I wonder what's going to happen when some liberal troll dumps a half page of Clinton propaganda at the top of this page and then has the thread locked down???...Geo

I don't think Dave Weber will lock a thread that is anti-Second Amendment.

I support what James and Dave are doing. James makes posts about those trying to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Then Dave Weber locks it. James and the antis don't get in a piss fight. The thread reports on some gun rights issue I might not otherwise see. And then it slowly works its way to the bottom of the index.

As far as fairness, this is a gun forum. Our members that like politicians and political parties that are antigun can go find another BBS to express their support for herpetic political dyanasties and for those corporations that are actively working against our gun rights.

I predict a piss fight on this thread.

Same thing as Jim's ramblings. A few dozen bored people will look at it and it will drop off into the obscurity of the second page.


_________________________
This should queer the pitch that Dave is some kind of closeted libtard idiot though

I think I agree with you Mike. Certainly a better approach than having the partisan free-for-all we usually experience...Geo

I doubt those members running Formula One Racing teams or dating 18 year old exotic dancers or currently in Patagonia for fly fishing and quail hunting will spend much time on Jim's post. But most of the rest of us will look at it.

I'll try to formulate a coherent reply Mike, but I'm currently trying to get some bimbo out of my Ferrari. Her fly rod is tangled in her hair.


________________________
C'mon Powerball!

ROTFLMAO...Geo

I agree with AmarilloMike too... Ten-thousand per-cent! And I also support what Jim and Dave Weber have done, and hope we will continue to see reminders of who and what the threats to our Second Amendment Rights are in this most important election year. Unfortunately, as Lonesome Roads noted, a locked thread will soon fade into obscurity because there are no new posts to bring it to the top.

Will you at least accept a little responsibility for our recent "partisan free-for-all" Geo? You know that King has very frequently posted anti-gun, anti 2nd Amendment, and anti-NRA rhetoric right here on a firearms related website for years. Yet you just started a TOTALLY off-topic thread propping him up. How do you justify that? I have never once contacted Dave to ask him to delete a thread or to complain about anything... even nca225 repeatedly posting filthy comments about my daughters. And I kept my pledge to myself to not cry to him when you posted that stuff.

If you had done the same thing with a biography of Jim (JamesM), many of the same guys who felt your "Kingsley L. Brown" thread was great and appropriate would have lost their minds. People were here confronting and correcting King long before I joined DoubleGunShop BBS. When I re-posted direct unedited quotes of his anti-gun rhetoric, not one person could refute it, so the predictable response of his supporters was to resort to cries for censorship, and personal insults. I was accused of going off-topic by a guy who goes off-topic every other day. King, Ed, and a few others have repeatedly sown the seeds for shit-storms by supporting those politicians who promise to infringe or eliminate our rights to own firearms. Expecting supporters of the 2nd Amendment to politely remain silent is sheer fantasy. Some 2A supporters do remain silent in a lame attempt to maintain a false atmosphere of civility. In my opinion, that silence only encourages and emboldens the Trolls. If I ever get banned from this site for supporting gun rights, I can't think of a better way to go.

Edit: this thread belongs in Misfires!

Her fly rod, yours or the Mrs.?

Sure. I knew when I posted it the article about King Brown would cause a brawl. I still think the information was pertinent in view of the questions that have been raised here regarding the truthfulness of the man's representations about his own past. He is a controversial member here and the article helped me to understand better just who he is.

I haven't posted any similar information about Jim or about you for that matter, because I don't know much about either of you. Feel free to post Jim's biography if you wish; you won't get any flak from me about it...Geo

Geo, I'm glad the extremely dated 1974 article about King helped you understand who you think he is. But since there have been no recent questions regarding the veracity of his resume, it was highly inappropriate here. You're not going to tell us that you just found that article a few days ago, are you? Your article also totally omitted the frequent anti-gun rhetoric King has posted here on a shotgun website. Direct quotations of those anti-2nd Amendment, anti-NRA, anti-lead, etc. statements had absolutely nothing to do with old questions regarding the truthfulness of his representations of his past. And you admitting that you knew it would cause a brawl makes that opinion especially pertinent. Some people might even say that you knowing that your article would create a brawl is in itself a form of trolling.

I didn't ask you to post Jim's biography. I merely made the point that several of the same guys who thought your "Kingsley L. Brown" thread was wonderful and appropriate would raise holy hell if you or I did the same for Jim.

Best reading on the site is LR's signature line!

There's a thread provided for such posts at the top of the page. Why is it that some folks just have to stretch the limits, no matter how much is provided?

Only reason I knew it'd cause a brawl was I knew you'd show up...Geo

I think the thread you prefer is for informational purposes. This is probably a better place to ask a question and get answers from the community.

How can you ask questions and get answers from the community when the thread is locked?

The way I see it Geo, all I did was provide some more recent biographical information on King in the form of several direct quotes made by him. Didn't you say you wanted everyone to understand just who he is? Then I responded to some hypocritical commentary from a few guys who support the right of King to make anti-gun statements here. I really don't recall doing any brawling, and I sure don't know why you'd wish to generate any brawling. Seems kind of irresponsible and uncivil to me. I expect you'll be getting a stern warning from your friend King.

But speaking of your totally off topic thread, I thought this was revealing:



Can you believe that King was actually lamenting the fact that Dave did not banish "a few American members" whose manners he disapproved of? I wonder who he wanted Dave to remove? This is odd considering how upset he was over AmarilloMike's "Pledge Drive to Ban Ed Good". Do you remember that? Of course you do, because you pledged $100.00 as I recall, and then rescinded that pledge and made a new pledge of $10.00. I also pledged $100.00, and offered to triple it if Mike included King. But King really criticized Mike and pleaded with him to halt his pledge drive. In my opinion, that double standard is hypocritical and a clear case of Anti-Gun birds of a feather sticking together.

I also wonder why Fin2Feather wasn't concerned when Ed recently violated Dave's rules in the "Preserve the 2nd Amendment thread- Informational" beginning with his trolling on 2/24/16? We can always count on Fin2Feather to get his panties in a knot over anything pertaining to gun rights while tolerating any other off topic crap under the sun. Did you notice that he doesn't have a problem with any of your totally off topic threads? You think he's one of those guys who feel you can vote for a politician who is a 100% extreme Anti-Gunner, and still consider yourself pro-gun? That's what I think, but I'm not brawling. Just stating the obvious in a civil manner.

All I know is if Trump gets elected we are going to have us one humdinger of a first lady!!!!


Holy smokes!!!!

You might want to grab your hooked on phonics set and review the lessons on reading comprehension as even the most scrutinizing read of King's quoted language above draws the exact opposite understanding of what you're whining about.

King is clearly commending Dave for making, what in King's view is the better of two choices, shut down misfires or expel the bad apples. Where in there do you see that King is lamenting that Dave didn't expel the offending members, which incidentally you are one of.

Time and time again King shows himself to be of better quality of character then you and this is again another example. All you do is twist and contort facts into fiction, spread blatant falsehoods and then pat yourself on your back for a job poorly done.

Nobody outside the cabal is buying your lies and the only thing you achieve is gratifying your sycophants.

You want to know about me? Here I am in a nutshell. I am a practicing Christian, political conservative, person who has worked my whole life and never asked anyone for a handout. I have a daughter, son-in-law and 7 grand children. I will have been married to the same woman for fifty years in June. I am a strong advocate of the U S Constitution and believe the "Democratic" party has been taken over by communists. The posts I make here are factual and informational period and I got sick and tired of efforts by the anti-gun jerks to defuse every thread that was meant solely for this purpose. I am a life long firearms collector and enthusiast and have strived all that time to ensure that the Constitutional rights we have are passed on to my child and grandchildren. I currently keep myself occupied doing professional(accredited ISA member) firearms and militaria appraisals for private clients and on a 13 week annual television show.
If any of you have a problem with any of this that's too damn bad.
Jim

You enthusiastically collect other things besides firearms as well Herr Oberst. Don't forget to add that to your autobiography.

