The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>yet, every gun restriction infringes that right.
>people aren't against that.
WHAT?

Attached: anime tiddies.png (1920x1080, 1.37M)

bump?

You got a specific law you want to argue. or is this just an "oh ho ho ho" shill thread. I was with the idea of constitutional carry but then realized, while getting loicensed, there's people not proficient with firearms that have no business carrying until they can do so without negligent discharge. We're talking using the wrong ammo in their guns like they never touched a firearm trying to get loicensed to carry. All of these people where eventually loicensed in the proficiency part of loicensing after hand holding them to develop a modicum of proficiency. However if that doesn't hold up and without the hand holding they run around ND'ing in the field their loicense gets revoked. Im ok with this.

>people aren't against that.
speak for yourself

I've used this as a specific example because of the right to bear arms. Meaning you have a right to walk around with firearms. That can be interpreted as a constitutional right to carry.

Is a loicense to carry unconstitutional? an infringement. Look up that word in a dictionary and it routes you to the word encroach. There's really no acceptable definition of the word infringe. Encroach is defined as:
advance gradually beyond usual or acceptable limits

I find loicensing as an acceptable advancement and therefore not an encroachment, therefore not an infringement. In the spirit of the law I think it falls somewhere in the "well regulated" territory. Mind you, this is a state law and not a federal encroachment on the state or the people.

Actually user let's discuss this for a momment. Because I see your point here. The state and the people have a legitimate interest in regulating the carrying, concealed or openly, of firearms to insure that the citizenry is actually capable of responsibly handling the weapons. This is the core of your statement, do you agree?

If so: let us consider two options.
1. Require individuals, on pain of legal measures, to expend effort and resources to obtain licences to carry

2. The state provides militia training and licensure via tax dollars to all free citizens.

Which of these is appropriate under the constitution? I would say the second. It is reasonable that the state has an interest in safe handling of weapons, but placing the burden on the individual is a constitutional offense.

if people have no means of enforcing their freedom they lost it
even if people are they have to be in minority othewise why don't politicians talk about it?
no no people just should have all kinds of arms available to themselves

You would have to be an utter buffoon if, having read the declaration of independence and the first 10 amendments to the constitution, you didn't understand that the founders were deeply paranoid about abuse of power. I happen to share that paranoia. I think a sober reading of history shows you that people in power tend to abuse it if not held in check. that is the idea of the US system of laws at its inception.
So when people start giving the state the benefit of the doubt, nomatter what, they have discarded this idea. as if somehow, in the current year, people in power are not out to abuse it. as if sociopaths no longer exist. of course nobody is retarded enough to believe this, but, they have an out - only the other party is full of power thirsty sociopaths. their own party is clearly just pitching well intentioned and reasonable further encroachments on our daily lives, for the common good or some such nonsense that has always been peddled to justify abuse of power. as if third world dictators don't pay lip service to the common good. as if kings and aristocrats haven't been using that canard for centuries if not millenia.
anyway, fuck the NFA

>no no people just should have all kinds of arms available to themselves

Could you expand what you mean here friendly germananon?

I wasnt suggesting there be any limitation on the kind of arms a person be able to acquire, only that public carry of arms could reasonably be restricted in the public interest as long as the only burden was a demonstration of competency paid for by the government/public (the group whom is imposing this interest on the individual). Thus the burden on the individual to exercise their rights is judged against a standard we already have; competence (a free, mentally well of age, person)

In my state I think if you've been in the military, state guard, national guard police, either the need to loicense is waived or the fees are waived or reduced. Basically anywhere that it's been institutionally confirmed you've had some proficiency training.

The cost of the class time to train and demonstrate a modicum of proficiency is $50. That money goes to a free market, so I think it's outside of the governments scope, but I think it's regulated with a ceiling in the law that demands classes and tests for loicensing. I don't expect class time to come for free, but someone can make it free through non profit sectors. I think the spirit of the law suggests not only a right but an obligation to bear arms. I suspect the spirit of the law's obligation would expect some sort of proficiency in bearing arms.

The second part is the bureaucracy portion. A fee of $40 to file your paper work with the government. Determine if you're a felon and unable to possess a loicense to carry, issue the loicense etc. Before this was $140 and I determined this infringed on my rights with undue financial burden. However this was overhauled to $40, which I feel is an acceptable cost for the administrative work involved with filing the papers and $100- $120 is not an undue financial burden to obtain loicensing.

It's still fucky. But we dont live in an age where everyone was raised right to just expect citizenry to run around with firearms without any regulation. We have to compromise with things like the 13th amendment and modern times of nobody taking responsibility for some children. It's not a perfect union.

>"well regulated"
someone doesnt know what well regulated meant when the 2nd amendment was written.

I live in texas, we are open carry without licences and concealed carry with. We have similar rules about pricing.


I completely agree with you that it is not sufficient to trust the public to manage their arms safely or properly without training.

What I am suggesting is that any financial burden applied to the individual is by definition an unacceptable infringement on the individual. Since it is a sensible public interest to regulate the carry of guns it must be done in a way that is constitional. I'm trying to argue that as the laws exist now they put the burden on the wrong group (the person seeking licensure) and should instead be placed on the shoulders of the public (government taxes and personelle) to provide sufficient training.

but even that is a regulation / infringement because if you can't carry with you what you rightfully posses then what's the point of possessing at all? when in the crowd having firearm of any kind with you is only a beneficial thing to do and if you are a wrong-doer then you don't care about the law right? so imagine being in the crowd experiencing a mass shooting (you, your relatives and many other unknown to you people are the victims) is it better to shot a villain therefore ending the process of killing innocent people or get shot by him and die probably getting many more people dead too?

