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.

(Talking Points Memo)   People: you've passed legislation establishing a state religion, allowed 13-year-olds to be put in adult prison, and snuck through insane anti-abortion measures. Are you through? North Carolina Republicans: CHALLENGE ACCEPTED   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 270
    More: Asinine, state religion, Republican, North Carolina, challenge accepted, legislation, concealed firearm, convicts  
•       •       •

8596 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jul 2013 at 6:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



270 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-25 05:12:36 PM
There's nothing better than getting drunk and waving a pistol around. Then I lead the police on a quick chase into my exwife's trailer which I then leave. As the police are kicking in the front door, I sneak 'round the side and pull the brick out of the corner that holds the whole thing up. The trailer comes down and it is glorious. My ex-wife now has grounds to sue the cops. I quickly hide my pistol in the grill and get my brother in law to vouch for me. I was never at the bar; it was someone who looked like me.
 
2013-07-25 05:15:09 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: There's nothing better than getting drunk and waving a pistol around. Then I lead the police on a quick chase into my exwife's trailer which I then leave. As the police are kicking in the front door, I sneak 'round the side and pull the brick out of the corner that holds the whole thing up. The trailer comes down and it is glorious. My ex-wife now has grounds to sue the cops. I quickly hide my pistol in the grill and get my brother in law to vouch for me. I was never at the bar; it was someone who looked like me.


Oh man, that's happened to you too?
 
2013-07-25 05:19:16 PM
this sounds like it would mix well with a stand your ground type law.
 
2013-07-25 05:28:35 PM

FlashHarry: this sounds like it would mix well with a stand your ground type law.


They'll regret it when some black kid gets caught on a playground carrying a gun.
 
2013-07-25 05:41:05 PM
The world needs Bill Hicks now more than ever.
 
2013-07-25 05:50:18 PM

propasaurus: FlashHarry: this sounds like it would mix well with a stand your ground type law.

They'll regret it when some black kid gets caught on a playground carrying a gun.


you mean the law applies to blacks too? somebody should probably tell them...
 
2013-07-25 05:52:44 PM
I see no way this cunning plan could fail.
 
2013-07-25 06:10:02 PM

Mentat: I see no way this cunning plan could fail.


Because people who would shoot up a playground are the type to follow the existing law?
 
2013-07-25 06:11:46 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: There's nothing better than getting drunk and waving a pistol around. Then I lead the police on a quick chase into my exwife's trailer which I then leave. As the police are kicking in the front door, I sneak 'round the side and pull the brick out of the corner that holds the whole thing up. The trailer comes down and it is glorious. My ex-wife now has grounds to sue the cops. I quickly hide my pistol in the grill and get my brother in law to vouch for me. I was never at the bar; it was someone who looked like me.


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-07-25 06:12:08 PM
North Carolina continues to be a prime example of why the Onion gave up and went home.
 
2013-07-25 06:17:16 PM

FlashHarry: this sounds like it would mix well with a stand your ground type law.


Nah, drunks are never ten feet tall and bullet-proof.
 
2013-07-25 06:17:48 PM
You get what you vote for. I don't feel a bit of pity for them. On the other hand I live in Wisconsin and I have Scott Walker, who I didn't vote for. So maybe I feel some pity for all 10 people in NC that don't vote straight ticket GOP.
 
2013-07-25 06:18:49 PM
What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.
 
2013-07-25 06:19:23 PM
I just cannot wait for the shiat to collapse down there. I am pretty sure that it is going to be epic. I just hate to think of everyone that is gonna get caught in the crossfire, both literally and figuratively.
 
2013-07-25 06:19:27 PM
Republicans: Saving children from abortion so they can die playing tag.
 
2013-07-25 06:19:28 PM
Cripes, the past week North Carolina has been signing into law everything your drunk uncle said at that one family reunion.
 
2013-07-25 06:21:30 PM
I never thought I'd see the day when Best Carolina would outderp Worst Carolina, but then came this legislative session.

Amendment One was just the tip.
 
2013-07-25 06:23:11 PM

DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.


I got friends who love NC and live in NC and are absolutely gobsmacked that it's come to this. They took pride in being the smarter Carolina for so long, and yet here we are.
 
2013-07-25 06:23:42 PM
The final version of the bill was stripped of a particularly controversial provision that would have dropped background check requirements for handguns.

The fark.
 
