House Approves Concealed Firearm Permit Bill!!!! YES!!!

[Beretta92FSLady]

tyranny: oppressive government rule. Definitions are easy to come by, all that is needed is a dictionary.

It's a cute little bow. It's practical, and fits well in ten-second sound-bites.

 

[Daylen]

It's a cute little bow. It's practical, and fits well in ten-second sound-bites.

Most definitions are practical and short. That's sort of the point of dictionaries, give the correct use of a term in a concise manner.

 

[rodbender]

How strategic of you. So, describe for us what you mean by the "general government."

The example that you gave is not one I am refuting. Yes, the States created the Federal Government. The States established a central (ultimate) Authority that exercises Power. Hmm, how can I state it more clearly than this, got it(!): The Federal Government is Frankenstein, and the States are the parts which make up Frankenstein, and politicians at the time were the mad scientist. Only, in the case of how this Frankenstein has played out, the Federal Government has solidified its position, and has both the monetary and military might to quash individual, and State up-rise. Let's hope, for the sake of us all, that I am wrong.

General government is what the framers called what we know today as the federal government (no capitals because it is NOT a proper name). I would think that one should know that tidbit if one is going to profess to to understand the Constitution as you do.

I'm glad you understand that the States (capitalized because it is always capitalized when talking about the Constitution) created the general government. Do you also understand that they can abolish it?

It definitely is a Frankenstein, but the States are not the body parts, they are the creator of said monster. Politicians (both parties) are the body parts.

Central (A)uthority does not mean ultimate (a)uthority.

The general government THINKS it has solidified it's authority. The States could and should and would yank the rug from under them if they had a genuine brain to work with.

Haven't you heard? The general government is broke and $15,000,000,000,000 in debt. That's 15 trillion.

Military might? I don't think so. Over 70% of the military has said they would refuse to move against the American public if ordered to do so, according to one general's poll on his base.

Trust me, you ARE wrong, by a long way. But then, you always have been wrong on the Constitution that I've seen.

 

[Daylen]

... I would think that one should know that tidbit if one is going to profess to to understand the Constitution as you do. ...

lol. about the person who routinely claims there is no limit to central federal power and as far as I've seen has never said anything about it other than the constitution doesn't matter?

 

[trooper46]

The constitution is not worth the paper it's written on if it is not enforced. You can come on this forum and whine all day about "why do we need the feds making laws for a right we already have?" .

But the reality of the matter is that you only have the rights that the law is willing to enforce. When one level of government (in this case, the states and the D.C counsel) deprive people of their constitutional rights. It is the sworn duty of our representitives to enforce the constitution.

This bill is step towards enforcing the constitution and protecting a citizen's right under it.


The constitution isn't a magical document that's going to enforce itself, it needs an enforcer or it's just another dusty old piece of paper.

 

[Daylen]

...
This bill is step towards enforcing the constitution and protecting a citizen's right under it.
...

No it isn't! This bill deals with getting permission to exercise a privilege. If this bill protected a right it would insist upon a permit less way to carry.

 

[glockluva]

When is this bill going to senate?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

[snip]

Trust me, you ARE wrong, by a long way. But then, you always have been wrong on the Constitution that I've seen.

I have posted this before: I hope I am wrong.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

lol. about the person who routinely claims there is no limit to central federal power and as far as I've seen has never said anything about it other than the constitution doesn't matter?

Explain this: If so-called "rights" affirmed by the Constitution are 'fundamental', then what is the purpose of the Constitution?

If the Constitution's purpose is to "affirm fundamental rights," then the Constitution is merely a redundant acknowledgement of a "fundamental rights." Basically, the Constitution serves zero purpose. I am sure you will point out that the Constitution outlines the structure of Government, which makes sense, but to include "fundamental rights (?) - a waste of time.

 

[oak1971]

Explain this: If so-called "rights" affirmed by the Constitution are 'fundamental', then what is the purpose of the Constitution?

If the Constitution's purpose is to "affirm fundamental rights," then the Constitution is merely a redundant acknowledgement of a "fundamental rights." Basically, the Constitution serves zero purpose. I am sure you will point out that the Constitution outlines the structure of Government, which makes sense, but to include "fundamental rights (?) - a waste of time.

You need to read your history on our founding documents, as written by the founders. If you had, you would look less foolish.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

You need to read your history on our founding documents, as written by the founders. If you had, you would look less foolish.

I have read(e) enough, and quite frankly, their intent is as relevant as the intent is attributed relevance.

Stating that I look foolish changes no-thing.

 

[oak1971]

I have read(e) enough, and quite frankly, their intent is as relevant as the intent is attributed relevance.

Stating that I look foolish changes no-thing.

I don't have to state it. "We hold these truths to be self evident...."

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I don't have to state it. "We hold these truths to be self evident...."

Nice!

 

[rodbender]

Explain this: If so-called "rights" affirmed by the Constitution are 'fundamental', then what is the purpose of the Constitution?

If the Constitution's purpose is to "affirm fundamental rights," then the Constitution is merely a redundant acknowledgement of a "fundamental rights." Basically, the Constitution serves zero purpose. I am sure you will point out that the Constitution outlines the structure of Government, which makes sense, but to include "fundamental rights (?) - a waste of time.

