constitutional carry - Page 6
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > constitutional carry

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-15-2010, 03:47 PM   #51
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pandamonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,601
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clip11 View Post
As a side note, this goes in the same book as laws against prostitution. If a woman wants to sell her body to a man for a negotiated price and that man is willing to pay, who's business is it?
Now THAT is a whole other topic for discussion there!
__________________
GUN CONTROL, I GOT THAT

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Thomas Jefferson
pandamonium is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 03:55 PM   #52
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo da Plumbr View Post
Driving is not a right. Driving is a privilege granted by the state. That privilege is contingent on the driver following the safe driving laws set by the state. This guy was stopped for a violation of the traffic laws. Then it was discovered that his privilege to drive had already been suspended. And then of course the illegally carrying a concealed weapon violation. And he’s been arrested before for illegal possession of a gun. I have no sympathy for this guy.
At the risk of being pedantic, "driving" is a commercial term. One "drives" a herd of cattle to market, for example. Similarly, "passenger" implies commerce: one pays to be a passenger to be conveyed from one location to another.

Traveling is not a privilege, it is a right. Being a traveling companion is not a privilege, it is a right.

While I take your point, Jo, and I agree from a practical perspective, we have let terminology morph over time to favor the government over the people.

Knowing how to convey a car safely, knowing the signage, markings on the road, etc. are important. But do we need the government to ensure people on the road are competent? Nope.

All that crap aside, the guy was probably acting stupidly and in no one's best interest least of all his own.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 04:02 PM   #53
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pandamonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,601
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

I dont think we have all the info on this guy either, he could be a real piece of**** , domestic violence charges, attempted murder, who knows?!!
I personally will not have an opinion on this guy unless I have the facts.
His mug shot looks like he is scared to death that his wife is gonna KICK HIS A$$!!

__________________
GUN CONTROL, I GOT THAT

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Thomas Jefferson
pandamonium is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 04:09 PM   #54
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jo da Plumbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,754
Liked 11 Times on 9 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
AtKnowing how to convey a car safely, knowing the signage, markings on the road, etc. are important. But do we need the government to ensure people on the road are competent? Nope.

.

I don't agree. If the government is not going to ensure people on the road are competent, who will? Do you think the mentally impaired know they are mentally impaired and will act responsibly? For that matter do you think a kid of 12 that has access to a car should be allowed to drive on public streets? There has to be some regulation for the safety of society to stop the poor judgment and outright bad behavior of some people. That is why “We the people” set up a government.
__________________
Jo da Plumbr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 04:17 PM   #55
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo da Plumbr View Post
I don't agree. If the government is not going to ensure people on the road are competent, who will?
Insurance companies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo da Plumbr View Post
Do you think the mentally impaired know they are mentally impaired and will act responsibly? For that matter do you think a kid of 12 that has access to a car should be allowed to drive on public streets? There has to be some regulation for the safety of society to stop the poor judgment and outright bad behavior of some people. That is why “We the people” set up a government.
We set up a government to protect our rights, not limit them.

There are ways to ensure the roads are reasonably safe without having the government oversee it. What's so special about a bureaucracy that only it can do this, but a private entity can't?
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 04:32 PM   #56
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jo da Plumbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,754
Liked 11 Times on 9 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
Insurance companies.


We set up a government to protect our rights, not limit them.
How can you have one without the other? Protecting my rights will inevitable set limits on the actions of others. IE my being able to travel safely on the road means others have to follow the same rules. Like the guy that got stopped for unsafe turn. The question was asked who did he hurt. Maybe no one got injured, but not following the laws puts others on the road at risk. Taking away the right to safe travel of others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post

There are ways to ensure the roads are reasonably safe without having the government oversee it. What's so special about a bureaucracy that only it can do this, but a private entity can't?
So you’re suggesting private police? Paid by who and how? Don't we end up with the same situation only less control? A private company sets their own rules. Government we get to vote for changes.
__________________
Jo da Plumbr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 08:47 PM   #57
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo da Plumbr View Post
How can you have one without the other? Protecting my rights will inevitable set limits on the actions of others. IE my being able to travel safely on the road means others have to follow the same rules.
I don't know about you, but there are people around me with valid licenses who drive like crap. Being licensed doesn't mean you're a safe driver. It just means you passed a test a while back.