Wrong again Nancy-boy. King frequently called for those he did not approve of to be expelled, and often ended his comment with, "I don't know why Dave puts up with it." You may recall that I began doing the very same thing whenever King posted anti-gun rhetoric. Ironically, he supported your fellow anti-2nd Amendment troll, Ed. Why, he even criticized certain people for vulgarity while suggesting that I should forgive you for posting vile disgusting filthy comments about my daughters. King's hypocritical double standard was as evident as your cowardice, degeneracy, and ignorance.

King also attempted to have Jim censured when he accused Jim of making threats against the anti-gunner George Soros, who King referred to as a "distinguished American". Here's a sample:





King totally twisted Jim's words and then ratted him out to Dave, and whined that posting threats like that in Canada would result in the Mounties paying you a visit. Of course, Dave did not punish Jim or even delete his opinion of Soros. I pointed out to King that Jim had merely made his opinion about Soros, and asked King to prove his false allegation. King replied with an edited version of Jim's statement that left out three little letters... IMO... In My Opinion!

And talk about twisting words, check this response to one of Jim's posts where Jim NEVER even hinted at passing along advice to Netanyahu. And just who do atheists like you and King pray to anyway???



And who could forget how King repeatedly said that Jim was not posting in Misfires because he had been under some mental strain. King knew damn well that Jim had put him on IGNORE because of a false statement that King made, and Jim repeatedly asked him to prove. After several days of Jim repeating the challenge to put up or shut up, he announced that he was ignoring King's posts:



Later he just became disgusted with all of you anti-gun trolls and quit posting in Misfires altogether. King knew that Jim was still posting in the main forum, because I made him aware of it, but he still went on to suggest that "poor Jim was under a strain" and that perhaps Dave had suspended him. Of course, behavior like that meshes perfectly with your idea of character.

I don't know why Dave puts up with it.

Quote:
"You enthusiastically collect other things besides firearms as well Herr Oberst. Don't forget to add that to your autobiography."

Ok sexual deviant. Just what the HELL do you mean by this remark? I hate to even imagine what bizarre "toys" you may have. And if you are referring to firearms and other militaria, Yes I have examples that were produced during the 3rd Reich as I'm sure several other members have as well.
Nice try and I for one shudder to think of what you own based upon the remarks you made regarding Keith's daughters.
To Dave: I didn't want to even go here and I think the best thing to so is delete this thread. However IMO this will be a continuing problem until you decide to effectively deal with it. Assholes like anti-gun nca225 and others who will do anything possible to defuse any pro 2nd Amendment thread posted here and this is just one more example.

Is this a pro 2nd thread? I missed that Herr Oberst. Besides, what I collect shouldn't concern you. It's what you collect.

I think many here don't recognize King's penchant for Passive-Aggressive communication, and mistake it for some degree of decorum. He he is able to convey unreasonable concepts in a usually reasonable manner. That's the essence of attempted sociopathic indoctrination and manipulation.

Now I know after all these years, Ken! Thanks. I thought all along---unlike Socrates saying the unexamined life is not worth living---that I was just wandering in the desert like the biblical Amos plucking wild figs.

Read King's post without my glasses. First time through I thought he said Amos was having sex with wild pigs.

DoubleGun is a great diversion for me, Mike, and I anticipate at least one or two spontaneous, burst-out-loud laughs every week. Yours just just did it for me! Thank you.

What puzzles me is why you all bother with the anti's. They ain't gonna make any converts here. Why waste your time/energy putzing with them? They have to be in heavy LMAO mode every time they poke you and you squeal.

just thot

have another day
Dr/WtS

My motivation has always been the same, it's just a message that the progress they feel entitled to might not get rubber stamped. I'm also wondering if it's possible to come up with anti facts and figures instead of just feelings.

As to wasting time and converts, heck take nca as an example. You'd think he'd have negative three stars on a gun board, but apparently he has like minded friends here. A questionable use of time for me would be, hey, if you make it to the such and such show, swing by the bar later and hang out with the dems from the DoubleGun BBS. Life's too short.

I'd hang out at the bar with Moa See Tongue his ownself if'n he was buyin'.


