NationStates Jolt Archive

I figured this would go perfect with all the other gun threads, especially after an infant was granted a gun permit.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=1223976

A blind man has been issued concealed carry permits in North Dakota and Utah and is complaining that Minnesota won't give him one. Only in America could a blind man bitch about not being issued the most worthless gun permit ever.

"He's a super nice guy," Bergquist said. "But the application states that a person should be able to show proficiency on the firing range and a proficiency of the weapons. That's the issue.
This means that you don't actually have to show that you can use a fucking gun to be able to carry around a concealed one in both North Dakota and Utah.

And guess who is involved, the mother fucking NRA of course.
McWilliams said he completed the required class and shooting exercise by Paul Horvick, a National Rifle Association instructor.
I'm sure any idiot can shoot when some one is telling them where to point the gun and when to fire. Fine, he can go shoot at the range if and only if he has some one there to tell him when and where to fire his gun. Unless he has a fucking guide parrot that tells him where the bad guys are, he shouldn't be allowed to carry a concealed weapon anywhere, much less be able to go to court to fight not being able to get the permit for one.


"I've had situations where I would have felt threatened if I hadn't been carrying," he said.
This just proves the point that America's prevalent gun culture is meaningless and patently stupid - a blind man doesn't feel safe without a gun. Is he going to be allowed to pull out a gun and start swinging around like a wacko? He can't see who or what is threatening him. Some one could sneak up on him and stab him while he is trying to hold an unknown number of assailants at bay, and he would be more likely to shoot a bystander.

Tell him to get a fucking German Shepard for a guide dog and go fuck himself, not give him the ability to carry a gun.

Wow, this is worse than that baby one.

I'm laughing my ass off at work at this thread. Keep up the good work Pantless. :D

I think its funny that the gun nuts aren't chiming in on this one.

I was on board with the blind guy getting a medical license, but a blind guy getting a carry permit...

Zatoichi meets Trigun...oy.

I think its funny that the gun nuts aren't chiming in on this one.

What's so funny about that?

He can carry in Minnesota. The Utah license is valid there. He's just trying to raise a stink.

Of course facts don't really matter when emotional rhetoric is involved.

What's so funny about that?

He thinks it's funny that 20 minutes after a post, there haven't been many responses. Must be easily amused.

The point is why should he be allowed to C and C? At a range, he can use a gun with no significant danger to the public, but outside of that, he couldn't possibly use a gun safely against an attacker without become an equal risk to the public. It's simply unsupportable.

See that, pantless, even the "crackpots" can agree with you on occasion.

What's so funny about that?

It just seems like gun nuts believe every man, woman, child, infant, mentally handicapped, amputee should have an arsenal of guns. I was just amused that no one showed to up bash the topic. They are usually all over these topics.

I would point out that the NRA did not support this man as implied in the OP. The article said the NRA instructor would not comment on the man. Their involvement is only that they allowed him to take a course where he was correctly and in a controlled fashion allowed to use a gun. So guess who is staying out the issue described in the OP The NRA.

Blind people with guns? Sure someone can handle a gun but what's the point if he or she can't see what they are shooting at. The baby with gun license isn't a danger at least because he doesn't know he has one.

It's pretty simple: It would be discrimination to deny him the permit, since there isn't an codified vision requirement. It's doubtful that the state legislators even thought twice when designing the concealed-carry permits.

It's pretty simple: It would be discrimination to deny him the permit, since there isn't an codified vision requirement. It's doubtful that the state legislators even thought twice when designing the concealed-carry permits.

And that's exactly the issue he's presenting since he can already legally carry in the state.

It's pretty simple: It would be discrimination to deny him the permit, since there isn't an codified vision requirement.

But there is a requirement to show that you can proficiently use one. A blind man cannot independently proficiently use a firearm.

The governments answer to overpopulation?

The governments answer to overpopulation?

You know it!

Government by Network, FTW!

It just seems like gun nuts believe every man, woman, child, infant, mentally handicapped, amputee should have an arsenal of guns. I was just amused that no one showed to up bash the topic. They are usually all over these topics.

So who want tards and blind people armed? I've never heard of anybody arguing in favor of that.

I think its funny that the gun nuts aren't chiming in on this one.

i am supposedly a "gun nut",if that means i enjoy guns,shooting sports,and more importantly believe i have every right to defend myself and my family with a gun,as the 2nd amendment allows.and not depend on a always reactive after the crime has occurred police force.
as for this blind fella having a carry permit...what a fucking joke!
i am all for peoples right to defend themselves,i am also a life member of the nra(i can assure you they will be getting a letter from me on this)but like someone here said..better off with a greman shepard guide dog.
i support common sense restrictions on gun ownership,mainly no one with a felony record,adjudicated mentally ill should be allowed to own let alone carry.
and i would think having vision would sorta be a prereguisite for carrying.
he can go to the range and own guns,but carry..never,he would endanger so many it is a no brainer.
it is ludicrous to think he would be able to defend himself,and i am pissed at the nra for backing him up on this nonsense.


edit:i missed the post that the nra was not backing this guy,they just allowed him to take the class.
i would have hated to be his instuctor,no..noo..point it the other way...no your other left...nooooo...
that had to be scary...lol

So who want tards and blind people armed? I've never heard of anybody arguing in favor of that.

The gun control movement relies heavily on straw-men and irrational emotional appeals, man. It's like the prohibition movement a century ago.

i am supposedly a "gun nut",if that means i enjoy guns,shooting sports,and more importantly believe i have every right to defend myself and my family with a gun,as the 2nd amendment allows.and not depend on a always reactive after the crime has occurred police force.
as for this blind fella having a carry permit...what a fucking joke!
i am all for peoples right to defend themselves,i am also a life member of the nra(i can assure you they will be getting a letter from me on this)but like someone here said..better off with a greman shepard guide dog.
i support common sense restrictions on gun ownership,mainly no one with a felony record,adjudicated mentally ill should be allowed to own let alone carry.
and i would think having vision would sorta be a prereguisite for carrying.
he can go to the range and own guns,but carry..never,he would endanger so many it is a no brainer.
it is ludicrous to think he would be able to defend himself,and i am pissed at the nra for backing him up on this nonsense.

By your description I wouldn't call you a gun nut. I was talking about the people worship guns. I own one for my protection. You have brains which therefore doesn't make you a gun nut.

Ah yes, life is indeed stranger than fiction.

Blind guy asks for a C&C permit, I tell him to fuck off, he can't see and he cannot display proficiency with the firearm without significant help. End of story, next.

GOA is worse than the NRA. I'm surprised those mental midgets haven't chimed in on this one.

By your description I wouldn't call you a gun nut. I was talking about the people worship guns. I own one for my protection. You have brains which therefore doesn't make you a gun nut.

According to many on this board, owning one for personal protection makes you a gun nut.

According to many on this board, owning one for personal protection makes you a gun nut.

Heck, not just owning, but advocating the right for others to own a gun makes you a gun nut, in some peoples eyes.

The gun control movement relies heavily on straw-men and irrational emotional appeals, man. It's like the prohibition movement a century ago.
The gun control movement doesn't have to try very hard with cases like this...

Under Minnesota law, an applicant must be issued a license for a gun or a concealed weapon if he or she completes the class and shooting exercise and passes a background check -- unless "there exists a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public if authorized to carry a pistol under permit."

McWilliams believes Minnesota officials have violated his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The gun control movement doesn't have to try very hard with cases like this.

So the fact that he can already carry in MN but is trying to make a statement is now representative of the entire pro-firearms movement?

Then a politician attaching an unpopular anti-gun bill to anti-child exploitation legislation is representative of the entire gun control movement.

The gun control movement doesn't have to try very hard with cases like this...

So, one instance is instantly representative of the entire gun rights movement? Whazzat?

So the fact that he can already carry in MN but is trying to make a statement is now representative of the entire pro-firearms movement?

Then a politician attaching an unpopular anti-gun bill to anti-child exploitation legislation is representative of the entire gun control movement.

Keci: Stop dodging the real issue. He shouldn't be allowed to carry in MN, or anywhere else where there are living beings that can be harmed with a bullet - it's insanely ridiculous they gave him a permit in two other states, and it's moreso that he's all indignant about being rejected for a third one.

Keci: Stop dodging the real issue. He shouldn't be allowed to carry in MN, or anywhere else where there are living beings that can be harmed with a bullet - it's insanely ridiculous they gave him a permit in two other states, and it's moreso that he's all indignant about being rejected for a third one.

And I've already stated he's just trying to make a stink over a loophole in the law that wasn't forseen.

The "Real Issue" is that this is just another attempt by TPH to broad brush the entire pro-firearms movement w/ anecdotes, ad hominems, and insults.

*snip pantless extra-heavy angry*
I'm a full supporter of gun ownership and the Second Amendment and even I think this is completely stupid and ridiculous.

That does not render concealed carry laws idiotic, however...only the idea that a blind man could own a gun at all.

Yeah, I don't see what this has to do with the gun movement at all. It's like saying that a woman who sued a guy for sexual harrassment meant and turned out to be lying has something to do with the feminist movement. Until I see proof that the NRA supports his bid, then I simply don't buy that this is involved with the broad movement.

The connection here isn't logical.

Yeah, I don't see what this has to do with the gun movement at all. It's like saying that a woman who sued a guy for sexual harrassment meant and turned out to be lying has something to do with the feminist movement. Until I see proof that the NRA supports his bid, then I simply don't buy that this is involved with the broad movement.

The connection here isn't logical.

The connection is perfectly logical. The guy took a class by an NRA instructor who wouldn't comment on anyone he has taught or tested. so that = "involvement by the mother f*cking NRA".
See. Perfectly clear.

If he can show proficiency with the weapon for the purpose he intends to use it, I don't see what the problem is. I'm pretty sure the guy knows his limitations as a blind man; it's not like he was suddenly struck blind and just decided to get a gun for the hell of it. He's not stupid; he's probably been blind for life or at least a long time, and he's got a good idea of what his limitations are and how he could use a handgun to defend himself.

I'm suddenly reminded of the scene from The Blues Brothers where they go to get instruments at Ray's Music Exchange, and the "Ray" is Ray Charles. In the midle of a conversation, Ray whips out a pistol and fires a warning shot a a kid on the other side of the store trying to steal a guitar.

Only the OP's stuff happened IN REAL LIFE. Yikes.

Having lived in North Dakota for two years now, I can say with some authority that issuing a CCW permit to a blind man is not really surprising to me. It's a lovely state filled with lovely people...who'd just rather you mind your own business outside of a good, old-fashioned sense of hospitality. That goes double for politics, religion and personal ideologies.

If he can show proficiency with the weapon for the purpose he intends to use it, I don't see what the problem is. I'm pretty sure the guy knows his limitations as a blind man; it's not like he was suddenly struck blind and just decided to get a gun for the hell of it. He's not stupid; he's probably been blind for life or at least a long time, and he's got a good idea of what his limitations are and how he could use a handgun to defend himself.

The problem is that we have to hope that, rather than know that. He presents a very real danger by having a handgun and his arguments are ludicrous. Apparently, sighted people regularly just start wildly shooting, but losing your sight makes you never do that.

The fact is that the restriction for a blind man is no more discriminatory than the restriction from driving.

If he can show proficiency with the weapon for the purpose he intends to use it, I don't see what the problem is. I'm pretty sure the guy knows his limitations as a blind man; it's not like he was suddenly struck blind and just decided to get a gun for the hell of it. He's not stupid; he's probably been blind for life or at least a long time, and he's got a good idea of what his limitations are and how he could use a handgun to defend himself.

So he would be capable of carrying around a concealed weapon and be able to take it out and use it without being an imminent danger to any bystanders?

So he would be capable of carrying around a concealed weapon and be able to take it out and use it without being an imminent danger to any bystanders?

From the article:

McWilliams said he uses special low-range, hollow-point bullets that are effective only in tight quarters.

"If I use a gun it will be at point-blank range, period," he said.

From the article:

McWilliams said he uses special low-range, hollow-point bullets that are effective only in tight quarters.

"If I use a gun it will be at point-blank range, period," he said.

That's not really helpful, however. One of the biggest dangers of C&C is that guns can get taken away and suddenly you've armed a criminal. As such, most people are taught to keep outside of a closed distance with the criminal, while he has to do the opposite. So we introduce a gun into a situation where the criminal has a severe advantage in being the one who ends up with it and we close the distance to help make that additionally possible.

Everything about the scenario bucks everything that would normally be done to ensure the safety of the person being attacked and of the bystanders. That's not discriminatory. That's a fact.

So he would be capable of carrying around a concealed weapon and be able to take it out and use it without being an imminent danger to any bystanders?

That's the question. If he can, then he should be able to have a concealed weapon.

From the article:

McWilliams said he uses special low-range, hollow-point bullets that are effective only in tight quarters.

"If I use a gun it will be at point-blank range, period," he said.

Yeah, see, I don't care. He's blind. Unless he has a gun parrot, as TPH said, then he's more of a danger than a help in any situation, period.

What we should do instead is work out a way to cure his blindness or otherwise give him some sort of way of telling people apart from one another near him besides via hearing and smell, which won't cut it when it comes to firing guns.

That's the question. If he can, then he should be able to have a concealed weapon.

There are a ton of questions. How does he close the distance and ensure that the person he closed with was the person who was attacking him? How does he do so without the danger of being disarmed and arming the attacker? How does he do so without giving the attacker an opportunity and reason to kill him (again, thus arming the attacker with a pistol)?

Anyone who has taken a gun safety course on C&C recognizes that arming the attacker is a huge danger and that distance is your friend. He's going against everything that's taught in a gun handling course which is required in order to get a permit. It's logically inconsistent.

That's not really helpful, however. One of the biggest dangers of C&C is that guns can get taken away and suddenly you've armed a criminal. As such, most people are taught to keep outside of a closed distance with the criminal, while he has to do the opposite. So we introduce a gun into a situation where the criminal has a severe advantage in being the one who ends up with it and we close the distance to help make that additionally possible.

Everything about the scenario bucks everything that would normally be done to ensure the safety of the person being attacked and of the bystanders. That's not discriminatory. That's a fact.

I'm not saying it's discriminatory. What I'm saying is that he's playing legal loophole games to claim discrimination. He is not, however, an imminent danger to the public.

Yeah, see, I don't care. He's blind. Unless he has a gun parrot, as TPH said, then he's more of a danger than a help in any situation, period.

What we should do instead is work out a way to cure his blindness or otherwise give him some sort of way of telling people apart from one another near him besides via hearing and smell, which won't cut it when it comes to firing guns.

As usual, TPH is wrong about firearms so you shouldn't really take his word for it. Is his getting a CCW stupid? Yes. Is he an "imminent danger"? No.

As usual, TPH is wrong about firearms so you shouldn't really take his word for it. Is his getting a CCW stupid? Yes. Is he an "imminent danger"? No.

I wouldn't call him an imminant danger, but I do say he should not be allowed to own a firearm unless he has some method of determing friend from foe around him, and can demonstrate such a method is at least as good as sight. Until he does so, I worry he might accidentely harm an innocent person. I say accidentely, because I have no doubt he would not actually try and harm innocent bystanders.

I wouldn't call him an imminant danger, but I do say he should not be allowed to own a firearm unless he has some method of determing friend from foe around him, and can demonstrate such a method is at least as good as sight. Until he does so, I worry he might accidentely harm an innocent person. I say accidentely, because I have no doubt he would not actually try and harm innocent bystanders.

Well if someone's beating or forcibly restraining him, that's a pretty sure method of determining friend from foe. That's assuming he actually carries and isn't just making a stink about legislation which is what it appears to be as he can already legally carry in MN.

