[Tn. Constutional carry]

Again, there is a flaw in your argument as you are saying that society should be structured in such a manner that everyone is subject to God's law, God's commands and so on.  However, some people may not even believe in God while others may believe in a different God with a different set of rules, commands and etc.  So, if every individual has the right to decide for himself or herself then who are you to decide that everyone should be subject to the commands, etc. not only of a deity but specifically the deity in which you believe?  Simply because you believe that said deity is the deity and, therefore, that those commands, etc. are valid does not make it so nor does it make your belief 'true'.  Therefore, yes, when you are discussing a 'free' people who have the freedom to believe what they believe, even if it does not agree with the Christian belief, then 'God's' commands - and even the very existence or non-existence of God - are, very much, subjective.  Further, your appeal to a 'standard' presupposes that said standard not only exists but exists in exactly the form and manner you have accepted.  As such a standard may not, in fact, exist or may exist in an entirely different form from that in which you believe then basically what we have is you saying, "I believe this and because I believe it this is the real law as opposed to what all of you self-centered people believe should be the law simply based on what you believe."  My right to believe that there is no, such thing as 'God's plan' or 'God's law' is every bit as valid as anyone's right to believe that there is.  My right to that belief is every bit as valid as the right to self defense, for that matter - and no one has the right to demand that my life be governed by a plan in which I have no more belief than I hold in the gods of Olympus, Valhalla or so on.  This is the entire reason that people should not be governed by religious ideologies.  That is, therefore, why there must be a system of laws which are not grounded in religion - including whatever laws society agrees on for the carry of a firearm.

That's not a flaw in my argument. It's true whether you believe or not, whether you like it or not, and whether I argue eloquently or not.

Who gave every individual the "right" to believe what he wants? God didn't. Of course I don't have the "right" to change their minds by force (not possible anyway), but that doesn't mean every illogical and godless belief is equally valid. Your supposed right to disbelieve is really the absence of anyone else's right to burn you at the stake for your disbelief. It's only "valid" between us. I assure you God will not recognize your claimed right.

You can't escape the concept of forcing SOMEONE'S belief, since every system of rules will necessarily end up forcing someone to do or not do something he doesn't or does want to do. In our case, you appealed to the supposed science of seeing someone you claim is mentally unstable and calling for government force to prevent him from self-protection if he desires it. That's your opinion. It's lots of people's opinions. It's arbitrary and subjective. You can claim my view is, too, but even if it were, it would be manifestly LESS arbitrary and subjective than your view. Of course it's neither, which is why it's correct.

You can deny God's existence and will and Law all you want, but you can't "logically disprove it." He's not logically provable or disprovable; HE IS. That's basically His name, actually.

Because He is and because "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof," He gets the only "say" that matters, regardless of our temporary disbelief/disobedience.

I never said, "because I believe this, it must be the law." You, however, said almost exactly that.

Everyone IS, ALWAYS, governed by "religious ideologies." Yours is essentially that man is god, and the measure of all things. Let's assume you want the thief jailed, or perhaps the murderer executed? Says who? Why? You've only got your opinion, without a higher Authority to whom to appeal. You'll possibly appeal to "society" or majority or "experts," but that's all the same thing.

I know you think it's "just my opinion" that God's will is binding, but even in your worldview, that's NO LESS VALID than your view.

(Please pardon my CAPS for emphasis; I assure you I'm not shouting! I'm just going way too fast in between other activities figure out the bold/italic stuff just now.)

[Tn. Constutional carry]

I'm not aware of anybody who seriously think a person who had been judged mentally incompetent should not have their rights restricted, included the right to own a firearm.  But that is a VERY small % of the population and frankly would be a rounding error compared to the violent crime we see on a daily basis. 
But if you're legally allowed to own a firearm you should be allowed to carry it with no further restrictions.

I'm one, so now you're aware of me!

Who's the judge? What's his standard? Is it The Standard?

And of course there's a lot more to it. For instance, if someone is that much of a danger to everyone, he's probably already under someone's care as a child would be, and then that caretaker might bear some/most/all of the responsibility.

And who would sell the maniac a gun?

And if he was that good at hiding it, then ANYONE could be that maniac?

I just know there are solutions that aren't "one-size-fits-all government force."



This is why I don't particularly like using the phrase "right to own a firearm." I don't need a specific right to own a firearm since no one else has a right to prevent me from owning a firearm. The "right to own a cell phone" quickly became the "right to use government force to steal other people's money in order to give me a 'free' cell phone."

