And what’s all this crap about long rifles only until 21?? You can join the Navy at 17 but can’t carry a revolver?

What about the 16 year old debutant? Why can’t she have a Glock to protect herself?

Is it NOT true that more guns for everyone is that only way to be safe? Why are these beautiful girls not issued pistols? Don’t we want them safe??

You guys are Hippocrates….

Brewha wrote:

Spell check error vs. no spell check vs. totally intentional?
I await his word...

rfenst wrote:

Pistols should be implanted in the fetus the moment it is viable. Gives them a 50/50 chance against the abortionist.

8trackdisco wrote:

In my opinion, Yes. Main reason is if someone, or a group of people seeing you open carrying, they are more likely to get the jump on you, and at best, you lose your gun.

Like having the element of surprise.

8trackdisco wrote:

Are we debating “shall not be abridged”?

Sounds like some abridging going on here.

HockeyDad wrote:

I’d like to plead incompetence….

Brewha wrote:

Gives us all the right? The End?

Given how you believe the Constitution should be interpreted and applied, were does the Constitution even mention any version of concealed carry (or age)? (I'm not talking about ownership.) It doesn't.

Shouldn't it, therefore, be up to each state to decide itself about open carry and concealed carry?

rfenst wrote:

I meant, and admit I may have misunderstood restrictions prior to this constitutional carry wave, why is it one could open carry in some states, yet need a permit to conceal the weapon?

Sunoverbeach wrote:

Yessir. "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Keep = own, bear = carry... and they said SHALL not. They didn't say may not, or should not... they made it crystal clear with the words SHALL not.

SCOTUS has already ruled that NY's laws are unconstitutional. Would you care to refute the SCOTUS, counselor? I'd like to hear that argument.

MACS wrote:

Am picking up what you are laying down. However (comma) if you don’t let felons and crazy people carry, aren’t their rights being infringed?

8trackdisco wrote:

The idea is if your pistol is showing, everyone can see the “threat”. There have been cases where open carriers were stopped, detained, searched, and were fined for distributing the peace, due to the panic the gun caused.

The gun was confiscated. The guy paid his fine, but never got his gun back. In some gun circles, they lament that guns often get “lost” in police storage.

8trackdisco wrote:

but you're leaving it up to the gubment to determine who is OK?

frankj1 wrote:

No sir. By being felonious nut bags, they forfeit those rights.

MACS wrote:

Well... sort of. The felons DQ'd themselves. The crazy is where they get'cha.

MACS wrote:

then it's either gubment or following the science...something gotta give.
You want I should have Drafter be The Decider?

frankj1 wrote:

Possession of a Cuban cigar is a felony. No gun for that dude? No it's not. Not even a misdemeanor. I got burned importing them and only received a letter.

I’m fuzzy on the Nutbag angle. I don’t know where that line should be drawn either.

If a person is being treated for any mental illness- ptsd, anxiety, depression, they should be precluded from carrying?

Seems it would only stop people from getting help for those issues.

8trackdisco wrote:

As to the second part, I don't disagree. I'm almost 100% certain I have PTSD... would never think about telling the VA that. It was fine for me to carry a gun and kill people at their behest, but doing so renders me incapable of defending myself?

Yeah. I'll pour myself a warm cup of STFU and maybe a bourbon or two to deal with it. 😁

MACS wrote: