Alternate views of unlicensed carry not appreciated here - but here is one

[ldhunter1959]

Been following this group for a few years - I think. Usually commenting on revolvers and the like. I stay away from the political side usually, because it is obvious from the responses here that differing view points are not appreciated. Texas Gun Talk is an echo chamber of sorts. We just want to read/hear what we believe and get attaboys for making inflammatory comments and the like. I get it.
But anyway, I have been a carry permit holder for at least 10 years. I have been a gun owner since sixth grade.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, I support it, but I accept that there are aspects of it that are open to interpretation. Most only cite the last part of the amendment - the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Rarely do I see a reference to the very first statement of the amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state." That is definitely up for interpretation, at least in my mind.
And the right to bear arms is not a God-given right. Can't find that in the Bible anywhere.
With that being said, and I know many or most on this forum are already seething with rage if they have read this far, I am not a fan of unlicensed carry in Texas. The current system works well. Very well in my mind. Carry permit holders, as a class, are the most law-abiding group of citizens in the state statistically. When I encounter an open carry person, it is highly likely in my mind that the person has passed a couple of background checks when he bought his/her firearm and when he/her obtained their carry permit and likely a few times in between. Of course there is not guarantee of such or that the person is legally carrying his firearm on his hip. But I will imagine or hope for the better.
This Texas-based writer and a correspondent for the conservative magazine the National Review makes a lot of good points that open-minded gun owners should at least read.
Constitutional Carry - Maybe Not

 

[oldag]

Go back and study up on the origin and intent of the 2A. That will help you.

Please explain how licenses keep criminals from carrying. Of course, you cannot. So we can all agree that this has no effect on criminals carrying. On the other hand, the more people carrying, the lower the crime. Hmmmm.

The restrictions only affect law abiding citizens. Why should law abiding citizens be restricted?

 

[Axxe55]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We get it. You're another one of those FUDD's, "I believe and support the 2nd Amendment, but......"

Maybe you should really read that part, "..shall not be infringed." I think that part escaped you.

Frankly, I'm not very open-minded about people telling me how my rights should be infringed upon.

 

[avvidclif]

Another one of the "I support the 2A, BUT" crowd. Study up on what "a well regulated militia" was in those times. It seems that most of the cannons Washington used were privately owned. So much for the ATF Tax.

If CC were to pass would it make any difference to the criminals??? Seriously.

 

[Army 1911]

The part of the second that can stand alone as a complete sentence is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The militia part is a subordinate clause and cannot stand as a complete sentence.

ETA: where is the "but' in the second amendment?

 

[ZX9RCAM]

How much firearm training did you receive in your CHL/LTC class?

As has been stated, criminals don't care if they break the law.

 

[Vaquero]

My background check was more in depth than a ltc check.
My wife's was more in depth than mine.
BUT, we don't have ltc, so we're not to be trusted.

 

[Dawico]

And the right to bear arms is not a God-given right. Can't find that in the Bible anywhere.
[/URL]

Interesting that you consider the Bible to be a direct quote from God and everything included is and everything not included is not God's actual thoughts on everything.

Um, you know it was all written by man right?

 

[TexasRedneck]

1. You need to go back and read the Federalist Papers before opining on the intent of the Constitution.

2. How does requiring a license of law-abiding citizens protect us against the criminal element?

3. LOTS of folks are doing good to feed their families and afford a VERY modest firearm for self-defense. The additional costs associated with licensing can be prohibitive. Do they deserve a reduced ability to defend themselves because they can't afford it?

4. The SCOTUS has long held that Jim Crow laws were illegal. You know, the laws that required a payment of some sort in order to exercise a Constitutional right...like the ability to defend yourself?

 

[TexasRedneck]

And the right to bear arms is not a God-given right. Can't find that in the Bible anywhere.

Actually, the Bible tells those without swords to beat their plowshares into one. That was the ancient equivalent of a firearm.

Your turn.

 

[Darkpriest667]

And the right to bear arms is not a God-given right. Can't find that in the Bible anywhere.

You didn't read a lot of that bible did you?


We see this clearly in passages like 1 Samuel 25:13:


]And David said to his men, "Every man strap on his sword!" And every man of them strapped on his sword. David also strapped on his sword. And about four hundred men went up after David, while two hundred remained with the baggage.

So, each man had a sword ready to be holstered and used when required.


And in Psalm 144:1, David wrote: "Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle..."


Besides instruments of warfare, weapons were used in the Bible for the purpose of self-defense; nowhere in Scripture is this forbidden.


God sanctioning self-defense:


"If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder." Exodus 22:2,

Jesus sanctioned the use of weapons for self-defense. While giving his farewell discourse to the disciples before going to the cross, he instructed the apostles to purchase side arms to carry for self-protection. He was preparing them for the extreme opposition and persecution they would face in future missions:


And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough." Luke 22:35-38

 

[Frank59]

 

[Byrd666]

A couple of y'all beat me to it.