Well if someone's beating or forcibly restraining him, that's a pretty sure method of determining friend from foe. That's assuming he actually carries and isn't just making a stink about legislation which is what it appears to be as he can already legally carry in MN.

I agree with that last bit. It seems like he's kind of trolling for trouble.

Disregarding that, however, I think his carrying is not defensible. I want him to be able to defend himself, but using it only in the case when someone is already manhandling you is absurd. It makes the assumption that he's a position where lethal force is necessary, because he can't physically defend himself, BUT he is somehow, while already struggling with someone who physically has the upperhand, going to keep control of the weapon.

There is no way that makes sense.

Meanwhile, the first thing you do when you pull a weapon is to distance yourself because you don't really know friend from foe in such an instance and your weapon could become their weapon, otherwise. He has no ability to do so, no ability to assess the various people or deal with them and no ability to confidently control his weapon.

The idea really has no defense.

That's the question. If he can, then he should be able to have a concealed weapon.

Are you even thinking before making these replies or are you assuming all blind people are Daredevil?

And stupid shit like what Kecibukia is saying is why he is on my ignore list.

Are you even thinking before making these replies or are you assuming all blind people are Daredevil?

No, I'm just not prejudging them based upon their disability.

Are you even thinking before making these replies or are you assuming all blind people are Daredevil?

And stupid shit like what Kecibukia is saying is why he is on my ignore list.

Again, I notice you ignore everyone who disagrees with you. Meanwhile, reported. If you have him on ignore then why are you talking about what he posts? You're using ignore like a weapon to avoid good debate and doing so really is a shame. For example, you can't see the clear and reasonable request for evidence in your claim about bystanders.

Well if someone's beating or forcibly restraining him, that's a pretty sure method of determining friend from foe. That's assuming he actually carries and isn't just making a stink about legislation which is what it appears to be as he can already legally carry in MN.
And if it happens in a public place where there are plenty of bystanders? That happens a lot more often than some people realize.

And if it happens in a public place where there are plenty of bystanders? That happens a lot more often than some people realize.

There are enough innocent bystanders injured in shoot outs between people with perfectly good eyesight. Can't wait to see what happens when we start handing out guns to loopy blind people.

There are enough innocent bystanders injured in shoot outs between people with perfectly good eyesight. Can't wait to see what happens when we start handing out guns to loopy blind people.


Care to prove that?

I agree with that last bit. It seems like he's kind of trolling for trouble.

Disregarding that, however, I think his carrying is not defensible. I want him to be able to defend himself, but using it only in the case when someone is already manhandling you is absurd. It makes the assumption that he's a position where lethal force is necessary, because he can't physically defend himself, BUT he is somehow, while already struggling with someone who physically has the upperhand, going to keep control of the weapon.

There is no way that makes sense.

Meanwhile, the first thing you do when you pull a weapon is to distance yourself because you don't really know friend from foe in such an instance and your weapon could become their weapon, otherwise. He has no ability to do so, no ability to assess the various people or deal with them and no ability to confidently control his weapon.

The idea really has no defense.



It is stupid. I agree. I never said different. He is, however, following the law. Seems the legislature needs to tweak the bill a bit but then they will most likely be called out for discrimination.

Are you even thinking before making these replies or are you assuming all blind people are Daredevil?

And stupid shit like what Kecibukia is saying is why he is on my ignore list.

Remember folks, presenting factual evidence and not just presenting stereotypes and ad homimens is "stupid sh*t".

No, I'm just not prejudging them based upon their disability.
There is a difference between discrimination and logical conclusions. You are spiting the latter to prevent people thinking you are the former.

Would you issue a license to drive a car to completely blind man?

There are enough innocent bystanders injured in shoot outs between people with perfectly good eyesight. Can't wait to see what happens when we start handing out guns to loopy blind people.

Mind showing some statistics on this? Not that I don't believe you, but I would like some supporting evidence.

Remember folks, presenting factual evidence and not just presenting stereotypes and ad homimens is "stupid sh*t".

I've noticed this. He basically ignores the arguments and uses that ignore function as a debating tool instead of as a means of filtering out non-debate. It's the opposite of the purpose of the function and pretty ludicrous. He can speak to us and our arguments when he feels like it, but he just ignores any evidence against his claims because he can't "see" them. I don't agree with this guy having a gun, but what pantless is suggesting is not accurate.

Back to your argument, I understand what you're saying and what he's saying. I'm just saying assuming he's not borrowing trouble, his argument is ludicrous.

North Dakota and Utah need to seriously re-examine their criteria for C&C if they allow a blind man to carry a concelaled firearm. It is the height of irresponsibility to allow someone who cannot pass (without significant help from a sighted person) a range qualification the ability to carry concealed a loaded firearm, even if it is ostensibly for self-defense. It is asking for a lot of trouble when said blind man shoots an innocent bystander because he cannot discern friend from foe. Lawsuits will abound, and for once it would rightly so.

If the issue is point blank defense, then there are many fine, non-firearm alternatives said non-sighted chappie can rely upon. Shock prods, martial arts training, his cane, his guide dog among many others.

Firearms are for SIGHTED people. Since being able to see or discern your target reliably is part of the criteria for being able to shoot properly, this is appropriate. That is not discrimination (as in the perjorative violation of the laws), but discriminatory.

The fact this man possesses TWO C&C permits in two states in the US, is silent testimony to just how much common sense we lack as a nation.

We do not have the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, the 2nd Amendment does not say that. Firearms use and ownership are a limited right and that limited right may be taken away if it is clear you have no business owning a firearm. Being blind seems a sufficiently weighted argument to me.

We do not have the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, the 2nd Amendment does not say that. Firearms use and ownership are a limited right and that limited right may be taken away if it is clear you have no business owning a firearm. Being blind seems a sufficiently weighted argument to me.
But this is America. The only nonrestrictive constitutional right is the right to bear arms. The right to freedom of speech and press can have ton of restrictions, but even hint at the idea some people can't own guns and it's a NRA led riot.

But this is America. The only nonrestrictive constitutional right is the right to bear arms. The right to freedom of speech and press can have ton of restrictions, but even hint at the idea some people can't own guns and it's a NRA led riot.


Evidence for this? Of course not. Forgetting the fact that the the NRA supported NICS, increased penalties for felons, improving background checks, etc., you're completely right.

Just give him a toy gun....he would never know..:p

But this is America. The only nonrestrictive constitutional right is the right to bear arms. The right to freedom of speech and press can have ton of restrictions, but even hint at the idea some people can't own guns and it's a NRA led riot.

Ahhh, silly me. You're right. In that spirit I present your Constitutional Rights on Parade!

Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Except when the President wants to speak in a limited forum or fora, where no opposition voices can be heard. The United States is a CHRISTIAN nation founded by Christians FOR Christians only, the rest of you heathens can go to hell. The press may only print good news and agree with the government.

Amendment 2- 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.

Wait, I never read that part about militias...well those guys were WRONG!! I must own guns, lots of guns, and if I'm blind so what, I'm going to shoot my guns not giving a damn whether innocents are hurt and whether I'm really qualified to have a weapon is immaterial. Oh, and I can HIDE my guns from law enforcement LEGALLY <pbbbbbttt!!!>!

Amendment 3- No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The US is under martial law, you will quarter soldiers or be put on trial as a TURRRORIST! For I am the appointed of God, the President of the United States.

Amendment 4- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Except when I as the appointed of God, your President of your FREE United States say so. To hell with the FISA Courts, they're too slow. Oh ye of little faith, sneak and peek warrants abound like flowered multitudes in the spring.

Amendment 5- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

We, the 9 Supremes disagree, we say we may seize upon your private land for the use of land developers, real estate tycoons, and the various profligate wealthy so they may engage in the making of more lucre!

Amendment 6- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Only if ye be wealthy shall ye enjoy the full fruits of a fair justice system, as once said by the Roman Senate, "Fuck the poor!"

Amendment 7- In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Unless the wealthy deem it so, after all, torte law is for shysters while corporate and contract law are for the respected members of the Bars, Federal and State.

Amendment 8- Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Unless we hate the bastard on trial, then we stick it to him!

Amendment 9- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This amendnent is null and void, it is a lie constructed by liberals. Everyone knows that the only rights the people have are the ones STRICTLY enumerated here, and that list may be changed at OUR convenience- Sincerely; The Federalist Society and Campaign for a New World Order.

Amendment 10- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

States rights? That was all a red herring.

Amendment 11- The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Alright, we lied...sorry.

Amendment 12- The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Sorry, we lied again.

Amendment 13- 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Ahh, but you did not say WAGE slaves. We have the absolute right to keep salaries down nationwide so people enter a kind of indentured servitude unto their corporate masters, making Tennessee Ernie Ford's song "Sixteen Tons" eerily prescient. "I owe my soul to the Company Store."

Amendment 14- 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

1. Unless we so specify, this portion of the 14th Amendment is null and void.

2. You may pretend your vote counts upon attaining the age of 18, and looking forward to a bitter life of your vote not counting all the way until you die.

3. Except when said criminals are granted executive clemency by their friend in the White House. See; Negroponte, John et al.

4. Contradiction is a beautiful thing.

5. In other words, we may make up law to suit our mood.

Amendment 15- 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

1. Except when we make identification laws so pervasive and onerous that voting is less convenient than staying home.

2. See above.

Amendment 16- The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

After all we need your money and you don't.

Amendment 17- The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

A new way for your vote not to count, you may pretend to elect two Senators from your home state.

Amendment 18- 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

No booze, we mean it!

Amendment 19- The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Women may pretend to vote now! Aren't we cool? No honey, stay barefoot and pregnant, we didn't REALLY mean it.

Amendment 20- 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

Blah, blah, blah, yackity, schmackity.

Amendment 21- 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

No booze? We meant, LOTS of booze!! It shall flow like milk and honey beyond the gates of Paradise. LIQUOR TAXES!!!! Woo-hooo! Party!

Amendment 22- 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Don't worry honey, I have a plan. Fathers and brothers!- Prescott Bush
Don't worry honey, I have a plan. Fathers and brothers!- Joseph P. Kennedy

Amendment 23- 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The free willed denizens of the American Capital District of Columbia may vote, unless they are employees of the US government, then they may vote TWICE!! What? No? Damn silly amendment, sorry I proposed it. What? It passed???

Amendment 24- 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

"We have more creative ways of keeping the minorities and poor from voting. Instead of "get out the vote" operations, we have "reduce the turnout" operations. Brilliant!"- unattributed quote by Karl Rove

Amendment 25- 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Unless your name is General Alexander Haig who is always LARGE and "IN CHARGE."

Amendment 26- 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Now, new from US Co! three more age groups can PRETEND to vote!

Amendment 27- No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

But there is no limit to the number of times we can vote ourselves a raise AFTER the election!

Sorry for the lengthy post, but it is intended to lighten your day.

The point is why should he be allowed to C and C? At a range, he can use a gun with no significant danger to the public, but outside of that, he couldn't possibly use a gun safely against an attacker without become an equal risk to the public. It's simply unsupportable.

See that, pantless, even the "crackpots" can agree with you on occasion.


I don't know how it is in other states, but in CT, you need to have a CT CCW in order to buy or transport a pistol (although you can inherit a pistol without one). So (hypothetically speaking) if I wanted to go to a shooting range with an inherited pistol, I would need a CCW.

It just seems like gun nuts believe every man, woman, child, infant, mentally handicapped, amputee should have an arsenal of guns. I was just amused that no one showed to up bash the topic. They are usually all over these topics.


I do support the right to bear arms, but I don't believe everyone should be allowed to own a firearm (and have said as much, in other threads). Convicted felons and people ajudicated mentally incompetent shouldn't be able to own firearms.