Federal Concealed Carry Permit

[General Geoff]

I'm sorry too, sorry that you can't read. Why don't you give it up and try some other tact more equal to your abilities.

I'll ignore your petty insults and skip right to the chase: You are what's wrong with America. You, the person who perpetuates and legitimizes the authority behind unconstitutional federal law. You, the person who hides "sensitive" information from the public. You, the person who may or may not agree with the status quo, but who nevertheless enforces it. I hope you're happy, because you helped murder freedom in this country. Congratulations.

When I express my opinion, I'm very careful not to criticize someone else.

Indeed.

[ehidle]

Retain CCW authority???

I think we might have a fundamentally different concept of the Constitutionally protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms.



I think you are suggesting (here - above) that it is ultimately the citizens/constituents that have the real, true power behind "legislation" in America. I couldn't agree more.

Some people misguidedly/mistakenly seem to think that the "power" needed to correct (or initiate/institute) legislation rests in the court system (the Judicial Branch), but, on this, I'm with you - the citizenry - through their elected legislators - are the ones who control what laws exist; and we control how existing laws are enforced through our collectively elected "executives".

We appear to be on the same page regarding this one point.



Personally, I like to get a very similar point across by simply stating:

I am against any violation of the Second Amendment.

If by "responsible" you simply mean "law abiding", then that's fine. If you have some other definition of "responsible" (as you used it above) then there may be a trend surfacing as to our very different fundamental understandings of exactly what a Constitutional Right is.



Who are determined to be responsible enough to have a Constitutionally Protected Right???

There's that fundamentally different understanding of the Constitution of the United States creeping in again.



Firstly, I don't recall "blaming" any one (or any group, for that matter) at all, for anything at all, in my post. Why did you think I was blaming anyone?

Secondly - I don't know about anyone else, but I "obtained" my Constitutional Rights as an endowment from our Creator; no "Legislative Act" gave them to me.

And, 3, again, I agree with you that 'awareness' must be created - namely awareness that the LEOSA is bad law - *very* bad law.

Once people know the law exists, and understand how bad it is, only then can it be fixed. Most people have no clue any such law was ever written. Heck, most people are under the foolish assumption that cops are somehow above the law to begin with.

Just like the LEOS Act, misguided ideas like this need to be rectified.

.
And - What the heck is up with the HTML setting in the board??
.

THREAD WINNER HERE

[Powdermill]

Retain CCW authority???

I think we might have a fundamentally different concept of the Constitutionally protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms.



I think you are suggesting (here - above) that it is ultimately the citizens/constituents that have the real, true power behind "legislation" in America. I couldn't agree more.

Some people misguidedly/mistakenly seem to think that the "power" needed to correct (or initiate/institute) legislation rests in the court system (the Judicial Branch), but, on this, I'm with you - the citizenry - through their elected legislators - are the ones who control what laws exist; and we control how existing laws are enforced through our collectively elected "executives".

We appear to be on the same page regarding this one point.



Personally, I like to get a very similar point across by simply stating:

I am against any violation of the Second Amendment.

If by "responsible" you simply mean "law abiding", then that's fine. If you have some other definition of "responsible" (as you used it above) then there may be a trend surfacing as to our very different fundamental understandings of exactly what a Constitutional Right is.



Who are determined to be responsible enough to have a Constitutionally Protected Right???

There's that fundamentally different understanding of the Constitution of the United States creeping in again.



Firstly, I don't recall "blaming" any one (or any group, for that matter) at all, for anything at all, in my post. Why did you think I was blaming anyone?

Secondly - I don't know about anyone else, but I "obtained" my Constitutional Rights as an endowment from our Creator; no "Legislative Act" gave them to me.

And, 3, again, I agree with you that 'awareness' must be created - namely awareness that the LEOSA is bad law - *very* bad law.

Once people know the law exists, and understand how bad it is, only then can it be fixed. Most people have no clue any such law was ever written. Heck, most people are under the foolish assumption that cops are somehow above the law to begin with.

Just like the LEOS Act, misguided ideas like this need to be rectified.

.
And - What the heck is up with the HTML setting in the board??
.

___________________________________

Hey there Bruce -

We have no conflict of issues here at all. If any disagreement is perceived, it's very likely that it is difficult to convey ones meaning with greater clarity through this means of communication.

As to the term "responsibility", please don't read anymore into that term than what one would expect. When I write responses, I presume that I am addressing people who are logical, reasonable, and conscientious citizens who abide by our laws and behave in a manner that is productive and acceptable to Americans as a whole.

It appears that every sentence one writes here is dissected and analyzed for some hidden meaning or contortion of inference. Maybe if people just read the replies for what they are there wouldn't be so much controversy. But then again, there are people here that exist for controversy and confrontation and seek it out whenever they can.

My replies have no hidden meanings and I have no agenda.

Responsibility to me is just that. You obey the laws, don't commit crimes, vote your mind when you disagree with something and you don't blow up buildings and kill people to make a statement.

