Posted on 08/19/2018 12:08:30 PM PDT by rktman
The number of concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits is soaring to new levels despite the rabid anti-gun activism following a slew of school shootings over the past year.
Issued CCW permits increased approximately 275 percent over a ten-year period, from 4.6 million permits in 2007 to over 17.25 permits in 2018, according to a study released Friday by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC). The number has been increasing year over year and is forecast to continue trending upwards.
The most notable demographic increase was found to be among women and minorities. During the aforementioned time period, CCW issuance jumped 111 percent faster for women than for men. Moreover, compared to white individuals, permits for Asian and black individuals spiked 29 percent and 20 percent quicker, respectively.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Your only response to my question was to ask me a personal question. ANSWER my question.
Of course I’ll answer.
I do not consider any restrictions on God given rights.
A moral government cannot make slaves of the governed... Cannot strip a man of his natural rights unless you’re willing to kill him.
See post #36
“I do not consider any restrictions on God given rights.”
Do you consider it a God-given right to drive a car?
"...demand for concealed carry..."
BLM/ANTIFA/Occupy Democrats wanting to "defend" themselves from the NRA?
They want a war - they have stated that repeatedly. Obama told them to bring a gun to a knife-fight.
Don't be complacent. They will lose in the end. But they will hurt/kill a lot of innocent people in the beginning because a lot of people are not taking their threat seriously.
IMHO. YMMV. My 2 cents.
Yup.
Looks to me like he is removing his weapon from an inside the waistband holster?
Criminals will resort to buying stolen weapons or otherwise buy them through illegal sales, so shall issue background checks won’t expose them.
In federal case law, some terms used when considering laws for restrictions in regards to the Second Amendment were under “means-ends scrutiny” (”rational basis,” “intermediate” and “strict” “scrutiny”). The trend for federal judges is now moving away from means-ends scrutiny and towards “text, history, and tradition” (Kavanaugh, others).
With some of the crime and corruption trends we’ve been seeing, that should be no surprise. With more respect for Second Amendment rights, increasingly more unofficial residents have saved their lives and the lives of others.
Desires for records on everyone who keeps and/or carries firearms will probably go unfulfilled in more states in the near future. It hasn’t been working anyway. The potential for abuse against the right to self-defense and needs for national defense are too high. We know what could happen, when today’s radical Democrats get more control over the various levels of government.
The answer for police is more training, fitness and study along with more common communication between police and residents (i.e., abandonment of us-vs.-them postures). More training and informal good judgement of character are more effective tools for competent law enforcement officers. In considerations of human nature, we cannot “stop” “violence” in general. But we can increase our odds of surviving while allowing others to defend themselves and survive, too.
Again, I will refer you to post #36.
Like a petulant child who believes herself to be clever, you think you’re setting traps with your trolling, but in fact you’re only displaying your moral and intellectual cowardice.
(This ANSWER is in fact the trap; and one you won’t be able to avoid jumping face-first into. You’ve been warned)
Of course I consider it a God-given right to drive a car.
Now what?
Heading back into the actual topic at-hand, Please provide for us dimwitted fools the enumerated Constitutional power that authorizes the government to restrict the keeping and BEARING of arms to those who would petition that same government for permission.
You can’t. It isn’t there...
A man’s God-given rights, or “natural rights” extend to every activity that he or she has the intellectual and physical capacity to undertake, so long as it DOES NOT limit or damage the rights of others. This includes the right to possess ones own property, person, and ideas, free from interference by any one individual, or any group of individuals, without regard to what the group chooses to call themselves.
By the same token; a man has the right to enter into a contract with others that constrains, or even eliminates his freedom, if he chooses to do so.
Here’s a little thought exercise for you (you could really use the workout):
Can any ONE MAN decide for you, what you can and cannot use in defense of your life or your family? If so; from where does that authority emanate?
If one man does not have that power, then where do you get the belief that tens or hundreds or even hundreds of thousands of men have it. You can add zeros together for the rest of your life and still have zero as the sum.
The key is within our Constitutional form of government. The U.S. Constitution lays out very clearly what the government may regulate, and by omission, where the government HAS ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY TO TREAD.
It’s difficult, apparently, for those of diminished capacity to understand this concept, but it’s really simple once it’s been memorized.... There is absolutely no authority under Constitutional U.S. law for the government to perform any act or regulate any behavior outside the SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS assigned to it.
As I said before, such authority to regulate the bearing of arms is NOT one of those powers. In fact, it is one of the few that the founders went to the trouble to explicitly prohibit.
As for the rest of your tap-dancing, and shoe-shining; it’s of no effect.
You’ve said nothing, you’ve contributed nothing, and you’ve understood nothing...
Still, I will show you.
Like poison in the kool-aid, there is no “correct amount” of unconstitutional activity by the government. If the government is foul in ANY ONE PARTICULAR, then it’s authority to govern is void.
Our Constitutional government is based upon a contract whereby we individual free men agree to be regulated as a nation by the collective will of individual free men, within certain WELL DEFINED spheres of activity... But NOT within the realm of individual thought, the ownership and use of our own property and faculties, or the defense of our lives and liberty.
Once government presumes the power (not granted by that contract) to deprive a free man of his possessions, his thoughts, or his freedom in defense of the liberty that is his right at birth, then that government becomes illegitimate in ALL THINGS.
A tyranny.
That you are cheerfully willing to be subject to such tyranny and would make arguments in support of it, isn’t something I’d go bragging about on Free Republic.
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.