Do Americans have a right to carry?

[attackshark]

all said and done, maybe the cop was off his meds that day or something.

 

[blizard0am0i]

The cop most certainly should have asked for the mans licence to carry, since it was offered.

 

[Super Toast]

Well, he was walking around with a pistol in plain view. For all that cop knew, the guy could have been a madman.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Well, he was walking around with a pistol in plain view. For all that cop knew, the guy could have been a madman.

LOL so many people do that here. That is a non event, that people do not even think twice about. Hell, officers here won't even show up if someone says there is a guy with a gun, no first thing they ask is " is he pointing it at anyone?" and "Did he threaten anyone?" If a person is walking around with a holstered gun, that is normal and legal. There is a difference.

A madman doesn't walk around with a gun holstered. They walk around with it in their hands with a deranged look on their face, maybe laughing or yelling, kinda like that officer.. I think the Officer was the mad man not the other way around.

He is yelling profanity and insults with a weapon drawn. He refuses to look at the guys driver's license or gun permit. He is supposed to be an enforcer of the law, yet is ignorant of the law? There is no excuse for that. He should have never been allowed on the force in the first place if he doesn't know the law, and doesn't keep up to date with it. He cannot enforce the law if he doesn't even bother to learn it.

 

[Treblaine]

2nd amendment is open to a lot of interpretation state to state, district to district.

The constitution definitely means any comprehensive ban on firearms is unconstitutional, but carrying on the person is no unreasonable to prohibit, especially in certain places. Then again if there are going to be guns in an area, a "no gun zone" sign ain't going to do shit.

I say go 100% one way or the other, nothing by halves

That is, ban gun effectively completely like UK even generally unarmed police - or accept that guns are part of society and DEAL with that with arming police in response.

That means if you don't want some crazy guy walking into a school or campus or any other Gun-free-zone then you had better ENFORCE that law. That means you need armed police officers to specifically guard these areas because you know what: gun-free-zones are a target for crazy gunmen and terrorists.

-no one to shoot back
-they were MADE "gun-free" precisely due to their sensitive crowded nature

America is slowly coming to terms with this, that Gun-Free-Zones must mean armed police or at least armed security guards. A metal detector at every entrance ain't enough.

UK has a very VERY good border (at least 20 miles of sea) and a police-establishment that meant a gun-ban was possible. Not so in the US, huge porous border with Canada and Mexico, millions of unregistered guns, thousands of guns in active criminal use.

Things are uncertain here at the moment though, gun proliferation in UK gangs is growing slowly but steadily, we will likely reach a point where in areas police will have to be generally armed.

The reason for that is how frequently police are forced to retreat at the mere hint there

 

[J-Alfred]

but then again I'm the friggin' antithesis to Charlton Heston over here.

Pft, to be his antithesis you just have to have never been in a Planet of the Apes movie or have died yet.

Well spoken. Well spoken indeed.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

2nd amendment is open to a lot of interpretation state to state, district to district.

The constitution definitely means any comprehensive ban on firearms is unconstitutional, but carrying on the person is no unreasonable to prohibit, especially in certain places. Then again if there are going to be guns in an area, a "no gun zone" sign ain't going to do shit.

I say go 100% one way or the other, nothing by halves

That is, ban gun effectively completely like UK even generally unarmed police - or accept that guns are part of society and DEAL with that with arming police in response.

That means if you don't want some crazy guy walking into a school or campus or any other Gun-free-zone then you had better ENFORCE that law. That means you need armed police officers to specifically guard these areas because you know what: gun-free-zones are a target for crazy gunmen and terrorists.

-no one to shoot back
-they were MADE "gun-free" precisely due to their sensitive crowded nature

America is slowly coming to terms with this, that Gun-Free-Zones must mean armed police or at least armed security guards. A metal detector at every entrance ain't enough.

UK has a very VERY good border (at least 20 miles of sea) and a police-establishment that meant a gun-ban was possible. Not so in the US, huge porous border with Canada and Mexico, millions of unregistered guns, thousands of guns in active criminal use.

Things are uncertain here at the moment though, gun proliferation in UK gangs is growing slowly but steadily, we will likely reach a point where in areas police will have to be generally armed.

The reason for that is how frequently police are forced to retreat at the mere hint there

Some schools have dealt with this by arming their staff.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2575524/Texas-school-allows-teachers-to-carry-guns-into-class.html

 

[megaraccoon]

he's got a legal permit to carry firearms ergo its okay, plus its out in the open so everyone can see it, i feel a lot safer when i can see a possible threat than constantly having to look over my sholder, also cops can be idiots especially beat cops who're trying to make a name for themselfs.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

he's got a legal permit to carry firearms ergo its okay, plus its out in the open so everyone can see it, i feel a lot safer when i can see a possible threat than constantly having to look over my sholder, also cops can be idiots especially beat cops who're trying to make a name for themselfs.

No kidding. The guys that became cops that I went to school with used to cut each other with razor blades, steal lawn mowers from the garages, and sniff paint. YEEAAA they have alot of brain cells there.

