!!BAD!! the assault weapon ban may come back!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

This is apparently where we differ... I consider the average law-abiding American citizen a 'good guy'- you obviously don't.

---

The average law-abiding American citizen is a decent and moral person - but the context of your statement is that the Assualt Weapon's ban did not allow the "good guys," is false on your part - and you accused me of something when that is not what I stated. The term "good guys," is normally associated with Law Enforcement - not the average citizen. Your reaching - and again using a straw-man arguement.

While I am far from a left leaning individual - your attempts at accusations of not supporting the 2nd Amendment, your statements along the lines that I see here - with this post - all indicitate to me that - you would prefer not a free society of independent and free people who express themselves - but a society of like minded individuals who only see the issues the exact same way you do.

Someone has gone so far right - they are now approaching the left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

pest control

---

Isn't that what Iran what to use their nukes for...... :charge:

Sarcasm intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Isn't that what Iran what to use their nukes for...... :charge:

Sarcasm intended.

---

I think they've failed their background checks though. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I think they've failed their background checks though. ~;)

---

Not at all. They don't live in New York..... ~;)

If the citizens of the US bear arms, including military hardware, in order to act as a militia if necessary and as decreed both their right and duty in the Constitution does that make those citizens into a legimate military target? If so what does this mean for the "War on Terror"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

This is includes cars, knifes, bows and arrows, hammers, pipes, rocks, chainsaws, and my house keys, which could be used violently.

---

Ah, but all of these things (with the exception of bows) are designed (with the exception of rocks) for things that are not violent. Cars for transportation, knives for cooking, hammers for putting nails in walls, pipes for moving water about, rocks...well they don't really have a purpose, chainsaws for cutting down trees, house keys for opening locks.

On the other hand, guns are designed to fire pieces of metal at things, to kill and injure.

Yeah, we should only ban assault knives, assault chainsaws, assault rocks, and so on... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

If the citizens of the US bear arms, including military hardware, in order to act as a militia if necessary and as decreed both their right and duty in the Constitution does that make those citizens into a legimate military target? If so what does this mean for the "War on Terror"?

---

Interesting take on this, Slyspy. At the very least, you could argue that as you're not allowed firearm ownership as a minor, minor's don't constitute part of the militia and wouldn't be valid targets. Killing innocent children seems to be something the Wahabists delight in.

I don't agree with that. Just owning a gun does not automatically make one a combatant. Now if we were invaded, and citizens took their arms and formed militias and took up arms against the invader- then yes, those citizens are fair game.

But to say owning guns = militias = military target is a stretch of logic. You may as well say men over 18 = draftees = military target to justift their slaughter. Armed citizenry was and is common in most societies and Im not aware of it ever being thought valid justification to pre-emptively kill them.

Now careful, he's got a point. The wording of the ammendment itself specificially implies gun-owner=militia.
You could argue that a militia is inherently defensive in nature (and this would finally end the Left's crazy claims that the National Guardsmen are the only ones entitled to 2nd ammendment rights).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Now careful, he's got a point. The wording of the ammendment itself specificially implies gun-owner=militia.
You could argue that a militia is inherently defensive in nature (and this would finally end the Left's crazy claims that the National Guardsmen are the only ones entitled to 2nd ammendment rights).

---

How true the 2nd amendment has two parts in its wording. One being the militia concept - the other being the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers saw them inter-related to each other.

The far left is incorrect in their assumptions that the 2nd amendment does not grant citizens the right to keep and bear arms - since the founding fathers invisioned all able bodied men of military age has having the requirment to serve in the militia in the time of need (or that is what my readings have lead me to conclude.)

The far right is incorrect when they assume that the founding fathers meant that no regulations and restrictions about use could not be placed upon arms. The Constitution has several clauses about the regulating of militias embedded into the main body of the constitution.

Again, by the same token one could argue that the selective service act that requires all males to register for the draft at 18 means they're all valid targets as well. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny- it didn't then and it doesn't now.

Neither do I see how the 2A says that gun owner = militia man. If anything along those lines I would think its closer to "Because we need to be able to raise militias, the right to bear arms...." ect, ect.

