DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Concealed Permit Holder Stops Attempted Mass Shooting in Chicago

Measures like banning Abortion for 3 minutes?

At will? 2/3s of both houses of Congress, and then 3/4s of the states. A convention of states still takes 3/4s of the states for approval of an amendment, after 2/3s calls for a convention. There is a reason it's not easy to get these passed or repealed.

If it can be removed, no matter what the process is, then it isn't God given.

That's the entire point.

And the government could completely collapse tomorrow and those rights be gone too, but that doesn't mean they aren't god given. All that means is that man is going against god or the natural order.

Truth!

Guns is a natural order, or against God?

You realize you sound like a jihadi right now, right?

It's amazing how people don't realize how much they have in common with our enemies.

lol, just because he was misguided too doesn't make y'all right.

If this was truly handed down from some godly entity, why did it require an Amendment? Did God have a case of "oh, crap guys... I forgot these things!"

Also, if these are truly handed down from some godly entity, then why is there even a discussion about it possibly being repealed?


"On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them"
Well, that's a load of crap now, isn't it?

As far as those that got convicted - at least on the first page, the guy that shot the 2 teens - they were unarmed, and it was argued that he "set them up" so to speak.

Just because we have a right to defend ourselves and our home does not mean we have the right to bait, or use deadly force if not warranted.

No, the right to defend one's self is. You have noticed that the 2nd Amendment does not say guns, rifles, swords, or pointed sticks, correct? The 2nd keeps the government from taking our weapons so we can defend ourselves. I also think I sound very American.

Actually, some people are... may not be a lot, but some are.

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system. (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws). Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).

You may step on those Rights, you may imprison or kill people in an attempt to take away those Rights, But those Rights remain until God or Nature puts an end to them.

Your argument will not hold up in a Court of Law in these United States.

Now repeat after me...

Sorry I was wrong FB, you are not
Perhaps a little slow, but not

Agreed. Having a weapon doesn't mean you get to tell others what to do, or how to act.

Being in fear for your life or great bodily harm does not mean you can initiate a situation, then shoot, and get away with it. The best advice is to attempt to leave the situation, primarily when you're not in your home or car. If at home, or in your car, at least in Ohio, you do not have a duty to first attempt to flee. However, if you decide to shoot, you need to be prepared to defend yourself in court, and you'd better be able to prove you were in fear for you, or other ones, lives and/or great bodily injury.

Just like I didn't shoot the guy banging on my door in the middle of the night - he was outside, I was inside. Had I shot him, I'd be in prison right now.

Had he broken in and had no weapon? If I shot him, I'd be a convict. Had he broken in and came at me with a knife, a bat, a gun? I would've been arrested, but found not guilty.

You need to move from that state then. You don't need a weapon to kill someone, and if someone forcibly breaks into my home, they are intending ill will. I just got to make sure they're facing me.

I agree.

However, if he broke into your house, you're good to shoot him.

The cops maybe would've arrested you, but you wouldn't have gotten convicted or anything.

But like you said before, if you would've baited him into your home, you'd absolutely be a convict.

Don't know where you live, but in Ohio, open carry is legal and no permit is needed. Of course, you must be of age, and the gun has to be legal.

But, I could walk anywhere in this state (other than gun free zones - schools, gov't. buildings, etc) with a pistol on my side (as long as it is plainly visible) or a shotgun on my shoulder, or an AR-15, or a muzzle loader, etc.

If one does so, while it's perfectly legal, one should expect to have a cop or sheriff or highway patrol, etc stop and question them as to who they are, why the need to openly carry, etc.

Doing so, openly carrying, absolutely will draw attention - unwanted attention - to who ever does it - but it's legal.

Now, brandishing that weapon for no reason? You become a law breaker - inciting "whatever the cop decides to say you incited".

Good try, but if you think the 2nd Amendment was given to you by God and not Man, then I'd say that you're , as well.

And don't people lose their right to weapons if they're violent felons?

So much for that God given right.

au contraire...

The legal philosophy known as Declarationism seeks to incorporate the natural rights philosophy of the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of American case law on a level with the United States Constitution, since the unanimously agreed upon Doctrines of the Declaration of Independence is the foundational authority upon which the People and the Continental Congress of the 13 British Colonies of America based their power to legitimately separate from England and establish its own government (i.e. the Constitution of the United States). Declarationism philosophy, therefore, insists that if the United States rejects the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence upon which it was founded, it of necessity becomes, retro-actively, an illegitimate government in treasonous rebellion against its rightful government of Crown and Parliament in London; and therefore, the Declaration and Constitution must be held as legally inseparable throughout the entire United States of America (both Federal and State) and its territories.

