Jump to content

Is Concealed Carry a Right Under the Second Amendment? Make your case here.


Charles Nichols

Recommended Posts

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It doesn't get much more clear than "shall not be infringed."

 

I advocated for, practice, and teach concealed carry. I would not open carry. I am not an opponent of open carry. I do not advocate for concealed carry to the detriment of open carry. I do not understand the logic of advocating for concealed carry to the detriment of open carry, and I most certainly do not understand the logic of advocating for open carry to the detriment of concealed carry. Period.

 

x2

 

X3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I just want to know if Mr. Nichols supports our rights to CC or not. A very simple question. At that point we can decide of he's indeed friend or foe.

He already answered that question earlier in this thread, which is that he does not. He supports outlawing CC. His goal in advancing open carry is so that concealed can be outlawed entirely without running afoul of 2A protections.

It would be nice if he would respond on his own behalf.

Hee still has not responded in this thread, but in post 172 of the Peruta thread (April 29), he stated the following:

 

"Read the responses to my post "Is Concealed Carry a Right Under the Second Amendment? Make your case here." After having read all of the responses, if you still don't understand why concealed carry should be banned then there is nothing that I can add which will make you understand."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it looks like the POS coward isn't going to come back. F' him. He can just go back to prancing around his house in his girlie cowboy outfit with the pink fringe he's dying to share with the world. Hopefully, he gets ran over by a SA truck.

Why you holding back??? Tell us what you really think !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It would be nice if he would respond on his own behalf.
Hee still has not responded in this thread, but in post 172 of the Peruta thread (April 29), he stated the following:

 

"Read the responses to my post "Is Concealed Carry a Right Under the Second Amendment? Make your case here." After having read all of the responses, if you still don't understand why concealed carry should be banned then there is nothing that I can add which will make you understand."

 

 

So basically it sounds like he was just trolling and this thread is basically done.

 

Mr. Worf, load forward IBTL torpedoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He sits at his computer, manically giggling at those who respond to his false questioning. His mind is so deluded in the worth of his own convoluted beliefs, he does not see that his plan of inciting divergence among those in the unified forum is slowly being discovered for what it is... the rantings of a childish madman who begins a, "Bar fight", then leaves the establishment to watch his plan come to fruition from a distance. It is a childish mannerism which should not be encouraged, but ignored to descend into the depths of it's own excrement... And, he has cooties!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO actually it wasn't pointless. I politely asked him to honorably state his position, and explain if he is truly against CC, why? And, why OC and CC cannot coexist.

 

So yes, we see him scurrying around the forum, but avoiding this thread like a cowardly little rat after quoting social honor crap from a 100 years ago.

 

I give up. I was hoping he was an up and up guy, and I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt to clarify his thoughts - and dispense with the confusion and the blur of others opinions, but clearly you guys were all correct. He is a POS. Funny, that is quips all day about honor, but he sure doesn't embrace it himself.

 

Regardless, I will continue to support OC and CC, and would never toss OC under the bus for CC, or visa versa. Imho, to bear arms, means however the heck you want. Anyone who works to restrict either OR both OC or CC, are Anti-2A, pure and simple.

 

Mr. Nichols, go to heck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is circular and only satisfifies the need for the OP to show his superiority. People only come here to respond because it's like slowing down to look at an accident scene. I think I will speed up and move down the road. Anybody want to follow me down the road?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is circular and only satisfifies the need for the OP to show his superiority. People only come here to respond because it's like slowing down to look at an accident scene. I think I will speed up and move down the road. Anybody want to follow me down the road?

 

I think he's shown just the opposite ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yes, and I will give a short reason why:

 

Because.....

 

J/K kinda.

 

The founders set up our republic based on their research into which forms of government worked well, which didn't, and took the best of each and rejected the worst parts.

 

Knowing that most governments eventually become tyrannical, they knew that they would have to have a force of last resort - the militia. They knew that they would need to have a standing army to protect our interests here and abroad, and with that standing army came the understanding of how governments in the past have used them against the citizenry. A standing army has always been a threat, and always will be a threat.

 

Here's where some slight of hand happened - at one point during our past, each state created their own national guard. By creating that, they're basically trying to enforce the notion that the ANG is somehow the "militia" referred to in 2A. It's not, because it's run by and funded by "the state" and they get deployed overseas so effectively they're the standing army. The "militia" was never meant to be a standing army but an army of last resort. So the whole notion of the ANG being the militia is debunked.

 

Our whole government, election process, etc. was set up to ensure that no one person or group controlled the minority.

