By any means necessary.

Define that.

They've also assured us that there is no right to rebel against the government.

I also note that they've yet to guarantee us that said government would then disarm or
wouldn't subsequently misuse their monopoly on force...

that the disarming of private citizens and leaving the state armed is a good thing.

Also his "by any means necessary" comment leads me to think he would approve of the violent taking of privately owned firearms.

No doubt sharesunited/Loudly will approve...

I thought I read somewhere that Russian troops are the only ones that are now allowed to be armed.

The "by any means" statement is chilling.

Would this include use of force to remove firearms from private citizens?

If you are rich or famous you should be allowed to own firearms as it is obvious that you have far more need for one than the average citizen who is too poor to live in a crime free area. Since you are rich and famous you obviously must be far more responsible than the average citizen. The cream always rises to the top.

"Shall issue" does not allow for discrimination. "May issue" can and often does. In many states with "may issue" CCW if a black individual with dreadlocks and his pants hung low applied for a license to carry the local police chief might search for a reason to deny it. Obviously such an individual MUST be a criminal. Perhaps the local police chief feels that allowing civilians to carry a firearm in public is a bad idea and that only law enforcement officers should be allowed to carry a firearm in public. He can simply refuse to grant such a license. Consequently a person who lives in a bad neighborhood might be attacked and be unable to mount an effective defense and might end up in a hospital or six feet under.

I agree that only honest, sane and responsible citizens with good training should be allowed to carry in public. I also feel that our current laws in many states could be changed to ensure that as much as possible that only such individuals are granted carry permits.

However I disagree with "shall issue" laws such as exist in New York City. Why should Don Immus, Howard Stern and Donald Trump be allowed to carry a firearm in public while some average person who has far more reason to fear that he might be the victim of a violent attack find the process of obtaining such a permit so expensive or difficult that it is basically impossible? Is Don Immus a better citizen then I am and what does that say about equality in our nation? Donald Trump probably has armed security with him at all times. (Ref: http://gawker.com/5606422/roger-ailes-sean-hannity-can-carry-hidden-guns)

Obviously the gun control movement has little or no chance of eliminating legal concealed carry in our nation. Why give that right only to the rich, the famous and the well connected?

Note that I have absolutely no problem with the fact that Don Immus, Howard Stern and Donald Trump have a carry permit in NYC. I simply feel that if they can, every honest sane and responsible citizen should be allowed the same privilege. Are people in this nation equal or not?

Does a white cane and service dog have any impact on issuing a permit? If the LEO knows the applicant to be a bully, a drunk and a wife abuser is he obliged to issue under 'shall issue'?

Can't post a link from this tablet but Google news about blind man suing to have guns returned after SYG killing friend and drink in' buddy.

*Americans With Disabilities Act

As for the "bully,..drunk and a wife abuser"- Yes, they are unless the applicant is DQ'd due
to civil commitment for mental health issues or felony and/or domestic abuse convictions
-even scumbags have civil rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=181522#182329

Under a shall issue, there is one set of standards that apply equally. May issue means even if the objective standards are met, you can still be denied for lack of moral character or some other nebulous term, or granted a carry license even if the objective standards are not met, assuming the applicant is not a prohibited person.

LEO's don't determine laws, they simply enforce them. If the objective standards say that anyone who is convicted of being drunk, DWI, DUI, or domestic violence, cannot be issued a carry, then it applies to everyone.

As far as LEO's having this kind of authority, do you mean you'd be comfortable with one of the LEOs in this video

Dogs. Alrighty then . . .

Having been background checked by the FBI, BATF&E, Texas Department of Public Safety, Tarrant county and the city of Arlington I can tell ya' it's not a hardship. On the other hand two people up-thread said in plain language that drunken wife beaters and blind people should be given CCW permits.

So you want to prohibit CCW from anyone accused of a crime even if they are innocent?

I don't follow.

The fact that you lot seem to have a problem with that speaks more about
you than us.

No? Didn't think so ...

