EDITION: Edgecombe County
FAQs PLACE A CLASSIFIED AD ADVERTISE YOUR BUSINESS
46 °
Fair
Registered Users, Log In Here
National Concealed Carry permit

Joseph T.

Posted 7:02 pm, 01/09/2017

Report them for what their not breaking the law on NC?

liberal

Posted 6:56 pm, 01/09/2017

I Report everyone I See Carrying in pubic to the police

Joseph T.

Posted 6:14 pm, 01/09/2017

What's a matter do you think that a gun on your side won't be enough for people to see that you are open carrying?

cucumber

Posted 5:28 pm, 01/09/2017

I would like a badge or a pin or something that I could pin or clip or place on my shoulder or somewhere obvious so I can let others know that I open carry.

antithesis

Posted 4:32 pm, 01/09/2017

I wouldn't expect you to do any actual research other than to give your own interpretation the way you want it. You fail to even consider that the founding fathers were a group of men who had just overthrown and oppressive government and were very suspicious and untrusting of any government, and felt it the duty of the people to stand up and fight when their government became overbearing. Those people must have the means to do that.

I guess you don't realize that I'm quoting directly from Professor Roy Copperud, cited as "the foremost expert on English usage."

Copperud is a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California, author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus, a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades, and the writer of a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher. He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

So this is the guy that you're going to say hasn't done any research and fails to consider the intent of the writers of the 2nd Amendment?

plinkker

Posted 2:04 pm, 01/09/2017

How many guns Americans own in total is unknown. Per the Washington Post, it could be as high as 360 million or as "low" as 245 million. The horse is out of the barn.

riverworks

Posted 1:25 am, 01/09/2017

I find myself in a very strange position. I actually agree with aFiclonados.

aFicIoNadoS

Posted 12:22 am, 01/09/2017

I wouldn't expect you to do any actual research other than to give your own interpretation the way you want it. You fail to even consider that the founding fathers were a group of men who had just overthrown and oppressive government and were very suspicious and untrusting of any government, and felt it the duty of the people to stand up and fight when their government became overbearing. Those people must have the means to do that.

antithesis

Posted 11:17 pm, 01/08/2017

Joseph, that's really not what the 2nd Amendment says at all. It really is only saying that the people should be the militia, and as so have the right to weapons. We've expanded it a lot since then, but there's nothing at all there to imply that the founders intended everyone to have any weapon they wanted without any type of oversight.

I posted this for Conrad earlier, but you might enjoy it, too:

http://www.constitution.org...rammar.htm

Specifically, #5:

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"


[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."


So not only did the founders clearly intend for there to be regulation by the government, but there's an extension that I didn't know: that they intended for civilians to main control over the military. That's interesting, I think, but not necessarily relevant to this discussion.

Joseph T.

Posted 8:09 pm, 01/08/2017

I am against any law or rule that lets the government take a person right without that person first having their right to a court of law. You keep talking about well regulated while not understanding that it is talking about the militia and also forgetting about the shall not be infringed part which applies the people.

antithesis

Posted 7:47 pm, 01/08/2017

Again, though, you're both forgetting that the "right" demands that the "right" be well regulated. I dont understand how a competency test would go beyond the realm of it being well regulated... if anything, that seems to fit the definition perfectly.

You guys are demanding that it be loosely regulated, or even not regulated at all. That's clearly in opposition to the 2nd Amendment.

Joseph, are you saying that you are opposed to the bill that I linked in the OP, too?

Joseph T.

Posted 7:20 pm, 01/08/2017

A drivers license is not the same as a right and river works has it right.

underdog2

Posted 7:10 pm, 01/08/2017

You allowed the insane asylums to be closed down because doctors convinced you that pills would cure the insane. Hows that working out for you?

riverworks

Posted 6:54 pm, 01/08/2017

There should be no test to determine your rights. If you have a problem with crazy people killing people then improve Obamacare and get them treated. My rights are non-nonnegotiable.

antithesis

Posted 6:45 pm, 01/08/2017

Either way, we're discussing the laws regarding a federal right to carry.

Joseph, we were talking about the new law passed that gives doctors the ability to remove your rights to own a firearm. The problem I have with that is that in the case of the Ft. Lauderdale shooter, the man might not have voluntarily committed himself like he did, for fear of losing his guns. So we would have still had a guy walking around with PTSD, seeing visions, etc, but now refusing to seek treatment and STILL owning guns.

Instead of relying on someone that may not be mentally competent to turn themselves in, wouldn't it simply make more sense to require him to take a simple competency test on a regular basis? That's what we do with a driver's license, and I don't think anyone has ever felt like it was unfair.

Joseph T.

Posted 6:41 pm, 01/08/2017

Not quite.

Crypt

Posted 6:31 pm, 01/08/2017

You paid $2500 didn't you.

Joseph T.

Posted 6:23 pm, 01/08/2017

I don't point any gun at my body loaded or unloaded. however back to my point some guns such as the 1911 are design to be carried ****ed and locked. That is one in the chamber hammer back and the slide lock on.

aFicIoNadoS

Posted 6:21 pm, 01/08/2017

Once again you show your lack of knowledge. In the cases with the malfunctioning Remington triggers, it was found that all had been modified past recommended manufacturer specs by the owners.

antithesis

Posted 6:19 pm, 01/08/2017

That law has actually been passed, Joseph:

http://www.politico.com/sto...ess-217340

The problem I have with that, though, is that in this case, the man might not have voluntarily committed himself like he did, for fear of losing his guns. So we would have still had a guy walking around with PTSD, seeing visions, etc, but now refusing to seek treatment and STILL owning guns.

Your Reply

Your Username:

Your Password:


 
Add Reply
Cancel