Open Carry Without a Permit

[R_Bert]

carry on, gentlemen.

[Oh Shoot]

There you go, there is the study, and it was MO not PA where the research came from.

 

Cool, I put it in the "to read" folder, will get a round tuit.

 

- OS

[kevhunt80]

These two statements are utterly and totally irreconcilable.  You fail at logic, and apparently freedom. 

Do you think everyone should be allowed to own a firearm, even convicted felons and children?

Edited April 22, 2014 by kevhunt80

[monkeylizard]

What does that have to do with anything? dcloudy777 was responding to your assertion that:

 

I agree that 2A rights shouldn't be limited but I also think people need to prove they have adequate knowledge to USE a gun.

 

That's a complete failure of logic. Either the right shouldn't be limited (your 1st clause), or it should be limited to people who can prove they have adequate knowledge to USE a gun (2nd clause). It's not logical to say that the right protected by the 2nd A shouldn't be limited, then say exactly how you think it should be limited.

 

You seem to not understand what a right is. It's not something you have to prove yourself worthy to have. You simply have it. Our society has determined that certain people do not yet have certain rights (children) and that we can prove ourselves unworthy of a right and have it taken from us (felons), but it starts with an "all doors open" approach. If you have to prove worthiness for something, then it's a privilege not a right.

 

We have a right to vote. We can lose that right by proving ourselves unworthy of it (felons) or we can be too young to properly exercise that right (under 18). Otherwise we don't have to prove to anyone that we have read/heard the candidates' positions, understand the issues of the day, and will vote for a candidate based on a reasoned approach. The right simply exists. Firearms are the same way. You could perhaps argue that you think they should not be, and that you think the Constitution should be ammended, but you can't logically conclude that something shouldn't be limited then say how it should be limited.

 

Definitions:

Privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

Right - a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

Edited April 22, 2014 by monkeylizard

[Worriedman]

In the back woods of TN, and for much longer than the internet has existed, it was a rite of passage when a young man turned 12 or so for his family to present him with his own weapons.  I was personally given a .22 single shot rifle at that age by my grand father.  A couple of years later he handed down his Stephens pump 12 gauge to me.  At 16 he presented me with my very own .38, out of his stable of firearms.  He and my Father ascertained if I had the presence of mind and ability to control myself to be allowed "behind" them with a loaded weapon.  They had duties and obligations to their families, they were not heedless in making those determinations. I knew men that they did NOT trust in that position.

Never used any of them in anger, never committed a crime with any of them.  I was taught that they were tools, and like many others, their caress use had dire consequences.  We were sharecroppers by station, and every day of my young life there was a loaded 12 gauge double barrel standing by the kitchen door, for use on predators that might attempt to take the chickens from the back yard.  We knew not to handle it except in case of need, it was like the "good" chopping ax or Grand Pa's crosscut or rip saws.

More is the pity that in today's world it is the belief of many that to possess a firearm requires government to provide "training' instead of that being the province of family, when the prescription stated in the 2nd Amendment is that the federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear them and that to own and carry firearms is a Right of every Tennessean.  Our peers have decided that the mentally insufficient and felons (I personally believe that if one has proven a proclivity to violence and harm to their fellow Citizens, they should be put away from society, not just denied the right to have or carry arms, but then those who subscribe to such behavior do not obey laws, that however is for others to manage) shall not be able to possess firearms, have never seen a law that could achieve the preclusion of an act.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Worriedman

[dcloudy777]

Do you think everyone should be allowed to own a firearm, even convicted felons and children?

 

Okay strawman, down you go:

 

If a person cannot be trusted to be in society with a gun, than that person can't be trusted in society without one either.  If a convicted person has served his/her sentence, and is free from conditions such as parole, than he/she should have the same rights and freedoms anyone else in our country. 

 

What a child is allowed to own should be a decision entirely up to the parent or guardian of the child.  In my travels shooting matches I've met many children, some as young as 8 or 9, who handled firearms not only responsibly, but expertly.

 

The bottom line is this... with the exception of human beings, the mere ownership or possession of anything neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg, as it were.  There isn't a single harmful thing that a person can do with a gun that isn't already against other existent laws. 