Do you really think a known drunken wife beater should have a gun in public? It's only due process if 'shall issue' replaces 'may issue' taking common sense out of the equasion. It's like zero tolerance or mandatory minimum sentencing but with deadly consequenses.

there is no such thing, it simply doesn't exist. Einstein described as the collection of prejudices of accumulated before you turn 18. I call it the first refuge of the intellectually lazy.
In "may issue" the cops often don't care about what the actual need or suitability is. They care about how much money you have. In NYC, you could be a coke head and an alcoholic like Don Imus, you will still get your CCW. If you are not part of the one percent, even though you have been clean and sober your entire life, not happening.
In some California counties, like LA, Orange, Ventura Counties, suitability depends on how much you contribute to the sheriff's re election campaign. Sean Penn, actually has one in LA county. If I had a list of "people who should never own guns or crossbows" his name would be close to the top.

like I said below, if someone is arrested several times but not convicted, it says more about the PD than the individual. Cops arrest innocent people often, sometimes more than once. For example
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/30/1259266/-My-Stupid-State-Florida-Police-Arrest-Jail-Harass-Innocent-Black-Man-258-Times#

the licensing authority? If he is rich and a crony, he will still get his CCW in NY and California. I read quite well, problem is that you are providing a false choice that operates well on paper and in speeches, but has no reverence in the real world.

if he were known, he would be convicted. I don't know about Texas, but in Florida DV is a crime against the State. which doesn't require her to press charges, and she can not withdraw the charges.
You either need new reading glasses or you not being very honest with yourself about what I said.

Otherwise, to go on what Suzie or Sam says does not afford due process; not exactly vigilante justice, but akin to it.

Sounds good to me, especially if the alternative is denial of rights by whim and fiat.

Calling someone a "drunken wife beater" is meaningless in the absence of proof. I could start the same type of rumor about you. If it led to your losing your C&R, would that be "common sense"?

If I sell one of my guns to someone I know uses drugs and beats his wife I go to jail but you seem to think a police officer in the same situation must give the same person a CCW.

Blind adherence to a rigid point of view is not indicative of reasonable thought.

but in Wyoming, they are issued by the AG. In Florida, they are issued by the Agriculture Dept. (stupid, I know). The difference is, you actually know. The licensing authority really doesn't know. If someone is arrested several times but not convicted of anything, that says more about the PD than the individual.

record as being in favor of said drunken wife beater having a CCW. I got that. Over and over. Own it, wear that shirt. You're in favor of arming known drunken wife beaters.

You are saying those in favor of may issue want drunk wife beaters with connections to have CCW?

Just admit it, you want favoritism for the rich and politically connected.

everybody below AG Holder and the local animal control officer and it wasn't a hardship. Paranoid delusions about a police state don't make your arguments more credible.

You're on record of issuing CCW to known drunken wife beaters. Own it. Wear it with pride.

... is not a "known drunken wife beater" in the eyes of the law.

It's called "due process." Apparently you've never heard of it.

On what evidence? I can say that anyone I don't like is a "drunken wife beater."

The burden of proof is on the state. It's one of the cornerstones of our democracy.

On "known" absent a conviction and due process is not progressive at all....it is the breeding ground for abuse and discrimination.

I am interested if you are okay with "known" being used in other topics absent of due process?

I don't have the authority to issue CCW.

Nor do I think CCW should be issued to drunken wife beaters.

You are on record for giving them exceptions if they have the money.

in a may issue, who has money and is buddies with the licensing authority, he will get it anyway. If you sell a gun to someone who you know to be a wife beating POS, then you are guilty of violating the GCA. If you don't sell him a gun, and don't do anything to help his victim, you are an accessory to his crime of being a wife beating POS.

Known to whom? Like I said, just because the cops claim something doesn't make it true. Often, they are some of the worst criminals.
You are on record of being an accessory to a crime by doing nothing.

You'll need it...

This does not suggest that you might not oppose others as well, but the first statement seems accurate.

BTW, if you KNOW someone is beating his spouse, report it. It's your duty, and may prevent that person from obtaining an arm.

Please enlighten us.

Paraphrasing it says that if I knowingly sell to someone who uses drugs or has committed a crime I'm liable for fines and/or jail time. Does not say convicted. So I may sell, not shall sell. I'm expected to use discretion based on my knowledge or suspicion, not a conviction.

I would like the actual wording. Then we would have something to discuss. As it is, all we have is what you think you remember.

Allowing the seller of a firearm to use his/her discretion in refusing a sale is not remotely similar to allowing government agencies to deny rights without due process.