>we are open carry without licences and concealed carry with

We are open carry long gun without loicenses and open or concealed carry of concealable firearms demanding loicense. Meaning if yur open or concealed carrying a pistol SBS or SBR you need a loicense. I've seen this mistake made where open carry of pistols was considered legal without a loicense. Half the class time of loicensing is trying to determine and explain all the by laws and is the majority of the written test for loicensing.

What you're describing is constitutional carry, where open carry is unloicensed across all firearms.

The only limitation on your ability to carry is going to a class, which you dont pay for. You are free to go or not, if you go you will be licensed unless you are clearly legally incompetent (mentally ill) which is already a disqualification to own firearms.

Its training freely provided. Ideally it would be provided as part of the standard school education curriculum, thus certifying everyone naturally.

In this way I do not believe it is inappropriate infringement. Am I wrong? I'm open to that.

Ah, thanks for informing me. I havent yet bothered to get my loiscence because I so rarely go anywhere I would legally be allowed to carry one anyway.

I'm not strictly opposed to loiscencing carry, just ownership. On my property there can be no applicable law to which I would agree.

I'm not opposed to background checks to purchase as it does not infringe on a legal owner in any way. Except maybe some cost which I do have concerns about.

no no in reality its sufficient because wrong-doers will either way get their hands on guns and commit bad things using it and only instant respond that can occur is when someone else who carry a gun with him eliminates the wrong-doer as quickly as possible why? because reaching your gun aiming and shooting was is and always will be faster than calling for help and if not then still when something horrible is about to happen fending off enemies (when in bigger numbers) with semi automatics is impossible or the idea that guns are intended to kill but wait isn't it better to kill someone with f.e. a knife (silently) and not make everyone aware in neighborhood of what just happened ?
but why should you go to a class? it's in your matter on what you do and restrictions only are against good people because in the end criminals get their hands on guns etc so it should be up to you if you will go to a class or not (that shouldn't be obligatory) and for sure it shouldn't be provided in schools why? because there's no point to that not everyone would be interested nor willing to do that as same with typical school subjects people should be free to do only those thing that they want and are interested in. imagine being talented painter since childhood and having to worry about mathematics history etc while you shouldn't and instead focus on what drives you etc as same with cars not everyone must have one nor know how to drive if he doesn't want to nor needs

Because improperly handled firearms are dangerous.

I am not argueing at all in favor of preventing people from carrying weapons to respond to criminals, rather I would hope that by providing free training in schools and in general we would increase both the acceptance and prevalence of respectable gun owners and carriers.

In the US if a person wishes to drive a vehicle (a dangerous device) we require them to take a driving test and/or go to a class. As long as the public is footing the bill I see no infringement and only an opportunity to better prepare the public around firearms. An educated and knowledgable public would better handle criminals and each other with respect to weapons.

I open carry and have not, as of yet, had to produce the loicense to verify loicensing or run a serial check for stolen firearms. Besides multiple run ins with the law. It's always on the right side of the law. I'm guessing any wrong side run ins would require to produce the loicense and hopefully a serial check to prove this isn't some assholes truck gun I found on a jog. Loicense seems like a tool to hem joggers up that have no business carrying as part of police powers.

>Well regulated
>shall not be infringed
When does a regulation become an infringement? who's job is it to regulate? Im perfectly capable of regulating. I assume the spirit was the state militia was regulating through the state and the fed shall not infringe. I don't think they saw a time where the state became the institution that would infringe and the fed, through the power of the supreme court, became the entity responsible for stopping the infringements as unconstitutional. I don't think it's the feds job. If the majority of the state feels regulation is not infringement then thats the way she goes. However the portion of "being necessary to the security of a free State" suggests these states are weak and free states should capitalize on their weakness to increase the size and freedom of free states since these non-free states are no longer secure. The fed should not concern themselves with state matters as it's unconstitutional involvement by the fed.

ameriniggers are so lucky they have gun rights, yet they aren't grateful, why would you oppose constitutional carry? why would you support any sort of licensing for guns? fucking ingrates, here the police shoots first asks questions later, and when youre getting robbed you cant do anything, carrying a knoife is illegal, there isnt even a loicense for it unlike the uk

"a well regulated militia" is not the operating clause

Attached: 2a3.jpg (2000x2000, 399.6K)

and yet theres no class on how to use a knife hmmmmm
also
>Because improperly handled firearms are dangerous.
same as improperly handled knife and i believe there are more homocides per year with use of knifes than with guns

and i do understand your point of view but even if something bad happens because of improperly handled firearm it should be then recognized as owners (or the persons who possessed the firearm in the moment of the happening) fault

and desu in my opinion there shouldn't be requirement of accomplishing a driving test (except the theoretical test - knowledge of signs etc) as i stated before everyone should have a right but those who are fault should be punished and that's all just some kind of common sense
regulation always is an infringement because it prohibits you something

based

Attached: faragemask.jpg (1242x1187, 107.82K)

Yes we are.

>When does a regulation become an infringement?
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

The mind is the most powerful weapon. If you're short in that area, better buy another gun.

Attached: trump-america.jpg (371x313, 23.36K)

minority for sure.. and thats why no politician cares heheh
good luck fending off 10 armed nigs raiding your home with the help of mind

>good luck fending off 10 armed nigs raiding your home with the help of mind
How does the rest of the world manage?

We do that by letting ourselves get our shit stolen and/or also killed.

>I like government dick the post because I think people can't be responsible without them getting in the fucking way
or, better yet: remove the non whites and the problem solves itself
>amazing

How have I managed to live 40 years on this earth and never had to pull out a firearm to save my life? My neighbor is over 70, carries concealed, and he also never needed it. How is that possible?