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.

(Tampa Bay Online)   Water pistols, face masks and string more than six inches long not allowed in Tampa's 'clean zone' for Republican Convention. Firearms? Yeah, they're okay   (tbo.ly) divider line 104
    More: Florida, Republican, Tampa, City Attorney Jim Shimberg, Florida Statutes, local ordinances, Republican convention, concealed handgun, Florida Legislature  
•       •       •

3570 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2012 at 1:30 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-02 02:07:48 PM
So an object that will only raise a welt or draw some blood or get you wet is against the rules, but an object that can splatter your guts across the room and end life as you know it is OK? Got it.

I knew the NRA had a douchebag side, but I didn't think they'd allow it to be this evident.
Stick to the shooting lessons, you low-class turdballs. You're a poor proponent for the 2nd Amendment.
 
2012-04-02 02:08:11 PM
This just in: Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.
 
2012-04-02 02:10:30 PM

KarmicDisaster: Right to bear arms does not define what "arms" are. At the time it was written it certainly included swords, for example. What if someone brings a raspberry? Is that OK? How will you defend yourself?


I really want to see someone challenge this in court. It would be great for someone to be walking down the street with a sword in a scabbard or a battle axe frogged at his belt and then get arrested and then have the Supreme Court rule that the 2nd Amendment applied to melee weapons.
 
2012-04-02 02:10:30 PM
My Master Plan-

What if I take the string, tie it in a knot take it to the bathroom and run it under some water and then put it under the hand dryer while pressing the end of it into my palm and twisting it.

Cop: Hey you! Is that a string?

Me: No, A frayed knot.
 
2012-04-02 02:13:08 PM

djh0101010: This just in: Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.


Yes, just like highly decorated soldiers aren't a threat to go crazy and mow down civilians in a warzone. Anyone is liable to lose it at any time.
 
2012-04-02 02:13:22 PM
Can't wait to see what the DNC has in store for Charlotte in September.

/NOT looking forward to the convention
//Charlotte cannot handle large events
 
2012-04-02 02:15:54 PM

wildcardjack: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 450x347]

Approved footwear inside the "clean zone".


Pfft, no string longer than 6 inches? I am currently concealing two deadly weapons in excess of 40" cleverly woven through the eyelets of my shoes. Got them right through federal security.

[dear hypothetical keylogger program snooping on my work computer: this is sarcasm. they are shoelaces.]
 
2012-04-02 02:16:22 PM

birchman: djh0101010: This just in: Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.

Yes, just like highly decorated soldiers aren't a threat to go crazy and mow down civilians in a warzone. Anyone is liable to lose it at any time.


[Citation Needed] - the numbers just don't back up your concern. But I can understand why you're concerned. I'm just saying, the facts just don't support that concern.
 
2012-04-02 02:16:42 PM

taurusowner: Hmm. Water pistols, face masks, string, and firearms. One of these is specifically mentioned by name in the Bill of Rights. Can you guess which?


No, I can't. The second amendment just says "arms". Which one of those is "specifically mentioned"? Unless you are looking at the Tea Party version of the Constitution, which apparently differs from the actual document in a number of places.
 
2012-04-02 02:17:59 PM

taurusowner: Hmm. Water pistols, face masks, string, and firearms. One of these is specifically mentioned by name in the Bill of Rights. Can you guess which?


The Bill of Rights doesn't mention "fire"arms. It just says "arms." Since the Supreme Court has held the Second Amendment is not limited to a military purpose, it would make sense that the Second Amendment protection applies to all arms, even water pistols. Nothing about string or masks, though, so I gues they can be banned.

//still trying to figure out how a 7-inch piece of string can be dangerous.
/and what constitutes "string"? How about heavy-duty thread? Does everyone have to shed their shoestrings?
 
2012-04-02 02:21:33 PM
I wonder if the police will be a little less likely to abuse the rights of protestors?

Just like rapists and robbers don't like it when their victims turn out to be armed, I'd like to think at least a few abusive cops will think twice.
 
2012-04-02 02:21:54 PM

djh0101010: birchman: djh0101010: This just in: Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.

