If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   California Supreme Court allows local bans on gun shows   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 560
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

2921 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2002 at 11:56 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



560 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-04-23 05:51:49 PM  
Bootsie: Damn straight. I'm living off the money I made last year, getting ready for my Texas National Guard Officer Canidate School classes (laundry, correcting the alert roster, making sure my platoon is squared away, and encouraging the slackers), and doing some computer maintenance in the background. Later, I'm replacing the oil pan on the 1970 IHC Scout I use to terrorize the greenies. I'd clean my guns, but I do that after shooting them.

But thanks for noticing. :)

And no, I don't have kids (yet), but if the school system does get out of hand (no, I don't think it has, but it could), I'll take 'em to a private school.

Johare nailed it, with a little too much editorializing, but you're all entitiled to your opinions.

No thanks on the book, I think you should offer it to Pigeonstopper, though. Sounds like his taste.
 
2002-04-23 05:55:15 PM  
Glad to see you'll be joining the government workforce. Yay for big government. Do remember to recycle that oil though.
 
2002-04-23 06:01:29 PM  
Military ain't much of a workforce. Trust me, I don't know where all that Defense money is going, when any enlisted man under the rank of Sergeant with an at-home spouse and a kid earns so little that he qualifies for welfare. That's a tragedy you can look into, since you do finance and politics.

Yup, I'll recycle the oil right back into it. I'm replacing the pan, not the oil.
 
2002-04-23 06:08:10 PM  
Killer_boots: Mk: I like that cartoon, guy. Nothing like a little sly anti-semetism to spice up a conservative web page.

Huh? A homeowner and a cop? Don't mean to be dense...??????
 
2002-04-23 06:10:47 PM  
Gotta go replace a U-joint on my roommate's truck.

It's good to be able to rely on yourself (hint).
 
2002-04-23 06:15:29 PM  
Actually, Woody, that sounds like a great book to buy. Spreading literacy and, as almost a direct result, compassion, understanding, and comprehension is one way to actually make the world a better place. Teaching people paranoia and espousing the necessity of deadly force isn't the kind of picture I like to paint for future generations.

Go3, thanks for the well wishes. But jeez, what are you people so damn terrified of? I think the Constituion should provide every citizen with a lightening- and shark-proof suit, because YOU JUST NEVER KNOW!
 
2002-04-23 06:16:03 PM  
Yeah, it's very fukced up. Military pay should be much higher, especially for enlisted men. (Not so much for higher ranking officers, as they can just retire and become a consultant somewhere for big bucks.) Unfortunately that requires higher taxes and/or less F-22s, which no one seems to be interested in.

I have an uncle on my mom's side who's a Lt. General and close friend who's a midshipman at annapolis, so I know a bit about that stuff... But probably not enough.

But you know, the same goes for wages across the board: a woman working 50 hours a week at Wal-Mart should be able to pay the rent and feed herself. That takes a much higher minimum wage (9 bucks minimum) and/or guaranteed health care. Health care's too complicated to get into on Fark, but the minimum wage could be done by simply taxing the shiat out of households making over 750K/year and helping out businesses with subsidies from that money, so they can pay the higher wages.

That's a tradeoff I'm willing to make, but I'm in a small minority. Oh well.
 
2002-04-23 06:20:56 PM  
Short, huge nose next to very aryan-looking and wiser cop. I read the NY Post a lot because it's funny, and they have an awful cartoonist whose name I have never bothered to learn who delights in this sort of shiat. Arguably my claim of anti-semetism is something of a stretch, but I don't think I'm being paranoid when I posit that someone who writes for "keepandbeararms.net" or whatever has used the phrase "jewish conspiracy" a few times in his day.
 
2002-04-23 06:24:28 PM  
Woody, for the record, I agree with you 1000% about military pay. That is a very sad state of affairs.

Careful Boots, you're starting to look a little RED around the gills with that kind of comment.
 
2002-04-23 06:31:11 PM  
How convenient it is to forget rural folk. Remember that 60 million Americans live in the sticks. Not everyone is packed together in tidy suburban neighborhoods with police cruisers on the beat. For some of us, personal firearms are our only line of defense.
 
2002-04-23 06:31:41 PM  
From my cold dead hand
 
2002-04-23 06:32:45 PM  
boots: I don't think I'm being paranoid when I posit that someone who writes for "keepandbeararms.net" or whatever has used the phrase "jewish conspiracy" a few times in his day.