___________________________
The early bird always gets the worm. King Wilkie

Thot same myself, Dr. Sane. Maybe the unwarranted squealing is more from fear of the ballot box than rage against antis wherever they are. I haven't been able to arrive at any clear judgement of a single anti-gun among us although there are wide ranges of opinion on this mostly conservative board. The sky-is-falling and blue-ruin squealing comes from a few of the less mature.

I'm pretty sure it's because of some programming language that prevents you from getting less then two stars once you have them craig. Otherwise I'd have negative 20 stars or more!

FWIW, if I saw you at a gun show (which believe it or not I do frequent), I'd sit down and have a drink with you. I know you have an itch to explain to me how I am the enemy of your children's future. Could make for some fun conversation!

Since your judgement is still cloudy King, I'll try to find some time tomorrow to post a dozen or so quotes of anti-gun statements made by you, Ed, and nca. Then folks can decide whether you lack clear judgement or are living in a state of abject denial, or worse. It is rather immature to deny your own words. Stay tuned.

I hesitate to wade in here Keith, but I think perhaps, and know doubt you will provide me with evidence if I am wrong, that one might describe King as more anti 2cd Amendment than anti gun. He's definitely pro gun control a la the current state of affairs in Canada. He may have resigned himself to the idea that his political and social aspirations for our country are mutually exclusive with private gun ownership. But I don't think he is anti gun per se.

Unless one considers making views on gun ownership secondary to other views "anti gun".

Going hunting now.

I asked Dave what the stars meant about 5 years ago. He said they mean 'nothing'. It was just a part of this computer program and was unintentional when the website was set up. So, apparently stars are meaningless.

I think I've read all of King's quotes posted here, and I can't find any where he's asking for anyone to be kicked off the board. Disagree with him if you want, but make sure your accusations are accurate.

Now awaiting a rant about how he's anti-gun etc--several of which we've already seen here--and which has nothing to do with the point I was making above.

And while I don't always agree with Wonko, he makes a good point. Why worry about people you see as being anti-gun on this BB? Highly unlikely they're going to convert anyone here to their point of view. They represent a very small minority of the people who post here.

James, is it possible for anyone to be against the Second when there's an enduring national debate of what it is? Jim says the Second is an inalienable right. I've questioned what he means. Does he mean it can't be changed from its original purpose? Does he mean it's not open to debate, unquestionable?

If so, which interpretation from left and right is he using? The Supreme Court itself is loose as a goose in its findings, leaving boroughs, municipalities, towns, cities and states to make their own 2nd ajudications. Our estimable lagopus wasn't anti-2nd for posting this on another thread today:

"I find, from what I read, that each State has it's own interpretation on gun laws and what is legal in one state becomes an offence in the next. It must make it quite complex at times. What is it I hear about the severe restrictions on gun ownership in New York city and Washington D.C.? How to they view the 2nd. Amendment so differently? Just curious."

C'mon guys we all know kieth has the final say in who is anti gun. Guns should only be sold to anyone that kieth gives the final thumbs up to. There are U.S citizens that would not get a gun under kieth's rule or worthy of having a fully automatic M60 as their carry gun.....but of course....in kieth's mental view, that's not gun control or anti gun....that's just kieth deciding, and dam be anyone who thinks otherwise.

Can't wait for his typical 5 paragraph diatribe.

D.

Well, there has been some debate at the SC level but I wouldn't describe the SC's position as loosey goosey.

While not an American, when it comes to the US Constitution I personally am what might be called an originalist. It is the US Constitution and IMHO should not be "interpreted" for modern times. It attempts to deal with problems and issues that the founders felt were universal and timeless and the Supremes are often sorely tempted to make their own laws.

The founders clearly wanted the individual to be able to protect himself from an overreaching state and to be able to rein in that state. That theme, of protection against the excesses of the state, runs through the US constitution, as well as most other aspects of the politics of the day and the writings of the founders. To view it any other way is to be an activist, bent on expanding the power of the state at the expense of the individual.

One might think that good, one might think that bad. I think it's bad.

Without a good constitution up here but instead that silly Charter of Rights and Freedoms Trudeau Sr saddled us with, we have spent 30 years at the mercy of a activist, appointed SC, overriding the people's representatives, Parliament, accountable to no one and more often than not, leading public opinion rather than following. Rule by the elites who purport to know better. Beverley McLaughlin and Louise Arbour have been quite specific about how they know better than the rest of us. It's a very slippery slope. A bad state of affairs IMHO. Trudeau Senior was a traitor.

