Really like the idea of not having to get a permit and carry however you want. But, open carry not my thing for many reasons. Concealed is the way for me.
About 10 years ago, I decided to buy a moderately modded mustang gt, mostly for local driving, because I thought it would be fun. And it was. But the problem I ran into is that the car was faster than my thought processes at times and I soon found myself going faster than I wanted to and making poor lane choices. Not the fault of the car, but for my own safety I had to make a decision to either get more mature or sell the car. So, after just a few months, I sold it, for about what Iâd paid, which was a cheap lesson for me.
I think if we could all be honest with ourselves of our aptitude and intent, a lot of laws that we currently have would become formality.
Iâd really like the idea of not having to take drivers Ed, a written driver Test or a driving test to operate a car.
2 Likes
So you know what the counter argument here will be right? âWell driving isnât a constitutional right, the right to keep and bear arms is!â Once again proving the only half of 2nd amendment âoriginalistsâ respect is the second half.
Technically speaking the second amendment references a well âregulatedâ militia and the right to bear arms will not be infringed.
Yep, or âdriving is a privilegeâ and been on that road before !
How did we get so far away from totally ignoring the 1st part of 2A ?
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.
To understand what the word âmilitiaâ meant at the time, look to the 1792 Militia Act.
It basically made all able bodied white males members of the âmilitia,â and required them to arm themselves with privately owned firearms.
It wasnât a militia in the manner of todayâs national guard, federal reserve component, or state militias.
It was simply and truly just a big bunch of armed private citizens with their own guns. LIKE MANY OF US TODAY!!!
The National Guard wasnât created until the passing of the 1903 Militia Act. As such, it cannot be used as a means of Constitutional interpretation with respect to the 2nd amendment.
Yep I donât see how passing a test and getting a permit violates the 2nd amendment. As long as the test is evenly applied.
I have never understood why this is a major debate issue.
To further piddle off my tribe, firearms that are not side arms for protection or hunting rifles for sport should have a higher level clearance.
To me this just seems like common sense. But proving that you are you at a voting booth seems like common sense as well.
1 Like
SureâŠ,if you think that helpsâŠ
A well regulated âbig bunch of armed private citizens with their own gunsâ, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
2 Likes
Just a thought, the world is a different place than it was in the 1700s. Case in point, the original meaning of a militia per the above included only âable bodied white males.â
I donât mean that to start a constitutional argument. Just asking if we are able to tweak the intention for some things but not others?
2 Likes
Randy, agree everything evolves (or maybe
devolves). Meanings of words change over
time too. We have the right to interpret in new ways
as well. I actually think our grandparents and great
grandparents had a more reasonable approach to
gun management in Texas than we do today. Our poor recent ancestors lived such deprived livesâŠoh the tragedy and tyranny they lived under!
Unpermitted open carry for all over 21 is not wise or necessary.
Iâm not even going to the everything evolves thing. Just this issue sticks out a bit.
Closing thread per suggestion of the OP. It didnât get political and we appreciate that.
1 Like