Well then somebody better tell this guy who's side he's on so he stops making fun of other anti-semetists:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1229

Geez dude, it's been a long time since I've seen so much read into so little. But you managed to drift off-topic by a few miles; I'm "positing" that was probably the point.
 
2002-04-23 06:32:55 PM  
this has probably been said before, but I'm too lazy to read all these damn posts.

BUT the consitution says its ok to own guns. It doesn't protect the right to have gun conventions. All you gun enthusiasts should be glad this power is being delegated to the local authorities; at least the federal government isn't banning these conventions throughout the entire nation!

I can't believe anyone is whining about this. They are only guns. Banning gun conventions isn't going to keep you from hunting or protecting yourself or whatever it is you gun owners do with your guns.

I say if the community for whatever reason believes gun conventions are bad for the community, they should have the power to ban them. Hero indeed.
 
2002-04-23 06:37:39 PM  
BUT the consitution says its ok to be Gay. It doesn't protect the right to have Gay conventions.
 
2002-04-23 06:39:39 PM  

Idiots.

What the left fails to recognize is that firearms are as polarizing an issue as abortion.

Bill Clinton (say what you will about him, he knew how to campaign & get elected) has -- on several occassions both before and after the '00 elections -- said the reason Gore would and did lose was because the NRA voter was against him.

California's big government, anti-gun, socialistic policies caused me to move from that state. I don't miss it a bit.

 
2002-04-23 06:43:51 PM  
Awwww c'mon Americans! Give up your right to freedom of assembly, your right to buy and sell ***LEGAL*** items ***LEGALLY***, guns just aren't popular enough with genius liberals, so you need to hand over your rights to them, mmmmkay?
 
2002-04-23 06:43:52 PM  
I like this idea. I really do. I belive in an Americans right to have a fire arm, and I think that there are some very, very legitment reasons, even today that Americans should have the option to be armed. Our government increasily is pulling away from the control of the people who created it. Some of the militia rhetoric actually makes sense if you can get past the hickish drawl and the poor grammer.

But, that having been said, I also think that communities should have more leway to decide how they want guns in their community. If a rural county in Texas thinks it's OK to have citizens carry fully automatic assult rifels, then thats fine by me. If a county in California decides it does'nt want to see gun shows, that's fine too. If the city of New York places a ban on private gun ownership, then that's their choice.

I want to be able to have control over what goes on in my town. A few years ago, I was very frustrated with the State of California because of a ballot initive that prohibited smoking. It passed, not because the majority of the communities supported it, but because non-smoking is prefered in many of the mainly liberal larger cities. It pissed me off that people in Los Angeles and San Francisco got to decide what I could or could not do in my home town. Right now, I live in a suburb of Phoenix, AZ, and there is a ballot initive right now to ban smoking in this suburb. I moved here, to Tempe instead of a neighboring community (Mesa) because Mesa has a public smoking ban. I was given that choice. If the ballot passes here in Tempe, at least I know that my wishes are not in line with that of the community, so that tells me that I should probably move to another suburb, or try to change the opinions of my community.

We've got it all backwords in this country. The constitution is designed to limit what the federal government can do. It can not, or should not make broad, sweeping laws that effect the entire nation, when they contridict the values of many communities. The states, in turn, while bounded by the 14th amendment, should be unable to make laws state wide that effect all communities. The communitys should.

It pisses me off that when I go to vote, I have a few things on the ballot that effect the town I'm in, a few more that effect my state. But the majority of laws passed that effect me go on at the Federal level, and the only level of control I have of that is to decide the lesser of two evils for a canidate to represent me.
 
2002-04-23 06:49:21 PM  
If the city of New York places a ban on private gun ownership, then that's their choice.
Bzzzzzzt. Wrong! By this reasoning, if Alabama wants to have slave ownership, then that's their choice. Read the Bill of Rights... the 14th one to be exact. This is why you can't ban gun ownership or own slaves even if your "community/state" says it's okay.
 
2002-04-23 06:57:10 PM  
...if you can get past the hickish drawl and the poor grammer.


 
2002-04-23 06:57:37 PM  
Pathighgate - Heh. Those things annoy me as well. The kicker is that it is nearly impossible to get rid of a law. Once some ill conceived, propaganda fuelled measure rides the PR tide all the way to shore, it takes the concerted effort of just about every free person in the state to push its stinking carcass off the beach. For federal laws, just about the entire nation has to get in on the action.


