• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

No Carry Permit

If someone has a record of DUIs, they remain in a rehab program; you don't give them a license to drive; you put them in a mental facility if that interferes with their ability to function in society. There is no correlation between DUI and the Right to exercise a Right that we are guaranteed cannot be infringed.

A car is a deadly tool and its use is licensed. The constitution has no weight in todays society because it can be amended or ignored.
 
This board is privately owned. Politicians have the power to ban a high capacity magazine, but they do not have the authority.

If a person violates the law, it is the duty of society to punish the individual; to demand they pay restitution for their crimes and that they be REHABILITATED. It is the duty of the society that passes the sentence to also be charged with knowing when a person can be returned back to society. Once a person has paid for their crime, done their time and they have been rehabilitated, there is no constitutional provision that allows for making them a second class citizen, deprived of a Right that is guaranteed NOT to be infringed. The guy who had a drinking problem still has a Right and a duty to protect himself and the lives of his loved ones. Besides, one's punishment should fit the crime they're charged with. Most alcoholics don't commit crimes with firearms. And the Constitution says a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Once their punishment is over, they should rejoin society as equals. Otherwise, the judge punished them once for the crime and determined the time period for incarceration. Today, society then says, let's give people a life sentence for even a youthful indiscretion - which creates two classes of citizens, which in turn, creates liberal Democrats.

Advocating that we allow people that we know, without any reservation, pose a threat to society (based upon quantifiable evidence) to run amok in a free society is the epitome of irresponsibility.

A privately owned establishment has the right to infringe on your rights as an American citizen. Gotta love big business. Soon well be peeing in the womens bathroom, oh that happened already... Punishment for a child molester or a murderer should never be over since one is dead and the other scarred for life. There was a reason at one point when bringing a gun to a bar was a bad idea.
 
A car is a deadly tool and its use is licensed. The constitution has no weight in todays society because it can be amended or ignored.
1) You don't own your car

2) You don't own the road

3) Can be legally amended is a future event. Until firearms are made a privilege, the Second Amendment says that the Right cannot be infringed. So, when it happens, that action is illegal. Even the government is capable of breaking the law.
 
A privately owned establishment has the right to infringe on your rights as an American citizen. Gotta love big business. Soon well be peeing in the womens bathroom, oh that happened already... Punishment for a child molester or a murderer should never be over since one is dead and the other scarred for life. There was a reason at one point when bringing a gun to a bar was a bad idea.

You are certainly well within your Rights to lobby for death sentences and / or mandatory life without parole for certain heinous offenses.

I have Rights and you have Rights. Now, whose Rights should take precedence? It's a fair question. One of the great hallmarks of our constitutional Republic is the Right to own private property. Think of your private property line as being the boundary to your own private country. When someone leaves the boundary line into your private property, they now have to abide by YOUR laws. Those people have a Right to Life so you cannot kill them; they have a Right to Liberty, so you cannot compel them to stay on your property, but it's your property so you can tell them to leave.
 
Who determines trust? Politicians?
They dont trust us with 10 round mags.

You realize this forum takes away some of your "freedom of speech" by being moderated and you seem ok with that since you're still here.
I would assume it would be the people deciding if you let him out of jail or not.
The parole board would be a good start.
Do you really think if someone's out free and they want a gun that they won't be able to get one?
I believe that before you release someone from custody you need to believe they are less likely to commit a crime as opposed to likely to commit one. Once you determine that they are less likely to commit a crime. They should be released with restoration of all of their right. 3rd Strike you're out you don't ever get released again.
 
Back to the question: would I sell to someone without a carry permit? and why -

yes I would. because a carry permit is not required to buy a gun.

and I'm not required to see a carry permit to sell a gun..

I may have my own internal guidelines I follow, but I would not refuse to sell to someone because they did not have a carry permit.
 
Back
Top Bottom