Safety is a relative thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo da Plumbr View Post
Like the guy that got stopped for unsafe turn. The question was asked who did he hurt. Maybe no one got injured, but not following the laws puts others on the road at risk. Taking away the right to safe travel of others.
If no harm was done by that "unsafe" turn, I'd argue it wasn't unsafe. When harm is done to another or his/her property, then the cops can evaluate the situation and issue citations as needed, and the guy who screwed up can pay restitution.

We have become accustomed to cops billing us for potential crimes or violations when no actual harm has been done to anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo da Plumbr View Post
So you’re suggesting private police? Paid by who and how? Don't we end up with the same situation only less control? A private company sets their own rules. Government we get to vote for changes.
Heck, no! I'm not suggesting private police. I'm suggesting we keep our cops, but that they should worry about accidents only.

If driver competence is left to private insurance companies, they will come up with more rigorous standards for driving. To get insurance, you have to pass a difficult test. By virtue of having insurance at all, you are "licensed".

I'm willing to meet you half way on this and agree that all people who operate a vehicle must be insured.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2010, 10:07 PM   #58
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jo da Plumbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,754
Liked 11 Times on 9 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
I don't know about you, but there are people around me with valid licenses who drive like crap. Being licensed doesn't mean you're a safe driver. It just means you passed a test a while back.

Safety is a relative thing.
Well we do agree on this. Most people don't know how to drive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post


If no harm was done by that "unsafe" turn, I'd argue it wasn't unsafe. When harm is done to another or his/her property, then the cops can evaluate the situation and issue citations as needed, and the guy who screwed up can pay restitution.

We have become accustomed to cops billing us for potential crimes or violations when no actual harm has been done to anyone.


So you’re OK with teenagers racing cars in residential neighborhoods? I'm not. Kids should be allowed to play or ride bikes without fear of being run over. The idea that cops no longer try to prevent crime, just punish offenders, I can't agree with. Just because no one gets hurt does not mean there was not harm done. If I shoot my gun in the air but no one gets hit that's OK? The guy that tried to light a shoe bomb on a plane but the bomb failed so on harm done?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post

Heck, no! I'm not suggesting private police. I'm suggesting we keep our cops, but that they should worry about accidents only.

If driver competence is left to private insurance companies, they will come up with more rigorous standards for driving. To get insurance, you have to pass a difficult test. By virtue of having insurance at all, you are "licensed".

I'm willing to meet you half way on this and agree that all people who operate a vehicle must be insured.
I sure don't want an insurance company setting driving regulations. I think they are some of the biggist crooks around. And like I said before how do you then police the company setting standards on our privliges? If they say left handed drivers are not as safe and are no longer allowed to drive. As bad as the elected officials are I sure don't want non elected officials.
__________________
Jo da Plumbr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 12:44 AM   #59
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Free people have to be responsible people. Irresponsible people tend to find themselves ruled by dictators. By that, I mean that you can't be free and act irresponsible for long before people clamor for rules that prevent you from doing stupid things. Before you know it, we find ourselves where we are today: lots of rules, regulations and government interference.

No, I don't want teen kids racing cars in a residential neighborhood, or folks firing into the air, or any number of other stupid things.

__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 01:24 AM   #60
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jo da Plumbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,754
Liked 11 Times on 9 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
Free people have to be responsible people. Irresponsible people tend to find themselves ruled by dictators. By that, I mean that you can't be free and act irresponsible for long before people clamor for rules that prevent you from doing stupid things. Before you know it, we find ourselves where we are today: lots of rules, regulations and government interference.

No, I don't want teen kids racing cars in a residential neighborhood, or folks firing into the air, or any number of other stupid things.
Very true. I hate all the restrictions and regulations. I hate all the cameras and the surveillance. But what I hate most is the fact that we have to have them.
__________________
Jo da Plumbr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Is CCW constitutional clip11 Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 33 05-04-2011 04:16 AM
"Constitutional Carry" Jeepix Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 10 05-24-2010 02:46 PM
The rise of Constitutional carry? canebrake Legal and Activism 6 04-13-2010 04:28 PM
Should terrorists be given Constitutional rights? skullcrusher Politics, Religion and Controversy 34 06-11-2009 04:53 PM