I want to smoke in bars. It should be up to the business to permit/forbid smoking. I want a farking ferret. They're fuzzy and cute. It should be up to the people of CA whether ferrets will be considered legal pets like they are everywhere else in the continental US, not the Sierra Club or the CA state wildlife dept. Both those agencies managed to kill 2 bills seeking to decriminalize ferrets, and put the burden of proving that ferrets do NOT cause ecological damage on the public, instead of taking it upon themselves to prove that they DO cause such damage.
 
2002-04-23 07:07:25 PM  
Ralph Spoilsport: You are pretty stupid if you think people would ONLY use guns to kill. You probably thought terrorists only used guns. Ever think of airplanes? Fertilizer? Themselves?

To kill oneself, why do it the hard way? Why climb on top of a building and jump off? Or stab yourself with a knife? You can just use a gun. So ANY suicide statistics can be thrown out the window.
Murders: Well, consider the fact that if you want someone dead that bad, you will do it. If not guns, your imagination is the only thing that can limit how someone will die.

Let me guess, you LOVE cars, right? Hate guns but love cars (which kill how many people per year?). Farking hypocrite...
 
2002-04-23 07:07:37 PM  
T-b0n3 that's a stupid argument, which is rarely, if ever, supported by any fact. There are almost 300 million people in the US, and the "If he'd only had a gun, and he would have saved his wife from being raped" scenario really doesn't make the headlines much. It's just bull shiat propaganda from the NRA. If you want to own a gun, cool. According to John Ashcroft even God wants you to own a gun.
 
2002-04-23 07:09:47 PM  
GunBoy falls into the "don't understand it" category.
 
2002-04-23 07:17:02 PM  
04-23-02 04:58:42 PM
WoodyTX

The government won't invade your house.
Unless, of course, there's the merest hint of child abuse:



Wtf? That wasn't a case of child abuse. That was a case of people refusing to give up a child that legally belonged to someone else.
 
2002-04-23 07:17:45 PM  
Sorry, the above is in reference to the Elian picture.
 
2002-04-23 07:38:22 PM  
no anti gunner has ever explained why there isn't a correspondingly higher crime rate in those areas that allow concealed carry. They always seem to drift off into that "how 'bout them mets" direction. One of you folks really should address that point....it just might turn a head or two. But then, that's only if you want to do more than hear yourself talk.

"In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period.

And yet for seven years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the safest states in the union -- having twice received the "Safest State Award" from the Morgan Quitno Press, a private agency which compares and analyzes state crime statistics every year."

North Dakota is the absolute last in violent crime per capita in the US. The Brady bunch STILL wants you to e-mail the media in North Dakota to complain about the gun laws there. That, my anti gun friends, is NOT paranoia. That is simply evidence that the anti gun lobbys efforts to tie gun control to crime is bullshiat. The aim is obviously to criminalize gun ownership by private citizens. Those of you that hammer on the "crime by gun" issue can expect that those of us that know an absolutly infinistesimal number of legal gun owners ever commit a gun crime will continue to not hear you.

Violent Crime 1997 per 100000
U.S. average 610.8
49th Vermont 119.7
50th North Dakota 87.2


"http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.asp?state=nd"
 
2002-04-23 07:40:55 PM  
The law in question isn't about prohibiting gun sales, it's about not using town tax revenue to support those sales in a public place. Even with rentals on a space, there is still a burden placed on town resources during these conventions for staff, for police, and for fire marshals. The towns are exercising their rights as communities to not license these events. No where in the article did even purport to prohibit sales of guns.

Towns and communities often don't licence things like Hemp rallies, tittie bars, and other things they find unpalatable. Guns shows are like big flea markets, but with bullets. Towns should have the right to license these events, and if the community doesn't want to have them licensed, there you are. Have your tag sale/convention somewhere else.

No one is trying to prohibit citizen's right to bear arms, but the law is giving select communities standards on where those arms may be bought--and not with any town, city, or state funding to facilitate it. That's what state rights are about, the rights of the states to regulate their own affairs--so long as they do not inpinge on the Bill of Rights or federal laws. Liquor may be sold to people over the age of 21, yet in lots of places in New England, it is illegal to buy alcohol on Sundays. Yeah, it sucks that you can't get beer on Sunday, but you live with it. The towns that pass these ordinances will not get any money from these conventions, and they will migrate to towns that will support them. This law is a mental band-aid for some Californians because they will pass off responsibility to their neighbors.
"Well, we wouldn't let those NRA nuts in OUR town!"