King, the Second Amendment has been ruled by the highest court in our land as an individual right to keep and bear arms. That is fact. No uncertainty in that ruling. The Second is just as much of a right as free speech, freedom to choose my religion(or not), and my right to due process.

When you get down to cases then in the states then yes, there is uncertainty as to what is constitutional. The state of Illinois had to pass a law that allowed concealed carry to comply with the US Constitution. That is fact. The reason the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution applies to states is another amendment (14th?) that extends the protections of the Federal Bill of Rights to protection from the state level governments.

But the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable individual right in the United States. To argue that we can't hold our own in a debate with the anti-gun-rights crowd because no one knows what the Second Amendment means is grossly inaccurate and near sophistry.

'But the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable individual right in the United States'

AM...Just asking...are you saying that NOONE should be denied from bearing arms?

If you answer is no, then you agree a line should be drawn somewhere in the sand, and you are in favor of gun control like keith, and are anti gun.

If you say yes, then you are saying every citzen has the right to bear, carry any firearm they want, even fully autos into a theater?

You can't have it both way's. Either it's a right for ALL, or a right for some. Who picks the some?

D.

Well, I certainly don't think the prisoners in the state prison or the Federal prison should be allowed to keep and bare firearms. Of course, when they were arrested they were informed of their constitutional right to remain silent, given their constitutional right to an opportunity to put up reasonable bail, had counsel provided for them if they could not afford it as is their right, given the opportunity to a be tried by a jury of their peers as is their constitutional right, and then either pled guilty or been found guilty. So their right to keep and bear arms had been lost after they were found to be criminals and after many constitutional due processes.

So those prisoners lost their constitutional right to keep and bear arms because they were convicted, after due process, of a felony or high misdemeanor.

But if the Mr. Obama issued an executive order declaring that all semi-auto rifles held by citizens were to be confiscated by the Federal government he would be violating my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, he would be taking my property without the constitutionally required due process. I am sure he would be violating the constitution in other ways too.

I believe that Obama would, if the constitution allowed it, issue an executive order banning citizen possession of AK47 and AR15 type rifles. Part of what prevents him from doing that is the Second Amendment.

There's no question of the right to bear arms. The debate is Under what conditions? As you commented, there is uncertainty as to what is constitutional. So thousands of constituencies democratically make distinctions of their "right" to live as they choose, pro- and anti-firearms. (Canada has federal firearms legislation expressed by all citizens democratically through the will of Parliament.)

Mike, I've tried to explain that to dla (sic) several times before. It's a complete waste of time. In dla's (sic) little mind, if you think that kindergarten kids should not drink whiskey, then you must be in favor of Prohibition.

To have common sense, you first must have intelligence. dla (sic) has neither.

I've been pretty busy this morning, but I'll try later to put up a bunch of anti-gun (or, to be more accurate for canvasback, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-NRA, anti-certain classes of guns quotes from King and some of our other anti-gun Trolls.

EDIT: King Brown also knows good and well that we all acknowledge that there are and have been restrictions and infringements upon the 2nd Amendment. Where those infringements upon the rights of law abiding citizens occur, it it almost universally in states, cities, and jurisdictions controlled by the Liberal Left Anti-Gunner politicians that King supports and defends.

You cannot knowingly support or vote for someone with a life-long anti-gun record and claim to be pro-gun. It's like the owner of an abortion clinic claiming to be pro-life. It's insane and it is intellectually dishonest.

How can there be a debate on love, family, lack of carelessness and obligation to community if it's an inalienable right of the motherland to meter out happiness?

Here and there you've made anti comments. More often than not, the justification was because, you've written, the right is the source of racism and misogyny. How would you debate with, well the current fellow is a-okay because the color, pardon me, colour, of his skin is such a symbol of greatness, and next next one is a bit flawed, but she's pro women's rights?

Now that's just silly, Dal. For example, we all know that in jurisdictions that aggressively protect the right to free speech, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. We all know that laws exist that cover slander and libel.