-So now the two of us await that apology!

So just to be clear, the declaration was written by man, not by God, correct?

Are there some people that think owning a gun is a God given right?

that's what it seems like.

40 is posting from whatever source he is using. Same with Erik.

so ok, that made some sort of sense to me.

but then when they post in their own words, it seems like they revert back to thinking that it really is a God given right.

So at this point, i'm not sure what's going on here.

lol, please hold your breath while waiting.
Show me where it says God in that little diatribe of yours, and NOT some man-made concept of 'natural law' (I'll skip the whole God is man-made bit).

Show me where this God-given Right cannot be repealed - specifically where it says that the 2nd Amendement (which is not part of the original Constitution in any way) cannot ever be repealed because of God's Graces.


Who wrote the Constitution? Who added the Amendments?
Who must be in agreement to alter the Constitution?

You're taking contextual references used to convey a status level within the hierarchy of Man's law and inferring actual divine decree from it. YOU and FB are the one's that are mistaken, and no apology is needed... just learn, realize, and accept the facts and not some made-up garbage.

The idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today.

The existence of natural rights has been asserted by different individuals on different premises, such as a priori philosophical reasoning or religious principles. For example, Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights through reason alone. The United States Declaration of Independence, meanwhile, is based upon the "self-evident" truth that "all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

-Please, I don't wish to humiliate you further!
Instead of an apology, Perhaps one OUR FATHER and 3 Hail Mary's?

Dude, just quit. God hasn't given you a right to own a gun. Period.

Actually, I never said that at all. I said god (or however you term it) gave us the right to defend ourselves. The founders of this government decided it was our god given right, and forbade congress from taking that right from us.

The 2nd says, "keep and bear arms", which to me means all armaments. It doesn't matter if it's a single shot pistol, pointy stick, or a laser beam. They probably had the foresight to know armaments would change over time, and didn't want us fighting over the meaning of the word 'gun'. It's bad enough that we fight over the meaning of militia.

God never told me I could own a gun, but the creator (whatever that may be) gave us all a 'flight or fight' response to danger. As we are smart enough to make weapons (creator again), we should infer that it was meant for us to use them.

Unless he's a cop executing a no-knock search warrant and you aren't guilty of anything.

Actually, I don't think gun ownership is an inalienable right.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are tho, according to the Constitution.

My problem is with those who say we have zero Inalienable Rights and those who don't think God is mentioned in the Constitution.

*General Catch All Reply*

Holy crap! I can't believe how much you guys are butchering the Constitution I've sworn 2 Oaths to uphold and defend... it's rather heart breaking actually.

To those scoffing at the concept of "God given" or Natural Rights, you guys are completely missing the importance of the concept, of not only that, but you are dismissing out of hand the entire purpose for our Constitution in the first place.

The Constitution was specifically written and formed because the Founding Fathers and other classical liberal thinkers (NOT to be confused with modern liberalism) believed that what people are allowed and not allowed to do should not be dictated by one person (or a small few). That's why we don't have a king or an emperor in the U.S. A representative democracy was formed so that We The People would have a voice and responsibility in governing ourselves. But they knew that even a legislative body could over reach and didn't believe our rights should be subject to change based upon whatever direction the winds were blowing at any given time. In order to do this however, they had to support the concept of Liberty with something that is universally accepted as Greater than the collective, a moral authority so great that even the legislative body cannot override. For example: the gov't according to our Constitution can never abolish your right to protest, or speak out against the gov't. Now CAN they... sure, but they only can if We The People don't assert that it IS our Natural Right.

Natural Rights a little better explained: the basic idea is that we as individuals for no other reason than that we exist, are free to choose how we live our lives. The only real stipulation being that you can't enrich your life at the expense of someone's freedom to live theirs. This is why the Constitution set up a framework of gov't, to "secure the blessings of Liberty". It's supposed to provide protection and a course of redress if someone infringes upon your rights.

For those still not grasping the concept: gay marriage. Those in favor of it say that no one should have the right to tell you who you can and can't marry correct? Now why is that? Is that because its no one else's business? I would say it isn't. Do you have the right to marry someone of the same sex because you can do what you want, or because the gov't now says that you can? Isn't the gov't saying you can the same thing as giving you permission? And once you imbue someone or something the authority to give you permission, you've also given them the authority to say you aren't allowed to do it. This I why I believe that gov't has no legitimate role in marriage what so ever.

But there is a VERY important distinction in all of that. There's a difference between me having cookies before dinner for the simple fact that I'm a big boy and me having cookies before dinner because the gov't says it's ok for me to.

