You don't defend the rights of "just some" people, but "just some" people should be allowed to carry?
Florida - New Permitless Carry for Qualified Citizens Signed into Law - How is this Constitutional Carry?
- Thread starter Snattlerake
- Start Date
- So many maintain a total " . . . shall not be infringed" attitude when it comes to weapon possession, without any thought about the responsibility of what this entails.
- Should those prone to 'road-rage' be allowed RPG-7's to carry in their trucks or car trunks? How about 'Claymore' mines strewn around ones property for potential trespassers? Don't like the USPS, FedEx, or UPS delivery, perhaps a .50cal HBMG on your front porch would straighten the drivers attitude. My point with this is that most people are just way too emotional to permit unabridged access to every weapon they may want. So despite my support of our 2nd Amendment, I belief that some restrictions are necessary.
-I only mention my military service as a qualifier for having put 'skin in the game' when it comes to defending our Constitution. Many talk-the-talk but can't, won't, or chose not to walk-the-walk. Would you defend our Constitution with your life . . . maybe or maybe not. For veterans the opportunity has already been taken and the proof verified, so yes, in some things my opinion does carry more weight than that of a non-vet.
Last edited:
Wow
Yes, I defend the rights of all people, with some [necessary] restrictions in place. An example is that I defend the right of a person to 'Free Speech' under our Constitutions' First Amendment, but that does not mean a person should be able to scream 'fire' in a crowded movie theater or blatantly threaten someone (especially in a world where another will carry-out that threat).
Same with the 2nd Amendment, even though some people definitely SHOULD NOT be allowed to carry weapons despite the " . . . shall not be infringed" mantra that so many defend without any thought about things like whether an individual is capable of taking personal responsibility for having a firearm or if that person even knows the difference between right or wrong.
So here is a question for everyone that without thinking for themselves just blissfully follow along like sheep because their peers say so. Should a person in accordance with 'Constitutional Carry' be allowed to carry a PDW in public even though their eyesight has deteriorated to the point of being almost blind?
Last edited:
I will expect that many of you will simply 'block' me because I have brought up a truth that most of you don't want to deal with - that truth being that EVERYONE here does believe that some restrictions are necessary when it comes to the " . . . shall not be infringed.", but are not mature enough to admit it in front of your peers and friends, whom themselves won't admit it because they don't want to be viewed as some sort of 'traitor'.
You haven't brought up any truth just an elitist opinion and a holier than thou attitude.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, yours happens to be the same opinion as those who would infringe upon and take away freedoms granted by the Constitution and God.
And the comment about "I'm sure I'm gonna get blocked by some." Don't and try to martyr yourself like you have some moral high ground.
I noticed you haven't bothered to answer the question I posed in my comment (#24) above.
- I can see why because if you answered that the "almost blind" person should be allowed to carry a PDW in public you would be admitting that it was okay to potentially put innocent people at risk, and if you answered no that it would not be okay for an "almost blind" person to carry a PDW in public, then you would be advocating for a 'restriction' (just like 'them') to be placed on 'Constitutional Carry'.
- My point was that when it comes to " . . . shall not be infringed." it's a bit more complicated that just being in total agreement as it applies to ALL circumstances. I'm trying to get people to stop acting like sheep and start thinking for themselves a little bit instead of just following along with the crowd.
- I'll bring up another point in that it is the individual State that have passed the majority of gun restrictions in our country rather than the Federal government (including Congress), yet everyone ignores State governments and rails specifically against the the President, whom other than 'mouthing-off', has actually done absoluty nothing to restrict our gun rights. You and everyone else needs to get out of your media pushed demophobia and start looking at who is REALLY taking away our Constitutional Rights.
You really are a jaded holier than thou type.
Let's see here who enacted the NFA, and the AWB? Pretty sure those are/were federal.
I asked you a question first which you either didn't see from that manufactured moral high horse you are sitting on or just ignored because you have come to the realization that your OPINION isn't getting the back up you thought it would.
So to answer your hypothetical question,
No regular person can carry a "PDW" given by definition a "PDW" is a select fire sub gun or stocked pistol so that makes your question about as valid as defining an AR-15 as an assault rifle.
To further elaborate on that what's in your all knowing wisdom constitutes "almost blind" given that's a really broad term?
My wife can't see very well without her glasses so in your opinion, she shouldn't be allowed the right to defend herself against and attacker.
Most acts of violence on a person during a crime are up close and personal, you should know this since you are presenting yourself as a combat veteran and your knowledge is above all.
So yes a person who is almost blind should be able to carry a weapon to defend themselves given if they are handicapped they are an easier target for those with bad intentions.
But I suppose you just feel they should be euthanized or never leave their house.
Let's see here who enacted the NFA, and the AWB? Pretty sure those are/were federal.
I asked you a question first which you either didn't see from that manufactured moral high horse you are sitting on or just ignored because you have come to the realization that your OPINION isn't getting the back up you thought it would.
So to answer your hypothetical question,
No regular person can carry a "PDW" given by definition a "PDW" is a select fire sub gun or stocked pistol so that makes your question about as valid as defining an AR-15 as an assault rifle.
To further elaborate on that what's in your all knowing wisdom constitutes "almost blind" given that's a really broad term?
My wife can't see very well without her glasses so in your opinion, she shouldn't be allowed the right to defend herself against and attacker.
Most acts of violence on a person during a crime are up close and personal, you should know this since you are presenting yourself as a combat veteran and your knowledge is above all.
So yes a person who is almost blind should be able to carry a weapon to defend themselves given if they are handicapped they are an easier target for those with bad intentions.
But I suppose you just feel they should be euthanized or never leave their house.
Last edited:
I don't get people who are for permits to carry. The frigging bad guy doesn't have a permit? I know in my state (Oklahoma) the little space I am in in a safe place while I am there. Period. As stated above, The Second Amendment is my permit. I hate to say it, I would even protect a democrat from a bad guy in their time of need....
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Man shot 15 times with .45, returns fire ... Maybe shot placement?? 🤷- Latest: Glock 'em down
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