Free speech doesn't mean being able to say anything, anywhere.

I suppose the framers of the US Constitution made the assumption we are going to be adults about things.

King, in most cases, there is no question what is constitutional. There is no question that those felons in the Huntsville State Prison have no right to keep arms in their prison cell and bare them as they go to their communal meal or to their exercise yard. There is no question that I have the right to keep and bare arms.

Are you arguing that if the majority of citizens in New York State choose to kick out all Republicans they are allowed to? You are wrong. Freedom of association and freedom of speech and the right to due process protect the right of Republicans to live in New York State, regardless of what the majority of New York Staters want.

It is a very narrow area of the Second Amendment that is currently being adjudicated. The main principles are settled.

I know many progressives are in denial over this, but facts are facts.

Keith, the second part of what I quoted from you has a certain "yer either wit me or agin me" kind of flavour.

Do you think it's possible to be pro gun but have issues of guns or gun ownership not be core values that drives ones choices, for example as to what candidate to support, knowing those candidates had a different opinion on guns.

I don't think governments should run deficits. Ever. But just about every candidate I have voted for that has been part of governing has supported deficit financing at some level. Does that make me pro deficit or just indicate I have other, higher priorities ?

The 'problem' has never been the possibilities, anything's possible. The problem seems to be some calling for the high road and civility, when they have no desire or intention of holding themselves to some standard because it's a tactic to belittle others instead of razzle dazzle with facts and figures. If different core values are critical to 'discussion' on the second, then how about some quick what's and why's.

Take for instance King's, always the gentleman, comment back a bit. Democracy and Parliamentary representation is poetry, but we know he'll turn to the court system to avoid the inconvenience of road bumps to progress. On another thread, I wondered about voting left on some feeling about public land hunting, and ignoring the consequences of an activist court, but it'll be spun into a beautiful thing. That's the way I feel, so don't ask for proof.

I've never understood this obsession with supposed anti-gun and libtard trolls because internet bulletin boards are merely entertainment.

We’re not somehow actually changing minds, or actually eradicating ignorance and thoughtlessness. Sure, there’s some exchange of information, and some stuff gets bought and sold. For the most part we’re all indulging in a useless pastime. A different viewpoint or an insult, no matter how egregious, is really of no consequence. Sometimes it’s important (and actually useful) to take a stand in a conversation, but usually it’s just a kind of indulgence. Nothing wrong with an indulgence but know what you’re engaging in: a virtual lunchroom food fight.

One observation though, if somebody says an insult was childish or bad-mannered, it means the hit landed. That’s always fun to watch.

Excellent point Craig. And just what I was railing about a few posts back. The damn courts! I'd feel better if they were elected positions at the SC level rather than appointees. I don't even like the supposed "conservative" appointees. At best, when they are conservative, they are just doing what they are supposed to be doing rather than making new laws.

Yup!

Mike, you and I weren't discussing the constitutionality of regulating felons in prison nor majorities making laws in their legislatures---nor were we arguing. We may agree that interpreting the Second differently in a narrow range has made it a seemingly imperishable national debate. Commenting on the varying constitutional findings and regional contradictions doesn't make you or me for or against the Amendment. It would be factual to say Mike and King have the same positions on the right to bear arms (although we may not). But our positions would still be opinions, not facts. Thus the ongoing debate of what the Second means.

+1

But here are some facts:

Federal prisoners do not have the right to keep and bare arms.

State Prisoners do not have the right to keep and bare arms.

Felons do not have the right to keep and bare arms.

Those adjudicated to be mentally defective do not have the right to keep and bare arms.

I have the right to keep singleshot rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

I have the right to keep double barreled shot guns and rifles.

I have the right to keep revolvers and semi-auto pistols, rifles, and shotguns.

I have a right to carry a pistol in my car.

I have a right to openly carry a long gun in public.

I have the right, if I have a concealed carry permit, to carry a pistol openly on my hip.

When I am not in Texas some of those rights may go away, depending on where I am.

And that is all settled law. No opinion, just fact.