"DING, DING, DING" We have a winner.....kind of. The actual purpose of the Constitution is to outline a plan of a general government. It also gives few powers to said general government (see Art. I, Sec, 8). It also prohibits what State governments can do (see Art.I, Sec. 10).

The Bill of Rights outlines what the general government must not intrude upon. This includes 9A and 10A. Sadly not all rights are included in this list, and not all rights are treated equally, but the ones excluded may be trampled on in any way they wish.

 

[Daylen]

Explain this: If so-called "rights" affirmed by the Constitution are 'fundamental', then what is the purpose of the Constitution?

If the Constitution's purpose is to "affirm fundamental rights," then the Constitution is merely a redundant acknowledgement of a "fundamental rights." Basically, the Constitution serves zero purpose. I am sure you will point out that the Constitution outlines the structure of Government, which makes sense, but to include "fundamental rights (?) - a waste of time.

People need reminders and governments need restraints. Of course the federalists thought the bill of rights wasn't needed and would be bad as later governments might think they can infringe upon rights not listed in the bill of rights. Hard to say who was right on that, but I'd say the anti federalists were right where it came to having a constitution; we should have stuck with articles of confederation.

 

[Dreamer]

Explain this: If so-called "rights" affirmed by the Constitution are 'fundamental', then what is the purpose of the Constitution?

If the Constitution's purpose is to "affirm fundamental rights," then the Constitution is merely a redundant acknowledgement of a "fundamental rights." Basically, the Constitution serves zero purpose. I am sure you will point out that the Constitution outlines the structure of Government, which makes sense, but to include "fundamental rights (?) - a waste of time.

Prior to the ratification of the US Constitution and it's included Bill of Rights, NO SUCH SYSTEM existed on the planet that acknowledged that EVERY person had--as a condition of their human-ness--certain unalienable rights. Rights that could not be taken, sold, bartered or forfeited. Rights that WERE NOT granted by the Crown, the government, or any earthly authority. Rights that are part of the human condition, and were as much a part of being a human being as breathing.

That is the purpose of the Constitution and the BoR--to outline and enumerate these fundamental rights--so that they COULD NOT be abridged, infringed, regulated, or stifled. The enumeration of these rights is a line in the sociopolitical sand that We The People have drawn, so that the government SHALL NOT CROSS. And there are provisions in the Constitution that tell us how to deal with the Government if (well, actually WHEN, because the Founders knew that ALL governments eventually become evil, oppressive tyrannies, due to the nature of the tiny percentage of sociopaths in humanity, and their propensity to seek positions that give them power over others) they did cross those lines.

The Bill of Rights is a line in the sand.

The problem is that We the People have been brainwashed to believe that when the government erased parts of that line and moves it further and further away from Liberty, they are doing something lawful, moral, and good.

Nothing could be further from the truth...

You make some interesting arguments, "Beretta92FSLady", but your understanding of the nature of "fundamental human rights" is based on the seriously flawed "progressive model" that believes that the government actually has the best interest of the People at heart. The fact is that government is fundamentally evil because it's primary function is to control, regulate, and limit human activity. We drew up the Constitution to delineate just HOW the government could act and what it's powers, duties and authority was, and in that original document, those powers, duties and authorities were VERY limited.

But as is ALWAYS the case in EVERY INSTANCE of the history of man, sociopaths will ALWAYS rise to the top of the system, and will then attempt to codify their own twisted, perverted, and sickening desires upon the rest of the society.

We (the US and most of the "industrialized" world) are being ruled by a class of people that amounts to a cross between the ancient Aztec priesthood, Jeffrey Daumer, Vlad Tepes, and Calligula. And anyone who is surprised at this has no knowledge of the history of mankind.

And there is only ONE way to fix this problem. The Ancestral Pueblo had the right idea...

 

[Elkad]

I'm personally divided on this issue.

I don't like the idea of the Federal Government butting into the business of the States. But until SCOTUS issues a clear ruling that the 2nd covers carry, not just ownership, we have a problem in a bunch of states. Sure, I can avoid living there, but sometimes it becomes necessary to travel to New Jersey or Hawaii or something. I'd like to be able to carry (legally) everywhere, not just at home.

 

[MAC702]

I don't have to state it. "We hold these truths to be self evident...."

The Constitution has no such statement. I'm not trying to put a dog in this fight, but I'm just pointing out that you quoted from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

 

[beebobby]

Ok, I'm confused. If this bill comes before the President, do we vilify him for signing it or do we vilify him for vetoing it?

 

[eye95]

State "A" requires training, inspections and fingerprinting. State "B" only requires training. Congress comes along and says "It is only common sense" that the restictions of State "A" be made the national norm. After all allowing unfingerprinted persons to carry in State "A" is an infringment of their laws. Citizens of State "B" suddenly have their rights infringed upon by Congressional fiat. Does any one trust Chuck Shumer or Dianne Feinstein to not go down this route? Anything other than "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" will be a further impediment and more difficult to get rid of. The NRA may not have served us well with this.:banghead:

This.

The problem is that we are ceding authority to define the licensure of the Right and the terms thereof to the Feds.

Dumb and anti-Liberty.

But then, some who purport to be Liberty-loving have succumbed to the lure of allowing government to care for them by giving it power over them--and the rest of us.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>