Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Opinions on Conceal Carry Permits?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Opinions on Conceal Carry Permits? (Page 6)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author

Topic: Opinions on Conceal Carry Permits?

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-12-2007 09:36 AM

More information about the Karl Lippard Combat NCO pistol can be found here.

| IP: Logged

Andy Muirhead
Master Film Handler

Posts: 323
From: Galashiels, Scotland
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 11-13-2007 07:33 PM

This thread is about the most surreal I've ever read here. Otherwise sane and intelligent people seriously discussing the best equipment for killing other people.

I know in the US that civilian gun ownership is very common etc, but it still chills me to the bone.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-13-2007 10:11 PM

The United States is a very different country than any in Europe. The culture is very different. Individual freedom is a cornerstone of that. And our popular culture tends to glorify all the bad things, especially violence. How dare anyone allow little 8-year old Timmy to accidentally be able to find material that lets him see a naked pair of female breasts. But little 8-year old Timmy can disembowel opponents in bloody glory in his favorite video game. When he hits puberty he can roll like a O.G. "original gangsta."

I don't endorse the sick nature of America's popular culture or even the negative core values for that matter.

However, I don't have any obligation to be a defenseless, pacifist target for the many bad people in this country either. This week one of my friends talked about an old friend in Frederick, Oklahoma falling victim to a home invasion and beaten within an inch of his life and home ransacked. That right there is reality in America. It isn't going to change if I turn over my guns to the police. As long as I have the right to legally defend myself, I am going to do it. I certainly don't ever want to have to shoot anyone in self defense. But I'm not going to get murdered or severely beaten while totally defenseless either.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-13-2007 11:09 PM

Governments have a vested interest to indoctrinate irrational fear about guns into the general population.

If they teach you to fear guns they don't have to work as hard to keep you from having one or even wanting to have one in the first place.

The constitutional right to own firearms is simply another form of "checks and balances" on government. A government which knows its people could rise up and throw them out of power if it doesn't satisfy the needs of the majority of the constituency will be kept in check and prevented from overstepping its authority to rule.

The true meaning of the Second Amendment has comparatively little to do with protection and self defense. Keeping the government in check is its more important function.

And, Andy, for all the blustering I do around here about the firearms I keep, you have very little to worry about. The solution is simple: If you come to my house, ring the doorbell!

I'll come to answer the door and, if I think you're okay, I'll let you in. I guarantee you'd never even know the difference if I didn't tell you.

| IP: Logged

Scott McGuire
Film Handler

Posts: 94
From: Elmira, NY/United States
Registered: Oct 2007

posted 11-14-2007 12:31 AM

Since this asks for my opinion then here it is. If everyone in the country had the opurtunity for conceal carry then no one would ever know who had or did not have a gun on them. I think that this alone would drop crime. Because right now the criminals run around with illegal guns and the rest of us have to go through the proper procedure to just buy them. Imagine some guy trying to rob you with a gun he doesn't even know how to use and seeing his face when you pull one right back at him.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-14-2007 12:59 AM

There was a funny story in the local news a few years back:

Some stupid dirt bag walked into a pizza shop brandishing a stolen H&K P7. He waved it around for a while then tried to fire a round into the air to scare the guy behind the counter.

The stupid shit didn't know that the P7 has a squeeze-cocking lever in the grip and it won't fire if you don't pull the lever back.

Well, the gun went "Click... Click!"

About 0.68 seconds later, the clerk jumped over the counter and called for his buddy, in the kitchen, to come back him up. Those guys beat the tar and feathers out of that bastard!

When the cops got there they were repeatedly bashing that fucker's head into the counter! [Eek!]

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 11-14-2007 08:01 AM

The idea that, today, citizens keep firearms to make sure the US goverment keeps it's place seems a bit ludicrous. Certainly, it made sense in the 1700's, maybe up until the late 1800's, but not today. If the goverment wanted to 'take over' the country somehow and could get the armed forces to go along with it (next to unbelievable, but let's assume) I don't think regular small arms are much of a match for mortars, RPG's, tanks, or even air strikes with rotary cannons, let alone dropping bombs from aircraft, howitzers, etc. Even if a foreign country tried to take over ("Red Dawn" style) the citizens in either case would still be reduced to fighting guerrilla-style with less effective weapons.

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 11-14-2007 10:02 AM

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

We the people are the militia being referred to, not the military. The entire constitution was based around protecting us against our government, second amendment included. This amendment also allows us a homeland defense against invasion by another country. It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely any of this seems, that was the intent. It is not outdated and does not need to be removed.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-14-2007 11:14 AM

I think if the framers of the constitution had any clue about the types of weapons that would be available today, they would have reworded the Second Amendment and made it a lot more clear. It's too vague for today's world.

I also think many people don't notice the words "well-regulated" in there. (Or they don't think it applies to them.)

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-14-2007 01:32 PM

quote: John Walsh
I don't think regular small arms are much of a match for mortars, RPG's, tanks, or even air strikes with rotary cannons, let alone dropping bombs from aircraft, howitzers, etc. Even if a foreign country tried to take over ("Red Dawn" style) the citizens in either case would still be reduced to fighting guerrilla-style with less effective weapons.

If the government broke the Posse Comitatus Act, I think that would signal the beginning of the end for the government and our way of life in general.

Further, I think you could use Iraq as an example of how effective guerrilla-style tactics are against a force with clear technical superiority.

Civil was is not a fun thing to think about even as a gedanken experiment. However, the framers of the Constitution seriously considered it as an option in case the government they were building got too far out of control. They were not afraid to shed blood... even their own... to ensure this. There are plenty of quotes from the likes of Washington and Jefferson, et. al., to this effect that can be found all over the internet. I won't bore you to death with them because it's easy enough to find them. Suffice to say, there was plenty of sentiment among the Framers that summarized as, "A little bloodshed in defense of Liberty is a good thing."

I think that, if they had such weapons as we have now; automatic rifles and bombs and tanks and Howitzers, etc., they would have used them. A visit to the Springfield Armory in Massachusetts was enough to convince me of that.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 11-14-2007 01:58 PM

Mike, on this one you are dead wrong. Almost nothing in the US Constitution is worded poorly. In fact, it is one of the most carefully worded documents...it is just amazing at what is interpreted out of the wording.

The 2nd amendment is quite clear actually...The right of the people to keep and bare fire arms shall not be infringed. Note, it does not say that the militia has the right to the arms, just the people.

This is a document written at a time where the government (UK) was being removed and the people wanted to ensure that similar problems that caused our revolution did not happen again (learning from one's mistakes in order to not repeat them).

The government was NEVER intended to have more firepower than its citizens. The 2nd ammendment was to ensure that the people could overpower or defend itself from its goverment.

The Constitution of the US was also never to be so rigid that it could not adapt to changes in the US way of life but also not so loose that it was easily changed. If you want to be consistant with the thought behind the 2nd ammendment, then it would be worded such that the government could never lawfully use any fire-power greater than that which the citizen could have. The US constitution is about restricting the government, not about granting powers to the government or even restricting the rights of the people. Laws restrict the people (hopefully to have a more harmonious society). However, all laws need to be checked against the constitution to verify their legality...and hence the court system.

You want a real scary thought...think about what would happen if today's US politicals held a Constitutional Convention (the other way to change the constitution)...everything would be on the table, so to speak...what would happen to it then?

In America, it would be bad to remove the 2nd Ammendment, in my opinion. I have no problem with Conceal and Carry Permits...in fact, I think that it should be taken care of in a Federal Level or even consitutionally to drive the point home more. But that is but one person's opinion...and that is what this thread asked.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-14-2007 02:46 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
The 2nd amendment is quite clear actually...The right of the people to keep and bare fire arms shall not be infringed. Note, it does not say that the militia has the right to the arms, just the people.

Well there you go. Just the fact that you and I don't agree about what that sentence means is proof that it's poorly worded. Many people think that "militia" means the military, while others think it means the general public.

Also note that it doesn't say "fire arms," just "arms." Anything from a knife to a stick can be an "arm."

Please note that I'm not against gun ownership or concealed-carry or any of what goes with it. I'm from Montana, where everybody either has a gun, or has a best friend with one. I just think that if the 2nd amendment was more clear, the country wouldn't be in the pro-gun/anti-gun debate we're in now.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 11-14-2007 04:43 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
Well there you go. Just the fact that you and I don't agree about what that sentence means is proof that it's poorly worded.

It isn't a matter of agreeing on what the sentence means...there is no ambiguity about it. The part about the militia is called a preamble. It is cut and dried about what the PEOPLE have a right to do. Rights are not privileges...there are no "if you do this, then you have that" with them...they are "Certain Inaliable". The only means to deny a citizen of the US his/her rights is with due process, period.

The wording on the 2nd ammendment is quite clear and no matter how you dance about it, it says in exactly as many words, "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." Nowhere does it say only certain arms (sticks, rocks, muskets...etc). Putting such specifics in a constitutional document would make each right listed way too restricted to a time period. An arguement could easily be made that people can keep nuclear arms too. It would be a scary thought for most and I suspect that the Supreme court would "interpret" the constitution as to not allow it (rightly or wrongly...to debate that would turn this thread political...and that is against the rules). However, there is nothing that would stop an ammendment to the constitution that would refine ammendment #2 to place restrictions on the right...if done in such a manner that would provide a limit on the firepower of the arms to exclude nuclear...that would probably pass very fast if needed...however, once you get it down to most anything hand held...you will get into some arguing for/against for whatever reason.

But the only reason that you would read the 2nd ammendment as anything less than a right to keep and bare arms is simply a matter of not being able to read...it is quite clear. With so few words it would seem almost impossible to be confused by them. Again, when reading the US Constitution, the words were carefully chosen and ment to be taken quite literally (which might, in some cases, seem silly in today's world). They were written by people that just fought a war to separate themselves from a government that did not want.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-14-2007 05:47 PM

quote: John Walsh
Even if a foreign country tried to take over ("Red Dawn" style) the citizens in either case would still be reduced to fighting guerrilla-style with less effective weapons.

God have mercy on any foreign force fool-hardy enough to invade the United States mainland and try to hold it. The ferocity of guerrilla style warfare would be unprecedented. Red Dawn did nothing to show the depth and scale of just how bad an American grass roots insurgency would be.

Of course, countless thousands of Americans would get killed while waging a guerrilla war against an invading foreign power. But that foreign power would quickly get mired in a quagmire far more nightmarish than anything previously seen in modern history.

Just look at what happened in the Battle of New Orleans. Andrew Jackson and a small rag-tag "army" defeated the British military, regardless of being very much out-manned and out-gunned.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-14-2007 06:30 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
But the only reason that you would read the 2nd ammendment as anything less than a right to keep and bare arms is simply a matter of not being able to read...it is quite clear.

I can read quite well, thanks, and I see your point. But we'll have to agree to disagree here. I think it's vague, you think it's clear. I must have a valid point, otherwise a lot of lawyers and other "experts" would be out of work.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.