• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trying to understand gun rights supporters...

Ahh, my friend, truly you understand the heart of the Canadian psyche!! :) Well done!

Are you one of our displaced Arizona-Canadians?

Yes, in the case of separation, I think Québec may have to give up not only those Stanley Cups but also the Montréal Canadiens franchise itself. In exchange, the remainder of Canada would allow them to keep Céline Dion, and perhaps even throw in Alan Thicke as a consolation.

I'm definitely not Canadian but this isn't even close to the first time that Quebec has pushed for independence and back in the late 80's or early 90's I happened to be on an assignment up in northeastern AB and we were discussing the possibility of such a move with some of the CAF guys we were working with. I seem to recall the general consensus was something along the lines of "let those ****ing crazies do whatever they want but we're taking the cups!"
 
Does the saying "the exception to the rule" mean anything to you?

Yes, it does. Does this one mean anything to you?
Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.

This isn't even ancient history. This is less than 100 years ago. It would be like Germans being O.K. with another wall being built between east and west Berlin, because nothing bad could happen, right?
 
Last edited:
It does not.

Only very recently has SCOTUS stepped in and forced every state to allow residence to have a gun in their own home. Carrying in public is still free for each state to regulate as it sees fit.

Imagine if you were only allowed to wear a religious item or express a political opinion in your own home, and that wearing a religious item or putting a political bumper-sticker on your car in public would land you in prison. That's the world a lawful gun carrier lives in. The gun owner is the second-class citizen.

I stand in the minority among gun owners in my wish for the ATF to preempt state law on this and offer a Federal "shall-issue" permit to carry which all states have to honor. The ATF can require a familiarity class and run finger prints and all that. That's fine, I would do it. The status of gun-buster signs can be left to the states. Many states which require a familiarity class for their permit allow veterans to submit their DD214 in it's place. I agree with that because military service teaches you a whole hell of a lot more about weapons then some 4hr class ever could.

Nirvana would be a federal statute requiring all states to allow gun carry without any kind of permit, but we're a very long way from that today. One baby step at a time.

Today I have to collect permits, but Illinois doesn't honor anyone's permit, so I have to avoid Illinois.
1) I heard something about retired LEOs having a permanent understood right to conceal under the Patriot act, didn't hear whether former military had the same concession or not. 2) I wouldn't mind a national CC license as long as it followed the model of the shall issue states if it would truly preempt state prohibitions on carry or refusal to honor out of state licenses. 3) While I don't like the CCW situation I do accept it as a useful tool to law enforcement to preemptively put actual criminals in jail for unlawful carry before they can commit a more serious crime, most open carriers will not engage in violence as they are proclaiming what they have, concealers are up in the air as to intent.
 
I would like to take I90 from SD to OH and back to visit my children, but I can't because I90 passes through the heart of Chicago and I can't get a permit there.

So I'm going to start flying with my gun.

It's strange to think that it's easier to fly with a gun then drive across a given city, what with TSA being what it is.

It is ridiculous, Illinois will allow one in the car as long as it is not accessbile by the driver when transporting
 
King Hussain of Jordan is doing more than struggling, he's been dead for 13 years.
Technically he's not struggling, more just laying around. I know, I'm going to hell for that one.:mrgreen:
 
It is ridiculous, Illinois will allow one in the car as long as it is not accessbile by the driver when transporting
The whole damn point of carrying a gun is to have it accessible.

On my hip, loaded, ready to fire in an instant.
 
It is ridiculous, Illinois will allow one in the car as long as it is not accessbile by the driver when transporting
I had a conversation a few years ago with some Washington state natives, they had a similar carry rule. There could be a gun in the car, and ammunition, but both had to have a degree of seperation, i.e. one had to be in the trunk while the other had to be in the cab. That's horrible if someone actively decides to shoot at you.
 
1) I heard something about retired LEOs having a permanent understood right to conceal under the Patriot act, didn't hear whether former military had the same concession or not. 2) I wouldn't mind a national CC license as long as it followed the model of the shall issue states if it would truly preempt state prohibitions on carry or refusal to honor out of state licenses. 3) While I don't like the CCW situation I do accept it as a useful tool to law enforcement to preemptively put actual criminals in jail for unlawful carry before they can commit a more serious crime, most open carriers will not engage in violence as they are proclaiming what they have, concealers are up in the air as to intent.