I'll just sit back and watch now...

 

[TX oddball]

When it comes to the Second Amendment, I support it, but I accept that there are aspects of it that are open to interpretation...

I stopped reading from this point on. "Echo chamber"? "Inflammatory"?

GMAFB.

 

[Royalecheese]

Asking politely for Frank59 to pass the popcorn...

 

[General Zod]

Rarely do I see a reference to the very first statement of the amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state."

Oh, we see that phrase quoted - and misinterpreted as you did - quite often. Always from the gun control side of things. If you actually apply reading comprehension skills, you can understand that the statement about a "well regulated militia" is actually a statement of intent - because the Second Amendment was written by men who had just finished overthrowing their government by forming a militia. A militia that struggled a LOT because of scarcity of arms and proficiency with said arms.

So...now pay attention...in order to form a well-regulated militia, the people need to own and be proficient and skilled with arms on par with what they may face while defending the free state. A militia, which by definition is NOT government-controlled or government-supplied.

As for your weak "not God-given" argument...the Constitutions does not grant one single solitary right to anyone. It is written in order to prohibit the government from restricting the rights of the people - rights the document recognizes as pre-existing. Our pre-existing rights don't depend on any belief system or document, whether from God or Lewis Carroll. Arguments like yours have been used for generations to water down and pervert the intent of the Constitution, and to eliminate the free expression of our rights. You need to study up, and start with actually reading the Bill of Rights without any preconceptions about what is an "acceptable" regulation of our rights, and while paying attention to the wording of each amendment. Then read the Federalist Papers, where the men who actually wrote the Constitution debated and discussed their aims and goals. Then stop relying on politicians and the media to interpret for you.

 

[oldag]

Interesting that you consider the Bible to be a direct quote from God and everything included is and everything not included is not God's actual thoughts on everything.

Um, you know it was all written by man right?

What was written was inspired by God, who guided what was written. So no, it was not written by man. It was recorded by man. Big difference.

 

[Axxe55]

Appears not only does the OP have a failing in comprehending the 2nd Amendment, it also appears he really hasn't a full understanding of the Bible either.

OP, the Constitution doesn't grant anyone rights, it is simply affirming or acknowledging that they are inherent.

I'm pretty sure if you look around on the internet, you can find some FUDD gun forums!

 

[candcallen]

Been following this group for a few years - I think. Usually commenting on revolvers and the like. I stay away from the political side usually, because it is obvious from the responses here that differing view points are not appreciated. Texas Gun Talk is an echo chamber of sorts. We just want to read/hear what we believe and get attaboys for making inflammatory comments and the like. I get it.
But anyway, I have been a carry permit holder for at least 10 years. I have been a gun owner since sixth grade.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, I support it, but I accept that there are aspects of it that are open to interpretation. Most only cite the last part of the amendment - the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Rarely do I see a reference to the very first statement of the amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state." That is definitely up for interpretation, at least in my mind.
And the right to bear arms is not a God-given right. Can't find that in the Bible anywhere.
With that being said, and I know many or most on this forum are already seething with rage if they have read this far, I am not a fan of unlicensed carry in Texas. The current system works well. Very well in my mind. Carry permit holders, as a class, are the most law-abiding group of citizens in the state statistically. When I encounter an open carry person, it is highly likely in my mind that the person has passed a couple of background checks when he bought his/her firearm and when he/her obtained their carry permit and likely a few times in between. Of course there is not guarantee of such or that the person is legally carrying his firearm on his hip. But I will imagine or hope for the better.
This Texas-based writer and a correspondent for the conservative magazine the National Review makes a lot of good points that open-minded gun owners should at least read.
Constitutional Carry - Maybe Not

Do you know what the danger to a free state they were talking about? Free from tyrannical government. The militia is made up by the people independent from the Federal Military


Till you do your whole premise is flawed.

Do you know what well regulated meant at the time? Well equipped and lead. Absolutely intending for people to have, at the very least, the same small arms as the government to secure that free state.

Till you do you're too ignorant and incapable of intelligently discussing the subject.

The bill of rights were enumerating natural, if you dont believe in a creator, rights, or god given rights, if you do believe in a creator. i.e. rights you have just by being born. They were intended to constrain the government.

Seriously, the federalist papers clearly state what the framers intended. There will be no confusion if you read those.

What are you going to do when you are no longer privileged enough to have a gun? When they revoke your permission?

Let me finally say no argument against or predicted alarmist consequences of CC have ever come to pass in any state that has CC. Prove me wrong. I come from one of those state and went thru the same process and arguements and bullshit.

Maybe do more research and less handwringing.

 

[Dawico]

What was written was inspired by God, who guided what was written. So no, it was not written by man. It was recorded by man. Big difference.

So the fact that much of it was written well after the events happened means nothing?

Okay.