Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Do you support 'Constitutional Carry' in the US? That is, being able to carry a firearm in public, exposed or concealed, without a permit? (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
87Opinion
Texas knows what’s coming.
Fkin Biden has started dumping illegals.
And they’re not refugees.
Most of them are men who have been removed from Latin America prisons to be dumped to started problems in U. S.
To get order out of chaos bull sh*t from the evil people.
God first, then after that protect the country 2nd!
Bad times are coming to us for the next 5 years,
God! We need Trump back! 🥺
No , GOD NOT first, thing called Secularism. If God was first America today would still be stuck in dark ages. Just compare Bible Belt to rest of America. Funny you're on about 2nd amendment, maybe try first line of the 1st Amendment.
Yes, forcing people to get a permit is a violation of our constitutional rights. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs to be forced to get a permit to use their freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, and have it denied. If you don't support freedom to keep and bear arms, we don't support your freedom to open your filthy cock-sucking mouths.
The second amendment says that it shall not be infringed so yes I support constitutional carry, we have it in Missouri. But the individual still has to pass a background check in order to purchase a gun.
Sure. To me a gun is no different than a knife when I see someone with one. Whether it's a bad thing depends on the character of the person. People don't flip out when they see a cook with a knife. I don't flip out when I see non threatening people with weapons. I'm also not foolish enough to depend on the cops to protect my family. Myself and every other male relative (plus some of the women) I know own guns.
There are problems with restricting the ability to carry guns.
The first problem is that it violates property rights. You should only have property taken from you if you're using it to violate persons or property.
The second problem is that guns are useful for many legitimate purposes such as self defence, hunting, target shooting and so on. Stopping people from carrying guns makes it more difficult for people to engage in these legitimate activities.
Some people will carry guns around and use them to commit crimes. Some people might think this is a good reason to ban carrying guns. But if you try to ban guns you will disarm law abiding people but not criminals or the government and its cronies. So then you have a system in which some people are allowed to own a tool for using force and others are subject to their whims.
Let's compare.
Where permits are required: law abiding citizens will obtain permits to carry guns and felons who cannot legally possess guns will conceal carry guns and avoid police.
Constitutional carry: law abiding citizens will carry guns and felons who cannot legally possess guns will conceal carry guns and avoid police.
All I see is less hassle for law abiding citizens.
With all the radical righties wanting a civil war, I've been becoming more and more pro gun. Families need to be able to protect themselves from these guys, because they clearly do want to start shooting and killing people over some bullshit they saw on their side of the internet.
Of course. Ideally, they've been properly vetted and mental stable enough to own a gun. But yeah, I'm all for it.
A girl can either build muscle and study martial arts her whole life, in order to avoid rape and protect her children... or she can just carry a firearm. The gun is the ultimate equalizer.
No, because there will always be unhinged people or those who have a mental break anytime, anywhere who don’t handle guns right!
Besides, the Bible says, to turn “... swords (their guns) into plowshares...” (Isaiah 2:4) Also, Jesus was nonviolent.
And no one will convince me otherwise!
Eh, somewhat. I think it's good to train people in carrying before they're allowed to do so and make them aware of when they're legally justified in defending themselves, but I think if people are going to carry they're usually responsible enough to where they'll do that anyway of their own volition.
I don't support every wacko yahoo that is holding a grudge against something, anything, to have a weapon. Period. How do I tell who is or is not a wacko yahoo? I assume everyone is, therefore NO one should own a gun, be in possession of a gun, or ever want or need a gun.
Enjoy your slavery.
@cth96190 And I hope you enjoy your death and those of your family.
@DaveToo
Said like a true Democrat.
If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the safest community is one in which everyone is trained and armed.
Feel free to be a hand wringing Democrat girlyman who cannot defend himself, but do not attempt to endanger the safety of real men and their families by disarming them.
You have typical slave mentality.
Does that include the government?
@cth96190 Thank you for calling me a Democrat. I'm also a combat veteran and former police officer. You go ahead and continue to follow the misguided interpretation of the second amendment put forth by the NRA. I'm just gonna spitball this opinion, but I'm betting you are not a member of a well-regulated militia. Therefore you would not be eligible to possess a firearm. You see, we Democrats don't want your guns. We would just melt them down. What we Democrats want is to keep firearms out of the hands of the wacko yahoos that want nothing more than to see how many people they can murder in an afternoon.
@DaveToo
There is no interpretation of the Second Amendment.
It says what it says and could not be clearer.
I live on the other side of the planet and even I understand that.
‘Interpretation’ is the door to a Jew lawyer word game, in which domestic enemies try to argue that the Second Amendment does not say what it says.
I am disappointed that someone who said that he served would demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Second Amendment and its place in history, as well as its importance to the defence of the USA.
more…
continued….
The Second Amendment is arguably the best defence against invasion.
I would remind you of the words of Admiral Yamamoto, who said that it would be impossible to land troops on the continental USA, because “there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”.
As for militias, I will remind you that in 1776 militiamen had to provide their own weapons and be competent in the use thereof.
That was and remains the point of a militia.
I am also a veteran, FYI.
2/14 Light Horse, Royal Australian Armoured Corps.
After the traitors in the Parliament here made it difficult to obtain firearms (1996) the situation became that, for practical purposes, only the criminals and terrorists had guns.
@cth96190 You insult Democrats, you insult Jews, you've insulted me, and you insult the founders that amended the Constitution, when they said, "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."
What part of "well-regulated militia" don't you understand?
@DaveToo
I encourage you to look up a non-Democrat source on the meaning of 'well regulated militia' in 1776.
To have men who can serve in a militia, those men have to be armed and competent before they become part of the militia.
Therefore, they must own firearms and be competent in the use of said firearms.
I had been using my own FN FAL L1A1 since I was a child, so when I became part of the Australian Army there was not much that I could be taught about the weapon that was in use at the time. I wish at it was still in use, because the rifle that replaced it is a joke.
As for the meaning of "shall not be infringed", that means what it says.
It means that every law in the USA that restricts ownership, as well as open and concealed carry, is unconstitutional and, therefore, not a law at all.
I would also remind you that the most dangerous places to live in the USA are the blue cities, which have disarmed honest citizens.
The best defence against a bad man who is armed is a good man who is armed.
https://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
@cth96190 Welcome to 2021. It's no longer the 1700's. Every brain-dead yahoo with a desire to kill something, anything, can and does own a gun. That does not make them part of a well-regulated militia. It makes them a danger to society. A well-regulated militia is the National Guard, where they are issued a firearm, trained to use the said firearm, placed in situations where they might have to use said firearm.
@DaveToo
You need to study history.
The National Guard is not a militia.
The meaning in 1776 matters.
It means every man who wants to defend the nation, who form a group for that purpose, is a militiaman.
@cth96190 The problem with society today, every yahoo with $600. can buy a gun and call themselves part of the militia. A few hundred of them stormed our nation's Capitol in order to overturn a duly elected President. These are out of control "militiamen", whether they held guns or pitchforks.
If i lived in US i would go to the white house with tons of guns and shoot up the place, giving them a final message to ban guns. US don't care about school shootings that don't ban guns for them, they don't care about shootings in nightclubs or concerts. But a attack on white house with the people they put above every one as the important ones maybe they would.
America is just a weird country when it comes to firearms. I mean all military weaponry is technically covered by the 2nd amendment. Surely it must also be constitutional to open carry an RPG to protect yourself, especially considering the government has drones and stuff. Either arm the nation to it's teeth properly, or don't do it at all.
I support people's right to own guns, but I think there should be regulations and safety measures in place. I Don't think a random person without a permit, who may or may not have any training, and whose behavior is unknown, should be allowed to carry a gun into a public place unattended
The US has over 10,000 gun laws on the books. Most of which aren’t properly enforced, and in many cases uncurling several high profile cases have directly allowed mass shootings to occur. Specifically the Texas church shooting where the Air Force failed to follow the law and put a dishonorably discharged airman into the NICS system allowing them to buy weapons they weren’t legally able to buy, and the Parkland School shooting where the FBI and local sheriff’s department failed to act before hand despite multiple warnings and red flags.
It breaks down like this. If you're legal to buy from a dealer, you're legal to carry.
If you're a criminal, this is a non-issue. They have been carrying long before the cops carried guns. In fact that's why cops have guns.
Permits are unconstitutional.
A requirement for a permit is an infringement, which is, therefore, a violation of 'shall not be infringed'.
The carry 'permit' of a US citizen is the Second Amendment.
Nothing more should be needed.
It should be against the law to buy and own guns without license in every country.
Thankyou , a little LOGIC at last. More guns = more lives lost
@molonski2 so by that logic no knives without license. No water; no air; no automobiles; no baseball bats; petty much at the end of the day you can’t even flush the toilet without a goverment license.
Why even exist at that point it de facto slavery is you have to get permission for every single basic human right that legally exists.
Also why sovereignty matters, your can choose to surrender all your rights to your government but you can’t deny anyone else their rights that’s immoral.
Also no more guns mean less lives lost by any rational objective facts available. Violent crime in the US has gone down with the increase of gun in the US not up. Less people per capita are dying even more so now that every city and state in the US can’t deny Americans or lawful alien residents their human rights to keep and bear arms in lawful self defense.
@YOLOIFIC
By or via my logic
LESS GUNS = LESS DEATH , not rocket science.
@molonski2 not any science since it’s if conflict with the facts.
Show me in the US where gun restrictions resulted in less gun homicides? The exact opposite is true the places with the strictest gun restrictions allowed have the highest gun homicides.
Granted you death, but one of has to be a rational adult and make a comparisons that isn’t absurd. People died from disease and non gun violence there is no way to stop that by arbitrarily eliminating guns.
So rationally less guns could only mean less gun homicides not less death period.
But both statements are objectively false let the FBI crime statistics.
Washington DC has the least amount of guns per capita in the nation last I checked due to their extremely prohibitive gun laws. In fact guns were outright de facto banned till 2010 since the police refused to ever issue civilians permits under any circumstances. Highest per capita and highest number of gun homicides in the nation too. Which again has began to decline since 2010 won’t the outlier of 2020.
Again , can’t claim one caused the other but you can say without any reasonable doubt that no matter how my you pretend other wise in the US less guns do not mean less death or even more rationally less gun homicide.
Plus if you’re truly interested in less death why focus on guns instead of things that kill the most people in the US annually an order of magnitude of gun homicides even more Thant gun homicides and suicides combined by a large margin?
Should be ban doctors and nurses medical errors is the 3 or 4 leading cause of death in the US last I checked? By your logic less doctor and nurses must mean less death.
Just forget the fact that it’s irrelevant and irrational.
But please, don’t bastardize the wrong logic which implies reason and rational thought process when you’re ignoring all objective facts on the topic.
Hell, my kids make more compelling arguments when they want ice cream than this false narrative.
@YOLOIFIC
My point is clearly made , its quite simple , the wonderful US of A needs LESS GUNS not more..
Any further dialogue is pointless.
@YOLOIFIC GUNS ARE NOT NECESSARY. You can’t compare owning guns to everyday objects that are essential to life. THERE IS NO LOGIC.
@Sarahr123 A tool is a tool, regardless of whatever irrational and arbitrary adjectives you give it without merit. Being alive isn’t essential to life? That’s news to me, being able to provide food for oneself and their family and/community isn’t essential to life. Guess I’m old fashioned I like to eat and last I checked you don’t eat you will die in about 2 to 3 months.
Guess this the same logic, that guns will reduce medical malpractice deaths. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Definitely doesn’t, doesn’t even reduce violent crime deaths. Those went up a the US Unconstitutionally cracked down on gun ownership in the early to mid 20th century.
I think what you really mean to say is “FIREAMS ARE NOT NECESSARY TO ME. You cannot compare owning guns to the everyday objected I personally find to be essential to life despite the objective fact that to tens millions of other people globally they would die in short order without access to their firearms.
If you truly an emphatically believe this nonsense devoid of any empirical evidence at all. You can choose to live without a firearm or even in one of the few nations like Japan that practically outright bans firearms.
Which goes back to my point about the importance of sovereignty. People that refuse to listen to reason at all have that right.