Yes, just like highly decorated soldiers aren't a threat to go crazy and mow down civilians in a warzone. Anyone is liable to lose it at any time.

[Citation Needed] - the numbers just don't back up your concern. But I can understand why you're concerned. I'm just saying, the facts just don't support that concern.


There are no facts that would ever support your claim because it's an opinion. You can't possibly presume to know the mental state of every single person who carries a CCW permit.
 
2012-04-02 02:23:53 PM

StaceyNC: Can't wait to see what the DNC has in store for Charlotte in September.

/NOT looking forward to the convention
//Charlotte cannot handle large events


I'm gonna invade with a shiat-ton of bootleg string.
 
2012-04-02 02:24:29 PM
the_sidewinder: Is that 6 inches per strand, or 6 inches all together?

That is a second amendment issue, and I'm not going to get into it.
 
2012-04-02 02:25:57 PM
the_sidewinder: Is that 6 inches per strand, or 6 inches all together?

That is not may actually be a a hair question.
 
2012-04-02 02:26:27 PM
Some objects which are licensed and regulated at the state level are not permitted, by the state legislature, to also be licensed and regulated at the city level.

Not seeing a problem here. It's pretty common all across the country, with more things than firearms.

I'm not sure what the NRA has to do with this. When Georgia passed a similar state-preemption law a couple years back, the NRA was opposed to the new law. They are not automatically in favor of all pro-gun laws.
 
2012-04-02 02:27:18 PM
All it will take is one wag to shout "NI&&ER!!" inside the convention hall and it will turn into a bloodbath.

Every delegate will whip out their .44s and start shooting wildly at anything that moves.

/Criswell Predicts ...
 
2012-04-02 02:29:55 PM
I like to call the RNC every four years and ask if guns are going to be allowed into the Convention and if not, why not?
 
2012-04-02 02:32:49 PM

birchman: djh0101010: birchman: djh0101010: This just in: Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.

Yes, just like highly decorated soldiers aren't a threat to go crazy and mow down civilians in a warzone. Anyone is liable to lose it at any time.

[Citation Needed] - the numbers just don't back up your concern. But I can understand why you're concerned. I'm just saying, the facts just don't support that concern.

There are no facts that would ever support your claim because it's an opinion. You can't possibly presume to know the mental state of every single person who carries a CCW permit.


I didn't claim TO know the state of every person with a CCW permit, I'm saying, that there are plenty of things to worry about, but CCW holders are very far down on the list.
 
2012-04-02 02:38:52 PM
Sure. We're a "democracy." I can see that.
 
2012-04-02 02:40:48 PM
if by "string" they mean penis, it just proves that they are trying to keep out the black man.
 
2012-04-02 02:44:13 PM
Statistically speaking, people are unlikely to use a gun in a public venue. CCW Holders are the least to be concerned with and unregistered pistols can be managed using traditional security measures.

Know what's dangerous?
Some wingnut with a cream pie or water pistol who gets in range of a senator.
People are more likely to have a go at each other with non-lethal weapons or random objects than they are with firearms.
 
2012-04-02 02:44:27 PM
What's this about a six inch tampon string?
 
2012-04-02 02:47:37 PM

Fabric_Man: It only says we can "bear arms."




i32.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-02 03:07:18 PM

djh0101010: birchman: djh0101010: birchman: djh0101010: This just in: Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.

Yes, just like highly decorated soldiers aren't a threat to go crazy and mow down civilians in a warzone. Anyone is liable to lose it at any time.

[Citation Needed] - the numbers just don't back up your concern. But I can understand why you're concerned. I'm just saying, the facts just don't support that concern.

There are no facts that would ever support your claim because it's an opinion. You can't possibly presume to know the mental state of every single person who carries a CCW permit.

I didn't claim TO know the state of every person with a CCW permit, I'm saying, that there are plenty of things to worry about, but CCW holders are very far down on the list.


You stated "Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.". Since you did not use words like "most licensed CCW holders" or "significant threat" then that can only mean you are talking about all of them. In other words, if any CCW holder has ever committed a crime, you are wrong. Perhaps you should stop using hyperbolic statements to make points and you won't have this problem.

And by the way, I'm not concerned about anything, I'm not going to be there.
 
2012-04-02 03:08:57 PM
"Guns will be banned from the security zone the Secret Service will set up around the convention site, Shimberg said."

You know who else disarmed the populace ?
 
2012-04-02 03:35:37 PM
This whole situation just goes to show how absurd little people with a little bit of power can be. They shouldn't be banning anything at all. Instead of taking peoples rights away beforehand they should just arrest people who do illegal things as/after they do them. Like we do in normal society the rest of the time.
 
2012-04-02 03:37:10 PM

birchman: djh0101010: This just in: Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.

Yes, just like highly decorated soldiers aren't a threat to go crazy and mow down civilians in a warzone. Anyone is liable to lose it at any time.


Except that for the overwhelming most part, they don't.
 
2012-04-02 03:43:12 PM

Gigwave: What's this about a six inch tampon string?


Menstruating women should stay at home until their ritual purification. That's in the Bible.
 
2012-04-02 03:48:11 PM

way south: Know what's dangerous?
Some wingnut with a cream pie or water pistol who gets in range of a senator.


Your definition of "dangerous" differs from mine... I don't consider a mild water soaking or slightly embarrassing/amusing splattering with cream to be particularly "dangerous" to anyone...
 
2012-04-02 03:49:34 PM
cdn3.digitaltrends.com
"Guy's got a seven inch string and a water pistol over here. Get your firearms ready"
 
2012-04-02 04:10:38 PM

birchman: I didn't claim TO know the state of every person with a CCW permit, I'm saying, that there are plenty of things to worry about, but CCW holders are very far down on the list.

You stated "Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.". Since you did not use words like "most licensed CCW holders" or "significant threat" then that can only mean you are talking about all of them. In other words, if any CCW holder has ever committed a crime, you are wrong. Perhaps you should stop using hyperbolic statements to make points and you won't have this problem.



Oh, I see, you want to play word games. Feel free. Here, let me give you another one: "CCW holders are significantly better behaved than the population as a whole". I can't wait to see what you'll do with THAT one.
 
2012-04-02 04:26:35 PM

djh0101010: birchman: I didn't claim TO know the state of every person with a CCW permit, I'm saying, that there are plenty of things to worry about, but CCW holders are very far down on the list.

You stated "Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.". Since you did not use words like "most licensed CCW holders" or "significant threat" then that can only mean you are talking about all of them. In other words, if any CCW holder has ever committed a crime, you are wrong. Perhaps you should stop using hyperbolic statements to make points and you won't have this problem.


Oh, I see, you want to play word games. Feel free. Here, let me give you another one: "CCW holders are significantly better behaved than the population as a whole". I can't wait to see what you'll do with THAT one.


On the internet, good sir, words are all we have to go on. Don't blame me for what you typed.

As far as your second statement, I'd simply ask for data to support your argument, and if the data supports your argument, then I will agree with you. I'm not sure what kind of ruse you think I'm pulling here....just type what you mean.
 
2012-04-02 04:27:10 PM

dittybopper: birchman: djh0101010: This just in: Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.

Yes, just like highly decorated soldiers aren't a threat to go crazy and mow down civilians in a warzone. Anyone is liable to lose it at any time.

Except that for the overwhelming most part, they don't.


That's not what he said.
 
2012-04-02 04:46:36 PM

birchman: dittybopper: birchman: djh0101010: This just in: Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.

Yes, just like highly decorated soldiers aren't a threat to go crazy and mow down civilians in a warzone. Anyone is liable to lose it at any time.

Except that for the overwhelming most part, they don't.

That's not what he said.


Don't presume to speak for me.
 
2012-04-02 04:58:32 PM

djh0101010: birchman: dittybopper: birchman: djh0101010: This just in: Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.

Yes, just like highly decorated soldiers aren't a threat to go crazy and mow down civilians in a warzone. Anyone is liable to lose it at any time.

Except that for the overwhelming most part, they don't.

That's not what he said.

Don't presume to speak for me.


Someone probably should, you're not very good at it. So do you have evidence to support your second claim yet?
 
2012-04-02 05:10:33 PM

way south: Statistically speaking, people are unlikely to use a gun in a public venue. CCW Holders are the least to be concerned with and unregistered pistols can be managed using traditional security measures.

Know what's dangerous?
Some wingnut with a cream pie or water pistol who gets in range of a senator.
People are more likely to have a go at each other with non-lethal weapons or random objects than they are with firearms.


do you have any data to support your theory that more people are killed or maimed by (non-lethal) cream pies or glitter bombs?
 
2012-04-02 05:18:30 PM

birchman: You stated "Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.". Since you did not use words like "most licensed CCW holders" or "significant threat" then that can only mean you are talking about all of them. In other words, if any CCW holder has ever committed a crime, you are wrong. Perhaps you should stop using hyperbolic statements to make points and you won't have this problem.


I'll just leave this here. the violence policy center (new window)
 
2012-04-02 05:24:30 PM

Monkeylint: wildcardjack: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 450x347]

Approved footwear inside the "clean zone".

Pfft, no string longer than 6 inches? I am currently concealing two deadly weapons in excess of 40" cleverly woven through the eyelets of my shoes. Got them right through federal security.

[dear hypothetical keylogger program snooping on my work computer: this is sarcasm. they are shoelaces.]


Beware my pair of 54" federally mandated strings.
 
2012-04-02 05:30:54 PM

Sofa King Smart: birchman: You stated "Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.". Since you did not use words like "most licensed CCW holders" or "significant threat" then that can only mean you are talking about all of them. In other words, if any CCW holder has ever committed a crime, you are wrong. Perhaps you should stop using hyperbolic statements to make points and you won't have this problem.

I'll just leave this here. the violence policy center (new window)


That's actually not a lot of people for the almost 5 years the data has been tracked.
 
2012-04-02 05:54:12 PM

Sofa King Smart: birchman: You stated "Licensed CCW holders aren't a threat to other non-criminals.". Since you did not use words like "most licensed CCW holders" or "significant threat" then that can only mean you are talking about all of them. In other words, if any CCW holder has ever committed a crime, you are wrong. Perhaps you should stop using hyperbolic statements to make points and you won't have this problem.

I'll just leave this here. the violence policy center (new window)


OK, thanks for that. Let's go with that number as being true, even though it's from a rabidly anti-gun group, so if anything it's inflated. For the purposes of this conversation, that's good enough. From that link:

"Total people killed by concealed carry killers: 402" (catchy term; nice marketing there, folks).
Following the link for that one, it shows that data is from "2007 to present". Let's assume "present" is some time last year to make the numbers easy, and call it 4 years even - dilutes my point a bit but not worth fighting.

In this MSNBC article from 2010, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/#.T3obldlURyI -
"From its beginnings in the 1980s, the "right-to-carry" movement has succeeded in boosting the number of licensed concealed-gun carriers from fewer than 1 million to a record 6 million today, according to estimates from gun-rights groups that are supported by msnbc.com's research. " That's 2 years old, so the number of permits is undoubtedly higher, but let's go with erroring on the low side, good enough for this discussion.

So, 6 million permit holders. 402 murders by holders of permits over the last let's say 4 years, if these two disparate sources are to be taken at their word. That's 0.001675% of the concealed carry permit holders annually.

According to the Department of Justices "Uniform Crime Reports" for 2010 (the latest year for which full data is available) at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-th e-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl16.xls - the "Murder and non-negligent manslaughter" rate for the US is 4.9 per 100,000 population. That comes out to 0.0049%.

SO, even if the "Violence policy center"'s numbers aren't horribly cooked and exaggerated, as I'd expect them to be based on their history, EVEN if you take them at their word, CCW holders are 1/3 as likely as the rest of the population to murder someone. I strongly suspect the ratio is much more favorable to my original point, but, there you have it.

And now I suppose you'll argue that I said "much lower" instead of "dramatically lower", and try to explain how a 3:1 ratio is one or the other or something. Or how It's really a 1:3 ratio, not a 3:1 ratio.
 
2012-04-02 06:18:07 PM

djh0101010: So, 6 million permit holders. 402 murders by holders of permits over the last let's say 4 years, if these two disparate sources are to be taken at their word. That's 0.001675% of the concealed carry permit holders annually.