Your view of responsibility, I am sure, is actually the same as mine.

But unlike you, I see no levels of responsibility. Either you are or you aren't. Responsibility and accountability have no levels or degrees to them. If you don't accept it then you are irresponsible or lack accountability. It's an all or nothing deal. Either you accept the burden placed on you or you don't. You can't say that maybe you will or I'll think about it. I'm getting long-winded here.

As to the other form that you refer to, I'm afraid you lost me as I don't analyze people's words to that depth. If I were being interviewed by a psychoanalyst, I would expect more in-depth analysis, but not here.

So bottom line is I believe we're simply both on the same page.

Finally, I dare say that our Constitutional fathers never analyzed or examined their words to the extent that some individuals have in present day. It probably would have driven them nuts!

[LittleRedToyota]

I am simply the "piano player." You don't shoot the piano player because you dislike the music.

if the music is causing someone to have an epileptic seizure, the piano player might decide to do the right thing and refuse to continue playing. even piano players are not robots. they have free will and are responsible for their own actions.

[LittleRedToyota]

Some people misguidedly/mistakenly seem to think that the "power" needed to correct (or initiate/institute) legislation rests in the court system (the Judicial Branch), but, on this, I'm with you - the citizenry - through their elected legislators - are the ones who control what laws exist; and we control how existing laws are enforced through our collectively elected "executives".

what role do you think the constitution (specifically the BOR) and SCOTUS are supposed to play then?

if the citizenry votes to completely ban guns, SCOTUS should not step in and say "um, no, the 2nd amendment says you cannot do that"?

what's the point of having a constitution and BOR then?

I am against any violation of the Second Amendment.

yet you do not seem to be in favor of the judicial branch preventing the rest of the government--let's assume for the sake of arugment they have the backing of a majority of the citizenry--from violating it. can you explain that?

[Powdermill]

I'll ignore your petty insults and skip right to the chase: You are what's wrong with America. You, the person who perpetuates and legitimizes the authority behind unconstitutional federal law. You, the person who hides "sensitive" information from the public. You, the person who may or may not agree with the status quo, but who nevertheless enforces it. I hope you're happy, because you helped murder freedom in this country. Congratulations.
Indeed.

__________________________________________

You are a prime example of why one shouldn't attempt to reason with prejudice. When you try, you get nothing back but more uncontrolled, rantings.

Go take your medications before you have a seizure.

[Powdermill]

if the music is causing someone to have an epileptic seizure, the piano player might decide to do the right thing and refuse to continue playing. even piano players are not robots. they have free will and are responsible for their own actions.

______________________________________

All piano players are evil! Shoot the piano players! :P

[unloved]

When I write responses, I presume that I am addressing people who are logical, reasonable, and conscientious citizens who abide by our laws and behave in a manner that is productive and acceptable to Americans as a whole.

It appears that every sentence one writes here is dissected and analyzed for some hidden meaning or contortion of inference. Maybe if people just read the replies for what they are there wouldn't be so much controversy. But then again, there are people here that exist for controversy and confrontation and seek it out whenever they can.

I grow weary of your insults to our community. Anyone who disagrees with you is illogical, unreasonable, lacking conscience, unproductive and unacceptable in their behavior, as well as seeking controversy and confrontation? Is that it?

[Powdermill]

I grow weary of your insults to our community. Anyone who disagrees with you is illogical, unreasonable, lacking conscience, unproductive and unacceptable in their behavior, as well as seeking controversy and confrontation? Is that it?

__________________________________________________ _____

Yet another individual looking to debate conjured inferences and parse words.

It appears to me that you and your buddy are looking for a fight just for the sake of argument. Read your own words and ask yourself if they apply to you. Then pull your head outta your differential and breath some fresh air.

Your reference to "anyone", I guess, means anyone who isn't in "lock-step" with the way you and your buddy perceive things.

But that would mean that anyone who has a different view of things "is illogical, unreasonable, lacking conscience, unproductive and unacceptable in their behavior."

"I grow weary of your insults to our community."

You sound pretty presumptuous to claim ownership of a complete group of people when it appears that you're the one in the minority.

Should I address you as "Sir" or "Your Majesty?"

[Bruce]

what role do you think the constitution (specifically the BOR) and SCOTUS are supposed to play then?

if the citizenry votes to completely ban guns, SCOTUS should not step in and say "um, no, the 2nd amendment says you cannot do that"?

It is not the role of the Judicial Branch to "step in" (as you put it) and do anything; that is not how the 'court system' works. The 'courts' are not supposed to monitor "Congress" (for example, but in the place of "Congress", you could substitute: the police agencies, a department of transportation, et cetera) then "jump out" and pounce when they spot an "unconstitutional" occurrence.

what's the point of having a constitution and BOR then?

Do you *really* need me to explain how our (the American) system of government works??

Okay - fine; but it will be an 'abridged' explanation.

