Opinion: Should states have mandatory training to receive CCW license?

[gh1950]

The original Declaration of Independence uses the word unalienable. Grammarists will argue that inalienable and unalienable are one and the same; they're synonyms.

Second Amendment rights are not among the enumerated unalienable rights.

An unalienable Right cannot be bought, sold, traded, forfeited, given up or with-held. It is literally above the law.

The unalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, any one or all of which can be forfeited, given up, or withheld. Pretty sure anyone sitting in ADX Florence would agree with this.

Your definition of "unalienable" is seriously flawed.

 

[GAGunguy]

Only for chicks.

 

[Constitution Hour]

Right after they pass mandatory evaluation prior to parenting or procreating.

 

[rockyfatcat]

You still would have to correct for other requirements for obtaining a CC permit in each state.

Two examples; Arizona no longer has a permit or training requirement for open or concealed carry. Any non felon can carry without a permit. Arizona still has a permit available if the resident wishes to carry in reciprocal states.

Alaska has no permit, period. Any non felon can open or concealed carry without a permit. Alaska has no permit available if the resident wishes to carry in another states.

The last thing we need is for this to become a Federal issue. The hope would be to recognize the constitutional right for all Americans to carry open or concealed without a permit.

Given the track record of our government. The exact opposite would probably be the result. What correction would you propose to fix other states BS requirement for obtaining a CC permit?

You run into a problem with 10th amendment very quickly. The federal government has the constitutional duty to make trade fair and normal between the states. Try to buy health insurance from an out of state insurer. We have some of the best politicians money can buy, and ordinary citizens can't afford the buy in.

If your correction was a federal court ruling. The would require a well funded lawsuit to wind through our judicial system loaded with Liberal judges. I think that the court ruling in favor or the citizen's 2nd amendment right is somewhere between slim and none, and Slim left town.

 

[Discollector]

Second Amendment rights are not among the enumerated unalienable rights.



The unalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, any one or all of which can be forfeited, given up, or withheld. Pretty sure anyone sitting in ADX Florence would agree with this.

Your definition of "unalienable" is seriously flawed.

And your legal knowledge consists of what??? We're about to hijack the thread, but I'll give you a preview of what you're up against:

America was founded on this idea that we have unalienable Rights. These Rights are given to each man, by his Creator, his God (whomever he deems that to be.) Since government does not give these Rights, it is legally powerless to take them away or deny them to you. Even our early courts agreed with the premise. It is imperative that every person fighting for their Rights understands them, so let us do a short primer on this subject.


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...” (and excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)


Unalienable Rights were codified into the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution and upheld that way by the early court decisions. For example, the first time a gun control law in Georgia was overturned on Second Amendment grounds, the court ruled:


“The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States, in their act of ratification, recommended that further restrictive clauses should be added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution.

...The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.” (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) )


In another case, a state court ruled (with respect to the Second Amendment):



"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)


There it is. The Second Amendment guarantee is absolute. The Citizen did not get the Right from the State. Let me share one more court ruling with you before I make my point:


“The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” United States v Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875)


So, we've gone from the first time a gun control law was overturned by a state court to a United States Supreme Court ruling. The United States Supreme Court ADMITS that the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (i.e. it pre-existed.) And, the Supreme Court is as high as you can go. What I'm telling you is that the Bill of Rights is the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence in codified form. The Bill of Rights limits government, NOT the people

The government did not give any of us those Rights. Government did not create those Rights. But, I only quoted the law on the Second Amendment, right? Not exactly.

The Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution is ONE Bill. It's one law.

Natural rights are synonymous with unalienable Rights.

“[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity” - (George Mason, founding father)

What Mason said with respect to these natural rights (sic) is the exact definition of unalienable Rights.

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” (Samuel Adams, founding father)

". . . The question presented is not whether the United States has the power to condemn and appropriate this property of the Monongahela Company, for that is conceded, but how much it must pay as compensation therefor. Obviously, this question, as all others which run along the line of the extent of the protection the individual has under the Constitution against the demands of the government, is of importance; for in any society the fulness and sufficiency of the securities which surround the individual in the use and enjoyment of his property constitute one of the most certain tests of the character and value of the government. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)

Liberty is an unalienable Right, correct?