Quote:

---

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

---

My state's constitution is even more plain:

Quote:

---

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Again, by the same token one could argue that the selective service act that requires all males to register for the draft at 18 means they're all valid targets as well. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny- it didn't then and it doesn't now.

---

Not even close to the same thing, the selective service is a registration of all men when they enter the age of military service - the Registration with Selective Service does not equate to a draft. Nor does it imply someone will be in the military. Not even close - you might want to read Title 10 codes to fully understand what the selective service does and is.

Quote:

---

Neither do I see how the 2A says that gun owner = militia man. If anything along those lines I would think its closer to "Because we need to be able to raise militias, the right to bear arms...." ect, ect.

---

You might want to try reading some of the thoughts of the founding father's concerning the 2nd Amendment. If you think we are confused now about it - they also had conflicting interpetations and reasoning behind the actual drafting of the clauses in the Constitution that deal with Militia and even more so concerning the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:

---

My state's constitution is even more plain:

---

How does an assualt weapons ban prevent you or anyone from doing what the intent of that clause in your state's constitution state? Making Conceal Carry Permits more restrictive and greater qualifications to get, prevents you from achieving the intent of that clause how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

How does an assualt weapons ban prevent you or anyone from doing what the intent of that clause in your state's constitution state? Making Conceal Carry Permits more restrictive and greater qualifications to get, prevents you from achieving the intent of that clause how?

---

It's pretty plain isnt it Red? The right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned. So, if I want to keep or bear a firearm, my state Constitution says the state government will not question my right to do so. It doesn't say what kind, nor does it say where or how I have to bear them. I'm not arguing that we should revolt because I have to get a permit- but it's pretty clear that both owning and carrying arms is supposed to be an unquestioned right.

Quote:

---

You might want to try reading some of the thoughts of the founding father's concerning the 2nd Amendment. If you think we are confused now about it - they also had conflicting interpetations and reasoning behind the actual drafting of the clauses in the Constitution that deal with Militia and even more so concerning the 2nd Amendment.

---

You're not the only one that's looked into these things. Just because I arrive at a different conclusion doesn't mean I haven't done any research. Of course the wording was a result of differing views and compromises- but we still arrived at a set verbage and that's what is in the Constitution, not the debate leading up to it.

Again:

Quote:

---

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

---

It's pretty clear to me. Because of the necessity of militias in a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What are you arguing anyhow? That you should be part of an active militia to keep and bear arms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Ah, but all of these things (with the exception of bows) are designed (with the exception of rocks) for things that are not violent. Cars for transportation, knives for cooking, hammers for putting nails in walls, pipes for moving water about, rocks...well they don't really have a purpose, chainsaws for cutting down trees, house keys for opening locks.

On the other hand, guns are designed to fire pieces of metal at things, to kill and injure.

---

Let's look at this idea from several aspects. First, as I've already stated, guns can be viewed as tools just like hammers or knives or chainsaws. A chainsaw is designed to cut wood, while a gun is designed for use in hunting or self-defense. My shooting is a hobby, my friends and I enjoy being together practicing our aim, trying different guns; its friendly, its competitive, just like guys who ride motorcycles or fly little RC airplanes. So guns do have purposes other than killing people.

Second, just because knives or chainsaws or pipes have other uses, they can be (and are) used to 'kill and injure'.
If I am stabbed by a paring knife it won't matter much to me that it was designed for fruit.

Third, it all boils down to whether or not you trust people or governments. I believe that men have the right to exercise responsibility, and I am willing to accept the fact that some will fail to be responsible. Proponents of gun control seem to believe that only the State can be responsible, when clearly history has shown that rarely are governments trustworthy.

Finally

Quote:

---

I think that it is foolish to give weapons designed to kill and maim to anybody.

---

Even if you take away my right to responsibly own guns, criminals will continue to possess and use them. No one (that I know of anyway) is advocating 'giving' weapons to anybody, but gun control will only limit guys like me, not guys you should be worried about.

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Third, it all boils down to whether or not you trust people or governments. I believe that men have the right to exercise responsibility, and I am willing to accept the fact that some will fail to be responsible. Proponents of gun control seem to believe that only the State can be responsible, when clearly history has shown that rarely are governments trustworthy.

