General Categories > Carry Issues
Omaha oakview mall
rluening:
You're right, it is illegal in many places to incite panic by yelling "fire" in a crowded place. If you do it, you may be charged with inciting panic or something similar.
Similarly, if you do something stupid with a weapon, you may be charged with all manner of infractions.
Notice, though, that this is an apples and oranges situation. The government does not remove your voice box until you have proven that you are responsible enough to be able to speak in public. You are expected to behave yourself, and will be punished if you don't.
You are suggesting that nobody should be able to exercise their constitutionally protected rights until they have met some arbitrary standard of training, in effect assuming that people are guilty until proven innocent.
Who decides the standards we must meet?
There's a famous scrap of paper that reads:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
A particular addition to that piece of paper includes the words:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution."
If we let the government choose which of us are actually created equal before we have done anything to lose our rights we don't have any rights to begin with.
We are not born felons. We are born with "certain unalienable Rights" (another phrase lifted from that rag people seem to ignore).
If you are the one in power, it's quite likely you don't want me to carry a weapon because I haven't met some arbitrary and capricious standard. If I am the one making the rules, I probably won't want you to carry because your "some animals are more equal than others" sentiment scares me to death. Neither situation is proper or correct.
Until we do something to prove otherwise, we _both_ have the right to speak our minds, keep and bear arms, not have our homes tossed by random police or military forces, etc. Notice that we have those rights until we do something to have them taken away, not the other way around. If we need to prove we are worthy, they aren't rights.
/rl
FarmerRick:
So, when will we ask Nebraska to require a class and background check to get a permit to OPEN CARRY, like Omaha has?
It sure can't be safe for just anyone to open carry now can it??? We'd better regulate that some more too.
After all, is it really all that different if the gun is visible or not? In fact it's probably MUCH MORE FRIGHTENING for the sheep to see the gun. :o
Seems like that would make a few people here very happy. ::) ::) ::)
justsomeguy:
--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on June 26, 2010, 08:42:17 AM --- Just a couple weeks ago, there was a guy in Oregon with a CCW permit firing shots at a car that was driving away.
--- End quote ---
This sounds like something that happened in Bellevue NE a few years ago only the one behind the trigger was one of the " Only Ones ". Yep, a police officer. "Someone who trains constantly" to use your words.
--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on June 26, 2010, 08:42:17 AM ---That guy just gave up his 2nd Amendment right, IMO, because he couldn't handle the responsibility that came with it.
--- End quote ---
Do you think this happened to the officer in question?
NO! The shooting was ruled justified and he was put back to work.
DanClrk51:
--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on June 26, 2010, 08:42:17 AM ---Likewise, by allowing those who are un-trained or unsafe to carry loaded guns, we are putting the lives of others at risk.
--- End quote ---
No we are NOT. The act of simply carrying a loaded gun does not put other lives at risk nor does it infringe on other peoples rights. However restricting me from exercising my God-given, inalienable right to bear arms unless I jump through some arbitrary hoops IS a violation of MY rights. The "crime" of carrying a concealed weapon is a victimless crime since the act itself harms no one. If it did hurt or infringe on other people's rights, then cops would be arrested on the spot for carrying their back up weapons concealed. Why don't we use common sense and logic and punish those that actually hurt someone. What we are doing now is punishing people for possessing the ability to hurt someone. Is that fair?
And by the way, no amount of training is going to make anyone 100% safe. We are all humans, and humans make mistakes even the most trained and experienced police officers. This is why mandates for training are in all cases arbitrary. Punish someone if they have actually done something wrong!
rluening actually explained the concept very well.
justsomeguy:
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ---------- Jeff Snyder
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version