Posted on 07/20/2017 6:59:59 AM PDT by rogerantone1
I’ve been saying for years that good black people don’t own enough firearms.
“and in particular for St. Louis city for awhile now and it is not safer, but worse.”
question: does the absence of a CC license prevent those who shouldn’t carry from carrying anyway?
“Concealed handgun permits surging, blacks, women lead growth”
this is excellent news indeed as these two groups are statistically more likely to be victims of a violent crime. not to mention, the more folks who own guns and appreciate them, the more they are likely to value their 2nd Amendment rights.
Those who want to carry do, regardless of legislation or permit.
Our evidence vault is filling up with weapons seized for safekeeping by those who are arrested for warrants (fugitives from the law, which should preclude them from legally carrying and even then, the prosecutors are reticent on charging them for violating the statute.)
Or possession of a defaced firearm. We are seizing those like there is no tomorrow. Again, no desire to prosecute and now its a class C misdemeanor. Basically, what used to be a Federal firearms charge is now a ticket.
Break into a car, steal the gun the owner is too lazy to secure, destroy the serial number and if you get caught, its a ticket. Why? Because the serial number is destroyed and you can’t prove theft.
The problem is now we have many more people who are LEGALLY carrying who are predisposed to violence because of demographic.
Please narrow it down for me.
I’ve pushed this same argument on several of my left-leaning friends for years: the 2nd amendment is especially important to law-abiding inner-city minorities who need protection against rampaging neighborhood thugs.
“The problem is now we have many more people who are LEGALLY carrying who are predisposed to violence because of demographic.”
and how would you propose to “fix” that?
Unless a Democrat lives in a Republican majority county they are very unlikely to succeed in getting a concealed carry permit.
Ain’t no fixin’ that CNM.
But I do advocate for psychological testing...which would be cost prohibitive to those seeking CCW.
No easy answers, but more guns did not drop the violence quotient.
When I was in innercity Chicago illegal immigrants felt like they could not call police. The result was that many practiced conceal carry.
Illegal immigrants practicing concealed carry is the best proof of John Lott's theories of anything in existence.
Bearing Arms is in the Bill of Rights. So it is a right that comes from God/natural law and not from government. These illegal immigrants have not been convicted of anything. So there is no Constitutional basis to say that the 2d Amendment does not cover them. They are created by God and under God's law.
For Mexicans, CRISTIADA / CRISTEROS is the history behind their love of carry. After the Mexican Revolution the Mexican President had his army assassinate Christian Clergy and lay who put God above his Marxist (Trotskyite) revolution.
Christians and libertarians united in self defense. The Mexican government made possession of a gun or any defensive weapon a major crime. Thus, to Mexicans who know their history, concealed (or open) carry means Religious Freedom in a very real sense.
Both forms in GA has the entry.
“But I do advocate for psychological testing”
I don’t recall anything about psychological testing in the 1st or 2nd Amendments.
“The problem is now we have many more people who are LEGALLY carrying who are predisposed to violence because of demographic.”
It’s getting pretty close to nut cracking time.
L
Good news.
Didn’t exist back then.
“Didn’t exist back then.”
neither did ANY of the firearms we use today, so I guess that means none of those get 2nd Amendment protection, either.
And the Internet, television, radio, and telephone didn’t exist then either, so I guess they’re not covered by the 1st Amendment either.
As it readily apparent that new firearm advancements are encapsulated in the 2nd Amendment, it would be reasonable that other things would be too.
Convicted violent felons are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment yet their right to possess firearms has been severely curtailed and the vast majority of 2A supporters agree with this.
An almost self-imposition that is reasonable and if we are to believe that the Founders were reasonable, they too would most likely believe that this is a reasonable and prudent imposition.
As we have no other evidence to suggest that they would object; is it not reasonable that they too, if given knowledge of modernity, would not object to screening processes that keep the mentally infirm from access to firearms?
We screen soldiers and police officers and are generally very successful at such (except for ex-officer Noor), why is society as a whole, forbidden to expect the same from the private citizen?
I have been a gun owner all my adult life and never once did I fear a psychological screening (had several for employment purposes) for I have no desire to kill or intimidate others with my firearm(s). Only as a last resort would I do so, however, you must admit there are those who believe the firearm is the first thing to reach for in any conflict resolution and this is counter to safe and secure society.
Mind you, I have already stated that such would most likely be born by the consumer, would be cost prohibitive and therefore most likely not sustainable, but certainly you will give some credence to the argument that those will CERTAIN mental illnesses or social deficiencies should not have access to firearms?
Now just a cotton pickin’ minit here. Let’s be fair. They’re obviously buying guns to protect themselves from Donald Trump and his MAGA minions, who are rioting all over the country./s
I forgot to add that they’re cleverly disguised as snowflakes and antifa blowhards, who would never harm a fly./s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.