In the United States of America, our government is established by our Constitution. The Constitution of the United States, literally, lays a type of 'architectural blueprint', the 'rules', if you will, for how our government is formed and, (admittedly, somewhat vague at points) in general, how it should function.

You asked (more or less) "what's the point of having a constitution" (and I am paraphrasing here: ) if the 'courts' are not the end-all, be-all "referee/police/overlords" of the Constitution?

Again, I see a fundamental difference between our respective understandings of how our government "works" (or, at least, how it is *supposed to* work).

If our court system really was "watching Congress and the President like a hawk" and really did "jump all over them" the moment they 'strayed' from the letter of the Constitution, then we would have a very different government then we do right now. I would imagine that virtually every law (of consequence) would have been "judicially" re-written if that was how it works.

Fortunately (or not), this is certainly *not* how our court system works.

Instead of explaining minute details how our government works, I will try to be brief and general:

The Legislative Branch writes laws. There is a whole system they came up with for 'proposing' a 'bill', then voting on this 'proposition', then (should the bill make it) passing it on to the Executive Branch for 'approval' (and also where any 'veto' from the Executive can even possibly be 'overridden' by the Legislative Branch).

The Executive Branch (ie: the 'White House'/President and the President's "staff" and departments - such as the Pentagon/et cetera) takes care of the day-to-day operations pertaining to 'governing'. It is in charge (the Commander-in-Chief) of the military, for example. The Executive Branch is responsible for the oversight of most of our law enforcement agencies - who bring accused criminals to court (the Judicial branch) where accused criminals may exercise their Right to Trial. Among the Executive's many various duties is to "sign" (approve/finalize) "bills" that were passed through Congress (the Legislative Branch) into "law".

Unlike the 'proactive' sort of "hover over" and "keep an ever watchful eye" type of court system one might infer exists from your post, the role of the Judicial Branch is much more 'static', so to speak; and it is a fairly simple role: The courts exist to determine if a law has been broken or not. If it is determined that indeed a law has been broken, then an additional duty of the court is to determine if any remedy is warranted (ie: punishment of the guilty or compensation for any victims).

That's it. The job of the Judicial Branch is to "judge" cases brought before it - to determine "what happened" (literally "for the record") and, in the case of any "wrong doing" (ie: broken law), establish "justice" (ie: to "correct" the "wrongdoing").

The idea (that many seem to have) that the Judicial Branch was intentionally created to re-interpret, to, literally, "re-write", the laws (laws created and passed by the other two branches) is ridiculous; it is both an offensive and mind-boggling notion when looked at with respect to our Constitution (and other founding documents, such as the Federalist Papers) and - it is patently un-American.

yet you do not seem to be in favor of the judicial branch preventing the rest of the government--let's assume for the sake of argument they have the backing of a majority of the citizenry--from violating it. can you explain that?

This statement seems to be predicated on an entirely different understanding (from mine) of our government, our Constitution, and the roles of both the Judicial Branch and Legislative Branch.

Let me make a counter statement to yours by way of a hypothetical situation which, hopefully, illustrates the proper role of the Judicial Branch; and the other branches as well.

Let us say, hypothetically, that a bill was introduced to congress that contained a provision that establishes Judaism as the 'National' religion. This bill then passes, with overwhelming majority vote (as the constituents from each representative strongly urged its passage) in both houses and it comes to the President's desk to be signed. The president then signs this bill, and, at that moment, Judaism becomes the official national religion. The President then sets into motion plans to build the First Synagogue of the United States in Washington D.C., where he will attend the first *official* American religious service. Additionally, the president signs an Executive Order that all "churches", "mosques", and all religious "places of worship" or "prayer" that are not of "the Jewish faith" are to be destroyed, and that no American is to practice any religion other than the Jewish faith; although citizens have the 'freedom' to choose among the 'orthodox', conservative, and reform Jewish 'temples', they must become 'affiliated' (ie: "register") with a Jewish temple.

Say, hypothetically, all of the above actually happened. Right now - what can the Supreme Court do? On their own initiative, they can do nothing.

Myself, if no one else did (in the above hypothetical scenario), I would file a suit against the government, and I would take it as far up the courts as I had to (including the Supreme Court of the United States). I would assert that the "establishment" of religion by congress is in direct opposition to the CotUS, as well as their hand (along with the President's) in violating my 'freedom' to *not* be Jewish.

If the courts do their job - the job they are supposed to do - then the judges won't even have to finish reading the First Amendment of the Constitution before they 'decide' in my favor. Upon 'winning' this case, the result should be that the "new law" is "stricken down". That the "establishment" of a "national religion" is 'reversed' and the Constitutional "Freedom of Religion" is re-established. All of which is, of course, what I would want - what I would *expect* - our Judicial branch to do.

In the above, I hope you will now understand that indeed I do expect the Judicial Branch to "do their job" - I think it is simply the case where you may think that they have some sort of "job" (or 'power', or 'authority') other than the one I know they have or that they operate in some sort of way than they do or should.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings or misconceptions about our government, the various Constitutional roles of the three branches, or how they should properly function.
.