Rights are really only valid concepts when discussed as a negative. We don't have to search for a positive right to breath, since we know that, negatively, no one else has a "right" to prevent us from breathing.

(There are some duties, on the other hand, but that's its own, large, political/religious (inseparable concepts) topic.)

[Tn. Constutional carry]

I would like to point out just one, more thing that stands out to me from your side of the debate.  You argue for an 'ultimate authority', a deity that sets the laws for all.  So, which deity?  Who decides which deity's laws to follow?  You?  Me?  In such a case, then, you are right back to an individual or a few individuals deciding which laws apply.
So, let's go to the next step.  Let's say that the deity whose laws we will agree to follow is the Christian God.  So, how do we know what those laws are?  It isn't like God is here, in our presence, telling us in no uncertain terms what we are supposed to do.  "Well, the Bible tells us."  Oh, you mean that document that was written thousands of years ago by people entirely different from us living in a society that was completely different from ours?  Oh, okay.  So, which translation of a translation of a translation of that document do we use?  Which version of the Bible gives us the ultimate law?  Who decides that?  Me?  You?  So we are, again, right back to one individual or a small group deciding.
Okay, then, just for the sake of argument let us assume that we all agree that we should follow not only the Christian God's laws but that we all also agree upon which translation of a translation (and so on) to follow.  In my experience you can have five, different people read a particular scripture and sometimes get six, different interpretations.  So, who decides which interpretation is right?  You? Me?  A preacher?  The pope?  Maybe the Westboro Baptist Church?  So, once more you have an individual or group of individuals deciding what the law is and you have now created a theocracy which - as we can see from existing and past theocracies - not only opens the door to tyranny but invites it in and brings its slippers.
Or maybe we don't use that document but simply 'know' what the laws should be via, for lack of a better term, 'divine inspiration'.  The problem there is that it often seem no, two individuals get the same 'inspiration' when God 'lays something on their heart' so who decides which heart and inspiration we should follow?  You?  Me?  See, no matter how it goes I see no way in which your approach doesn't result in one individual or a very small group of individuals claiming the authority to provide or interpret the law for everyone far worse than my suggested approach.  Further, while my approach at least has the benefit of being based on something observable and measurable - such as a person's sanity or mental development - yours is based on ultimately having to accept one or another person or group's claim that 'because God told us so.'

You're running down a long rabbit trail by trying to compare God's commands, which you turn into supposedly subjective, distorted, and conflicting mistaken beliefs, to your personal opinion and declaring yours superior "because science." At every step on your trail a person can go back and appeal to the standard, whereas you incorrectly paint it as an endless series of departures from a faulty beginning.

It doesn't matter if no two agree. What matters is what it true. That just means one or both are wrong. In the days before global warming and the FDA food pyramid, when real science was done in the open, if two scientists disagreed, they didn't see who could shout louder; they went back to the data.

"Because God told us so" is indeed perfectly valid, and FAR less arbitrary than your subjective "observations and measurements" of what you THINK a person MIGHT do in the future. In fact, God is the very definition of "non-arbitrary."

It has correctly been said that "God is there and He is not silent." It is therefore incumbent upon His creation to conform as nearly as possible to His wishes. If there is confusion, we must study to overcome it as far as is possible in this fallen world.

You're extremely concerned about the few mental patients you knew personally, but the streets are not running red with blood at their hands, even though firearms have been available here in numbers not seen in the history of the world. There is no epidemic of psych-ward escapee killing sprees.

BUT EVEN IF THERE WERE, it does not automatically confer upon you or the government the authority to preemptively transgress the person, or property, or defensive capability, of anyone who has not done it "yet," just because you're pretty sure they will given the chance.

Life = Risk

I'll take the alleged risk of a hypothetical nutjob gunman or two over the clear and present danger of the organized and heavily armed state any day. All the concealed carrying of handguns in the world, with or without the gub'mint's permission, won't protect us from the dozens of Abrams, MRAP's, and Apaches rolling through and flying over the streets of Nashville or Knoxville, ahead of hundreds or thousands of troops in armor. And they can at a moment's notice.

Think Boston or New Orleans, and try to see why I can't get scared of your mental patients. They're already running the asylum.

[National Concealed Carry Bill]

I'm going to guess that if LEOSA is constitutional, then a national reciprocity law would be constitutional also.  FOPA for interstate travelers transporting firearms in trunks has not been challenged on a constitutional basis.
States rights have been thrown out the window on many issues.

Yes they have.

My folks live in Jersey, and I'd like to carry there. But I don't want the Leviathan to solve that problem with an iron fist. Today they dictate NJ has to accept packing TN residents, tomorrow that same principle is used to force TN to accept "married"... oh wait...

Yeah, the horses already left the barn.

But my point is that it's power they were never given, regardless of what we think of the individual uses of that power. We tend not to mind Federal overreach when it suits us, but if we value freedom, less government is always better (up to and including zero).

"The government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."



(But... I'll probably still carry in Jersey if it goes through.)

[Tn. Constutional carry]

Nowhere did I say that 'I' would be the one and only standard by which to decide who carries and who does not.  Instead, I suggested a fairly and equally applied system - a system that would not be overly onerous to the majority of those who wish to carry nor overly lax as to allow obviously dangerous individuals - those who need not commit a crime for anyone with any measure of reason to see that allowing them to carry a firearm in public would be dangerous and irresponsible - to walk around in public with a loaded weapon.  Such a system needs input from many people, not just me.
Let me try to explain my point of view with a couple of examples.  I will admit beforehand the the examples are not perfect but they do at least get at my point:
1. If you knew there was a large, powerful dog on your block and you knew that said dog was rabid would you advocate for leaving the dog alone until it bit someone or would you advocate taking steps to try and lessen the possibility that the dog would bite someone in the first place?  Conversely, would you say that the large, rabid dog should be allowed to roam around until and unless it bites someone and only then should something be done about it?  Trust me, there are people out there who are just as dangerous and unbalanced as a rabid dog.
2.Or, to use a human example, if you knew there was a man living two doors down from you who was sexually attracted to six and seven year old girls - even though he had never done anything illegal to any little girl - would you advocate for him to be a Kindergarten teacher at your local school or would you maybe, just maybe, think that he should be prevented from being in such a position?  I mean, you are violating his rights by assuming that he would do something illegal and harmful even before he does so but does protecting others (in this case children but the idea applies to every citizen) justify curbing his, individual rights?  What I am suggesting, then, is that - to directly rip off Wrath of Kahn - although I am in most points strongly in favor of the right of the individual to make his or her own decisions sometimes the needs of the many really do outweigh the needs of the one.

Interesting, I thought of Spock as well, and how that collectivist "needs of the many" schtick is the open door to tyranny.

The second analogy is pretty good, but the first one pretty bad. Dogs don't have "rights" (I don't favor the term anyway but it IS easy) like humans, and are in fact themselves either owned by said humans, or able to be owned by the next human who comes along, who then may shoot it. If it is owned, and clearly poses a threat, and if the owner can't contain it, then of course you would be justified in shooting it once it was not contained.

Regarding the mental pedophile; you still have to justify aggression. If you actually aggress against him without justification, then he merely thinks bad things, but you act on bad things, albeit different ones. If he says out loud that he desires to rape children, and is only waiting for the opportunity, and you believe him, I would hope you would tell everyone, and that at a minimum society would ostracize him to the point of self-banishment. Obviously I loathe the concept of so-called public schools, but if he were trying to be hired at a private school, who would hire him after being warned? And if he succeeded, who would leave their children? The school would go bankrupt overnight. Of course that's a new can of worms regarding how we raise and protect and educate our children, either now or in the "delusional utopian free society."

You cannot guard against any and every danger, or "pre-crime," by attempting to preempt all the supposed criminals "Minority-Report-Style." It can't be done, but we'll all be made slaves in the trying of it.

Your first comment last, regarding you being your only standard; in effect, and logically, you have no alternative, whether you said it explicitly or not. Would you change your mind if "51% of voters" said you're wrong? Of course not.

I'm not suggesting you'd be a de facto dictator, given the chance, of course. I'm merely stating the obvious conclusion of your posts and of deism in general, which is that you've got no standard other than your own opinion if you reject the Ultimate Standard. You might make attempt to make "society in general," or the voting majority, or the government, or the Constitution, or some "great minds in an ivory tower," into the standard, but then you're just compounding the problem of the shifting and arbitrary nature of fallen man as lawgiver.

Deism in theory becomes atheism in practice. If God does not reign, He is irrelevant, and we can have no absolute right and wrong, and therefore no absolute rules. "You shall not murder" sounds good to some, but not to others! Who's to say the crazy guy with the gun is wrong and you're right, without a Standard to which to compare him?

Anyway, we can't agree on the methods if we don't agree on the principles, so we're liable to start seeing the same tree more than once in our doomed circular trek "out" of these dark woods. But I appreciate the dialogue!

[Tn. Constutional carry]

No, actually, it is the fact that I realize we have to live with reality and not in some philosophical ideal of how things 'should' be that causes me to realize that not everyone is capable of safely and responsibly carrying a firearm.  Further, the fastest way for everyone to lose the ability to legally do so is to not recognize that some people can't.  Would things be better without governments?  Maybe.   But it ain't gonna happen.  Even if we 'abolish' the current one (and I am not certain that doing so would be a bad idea) another will take its place.  As long as there is a group of people lumped together in one place there will always be a 'government' of one type or another and there will always be a give and take between government authority, society and the rights of the individual.  That is just the practical reality.  Deny it all you want - don't believe in it all you want - but that won't change the reality.  The truth is, you might be surprised to find that, from a purely philosophical standpoint, our views may be more alike than you know although there are definitely some fine points where our views differ.  Thing is, philosophical discussions are all well and good and our philosophies can inform our realities but reality also must encompass other individuals' philosophies - philosophies which differ vastly from anyone on TGO - as well.  Insisting that only our philosophy be followed results in A. tyranny if we have the power to enforce our philosophy absolutely or B. complete subjugation of our philosophy if we try to push it on everyone else and find that 'everyone else' overwhelmingly pushes back.
BTW, I was raised Southern Baptist.  My 'Deism' - which may not even be the best way to describe my beliefs - is not due to a lack of knowledge of the Christian faith but, actually, an informed and intentional rejection of it.  I am not what I would call a 'Bible scholar' but I am well aware of and fairly well versed in what it is that I am rejecting.  Probably more so than a significant portion of people who purport to 'believe' (not aiming that comment at you, just in general.)

This is not exactly a philosophical discussion per se. And no one is suggesting we live in any kind of ideal world, or that such a world would be easy to attain. But part of why we have the problems we do is that there are people who think they can arbitrarily strip others of certain things (or "rights").

Whether or not we've always had and always will have "the government" or "a government" is not the question. It is rather what is right or wrong, just or unjust.

Your rejection of The Lawgiver leaves you as a law unto yourself. There is nothing any mortal can do about that, but it would be good if you restrict your lawgiving TO yourself. You want your ideas imposed upon other people, which would be all well me good if they were the right ideas and should be imposed, but you have no fixed standard of justice to which you can appeal. You can only advocate what seems to be good to you at the moment. You would declare this man safe and that one unsafe (and what if others disagree with your assessment?), and by that arbitrary declaration the second man would be stripped of his defense at the point of the bayonet, by naught but your say-so.

Crime will always exist this side of judgment, and no one is beyond the potential for it. So once you've disarmed the unsafe man, you'll see the need to look for another. For the children, of course. Since it's all quite relative, as soon as the unsafe man is gone, the next least safe man will appear to be unsafe, and so it must go until ALL are disarmed but the state, by far the least "safe" entity to ever plague humanity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[National Concealed Carry Bill]

As much as I like the idea of universal carry, what the bill does is make the FedGov even more into the omnipotent god of the states. The Feds need less power over the states, not more.

I think it's also unconstitutional, but that's a long 14th Amendment debate right there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tn. Constutional carry]

Was that before or after he said the line about rendering unto Caesar?  Even the Christian Bible recognizes that there are human laws and that those laws must be followed.  Now, do I believe that I have a right to protect myself, my life and so on with deadly force?  Yep.  Of course, my belief has nothing to do with some supposed deity.  Basically, I am a Deist who believes that a Creator - if such exists - started the whole universal top spinning and then went off to do its own thing.  That Creator doesn't care one way or another if we have the ability to defend ourselves or not and likely wouldn't even notice if we live or die.   I am not governed based on religion nor do my rights have anything to do with any religion.  I have the right to defend myself by virtue of being a human being but that right must be balanced with the right of others to live their lives.  This is what people on both sides of every issue who want to trumpet their 'rights' seem to forget - your rights end where mine begin.  If there is a likelihood that an individual - because of mental disease or deficiency or as indicated by past actions of victimizing others - will misuse a firearm in a way that will impact my right to live and not get shot by someone who is not mentally responsible enough to be carrying a gun then that person doesn't 'have the right' to do so.  Would you turn a three year old loose with a .45?  Well, there are supposed 'adults' out there who are no more capable of being responsible than a three year old.  Further, 'if you are worried about it then carry a gun, yourself' is pretty naive, isn't it?  I mean, having a gun isn't going to stop some mentally defective person from shooting you before you even know what is going on.

What actually belongs to Caesar? What was the coin in question, and why did a Jew have one in his possession? Not that I'd entertain getting into a Bible study with someone who denies its validity, but for those so inclined, these are things to think about.

Yes, Christians believe in laws. There are quite a few in the Christian Bible, but as you say, they won't interest you.

Your disbelief in an absolute Lawgiver is what leads to your belief that you can arbitrarily declare that this person may defend himself, and that person may not.

You called what I said about carrying a gun naive, because it won't prevent violence in every instance. No one thinks it will. Having a fleet of aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons doesn't either. You can't prevent everything. You can't find all the "mental defectives" and take their guns away. That's a "naive" notion if there ever was one.

You talk of "likelihood" and of what "may" happen, and your fears of unknowable future possibilities make you want to use government violence to actually, really, now, strip others of their means of protection.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tn. Constutional carry]

Sure.  Label any idea that maybe - just maybe - people who would shoot up Walmart because they couldn't have that DVD they want shouldn't be carrying guns as 'gun control' and lump it in with the Brady Campaign and so on then I guess, by arguing from a ridiculous extreme, you could call it 'gun control'.  Recognize that arguing from the extreme is not really a workable position, however, and the description loses some of its visceral power.  Further, I guess if the ideas of the very people who laid the foundation for the country are 'irrelevant' then all bets are off and we should all be able to do whatever the heck we want, whenever we want and wherever we want.
We all have a right to cars, correct?  And we have the right to drive (according to a previous post from you.)  I believe we all also have the right to drink scotch so until I actually get involved in an accident where I kill someone else I should probably be allowed to drive as fast as I want - after all ,the government has no right to tell me what a safe operating speed is - while drinking my fifth scotch on the rocks and ignoring those darned, oppresive stop signs.  See, that is what happens when people argue from ridiculous extremes.
I am not saying that I don't believe in the right to defend oneself, the right (for most people) to own a firearm or even the right (for most people) to carry a firearm.  What I am saying is that there are billions of people on this planet and some of them shouldn't carry and probably shouldn't own firearms for the safety of themselves and others.  That being the case, as distasteful as it may be, there do have to be some limits for some people.  Further, I am not claiming that I have all the answers as to the best way to achieve those limits.  In a perfect world everyone would be able to carry a firearm safely and responsibly.  I dislike the idea of gun control, too, and wish that 'perfect world' scenario were the reality.  Hell, in a perfect world we probably wouldn't need to carry guns but would still be able to.  The thing is, our world is far from perfect so sometimes we do have to develop imperfect solutions to imperfect situations.

I label your view as "gun control," which it manifestly is, and so you label my view as "a ridiculous extreme," which is a all-but-undefinable adjective with a loaded noun. I don't mind; I just think it's funny.

You claim certain people shouldn't have access to guns, and want the government to enforce your arbitrary view. With guns. All government edicts imply potential lethal violence.

It's because we live in this imperfect world that we don't need or want centralized and organized government guns restricting private, individual guns. That's just solving a small problem with a big one. A REALLY big one. A private citizen didn't invent the atomic bomb, which is an utterly immoral offensive weapon, nor did a private citizen drop two of them on innocent men, women, and children.

"If government is the answer, I don't think I care to hear the question."

I didn't say the framers' ideas were all irrelevant; I said their views on voting are irrelevant to this topic, which is still my position. Regardless, the framers' ideas just give us food for thought; they do not establish absolute right and wrong. That establishment predates them by a significant period of time. If they said government shouldn't let citizens go armed, they would have just been wrong. It happens. They were wrong about more than a few things, you may be interested to know.

Your "driving while intoxicated" analogy is another large topic, and easily handled without government violence as well. For one thing, if the government hadn't nationalized almost all roads, whoever owned them would set the rules and allow or deny access. And more importantly, driving blitzed wouldn't and shouldn't be a crime until you aggressed against person or property. Why should I care if you drive drunk and don't hurt anyone or anything? Anyway, as I said, that's another topic.

We're so immersed in a sea of statism we can't conceive of air or dry land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tn. Constutional carry]

Ideals are ideals and reality is reality.  The reality is that those of us who want to carry a firearm for our own protection are the minority.  As a minority, we have to accept conditions under which the majority will not object so strenuously that our right to do so loses the protection of the law.  I believe that certain rights are inalienable from a philosophical standpoint but from a 'real world' standpoint there simply isn't any such thing as an 'inalienable' right.  The those in power decide that we can't legally carry a gun - or even own one - then we can't legally carry a gun or even own one.  The best way to gain support for those who would like to see that very thing come to be is to turn every jacknuts with a screw loose or every dim bulb with the IQ of wet Kleenex loose on the streets with a gun.  I know this might not be the most popular view but, having worked with adults with mental disabilities (mental retardation) - which also often comes with a suite of mental illnesses (such as a couple who were psychotic, one that had multiple personalities and some that were potentially even worse) and who had little to no control over their emotions or ability to think rationally I say that not everyone needs to be allowed to own a firearm much less carry one.
Remember that the Founding Fathers didn't believe that all rights extended to everyone, either.  Their thought was than only male landowners should be allowed to even vote.  Live in a boarding house?  Can't vote.  You are a worker on someone else's farm and live there as part of your compensation?  Can't vote.  Woman?  Can't vote.  Of course, voting is considered to be the most basic of American rights and obligations but even that right wasn't really considered to be 'inalienable' to the Founders where everyone was concerned - only to certain people who met certain criteria.

So... Gun Control. Gotcha.

(Founding Fathers' ideas about rights and voting irrelevant.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tn. Constutional carry]

Nope. We get our rights from our Creator. They are simply enumerated in our Constitution.

Exactly.

I might elaborate and phrase it thusly:

Our Creator gave us freedom under His Law to do anything not proscribed by Him, and did not give civil government, however organized, any authority to add proscriptions. In our feeble Constitution, the entirely unnecessary and counterproductive Bill of Rights merely enumerates a small handful of prominent ways in which our "Federal" government may not transgress the people.

(But that's a mouthful so your way is probably better.)

"rmiddle" said the Constitution didn't give us a right to drive as if that was supposed to mean something.

Come to think of it, I don't see a right to eat ham sandwiches either. Quick! We need another amendment before the government totally outlaws them!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tn. Constutional carry]

Everyone's a Statist.

Apparently it's perfectly ok for the government to dictate what we're allowed to do before any crime against person or property has occurred, as long as it doesn't dictate "too much." And apparently now it's also perfectly ok for the government to steal my tax money and use it to "train" someone else in the government's abysmally hypocritical idea of safety and responsibility for free. Whatever it takes so long as the government keeps us safe, right?

I guess those of us who understand freedom are a minuscule minority even on a gun forum.

Regular permits and enhanced permits are the same thing: permits. Who did I give the authority to license me to do anything? Until I aggress against another, I have committed no immoral act and no crime whether I carry with a license or without one.

If you're worried about the "dangerous" or "untrained" fellow with a gun, then carry one, too, and encourage all the other responsible people you know to do the same. Don't run to the FAR MORE DANGEROUS government and ask it to save you by exerting ever more power.

All property is or should be private property in one way or another, and the owner of said property has the sole authority to dictate that a gun-carrier may not enter. Kroger can issue permits to carry in their stores if they want. It's their store. To ask the government to license carriers is to acquiesce to their illegitimate claim of ownership of the whole state and all property therein.

If the government has to exist (which it doesn't), its only legitimate action on this matter is to issue a statement which says it has no business telling people what they may or may not carry and where.

If Georgia doesn't recognize it, that's Georgia's business. If you can't carry there without an expensive TN permission slip, that sucks, but that's life.

Please, no protests of "utopian delusions." We either believe in freedom or we don't. And we're discussing the "ought" not the "is."

We're never going to shrink (and hopefully eventually abolish) the coercive government as it exists today if even the people who should understand and value freedom the most are calling for government action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tn. Constutional carry]

Except DL are a privilege not a right.  Big difference.  Nowhere in the constitution does it give you the right to drive a car but the second amendment is pretty clear.

Do you believe we get our rights from the Constitution???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk