02

[Stearns]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

No gun(s) No way.

The right to bear arms was enshrined in the consitution at the same time that the phrase all men are equal. We all know that phrase was and is, hooey!
Women were not equal, blacks were not equal, gays were so unequal we were pretty much being killed/ostracized when outed. The interpretations of these elements of our constitution have, and are still being changed as we become more modern in our thought. When the constitution was written, people needed guns to hunt, to survive. In most cases this is no longer true, though I do not have any problem with people owning single action rifles for hunting if they need them, Automatic weapons of any kind are scary, and very much not necessary for hunting. The point is, we are growing and changing as a society, and the right to bear arms is, to me, no more sacrosanct that any other part of the consitution.

The text of the Second Amendment is, "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."

In 2008, The (US Supreme) court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally-organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "...

Well regulated meant regulated by government, not by vigilantis, no matter how organized they were. Most State militias have been subsumed in to the National Guard, and The Federal militia exists under the names of the army. navy, marines, and air force. The folks in theses military organizations clearly have the right to bear arms. Other people - this is my opinion folks - another right protected by the bill of rights - do not have the same clearly defined right to bear arms.

Because of the limitations placed on the right to bears arms by the writers of the constitution, I believe that the ability to limit this right is clearly constitutional - and a damn good idea besides!!!
Smooches,
Keri

Keri,

I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't written so people could hunt their food, but rather for the people to be able to defend themselves against and regain their rights against a tyrannical government, should one develop. The framers had already experienced tyrannical rule from a government - England's attempts at taxation without representation - so, they wanted to make sure should another develop, that govt wasn't the only entity with guns.

Your other point that militias were intended to be govt controlled is completely contrary to the purpose of the Amendment - that of the people being able to overthrow an oppressive regime. Why would the framers have wanted a tyrannical govt organizing and regulating the very citizens who would attempt to overthrow it? That's akin to having the fox guard the hen house. Militia referred to every able-bodied man in the state - Jefferson's own papers bore that out. The "well-regulated" was for people within their own groups (militias) to organize and train so that there would be a better chance of success.

[Jess]

Out of all the concealed carry arguments that go on, the one that really freaks me out is the debate as to whether CCW's can be taken into bars. THIS really does not make me feel safe at all.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2...31601-ar-8602/

[Cowboi]

Originally Posted by Jess

Out of all the concealed carry arguments that go on, the one that really freaks me out is the debate as to whether CCW's can be taken into bars. THIS really does not make me feel safe at all.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2...31601-ar-8602/

I know in Louisiana is is illegal to carry a weapon into a bar.

[Bard]

Jut my 2 cents I would never carry in a bar if your drinking you judgement is impaired me I just ain't taking a chance. firearm ownership carrys with it a lot of responsiblity.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by Bard

Jut my 2 cents I would never carry in a bar if your drinking you judgement is impaired me I just ain't taking a chance. firearm ownership carrys with it a lot of responsiblity.

I totally agree, Bard. Alcohol and guns don't mix. Kinda like my thoughts on off shore drilling. No matter how ya slice it, oil and water do not mix.

[paposeco]

Gun ownership, I believe it's a huge responsibility, as it should be. Too many folks out there just don't have the smarts God gave a goat to carry water let alone a gun, especially into a bar..really? are these law makers that stupid? YES! Here where I live, they're going for the "you don't need a permit to carry a concealed weapon/gun", walk into the gun store, lay your money down buy the gun and out into the world you go...just like that..."cash n carry".. OK give me a drink, a stiff one!. Someone said that 70% (?) of murders are commited by guns...noo they're commited by morons with guns, that's their mentality..these same folks, if no guns were available, would kill just the same..of course it's much easier to kill using a gun rather than a knife..or a baseball bat etc...just this week here in my hometown no less than 5 murders, and 4 out of the 5 were commited by one or more gang members. These weaklings that think they're men, or women, because they pull a gun a kill people. One thing that I despise with a fire hot passion, is gangbangers, and anybody that thinks it's a cool life style is in serious need of good ol'fashion lobotomy. But I digress. I think gun ownership should be a 'privilege, not necessarly a right..judging by the madness and violence in this country that seems to be getting worse by the hour. I'm not one to have big brother all up in my bis but, in this case I think that for the safety of us all, some common sense and intelligent laws should be passed about responsible gun ownership. Too many places have a "blanc check" attitude, and a blanc head, when it comes to this all important issue. (please excuse the typos...)

[Jess]

Originally Posted by Cowboi

I know in Louisiana is is illegal to carry a weapon into a bar.

It was illegal here until this year. I know the debate is going on in a few other states.