How many have concealed carry permit to carry a gun ?

[houstonscott]

The U.S. may well have achieved tremendous strides in human freedom but I would challenge you to give examples of how the second amendment has been important in that journey. We have been a nation of laws, not tyranny. We settle issues with votes, not guns.

It's reason the system works, the government has no choice but to remain within constitution, it's the reason for the current attacks on second amendment, can't subjugated citizens until guns are picked up. The whole thought behind the constitution is limiting government power, keeping it small, marginalized. Grid lock is designed in. When you think of government for any reason, your State is what should come to mind, in everything except war, and even then your attention should be how your congressman (you) will vote and how your State (senators) will vote. HS

 

[TripleR]

Fellow members of TBN have stated their positions on CCW, as is their right to do. Nor do I quibble with any of those opinions.

Very interesting and well written and I do respect your opinion. However after over thirty years of working in the field of corrections/criminal justice/law enforcement I disagree with you on just about every point.

As a young married college student with an infant, I didn't own a firearm or feel the need to. Crime visited our little home one night and I haven't been without one since then nor will I ever be again. A firearm has kept me safe on more than one occasion, so statistics don't mean much.

As to your "understanding" of our constitution, well we'll just have to disagree on that and to expound on the areas of disagreement would be too long to read.

 

[k0ua]

Very interesting and well written and I do respect your opinion. However after over thirty years of working in the field of corrections/criminal justice/law enforcement I disagree with you on just about every point.

As a young married college student with an infant, I didn't own a firearm or feel the need to. Crime visited our little home one night and I haven't been without one since then nor will I ever be again. A firearm has kept me safe on more than one occasion, so statistics don't mean much.

As to your "understanding" of our constitution, well we'll just have to disagree on that and to expound on the areas of disagreement would be too long to read.

Well stated TripleR. Well stated indeed.

 

[delgra]

2nd that Bro!

 

[RoyJackson]

Well stated TripleR. Well stated indeed.

Agree 100%

 

[aczlan]

Yes, you can shoot a burgular, if he is obviously armed and threatens your life first...but even so you will be arrested and charged with a serious crime..and the legal defense will cost you over 50 grand, so practically, you just show him where the valuables are and go back to bed. That is why we have home insurance. Even if a cop shoots a perp he will stand trial for that...every time.

IF all the burglar wants is electronics and other "valuables" they are welcome to them, I carry insurance for such reasons and its not worth shooting someone over. However, if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, how am I to know that all they want is some cash, and other valuables?
On the other hand, what about family heirlooms which may not have a lot of value (and will only get the robber a few bucks at a pawnshop) but have been in the family for many years?

In Canada, we have about 12 police officers killed every year by criminals or nut jobs with guns. These police were carrying, were highly trained, and quite experienced..and their handguns did not protect them
If handguns will not guarantee the safety of trained police officers, then why would they protect an amateur civilian?

How many police officers per year are saved because they have a gun? How many of those are cases where someone ambushed a police officer or was in a shootout with one?

Hence the right to bear arms in a regulated and well disciplined militia was [and remains] justified.but this justification has been modified to mean that every person, whether in a well-regulated militia or not, has the right to bear arms anywhere at any time without cause

While I agree that some open carry advocates have been foolish (ie: carrying a rifle into Starbucks), then have generally been within their legal rights. Not 20 years ago, it was normal to have a gun rack in the back of most trucks where I live and it usually had at least two guns in it (generally a 12 gauge and a rifle of some kind).
As for the 2nd amendment only applying to a "militia", the US Supreme Court disagrees with you:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e)Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54

Aaron Z

 

[jix]

Members of TBN have spoken:
My posts were my opinion, not my advice. I have not been persuaded to change my opinion, nor have I been insulted by anyone during this discussion on what is a very controversial topic. I am impressed by that gentility on the part of TBN members and thank you for your gracious manners, fellow TBNers. Please keep up the good fellowship.

You have all made some points in your opinions. The chief point, for me, is the stark fact that personal firearms (handguns) are both appropriate and necessary in many parts of the USA. I do agree with that assessment, for personal protection. Canada seems to be a different kettle of fish, for the moment.
Another point made is that handguns are necessary to resist government encroachment upon civil liberty.

