Comments on: Concealed Carry of Weapons Superior To Taking Weapons. http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/ Men's Rights Activism, MRA Politics, Analysis, Commentary and Global News Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:56:05 -1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: John Longenecker http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-29193 John Longenecker Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:28:03 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/#comment-29193 Let me add this, Guys: we didn't get this way overnight, but politically. That's two parameters: time and route. Thus, we have to go with the political route for now and we have to know thatit's going to take time. Howver let me emphasize this: though a law today, it will be rightful and no need for a law tomorrow, or someday. Today, I believe there is no such thing as an illegal gun and no such thing as sensible gun laws. For now, it will take a political solution and patience: we go through due process and follow-through. Then, someday, there will be no such thing as a gun law. See my next piece coming out, Part II. J Let me add this, Guys: we didn’t get this way overnight, but politically. That’s two parameters: time and route.

Thus, we have to go with the political route for now and we have to know thatit’s going to take time.

Howver let me emphasize this: though a law today, it will be rightful and no need for a law tomorrow, or someday.

Today, I believe there is no such thing as an illegal gun and no such thing as sensible gun laws. For now, it will take a political solution and patience: we go through due process and follow-through.

Then, someday, there will be no such thing as a gun law.

See my next piece coming out, Part II.

J

]]> By: BillCorish http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-29168 BillCorish Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:19:14 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/#comment-29168 I agree with eholtzman. As Voltaire said, "the best is the enemy of the good". I truly sympathise with EDavidg762, but I don't understand the objection to the bill. It is a federal law fighting back state infringement of our God-given, second-amendment-protected rights. (And yes, the second amendment does restrict state action. The 14th amendment says so.) There are many federal infringements of our rights, but S.388 will not add to the pile. In partial response to Dittohd, though Alaska does not require a permit to carry, the state has wisely created a permit program for residents who want to carry in other states through reciprocity. I pray for the day when my home state of Virginia regains similar wisdom and grace. I agree with eholtzman. As Voltaire said, “the best is the enemy of the good”. I truly sympathise with EDavidg762, but I don’t understand the objection to the bill. It is a federal law fighting back state infringement of our God-given, second-amendment-protected rights. (And yes, the second amendment does restrict state action. The 14th amendment says so.) There are many federal infringements of our rights, but S.388 will not add to the pile.

In partial response to Dittohd, though Alaska does not require a permit to carry, the state has wisely created a permit program for residents who want to carry in other states through reciprocity. I pray for the day when my home state of Virginia regains similar wisdom and grace.

]]> By: eholtzman http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-29091 eholtzman Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:45:42 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/#comment-29091 EdavidG762: "Very dangerous legislation. It would thusly turn our RIGHT into a privilege" It is that type of "purist" foolishness that makes the anti-gun forces win when they do win – and win they did since about 1934 (probably earlier, since the NY Sullivan law). Hey, Dave, no disrespect intended, but you have to start learning how to deal with the Marxist political foe. No reciting and pasting of quotes will do. Sometimes, pragmatism has to be applied instead of well-meant but otherwise misguided purist slogans. The Marxists have been working a piece at a time, dismantling the 2nd Amendment. It would be nice to make it all go away by reciting one line, but what it has taken so far to counter their evil handiworks is the piecemeal effort, state-by-state, to pass Concealed Carry. Now, every time, each of those 38 states was about to pass CCW, I heard the people like yourself saying that this is a dangerous legislation, turning rights into privileges, 'cuz you should not need a permit to exercise a right, and reciting the 2nd Amendment as "the National Right to Carry Bill." (That is true; it is also irrelevant.) Pragmatism works; we cannot afford the luxury of hopes that are unachievable. If working piecemeal will get me there, then I'll take that route. If I were waiting for the ultimate, comprehensive, and purist solution, I would still be without CCW. Many lives have been saved with the passage of the CCW, and extending this trend further with the legislation proposed is the right thing to do. Waiting and fretting and losing decent human lives -- people who cannot carry while in travel out-of-state -- is not my idea of advancing the 2nd Amendment. Regards. EdavidG762: “Very dangerous legislation. It would thusly turn our RIGHT into a privilege”

It is that type of “purist” foolishness that makes the anti-gun forces win when they do win – and win they did since about 1934 (probably earlier, since the NY Sullivan law).

Hey, Dave, no disrespect intended, but you have to start learning how to deal with the Marxist political foe. No reciting and pasting of quotes will do. Sometimes, pragmatism has to be applied instead of well-meant but otherwise misguided purist slogans.

The Marxists have been working a piece at a time, dismantling the 2nd Amendment. It would be nice to make it all go away by reciting one line, but what it has taken so far to counter their evil handiworks is the piecemeal effort, state-by-state, to pass Concealed Carry. Now, every time, each of those 38 states was about to pass CCW, I heard the people like yourself saying that this is a dangerous legislation, turning rights into privileges, ‘cuz you should not need a permit to exercise a right, and reciting the 2nd Amendment as “the National Right to Carry Bill.” (That is true; it is also irrelevant.)

Pragmatism works; we cannot afford the luxury of hopes that are unachievable. If working piecemeal will get me there, then I’ll take that route.

If I were waiting for the ultimate, comprehensive, and purist solution, I would still be without CCW. Many lives have been saved with the passage of the CCW, and extending this trend further with the legislation proposed is the right thing to do. Waiting and fretting and losing decent human lives — people who cannot carry while in travel out-of-state — is not my idea of advancing the 2nd Amendment.

Regards.

]]> By: Unalienable Rights » Blog Archive » National Concealed Carry Bills Introduced http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-28910 Unalienable Rights » Blog Archive » National Concealed Carry Bills Introduced Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:59:40 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/#comment-28910 [...] Read this story by John Longenecker at mensNEWSdaily. [...] [...] Read this story by John Longenecker at mensNEWSdaily. [...]

]]> By: EDavidq762 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-28856 EDavidq762 Mon, 29 Jan 2007 05:12:13 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/#comment-28856 Very dangerous legislation. It would thusly turn our RIGHT into a privilege - just like a Driver's License. We ALREADY have a National Right to Carry Bill; "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". It is our God-given Natural Right - No 'permit' required. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature.html And Jefferson seems to heartily endorse this sentiment; "...It is well worthy of publication for the instruction of our citizens, being profound, sound, and short. Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights* and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right..." - Thomas Jefferson, June 7, 1816 letter to Francis W. Gilmer. http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/JeffersonToGilmer1816.html Very dangerous legislation. It would thusly turn our RIGHT into a privilege – just like a Driver’s License. We ALREADY have a National Right to Carry Bill;

“THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

It is our God-given Natural Right – No ‘permit’ required. http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature.html

And Jefferson seems to heartily endorse this sentiment;

“…It is well worthy of publication for the instruction of our citizens, being profound, sound, and short. Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights* and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right…” – Thomas Jefferson, June 7, 1816 letter to Francis W. Gilmer.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/JeffersonToGilmer1816.html

]]> By: radio relay http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-28761 radio relay Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:17:45 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/#comment-28761 I hope that goes through. I have a CCW from Colorado, but have to detour around Kansas and Nebraska when I travel. I only live 30 miles from Nebraska, and even though they have a new CCW law, they don't recognise Colorado CCW permits. It's a major pain in the behind, because I go over to Sidney, to Cabela's, frequently to get shooting and hunting supplies. I hope that goes through. I have a CCW from Colorado, but have to detour around Kansas and Nebraska when I travel. I only live 30 miles from Nebraska, and even though they have a new CCW law, they don’t recognise Colorado CCW permits. It’s a major pain in the behind, because I go over to Sidney, to Cabela’s, frequently to get shooting and hunting supplies.

]]> By: John Longenecker http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-28734 John Longenecker Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:03:30 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/#comment-28734 Interesting points, Dittohd. I'd love to see Alaskans roam without the need for anypermit anywhere because the hosting state is required to recognize not just a permit, but the visiting state's law. That is to say, assuming that's included. Interesting question. Interesting points, Dittohd. I’d love to see Alaskans roam without the need for anypermit anywhere because the hosting state is required to recognize not just a permit, but the visiting state’s law. That is to say, assuming that’s included.

Interesting question.

]]> By: Dittohd http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-28732 Dittohd Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:00:03 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/#comment-28732 >"...Alaska and Vermont don’t even require a permit to carry a concealed handgun..." I wonder what this legislation stipulates as to how persons from these two states will be treated if discovered with a gun in another state. 1. Will they be allowed to carry because the state they are from doesn't require a concealed carry permit? 2. If not, will they have to get a permit from another state? From the federal government? 3. Would getting a concealed carry permit from another state be possible if people don't live in the state issuing the permit? 4. Will Alaska and Vermont have to start issuing permits even though they're not required? >”…Alaska and Vermont don’t even require a permit to carry a concealed handgun…”

I wonder what this legislation stipulates as to how persons from these two states will be treated if discovered with a gun in another state.

1. Will they be allowed to carry because the state they are from doesn’t require a concealed carry permit?

2. If not, will they have to get a permit from another state? From the federal government?

3. Would getting a concealed carry permit from another state be possible if people don’t live in the state issuing the permit?

4. Will Alaska and Vermont have to start issuing permits even though they’re not required?

]]>