Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

CCW Laws......To those that don't know...Legally Packing Heat!

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

CCW Laws......To those that don't know...Legally Packing Heat!

Old 8th May 2010, 18:26
  #201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 204
A Charter Arms Bulldog, brick? I must admit I'm pretty sold on autos as carry weapons, or rather would be if allowed! Still, revolvers are fun. If anything, you're probably getting a little more performance with a .44 Special over a .45 ACP.

I still miss my old Para S16.40.



When we're back in Canada and I'm shooting IPSC again, I have a slight yen for a SIG P226 X5. The grip angle sits more naturally for me than a 1911.

Scooby Don't is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 18:31
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 664
A Charter Arms Bulldog, brick?
Yep.

I must admit I'm pretty sold on autos as carry weapons,
As am I. This was more an impulse buy; kind of like unplanned cheating on my .45 Colt Commander.


or rather would be if allowed!

Yes, there is that...
brickhistory is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 18:46
  #203 (permalink)  
AMF
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
wings folded Quote:

You have had more than a proportianate share of massacres carried out by people using their fundamental rights to carry arms.
There has been no such thing. The fundamental right for an individual to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of defending Life and Liberty. It does not allow for someone to infringe on someone else's fundamental rights of same. To describe cold-blooded murder/massacres as someone "using their fundamental right to carry arms" is a very sad and very weak misrepresentation.

Are schools so poor these days that people can't make a distinction between criminal aggression and the act of defending against it anymore? I feel sad for those who can't tell the difference.
AMF is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 18:48
  #204 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,431
Brick,

Take it to a gunsmith....have him whack off an inch of inch of barrel and make the hammer a "bobbed" hammer and Bob sure nuff is yer Uncle!

You don't need hot loaded hollow point rounds for it to work....the muzzle flash and report alone will do in the target! Police buddy of mine proved that not so long ago....using a blue version of that exact revovlver style. He has no sights on it at all....as it is meant to be a self defense belly gun....and is...and the target is "wuz" now. Crack users who take up robbery should do so when their thinking is un-addled.
SASless is online now  
Old 8th May 2010, 20:22
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
To describe cold-blooded murder/massacres as someone "using their fundamental right to carry arms" is a very sad and very weak misrepresentation.
But real and frequent.

Persist in your your views. You are entitled to them.

When access to lethal weapons is limited, deaths deriving therefrom is perforce limited.

But in the US, you have chosen your path.

Other countries have chosen different paths.

Live happily with your chosen path.
wings folded is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 20:23
  #206 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
Other countries have chosen different paths.

Live happily with your chosen path.
Yes we/they did and yes we do.

I would respectfully request that you do the same.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 21:15
  #207 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by wings folded View Post
No, there is no misunderstanding. Both you and Dushan are confusing local laws with some kind of citizenship/subjectivity question.
OK forget citizenship/subjectivity thing.

A person is not allowed to carry a gun in UK. The government decided that for him. He has no say in the matter.

A person has a right to bear arms in US. He decides. He does not have to be a citizen of United States. The Constitution prohibits the government form taking that right from him.
 
Old 8th May 2010, 21:30
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,613
The thing it seems you CAN'T do in any community in the United States is prevent your neighbours from carrying guns, with the NRA funding half the senators and a nation-wide referendum to change the constitution required.
Checkboard is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 21:41
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 664
The thing it seems you CAN'T do in any community in the United States is prevent your neighbours from carrying guns
Which is exactly, completely, and obviously the point.


The heavily skewed in favor of the US emigration numbers - former British subjects now American citizens must just irk. Those folks now have a right restored to them just for being alive. They now get to make a decision, all on thier own, if they want to own or carry a gun.

Imagine that. A place where the individual gets to make a personal choice about their own life. Not the government.

I'm sure it'll never catch on...

with the NRA funding half the senators and a nation-wide referendum to change the constitution required.
Your straw NRA bogeyman argument aside, there is a method established to amend our Constitution. It's a little bit more complicated than a nation-wide referendum.

Our founders thought this through. Each state gets to vote on amending the Constitution. Because of that, the impact of each local vote carries a much greater weight than a simple up or down vote. It also prevents knee-jerk reactions like occurred in the UK following the schoolchildren tragedy.

I know it's hard for a liberal to understand, but most Americans simply want to be left alone by the government. We'll make our own choices, some good, some bad, but all ours. We don't want to tell you what to do and damned sure don't want you to tell us.

Simple and elegant.
brickhistory is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 21:42
  #210 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Checkboard View Post
The thing it seems you CAN'T do in any community in the United States is prevent your neighbours from carrying guns, with the NRA funding half the senators and a nation-wide referendum to change the constitution required.
Why would you want to prevent your neighbor from carrying guns (or anyone else for that matter, criminal element excluded of course since they cannot be stopped)? In whose opinion is it required to change The Constitution (notice the capitalization)? Yours? Really? Even if there was such a referendum ( I don't think you can change The Constitution by referendum) I don't think that it would pass.
 
Old 8th May 2010, 21:57
  #211 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
The thing it seems you CAN'T do in any community in the United States is prevent your neighbours from carrying guns, with the NRA funding half the senators and a nation-wide referendum to change the constitution required.
What you CAN'T seem to understand is, that it is law of the land, our land, the land of the United States, since the passage of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States. Just for your information there was no NRA back then.

Just why should I prevent a neighbor, who is not a criminal nor mentally handicapped, from owning/carrying a gun?

Also, if you really are gullible enough to think that the NRA has the power to prevent a Constitutional change to the Bill of Rights by the voters of the United States, you've been watching BBC way too much.

Sure, I'd like to remove all weapons from Earth, I'd also love to have every one on Earth to live in nice houses, always have plenty of food and water, never become sick and no more wars. But that is impossible and unrealistic.