Well, that point remains in contention in this day and age. I really hope, with all my might that we never again need to prove it to be right, or wrong. It is a horrifying thing to contemplate; a situation where the citizens must use united lethal force against their government, or vice versa. That is civil war.

Terrorism is now the most contemporary likelihood of bringing such a contretemps into gruesome reality. Consider the breathtaking positions of the department of homeland security, for example.

There are two raison d'etre that make terrorism work as a tactic: Everyone is afraid; or no one is afraid.
Terrorism provokes fear among some quarters of the population..and defiance among the others.

Carrying handguns is a hedge against fear, for some.. And a reason for fear for others. In such a dilemma, the strong carry guns..the less-strong depend upon government for protection. What do the wise do?

The default winner is he who is fearless, and wise.

From history we learn that the cannon carried into battle on ships of the British Navy had an inscription upon their muzzles : "This is the King's final argument" it read. (in latin: Rex magnum Locitor)

How ironic: The criminals and the terrorists cause us to turn our weapons muzzles upon ourselves. Perhaps this is fears final argument.?

By your leave, fellow TBNers, I decline further posting upon this subject. Farting against thunder just makes the world stinky..and senselessly noisy. I hope that this debate does not become circular. Thank you for your good manners in forbearance....and for your thoughtful posts. Be wise.

 

[houstonscott]

Originally Posted by jix
Hence the right to bear arms in a regulated and well disciplined militia was [and remains] justified.but this justification has been modified to mean that every person, whether in a well-regulated militia or not, has the right to bear arms anywhere at any time without cause


That's not what it says or means!

HS

 

[TripleR]

Members of TBN have spoken:
My posts were my opinion, not my advice. I have not been persuaded to change my opinion, nor have I been insulted by anyone during this discussion on what is a very controversial topic. I am impressed by that gentility on the part of TBN members and thank you for your gracious manners, fellow TBNers. Please keep up the good fellowship.

Have a good day and I too appreciate the civil discourse. I've come to my opinions and changed a few over my 60+ years of life, but don't see it changing on this one either.

 

[IslandTractor]

It's reason the system works, the government has no choice but to remain within constitution, it's the reason for the current attacks on second amendment, can't subjugated citizens until guns are picked up. The whole thought behind the constitution is limiting government power, keeping it small, marginalized. Grid lock is designed in. When you think of government for any reason, your State is what should come to mind, in everything except war, and even then your attention should be how your congressman (you) will vote and how your State (senators) will vote. HS

The reason our system works is that citizens and politicians abide by elections. The one significant instance when they did not resulted in a civil war, not a tyrannical government that disregarded electoral outcomes. Our constitutional form of government has NEVER required and "armed militia" to keep it in check. Indeed, virtually all examples of an "armed militia" being formed in this country have been vigilante mobs who murdered fellow citizens. The one exception was the Whiskey Rebellion when George Washington and Alexander Hamilton raised a militia force to confront rebellious citizens.

To argue that the federal government has ever been "afraid" of self appointed militias is simply stupid. The constitution calls for the "armed militia" that the second amendment protects to be headed by POTUS. Does that make any sense to you at all if the armed militia is to control the government. More like the armed militia is there to control any standing military from taking over the government, which after all was exactly what the framers of the constitution were concerned about. Our nation's professional military have never attempted a coup and that tradition is deeply ingrained in our officer corps. However, assuming the military ever did drive tanks into DC and take over the reigns of power, do you seriously think a disorganized group of NRA fanatics is going to stop them? This ain't 1776 bubba. M1A1 verses a pickup truck anyone? 155mm howitzer verses an AR15?? Predator drones versus some helicopter drone kit you bought from Amazon?? The "armed militia" fantasy is simply a marketing ploy by hardened gun nuts to attempt to use the constitution to buttress their case. It has only been in the past 20 years or so that a conservative SCOTUS has given any credence at all to the notion that "armed militia" was anything but a vestigial and outdated concept aimed at the King of England. There is no noble history of armed militia in this country, just a vapid argument used by gun nuts.

Again, I have zero issues with guns for sport or even self protection in one's home. I don't like the idea that anyone who is paranoid can go get himself a semiautomatic weapon and stick it in his pocket to make a trip to Costco or the supermarket. And, I think anyone who shows up at McDonalds or Starbucks with an AR15 has just met criteria for having all weapons permits cancelled and guns removed by the local police chief.