I don't know as if that's anything close to the case. The primary reason I carry concealed is because a lot of people tend to get fidgety when they see a handgun. I simply figure that I'm a lot less likely to cause a stir if my weapon is concealed.
 
The whole damn point of carrying a gun is to have it accessible.

On my hip, loaded, ready to fire in an instant.

I agree, the only reason I know is because I go to a gun shoot just across the state line and carry my Ruger Mark 3 in one of my saddlebags on the bike.
 
I don't know as if that's anything close to the case. The primary reason I carry concealed is because a lot of people tend to get fidgety when they see a handgun. I simply figure that I'm a lot less likely to cause a stir if my weapon is concealed.
Yep. Why I say "up in the air" is that most people who conceal honestly do so as to not scare anyone or tip their hand to an assailant however those with ill intent conceal for an ambush. Your intent is honest, as mine would be, TD, and many of our fellow forum members, what I worry about is the potential armed robber doing same for a bad motive.
 
I don't know as if that's anything close to the case. The primary reason I carry concealed is because a lot of people tend to get fidgety when they see a handgun. I simply figure that I'm a lot less likely to cause a stir if my weapon is concealed.
That's something I would like Canadian Joe to take note of: Contrary to the stereotype, most Americans (about 1/2 to 2/3rds) are not comfortable around a civilian who carries a gun. These people don't think guns should be banned, they are just nervous due to lake of exposure with personal firearms. they tend to ask what gun owners refer to as stupid questions, but the questions are born out of a sincere lack of exposure. Questions like "why do you need a gun", or "are you going to shoot anyone".

Non gun-owners don't realize that asking the question is intrusive and rude.

It's important for gun owners not to take these questions at face value. The asker is trying to relate you and associate with your gun. Simply put, they want to quickly classify you as 'good-guy' or 'bad-guy'. If you offer a sarcastic answer (or even an honest answer, depending on the question), or you tell them it's not their business (which it's really not) you are automatically seen as a 'bad-guy'. You have one shot to be seen as a 'good-guy' (pun not intended).

Say something about yourself. "I'm a business owner and I don't want to be robbed", for example.
 
That's something I would like Canadian Joe to take note of: Contrary to the stereotype, most Americans (about 1/2 to 2/3rds) are not comfortable around a civilian who carries a gun. These people don't think guns should be banned, they are just nervous due to lake of exposure with personal firearms. they tend to ask what gun owners refer to as stupid questions, but the questions are born out of a sincere lack of exposure. Questions like "why do you need a gun", or "are you going to shoot anyone".

Non gun-owners don't realize that asking the question is intrusive and rude.

It's important for gun owners not to take these questions at face value. The asker is trying to relate you and associate with your gun. Simply put, they want to quickly classify you as 'good-guy' or 'bad-guy'. If you offer a sarcastic answer (or even an honest answer, depending on the question), or you tell them it's not their business (which it's really not) you are automatically seen as a 'bad-guy'. You have one shot to be seen as a 'good-guy' (pun not intended).

Say something about yourself. "I'm a business owner and I don't want to be robbed", for example.
Usually if people ask me about being armed it's similar, I am constantly on the move and don't always know the variables which is why I take the necessary precautions.
 
As for the OP:

1) I grew up hunting but don't do it anymore;

2) I keep my guns secured from kids' hands so they would be of no use to me in a robbery.

3) To me it is a matter of protecting the Constitution. If there was an amendment to repeal the 2nd, I would oppose it but if it were repealed, I'd say have at it. If you cannot defend the 2nd Amendment, you are jeopardizing all of the others that you do like whether you realize it or not.
 
It is ridiculous, Illinois will allow one in the car as long as it is not accessbile by the driver when transporting

that is due to the McClure-Volker Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986. If I am driving from Ohio to Iowa I can have a locked firearm in my trunk

The USPSA Nationals used to be in Barry Illinois. Its been so many years I cannot recall what we did to come there to shoot
 
Are those of you who feel this way expecting an intruder to break into your house at any moment?

I'm sure you've watched western and pioneer movies. In those days you answered the door or greeted folks on your property with a shotgun. You also had your weapon by your bedside and strapped on a sidearm when going to town. What makes you think times are any different in this day and age?
 