If you take the entire gun-owning populations of Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont into account like they did in the "study", then your 6 million figure would be much higher as well.
 
2012-04-02 06:28:49 PM
But it's OK to bring in two four inch strings and a Boy Scout handbook, right?
 
2012-04-02 06:30:18 PM

umad: djh0101010: So, 6 million permit holders. 402 murders by holders of permits over the last let's say 4 years, if these two disparate sources are to be taken at their word. That's 0.001675% of the concealed carry permit holders annually.

If you take the entire gun-owning populations of Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont into account like they did in the "study", then your 6 million figure would be much higher as well.


That is a very good point.
 
2012-04-02 06:47:49 PM

djh0101010: And now I suppose you'll argue that I said "much lower" instead of "dramatically lower", and try to explain how a 3:1 ratio is one or the other or something. Or how It's really a 1:3 ratio, not a 3:1 ratio.


lighten up, Francis.

I'm not arguing either direction... my link was more to the point of the comment that I copied at the beginning of my post... of crime/murder committed by CCW holders.

I agree it is a small number... and relatively 'unlikely' that a maniacal murderer who wants to do you harm is a valid CCW holder.

However, my general feelings on the matter are that guns don't really make people/society 'safer'... and that more guns certainly don't make us 'more' safe.
which seems to be backed up by this... (also from the vpc site).

States With Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death (new window)
 
2012-04-02 08:03:54 PM

djh0101010: SO, even if the "Violence policy center"'s numbers aren't horribly cooked and exaggerated, as I'd expect them to be based on their history, EVEN if you take them at their word, CCW holders are 1/3 as likely as the rest of the population to murder someone. I strongly suspect the ratio is much more favorable to my original point, but, there you have it.

And now I suppose you'll argue that I said "much lower" instead of "dramatically lower", and try to explain how a 3:1 ratio is one or the other or something. Or how It's really a 1:3 ratio, not a 3:1 ratio.


Well that covers murder. How about robbery, kidnapping, and other types of threats?
 
2012-04-02 09:44:41 PM

birchman: Well that covers murder. How about robbery, kidnapping, and other types of threats?


So, is that point conceded then on murder? If so, kindly follow the links I provided and refine your questions based on the cites already provided.
 
2012-04-02 09:47:08 PM

Sofa King Smart: However, my general feelings on the matter are that guns don't really make people/society 'safer'... and that more guns certainly don't make us 'more' safe.
which seems to be backed up by this... (also from the vpc site).

States With Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death (new window)



Eh...any time you parrot the words "weak gun laws", and use only sources from the extremely left-winged VPC, it really does call your neutrality into question. The VPC's definition of "weak gun laws" includes states that let people who have never been criminals, own guns.
 
2012-04-02 11:06:37 PM

djh0101010: birchman: Well that covers murder. How about robbery, kidnapping, and other types of threats?

So, is that point conceded then on murder? If so, kindly follow the links I provided and refine your questions based on the cites already provided.


Your absence of response to the citations that you asked for, is most telling. Sorry to have inconvenienced you with the cites and facts you asked for.

Face it, you're a word-games bullshiat artist who has nothing to back up your rhetoric. Don't worry, the Democrats have built an entire party on that sort of thing.
 
2012-04-02 11:43:17 PM

djh0101010: djh0101010: birchman: Well that covers murder. How about robbery, kidnapping, and other types of threats?

So, is that point conceded then on murder? If so, kindly follow the links I provided and refine your questions based on the cites already provided.

Your absence of response to the citations that you asked for, is most telling. Sorry to have inconvenienced you with the cites and facts you asked for.

Face it, you're a word-games bullshiat artist who has nothing to back up your rhetoric. Don't worry, the Democrats have built an entire party on that sort of thing.


Telling indeed that I have a 6 month old to care for instead of waiting diligently for your reply.

I'm not reading all your links because the fact of the matter is you're probably right and I assumed you would be because I share the same opinion. You might also be interested to know that while liberal I am a gun enthusiast and own several of my own. This was just a nice little lesson for you on hyperbole and absolutes and why they get you nowhere. Cheers.
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report