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States" George Washington, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms"

Either Liberty is in unalienable Right or it is not. Is it?

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

The word inherent is a synonym for unalienable:

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/inherent

Bear in mind, this is just some stuff off the top of my head. If you want to get deep into my mind, that's good. We can do that. Are you sure you want that discussion?

 

[gh1950]

America was founded on this idea that we have unalienable Rights. These Rights are given to each man, by his Creator, his God (whomever he deems that to be.) Since government does not give these Rights, it is legally powerless to take them away or deny them to you. Even our early courts agreed with the premise.

Probably get a nastygram, but that's total load of crap.

The government regularly executes people, which definitely deprives them of the first of the "unalienable rights" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

P.S. Pretty sure they are deprived of the pursuit of happiness, too.

I'm pretty sure when they slip you the needle on the gurney, the gov't has demonstrated the power to take that right away from you, or denied your exercise of that right, except maybe in some astral plane.

 

[Jerandjen07]

Hell No

 

[gh1950]

If your correction was a federal court ruling. The would require a well funded lawsuit to wind through our judicial system loaded with Liberal judges. I think that the court ruling in favor or the citizen's 2nd amendment right is somewhere between slim and none, and Slim left town.

My comment was directed toward the comment about studying which states had the most shooting by permit holders.

To have a valid study, you would have to correct for the different qualifications for issuing permits in the different state. Some states are "must issue" once you have the training ( I think FL. is that way, maybe SC).

Other states don't require training but don't issue permits to anyone much. I would expect these states to have lower incidences of shootings by permit holders, just because there are so few permits.

 

[Joshua223]

You should watch the Dr. Phil show once in a while. While I think Phil is a flaming liberal (just opinion), he doesn't believe in running off and writing prescriptions as most mainstream mental health quacks do.

Many times Phil talks about body language and all the psychologists and mental health gurus agree with his oft used statement wherein Phil says a person can tell you blah, blah, blah, and then negate it by saying "but." Phil is ALWAYS admonishing his victims (guests that come for help) with saying to them, when you say but, you are telling me to forget everything I just said prior to that.

The other mental health gurus Phil invites agree with the assessment. You see the same thing on these shows that show police interrogations and the interrogators point this phenomenon out. So, at some point, you figure that is what the mental health community believes regarding the words people use and it's the same thing you'll hear when police interrogators explain their read on people after interrogating them.

I had major surgery once and after a few months of the Justice Network and Dr. Phil, plus reading a couple of books along those lines, I'm parroting what they say.

Okay, so Dr Phil. Haven't seen much of him. We don't really watch much TV anymore and right now we aren't even paying for any type of cable/satellite.

I understand how they can say that referring to certain situations, but stating something like that as an absolute just seems strange to me considering most of the time it doesn't apply. JMO
On his show and in interrogations that is probably pretty common though.

"I did everything I could to raise them right, BUT I could have disciplined them more." Now they are in prison.
"I'm an honest person, but I've been in some trouble for..."
"I didn't lie about that night, but..."

 

[Discollector]

Probably get a nastygram, but that's total load of crap.

The government regularly executes people, which definitely deprives them of the first of the "unalienable rights" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

P.S. Pretty sure they are deprived of the pursuit of happiness, too.

I'm pretty sure when they slip you the needle on the gurney, the gov't has demonstrated the power to take that right away from you, or denied your exercise of that right, except maybe in some astral plane.

You can believe whatever you like; all I can do is present the facts.

Does the government honor the guarantees of the Constitution? NO. Do they have the power to ignore your Rights? YES Do they have the authority? NO.

Whose fault is it? IMO, the reason that government can take a giant dump on your Rights is that too many people want to be on the Internet, arguing over it while nobody is out there advocating a resistance to unconstitutional acts, tyranny, the misapplication of the law, and stolen Liberties.

The Right to keep and bear Arms isn't worth a plug nickle if you don't have a citizenry willing to hold the public servants and politicians accountable. So, while they are usurping powers, we can sit here, crying because the founding fathers fought, bled and died in order to establish our Republic and and most Americans today are too lazy and self absorbed to become active to DO something that will actually make a difference.