The guns will still get sold, people may have to drive a little further, or shorter depending on where you're at, and things will pretty much carry on as usual, but gun control advocates will point to this "victory," as showing that the country wants this and that. This is pretty much a non-issue. There will be gun blue laws in California. Whoop-dee-doo. Dealers and licensed sales will continue to do business--you just may have to look harder, and create a a longer paper trail if you're looking for a chopped down AR-15.

Again, no one is talking about prohibiting any one's rights to bear arms, only to prohibit dealers and private sellers from using town property to engage in for-profit sales. This is an issue the conservatives should love. No government subsidies for business, only a level playing field.
 
2002-04-23 07:43:02 PM  
YourCrossToBear
BUT the consitution says its ok to own guns. It doesn't protect the right to have gun conventions.

---- I was going to go after this. After all, I'm an NRA member. I was going to assert that the constitution does protect the right to buy and sell legal goods.
Then I thought about all those dry counties, where if you want to get liquor, you have to drive farther.

But more power to those that may have tried to stop the ban. The "guns are evil" mantra is quite dumb and at its base, illogical. Let's say you've got 100 people in a city who are law-abiding citizens. Let's say the city bans guns. Now, put 15 people in that city who don't give the slightest rip about the law.

They now have the reasonable certainty that, arming themselves with a gun for a weapon, they will be the most powerful force in the neighborhood other than the police. Gun control empowers criminals. I've always wondered: is the hope that gun laws will take guns *out* of criminals hands? To that I say one word: marijuana.

The gun buyback programs are the most absolutely asinine. I always get teary-eyed when gang members, terrorists, and miscellaneous other criminals get to feeling guilty about their guns and flock to the gun buybacks.
 
2002-04-23 07:45:51 PM  
NewbieChach
T-b0n3 that's a stupid argument, which is rarely, if ever, supported by any fact. There are almost 300 million people in the US, and the "If he'd only had a gun, and he would have saved his wife from being raped" scenario really doesn't make the headlines much. It's just bull shiat propaganda from the NRA.

---- Are you saying that people don't use guns to prevent crime? C'mon, say it. I need to know that you can actually get your mind around that one.
 
2002-04-23 07:57:17 PM  
Shuh:

Just to avoid being embarssed in the future;

Read the Bill of Rights... the 14th one to be exact.

There is only one Bill of Rights. I think you mean the 14th amendment to the constitution. This is not part of the bill of rights.
 
2002-04-23 07:59:50 PM  
Hubie, don't you ever get tired of being wrong? The government subsidizes every convention held on public land? The town resources are gobbled up by people staying in hotels, eating out, and otherwise contributing to the local economy/tax-base? Man... you are really really really grasping here.
 
2002-04-23 08:02:41 PM  
Bitplayer--Have you got stats on Utah?--from what I understand their concealed carry laws are the most lax in the nation.

I'm not sure that the stats neccessarily line up with concealed carry laws and crime--each state having a different demographic and each city haveing different factors that influence the violent crime stats, but not neccessarily off base. Maine has pretty relaxed concealed carry laws, and their violent crime rate is pretty low for firearms use--but then again, Boston has more people in it's municipal area and outlying towns than the entire state, so lining those stats up against Mass isn't exactly fair.

An armed society is a polite society, in theory. There are a lot more factors than just how an armed society is as crime detterence--it tends to cut down on petty crimes of opportunity, or it can escalate these encounters to something bigger.
 
2002-04-23 08:06:32 PM  
 
2002-04-23 08:08:05 PM  
Shuh--Yes, and those communities have the right to decide WHICH of those they subsidize.

I'm not saying these communities are going to benifit from this--I think it's a pretty stupid thing they are doing--they're only going to force these folks to drive elsewhere and spend money outside of their towns, AND the guns are still going to be sold to their neighbors. It's a way to pat themselves on the back for doing something about those awful gun nuts without actually doing anything useful. Again, what these towns are doing is legal--I never said it was bright.
 
2002-04-23 08:13:58 PM  
How'd I know I'd find WoodyTX spouting of repeatedly in this thread?

Hey, little message for you in the ozone thread.

Did you not see it, or can't you respond to the truth, now that your B.S. has been exposed for exactly what it is?

"Loser."
 
2002-04-23 08:14:15 PM  
04-23-02 08:02:41 PM Hubiestubert

I didn't mean to imply that concealed carry = less crime. The anti gun faction has always argued that more guns = more crime. I just gave two (of several) instances that seem to disprove that. Looking for one of the anti crowd to explain.
 
2002-04-23 08:18:47 PM  
Again, what these towns are doing is legal--I never said it was bright.
Yeah... I have to agree. I'm submitting my new law to the California Supreme Court too... it says that local communities can legally deny Gay Conventioneers from getting a liscense to peacefully assemble on public property... just because there is going to be some "gayness" going on. You see... the Constitution says it's okay for people to be Gay, but my community is going to reserve the right to keep them from doing it on public land. Brilliant, isn't it?
 
2002-04-23 08:28:40 PM  
Shuh,

I understand where you're coming from, but it isn't the same thing. Selling a gun at a particular venue is not the same thing as assembling to support a cause, engage in a group activity, etc.

You can't buy liquor in some counties. You can't zone strip clubs wherever you want. You can't sell firecrackers in Michigan. There are all kinds of local laws governing what can be bought and sold, and just the existence of these local ordinances does not throw them into the commie unconstitutional category.

There's always an arc to flaming, by the way. Eventually the fire settles down to mere glowing embers, and the people left around usually seem better at thinking through the issues, are more prone to agree to disagree at the end of the day, etc. Just an observation.
 
2002-04-23 08:30:42 PM  
BitPlayer--Didn't think that you did. I was just interested if you had any stats for Utah. It's a more complicated question than anyone can explain with simple numbers.

Generally speaking, if you know that if someone can defend themselves, you pick on someone else. If only that worked out in the real world. The issue is a lot more complicated than either side of this issue can explain. Guns do prevent some petty crimes. A lot of people are killed by legal guns. A lot of people are killed by guns that were never registered and bought illegally. Lots of kids are killed accidentally. A lot of folks are killed in fits of passion. Some crazies get guns and get shot by the police. Some folks have horrible, horrible accidents. I own a couple of guns, and I think I'm pretty responsible--I don't see the need to have automatic weapons, I don't need a Stinger in my garage, and I haven't had a concealed carry for several years because I don't need one. Gun ownership is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and I think that implicit with that is the responsibility to use that right wisely--just like voting, just like free speech. Use it, but use it wisely.
 
2002-04-23 08:39:36 PM  
Shuh--Good luck. Equating gun ownership and homosexuality as equal says something though...
 
2002-04-23 08:39:36 PM  
Shuh

You keep making bad anologies.

A gay convention cannot be limited, just like a convention of gun owners cannot be limited.

A gun owner has a constitutional right to own a gun, but a community can decide it does'nt want the sale of guns on public property. A homosexual has a constitutional right to be a homosexual, but a community can decide it does'nt want the sale of buttplugs on public property.
 
2002-04-23 08:45:18 PM  
Remember that massacre in Scotland where a gunman killed those little 5-year-old children?

Remember when guns were all but abolished in the U.K. afterward?

Remember when no other massacres have occurred since?

Of course you're willing to sacrifice those kids at Columbine to protect your "freedom" because you need to protect yourself from the flawless government.

It makes sense since the U.S. government is foolproof. A million safeguards protecting you from dictatorships, yet you need guns to guard yourself from this wonderful institution touted as the best in the world by "true patriots".

All of you cowboys need to realize you aren't protecting anything but your little egos. You truly believe you are the vanguard against government oppression. Sorry if I don't give my gratitude for you "protection".
 
Kiz
2002-04-23 08:47:14 PM  
Whoah. Ferrets are banned in CA? Wow. That's just messed up.
 
2002-04-23 08:49:02 PM  
I understand where you're coming from, but it isn't the same thing. Selling a gun at a particular venue is not the same thing as assembling to support a cause, engage in a group activity, etc
You obviously have never gone to a gun show. A gun show is a group activity. People go to look at guns, talk about guns, talk about the relevant issues. The "cause" is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

You don't see scads of fanatical white-supremist hicks with their eyes glazed over carrying out huge boxes of ordinance and AK-47's every 30 seconds to their cars outside. You see hunters and sons, grandfathers with daughters and nephews, wives talking about target shooting. The poor assholes who run the tables/booths there don't make scads of money at the show... they're there to make new contacts with new gun enthusiasts and people who will later come to their shops. It's mostly people bullshiatting and advertising.
You can't buy liquor in some counties. You can't zone strip clubs wherever you want. You can't sell firecrackers in Michigan. There are all kinds of local laws governing what can be bought and sold, and just the existence of these local ordinances does not throw them into the commie unconstitutional category.
Well here's where firearms are not related: 1) liquor is a drug, 2) strip clubs aren't held in public convention centers, 3) liquor, strip clubs, and firecrackers are not mentioned BY NAME in the U.S. Constitution with their OWN AMENDMENT.
 