But your argument that because there are some small unsettled legal areas in Second Amendment rights makes everything discussed about the Second Amendment just opinion is factually incorrect. The Second Amendment is almost completely settled law.

'Free speech doesn't mean being able to say anything, anywhere.'

Exactly. Thanks for making my point.

Who decides what the parameters of 'free speech' is, and who decides what 'the right to bear arms' entails....will always be in dispute, from generation to generation.

For an anti-gunner and a right wing voter, my gun safe keeps getting more and more crowded every year. Go figure.

D.

Dal, go back to my earlier point about the intent of the 2CD Amendment. Its not about hunting or target shooting or personal defence from crime.

It's about being able to resist an all powerful state, when it is time. With that in mind and leaving out the felons and mentally troubled, most gun control advocates are after the guns most likely to be used to resist the state. Therein lies the problem and the discord.

Agreed....

D.

You can't legally shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire). You can and most likely will be prosecuted if you do that.

But, because of the First Amendment, the government can't muzzle theater goers at the front door in order to keep them from shouting "Fire!". Might save lives. But freedom, inlcuding freedom of speech, is very important. It is even important enough to be put in our constitution.

'But, because of the First Amendment, the government can't muzzle theater goers at the front door in order to keep them from shouting "Fire!....'

If you mean physically muzzle, then that is a good point AM.

Something to think about....hmmmmmm

D.

If we're talking about the ability to confront a government that oversteps its bounds, and if we're talking about original intent, the 2A makes a lot less sense now than it did in the 18th century. Back then, individuals could arm themselves so that they were pretty much equal in comparison to the arms the military possessed. But I don't think anyone is going to win an argument that the 2A gives an individual the right to own a nuke, or a tank or attack helicopter or jet fighter with all weapons systems operational. And without sophisticated weaponry, the guys who spend weekends in the woods shooting guns and talking about confronting the evil feds . . . well, they just need to pop open another beer and dream on. Defending hearth and home against criminals, on the other hand, still makes good sense.

I was a Wisconsin resident when they finally got around to passing a concealed carry law. (One of the last states to do so.) In order to qualify, all you need to do is pass the background check and produce your DD-214 if you're a veteran, or your hunter education card. Some people who are not anti-gun question getting CC based on hunter education, since there's no live fire requirement, and since a hunter education course is unlikely to even touch on the subject of handguns. For that matter, although all vets have had at least some firearms training, there are plenty that never received any handgun training.

Not too long ago, Iowa changed its CC law from "may issue"--with each county sheriff having the right to deny CC for any reason he chose--to "shall issue", which means the sheriff has to demonstrate why someone should NOT get a CC permit. That, I think, was a very positive change. But between the states, there's a wide variety of conditions under which you can legally "bear" arms, if the weapon in question is a concealed handgun.

In the first paragraph, you interpreted the intent of the Constitution by making a joke of an apparently lawful group. Next paragraph, qualifications in general are called into question involving the majority of folks in another lawful group. And then, a one word discriminator is positive?

One might hope that 'shall issue' law is based a bit on fact rather than satisfying feeling. The only thing that you mentioned that 'makes good sense' was defending the home. I'd wonder if we need law to conceal a legal firearm in one's home. Sorry about that Larry, I'm just wondering out loud about why particular points are emphasized and developed. You have a good weekend.

Craig, not sure what you're trying to say in the first sentence. And I never questioned "qualifications" to meet the requirements of the law. I simply pointed out that Hunter Education is highly unlikely to deal with handguns period, and that even the military is no guarantee of handgun training. If someone has neither of those in WI, then you have to undergo training to get CC. In IA, if you're not a vet, you need to undergo training. Simply presenting some facts relative to qualifications for CC, Craig--comparing vets (and those with hunter ed in WI) to those who fall into neither category. Hey, I like it that I can get CC based only on my 214. But my 214 does not guarantee that I've had the same training a non-vet must undergo to get a permit.

"Shall issue" is based on a LACK of fact, Craig. The sheriff needs a fact-based reason to deny CC, rather than just saying "Your application doesn't look to me like you have a legitimate need to carry concealed." Which is the way it worked under "may issue".

Dueling Banjos in the background....The beat goes on...