[kevhunt80]

So your answer is you are ok with it? (felons and children)  I'm ok with that answer, but the point I see being made in threads like this is that people stand true and firm on the second amendment.  Living to the letter of the law and quoting it to defend their right to carry constitutionally.  Yet they make no mention of laws that are already passed that limit people from carrying.  The 2A makes no mention of age, criminal history, or other exclusions we readily except on the basis of "common sense".   Now, I am asking without sarcasm, are we ok with these exclusions because we think it makes us safe (not letting minors and felons carry)?  My point to those with perceived firm footing on the pro 2A side of the fight is are you ok with EVERYONE carrying a gun?

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="kevhunt80" post="1141506" timestamp="1398181469"]So your answer is you are ok with it? (felons and children) I'm ok with that answer, but the point I see being made in threads like this is that people stand true and firm on the second amendment. Living to the letter of the law and quoting it to defend their right to carry constitutionally. Yet they make no mention of laws that are already passed that limit people from carrying. The 2A makes no mention of age, criminal history, or other exclusions we readily except on the basis of "common sense". Now, I am asking without sarcasm, are we ok with these exclusions because we think it makes us safe (not letting minors and felons carry)? My point to those with perceived firm footing on the pro 2A side of the fight is are you ok with EVERYONE carrying a gun?[/quote] Yes.

[dcloudy777]

Yeah I'm fine with it. 

 

I'll go you one better:  I'm against the criminalization of the mere possession of any inanimate object, provided that said object has been otherwise lawfully obtained.

 

Next.

Edited April 22, 2014 by dcloudy777

[kevhunt80]

Thank you! A straight answer. I'm happy to find someone with a unapologetic opinion on this topic. Now if I could get my own feeling straight. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tartanphantom]

"shall not be infringed."

 

No exceptions were written into the 2nd amendment. And anyone with a decent grasp of proper English would know that the first clause ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") is entirely dependent on the second clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed")

 

Unfortunately, most average folks with barely 6th grade-level comprehension skills have it backwards, simply because the first clause physically precedes the second-- this give the misconception that the latter clause is dependent on the former.

 

Remember. no exceptions are listed.

As stated here by others, if you want to "condition" the rights protected in the 2nd amendment, then they are technically no longer rights. Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment only protects rights, it does not grant them. These rights are extant and exist without the need for a piece of paper.

Edited April 22, 2014 by tartanphantom

[Worriedman]

So your answer is you are ok with it? (felons and children)  I'm ok with that answer, but the point I see being made in threads like this is that people stand true and firm on the second amendment.  Living to the letter of the law and quoting it to defend their right to carry constitutionally.  Yet they make no mention of laws that are already passed that limit people from carrying.  The 2A makes no mention of age, criminal history, or other exclusions we readily except on the basis of "common sense".   Now, I am asking without sarcasm, are we ok with these exclusions because we think it makes us safe (not letting minors and felons carry)?  My point to those with perceived firm footing on the pro 2A side of the fight is are you ok with EVERYONE carrying a gun?

I am. It is not like the felons are not carrying already...laws do not stop behavior, they simply criminalize it.

[bird333]

I am. It is not like the felons are not carrying already...laws do not stop behavior, they simply criminalize it.

Are you sure you want a 5 year old having a gun?

[E4 No More]

Are you sure you want a 5 year old having a gun?

How does a 5 year old get the cheese to buy one?

[dcloudy777]

Are you sure you want a 5 year old having a gun?

 

The law isn't supposed to be about "what I want".

[JayC]

IANAL, TN law allows minors to legally carry loaded firearms including hand guns in a number if situations today.

 

In a couple of cases where an adult without a permit would not be allowed to carry a loaded firearm.  For example at friend or family members house...  where 39-17-1307 would prohibit an unpermitted adult from legally carry a loaded firearm, but would allow a minor with permission from there parents and the property owner to legally carry.

 

It's not a problem today...  you could easily modify the current law which allows parents to give written permission to minors to carry.

 

Yes, TN firearm laws are that screwed up :)

 

Are you sure you want a 5 year old having a gun?

 

[Worriedman]

Are you sure you want a 5 year old having a gun?

 

My grand daughter at 5 years old could shoot my CZ .22 lights out, and she was smart enough to keep her booger hook off the trigger till she was ready to fire. 

If we are going to be asking ridiculous question, why not make that a 2 year old, or six month old?  Why not ask if I trust the gleam in my eye to have a gun...

[tnhawk]

Do you think everyone should be allowed to own a firearm, even convicted felons and children?

Some of those who fought for our freedom were considered felons by England. I'm sure some of those who helped create this Country and our freedom were also too young to be considered adults. Age and previous actions alone, should not prevent one from the right to defend themselves and families.

Edited April 22, 2014 by tnhawk

[kevhunt80]

[quote name="tnhawk" post="1141641" timestamp="1398201305"]Some of those who fought for our freedom were considered felons by England. I'm sure some of those who helped create this Country and our freedom were also too young to be considered adults. Age and previous actions alone, should not prevent one from the right to defend themselves and families.[/quote] I'm not arguing with you. I just like to hear some people's reasoning. I'm just making arguments for all sides. Something to think about. As I stated earlier, I still struggle with my own thoughts on it. Heaven forbid but if a woman I loved was assaulted and the man convicted, would I then want him coming back to society allowed to carry a firearm? My believe in the 2A says he should have the right, but the other part of me says no way Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited April 22, 2014 by kevhunt80

[Worriedman]

Heaven forbid but if a woman I loved was assaulted and the man convicted, would I then want him coming back to society allowed to carry a firearm?

See post #155, put those individuals away from society.

[tnguy]

At the very least, make the non-ownership of firearms a part of the sentence. Not every felony is worthy of being denied your right to adequate self defense (and loss of voting rights even less-so). But I agree with Worriedman in general

[RobertNashville]

The way I see it; if you committed a felony that is serious enough that your right to keep and bear arms is taken away forever then you ought to be locked up forever.  If your crime isn't serious enough to warrant a life sentence then your 2A rights should be fully restored once your sentence has been served!

[bird333]

My grand daughter at 5 years old could shoot my CZ .22 lights out, and she was smart enough to keep her booger hook off the trigger till she was ready to fire. 

If we are going to be asking ridiculous question, why not make that a 2 year old, or six month old?  Why not ask if I trust the gleam in my eye to have a gun...

Sure why not ask about a 2 year old or six month old?  If I understood your previous response you seem to support anyone having a gun so I wanted to test that theory.   A lot of times the Supreme Court tries to understand what the original intent of the law was when trying to interpret its meaning.  Do you think the framers had in mind for 2 year olds to bear arms when the Bill of Rights was written or mentally ill people perhaps (what about witches :))?  I realize a lot of members here really love guns and are going to be biased toward everything being pro gun, but try to put your mind back to the 1700's and try to logically think what the 2A was about/for.  So again do you think they meant for 2 year olds or mentally ill people to bear arms?  Another question, do you think the framers had any thoughts on a person's capacity to cause many deaths in a short time frame with some weapon?  For example, would they have been ok with all citizens possesing bombs that could kill 100 people at a time?  Would they desire to somehow determine who could possess such power?  I am asking these questions not only to challenge but also to learn and grow myself.

Edited April 23, 2014 by bird333

[tnguy]

"They" were many men with many different opinions and perspectives, no doubt. In order to form a more perfect union (& so forth), they came together and wrote down laws which we can read and not play guessing games.

 

Children are generally not counted as full citizens, nor the mentally ill so that is somewhat of a strawman. Though it must be said that coming of age has been artificially postponed in much of the west, causing infantilism in much of the population and very many problems in society. I think everyone should be presented with a firearm as soon as they get some fuzz on their chin (might want to wait to the week *after* the appropriate indicator for women though)

Edited April 23, 2014 by tnguy

[bird333]

"They" were many men with many different opinions and perspectives, no doubt. In order to form a more perfect union (& so forth), they came together and wrote down laws which we can read and not play guessing games.

 

Children are generally not counted as full citizens, nor the mentally ill so that is somewhat of a strawman. Though it must be said that coming of age has been artificially postponed in much of the west, causing infantilism in much of the population and very many problems in society. I think everyone should be presented with a firearm as soon as they get some fuzz on their chin (might want to wait to the week *after* the appropriate indicator for women though)

But you have to admit that what they wrote down was coming from their life experiences and perspectives.  I haven't heard of this position about the mentally ill.  Do you have a link discussing that?  Are mentally ill people prevented from voting in places?

Edited April 23, 2014 by bird333