>his state doesn't have constitutional carry A state

>>34139494
defend your position that untrained neophytes should get ccw permits

>>34139494
The classes in my state (Oklahoma) are like $30, and another $200 for everything else. If you can't afford that, you probably can't afford a legal gun.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me, anon.

>>34139494
>A state that requires training before being able to apply for a CCW permit has no right calling itself a pro-gun state


WELL REGULATED

>>34139508
Are you seriously asking this on /k/?

>>34139508
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

How is a poll tax or test acceptable for a codified right, but completely illegal when it comes to voting?

Constitutional carry has never been shown to increase crime, the state can not prove any pressing interest is served by these onerous restrictions and so they should be removed.

>>34139620
your right. we should put poll taxes on voting.

>>34139530
great point actually

>>34139530
>>34139664
No it isn't.

The definition of well regulated has changed over the years. In the time of the founding fathers well regulated meant working well or competent...

>>34139635
Hopefully there aren't any poll tests though, you might have trouble with the spelling and reading comprehension parts...

>>34139620
I wouldn't have anything against tests for voting.

Do you seriously think idiots who are too ignorant to even name all the candidates should be allowed to vote?

>>34139807
>competent
>having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully
That's what tests are for.

File: 1493421911360.png (454KB, 640x455px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 640x455px

golly gee whiz why is that?

voting age should be raised to 35 anyway.

>>34139856
Happy 35th birthday Anon.

File: jaguars.jpg (62KB, 689x568px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 689x568px

>wanting every inbred faggot who can pony up $150 for a Hi-Point to be carrying without any guarantee of them knowing the finer points of safe firearm handling or legal use of deadly force.

>>34139494
>needing to ask mommy state's permission before you carry
cuck

>>34139945
>needing to ask mommy state's permission before you drive

>>34139824
>>34139824
That's actually besides the point.

The point I was making is that poll tests and poll taxes are considered illegal as they restrict a right that isn't even specifically protected. Ergo, requiring an arbitrary "poll" tax or test to exercise a right that is specifically not supposed to be infringed is more ridiculous, particularly when there isn't any valid argument justifying such a restriction(at least if applying strict scrutiny).

>>34139841
1. Tests don't necessarily prove competency, nor is taking a test required to be competent at something.

2. the well regulated part of the 2nd A is an explanatory cause, it merely explains why the operational part of the clause is the way it is. The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed, as that is necessary to forming/keeping a competent militia.

>>34139904
>the streets will run with blood! just like they did after CCW was legalized in the first place!

Logic of an anti right there

>>34139824
>>34139620
If you created a poll tax and literacy test, that would disqualify a lot of the rural right-wing retards that voted for Trump. The more educated and refined urbanites/suburbanites would have given Clinton an easy victory.

>>34139953
well, it's a good idea because working around the drivers licence system would be too cumbersome and irrational.

gun? just holster up and you're good to go.

>>34139958
>1. Tests don't necessarily prove competency, nor is taking a test required to be competent at something.
Lack of tests doesn't prove competency either.

There needs to be some sort of an objective verification,no one will give you a driver's license because you yourself think you are good enough.

>
2. the well regulated part of the 2nd A is an explanatory cause, it merely explains why the operational part of the clause is the way it is. The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed, as that is necessary to forming/keeping a competent militia.
Up to interpretation. The right to bear arms is not to form a competent militia.

Again, competence requires verification.

>>34139971
>If you created a poll tax and literacy test, that would disqualify a lot of the rural right-wing retards that voted for Trump.
If they couldn't name all the other candidates, good riddance. Works both ways, too.

If you absolutely need votes from retards to win, chances are you shouldn't win.

>>34140054
>lack of tests doesnt...
Wut i wasnt even potatoing that

>there needs to be objective verification

Prove it.

>Likens a constitutionally protected right to driving
Seriously hope you're trolling...

>up to interpretation
Not really, the founding fathers were pretty explicit about their meaning in the case of the second and first amendments in ancillary writings.

>the right to bear arms isn't what it explicitly is
What kind of an argument even is this?

>Competence requires verification
Not even a little bit. Competency exists entirely separately from verification of competency via a test. You can tell by the way that the people who show up and pass the test were COMPETENT enough to pass it. if they didnt take the test they still would've been COMPETENT, it just wouldn't have been "verified" as you put it.

>>34140109
>Prove it.
Would you allow a random man from the street who claims to be a surgeon to perform a brain surgery on you?

>Seriously hope you're trolling...
The fact that carrying is a constitutionally protected right while driving is not is not relevant to my point. Both require competence, otherwise you are a danger to yourself and people around you.

>Not really, the founding fathers were pretty explicit about their meaning in the case of the second and first amendments in ancillary writings.
Not that explicit.

