First side effect of the gay marriage ruling

Well you've certainly failed to put together a convincing cohesive argument.But thanks for trying, even though your effort was minimal.

Nice imitation of Faith there, reversing the truth.You were the one supposed to be making a case - that concealed carry was a fundamental right.You failed to make a case that the element of concealment had to be permitted.And now you're declaring victory and running away.Pathetic,

If you put as much effort into writing a comprehensible argument as you do into trying to be a dick, then I'd continue to respond to you.But I doubt it, so I'm just going to keep thinking that you're retarded and stop.Good day, sir.

And more hypocrisy.You haven't produced any real argument that there is a fundamental right to carry a *concealed* gun. You've just been - in your words - a dick about it.But to put it simply.Openly carrying a gun is carrying a gun.If you are allowed to openly carry a gun you are allowed to carry a gun. Even if you are NOT allowed to carry a concealed gun.Understand that?

Yup.The fundamental right is to carry. I don't care if its concealed or not.The same argument would have applied to a license for open carry.

That is a very offensive comment. I know you don't care about how you offend people, but the term "retarded" is now considered by many people as extremely offensive and demeaning. People don't choose to be developmentally disabled, to use the term as an insult is extremely demeaning.Its too bad that your debating skills have reverted back to where they were when you started to post here.

quote:

---

The fundamental right is to carry. I don't care if its concealed or not.

---

i.e. I was right all along. There is no fundamental right to concealed carry.

quote:

---

The same argument would have applied to a license for open carry.

---

My argument certainly does. There is no fundamental right to carry a firearm openly, and there is no requirement to recognise open carry licenses from other states.

Maybe he can provide cites for this fundamental right to carry.

I would think that the term "keep and bear" would mean carry.It really is that simple.

As I said, what you were right about was irrelevant to the argument. There is a fundamental right to carry a firearm, period.It doesn't matter if it is open or concealed.The argument was about how licenses to carry should be handled. Whether they're concealed or open is irrelevant.

Yeah, but you're talking to a guy who also wrote this, in Message 253:

quote:

---

with their own guns

​

The wording is "bear arms" not own arms. If they meant personal ownership why did they not state that?

---

quote:

---

As I said, what you were right about was irrelevant to the argument.

---

You were arguing that there was a fundamental right to concealed carry. The fact that there is not is obviously relevant.

Well others would think differently. Does the 2nd amendment allow for open carry in any public place? Where should people be allowed to open carry? Home? Hunting? Walmart?
It is not black and white no matter what you and Cat Sci may think. Where is the cite showing people should be able to open carry everywhere they want?

No, you misunderstood, I said there is a fundamental right to carry and concealed or not is irrelevant.

Your statement is simply an assertion. If it is a correct statement of fact and law, then you win. However your statement does not appear to be a correct statement of the current law. States currently regulate concealed carry within their own borders.If you have a case that you have a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon perhaps you should make that argument. If instead you are playing some kind of silly semantic game, perhaps that should end at some point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.