caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ Cite - #72740652 added by counteractive at I love my facebook

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/07/2012) [-]

I completely agree the concealed carry stuff. they have to take a class and have a special permit and ****. but open carry is not a great idea.
1. there really isn't any way to moderate who gets to carry one around
2. when they are in a open holster like that, a criminal can just swipe it out and use it against them.
on the other side, I thought that someone could only do open carry with an unloaded weapon with the action open. I've walked down the road to go shoot in the woods with a WASR-10 before and people didn't care. I don't really mind open carry except when you go into densely populated areas like towns, cities, or stores and stuff like that. outside, in the rurals, I don't see a problem with it.

#572 to #555 - counteractive

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(11/07/2012) [-]

Different holsters have different specs which lock the firearm into place until a holster safety is removed ot the gun is jerked a certain way. Right to bear arms allows any individual to open carry by right. Criminals would be less likley to have their gun in a holster to display, rather keep it in a sweater pocket so noone knows that they pose a threat. As far as CC goes, it would do well to include a mandatory holster tequirement, but those things do get expensive. Open carry is bestowed by right in the right to bear arms, no state or federal law can infrenge unless an ammendment is passed to cancel or modify the second ammendment. The puropse of open carry is to allow people to carry their firearms in plain view, for police and other law biding citizens to see and feel secure; like I said, criminals want to conceal their guns which police and people cant see which is why you must have a permit to CC.

#574 to #572 - karson

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/07/2012) [-]

there is truth in your words. I guess as long as the holster has some sort of lock I would be ok with it. Please don't get me wrong, I'm a huge supporter of the 2nd amendment and own quite a decent amount of firearms. I just believe that there are many people in this world who are not competent enough to be able to walk around with one in public. I think they should at least require a safety class for OC.

#608 to #574 - counteractive

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/07/2012) [-]

I think that there should be a mandatory firearm safety class given in schools, same as D.A.R.E. with drugs. Firearms are part of life in the United States. We are allowed to buy them just like any candy bar or snack pack, save a background check.

#573 to #572 - zraxx

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/07/2012) [-]

but the second amendment only applies to those who are active members of active militias.

#607 to #573 - counteractive

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/07/2012) [-]

Wrong, nowhere does it state that the right applies exclusively to militias, but that it also applies to legal militias. Its that kind of liberal thinking that is allowing democrats and soccor moms to have their way with elasticising their power over our given rights.

#609 to #607 - zraxx

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/07/2012) [-]

Actually, it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon if the citizen is a member of an regulated militia. People can have guns, hell if permitted people can carry them. But unless they are active members of regulated militia the right can be restricted

#614 to #609 - counteractive

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/07/2012) [-]

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

Cite

#637 to #614 - timmywankenobi

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/07/2012) [-]

well that amendment assumes that some kind of draft is in force and that if there is a war the people will provide their own weapons to fight against threats to the country. Futhermore if you understood old english you would see that it implies that the guns are to be kept in the home locked away safely until needed to protect the country or your home etc.

#647 to #637 - counteractive

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/08/2012) [-]

It does not imply anything as to how guns are stored or regulated, only that the people have the right to posess them. As for draft, the second ammendment was set in place by the federalists who grounded it under the british rule. The second ammendment is in place primarily to ensure that the people are armed in the case that the government should "become destructive to these ends" as stated in the constitution referring to a corrupt govt which the people had the right to overthrow by force if necessary. Again, these rights shall not be infrenged upon or deluded to suit any agenda that is not that of the people.

#648 to #647 - timmywankenobi

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/08/2012) [-]

nothing you have said contradicts what i said only adds to it. execpt the first sentence which you are flat oue wrong about because back in 1700's it was assumed the guns would be stored in the house.

#649 to #648 - counteractive

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/08/2012) [-]

Back before the widespread use of handguns which were not specified. You are going off assumption, which is not what law is based upon. Firearms may be carried on your person without permit as ruuled by the Supreme Court mandated by the 2nd Amendment. Never was it stated that guns may only be stored i nthe house, therefore nowhere can you find that one cannot carry it; again as the Supreme Court has ruled.

#650 to #649 - timmywankenobi

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/08/2012) [-]

I never said you can't carry it I just said it wasn't expected.

#651 to #650 - counteractive

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/08/2012) [-]

"Futhermore if you understood old english you would see that it implies that the guns are to be kept in the home locked away safely until needed to protect the country or your home etc."
"execpt the first sentence which you are flat oue wrong about because back in 1700's it was assumed the guns would be stored in the house."

Im good at what I do.

#652 to #651 - timmywankenobi

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/08/2012) [-]

so you don't understand the word assumed ?

#653 to #652 - counteractive

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/08/2012) [-]

Only when you say im wrong for not considering assumptions which are never implied, then I assume you consider them part of the law; which they are not.

#654 to #653 - timmywankenobi

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/08/2012) [-]

well since neither of us are from the 1700s the argumnt will never be settled.

#655 to #654 - counteractive

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/08/2012) [-]

What argument? The second ammendment is set in stone. People have the right to keep and -"bear"- arms meaning they have the right to carry openly and without impedment. It is not implied that people are to keep their weapons at home because it is never hinted to or stated, a liberal concept which is constantly shot down because it has no backing; and if it has not backing then it has no credibility as part of the law.

#616 to #614 - zraxx

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(11/07/2012) [-]

I did not know that had occurred that way, I was simply going off of what was written.

I admit defeat you have bested me today good sir.

#618 to #616 - counteractive

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/07/2012) [-]

Many have fallen to the depths of red thumbing their opponents in defeat. You have restored my daith in internet arguments. I therefore thumb you.

#619 to #618 - zraxx

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(11/07/2012) [-]

I am a man of honor, and so I acknowledge my defeats and accept them,. Thank you for the thumb