I'm sure you've watched western and pioneer movies. In those days you answered the door or greeted folks on your property with a shotgun. You also had your weapon by your bedside and strapped on a sidearm when going to town. What makes you think times are any different in this day and age?
Well, truth be told....
How many murders do you suppose these old western towns saw a year? Let's say the bloodiest, gun-slingingest of the famous cattle towns with the cowboys doing quick-draws at high noon every other day. A hundred? More?

How about five? That was the most murders any old-west town saw in any one year. Ever. Most towns averaged about 1.5 murders a year, and not all of those were shooting. You were way more likely to be murdered in Baltimore in 2008 than you were in Tombstone in 1881, the year of the famous gunfight at the OK Corral (body count: three) and the town's most violent year ever.


Read more: 6 Ridiculous History Myths (You Probably Think Are True) | Cracked.com
 
Well, truth be told....

Thank you...I'm guessing you wrote that in support of what I said. The stats you cited are worth noteing. I believe I have seen them before and just forgot about them. I'd like to add...We demand all sorts of things these days for our safety. Our cars are equipped with countless safety devices..ie; seatbelts, backup cameras, airbags and the rest. We have fire alarms and detectors in our homes. Public beaches and pools have rules and equipment for our safety. We have public service announcements concerning abduction prevention for our children. Our place of employment provide CPR respirators. Yet....many can't fathom the idea of personal safety when it comes to carrying a firearm. It's a mysterious thing. My feelings.. if you don't have a weapon convenient to you...it's as irresponsible as not replacing the batteries in your smoke alarm.
 
Last edited:
Thank you...I'm guessing you wrote that in support of what I said. The stats you cited are worth noteing. I believe I have seen them before and just forgot about them. I'd like to add...We demand all sorts of things these days for our safety. Our cars are equipped with countless safety devices..ie; seatbelts, backup cameras, airbags and the rest. We have fire alarms and detectors in our homes. Public beaches and pools have rules and equipment for our safety. We have public service announcements concerning abduction prevention for our children. Our place of employment provide CPR respirators. Yet....many can't fathom the idea of personal safety when it comes to carrying a firearm. It's a mysterious thing. My feelings.. if you don't have a weapon convenient to you...it's as irresponsible as not replacing the batteries in your smoke alarm.
I come from the school of thought that every citizen should should serve a term in the military and then be allowed to buy modern class-3 weapons themselves or, for income qualified individuals, be given an assault rifle by the government.
 
Political power can come from lots of things at different times and in different situations.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Because it's simply not true. You know as well as I do that political power grows from the barrel of a gun. This is always the case. The people only have whatever rights they are able to seize and defend.

At different times, power indeed came from use of weapons and force. Today, political power comes from our democratic institutions and the role of the American people in using them to retain their political power.

The establishment of these institutions was accomplished through force of arms, and continue to be defended by force of arms. Britain didn't just set America free. America fought for her freedom. And if the American people wish to remain free, they will need to always stand ready to fight for that right.

As you and I have discussed many times, rights don't simply magically appear out of the sky. We only have the rights that we are willing and able to defend.
 
All you are doing is repeating yourself over and over again. And there is no more validity to the latest pronouncements than in the initial one.
 
All you are doing is repeating yourself over and over again. And there is no more validity to the latest pronouncements than in the initial one.

So are you actually making the argument that rights magically appear? How, according to you, do people acquire and protect their rights? By asking nicely?
 
So are you actually making the argument that rights magically appear? How, according to you, do people acquire and protect their rights? By asking nicely?

Where did I make that argument? Please quote me.
 
Where did I make that argument? Please quote me.

I'm not saying you made that argument. Please notice the question marks. I'm asking you how do people acquire and protect their rights, by asking nicely?
 
I'm not saying you made that argument. Please notice the question marks. I'm asking you how do people acquire and protect their rights, by asking nicely?

People obtain rights by making their wishes known to government and are able to wield enough power or influence to compel government to honor those wishes by making certain behaviors acknowledged and protected as rights.
 
People obtain rights by making their wishes known to government and are able to wield enough power or influence to compel government to honor those wishes by making certain behaviors acknowledged and protected as rights.

In other words, by asking nicely while they have enough guns on their side. Thanks for playing.
 
Back
Top Bottom