Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mischavus618 t1_j911ghp wrote

I spoke to a man yesterday who explained his wife got her permit with no intentions of ever carrying on a regular basis—she got it so she could purchase ammo, possibly transporting a gun to him, etc. He gave me about 20 reasons.

But the biggest reason was…..gun laws are only going to get tougher so she figured she’d get it now while she could.

People are odd.

4

Pruedrive t1_j913ztv wrote

How is that odd? If you have any intention to be a gun owner in this state it’s a hoop you unfortunately have to jump through, and CT is constantly changing our gun laws, and this right is almost constantly under legislative attack, this only makes the process more difficult.

7

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j92nhyo wrote

What right, this one?

Louisiana Supreme Court 1856:

>[The Second Amendment] was never intended to prevent the individual States from adopting such measures of police as might be necessary, in order to protect the orderly and well disposed citizens from the treacherous use of weapons not even designed for any purpose of public defence, and used most frequently by evil-disposed men who seek an advantage over their antagonists, in the disturbances and breaches of the peace which they are prone to provoke.

North Carolina Supreme Court 1843:

>there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort[,] a gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements--as a part of his dress--and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.

South Carolina Grand Jury 1879:

>It is apparent to every good citizen and man of sense, that any gentleman would blush and feel deeply ashamed to be caught parading the streets on a public occasion, or, for the matter of that, on a private occasion, with a revolver swinging around his neck like a powder horn, or sticking vulgarly and threateningly out of his hip pocket, making him the picture of a pirate.

Tennessee Supreme Court 1840:

>A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.

Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.

That's why Chief Justice Warren Burger was spot on in his opinion of gun lobbyists and extremist conservatives (and corrupt justices like Scalia, etc.,), with their deliberate perversion of the legal and historical facts of the Second Amendment:

>“A fraud on the American public.”

0

DeskFan203 t1_j916jtp wrote

If something were to happen to him and she was left with his guns, there's a chance she could be seen as illegally possessing.

IANAL and I don't know how rights of survivorship apply to guns and probate, etc.

6

DeskFan203 t1_j918pss wrote

Ew why the downvote?????

1

mischavus618 t1_j92q1ru wrote

I didn’t downvote you. I don’t play that way.

−1

DeskFan203 t1_j92sga5 wrote

Oh that wasn't directed at you! Was to whoever DID downvote me LOL

1

Environmental_Log344 t1_j9138b9 wrote

It's a strong possibility that gun laws will toughen up, and I am very much in favor of that. The wife in your comment is thinking ahead. It's not what I would stock up on but if you are a gun type person, it's time to get them while you can. I pray they become impossible to purchase, sooner rather than later. And there she will be, all set set with a personal armory.

−6

ZebraRaptor t1_j91h59o wrote

Preface: I’m asking out of interest, not malice.

Why would you want guns impossible to purchase? (Legally of course). All of the other guns won’t magically disappear with the complete stoppage of all gun sales. Regardless of your personal opinions on guns, are there any other constitutional rights you think should be done away with?

4

Environmental_Log344 t1_j93b130 wrote

I can dream, can't I? Lol. The constitution gives us rights. I don't have to agree with all of it, just respect it. I can't change things that are written there. But I sure wish we could do away with the huge number of available firearms. Use them for hunting, no problem. How do you sort out the deer hunters from the human hunters? I have no idea how to plan or undertake this, nor does much of our government. They are letting it be for now but maybe my great grand kids will not see as many guns, or better yet, maybe firearms will be effectively banned by then. It's a tough issue. And I am going to vote in the direction of anything that reduces guns in irresponsible hands, if the issue is presented.

It's kind of snarky of you to assume I expect constitutional rights to be done away with at this point. Amendments could happen, but it's not likely. In the meantime, each opinion is valued.

Thank you for a thought -provoking bit of snark.

−1

mischavus618 t1_j913tge wrote

You would be AMAZED by how much ammo some people purchase.

−1

PangolinPizzaParty t1_j927kgi wrote

A sport shooter will pop off at least 100 rounds in a half hour session at the range. Having a thousand or two rounds on hand (locked up safely with the firearms, of course) is just smart shopping.

2