Zennie 0 #51 July 28, 2004 QuoteCCW LOWERS crime rates Two words.... Kennesaw, Georgia - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #52 July 28, 2004 QuoteSo if one state decided that they weren't going to recognize driver's licenses from any other state, and then started issuing traffic tickets to every out-of-state person driving through the state, for failure to possess a valid driver's license, then that would be okay with you? Yes. The people would be in an uproar and that would quickly be resolved. It should be up to the people, not a special interest group even if I happen to belong to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #53 July 28, 2004 QuoteI don't see how any restrictions that states put on individuals to carry concealed weapons is really all that bad of a thing. I would think that permits to carry weapons unconcealed would be a big deal, but I see no logical reason for a private individual to carry a concealed weapon. The argument is that it is a deterrent to crime, but I would think carrying it where people could see it would be more of a deterrent. That's partly because in today's freaked-out paranoid pussy scaredy-cat milquetoast anti-self-sufficiency society, the general public soccer-mom yuppie sissy boy people would just melt down if they saw people carrying on their hip. It's also partly because the idea of "keeping the criminals guessing" is also at work. If it were known that IF a person were carrying a gun, it would be carried in the open for sure, then criminals could attack anyone with no visible gun with confidence knowing he did NOT have one. They could do this after surveying the area and noting that no one ELSE had a visible gun, either. Thus the criminal enjoys the ability to ply his trade in relative safety, with no concern for armed resistance. Is this beginning to make sense to you yet? It should. QuoteQuestion, does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to carry a concealed weapon? It may give you the right to bear arms, but does that also mean you have a Constitutional right to conceal them on your persons? Since the Second Amendment does not specify concealed or unconcealed, the government would have no power to dictate which way we could carry. (Yes, I know that we have long been suffering under a usurped "power" of the government to do exactly that.) To be clear: the Constitution does not "give" us ANY rights. It guarantees rights that are understood to be ours by virtue of being human beings. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #54 July 28, 2004 Quotefreaked-out paranoid pussy scaredy-cat milquetoast anti-self-sufficiency society.... general public soccer-mom yuppie sissy boy people Oh... my... God.... Can I borrow those? - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #55 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo if one state decided that they weren't going to recognize driver's licenses from any other state, and then started issuing traffic tickets to every out-of-state person driving through the state, for failure to possess a valid driver's license, then that would be okay with you? Yes. The people would be in an uproar and that would quickly be resolved. It should be up to the people, not a special interest group even if I happen to belong to it. I think this line of thinking ("We should rely on the people steering clear of an abusive state and starving it for revenue") is specious in the extreme. For one thing, our rights should not be dependent on whether a state can or cannot withstand an economic boycott in order to make it do the people's bidding. How would the state even get the message that it was because of X policy or Y policy that it was being boycotted? How would it know which of its many policies was the one pissing people off? Since when should rights be not determined by definitive codification at law -- and merely subject to whatever the traffic will allow? What if a state decided to (if it could) suspend giving the Miranda warning to arrested suspects? Are you saying that we shouldn't do anything legally to force it to obey the law -- we should just stop spending money in that state until it "gets the message" and resumes playing by the accepted rules again? What if the state decides that it is willing to absorb the economic ramifications, if it values its policy more than the money? Then the people would be screwed, right? I think your theory is nonsensical. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #56 July 28, 2004 QuoteOf course by this point I realize nothing I say is going to stop him from wrtiting me up so I just drop it. Sure enough he wrote me up for speeding and driving without a valid registration. Needless to say I was NOT a happy camper. Dude, that is squarely fucked up. How on earth can that be legal? The sta... I mean "commonwealth" of Virginia's position is that people from all other states must have their vehicle registered in Virginia?! WTF?!?! Sounds like abuse of authority to me. You gonna fight it, I hope. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #57 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuotefreaked-out paranoid pussy scaredy-cat milquetoast anti-self-sufficiency society.... general public soccer-mom yuppie sissy boy people Oh... my... God.... Can I borrow those? Be my guest. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #58 July 28, 2004 Quote To be clear: the Constitution does not "give" us ANY rights. It guarantees rights that are understood to be ours by virtue of being human beings. Or so you'd think . . . but you'd be wrong. The Declaration of Independence outlined what some folks thought were the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", but only a country's consititution can lay the foundation of rights that will be given to a people. For instance, try using your "virtue of being human beings" argument with regard to much of what is in the Bill of Rights in a LOT of countries and you're going to get laughed at pretty freekin' hard.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #59 July 28, 2004 QuoteDude, that is squarely fucked up. How on earth can that be legal? It's not. But I wasn't going to argue full faith & credit to a guy who probably didn't really give a rats ass... let alone understand the concept. QuoteI mean "commonwealth" of Virginia's position is that people from all other states must have their vehicle registered in Virginia?! WTF?!?! Well, what was about to come out of my mouth was... "Let me get this straight... I was supposed to know in advance that Virginia required PAPER documentation (I'd argue a window sticker is still documentation) even though my own home state doesn't require it... just because I was passing through? And since when do Virginia registration documentation requirements apply to a Texas registered vehicle?" QuoteYou gonna fight it, I hope. Happened 2 years ago. And, no... fortunately I didn't have to fight it because I got a certification of registration from TXDPS and mailed it to VA along with my payment for the speeding ticket only. Never heard anything more so either I'm cool, or there's a warrant out for me in VA. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #60 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuote To be clear: the Constitution does not "give" us ANY rights. It guarantees rights that are understood to be ours by virtue of being human beings. Or so you'd think . . . but you'd be wrong. The Declaration of Independence outlined what some folks thought were the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness", but only a country's consititution can lay the foundation of rights that will be given to a people. For instance, try using your "virtue of being human beings" argument with regard to much of what is in the Bill of Rights in a LOT of countries and you're going to get laughed at pretty freekin' hard. It's you who are wrong. The Constitution does not say, "The People are hereby granted the right to free speech, and freedom of assembly..." The amendments in the Bill of Rights speak of "the right" and then say that it shall not be infringed, etc. Note that the language implies the preexistence of the rights; it does not establish the rights as though they are brand new and created by the language of the amendments themselves. In the U.S., our Constitution assumes us to have ALL power and rights, and we cede to the government ONLY what can be found in the Constitution as imparted to it, and only those laws that the government passes that are within its powers as granted to IT by the Constitution. In other words, the government is not supposed to have any powers that are not spelled out for it in that document. (I know, this concept has been perverted to the extreme, but it still is valid, even if trodden-on.) --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #61 July 28, 2004 Again -- just go to another country and try your argument. Sure, we and some other countries have it pretty good. Essentially, "that which is not specifically forbidden is permitted", but that is NOT the case in a large number of countries.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #62 July 28, 2004 QuoteAgain -- just go to another country and try your argument. Sure, we and some other countries have it pretty good. Essentially, "that which is not specifically forbidden is permitted", but that is NOT the case in a large number of countries. They haven't set up their system to be based on this concept, that's all. It's not something that you don't have to constantly maintain, Quade. It takes "eternal vigilance," don't you know. But just because other cultures get run-roughshod over by their governments, and exist at the pleasure of those governments, does not mean that our rights ALSO derive from what our government metes out to us. WE say it's not that way, and if it starts to get that way, we're supposed to fight. The PEOPLE are the final say under the U.S. Constitution. What do other countries and the way they do it have to do with us? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #63 July 28, 2004 I think the point in case is that many in here would like this country to be more like those you mention. [sarcasm]Kerry 04! to make this happen[/sarcasm]"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #64 July 28, 2004 QuoteAgain -- just go to another country and try your argument. Sure, we and some other countries have it pretty good. Essentially, "that which is not specifically forbidden is permitted", but that is NOT the case in a large number of countries. How is this relevant to carrying concealed weapons or "3 side rule" in any state in this Union? I could care less WTF England does, or Scotland - that has no bearig on me until I go there - and then if it's THAT much of an issue - I won't go. Pretty simple.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #65 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Will you stop flying a parachute because - sometimes - it malfunctions? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope, but we certainly mandate training, don't we. ____________________________ Not after the FJC."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #66 July 28, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Will you stop flying a parachute because - sometimes - it malfunctions? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope, but we certainly mandate training, don't we. ____________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not after the FJC. Really??? I was always under the impression that you had to undergo recurrency training if some one hadn't jumped for quite some time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #67 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteAgain -- just go to another country and try your argument. Sure, we and some other countries have it pretty good. Essentially, "that which is not specifically forbidden is permitted", but that is NOT the case in a large number of countries. They haven't set up their system to be based on this concept, that's all. It's not something that you don't have to constantly maintain, Quade. It takes "eternal vigilance," don't you know. But just because other cultures get run-roughshod over by their governments, and exist at the pleasure of those governments, does not mean that our rights ALSO derive from what our government metes out to us. WE say it's not that way, and if it starts to get that way, we're supposed to fight. The PEOPLE are the final say under the U.S. Constitution. What do other countries and the way they do it have to do with us? - When was the last time the IXth or Xth Amendment was invoked to defend a right not explicitly granted in the Constitution? The way it worked out, probably contrary to the wishes of the founders, is that you ONLY have the rights explicitly mentioned, and even those are under constant assault from the government.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #68 July 28, 2004 QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Will you stop flying a parachute because - sometimes - it malfunctions? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope, but we certainly mandate training, don't we. ____________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not after the FJC. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Really??? I was always under the impression that you had to undergo recurrency training if some one hadn't jumped for quite some time. The USPA says that... The Government (FAA..ect) does not care. It is perfectly LEGAL for me to take a 10 year old kid up in a Cessna 152 without a S/L, AAD, RSL, or any training and let him jump as long as he has TSO'ed and in date equipment. The same is true for recurrency issues....I can rent a plane or go to a NON-USPA DZ and let my buddy that has not jumped in 10 years do an 40 way if we want. The USPA is not law."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #69 July 28, 2004 QuoteThe USPA is not law. I understand that, though we as a group generally have no problem with some form of self-regulation. You of all people want to puch that further when it comes to canopies. Then why would it be too much to ask for gun owners to do some self regulation and require proficient training and recurrency training? Why would that be a bad idea? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #70 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe USPA is not law. I understand that, though we as a group generally have no problem with some form of self-regulation. You of all people want to puch that further when it comes to canopies. Then why would it be too much to ask for gun owners to do some self regulation and require proficient training and recurrency training? Why would that be a bad idea? Who says we don't advocate more training in handguns than in Canopy Control? How would you even measure self regulation? Grasping for a few straws there Dek - Gun Owners ARE self regulated. That is why they have GUNSI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #71 July 28, 2004 QuoteI understand that, though we as a group generally have no problem with some form of self-regulation. You of all people want to puch that further when it comes to canopies. Then why would it be too much to ask for gun owners to do some self regulation and require proficient training and recurrency training? Why would that be a bad idea? Self regulation, not LAW..BIG difference. I personally shoot every mth to stay current..and yes, I have noticed I am not as good as when I was in the military and shooting was my JOB. For the police it is their JOB to carry....As a citizen it is not my JOB and I should not have to pass the same standards as a person who has a gun as part of their JOB."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #72 July 28, 2004 QuoteSorry John - you're claiming states have no rights then. And they do. A judicial finding in one state is NOT binding in another state. A federal appellate ruling within the same circuit would be. States also regulate alcohol, traffic laws, and a host of other bits. The reason Arizona must allow a trucker from California is the interstate commerce clause. Negative. I'm saying that constitutional rights should be regulated in a uniform manner nationwide. Things like free speech, search and seizure, and gun carry. Alcohol and such are not claimed for federal control in the Constitution. As for judicial rulings, you are incorrect. If not, then my Florida divorce is only good in Florida, and Texas wouldn't also consider me to be divorced. And I'm not about to go through another divorce proceeding just to convince Texas. Likewise, a wanted felon from one state, can be arrested by other states, held, and extradited. Examples of such recognition of other state's judicial findings abound. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #73 July 28, 2004 QuoteI see no logical reason for a private individual to carry a concealed weapon. The argument is that it is a deterrent to crime, but I would think carrying it where people could see it would be more of a deterrent. Well if they all walked around with guns carried openly, then the criminals would just avoid the armed people and go after those that are unarmed and defenseless. On the other hand, by keeping the identity of concealed handgun carriers secret, the criminals can't determine who it is safe to attack and who might shoot them. Therefore, many criminals avoid attacking people and switch to property crimes instead. Thus, people are more safe, *all* of them, even those who are not carrying concealed - they get a free benefit from those that do choose to exercise that option. Thus, by having their guns concealed, the crime-deterrence effect is magnified, when compared to open carry. That's the theory behind *concealed* carry, and the statistics show that it works. The public should be thanking concealed gun carriers, rather than fearing them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #74 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo if one state decided that they weren't going to recognize driver's licenses from any other state, and then started issuing traffic tickets to every out-of-state person driving through the state, for failure to possess a valid driver's license, then that would be okay with you? Something very akin to this happened to me on the way to Bridge Day while driving through Virginia... He said "No. You have to have a registration document in Virginia."... The Virginia cop is incorrect, and I'm glad you prevailed and had that part of the ticket dismissed. Hopefully, the cop learned from the lesson you taught him, and won't pull that on anyone else. So I suppose you can empathize with how I feel about non-recognition of my CCW license in many other states. The difference is, that I have no recourse in the matter, as you did with your vehicle registration. I'm glad that this matter of gun carry was straightened out for police officers. It's a step in the right direction. It just doesn't go far enough, to include non-police CCW licence holders also. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #75 July 28, 2004 QuoteWho says we don't advocate more training in handguns than in Canopy Control? How would you even measure self regulation? Grasping for a few straws there Dek - Gun Owners ARE self regulated. That is why they have GUNS First of all, this whole thing doesn't really affect me, so there is no point to prove, hence no straws to grasp. Just trying to have a decent conversation about it. would seem though, that when views opposite yours are presented, it automatically is taken as an attack. There are many ways you can measure self regulation. USPA does it. I am sure the NRA could be quite good at it too. What I don't understand is people on this forum who desperately want canopy flying much more regulated to protect people from themselves. Yet, have problems with regulations that would protect people from themselves, but more importantly would try and protect the innocent bystander. I am not discussing banning guns. I am trying to understand what would be so wrong with nation wide mandatory annual proficiency testing to own a gun? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