As do those who do listen to reason and doesn’t irrational deny that self defense and being able to obtain food are essential to life by any rational person. Not to mention even if someone the world had no need for self defense because we’ve arrived at utopia and nobody ever allows anger, hate, prejudice, or any other human emotion or lack of human emotion to convince them to choose to do harm to their fellow man and we have absolutely 0% hunger and/or food insecurity guns are still essential to life as a sport and recreation.
So I accept you choose irrationally to insist to the contrary but that doesn’t change reality.
@moloski2 I agree the US is wonderful; still no proof to support you claim it need less fire arms whatsoever but I hope one day you do have evidence. I would love to see no firearm or other tool on mankind used in anger as long as we all exist.
I’m 100% fine with sport shooing being the only shooting in a perfect world without violent conflict and violent crime between human being.
@moloski2
To insist further dialogue is pointless requires you had dialogue to being which rationally never occurred.
Can’t lose what never happened in the first place, but again being back facts not personal opinions when you wish to actually have a dialogue not talk at me and refuse to listen
by the way all this nonsense from @moloski2 @Sarahr123 is explicitly why North Carolina refused to ratify the US Constitution and submit itself to a federal government without a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution.
The 4th proposed amendment which became ratified as the 2nd Amendment was demanded to ensure the federal government and later with the enactment of the 14th Amendment no state government could deny their citizens the rights to keep and bear arms in self defense.
Liberty isn’t essential it’s fleeting and rare only truly existing in practice on nation in human history the United States of America and it cannot survive unless every American is willing to defend it against all her enemies around the world foreign and domestic.
I've made my comments pretty clear any educated individual understands the real problem which is the power of the gun lobby , its quite over the entire free world that the USA is assisting destruction via their ludicrous stance of " FREEDOM " , yeah right.
But the power is what the power is an unfortunately some will continue to believe this utter redneck , Bs stance. But , it is what it is..
The big part of the demise which has already begun. But as the OP says " EVERY COUNTRY "
thats just pure common sense..
There is no free world outside the United States. Subjects to monarchs, parliaments with absolute legislative and executive power and no inalienable rights under the law aren’t free people.
Replace free world with democratic world you got a rational thought.
The US (not USA silly goose) is not assisting any destruction especially if you imply domestic destruction of our nation.
Yes, there is a gun lobby in the US as there is in almost every other nation too. Nor does this boogie man of the irrational anti gun crusader the NRA have a fraction of the influence of the gun control lobby’s rhetoric.
America is pro 2nd Amendment because overwhelmingly her people are pro 2nd Amendment. So please you move your life as you we fit, we will live ours.
I’m not going to tell you how to rush your country. You can if you’re capable of acting like an adult do the same.
What is the us demise? The demise of America? Fat chance, that’s some pipe dream. Demise of the 2nd Amendment? Not in this century, only way you’re repealing the 2nd Amendment is if the US is dissolved which again isn’t happening.
I stick by the only rational thing anyone has said here, each country decided DoD themselves based on their own elected governments what is best for them.
That’s democracy, you want fascism where one person or one party tells everyone else in the world what to do, think, feel, and act eliminating all individual rights. The allies lead by the US defeated your perverse political ideology already once, should it ever read it head again the world will prevail again.
You do you, I’ll do me. I stand by democracy and self determination of all counties. Not some 1938 brown coat nonsense you can’t even produce a single rational counterpoint against.
Drunk driving kills people.
So is the solution to outlaw cars because drunks kill people while driving?
Nope!!!
DEAL WITH THE CRIMINAL DRUNKS WHO KILL WHILE DRIVING!!!
@MudRucker drunk driving is a criminal offence. Every example you’re giving is not making any sense. Guns are unnecessary and should be illegal to possess without licence.
@Sarahr123 Murdering some one with a gun is already illegal. It still happens.
Most murders committed with guns are done with illegal guns. So making more laws will not stop the possession of illegal weapons.
How about a zero tolerance policy on violent behavior of any type. Take the violent criminals off the streets and violence will decrease.
Its that simple.
Yes. An armed society is a polite society. Those antifa goons wouldn't be harassing dining customers if they thought they'd get shot, now would they? LOL
Both my husband and I agree with the idea of open carry.
I don't support it but it's better than them hiding it. That way I know who‘s violent. The only thing I think should be added is that you have a right to refuse service or allow entry to people carrying weapons. However, it's probably already a thing.