American Gun Laws

[Big Jim P]

Open carry of long arms was always legal in Texas, and as of today, people with a CHL can carry openly. Now we just need Constitutional carry and we are good.

I posted about training in school a few pages back.

Why would there be a need for Constitutional Carry?

It is our right and there is no reason not to.

[Imperializt Russia]

Wow you didn't even bother reading more than one line. Kudos.

Clearly you're only interesting in quoting specific parts of an article to prove your point, but unfortunately I read the entire conclusion section. At least you tried, though.

Guess I've proven your contribution to this debate is insignificant and unreliable.

I read the rest, its just that everything they deem as potentially effective elsewhere in the conclusion is already in place, and they argue against waiting periods.

No-one here is arguing for waiting periods.

[Big Jim P]

Except it really wouldn't, there's 300,000,000 (probably closer to 400 million with the recent up in gun sales for the past few months) guns in this country. That number only gets higher when you start counting black market guns and whatnot too. I can respect the efforts of the gun control side, but that looks like a really unwinnable battle no matter what from where I'm standing.

It's never too late to start efforts for improving. Just because it won't bear fruits in your lifetime doesn't mean it's not worth it, which is a big issue these days because most people are to self-oriented to ever think about the future of their country or world that extends beyond their lifetime.

Reducing or elimination privately owned gun is not an improvement.

[Esternial]

Why would there be a need for Constitutional Carry?

It is our right and there is no reason not to.

That's not a good reason.

Why wouldn't a regular law suffice and why does it have to be a right? It's not you right.

Use arguments, Jim.

[Big Jim P]

I read the rest, its just that everything they deem as potentially effective elsewhere in the conclusion is already in place, and they argue against waiting periods.

No-one here is arguing for waiting periods.

A few pages back someone called for waiting periods.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's never too late to start efforts for improving. Just because it won't bear fruits in your lifetime doesn't mean it's not worth it, which is a big issue these days because most people are to self-oriented to ever think about the future of their country or world that extends beyond their lifetime.

Reducing or elimination privately owned gun is not an improvement.

He's not suggesting either of those things.

Except, presumably, in cases where regulations introduced as part of gun control measures cause gun owners to fall foul, in which case they would probably forfeit their weapons.

[Esternial]

No-one here is arguing for waiting periods.

A few pages back someone called for waiting periods.

There's a difference between calling for something and objectively stating they have been show to help reduce suicide rates.

[Imperializt Russia]

No-one here is arguing for waiting periods.

A few pages back someone called for waiting periods.

That person is not here now.

Besides, it's not as though waiting periods are some huge grievance.

[Big Jim P]

It is our right and there is no reason not to.

That's not a good reason.

Why wouldn't a regular law suffice and why does it have to be a right? It's not you right.

Use arguments, Jim.

It most certainly IS our right. See the Second Amendment.

Maximizing liberty, freedom and independence is in and of itself a good thing. You don't need a reason for doing so, you need a reason for restricting said rights.

[Kraslavia]

People forgett that there are many more methods, to keep govt away from your liberties, than having gun.

[Xovland]

The US is far greater in power and wealth than the UK or Saudi-Arabia. And you consider Saudi Arabia peaceful? It is okay for you to execute just about anyone for some ridiculous religious bull?

Death penalty is fine, and is a necessity, to weed out the unneeded obstructions to peacefulness. I agree with most of KSA's executions(rape, robbery, murder, drugs...), minus those where they execute women for some petty stuff.

This sounds like something Light Yagami would say.

[Esternial]

That's not a good reason.

Why wouldn't a regular law suffice and why does it have to be a right? It's not you right.

Use arguments, Jim.

It most certainly IS our right. See the Second Amendment.

Maximizing liberty, freedom and independence is in and of itself a good thing. You don't need a reason for doing so, you need a reason for restricting said rights.

I'm asking for proper argumentation as to why you think that this would improve life in your country and why an alternative is simply not good enough. What you mention is not in any way an objective fact, nor really a concrete argument - it's more of a vague catchphrase.

[Big Jim P]

A few pages back someone called for waiting periods.

That person is not here now.

Besides, it's not as though waiting periods are some huge grievance.

They are an unnecessary infringement.

[Geilinor]

That's not a good reason.

Why wouldn't a regular law suffice and why does it have to be a right? It's not you right.

Use arguments, Jim.

It most certainly IS our right. See the Second Amendment.

Maximizing liberty, freedom and independence is in and of itself a good thing. You don't need a reason for doing so, you need a reason for restricting said rights.

Open carry is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Try again.

[Esternial]

That person is not here now.

Besides, it's not as though waiting periods are some huge grievance.

They are an unnecessary infringement.

That depends, really. If I'm not mistaken a study has shown they reduce suicide rates. Not so "unnecessary".

[Geilinor]

No-one here is arguing for waiting periods.

A few pages back someone called for waiting periods.

Only because I found a study showing that they reduced suicides. Individual measures should be considered based on their merits. I don't think you read Esternial's posts arguing for study-based debate.

[Big Jim P]

It most certainly IS our right. See the Second Amendment.

Maximizing liberty, freedom and independence is in and of itself a good thing. You don't need a reason for doing so, you need a reason for restricting said rights.

I'm asking for proper argumentation as to why you think that this would improve life in your country and why an alternative is simply not good enough. What you mention is not in any way an objective fact, nor really a concrete argument - it's more of a vague catchphrase.

When the choice is between restricting a right and not, then without good reason, the default (in any sensible place) is to not restrict. Constitutional Carry makes exercising ones right to bear arms easier.

[Esternial]

It most certainly IS our right. See the Second Amendment.

Maximizing liberty, freedom and independence is in and of itself a good thing. You don't need a reason for doing so, you need a reason for restricting said rights.

Open carry is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Try again.

Where we can or not is also irrelevant to this discussion.

The important aspect to a debate is about whether we should.

[Big Jim P]

They are an unnecessary infringement.

That depends, really. If I'm not mistaken a study has shown they reduce suicide rates. Not so "unnecessary".

Overall suicide rate, or gun-specific suicide rate?

[Geilinor]

I'm asking for proper argumentation as to why you think that this would improve life in your country and why an alternative is simply not good enough. What you mention is not in any way an objective fact, nor really a concrete argument - it's more of a vague catchphrase.

When the choice is between restricting a right and not, then without good reason, the default (in any sensible place) is to not restrict. Constitutional Carry makes exercising ones right to bear arms easier.

Everything you want doesn't need to be in the Constitution. We have the regular legislative process for this.

[Big Jim P]

It most certainly IS our right. See the Second Amendment.

Maximizing liberty, freedom and independence is in and of itself a good thing. You don't need a reason for doing so, you need a reason for restricting said rights.

Open carry is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Try again.

Technically it is: "...keep and BEAR arms"

[Big Jim P]

When the choice is between restricting a right and not, then without good reason, the default (in any sensible place) is to not restrict. Constitutional Carry makes exercising ones right to bear arms easier.

Everything you want doesn't need to be in the Constitution. We have the regular legislative process for this.

Indeed, and we are working on getting Constitutional carry passed in Texas, and nation-wide.

[Patridam]

I read the rest, its just that everything they deem as potentially effective elsewhere in the conclusion is already in place, and they argue against waiting periods.

No-one here is arguing for waiting periods.

Waiting periods are already in place in several states.

[Esternial]

I'm asking for proper argumentation as to why you think that this would improve life in your country and why an alternative is simply not good enough. What you mention is not in any way an objective fact, nor really a concrete argument - it's more of a vague catchphrase.

When the choice is between restricting a right and not, then without good reason, the default (in any sensible place) is to not restrict. Constitutional Carry makes exercising ones right to bear arms easier.

Things is, I don't think open carry has been validated by the Supreme Court.

[Big Jim P]

Open carry is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Try again.

Where we can or not is also irrelevant to this discussion.

The important aspect to a debate is about whether we should.

There is no reason we should not.