Fact is, whether you want to believe it or not is, remove the right for the law biding people to own and/or carry guns and there will only be two groups of people with weapons, the Police and the bad guys. Last time I checked the bad guys badly outnumber the cops.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 22:04
  #212 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by con-pilot View Post
Sure, I'd like to remove all weapons from Earth, I'd also love to have every one on Earth to live in nice houses, always have plenty of food and water, never become sick and no more wars. But that is impossible and unrealistic.

Con you are such a socialist
 
Old 8th May 2010, 22:06
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
I would respectfully request that you do the same.
You absolutely can do as you please on your own territory.

That cannot stop others from holding contrary views however.

A person is not allowed to carry a gun in UK. The government decided that for him. He has no say in the matter.
In America, as I understand the rules, you cannot carry an unwrapped bottle of wine down the street. The government decided that. Not many people were killed by exposure to a naked bottle of wine.
wings folded is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 22:12
  #214 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by wings folded View Post
In America, as I understand the rules, you cannot carry an unwrapped bottle of wine down the street. The government decided that. Not many people were killed by exposure to a naked bottle of wine.
Nowhere does it say in The Constitution that carrying an unwrapped bottle of wine is an inherent, God given right, however.
 
Old 8th May 2010, 22:13
  #215 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
In America, as I understand the rules, you cannot carry an unwrapped bottle of wine down the street. The government decided that. Not many people were killed by exposure to a naked bottle of wine.
Once again you show your complete misunderstanding of the United States. There is not one single Federal Law that prohibits the caring of an open bottle of wine. In some states, in some cities, in some areas it is legal and in some states, in some cities and some areas it is not legal. You are comparing elephants to hand grenades.

Do a little more research about the laws of the United States and come back after you do.

When I travel in a foreign country, which I have done and still do a hell of a lot, I respect the laws of that country, both national law and local law. I may not like some laws, but I still respect and obey those laws.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 22:29
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Once again you show your complete misunderstanding of the United States. There is not one single Federal Law that prohibits the caring of an open bottle of wine. In some states, in some cities, in some areas it is legal and in some states, in some cities and some areas it is not legal.

Do a little more research about the laws of the United States and come back after you do.

You are absolutely spot on the topic. Federal law, state law, there are diffrerences.

Actually, I do not care.

You will carry and use guns because you feel that you have the right to do so.

That will never change.

I do not like this approach.

That will never change.

Let us therefore differ.
wings folded is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 22:38
  #217 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,431
Wings,

Dear fellow....get it straight.

For the record....we HAVE the Right....there is no "feeling" to it. We also have the Right to Self Defence in this country as well.

You will carry and use guns because you feel that you have the right to do so
If you also recall, when the British Troops fought us at Bunker Hill (or Breeds Hill if you will) it was not the American Army they traded shot with but rather the Militia made up of ordinary Citizens who picked up their personal firearms and stood against tyranny. We have a long tradition of answering the Call to Arms.....God knows....is that not where that slogan came to have real meaning?
SASless is online now  
Old 8th May 2010, 22:39
  #218 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
Actually, I do not care.
Then why are you going on about it so much?

You will carry and use guns because you feel that you have the right to do so.
No, you are wrong. We don't feel we have that right, we have that right as provided for by our Bill of Rights. Personally I don't own a pistol nor carry one. But that is my right as provided by the Bill of Rights. I have the right to carry a pistol if I decide to do such and obtain a CCW permit. In your country you do not have the freedom to decide, we do.

That will never change.
Correct, as long as we are a free people.

I do not like this approach.
That is your right, of course in your county you have no say in the matter, once again, we do.

Let us therefore differ.
No problem.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 22:45
  #219 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,431
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
How many times must this be said before folks understand what we are talking about.

Is it a lack of willingness to confront the fact they are not really "Free" in the full meaning of the concept?
SASless is online now  
Old 9th May 2010, 00:28
  #220 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
When Americans defend the 2nd Amendment they are really defending the entire body of Constitutional principles. Of all the amendments in our Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) the 2nd is the most assertive, "will not be infringed".

There is a lot of emotion attached to that. It says the government "can not" in the most assertive way found in the entire document. Other assertions, "shall, will,may not, reserved to, the right to", etc. are more passive.

"Will not be infringed" however, is at once an admonition, a declaration, and a warning to posterity. "Hands off this one!", it says, with emphasis. You can't touch it.

If one studies the Federalist papers, the motives of the founders are clear. They wanted a government of the people, and distrusted central government. They wanted us, you and me, always to be able to have the final say in all matters of government, and felt that if we all had the means, weapons, if the government got too strong, too irrational, too overbearing upon the pursuit of L, L, and P of H, our sacred entitlements, we would have the means of reversal.

In today's context, the 2nd amendment has evolved to focus more on the right to Life. We have the right to defend ourselves.

Violence, unenvisioned by the founders has made our society riskier than they foresaw, and transferred the emphasis away from the purpose of the 2nd amendment to the right to Life from its original role as a check on government power, but the right to both were protected by design.

Our societal decline and resort to violence has induced a constituency committed to a relentless, in my lifetime, attack on my Constitutional right to protect myself, and individual right to resist oppressive government.

By ourselves, my .45 semiautomatic pistol and me are no threat to the government. But if that government mutates into an egregious oppressor, enough of us with our individual weapons at hand will prove an insurmountable obstacle to its designs.

In the meanwhile, I can do my best to protect myself and family.

So you see, when this specific right is assailed and threatened, that generates an emotive response and flat out rejection by cognizant Americans, appreciative and understanding of the rights with which we are endowed, of the entire idea that guns should be banned from individual possession.
BenThere is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.