---

Amen, brother ichi. That's essentially been my overriding point all along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's pretty plain isnt it Red? The right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned. So, if I want to keep or bear a firearm, my state Constitution says the state government will not question my right to do so. It doesn't say what kind, nor does it say where or how I have to bear them. I'm not arguing that we should revolt because I have to get a permit- but it's pretty clear that both owning and carrying arms is supposed to be an unquestioned right.

---

However again you have not addressed the question posed. You accused me of falling for hype many pages ago because I strongly disagree with the Concealed Weapons Permit. Now that we have gotten the hype accusations behind us - I hope you can see where my postion is coming from. The Constitutions grants you the right to keep and bear arms - the state gets to decide if you need a concealed permit or not. I would advocate that the government restricts and set strict guidelines for concealed weapons - that does not mean I am advocating removing our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Quote:

---

You're not the only one that's looked into these things. Just because I arrive at a different conclusion doesn't mean I haven't done any research. Of course the wording was a result of differing views and compromises- but we still arrived at a set verbage and that's what is in the Constitution, not the debate leading up to it.

---

The set verbage is what is being debated. The statement in the constitution is open to interpation on several points. One being the concealed carry permits. Again I came to my conclusions not from the anti-gun sites that you accused me of - but from my own readings. Concealed carry is not within the intent of the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Again: It's pretty clear to me. Because of the necessity of militias in a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What are you arguing anyhow? That you should be part of an active militia to keep and bear arms?

---

No - I am showing you that instead of accusing people of hype because they don't believe exactly the same thing you do in regards to the Constitution - that maybe out research and reading lead us to a slightly different conclusion about spefics of the constitution but not the intent. The fundmental aspect of this nation is independent thought about what the government can and can not do.

And futhermore one of the founding fathers advocated just that - that in order to keep and bear arms one must serve in the militia. Its in the history if one goes back and look. Can't remember exactly which one stated it - but its there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Amen, brother ichi. That's essentially been my overriding point all along.

---

When you think about it - the desire to carry a concealed permit means you trust your fellow man less then you trust the government. ~:eek:

Well, Redleg, I have to admit, I've sat back, and enjoyed watching you and Xiahou, and lately Ichi go around and around about this. And I admit, I'm having a hard time arguing your points against concealed weapons on legal philosophy grounds (mainly because I'm neither a lawyer nor a philosopher).

But let's take a practical view for a second. In 1789, it was nothing to walk down the street carrying your rifle, with a flintlock pistol tucked into your belt. That would cause an uproar today, and you'd be hauled off to jail for brandishing a firearm publicly.

For practical reasons, saying no concealed permits is the same as saying no right to ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, Redleg, I have to admit, I've sat back, and enjoyed watching you and Xiahou, and lately Ichi go around and around about this. And I admit, I'm having a hard time arguing your points against concealed weapons on legal philosophy grounds (mainly because I'm neither a lawyer nor a philosopher).

---

Yes it has been very enjoyable for me.

Quote:

---

But let's take a practical view for a second. In 1789, it was nothing to walk down the street carrying your rifle, with a flintlock pistol tucked into your belt. That would cause an uproar today, and you'd be hauled off to jail for brandishing a firearm publicly.

---

Society changes - doesn't mean its right or wrong - just the way it is.

Quote:

---

For practical reasons, saying no concealed permits is the same as saying no right to ownership.

---

Wrong - the constitution states clearly that you have the right to keep and bear arms. However it does not say you have the right to conceal your arms about your person when you walk down the street. Some states even have open carry laws clearly written on the books, and I have lived in a few of them. The conceal carry permit is a legislative action.

To throw an over-used arguement into the mix - saying concealed carry permits are a constitutional right is the same as saying same-sex marriage is also a constitutional right. Neither is spelled out in the constitution and both are legislative actions made into laws by individual states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Yes it has been very enjoyable for me.



Society changes - doesn't mean its right or wrong - just the way it is.



Wrong - the constitution states clearly that you have the right to keep and bear arms. However it does not say you have the right to conceal your arms about your person when you walk down the street. Some states even have open carry laws clearly written on the books, and I have lived in a few of them. The conceal carry permit is a legislative action.