I just wish more people actually looked at the Constitution for what it is, and says, and was meant to be. It can be a bit difficult to read, but its all right there. And none of this "its a living document" BS. It is no such thing. At best it means that it has a built in mechanism to be changed/updated via Amendments. Not this insanity liberals (most often times) use that try to tell you the same words can given different meanings when its convenient. I really do think that most of the issues this country faces can easily be resolved by going back to the beginning.

This is already happening under this administration.

You know what I can't think of any specific laws that aren't being enforced. I also can't think of any new laws that would actually reduce mass shootings or gun violence in general.

And when it comes to Enforcement, there's really 2 parts: 1) the application i.e. the arrests for offenses and 2) the actual punishment or sentencing. In NC we have a statute prohibiting convicted felons from possessing a firearm (Possession of Firearm By Felon). I can't think of a time I've ever seen or heard of an officer NOT arresting and charging it when they come across something like that. Now what happens when it goes to court? Does the DA offer a deal where that charged is dropped? A reduced sentence? What does the judge give them?

Interestingly enough, after a 100 yrs of a Democrat controlled legislature Republicans have been in office for I think going on 3 yrs now? Anyway, they've quietly RELAXED our concealed carry laws. Believe it or not, you can carry concealed inside a BAR! The only caveat is that you can't carry concealed with alcohol in your system (kind of already a law) and the owner of the establishment has final say and authority as to whether or not you can carry in there. My Private Property Rights trump your Rights all day long. I have yet to hear about an increase of bar room shootings.

I will say however that the U.S. gov't smuggling high powered weapons to Mexican drug cartels probably isn't a good idea...

I'm not, and the majority of the population, even gun owners and NRA members, are asking for some kind of effective regulations.

The number who want guns removed are nearly invisible in this discussion. No guns in this country is impossible so why even talk about it.

Besides, most people have no problem with hunters and hobbyists.

The problem seems to be with law abiding citizens who want to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones in public. That is where the left wants to limit us with their "No Guns Allowed" zones and their Characterization of so called "Assault Weapons" and such. Some States do not recognize the License to Carry issued by their neighbors, limiting the rules of travel for law abiding, armed and licensed, American citizens.

You have complained many times on these Boards about towns that want to ban guns should be allowed to.

So now you talk like "Oh, there has got to be little things we can adjust so everyone "Feels" safer.

No, we are not interested in talking about change with you or the left. Period.
You will try to get our help to pass a sensible law limiting our Rights and then you will spend years in committee amending those laws until our Rights are gone. We know how the Liberal/Progressive plays and we ain't playing!

Go ahead and do the American thing and get your gun limiting boys elected to Congress to make changes, if you can. Subversion don't work here!

Not to worry though, The Dictator in the White House will probably make a Decree limiting our Rights before long.

Thanks for the reply...here lets start in 2003...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-shoot-blanks-on-gun-laws/

ok now lets go to 2011..
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voice...ederal-gun-laws

Now lets get to the 2015..
http://www.newsweek.com/american-gun-laws-arent-being-enforced-390456

I won't even get into the Feds running operations that they themselves broke the law and shouldve in the minimum been brought to justice.

I tried to post articles not from the nra. But there is definitely a non enforcement of current laws and its been going on a long time.

So whoever said its just an nra line...umm ok

And add in there are states that believe like this..its kind of long read...and people wonder why nothing can get done..
http://gunwars.news21.com/2014/eight-states-have-passed-laws-voiding-federal-firearms-regulations/

Back to lurking.

Good post and articles there FB.

My wife picked up a M&P Shield 9mm over the weekend to use as her carry gun.

My wife carries the exact same gun..had it for about oh seems like 7 mos or so..she is happy with it and when we was at the range shooting different stuff that's the one that felt right to her so we bought it.

I bet she tried 6 or 7 Saturday. From a .38 revolver on up to an XD double stack. This is what she liked best. It seems like a great gun.

That was my first suggestion was a revolver/double action just for simplicity sake...but we went through just about everything the range offered to rent out and that was the one she chose and is comfortable with.

She has run probably 1000rnds through it and its functioned pretty flawlessly after about the first 200rnds.

Small easy to conceal and fits her hands like a glove.

I have nothing bad to say about that gun...I wasn't a fan of it...at first...now well I would carry it if need be.

I went with an XDs 9 for my wife. I have an XDm 9 that's double stacked and it's just too wide in the grip end for her. The XDs has a bit heavy trigger pull but that's not such a bag thing at least she won't be pulling it by accident.