Make it legal to carry without permit: yes or no?

[Guest mosinon]

You have the "right" to travel...you have the right to peacefully assemble and to peacefully protest...to speak freely. You DO NOT have a right to transportation (be it a car or a plane or a bus) or a free meeting room...you don't have a right to free poster board on which to write your protest slogans nor do you have a right to a platform from which to speak.

I almost agree. I concur that you have no right to transportation but I wonder if the right to travel wouldn't include your right to choose the transport. Put it a different way: You have the right to bear arms, concealed carry and all. But I, being the government, decide that your right is either a single shot flintlock rifle or you can jump through a bunch of hoops.

So, like traveling, you've got choices. You'e got no right to just drive your car somewhere. Since you can walk. You've got no right to carry a Glock since you are allowed to carry the aforementioned flintlock rifle.

Hey, you're armed what do you care, right?

I get what you're saying. You're thinking that I am putting privileges before rights. It is a privilege to drive on a road and a privilege to fly on a plane. The obstacles provided in no way infringe upon my right of actually traveling.

You know, I think you're right. I think you are absolutely correct. I think that gun rights are the only rights being trampled on.

Except for this one.

But I am probably wrong. I am likely to apathetic to notice abuses of the 13th amendment and all the others.

I want, nay demand, every right spelled out it the constitution. But that is just me, I am a jerk

Edited January 3, 2011 by mosinon

[RobertNashville]

...I want, nay demand, every right spelled out it the constitution. But that is just me, I am a jerk

That's not being a jerk and if it is, I am the same way; perhaps even more so because I demand not only the specific rights spelled out in the Constitution but also the rights that were deemed so basic to human existence that the founders didn't see the need to spell them out.

[Guest Jamie]

I want, nay demand, every right spelled out it the constitution. But that is just me, I am a jerk

That's not being a jerk and if it is, I am the same way; perhaps even more so because I demand not only the specific rights spelled out in the Constitution but also the rights that were deemed so basic to human existence that the founders didn't see the need to spell them out.

Here's the problem, gents... Rights don't come from any god, or mother nature, or simply with or by virtue of the fact we exist. They come from society... the people around you.

Anything they agree is a "right" is, and anything they say isn't, isn't.

And unfortunately, those folks that drew up and signed the U.S. constitution are no longer part of society. Which means we all now have the job of convincing a whole new bunch of people that all of those things that were written down still are - or even ever were - rights.

Until that's done, all that stuff is just so much scribbling on a piece of paper.

And from some of the responses here on this thread, I can't say I'm very optimistic about the odds of success.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Jamie

[Fallguy]

While I know many others may not think this and it just as hard (if not harder) to prove as above...I do think some right do come from the simple fact that I exist.

But that's just me and a few other of us crazy libritariens....lol

[Guest Jamie]

While I know many others may not think this and it just as hard (if not harder) to prove as above...I do think some right do come from the simple fact that I exist.

Which ones? 'Cause I'll bet I can think of or find a situation that at least appears to disprove it, no matter what you name. And most likely by simply putting you in the company of the right (or wrong) group of people.

But that's just me and a few other of us crazy libritariens....lol

And if your group ever gets large enough to force those "rights" on everyone else, then they will be just that. Until then though, you ain't walkin' around armed without a permit, or doing any number of other things. Also, if that larger group ever decides, for whatever reason, that you don't have the "right" to live... well, I think we've all seen how that goes.

[RobertNashville]

Here's the problem, gents... Rights don't come from any god, or mother nature, or simply with or by virtue of the fact we exist. They come from society... the people around you.

I could not possibly disagree with you more and while they aren't here to tell you themselves, I am certain, based on history, that our founders would disagree with you as well. No government or society in general or in particular can GIVE you your rights...only "nature's god", as the founders put it, can give you rights and we have them only by virtue of the fact that we are god's creation (I'm not going to get into an argument here about what god; that's simply isn't important for this discussion).

I understand that you may not see it that way and that's fine but thank God our founder's DID see it that way or the likelihood that we could freely disagree would would probably be nil.

The only thing a government or a society can do is take away or restrict rights - if we let them. That is why the many writers and contributors to the Constitution felt it necessary to explicitly detail some (but not all) of our rights in writing.

Anything they agree is a "right" is, and anything they say isn't, isn't.

And unfortunately, those folks that drew up and signed the U.S. constitution are no longer part of society. Which means we all now have the job of convincing a whole new bunch of people that all of those things that were written down still are - or even ever were - rights.

Until that's done, all that stuff is just so much scribbling on a piece of paper.

On this we do agree. Ronald Reagan reminded us that freedom is never more than one generation away from being lost.

Benjamin Franklin somewhat echoed the same thought when, outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked him ,

"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" and with no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it." I'm still hopeful that we can find a way to keep it.

And from some of the responses here on this thread, I can't say I'm very optimistic about the odds of success.

Like Franklin, I tend to be pessimistic so that when the good thing happens I am pleasantly surprised!

In this case I am a bit more pessimistic than usual based on some of the posts in this thread...it may be too late for this country...we may have come so far down the road of reliance on "government" that self-reliance is all but gone...that people are far, far too willing to accept bureaucracy rather than freedom.

Only time will tell.

[Guest Jamie]

I could not possibly disagree with you more and while they aren't here to tell you themselves, I am certain, based on history, that our founders would disagree with you as well.

I think they wouldn't, by the shear fact that the 2nd amendment exists at all. I think it's ample proof that the founders recognized that the only rights anyone truly have are the ones they can keep someone else from taking away from them.

All the flowery wording aside, the message of the 2nd is pretty simple: If you want to stay free, if you want to have or keep a "right" of any kind... you'd damn well better stay armed and able to enforce that belief.

[Fallguy]

Which ones? 'Cause I'll bet I can think of or find a situation that at least appears to disprove it, no matter what you name. And most likely by simply putting you in the company of the right (or wrong) group of people.

I believe I have a right to my life and to defend it (not talking about by any certain means), I believe I have a right to do to my body anything I want, I believe that two consenting adults have the right to do to each other or with each other whatever they mutually consent to.

Basically so long as what I do does not harm you, I believe that I should be allowed to do it. I know this is not now the way of things and probably will never be, but it is how I feel.

And if your group ever gets large enough to force those "rights" on everyone else, then they will be just that. Until then though, you ain't walkin' around armed without a permit, or doing any number of other things. Also, if that larger group ever decides, for whatever reason, that you don't have the "right" to live... well, I think we've all seen how that goes.

As you can see what I believe really doesn't force anything onto anyone else.

Although this isn't exactly what I was talking about...I really don't see how my choice to carry a firearm adversely affects anyone. Sure my choice to use it could and then I would be bound by the laws of the land and my belief that I have affected another. The circumstances would/should define what the consequences are. But if I am willing to accept those consequences I should be able to have the chance to face them.

[Fallguy]

All the flowery wording aside, the message of the 2nd is pretty simple: If you want to stay free, if you want to have or keep a "right" of any kind... you'd damn well better stay armed and able to enforce that belief.

Completely agree...

[leroy]

Originally Posted by Jamie

All the flowery wording aside, the message of the 2nd is pretty simple: If you want to stay free, if you want to have or keep a "right" of any kind... you'd damn well better stay armed and able to enforce that belief.

Completely agree...

Amen brother!! Keep your powder dry!!

Keep up the good work!

leroy

[Guest Jamie]

I believe I have a right to my life and to defend it (not talking about by any certain means), I believe I have a right to do to my body anything I want, I believe that two consenting adults have the right to do to each other or with each other whatever they mutually consent to.

Basically so long as what I do does not harm you, I believe that I should be allowed to do it. I know this is not now the way of things and probably will never be, but it is how I feel.

And we both know the number of laws that either still are on the books or were at one time, governing all of those things... laws that came and went at the whim - or belief - of other people.

As you can see what I believe really doesn't force anything onto anyone else.

I'm not talking about belief here... I'm talking about actual fact. And the fact is, at one time even a person's ability to think or believe whatever they pleased was taken away from them. Still is, in some instances. ( Ever hear of a lobotomy? How about electro-shock therapy? Both of those can take away your very ability to think what you please. )

Although this isn't exactly what I was talking about...I really don't see how my choice to carry a firearm adversely affects anyone. Sure my choice to use it could and then I would be bound by the laws of the land and my belief that I have affected another. The circumstances would/should define what the consequences are. But if I am willing to accept those consequences I should be able to have the chance to face them.

Well, here's where your choice to carry a weapon runs up against someone else's belief; they think that if you are armed you are an actual threat to them because of you potential to hurt them. They believe you shouldn't even have that ability, never mind that you don't have the desire or inclination. In other words, their insecurity, as a group, carries more power or authority than your perceived right, as an individual.

...Which suddenly become a privilege and not a right at all.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Jamie

[RobertNashville]

I think they wouldn't, by the shear fact that the 2nd amendment exists at all. I think it's ample proof that the founders recognized that the only rights anyone truly have are the ones they can keep someone else from taking away from them.

All the flowery wording aside, the message of the 2nd is pretty simple: If you want to stay free, if you want to have or keep a "right" of any kind... you'd damn well better stay armed and able to enforce that belief.

Except their own words say exactly otherwise.

They never said or indicated that rights come from anywhere other than from God...they also recognized that all a government can do is take a right away; a government never "gives" rights nor in fact can a government give anything they haven't taken from somewhere/someone else.

[Fallguy]

And we both know the number of laws that either still are on the books or were at one time, governing all of those things... laws that came and went at the whim - or belief - of other people.

I agree that there are laws that violate rights.

I'm not talking about belief here... I'm talking about actual fact. And the fact is, at one time even a person's ability to think or believe whatever they pleased was taken away from them. Still is, in some instances. ( Ever hear of a lobotomy? How about electro-shock therapy? Both of those can take away your very ability to think what you please. )

Again I know there are ways to take away those rights and many already have been.

Well, here's where your choice to carry a weapon runs up against someone else's belief; they think that if you are armed you are an actual threat to them because of you potential to hurt them. They believe you shouldn't even have that ability, never mind that you don't have the desire or inclination. In other words, their insecurity, as a group, carries more power or authority than your perceived right, as an individual.

I can not help what others believe. Someone could believe that black is actually red, but that doesn't make it so. But I do agree that times have changed in that yes, the insecurity of many has, by law, superseded other's rights to go armed an other rights for that matter.

...Which suddenly become a privilege and not a right at all.

Which is what has happened in many cases.

Of course as I first said, I know many of things I believe are rights will probably never be widely accepted, but that doesn't change my opinion.

[Guest Jamie]

Except their own words say exactly otherwise.

They never said or indicated that rights come from anywhere other than from God...they also recognized that all a government can do is take a right away; a government never "gives" rights nor in fact can a government give anything they haven't taken from somewhere/someone else.

Robert, I'm not really inclined to argue semantics with you... and no matter how you slice it, that's what it is, because a "government" is still just a group of people. And it is indeed people who decide anything. They tell you you can do a thing, they tell you that you can't.

You deciding "I have the right to <fill in the blank>!!!" really is just you deciding. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any thing or any body past that. And your decision only carries any weight for as long as you don't encounter some one or some thing that disputes it.

You can claim otherwise until you're blue in the face, but it'll never change the reality of the situation.

There is NO 3rd party source that's going to step in and tell someone else "Oh no... I gave him that right, so you let him be" other than another person, or group of people.

[Guest Jamie]

... but that doesn't change my opinion.

Please understand, I'm not trying to change your opinion. I simply recognize that no matter the opinion, yours or mine, there's simply no such thing as a true right.

You and I, and any number of other folks, might believe certain things should be a right... but that's not enough to make it so.

[Fallguy]

The more I think of it Jamie....I think I see where you are coming from.

Basically only when a majority of any population have the same belief or view of a right, is it recognized by that group as to apply to everyone and/or addressed in the law that governs that group.

What I believe is just that and no one else is legally bound by that unless there is a majority that also do and make it law.

If that is the point you are trying to get across (or at least close) again I don't disagree that is how things are. I guess all one can do, is to do the best the can to balance their personal beliefs with the laws of the land. And where those two are in conflict choose witch to follow and accept the consequences of that choice.

[Guest Jamie]

The more I think of it Jamie....I think I see where you are coming from.

Basically only when a majority of any population have the same belief or view of a right, is it recognized by that group as to apply to everyone and/or addressed in the law that governs that group.

What I believe is just that and no one else is legally bound by that unless there is a majority that also do and make it law.

If that is the point you are trying to get across (or at least close) again I don't disagree that is how things are. I guess all one can do, is to do the best the can to balance their personal beliefs with the laws of the land. And where those two are in conflict choose witch to follow and accept the consequences of that choice.

You seem to have it.

The other problem though, is it doesn't really take a majority of a population. All it takes is one individual, that by whatever means, can force their belief on everyone else. Sort of like going into a room full of unarmed people, pulling out a gun and saying "okay, here's how it's going to be...."

As long as you have the ability to enforce your belief, everybody else there is just screwed. They don't have any rights you don't give them, or allow them to have.

King George, for instance, thought he had a god-given right to rule his subjects as he pleased... and until the colonists took up arms and said "oh hell no", he was pretty much correct.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Jamie

[RobertNashville]

Robert, I'm not really inclined to argue semantics with you... and no matter how you slice it, that's what it is, because a "government" is still just a group of people. And it is indeed people who decide anything. They tell you you can do a thing, they tell you that you can't.

You deciding "I have the right to <fill in the blank>!!!" really is just you deciding. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any thing or any body past that. And your decision only carries any weight for as long as you don't encounter some one or some thing that disputes it.

You can claim otherwise until you're blue in the face, but it'll never change the reality of the situation.

There is NO 3rd party source that's going to step in and tell someone else "Oh no... I gave him that right, so you let him be" other than another person, or group of people.

Jamie,

This isn't a matter of semantics and in any case words DO mean things.

Yes...I understand that in our country, the "government" is made up of people...people who are elected to positions/offices by other people (and people appointed or hired directly or indirectly by those elected). In some countries, it might be a monarchy or a dictatorship...I use the word "government" for the sake of convenience, not because I don't understand that in our case the government is made up of "people" or "society".

I'm also not purporting the some third party/supreme being is going to come swooping down to give or maintain our rights.

What the founders believed (unless you think they were lying) is a matter of written history and they believed that ALL rights come from God...the Constitution is simply a recognition of those rights; not a granting of them.

I also believe that. I would also submit that the fact that we are a creation of God and are endowed by God with certain rights is the ONLY thing that truly separates us from any other animal on Earth and apart from that, any talk about the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is just that, talk...we would be free to do whatever we wanted to whoever we wanted and we shouldn't be punished for it since they are just animals anyway.

You are free to believe otherwise but your belief or agreement with me or the lack thereof doesn't make my belief incorrect nor does it change what the founder's wrote.

Yes...a "government/people/dictator/king" can restrict or take away rights but that's ALL they can do. But the fact that they can do that has nothing to do with where those rights come from in the first place.

Edited January 3, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest Jamie]

What the founders believed (unless you think they were lying) is a matter of written history and they believed that ALL rights come from God...the Constitution is simply a recognition of those rights; not a granting of them.

I think you're missing the point that what they did or did not believe no longer matters, due to the percentage of people today that believe differently. ( Think about the whole 70+ year-long argument over whether or not the 2nd outlined an individual or group right, for instance. )

And as I pointed out earlier, England's royalty also believed they had a god-given right... and we all know how that eventually worked out.

Seems that in every case though, the folks with the most guns/weapons won the argument.

BTW, the rest of your post I choose to leave alone, due to the fact that you obviously hold a religious belief that I don't. Therefore it's off limits to discuss here.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Jamie

[Oh Shoot]

....Yes...a "government/people/dictator/king" can restrict or take away rights but that's ALL they can do. But the fact that they can do that has nothing to do with where those rights come from in the first place.

This will make everyone feel so much better to know where the rights we can not exercise came from; at least all but atheists.

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - George Orwell

- OS

[RobertNashville]

I think you're missing the point that what they did or did not believe no longer matters, due to the percentage of people today that believe differently. ( Think about the whole 70+ year-long argument over whether or not the 2nd outlined an individual or group right, for instance. )

And as I pointed out earlier, England's royalty also believed they had a god-given right... and we all know how that eventually worked out.

Seems that in every case though, the folks with the most guns/weapons won the argument.

BTW, the rest of your post I choose to leave alone, due to the fact that you obviously hold a religious belief that I don't. Therefore it's off limits to discuss here.

Actually, I'm not really a religious man and this isn't about religion; it's much more a matter of whether a person believes that man exists on purpose or is just an accident; a convergence of time and circumstance...if we exist by accident rather than by design, the whole issue of "rights" is rather meaningless.

Perhaps Judge Napolitano said it far better than I can...

What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies. So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process — fairness — from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn't give them to us and the government doesn't pay for them and the government can't take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else's rights.

[Guest Jamie]

Actually, I'm not really a religious man and this isn't about religion; it's much more a matter of whether a person believes that man exists on purpose or is just an accident; a convergence of time and circumstance...if we exist by accident rather than by design, the whole issue of "rights" is rather meaningless.

Oh, I don't think that if we exist by accident or chance that the issue of rights is meaningless. I think people need to honestly understand exactly how a "right" works though, no matter what their origin.

The concept of Rights comes from the desire to be free of someone else's control... and those rights don't have to come from anywhere other than the person's own mind for them to be valid.

[Guest mosinon]

Here's the problem, gents... Rights don't come from any god, or mother nature, or simply with or by virtue of the fact we exist. They come from society... the people around you.

Anything they agree is a "right" is, and anything they say isn't, isn't.

And unfortunately, those folks that drew up and signed the U.S. constitution are no longer part of society. Which means we all now have the job of convincing a whole new bunch of people that all of those things that were written down still are - or even ever were - rights.

Until that's done, all that stuff is just so much scribbling on a piece of paper.

And from some of the responses here on this thread, I can't say I'm very optimistic about the odds of success.

Jamie I like you. I like the way you think. But here we are going to have to agree like men and walk away. I agree with what you said completely. It is a hard day on the internet when people agree and for that I am sorry but dammit, I agree.

[Guest Jamie]

Jamie I like you. I like the way you think. But here we are going to have to agree like men and walk away. I agree with what you said completely. It is a hard day on the internet when people agree and for that I am sorry but dammit, I agree.

:shake:

[Guest 44M]

I recently read where Haslam said he would sign a bill making it legal to carry without a permit if it landed on his desk. Number 1, this is in no way a political question or any desire to learn about opinions regarding political parties or Mr. Haslam himself. Number 2, I understand the laws now and that it is of the utmost importance to follow existing laws to better represent the 2 ammendment and its future. So, I am asking. Would you be comfortable if everyone was able to carry without a permit? Personally I feel more confident in the fact that one has to pass a class, background check, etc to carry legally. Any thoughts?

its not only that I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that anyone can carry a gun, but I would make mandatory class once a year for everyone with HCP to fresh up on new laws,rules and prove it they are able to use the gun and shoot it...

Db