To throw an over-used arguement into the mix - saying concealed carry permits are a constitutional right is the same as saying same-sex marriage is also a constitutional right. Neither is spelled out in the constitution and both are legislative actions made into laws by individual states.

---

I said from a 'practical' viewpoint. I'm not arguing that the 2nd ammendment implies a right to concealed carry permits (though, there's nothing in there that prevents them, either). I'm saying not having them effectively ends handgun ownership in a state. You cannot transport the firearm to a gun range to practice with it without having it in plain view, and then you're brandishing it. It's a no-win scenario.

If I tell you that you have the right to vote, then state that the only district you're elligible to vote in doesn't actually exist, is that really giving you the right to vote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I said from a 'practical' viewpoint. I'm not arguing that the 2nd ammendment implies a right to concealed carry permits (though, there's nothing in there that prevents them, either). I'm saying not having them effectively ends handgun ownership in a state. You cannot transport the firearm to a gun range to practice with it without having it in plain view, and then you're brandishing it. It's a no-win scenario.

---

That is funny because when I transport my weapons I do so openly and I dont get arrested nor troubled by the citizens I live next to or even the police. I just got finished bring two of my weapons from my dad's house in Oklahoma - into Texas - the weapons in the vehicle in plain view, and not a single eyebrow or trouble by any citizen that saw the weapons in the vehicle.

Quote:

---

If I tell you that you have the right to vote, then state that the only district you're elligible to vote in doesn't actually exist, is that really giving you the right to vote?

---

Ah but that is not the case with the 2nd Amendment now is it?

You have the ability to carry your weapons to the range and fire them. I have done it several times - with absolutely no problems from anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The set verbage is what is being debated. The statement in the constitution is open to interpation on several points. One being the concealed carry permits. Again I came to my conclusions not from the anti-gun sites that you accused me of - but from my own readings. Concealed carry is not within the intent of the Constitution.

---

Not within the intent of the Constitution? What do you think 'bear' or 'infringe' means? You don't think that banning various ways of bearing arms is infringement

Quote:

---

And futhermore one of the founding fathers advocated just that - that in order to keep and bear arms one must serve in the militia. Its in the history if one goes back and look. Can't remember exactly which one stated it - but its there.

---

What happened to dealing within the text of the ammendment? That didn't last long. I can find quotes from founding fathers who thought that any man should be able to carry weapons just as easily- this leads nowhere. As we've agreed, the text was a result of compromise but it is what it is.

Quote:

---

I just got finished bring two of my weapons from my dad's house in Oklahoma - into Texas - the weapons in the vehicle in plain view, and not a single eyebrow or trouble by any citizen that saw the weapons in the vehicle.

---

I'm glad it worked out for you- but you do realize in many places this is illegal?

Quote:

---

When you think about it - the desire to carry a concealed permit means you trust your fellow man less then you trust the government.

---

I don't have a concealed carry permit, but Mrs ichi does.

My trust in fellow men extends to others who have concealed carry permits. I do not trust the government (as I've stated before the bastards nuked me and then lied about it) but I do trust that citizens in good standing can go about armed and not wreak havoc upon me or my community. I also have an expectation, a quite realistic one, that sick vicious types are also out and about, hence, why would I put myself at a tremendous disadvantage and disarm unilaterally. No self respecting nation would do so, and the same principle applies to individuals.

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Not within the intent of the Constitution? What do you think 'bear' or 'infringe' means? You don't think that banning various ways of bearing arms is infringement

---

Then there would be no need for a concealed carry permit now would there if bear and infringed mean what you think it does? You have already stated that you are worried about someone robbing you - and therefor you must conceal your weapon for protection. I on the otherhand don't need a weapon to prevent a crime from happening if I remain aware of my surroundings.

Quote:

---

What happened to dealing within the text of the ammendment? That didn't last long. I can find quotes from founding fathers who thought that any man should be able to carry weapons just as easily- this leads nowhere. As we've agreed, the text was a result of compromise but it is what it is.

---

Yes it is what it is - however once again what does the amendment state - it does not state bear arms mean conceal and then carry it now does it? One must put the word bear arms in the context of how the founding fathers meant it. It did not mean hid a revolver in your jacket to pull out when threatened (SP) by some would be robber.

Quote:

---

I'm glad it worked out for you- but you do realize in many places this is illegal?

---

Not illegal at all in the west, the method I transported the weapons can be found in an earlier post - from Texas State Law. I have carried weapons in almost every state west of the Mississippi - expect Oregon and California - and I have had absolutely no problems nor have I broken the law in the regards to transporting weapons in state and across state lines.

in other words the weapon was in plain view for the police to notice if they so chosed. Ammunition kept seperated from the weapon. One must understand the law in order to transport weapons across state lines. When I travel east of the Mississippi - I follow the laws of the uptight east coast when taking my weapons into that part of the country. But overall - what I did was not against the law in the two states in which I transported the weapons in.

The open carrying of long guns is generally allowed in Texas. However, section 46.03(a) and (g) makes it a third degree felony to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possess a firearm of any sort in the following locations:

So as long as I don't go into a bar or other speficied locations - open carry of rifles is not against the law.

http://www.greatwesternshow.com/texas_law.htm




Its really a simple constitutional matter about carrying your weapon. You do it openly and within the state laws - and you have no problem what so ever. The western states are more relaxed about many of the gun laws because - we don't fear each other the way you seem to in the East with your desire to have a conceal carry permit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then there would be no need for a concealed carry permit now would there if bear and infringed mean what you think it does? You have already stated that you are worried about someone robbing you - and therefor you must conceal your weapon for protection. I on the otherhand don't need a weapon to prevent a crime from happening if I remain aware of my surroundings.

---

Well, since I'm not emperor, what I think doesn't directly equate to what's enforced as law. Yes, I think requiring permits is an infringement- what did I ever say that made you think otherwise? I'll still take some infringement over not being allowed to carry at all as I choose.

Quote:

---

Yes it is what it is - however once again what does the amendment state - it does not state bear arms mean conceal and then carry it now does it?

---

Why would it need to say that? It clearly says "bear", not "bear openly" or "bear only long guns"- just "bear".

Quote:

---

The open carrying of long guns is generally allowed in Texas. However, section 46.03(a) and (g) makes it a third degree felony to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possess a firearm of any sort in the following locations:

---

Long guns, yes- hand guns no. You'll get arrested in Texas for carrying a handgun openly, yet you advocate open carry. But of course, your support of the 2nd Amendment probably doesnt extend to handguns does it?

Quote:

---

Its really a simple constitutional matter about carrying your weapon.

---

It should be- but its not.

Quote:

---

The western states are more relaxed about many of the gun laws because - we don't fear each other the way you seem to in the East with your desire to have a conceal carry permit.

---

Nice attempt at turning the tables, but you're the one who has come out and said that you don't trust the average law-abiding citizen with guns, so you can save your condescension. The people I don't trust are the criminals, and they're always going to conceal their weapons- legal or no. I favor concealed carry permits insofar as they better allow us to exercise our previously trampled rights. Like the state of Vermont, I believe that if you can legally own a gun, you should be legally able to carry it, concealed or otherwise. In PA, open carry of handguns is legal- without permit -but as I've stated many times, there are practical reasons not to do so. So, for $24 and a background check, I can do either as I feel necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Well, since I'm not emperor, what I think doesn't directly equate to what's enforced as law. Yes, I think requiring permits is an infringement- what did I ever say that made you think otherwise? I'll still take some infringement over not being allowed to carry at all as I choose.

---

Oh I knew your thoughts were center around conceal carry permits were an infringement. However you want to think its a legislated law by not the United States government but by individual states. Conceal Carry is not covered by the United States Constitution's 2nd Amendment at all. Its one of the area's that yes indeed the states have the ability to regulate as they chose to. The Infringement into the right to bear arms by the Federal Government is the concept of Registration of weapons.

Quote:

---

Why would it need to say that? It clearly says "bear", not "bear openly" or "bear only long guns"- just "bear".

---

Again one must go back into history and see what the term Bear Arms mean. The United States Constitution states only what it does, and like above the individual states are what set the conceal carry permit laws not the Federal Government.

Quote:

---

Long guns, yes- hand guns no. You'll get arrested in Texas for carrying a handgun openly, yet you advocate open carry. But of course, your support of the 2nd Amendment probably doesnt extend to handguns does it?