>What kind of an argument even is this?
Do you believe you should be allowed to open carry into a police station too?

>Not even a little bit. Competency exists entirely separately from verification of competency via a test. You can tell by the way that the people who show up and pass the test were COMPETENT enough to pass it. if they didnt take the test they still would've been COMPETENT, it just wouldn't have been "verified" as you put it.
I formulated it poorly. The point is competence needs to be verified.

>>34140179
>rando brain surgeon
Yea, because brain surgery and carrying a concealed firearm are totally the same thing. Good job proving that only brain surgeons can CCW anon

>MWAP MWAP MWAP
If people carrying a firearm without proper prior "verification" is so dangerous, than why haven't any states with such laws experienced a demonstrable increase in crime or firearms related injury? A firearm is a much less complex machine than a car to operate, particularly on a daily basis as it just sits in a holster not requiring any form of constant attention or action to keep it from going off. Guns and cars have almost nothing in common.

>not that explicit
What. not only is the 2nd A plainly written, but they talked about it to a moderate degree. they even covered shit like how gun control is a stupid way to try and reduce crime... what exactly are you trying to argue it does mean then?

>do you believe you should
Yes, and in some places you are. Police shouldn't shoot or harass an individual simply for being armed.

>competency needs to be verified.
No it doesnt. It absolutely does not. In this case in particular there is no demonstrable need for any such verification or payment of a tax to be competent with a firearm.

>>34140309
>Yea, because brain surgery and carrying a concealed firearm are totally the same thing.
They both require competency to not be a danger to others. In that aspect, they are the same.

> Good job proving that only brain surgeons can CCW anon
Do you not understand what an analogy is?

>If people carrying a firearm without proper prior "verification" is so dangerous, than why haven't any states with such laws experienced a demonstrable increase in crime or firearms related injury?
Neither you nor me have any statistics so spare me.

> A firearm is a much less complex machine than a car to operate, particularly on a daily basis as it just sits in a holster not requiring any form of constant attention or action to keep it from going off. Guns and cars have almost nothing in common.
And yet there is no shortage of people NDing into their legs.

You or me might be competent enough. This does not mean we should assume everyone is.

>What. not only is the 2nd A plainly written, but they talked about it to a moderate degree. they even covered shit like how gun control is a stupid way to try and reduce crime... what exactly are you trying to argue it does mean then?
I'm saying it doesn't cover all the details and possible situations. "The right to bear arms" doesn't not necessarily mean you are allowed to carry them anywhere you want and however you want while not being competent enough.

>Yes, and in some places you are. Police shouldn't shoot or harass an individual simply for being armed.
You are taking the law so literally you stopped using common sense altogether.

Another question to you then- do you believe you should be allowed to run up to the President with a rifle in your hands?

> In this case in particular there is no demonstrable need for any such verification or payment of a tax to be competent with a firearm
I disagree.

I hope you are never in a situation where Jamal sweeps you with his Hi-Point sitting in his pocket because it's his "right".

>You are essentially making the right to carry a right only for upper-class citizens.

this is like saying driving is only for upper class citizens because you have to go to driving school.

>>34140444
>yadda yadda yadda brain surgery to ccw is an apt analogy
TBQH i was just poking funsies at how shit your analogy was. whether or not i would let a randomly selected person perform brain surgery on me has very little in common with whether or not people should have to prove their proficiency with firearms and pay a tax to carry legally. Your analogy is simply not an apt one.

If a surgeon who is not certified as a brain surgeon successfully performs a brain surgery is he not a successful brain surgeon despite not having been certified as one?

>nobody keeps track of violent crime stats...

they do? like you just keep trying to argue these things that you're just objectively wrong about its kinda starting to confuse me. I was literally reading a meta analysis on the subject of the effects of CCW law passage on violent crime published by the national institute of statisticians or some shit a few weeks ago, state or county level violent crime stats per year are not difficult to find...

>no shortage of people nding into legs
Well, actually, despite the increasing popularity of firearms ownership and CCW firearms related accidental injuries and deaths are at an all time low, and thats just raw numbers(not per capita).

>doesnt cover all situations yada cant anything anywhere yada
This is covered by the whole strict scrutiny thing i was talking about before. it's the test used to justify restrictions on rights that the state/politicians haven't decided they want to arbitrarily restrict yet. Maybe give it a look before trying to put words in my mouth?

>should you be able to do *insert new argument here*
Move the goal posts much? didn't like where your last ones were, huh?

To answer that though, it isn't unreasonable to maintain a perimeter around a particular VIP where the carrying of firearms isn't allowed. However in your example as the person in question has a firearm held at the ready and is approaching the president in an aggressive manner they should be

>>34140772
Stopped at gun point and shot if at any point in time the presidents security believe the individual to e threatening his life with said weapon. If i were a judge in such a situation i would be inclined to give the SS great latitude in deciding wether or not this person was a threat given the multitude of viable threats that POTUS faces and the limited time they would have had for decision making.