2002-04-23 08:56:55 PM  
04-23-02 08:45:18 PM Ouch

Remember that massacre in Scotland where a gunman killed those little 5-year-old children?

Remember when guns were all but abolished in the U.K. afterward?

Remember when no other massacres have occurred since?


Fire arms weren't all that prevalent prior to that incident, and having been hunting in Great Britain since then, I can attest to the continued availability of firearms.
 
2002-04-23 09:01:56 PM  
He's a big boy and can speak for himself.

And yet he remains curiously silent.

That's because it's hard to speak with both feet in your mouth and your head up your ass.
 
2002-04-23 09:05:16 PM  
Mr-Obvious aka MrSarcastic: Try some thoughtful contributions to a thread. It's not hard. Based on some things you've said, I am assuming you are a thoughtful and intelligent person. It's when you reduce to the petty one-liners and insults that your contribution gets dismissed.

I actually wouldn't mind seeing you debate a point, as you obviously ran through some research on the other thread. But you have been taking such a personal interest in other people, like WoodyTX, that's completely unnecessary.

Myself, I have nothing against Canada (it seemed you were working on some Canada vs. U.S. angle on the other thread) as I rather like the country and my brother-in-law is Canadian (Grand Prairie, Alberta).
 
2002-04-23 09:05:28 PM  
Scrotar
Anyone interested in seeing the apoplectic ravings of an angry, vindicative Canadian
can check them out here:


If by that you mean facts quotes from the CIA Factbook which dispute point for point all of WoodyTX's lies, then yes.
 
2002-04-23 09:06:32 PM  
Shuh--No one is limiting anyone's rights to own or bear a firearm. Conventions are conventions--whether they're for gamers, proctologists, tattoo folk, Shriners--and sometimes communities deny gamers their petitions, sometimes porn stars are denied their petitions, it happens, and folks move on to communities that are more open. My Dad tattoos, and there are a lot of communities that don't like the conventions, and they don't go there. Tattooing is legal, and generally folks just roll in, drink a little, BS a little, get some tatts and make business contacts. My Dad then reports everything to his accountant. Just like anyone else.

Gun shops have to be zoned, just like any other business. Listen, I own a couple of guns, and no, I'm not about to give them up for anyone--given the current administration, it might even be a good idea to stock up--but the issue is still that a community should be able to regulate businesses in its area--and pulling in homosexuals is the real grasping here. Accept the fact that there are towns in Cali that aren't going to host a gun convention, and move on.
 
2002-04-23 09:07:22 PM  
Shuh
You obviously have never gone to a gun show. A gun show is a group activity. People go to look at guns, talk about guns, talk about the relevant issues. The "cause" is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

---- First off, when you have NRA members arguing against you, it's time to fold up the tent. Second, how do you know where I have and haven't been.

You don't see scads of fanatical white-supremist hicks with their eyes glazed over carrying out huge boxes of ordinance and AK-47's every 30 seconds to their cars outside. You see hunters and sons, grandfathers with daughters and nephews, wives talking about target shooting. The poor assholes who run the tables/booths there don't make scads of money at the show... they're there to make new contacts with new gun enthusiasts and people who will later come to their shops. It's mostly people bullshiatting and advertising.

----- Who are you talking to? I did not say what does or does not take place at gun shows. I think you're making the mistake of seeing your opponent as a cliche. It truly is time to pack it up for the day. Set up your one-man show again tomorrow.

Well here's where firearms are not related: 1) liquor is a drug,

---- We could un-relate them all day. Liquor also isn't gun-metal blue. Here's where we *can* relate them. Things that can easily cause harm if mis-used: liquor, pharmaceuticals, poison, weapons, dynamite, and so on have regulations about where they can be bought and sold, and under what stipulations. This doesn't mean we're about to outlaw aspirin.

2) strip clubs aren't held in public convention centers,

---- So what? I can think of lots of differences too. Gun sellers don't get twenties stuffed into their undies.

3) liquor, strip clubs, and firecrackers are not mentioned BY NAME in the U.S. Constitution with their OWN AMENDMENT.

----- The amendment refers to the right to own, not buy and sell in any conceivable place. Prohibition was repealed, wasn't it? I seem to remember that. Yet guess what? It's still okay for the Baptists and bootleggers to vote booze-selling out of a county.

Well nigh time to pack it up.
 
Displayed 50 of 560 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report