I don't see the guys wearing holstered firearms as a threat, it actually makes me feel safer that someone will be less likely to attack me with them standing there. It isn't like some creep is going to go up and snatch my purse or try to assault me if I am standing next to a guy with a firearm. LOL

 

[Loonyyy]

Guns are dangerous, and many do not understand the Right to Bear arms and form militia. It is essentially, should the country be invaded, at the time of writing, by the British, the responsibility to take up arms and fight back, forming citizen resistance. It is not the right to own large amounts of weapons or behave irresponsibly with them.

 

[Haydyn]

He wasn't doing anything wrong, but it is one of those things that very easily can get you into trouble. I have been contemplating getting either a firearm or blade, but have decided for the time being doing so would be more harmful than safe. I'm never in really bad neighborhoods, and whenever I'm walking in the city it's daytime with friends. If anyone does try to attack me though, they are going to be eating my Converse pretty damn fast though. Hang on one sec.

Nope, that stain is gone.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Amazing how the police can damn near shoot you when you try to be the reasonable one.

Though you could argue about being reasonable by carrying a firearm at all times...

But I don't wanna bring up the old gun-crazy American stereotype again so please don't take it the wrong way.

We open carry for self defense, it is perfectly reasonable to want to keep yourself alive.

I really don't want to turn this into a debate into whether people need guns for self-defense, but come on. If your country had strict gun control there would be way less criminals with guns making the need to carry a firearm for self-defense non-existant. Just look at other western countries. Like say, Australia. Gun laws are very strict here, and because of this, we have way less crimes commited with firearms.

In short, take guns away from everyone (except for authorities, of course) and everyone is much safer.

In the current state of your country, I agree. Having a gun would be very useful for self-defense, but taking guns away from everyone is a much more elegant and safe solution.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Guns are dangerous, and many do not understand the Right to Bear arms and form militia. It is essentially, should the country be invaded, at the time of writing, by the British, the responsibility to take up arms and fight back, forming citizen resistance. It is not the right to own large amounts of weapons or behave irresponsibly with them.

The right to bear arms was for the citizens to keep the militia in check, not just for foreign invasion. You see, they had just had to fight their own government inorder to gain their freedom, they wanted to make sure the citizens could defend themselves against their OWN tyrannical government if they needed to do so in the future. They clarified this in the federalist papers quite clearly. People tend to forget that was a "Civil War" and technically, they were all British.

Irresponsiblity is covered under other crimes.

 

[OneStepAhead]

Eh, doesn't surprise me.
Police are just people, and people are fucking morons.
Case and point. ^^

 

[Harlief]

Americans do all have the right to carry, and that's where the problem lies.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

This is why we don't arm the police.

were are you from?

The UK. You give a man a gun, and he sees everything as a potential target.

 

[Raddra]

He has the right to bear arms and so long as he has the proper permits he hasn't done anything wrong. His rights were actually violated.

This has cycled through here a few times already, but my position hasn't changed.

Americans do and should have the right to carry, and infringing upon that is going against our personal freedom and the Bill of Rights. If anyone thinks that we are interpreting the 2nd Amendment incorrectly, they need to call their congressman and demand a constitutional amendment immediately.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This means that we should be able to form a militia when necessary, but also that our individual right to own a firearm can not be infringed upon. The Supreme Court has sided with this time and time again.

they wanted to make sure the citizens could defend themselves against their OWN tyrannical government if they needed to do so in the future. They clarified this in the federalist papers quite clearly.

These guys speak the truth.

It amazes me that people can go with the propaganda fearmongering on this issue. The constitution gave the right to bear arms for a very good reason.

It was for protection of their rights and freedoms against threats both foreign and domestic.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

This is why we don't arm the police.

were are you from?

The UK. You give a man a gun, and he sees everything as a potential target.

No, that is when you give a boy a gun, not a man. A man is supposed to be responsible.

That is the difference between a man and a boy.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

No, that is when you give a boy a gun, not a man. A man is supposed to be responsible.

That is the difference between a man and a boy.

And I've rarely met a man who didn't turn back into a boy when given a firearm.

My uncle was in the Belfast Police Force during the Troubles, and he rarely carried one, as he knew what it'd do to him.

May I point out that the Second Amendement was made when the worst "arm" a man could have was a 1795 Springfield Musket?

Perhaps, now that easily concealable Micro-Uzis are available, the word "arms" could be ratified?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

No, that is when you give a boy a gun, not a man. A man is supposed to be responsible.

That is the difference between a man and a boy.

And I've rarely met a man who didn't turn back into a boy when given a firearm.

My uncle was in the Belfast Police Force during the Troubles, and he rarely carried one, as he knew what it'd do to him.

May I point out that the Second Amendement was made when the worst "arm" a man could have was a 1795 Springfield Musket?

Perhaps, now that easily concealable Micro-Uzis are available, the word "arms" could be ratified?

That is a cultural difference. Here, they are just a common tool seen everywhere. Everyone has them so it is no big deal. A gun is just a tool, it can do nothing on it's own. That is like saying everytime you go to pick up a knife to cut your steak everyone becomes a target. LOL

Also, I thought men owned cannons as well. My uncle still has one. Oh yea and catapults.. those are awesome!