TLDR if you run up to the pres with a rifle and get shot nobody will care still.

>i disagree
Yes, you've made it very clear that you have no argumentative leg to stand on other than your feelings, imaginative and inapplicable analogies or anecdotes, and apparently racial prejudice.

Good argument bro

>>34140179
The founding fathers wouldn't have given a shit about tests or the government specifically teaching firearms safety because that was something that was a standard part of life in the time. If some asshole managed to kill himself with his pistol or rifle everyone wouldve called him a dumb shit and moved on.

File: 1478236718039.jpg (26KB, 411x412px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 411x412px

>>34140054
>>34139841
>>34139664

SHALL

File: applebees.jpg (271KB, 916x1280px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 916x1280px

>TFW /k/ has anti-gun arguments with itself

It used to be about the freedom, what happened?

>>34141734
>It used to be
its always been like this. we've always had someone to play the devils advocate so we were better prepared for when an actual anti-gun showed up.

>>34139494
A $15 online hunter safety course was accepted as CCW training in my state.

>>34141734
More minorities started buying guns after Trump won.

>>34141229
NOT

>>34142445
INFRINGED

File: 1312402258354.png (115KB, 264x240px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 264x240px

Only people who have proven themselves to be responsible should be allowed to carry guns.

This shouldn't be up for debate. Guns are not toys.

File: 1492489295283.png (351KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1600x900px

>all the statist cucks in this thread
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
NOT
BE
INFRINGED
This is not up for debate. This is not up for 'compromise'. I don't give a shit if they're a nigger, a fag, a hadji or a librul. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to fuck off to Bongistan or Canadia or some other oppressive, authoritarian shithole where the people are being ruled instead of ruling. Every non-imprisoned citizen of the United States of America has the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of how they look, what consenting adults they diddle, how well trained they are, their political leanings, or what god they worship.
Commies and statist cucks go back to Bongistan and Cuckmany.

File: Screenshot_2017-03-21-19-56-20.png (469KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1440x2560px

Mississippi became constitutional carry last year. Everyone I talk to has no idea what it means or that it even happened. It's like they thought "what other way could we piss off liberals" and slid this under the table in hopes they'd find it.

>pic related. They did.

>>34143252
>giving the blackest state in the country constitutional carry

>>34143374
>thinking the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to people just because they're niggers
Fuck off cuck.

>>34139494
>A state that requires training before being able to apply for a CCW permit has no right calling itself a pro-gun state
Yeah I'm with >>34139530 and >>34139664 on this, the "bear" in the 2nd Amendment is so vague that none of us can say what it means. That amendment is for blasting enemies foreign and domestic, it doesn't actually say you have a right to carry anything for your own personal protection or even recognizes your right to defend yourself. (psst, you have more rights than what's written in the Constitution, the right to self-defense isn't listed because it's a fucking no-brainer)

What it does say, though, is "well regulated" which brings me to this guy: >>34139807
>The definition of well regulated has changed over the years. In the time of the founding fathers well regulated meant working well or competent...
That was literally his motherfucking point when he typed, "WELL REGULATED."

>>34143178
Except what we're talking about is already a thing, so if it's passed the Constitutional smell test already in SCOTUS then clearly it isn't infringement. You can't go "yeah but it feels like infringement :( :( :(" and expect that to fly, the Constitution isn't a feelsies document it's a legal document.

This is entirely up for compromise, actually it's up for complete motherfucking revision if an amendment does away with 2A.

Welcome to the USA.

File: d1b5bfd73154e7048c7576caebbf721a.jpg (26KB, 463x454px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 463x454px

>>34142494
Only people who have proven themselves to be responsible should be allowed to speak freely.

This shouldn't be up for debate. Words are not toys.

>>34145295
>comparing speech to weapons

You're stupid, and so is your comparison.

Words cannot negligently discharge and hurt an innocent bystander.

People have a right to carry, but they better know what they're doing.

>>34139494
>>34139508
>>34139528

>training
Sitting in a class is not training. It's just a way to bilk money out of gun owners.

File: bacon.jpg (207KB, 819x783px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 819x783px

>>34145503
No, everyone deserves the freedom to say what they want and put whatever they want in their pants. There is no (or negligible, at most) negative impact to society from the ~0-5 negligent discharges by someone carrying improperly.

Even if they are carrying improperly such that someone else gets hurt, that is an irresponsibility on their part. You can't punish everyone preemptively for the bad thing you think one person might do. That's anti talk, anon.

You shan't infringe on my bacon, liberal!

>>34139635
>>34139824
>>34139971
>Implying we shouldn't just rollback the voting system so only landowning white males can vote.