Nationwide CCW bill

Karl, I see the downward spiral and I seriously worry about where it's taking us. I acknowledge your statements concerning the Democratic Party. And the Republican Party is all about Capitalistic greed to the detriment of the middle class / working class, our resources, et al...
There really is no "good" party at this point in time. No one needs to make a billion dollars a year when their lowest level employees can't afford to live. Everyone who works 40 hours a week should be guaranteed decent housing, food, medical care, basic transportation, and the ability to improve through education.
People need to open their eyes. The real reason behind all the legislation and eroding of the constitution is to generate a mindset of blind acceptance in the masses to protect the top 1%. Both political parties are doing this; they're just going at it in different ways. Marginalize people who want to own guns and protect themselves. Marginalize people who have different lifestyles or interests or hobbies... (I'm being extreme to make a point)
Divide and Conquer is alive and well in this country, much to our detriment.

Karl_Mcknight said:

America is a "Self Governed Nation." To my best knowledge it's the only nation on earth that is.

Click to expand...

How would you define 'self governed nation' by which the United States is the only one?

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has recently (in the past 30 years) become the party of the Criminal element, the chronically unemployed, the uneducated, the Lazy, and the inner city Ghetto dwellers. And These people now make up about half the populace.

Click to expand...

This is clearly not true. Half of Americans are not unemployed or lazy.

Rich, there are more reasons to have regulations of firearms than fear of them. I am not afraid of guns, but I do believe in regulation to prevent abuse and reckless accidents.

The object of this thread was to show that lawmakers wanted to grant the ability to carry concealed almost anywhere, to themselves. Our Canadian friend can, and did, state his opinion on guns. It's a waste of time for him to try to convince us that guns, in this country, aren't necessary. It's also a waste of time for us to try to convince him that concealed weapons can, and have, saved lives. I can only state what our sheriff said several years ago, and that was that he wanted a loosening of the concealed weapon permit regulations. He further went on to say that there's no way his department, or any other law enforcement agency can protect every citizen. He said it is up to each of us to protect themselves.

Nova_C said:

Rich, there are more reasons to have regulations of firearms than fear of them. I am not afraid of guns, but I do believe in regulation to prevent abuse and reckless accidents.

Click to expand...

And those regulations are based on what exactly? If you claim anything other than "fear", then you are being disingenuous.

Rich Z said:

And those regulations are based on what exactly? If you claim anything other than "fear", then you are being disingenuous.

Click to expand...

Would you allow a two year old to handle a loaded firearm? If not, would you consider that a fear of guns?

If not, then it is you being disingenuous.

Nova_C said:

Would you allow a two year old to handle a loaded firearm? If not, would you consider that a fear of guns?

If not, then it is you being disingenuous.

Click to expand...

That would be up to the parents. Or should be.

The federal government rightfully should be limited in scope by what the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights states are the constraints that it must operate under.

Aren't you implying that you fear what a two year old would do with a loaded gun?

Fear OF a gun and fear of what someone would do with it are synonymous.

Perhaps "disingenuous" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Aren't all laws based on fears?

DLena said:

Aren't all laws based on fears?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Competitive advantage via legislation is sometimes a big influence. Don't I wish government had made it a law that everyone had to have a corn snake when I was breeding them, like they did for auto insurance..... :laugh: And now lately applied that same thing to health insurance.

Consolidation and broadening of power and influence comes to mind too.

Of course, making a population fearful of the consequences if they are not given the desired power if laws aren't passed is certainly helpful to the government.

And my favorite: Making a road to hell that is paved with supposedly good intentions.

Rich Z said:

That would be up to the parents. Or should be.

The federal government rightfully should be limited in scope by what the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights states are the constraints that it must operate under.

Aren't you implying that you fear what a two year old would do with a loaded gun?

Fear OF a gun and fear of what someone would do with it are synonymous.

Perhaps "disingenuous" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Click to expand...

No, it means what I think it does.

Perhaps, then, I'm misunderstanding. If you believe that no harm can come from someone using a firearm and that no one, under any circumstances, should be prevented from having one, then I don't think you are arguing from a reasoned perspective, but an ideological one.

Ideological debates are pointless.

Nova_C said:

Ideological debates are pointless.

Click to expand...

I get your point.

Yes and no. Ideology functions as an ideal and a framework for real-world applications.
The right to ccw should be universal.
As should the loss of that right
Violent offenders, for example, should be denied the right to firearm ownership.

Per our constitution, arming oneself is a right.
As opposed to driving a car, which is a privilege.

Nova_C said:

No, it means what I think it does.

Perhaps, then, I'm misunderstanding. If you believe that no harm can come from someone using a firearm and that no one, under any circumstances, should be prevented from having one, then I don't think you are arguing from a reasoned perspective, but an ideological one.

Ideological debates are pointless.

Click to expand...

Ideological? Certainly! But not based on reason? Only if you disagree with my reasoning to construct such an ideology, I suppose. And knowing they are pointless in debating, still you continue. What does that say about you?

But if our past discussions are any sort of clue about your own reasoning and ideological perspective, I would suspect that if I were to say that the sky is blue, you would disagree, stating that the view of the sky over the USA from Canada displays a much different hue. So I am obviously wrong (in your opinion) because you only see the sky HERE from your own viewpoint and you cannot understand why I don't see it your way. oke: