Guy exercises right to carry firearm (vid)

[thegodfather]

First of all you are wayy to hostile to carry on a civil debate. I don't need to tell you when to excercise your rights. I don't have to make it be known that I have a carry/conceal permit. It's not a big deal, unless crack pots make it so. It's obvious the guy was using it as a show of force considering all these town hall meetings on health care have gotten heated. So yes, he's a nut and it was inappropriate in that forum, IMO. The debate wasn't about gun control, it was about health care. Absolutely no reason to have a gun there, the guy was simply flexing his muscle. He has a carry permit...GOOD FOR HIM! What use was it in that forum?

It is really ashame that he even has to obtain a "PERMIT" in order to exercise a right. We certainly are not expected to get a permit when we want to speak our mind(1A), refuse a warrantless search(4A), refuse to testify against ourselves(5A), etc. If you need PERMISSION it implies that it is a privilege and not a right.

Anyway, there is no reason that he SHOULDN'T have his weapon with him. I'm sure many people have said, "You are in a school, you don't need a gun here!," and of course liberals have been proven wrong over and over again because schools are ripe with mass killings. The liberals oppose teachers carrying guns for self protection, and they even opposed PILOTS carrying firearms for personal protection. It is a shame, more rights for the perpetrators than for the victims.

Have you ever heard the saying "If you don't use it you loose it." We need to exercise our rights every chance we get! We need to do this because of the current sad state of affairs in the United States. When was the last time you have been pulled over? If an Officer asks to search your vehicle and you refuse, he acts as if he is DEEPLY OFFENDED! It should NOT be this way. Americans have become so complacent in acquiescing to every whim of any person within the government establishment, that those civil SERVANTS have come to expect ordinary citizens to give up their rights at the behest of those servants.

We need to exercise our rights at every opportunity in order to remind those who WE pay to serve US that those rights still exist, and that we are not ready to give them up, and that we will never give them up. It is typical liberal rhetoric to respect every right except for the 2A, that right, in their mind was a typo in the writing of the Constitution. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

[MuscleScience]

It is really ashame that he even has to obtain a "PERMIT" in order to exercise a right. We certainly are not expected to get a permit when we want to speak our mind(1A), refuse a warrantless search(4A), refuse to testify against ourselves(5A), etc. If you need PERMISSION it implies that it is a privilege and not a right.

Anyway, there is no reason that he SHOULDN'T have his weapon with him. I'm sure many people have said, "You are in a school, you don't need a gun here!," and of course liberals have been proven wrong over and over again because schools are ripe with mass killings. The liberals oppose teachers carrying guns for self protection, and they even opposed PILOTS carrying firearms for personal protection. It is a shame, more rights for the perpetrators than for the victims.

Have you ever heard the saying "If you don't use it you loose it." We need to exercise our rights every chance we get! We need to do this because of the current sad state of affairs in the United States. When was the last time you have been pulled over? If an Officer asks to search your vehicle and you refuse, he acts as if he is DEEPLY OFFENDED! It should NOT be this way. Americans have become so complacent in acquiescing to every whim of any person within the government establishment, that those civil SERVANTS have come to expect ordinary citizens to give up their rights at the behest of those servants.

We need to exercise our rights at every opportunity in order to remind those who WE pay to serve US that those rights still exist, and that we are not ready to give them up, and that we will never give them up. It is typical liberal rhetoric to respect every right except for the 2A, that right, in their mind was a typo in the writing of the Constitution. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

To add to that, who makes the decision as to when a certain right is or isnt appropriate. The answer to that is no one, these are rights afforded to us as a matter of law. To pick and choose when certain inherent rights afforded by the constitution can or can not be invoked is as So drastically against the very principles this country was founded.

It is every Americans right to disagree with another and the government as long as its withing the rule of law. The intent to which he cared his gun to the rally is really not for anyone to decide as long as its within the law. Its a matter of one persons attempt to bring attention to a larger issue of the Government stripping rights little by little.

Liberty is not taking over night in on massive coup. It is stripped little by little over time. If you stand for the rights we are afforded by the Supreme Legal Document of this nation then many see you as a militant/paramilitary/racist/extreme right wing/neonazi. When in fact these are mostly the people with exceptions that no matter their personal beliefs on certain issues understand that the Constitution is there to guide the nation in a path that is immune to knee jerk political whims or special interest. In order to form a more perfect union.

[MuscleScience]

It is really ashame that he even has to obtain a "PERMIT" in order to exercise a right. We certainly are not expected to get a permit when we want to speak our mind(1A), refuse a warrantless search(4A), refuse to testify against ourselves(5A), etc. If you need PERMISSION it implies that it is a privilege and not a right.

Anyway, there is no reason that he SHOULDN'T have his weapon with him. I'm sure many people have said, "You are in a school, you don't need a gun here!," and of course liberals have been proven wrong over and over again because schools are ripe with mass killings. The liberals oppose teachers carrying guns for self protection, and they even opposed PILOTS carrying firearms for personal protection. It is a shame, more rights for the perpetrators than for the victims.

Have you ever heard the saying "If you don't use it you loose it." We need to exercise our rights every chance we get! We need to do this because of the current sad state of affairs in the United States. When was the last time you have been pulled over? If an Officer asks to search your vehicle and you refuse, he acts as if he is DEEPLY OFFENDED! It should NOT be this way. Americans have become so complacent in acquiescing to every whim of any person within the government establishment, that those civil SERVANTS have come to expect ordinary citizens to give up their rights at the behest of those servants.

We need to exercise our rights at every opportunity in order to remind those who WE pay to serve US that those rights still exist, and that we are not ready to give them up, and that we will never give them up. It is typical liberal rhetoric to respect every right except for the 2A, that right, in their mind was a typo in the writing of the Constitution. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

To add to that, who makes the decision as to when a certain right is or isnt appropriate. The answer to that is no one, these are rights afforded to us as a matter of law. To pick and choose when certain inherent rights afforded by the constitution can or can not be invoked is as So drastically against the very principles this country was founded.

It is every Americans right to disagree with another and the government as long as its withing the rule of law. The intent to which he cared his gun to the rally is really not for anyone to decide as long as its within the law. Its a matter of one persons attempt to bring attention to a larger issue of the Government stripping rights little by little.

Liberty is not taking over night in on massive coup. It is stripped little by little over time. If you stand for the rights we are afforded by the Supreme Legal Document of this nation then many see you as a militant/paramilitary/racist/extreme right wing/neonazi. When in fact these are mostly the people with exceptions that no matter their personal beliefs on certain issues understand that the Constitution is there to guide the nation in a path that is immune to knee jerk political whims or special interest. In order to form a more perfect union.

[BgMc31]

It is really ashame that he even has to obtain a "PERMIT" in order to exercise a right. We certainly are not expected to get a permit when we want to speak our mind(1A), refuse a warrantless search(4A), refuse to testify against ourselves(5A), etc. If you need PERMISSION it implies that it is a privilege and not a right.

Anyway, there is no reason that he SHOULDN'T have his weapon with him. I'm sure many people have said, "You are in a school, you don't need a gun here!," and of course liberals have been proven wrong over and over again because schools are ripe with mass killings. The liberals oppose teachers carrying guns for self protection, and they even opposed PILOTS carrying firearms for personal protection. It is a shame, more rights for the perpetrators than for the victims.

Do we not need a permit for peaceful assembly in most instances? A permit in cases of dangerous weapons, IMO, is necessary. Do you honestly believe that anyone should own a gun? I'm not an anti gun advocate, not by any means. As a matter of fact, I probably own more firearms than 95% of the members of this forum or just about any NRA member, but I am an advocate of responsible gun ownership, so yes I do believe permits are necesary. Also, there is no proof that arming teachers would diminish school yard mass killings, just as there is no proof that armed church goers would have prevented attacks on them, in gyms, etc. Plus from what I understand, Godfather, it's not just the 'liberals' who oppose arming teachers but the loudest voice against arming teachers is the teacher's themselves. And just like you take offense to the overclassification of conservatives and republicans, I take offense to your overclassification of liberals. I'm about as liberal as they come and I'm all for Pilots carrying weapons. But I also went ot a high school that had many drive by shootings way before Columbine and there was no outrage about school killings in the innercity until it hit places like Columbine, but I'll still never advocate teachers carrying guns because I've seen way too many altercations between students and teachers, without weapons.

Have you ever heard the saying "If you don't use it you loose it." We need to exercise our rights every chance we get! We need to do this because of the current sad state of affairs in the United States. When was the last time you have been pulled over? If an Officer asks to search your vehicle and you refuse, he acts as if he is DEEPLY OFFENDED! It should NOT be this way. Americans have become so complacent in acquiescing to every whim of any person within the government establishment, that those civil SERVANTS have come to expect ordinary citizens to give up their rights at the behest of those servants.

I was actually pulled over recently and refused to have my vehicle searched but because my vehicle was being towed (because I my licensed plates and paperwork were stolen during a break-in) they could still search my vehicle without permission because they had to 'inventory' the items in my vehicle for their 'protection'. So the law is a little more detailed and complicated than you are letting on.

We need to exercise our rights at every opportunity in order to remind those who WE pay to serve US that those rights still exist, and that we are not ready to give them up, and that we will never give them up. It is typical liberal rhetoric to respect every right except for the 2A, that right, in their mind was a typo in the writing of the Constitution. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Again you are mislabeling liberals. Many of us are gun owners and believe that excercising a right at the expense of making other people less safe is fool hearted. I'll still stand by the fact that he wasn't excercising his 2nd amendment right to prove a point about the 2nd amendment but rather using the 2nd amendment to make people feel less safe and flex his muscle, in an already violatile venue.

^^^In Bold!!!

[thegodfather]

Again you are mislabeling liberals. Many of us are gun owners and believe that excercising a right at the expense of making other people less safe is fool hearted. I'll still stand by the fact that he wasn't excercising his 2nd amendment right to prove a point about the 2nd amendment but rather using the 2nd amendment to make people feel less safe and flex his muscle, in an already violatile venue.

^^^In Bold!!!

Jeanne Assam appeared before the news media for the first time Monday and said she “did not think for a minute to run away” when a gunman entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and started shooting.

Assam appeared before the media with applause and said “God guided me and protected me.”

She described how the gunman, Matthew Murray, entered the east entrance of the church firing his gun. “There was chaos,” Assam said, as parishioners ran away. “I saw him coming through the doors” and took cover, Assam said. “I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down.”

Assam had several years of experience in law enforcement and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service.

“I give credit to God,” Assam said. “God was with me. I didn’t think for a minute to run away.”

This lady was attending the morning service when a gunman entered to commit a mass shooting because he "hated Christians," and she had a conceal&carry permit, she killed the guy. How many more people do you think would have died had she not been exercising her right to carry during this incident? There have been so many instances in "Gun free zones" where innocent people have been shot like fish in a barrel. It is well known that 'gun free zones' are targeted by people who want to go on killing spree's because they know the majority of citizens will OBEY THE LAW and acquiesce their right to personal protection. I am not saying that in every case where there is a mass shooting that an armed citizen will make a difference, but at least that citizen has the potential to make a difference, and going by the liberal mantra, "if it says even one life, its worth it." Guns save 1.5-2million lives per year, so they clearly pass the liberal litmus test.

I personally believe the only disqualifier from owning and being permitted to CARRY a firearm should be mental illness. Other then that, anyone who applies for the 'permit' should be issued one, INCLUDING FORMER FELONS. When we release a person from prison, we are saying that they are fit to live among us again, and they should have ALL RIGHTS restored. Creating second class citizens benefits no one. These people, if we do not feel they should have all of their rights back, should remain incarcerated. We should not release people from prison unless we plan to reinstate them as citizens 100% in every way.

There are of course many legal exceptions to the 4th amendment when your vehicle can be searched, if the vehicle is being impounded obviously it will be inventoried, search incident to arrest, etc, etc. I was making the point about a routine traffic stop where the person has committed a minor traffic violation and the officer wishes to search the persons vehicle on a whim. Many officers become hostile if you refuse a search and call the dogs, as if exercising your constitutional right is in and of itself probable cause for a search, which the courts have continuously held that it is not. That is why I said people need to exercise their rights every chance that they get, so we can remind our government and our civil servants that we have those rights, that we value them, and that they still exist.

Teachers was a bad example seeing as how the majority of them are Democrats belonging to the teachers union. In fact the majority of people in academia as a whole are registered Democrats.

[BgMc31]

This lady was attending the morning service when a gunman entered to commit a mass shooting because he "hated Christians," and she had a conceal&carry permit, she killed the guy. How many more people do you think would have died had she not been exercising her right to carry during this incident? There have been so many instances in "Gun free zones" where innocent people have been shot like fish in a barrel. It is well known that 'gun free zones' are targeted by people who want to go on killing spree's because they know the majority of citizens will OBEY THE LAW and acquiesce their right to personal protection. I am not saying that in every case where there is a mass shooting that an armed citizen will make a difference, but at least that citizen has the potential to make a difference, and going by the liberal mantra, "if it says even one life, its worth it." Guns save 1.5-2million lives per year, so they clearly pass the liberal litmus test.

I personally believe the only disqualifier from owning and being permitted to CARRY a firearm should be mental illness. Other then that, anyone who applies for the 'permit' should be issued one, INCLUDING FORMER FELONS. When we release a person from prison, we are saying that they are fit to live among us again, and they should have ALL RIGHTS restored. Creating second class citizens benefits no one. These people, if we do not feel they should have all of their rights back, should remain incarcerated. We should not release people from prison unless we plan to reinstate them as citizens 100% in every way.

There are of course many legal exceptions to the 4th amendment when your vehicle can be searched, if the vehicle is being impounded obviously it will be inventoried, search incident to arrest, etc, etc. I was making the point about a routine traffic stop where the person has committed a minor traffic violation and the officer wishes to search the persons vehicle on a whim. Many officers become hostile if you refuse a search and call the dogs, as if exercising your constitutional right is in and of itself probable cause for a search, which the courts have continuously held that it is not. That is why I said people need to exercise their rights every chance that they get, so we can remind our government and our civil servants that we have those rights, that we value them, and that they still exist.

Teachers was a bad example seeing as how the majority of them are Democrats belonging to the teachers union. In fact the majority of people in academia as a whole are registered Democrats.

I knew you were going to talk about that one instance Godfather. But what about all the other mass killings? Most by registered gun owners. And I think we can agree that these individuals were mentally unstable but were still allowed to purchase weapons. So if you agree with that the mentally ill shouldn't own firearms, then how do we establish the criteria without issuing some type of standard? In other words we should be issuing 'PERMITS' to those who are worthy of gun ownership...right? Am I way off base here?

[thegodfather]

I knew you were going to talk about that one instance Godfather. But what about all the other mass killings? Most by registered gun owners. And I think we can agree that these individuals were mentally unstable but were still allowed to purchase weapons. So if you agree with that the mentally ill shouldn't own firearms, then how do we establish the criteria without issuing some type of standard? In other words we should be issuing 'PERMITS' to those who are worthy of gun ownership...right? Am I way off base here?

Yes a screening process is somewhat necessary. But it's important to understand that if these people want to commit these terrible acts, they can do so, and they can obtain weapons on the black market very easily.

It's also important to understand that the vast vast majority of gun crimes committed are NOT by registered gun owners. I believe that violent gun crimes committed by registered owners is something like 1%.

[BgMc31]

Yes a screening process is somewhat necessary. But it's important to understand that if these people want to commit these terrible acts, they can do so, and they can obtain weapons on the black market very easily.

It's also important to understand that the vast vast majority of gun crimes committed are NOT by registered gun owners. I believe that violent gun crimes committed by registered owners is something like 1%.

Again, we agree on something else Godfather, as a product of innercity schools and violence, I know for a fact most of the shootings that took place when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s were by guns from the black market. I'm also aware that bad people will do bad things. There's no guarantee that if people were armed at any of these mass shootings that there would have been a different outcome. It could be argued that the carnage could have been worse (untrained civilians firing at a suspect haphazardly and killing innocent bystanders), just as easy as a case that an armed civilian could have ended the situation quicker, correct?

So since we agree on most avenues of the gun control debate, where's the disconnect? There are liberals who believe all guns should be removed, but most are like me (in favor of a registry). There are also members of the far right who believe everyone (regardless of anything) should own a gun, but I believe the majority of conservatives believe as you do. So I'm a bit confused as to where the disconnect lies.

[thegodfather]

The disconnect is that you have bought somewhat, into the liberal propaganda that thinks armed civilians might make the situation worse. They certainly have the potential to, but statistically speaking, they are MUCH more likely to survive an encounter like that if they are armed. At least if the citizens are armed they have a CHANCE, if they are not armed they are at the haphazard mercy of the attacker, and they have NO CHANCE. I would think that this would be self evident. The problem with the left is that they purposely ignore instances where guns save lives as the exception to the rule, a rare occurence, and the liberal media does a damn fine job of filtering those stories out of mainstream media, you and I both know that to be true.

Guns do save lives, 1.5-2million times per year, thats far more people than guns kill, I'd call that a net advantage. The instances of gun violence are blown up to be media frenzy's, but they dont afford the same type of media hype to instances where a college student in Georgia kills 1 of 2 armed attackers, who openly discussed raping the women and killing all 10 people inside the apartment. The media says things like "It is a tragic situation when anyone dies, and the college kids are so lucky to be alive, and lucky that the armed men didnt take his gun from him."

No, the college kids are LUCKY that their friend was exercising his Constitutional right to keep and BEAR arms(on his person). They are alive today ONLY because of that simple fact. Had these 10 been masacred by these two animals, the Sarah Brady Campaign would have used it as an example to why we need stricter gun control.

So my major disconnect, is that I believe just about everyone in every state ought to be able to conceal&carry if they so choose and pass a very low litmus test. Barring mental illness, they should be issued the permit.