Interesting read: The Concealed Carry Lie

[Phetro]

1) It puts you on the list to be confiscated when they decide to stroke the pen that way.
2) You have to sign a contract with them making you subject to the new rules & regs, (forever?) relinquishing your god given rights and agreeing to theirs.
3) You're legally acknowledging the privilege being granted by them and their right to revoke their privilege at their whim.
4) You make yourself a subject to them and a non citizen.
5) You have to trust them to even acknowledge the rules & regs as was written by them, to not come back later and tell you what 'it really means'.
6) You have to jump through hoops, pay fees, and constantly wonder if you're doing it right, leaving no room for your own conscience, judgement, or morals. (walk on eggshells)
7) It's totally against the Constitution, human rights, and freedom in general.
8) It's insulting, I can think for myself.
9) It's intrusive into my private life & info.

Very good summary!

Rights in the Real World are created not by some perceived metaphysical ghost, but by whoever defines what rights are in the genesis of whatever society in which one happens to live . Rights are created and taken away by the creators of laws and governments, as are privileges. One must go to the source of the definitions of rights and privileges to see how those definitions apply in particular instances.

Wrong. Rights are given by the Creator. A government can ignore them, but never change them or take them away. Even when infringed, they are still there. Rights also always apply unless the use of them infringes another's right. They are based on free will and morality as defined by the Creator, not the laws of men.

 

[Edward429451]

Going with the flow is pretty much what it comes down to.

Sure, it can be acknowledged (I have no problem doing so) that it IS an infringement on a right when you have to get permission to exercise that "right." But the reality in which we live is such that if we didn't do it, didn't play the game, we would be putting ourselves in legal jeopardy.

6 million Jews went with the flow and trusted their government. They also got something a little worse than legal jeopardy. So what we're really talking about is fear eh?

So if the school bully threatens to beat you up if you don't hand over your lunch money, and you don't want to be beat up so give it to him...do you really think he'll leave you alone tomorrow?

 

[Wildalaska]

6 million Jews went with the flow and trusted their government. They also got something a little worse than legal jeopardy.

That is so historically innacurate that it is silly.

WildgimmeabreakAlaska

 

[Edward429451]

You missed the point. They went with the flow instead of resisting and died for it.

 

[azurefly]

WA, I think he's right in the sense that people actually boarded trains they pretty much had to know didn't go to a good place -- when my own feeling is they should have stampeded, no matter what the cost, because it's better for some of them to possibly die than all of them to certainly die.


Edward, I think that the difference is in degrees and perceived outcomes. You are not comparing apples to apples, in other words. Boarding trains, allowing your business to be closed, allowing your family to be separated by government thugs; these things are not nearly on a level with sending a fee and a set of photos/fingerprints to your state in exchange for a card that says you may carry a weapon.

It would be on that level if they, say, sent cops around to confiscate people's guns at gunpoint, or started patting people down randomly on the street license or no license, or took gun owners away without saying where they were going...

Short of all that, it's really hard to say when we should start shooting, don't you agree?

-azurefly

 

[Wildalaska]

No I undersood the point. Its still historically innacurate in the context you use.

WildbutwhyargueAlaska

 

[Doubletaptap]

Gee! All this posting about rights when we're talking about a LAW.
If your state LAW says you need a license to carry. It's a LAW!
Yes, it infringes on your rights in the Constitution but, it's a law. Just like a speed limit. You don't follow the law,you get busted.
I'm sure we'd all like to see the CCL,CHL,Permits,whatever done away with. But this LAW was put in effect to help keep guns out of the hands of bad guys. Did it help? NO.
Statistics say yes. But if truth be known the crime rates were changing before the CHL ever came out.
Basically it has done nothing but cost us money and time to be able to carry a gun in public.
The only way to change it is to complain to gevernment. Masses need to complain,not just a few,masses.
Everybody needs to stand up and shout "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more".
If enough people would contact officials and just harass the hell out of them,something might get done.
Of course people won't do that. Just like we're letting them screw us out of our hard earned cash paying for gas.
Just think, if everyone stopped buying gas for a week,and stated they will not use gas until it becomes reasonable,things would change. But people just sheep along and pay the price while complaining.
Your RIGHTS are to bitch, raise hell and demand things be done differently.
Excercise your rights people,before we haven't any.

 

[badbob]

The problem is that (in my state, at least) while the State Constitution supports the US Constitution's right to bear arms, they (the state) may regulate the manner in which the "arms" are carried.
That said, State law OUGHT to be subordinate to Federal law. Who knows.


"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

badbob