 

Today we're seeing more and more federal overreach, and it just continues to get worse.

 

While many people argue that our AR's are no match for drones, tanks, etc., what they fail to realize is that if it comes down to door to door searches and confiscations, they're going to lose a lot of door kickers to the point where they'll be short on people willing to kick doors in.

 

So when you look at the anti's and see that they want to ban AR's, mags, and all of the rest of the stuff we all cherish, it seems illogical for them to focus on something that's nowhere even remotely close to being a problem. The FBI's stats even show that all long guns combined don't even come close to the same number of homicides committed with fist and feet. The only logical explanation is that they don't want us owning them period, and they know exactly what they're doing. It's totalitarianism disguised as public safety.

 

Come and take them. First one through the door won't like the result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It would be nice if he would respond on his own behalf.

He's a troll.

 

I haven't really decided if he's an anti, part of the Bloomberg et all machine, or just backwards/luddite.

 

I also figure he started this thread, and incites other arguments on the board, to try to gather information about how pro-gun people view the situation and to try to get insight into possible legal challenges to his schemes.

 

I fully expect, if his California scheme goes as he desires, that we would end up seeing some kind of similar legal challenge in Illinois. Bloomberg is all about trying to restrict and reverse the tide of concealed carry liberalization across the country. This is a very viable long term strategy to do just that.

 

It's not about CC vs OC, it's about making carry so unviable that almost no one does so. Imagine a future where open carry is the only carry option, and anyone who open carries gets swatted by antifa types. If you read leftists on social media, the groundwork is already being laid for that.

 

These are my feelings as well. A mole. and a few other things....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Our whole government, election process, etc. was set up to ensure that no one person or group controlled the minority.

 

Tell that to Madigan.

 

You're confusing state with federal.

 

The states can act like the Soviet Union if they want. As we see with our Illinois Soviet style elections.

 

 

I'm not confusing anything, but clearly out of the election context you presented. I was not disagreeing, merely taking your quote to remark on our local situation. That said, our fore fathers absolutely did not script their vision for special carve outs to accommodate individual politicians - On any level. The fact that Madigan and the Democratic cronies have done just that, should have provoked every tripwire to prevent such tyranny in the first place, which has completely crippled this state. But this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so I will leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Our whole government, election process, etc. was set up to ensure that no one person or group controlled the minority.

Tell that to Madigan.

 

You're confusing state with federal.

 

The states can act like the Soviet Union if they want. As we see with our Illinois Soviet style elections.

 

 

I'm not confusing anything, but clearly out of the election context you presented. I was not disagreeing, merely taking your quote to remark on our local situation. That said, our fore fathers absolutely did not script their vision for special carve outs to accommodate individual politicians - On any level. The fact that Madigan and the Democratic cronies have done just that, should have provoked every tripwire to prevent such tyranny in the first place, which has completely crippled this state.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, however the states clearly had the rights to do as they wish as long as the powers they're taking aren't ones outlined in the constitution as being powers of the federal government. The 10th guarantees that for the states.

 

Unfortunately what we're seeing is states deciding which of OUR constitutional rights they want to infringe upon. As much as we all hate redistricting/gerrymandering, it was put in place by our forefathers. We just don't like it here because we're on the losing end of it. And honestly, redistricting does serve a purpose. Would you want to be represented by someone who sees things like you do, or someone whose ideology is 100% the opposite of yours? Well, it's pretty easy to find those reps based on the district they're in, and then move to that district.

 

They carve out their own districts based on demographics from the census. For example, let's say that you live in a diverse neighborhood, but it's about equally split left/right. As the maps are being redrawn, they notice that a neighborhood that is just outside the boundary would more than likely vote for your party, however they're in a district where they're the losing party. You draw that neighborhood into your district and now you've swung the balance in favor of one party, while the neighboring district remains basically unchanged.

 

For example, my last Illinois rep was a republican. This was pretty shocking considering the area I'm in isn't particularly republican. The maps were redrawn, he lost his seat to a dem. My buddy who lives on the other side of town has a completely different rep.

 

If redistricting worked in our favor, I highly doubt any of us would criticize it. It's the same mindset of people not accepting the results of Trump being elected president. If we want the maps drawn in our favor, we have to vote to get the right people in. Gerrymandering also is a best educated guess. What if people decide enough is enough and vote the opposite way? I've been doing my best to educate folks, but not trying to sway them to one side of the aisle or the other. I always ask them to review what promises their candidate made to earn their vote, and compare that to the results they've shown. If they go up for reelection and are selling the same lies, then don't vote for them, otherwise you're just as morally bankrupt as they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...