What part of 'infringed' don't you understand?

[JustaShooter]

...Would I be correct in thinking that the majority of "gun owners" in Ohio DON'T have a lic...

Without registration, there is no way to know.

Considering something less than 5% of the adult population of Ohio have concealed handgun licenses, and various studies show that between 20% and 35% of Ohioans own at least one firearm, it is a virtual certainty that the majority of gun owners in Ohio do not have a license.

[eye95]

An opinion article that coincidentally makes a very similar argument to mine about Rights not being able to conflict:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/43 ... -amendment

[bluemon]

...Would I be correct in thinking that the majority of "gun owners" in Ohio DON'T have a lic...

Without registration, there is no way to know.

Considering something less than 5% of the adult population of Ohio have concealed handgun licenses, and various studies show that between 20% and 35% of Ohioans own at least one firearm, it is a virtual certainty that the majority of gun owners in Ohio do not have a license.

I'm now learning that the majority of people who have guns never even fire them. Let alone field strip them. So I wouldn't be surprised if they never end up applying for a licenses that allows the entire police force to see that you may have a gun in the car.

[3FULLMAGS+1]

I'm now learning that the majority of people who have guns never even fire them. Let alone field strip them. So I wouldn't be surprised if they never end up applying for a licenses that allows the entire police force to see that you may have a gun in the car.

Just what are you trying to say?

[M-Quigley]

Would I be correct in thinking that the majority of "gun owners" in Ohio DON'T have a lic and the issue isn't important enough to THEM whether we who do, can carry w/o a lic or not and even some of them would be against it.

I've heard from many people over the years who tell me, "I own a gun/guns for hunting or in case someone breaks into my home, but I"

A: "don't feel the need to carry one." and or

B: "don't agree with those people who think they need to carry a gun around all the time."

There is also a subset of people who don't personally carry, but claim that they're not opposed to other people carrying, provided the person has to take training, testing, get a background check, license. When I've asked how much training they think someone should take, the answer is always "whatever the police have to take." I've heard a couple people say a person should only be allowed to carry if they have a bona fide need (as defined by whom they don't know)

[eye95]

Would I be correct in thinking that the majority of "gun owners" in Ohio DON'T have a lic and the issue isn't important enough to THEM whether we who do, can carry w/o a lic or not and even some of them would be against it.

I've heard from many people over the years who tell me, "I own a gun/guns for hunting or in case someone breaks into my home, but I"

A: "don't feel the need to carry one." and or

B: "don't agree with those people who think they need to carry a gun around all the time."

There is also a subset of people who don't personally carry, but claim that they're not opposed to other people carrying, provided the person has to take training, testing, get a background check, license. When I've asked how much training they think someone should take, the answer is always "whatever the police have to take." I've heard a couple people say a person should only be allowed to carry if they have a bona fide need (as defined by whom they don't know)

We have become too far removed from the original reason the Framers felt the need to make the RKBA one of the few specifically protected by the Constitution: because one of the first things King George did when we tried to assert or Independence was to attempt to take our guns away.

An interesting recent quote by Mike Huckabee:

The second amendment is not about hunting though. It has to do with protecting ourselves, our homes, our families and our country from tyranny. Whether it’s the tyranny of a burglar or the tyranny of a government that wants to take our liberty away.

[Brian D.]

An interesting recent quote by Mike Huckabee:

The second amendment is not about hunting though. It has to do with protecting ourselves, our homes, our families and our country from tyranny. Whether it’s the tyranny of a burglar or the tyranny of a government that wants to take our liberty away.

He stole that, big time:

"Hey, yutz, guns aren't toys! They're for family protection, hunting dangerous and delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face!" ---Krusty the Clown, 1997.

Hopefully when a politician acknowledges this realistic view of the Second Amendment, somebody who hadn't thought of it that way swings a little more towards the correct side of the issue. But Huckabee should give attribution to Krusty..

[charliej47]

I am not an Ohioan for Concealed Carry. I am not an Ohioan for Open Carry. I am an Ohioan for Unlicensed Carry.

I am none of these. I am a citizen of these United States and my natural Rights which have been encoded in the constitution, are being violated!

Because so many people refuse to demand their rights, they are slowly being taken away from us!

As we go slowly into the night of eternal darkness.

[eye95]

I am not an Ohioan for Concealed Carry. I am not an Ohioan for Open Carry. I am an Ohioan for Unlicensed Carry.

I am none of these. I am a citizen of these United States and my natural Rights which have been encoded in the constitution, are being violated!

Because so many people refuse to demand their rights, they are slowly being taken away from us!

As we go slowly into the night of eternal darkness.

Then I submit that you are an Ohioan for Unlicensed Carry. You are going to carry without asking permission first. We just need to get the laws fixed so we don't risk going to jail merely for exercising the Right precisely as the Framers envisioned.

On edit: By "fixed" I mean mainly by repeal, not by adding more law, unless that law restricts agents of the government.

[charliej47]

There will come a time when we have the choice of being a Rosa Parks or becoming a state owned subject.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

There will come a time when we have the choice of being a Rosa Parks or becoming a state owned subject.

...or another LaVoy Finicum.

[JustaShooter]

There will come a time when we have the choice of being a Rosa Parks or becoming a state owned subject.

...or another LaVoy Finicum.

Jury is still out on that one, there are too many competing narratives from too many involved parties.

[CroManGun]

There will come a time when we have the choice of being a Rosa Parks or becoming a state owned subject.

...or another LaVoy Finicum.

Jury is still out on that one, there are too many competing narratives from too many involved parties.

Competing narratives might matter to the jury; don't think it matters too much to LaVoy.

[JustaShooter]

...or another LaVoy Finicum.

Jury is still out on that one, there are too many competing narratives from too many involved parties.

Competing narratives might matter to the jury; don't think it matters too much to LaVoy.

True - but if he played a stupid game with the Feds, then he won a stupid prize. Either way, I hope the truth comes to light. I know if I were the Feds, I'd have had cameras on every asset, human or machine, that I could, and I would get that footage out - assuming it exonerates the agents/officers involved.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

...assuming it exonerates the agents/officers involved.

Well, without audio, it's hard to say...

Here is aerial footage of the shooting (jump to the 9 minute mark):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGxDWKrjPQ