SIG Talk banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,928 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Y'all know how the anti gun folks are always wailing about how there will be blood in the streets every time a state relaxes it's firearms laws. I got to thinking about how due to the respect I have for the responsibility I bear by carrying that I'll recognize situations and go out of my way to avoid them just because they could escalate into something worse. Same thing with situational awareness.

I'll admit that it's counter intuitive that packing a firearm makes one less likely to be involved in a violent confrontation but I'd say it does for me.

I suspect the great majority of CCW's are the same way, and to some degree adds to why the anti's have been proven wrong every time.

Thought & comments?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
The anti's will always hype up every instance for their own agenda. Look at any group like PETA or others and you will see some of these groups will try to make things look bad. For example I know of animal rights groups trying to make pens used during Fairs look unhealthy/unsanitary and interviews with owners like they constantly beat their animals.

So it only goes to say that Anti-gun people with try to scare people unfamiliar or educated in firearms. This is really a subtle form of terrorism, since they are trying to use fear as a means of a political strategy in obtaining their political goals.

Taken from Merriam- Webster dictionary

Definition of terrorism
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Definition of terror
1
: a state of intense fear
2
a : one that inspires fear : scourge
b : a frightening aspect
c : a cause of anxiety : worry
d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3
: reign of terror
4
: violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.

This kind of applies to all of the HRC protestors using destruction or threats after she lost as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
Y'all know how the anti gun folks are always wailing about how there will be blood in the streets every time a state relaxes it's firearms laws. I got to thinking about how due to the respect I have for the responsibility I bear by carrying that I'll recognize situations and go out of my way to avoid them just because they could escalate into something worse. Same thing with situational awareness.

I'll admit that it's counter intuitive that packing a firearm makes one less likely to be involved in a violent confrontation but I'd say it does for me.

I suspect the great majority of CCW's are the same way, and to some degree adds to why the anti's have been proven wrong every time.

Thought & comments?
Concur. Not speaking for anyone but myself and I walk away from bad situations far more willingly because I value my 2A rights and want to act accordingly. If someone is just running their yap in a bar or a road rage wingnut is trying to goad people into conflict
then i just think about the responsibility of CC and I get centered on what's truly important. I am far less likely now to let situations degrade than I was before I CC'd.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,289 Posts
I absolutely avoid confrontation. I would venture to say the majority of those who carry a gun do as well, but there is always one...that one who is going to ruin it for everyone...that one who just has to push it...that one who just can't seem to keep their mouth shut. I avoid those folks. I've learned it's better to leave contention off before it starts b/c once the dam breaks there's no stopping it until all the water has gone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,656 Posts
If the blood running in the streets in the 45 states that allow some sort of open carry isn't enough evidence for you, I don't know what would be.....

Between that, and all the people that got shot first, I'm surprised anyone is still alive.

It's mostly, if not all hype. See what I did there?

I'm friendly and polite to a fault, anytime I have a firearm on me. I don't generally go to trouble spot areas, but you never know when trouble might come to you. Neighbor told me yesterday someone had tried to pry the doorknob off the back door of his garage over the weekend. They were home every night. This in a small farming community of 2300, 30 miles from any kind of big city.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,289 Posts
Alternative facts. :lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edsel

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,425 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: JWA

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,293 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: Wstar425

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,289 Posts
We do the exact same things with some quotes allegedly from the Founding Fathers :lol:
There is some truth to that! Like the notion that the Second Amendment gives us the right to carry our guns anywhere we want. The founders never envisioned that, nor did they ever intend for that to be annotated as any kind of right. Anyway...:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: JWA and Edsel

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
A literal interpretation of 2A would lead us to believe that we can take guns anywhere but Supreme Court decisions have stated that although it is an individual citizens right, states maintain the power to legislate its own laws without infringing upon the right of it's citizen's to keep and bear arms. The phrase to bear arms "for the common defence" was struck from the final version for reasons known only to the founding fathers but the term "Militia" has morphed over time to some definition that is subject to the opinion of the moment. After declaring their independence from a tyrranical British government, it's impossible to envision any scenario where the founding fathers were intending to do anything less than bestowing determining powers to the individual states and the citizenry itself. Their desire, and it is evident by reading it, was that the elected Federal Government worked for the people and individual states for the regulation and legislation activities that would benefit and protect it's entire citizenry. The First and Second Amendments positioning within the document clearly illustrate how important the maintaining of these rights were after their own experiences with the British. Our Constitution is a document that all people's worldwide have coveted and we should cherish. A lot of other worldwide governments feel differently, and maybe even our own too often here in recent years.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,289 Posts
A literal interpretation of 2A would lead us to believe that we can take guns anywhere...
Actually, no. A literal interpretation of the 2A is, literally, that the federal government cannot infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms, for a specific purpose, which is to maintain the freedom of the state. It says nothing about where the people can carry or not carry their guns, it only tells the federal government that IT can't infringe the right. That is all.


...but Supreme Court decisions have stated that although it is an individual citizens right, states maintain the power to legislate its own laws without infringing upon the right of it's citizen's to keep and bear arms. The phrase to bear arms "for the common defence" was struck from the final version for reasons known only to the founding fathers but the term "Militia" has morphed over time to some definition that is subject to the opinion of the moment. After declaring their independence from a tyrranical British government, it's impossible to envision any scenario where the founding fathers were intending to do anything less than bestowing determining powers to the individual states and the citizenry itself. Their desire, and it is evident by reading it, was that the elected Federal Government worked for the people and individual states for the regulation and legislation activities that would benefit and protect it's entire citizenry. The First and Second Amendments positioning within the document clearly illustrate how important the maintaining of these rights were after their own experiences with the British. Our Constitution is a document that all people's worldwide have coveted and we should cherish. A lot of other worldwide governments feel differently, and maybe even our own too often here in recent years.
The US Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to regulate the private ownership and use of guns, and the Second, Nineth and Tenth Amendments serve to further restrict the federal government's voice on the matters of powers retained by the States. The founders derived our US Constitution from British law, most notably from Blackstone's Commentaries, which is the only law they really knew at the time, but the States have always retained the right to exercise some control over the use of guns.

The notion that we can take our guns anywhere we want to go is simply misguided at best. We don't even have the right to go anywhere we want to go, let along take a gun there. The right to self defense, and the obligation to maintain the freedom of the State, is the purpose for the right to keep and bear arms, but that doesn't mean we have the right to take our guns anywhere we want.

At any rate, the Second Amendment is not in any way, nor was it ever intended to be, a license to do anything. It is strictly a restriction placed on the federal government alone. Each state has its own constitution which is written to protect the individual's rights. The US Constitution was never intended to do that. It was meant to inform the federal government that the people have certain rights which it cannot infringe, and the People have the right to protect their rights by force if need be.

The problem, though, is that too many believe a piece of paper was intended, and is going, to stop the government from taking their rights, but it's not true. The people are supposed to defend their rights, but too many are only too willing to give up the power to defend their rights for the perception of security provided by the federal government. That's the "within" referred to as it relates to the fall of America.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,944 Posts
I avoid going places where there is unnecessary risk of confrontation, I would apologize for something I didn't do, and dress neutrally so as to avoid exciting the lesser beasts out in the wild...I wish to remain as unnoticeable as possible to avoid violence and retain the element of surprise.

Shoulda started this out with "Verily" or "Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death..." or something...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
A literal interpretation of 2A would lead us to believe that we can take guns anywhere...
Actually, no. A literal interpretation of the 2A is, literally, that the federal government cannot infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms, for a specific purpose, which is to maintain the freedom of the state. It says nothing about where the people can carry or not carry their guns, it only tells the federal government that IT can't infringe the right. That is all.


...but Supreme Court decisions have stated that although it is an individual citizens right, states maintain the power to legislate its own laws without infringing upon the right of it's citizen's to keep and bear arms. The phrase to bear arms "for the common defence" was struck from the final version for reasons known only to the founding fathers but the term "Militia" has morphed over time to some definition that is subject to the opinion of the moment. After declaring their independence from a tyrranical British government, it's impossible to envision any scenario where the founding fathers were intending to do anything less than bestowing determining powers to the individual states and the citizenry itself. Their desire, and it is evident by reading it, was that the elected Federal Government worked for the people and individual states for the regulation and legislation activities that would benefit and protect it's entire citizenry. The First and Second Amendments positioning within the document clearly illustrate how important the maintaining of these rights were after their own experiences with the British. Our Constitution is a document that all people's worldwide have coveted and we should cherish. A lot of other worldwide governments feel differently, and maybe even our own too often here in recent years.
The US Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to regulate the private ownership and use of guns, and the Second, Nineth and Tenth Amendments serve to further restrict the federal government's voice on the matters of powers retained by the States. The founders derived our US Constitution from British law, most notably from Blackstone's Commentaries, which is the only law they really knew at the time, but the States have always retained the right to exercise some control over the use of guns.

The notion that we can take our guns anywhere we want to go is simply misguided at best. We don't even have the right to go anywhere we want to go, let along take a gun there. The right to self defense, and the obligation to maintain the freedom of the State, is the purpose for the right to keep and bear arms, but that doesn't mean we have the right to take our guns anywhere we want.

At any rate, the Second Amendment is not in any way, nor was it ever intended to be, a license to do anything. It is strictly a restriction placed on the federal government alone. Each state has its own constitution which is written to protect the individual's rights. The US Constitution was never intended to do that. It was meant to inform the federal government that the people have certain rights which it cannot infringe, and the People have the right to protect their rights by force if need be.

