Brand Spankin' New Glock 19

[djj6835]

Great point borodog. I'm sure this guy is on your side too. I sure feel safe knowing that this guy and plenty like him have decided to take the law into their own hands.

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
How many times am I going to have to say this. This is not an issue regarding the 2nd ammendment. I'm talking about concealed carry laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep and Bear arms.

What am i missing?

Do you want people to open carry?

[Bjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
You're absolutely right. Nobody is going to threaten me with a shotgun, and then turn around to try to rob the store. It's a shame the two guys in the example weren't better shots - and weren't carrying anything bigger than a .22.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting into a gun fight with a .22 against someone armed with a shotgun is tacticaly unsound and any member of a "well-regulated militia" should know that. (Ohh wait, guess you forget that part.)

Even with a good handgun you are severly outclassed by anyone armed with a rifle or a shotgun and should act accordingly.

/Bjorn

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
What am i missing?


[/ QUOTE ]

The second ammendment didn't give people the right to carry arms. The concealed carry laws did, and they are state laws. This is what we were discussing.

Times also change and so can the constition. There is a big difference between what the 2nd ammendment meant back in 1800 and what it means today. The key portion of the second ammendment isn't the part regarding the right to bear arms, but the portion regarding a well regulated militia being necessary to secure a free state. We would all still enjoy the same freedoms withouth a concealed carry law so the second ammendment does not apply in this situation.

In addition to that, giving people the right to carry guns without any sort of training is not the way to form a well regulated militia.

[JimHammer]

The second amendment was set up so we could defend our country in case of attack. Citizen solders could grab their rifles and try to fight off the British, or the Canadians, or whomever.

If we were attacked today (hypothetical situation-not gonna happen), what would Joe Blow be able to do with his AR-15 and a 9mm against an army with well trained soldiers, tanks, artillery, and air support? Not the same situation as the war of 1812.

I don't think we need to take the guns out of the hands of the people. People hunt, go to the range, and there are some places where a gun would be beneficial to home defense. As long as people are responsible with their guns, no problem.

But I really don't see the need for people to be walking around carrying handguns. If I get mugged, I am more than willing to part with my $128.30 in cash and a wallet full of maxed out credit cards. I don't want some idiot to pull out his gun and come to my rescue. I don't want to get shot over pocket change.

I think the point that djj is trying to make is that there are going to be far more idiots carrying around guns than there are responsible people with proper training. And I don't just mean gun safety, I mean training in how to handle situations. An off duty cop sees me getting mugged. He's not going to come in with guns blazing unless he thinks my life is in danger. Of all those examples of people with guns coming to the rescue, how many people's lives were in danger? The only one is the clerk getting shot at. The rest were robberies. Yeah, you may be out a couple of hundred bucks, but you are still alive.

In my opinion, the only people who need to be carrying around a concealed weapon are off duty cops and security people. The rest of us aren't going to be in life or death situations where having a gun on us is going to do any good.

[Peter666]

"If we were attacked today (hypothetical situation-not gonna happen), what would Joe Blow be able to do with his AR-15 and a 9mm against an army with well trained soldiers, tanks, artillery, and air support? Not the same situation as the war of 1812."

This suggests that the intent of the Second Amendment is to give citizens the right to load up on weapons that would equal what is carried by the average soldier.

All the tanks, artillery and air support would be available to the militia in times of war. This is the current Swiss model.

Also, the 2nd Amendment is there to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. If the government decided to turn things into a police state, they would not engage in a full fledged war against the people because they would essentially be destroying their own property. It would be a police type action. So again, the weapons available to police should be availabe to the citizen. That usually consists of an AR-15, 9mm, submachineguns, etc.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The second ammendment didn't give people the right to carry arms. The concealed carry laws did, and they are state laws.

[/ QUOTE ]
Laws don't give you rights. The constitution doesn't give you rights.

[ QUOTE ]
We would all still enjoy the same freedoms withouth a concealed carry law so the second ammendment does not apply in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. My right to self-defense is severly infringed upon if the state bans me from using an effective method of self-defense. How would you feel if the state said "From now on, the only condoms you can use will have holes in them."

[JimHammer]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the 2nd Amendment is there to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. If the government decided to turn things into a police state, they would not engage in a full fledged war against the people because they would essentially be destroying their own property. It would be a police type action. So again, the weapons available to police should be availabe to the citizen. That usually consists of an AR-15, 9mm, submachineguns, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The second 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."

Security of a free state means defending this country from others, not ourselves.

There are other areas of the constitution that deal with a tyrannical government. When in our country's history has the government turned things into police state? That's just paranoia.

The subject of my post was concealed carry. Try to stay on that topic. I don't want to take anyone's guns away, I just don't want everyone to be walking around armed.

[Peter666]

"When in our country's history has the government turned things into police state? That's just paranoia."

They couldn't when the people have guns. Other nations have gone through this though, first by disarming the masses. I think you have heard of the USSR.

"The subject of my post was concealed carry. Try to stay on that topic. I don't want to take anyone's guns away, I just don't want everyone to be walking around armed."

Than this does not even apply to the Second Amendment, but one's natural right to defend themselves from harm. Concealed carry does this. You cannot allow a person not to defend themselves. You can only disallow them from assaulting others.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok, here's 5 more people for you to convince having a concealed carry gun is a bad thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol, when are you going to get the point. These are all robberies. The gun didn't save the person's life it just saved their property.

[/ QUOTE ]

As another poster pointed out. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Apparently you think armed robbers are all nice, well adjusted people who never shoot anyone if they get what they want, and that the way to deal with them is to be a good victim and reward them for their antisocial act. Obviously, no one is going to change your mind here, but I sincerely hope somebody shoots you after you give them your wallet and let them rape your wife and your daughter.