---

No I don't like handguns - and no my support of the 2nd Amendment means that I tolerate your right to own a handgun. Your right to keep and bear arms is not being infringed by me, nor my beliefs. Your wanting to have a conceal carry permit and carry your weapon into public circumvents my right to know what circumstances I am facing when I go into public. Your desire to carry a conceal weapon circumvents the private property owner's right to know what is going on in his establishment.

And yes I advocate open carry - always have and always will. I carry my weapons openly when I go out into public - not hidden underneath my jacket, or wrapped in a blanket.

Quote:

---

Nice attempt at turning the tables, but you're the one who has come out and said that you don't trust the average law-abiding citizen with guns, so you can save your condescension.

---

When you stop maybe I will.

Quote:

---

The people I don't trust are the criminals, and they're always going to conceal their weapons- legal or no. I favor concealed carry permits insofar as they better allow us to exercise our previously trampled rights. Like the state of Vermont, I believe that if you can legally own a gun, you should be legally able to carry it, concealed or otherwise. In PA, open carry of handguns is legal- without permit -but as I've stated many times, there are practical reasons not to do so. So, for $24 and a background check, I can do either as I feel necessary.

---

Goes to show you that conceal carry permits are not a United States Constitutional manner but individual states. Which goes again to prove my main point. The United States Constitution's 2nd Amendment does not grant you the right to conceal carry any weapon.

Quote:

---

Your wanting to have a conceal carry permit and carry your weapon into public circumvents my right to know what circumstances I am facing when I go into public.

---

I contend that you have no right to know what circumstances you face when you go into public. The Constitution makes no guarantee of safety or omniscience. Even if (assuming for the sake of argument) that you do have a right to safety or total knowledge of potential circumstance, concealed weapons could be carried my those without a permit, thus subverting your ability to be aware.

Quote:

---

Your desire to carry a conceal weapon circumvents the private property owner's right to know what is going on in his establishment.

---

I agree with you here, private property rights are, IMHO, superior to the right to bear arms. In other words my right to have a gun is trumped by your right to control what happens on your property.

Regardless, open carry is not a valid option currently. Try it, walk around with a gun in public places, see what happens.

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Oh I knew your thoughts were center around conceal carry permits were an infringement. However you want to think its a legislated law by not the United States government but by individual states. Conceal Carry is not covered by the United States Constitution's 2nd Amendment at all. Its one of the area's that yes indeed the states have the ability to regulate as they chose to. The Infringement into the right to bear arms by the Federal Government is the concept of Registration of weapons.

---

So, for clarity, you're now arguing that the Federal Constitution only applies to the Federal Government?

Quote:

---

Again one must go back into history and see what the term Bear Arms mean.

---

Bear- to carry. What historical context is there in that? It couldnt be more plain. You're again searching for meaning outside the text to prop up your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

I agree with you here, private property rights are, IMHO, superior to the right to bear arms. In other words my right to have a gun is trumped by your right to control what happens on your property.

---

I basically agree with you here, except I don't see the 2 as competing rights. A property owner has a right to allow or prevent whoever they want from entering their property. Whether its people who have guns, long hair or baggy pants its no different. A property owner can't strip you of your rights, all they can do is tell you to leave/stay off their property and prosecute you for tresppassing if you don't comply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

I contend that you have no right to know what circumstances you face when you go into public. The Constitution makes no guarantee of safety or omniscience. Even if (assuming for the sake of argument) that you do have a right to safety or total knowledge of potential circumstance, concealed weapons could be carried my those without a permit, thus subverting your ability to be aware.

---

True - but that does not entitle another to carry a concealed weapon just because criminals do it.

Quote:

---

I agree with you here, private property rights are, IMHO, superior to the right to bear arms. In other words my right to have a gun is trumped by your right to control what happens on your property.

---

One of my biggest concerns and problems with the conceal carry permits - is that individuals that carry concealed weapons believe that their rights override the private property owners.

Quote:

---

Regardless, open carry is not a valid option currently. Try it, walk around with a gun in public places, see what happens.

---

Done it several times with my long guns - no problems carrying them at all.
And I don't own handguns - so I don't have the problem carrying them.

Quote:

---

ichi :bow:

---