The problem, though, is that too many believe a piece of paper was intended, and is going, to stop the government from taking their rights, but it's not true. The people are supposed to defend their rights, but too many are only too willing to give up the power to defend their rights for the perception of security provided by the federal government. That's the "within" referred to as it relates to the fall of America.
No one ever stated the 2A was a "license" to do anything as I recall. Stated that a literal interpretation would lead us to believe we can go anywhere with guns (of course, we can't) and I think we just said the same thing but hard to be sure. SCOTUS rulings have supported states rights for the most part and the literal interpretation of "shall not be infringed" has been the sticking point with gun free zones inside federal, state, and local municipalities changing pretty much constantly. I posted in another thread that a 50 state reciprocity law by the Feds is a non starter for a variety of good reasons. Well intended by Cornyn but misguided. The Feds are only your friend for as long as there is a 2A pragmatic quorum in power. It is fairly simple to keep the spirit of the Amendment as it currently stands in effect considering the makeup of the three branches and with Gorsuch in SCOTUS. The current administration needs to stay out of 2A land grabs like reciprocity and push the power back to, and encourage, state legislatures. It is real easy to figure out what states are 2A friendly and that paradigm won't change in the near term. The 2A is constantly under attack and depending on the Federal administration du jour is a poor strategy. Pretty sure my position on that issue is consistent and never wavering and likewise my thoughts on the overall thought process for constructing the Constitution, including 2A. It is overarching which is why citizens take their cases to SCOTUS. A SCOTUS that leans left will trample the intentions of the architects.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,289 Posts
No one ever stated the 2A was a "license" to do anything as I recall. Stated that a literal interpretation would lead us to believe we can go anywhere with guns (of course, we can't) and I think we just said the same thing but hard to be sure. SCOTUS rulings have supported states rights for the most part and the literal interpretation of "shall not be infringed" has been the sticking point with gun free zones inside federal, state, and local municipalities changing pretty much constantly. I posted in another thread that a 50 state reciprocity law by the Feds is a non starter for a variety of good reasons. Well intended by Cornyn but misguided. The Feds are only your friend for as long as there is a 2A pragmatic quorum in power. It is fairly simple to keep the spirit of the Amendment as it currently stands in effect considering the makeup of the three branches and with Gorsuch in SCOTUS. The current administration needs to stay out of 2A land grabs like reciprocity and push the power back to, and encourage, state legislatures. It is real easy to figure out what states are 2A friendly and that paradigm won't change in the near term. The 2A is constantly under attack and depending on the Federal administration du jour is a poor strategy. Pretty sure my position on that issue is consistent and never wavering and likewise my thoughts on the overall thought process for constructing the Constitution, including 2A. It is overarching which is why citizens take their cases to SCOTUS. A SCOTUS that leans left will trample the intentions of the architects.
Actually they have! Anytime you hear someone say "the Second Amendment is my carry permit," that is exactly what they're saying. And if you literally interpret the Second Amendment then you'd have to come to the conclusion that it in no way even suggests that anyone can go anywhere they want, let alone with a gun b/c all it states is that the right of the people to "keep and bear" (no mention of where they can go with them) arms can't be infringed "by the federal government".

The SCOTUS, along with the other two branches of the federal government, has trampled the rights of the people for years, but the notion that the people need to take anything to the SCOTUS is misguided. They're not supposed to, except on matters where the federal government has been given authority to legislate. It has not been given the authority to legislate the private use and ownership of guns; therefore, the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to hear cases on these issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,656 Posts
and open carry.....:D
The OP was talking about the wailing by antis every time a State relaxes some gun law. You can't get a whole lot more relaxed than unlicensed open carry. It would seem like some extreme radical idea such as going from "may" issue to "shall" issue shouldn't be cause for much concern seeing as there are some other states that have completely unlicensed carry of all flavors, and it's generally not an issue. At least not blood running down the streets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
and open carry.....
The OP was talking about the wailing by antis every time a State relaxes some gun law. You can't get a whole lot more relaxed than unlicensed open carry. It would seem like some extreme radical idea such as going from "may" issue to "shall" issue shouldn't be cause for much concern seeing as there are some other states that have completely unlicensed carry of all flavors, and it's generally not an issue. At least not blood running down the streets.
We have open carry in our state but between friends and relatives that are LEO's, they said it is rare and ALWAYS causes some occurrence or complaint when it does happen. I have never lived in a state where open carry was not readily noticed or part of the scenery. Does anyone know places where it is not an uproar for open carry folks? Seems like a place where crime would be very low, not high.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,293 Posts
We have open carry in our state but between friends and relatives that are LEO's, they said it is rare and ALWAYS causes some occurrence or complaint when it does happen. I have never lived in a state where open carry was not readily noticed or part of the scenery. Does anyone know places where it is not an uproar for open carry folks? Seems like a place where crime would be very low, not high.
Colorado. Wyoming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,781 Posts
We have open carry in our state but between friends and relatives that are LEO's, they said it is rare and ALWAYS causes some occurrence or complaint when it does happen. I have never lived in a state where open carry was not readily noticed or part of the scenery. Does anyone know places where it is not an uproar for open carry folks? Seems like a place where crime would be very low, not high.
Arizona for one. My Highway Patrol neighbor told me that his LEO friends asked him why he lived in Gilbert as nothing ever happens there, and they were referring to crime. We do have some, but not much.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top