2013-07-25 06:24:22 PM
The fark is going on down there?
 
2013-07-25 06:25:15 PM
Eh, I was in a gun thread the other day. One per month is all I can stand.
 
2013-07-25 06:25:28 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: There's nothing better than getting drunk and waving a pistol around. Then I lead the police on a quick chase into my exwife's trailer which I then leave. As the police are kicking in the front door, I sneak 'round the side and pull the brick out of the corner that holds the whole thing up. The trailer comes down and it is glorious. My ex-wife now has grounds to sue the cops. I quickly hide my pistol in the grill and get my brother in law to vouch for me. I was never at the bar; it was someone who looked like me.


Y'all are brutalizing me!

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-25 06:25:30 PM
LOL, I just read the article. Guns, guns, everywhere. To pre-empt particular gun nuts who get butthurt whenever this comes up, I certainly hope having a barrel to stroke while watching the kids at the playground starts putting a dent in child molestation cases in NC.
 
2013-07-25 06:26:17 PM

MisterLoki: The fark is going on down there?


Maybe someone's poisoning the drinking water?
 
2013-07-25 06:28:02 PM
Good. My right to play Drunk Uzi Tag at the playground has been infringed for too long.
 
2013-07-25 06:31:24 PM

FlashHarry: propasaurus: FlashHarry: this sounds like it would mix well with a stand your ground type law.

They'll regret it when some black kid gets caught on a playground carrying a gun.

you mean the law applies to blacks too? somebody should probably tell them...


Some black woman was told SYG applied to her,  She got 20 years for standing her ground.
 
2013-07-25 06:31:39 PM
It has to be bad when a friend moved to NJ to get away from NC.
 
2013-07-25 06:31:41 PM

Wyalt Derp: Good. My right to play Drunk Uzi Tag at the playground has been infringed for too long.


Aim for their feet. The recoil will do the rest.
 
2013-07-25 06:32:14 PM

FlashHarry: propasaurus: FlashHarry: this sounds like it would mix well with a stand your ground type law.

They'll regret it when some black kid gets caught on a playground carrying a gun.

you mean the law applies to blacks too? somebody should probably tell them...


I sincerely hope they do.
 
2013-07-25 06:33:22 PM
Heh. Legalized population control. Glorious!
 
2013-07-25 06:34:35 PM
North Carolina: "We're sick of Florida getting all the attention!"
 
2013-07-25 06:34:51 PM

ArkAngel: Mentat: I see no way this cunning plan could fail.

Because people who would shoot up a playground are the type to follow the existing law?


It's not about "existing law" or "self-defense" or any of the other tropes that are hauled out.  It's about creating a culture of fear and then selling the solution to that fear: lots and lots of guns.

I've lived in and traveled to a lot of places and there have been a lot of times I've found myself in sketchy parts of town.  Despite that, I've never been mugged, robbed, carjacked, assaulted, or in any way abused, nor have I ever fired anything more powerful than a paintgun.  There may come a time in my life where that changes and I feel I need a weapon to protect myself, but that time hasn't come yet.  If I've managed to go for almost 40 years without needing a weapon to protect myself, maybe it means that America isn't the hellish post-liberal apocalypse the right portrays it as.
 
2013-07-25 06:34:55 PM

MisterLoki: The fark is going on down there?


Punishment for having voted for Obama in 2008.
 
2013-07-25 06:35:19 PM
I know this is is a crazy question... But is it all possible that you people are electing the insane to write your laws? Might that be the problem?

Sincerely, the rest of the world.
 
2013-07-25 06:37:28 PM

DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.


They voted for the blah guy and the state GOP is going to punish them for it.
 
2013-07-25 06:39:33 PM
Or maybe a better question:

"Do you realize just how farked up you sound?"
 
2013-07-25 06:41:57 PM
Remind me to never step foot in NC. Sounds like a cesspool.
 
2013-07-25 06:42:19 PM
I am so glad I don't live in certain other parts of the country.  It's like you've got your first-world welcome to the 21st century good parts and then your third-world welcome to Jesus-loving shiathole parts.
 
2013-07-25 06:44:30 PM
Farking great, Rick Perry is now going to call another session. He won't stand for being out-whataburgered like this
 
2013-07-25 06:44:51 PM

propasaurus: DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.

They voted for the blah guy and the state GOP is going to punish them for it.


Obama only won NC by about 13.7K votes (about 0.4% of the votes). They also voted the state GOP into a supermajority in both houses - they kinda deserve it.
 
2013-07-25 06:45:09 PM
Dammit, I TOLD him to stop his kid from climbing up the slide the wrong way! You all heard me, I TOLD him there'd be consequences!
 
2013-07-25 06:47:07 PM
ArkAngel
Because people who would shoot up a playground are the type to follow the existing law?

Straw man.  It's difficult for law enforcement to figure out which persons carrying concealed on a playground are just law-abiding citizens, and which intend to engage in violence.  Much easier to enforce a rule -- no concealed carry on the playground.

To the objection that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to carry on a playground, please see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (noting that laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings, are presumptively lawful).
 
2013-07-25 06:47:30 PM

Piizzadude: I just cannot wait for the shiat to collapse down there. I am pretty sure that it is going to be epic. I just hate to think of everyone that is gonna get caught in the crossfire, both literally and figuratively.


I've seen jokes about it several times here, but we seriously need to start an "America's Derpiest State" big board to track this kind of stuff. Maybe even start taking action on it.

I feel like I really need to know if NC has eclipsed Kansas, or if Arizona is poised for a big run this fall.
 
2013-07-25 06:48:18 PM

maxheck: I know this is is a crazy question... But is it all possible that you people are electing the insane to write your laws? Might that be the problem?

Sincerely, the rest of the world.


These worthless scum got < 50% of the vote, though.
 
2013-07-25 06:49:51 PM

jayhawk88: I feel like I really need to know if NC has eclipsed Kansas, or if Arizona is poised for a big run this fall.


BAH GAWD KING, IS THAT THE OKLAHOMA STATE ANTHEM?!
 
2013-07-25 06:50:16 PM
Marijuana is illegal and you will go to jail in most states sitting in your living room in your underwear smoking a joint.

In North Carolina you can have a loaded, concealed handgun party at a bar and a loaded, concealed gun reception at a children's playground. Completely legal.

Still can't smoke a joint there, though.

Logic. Republicans have mastered it.
 
2013-07-25 06:50:47 PM

DarwiOdrade: propasaurus: DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.

They voted for the blah guy and the state GOP is going to punish them for it.

Obama only won NC by about 13.7K votes (about 0.4% of the votes). They also voted the state GOP into a supermajority in both houses - they kinda deserve it.


Doesn't change the fact that he won North Carolina in the first place.

/any bets on when they'll pass a law which just plain outright legalizes shooting black people on sight?
//notice that I said "when" and not "if" -- the NC GOP has a veto-proof supermajority in the legislature and a governor who wouldn't veto that kind of bill in the first place
 
2013-07-25 06:50:58 PM
i intended to make some pro gun comments

read the article

stopped at................. as well as onto playgrounds and parks

wtf is going on down there

(I can only guess that the well to do neighborhoods are hiring armed private security to keep out undesirables)
 
2013-07-25 06:52:42 PM
I here and now swear if I ever become rich, I going to start a charity aimed at arming the unemployed. Automatics, explosives, armored vehicles, body armor whatever they can legally get. And free training in the best use there of.

I'm sure the NRA and GOP will fully support my efforts.
 
2013-07-25 06:57:16 PM

MinkeyMan: I here and now swear if I ever become rich, I going to start a charity aimed at arming the unemployed. Automatics, explosives, armored vehicles, body armor whatever they can legally get. And free training in the best use there of.


That's not gonna scare them. This does.

img.wonkette.com
 
2013-07-25 06:57:36 PM
NC is where the New Yorkers go because Florida is full
 
2013-07-25 06:58:33 PM

MinkeyMan: I here and now swear if I ever become rich, I going to start a charity aimed at arming the unemployed. Automatics, explosives, armored vehicles, body armor whatever they can legally get. And free training in the best use there of.

I'm sure the NRA and GOP will fully support my efforts.


Koch Brothers did it, and used the Jesus people to clear the way.

/NC is their petrie dish
 
2013-07-25 07:01:48 PM

MinkeyMan: I here and now swear if I ever become rich, I going to start a charity aimed at arming the unemployed. Automatics, explosives, armored vehicles, body armor whatever they can legally get. And free training in the best use there of.

I'm sure the NRA and GOP will fully support my efforts.


That's the best way to stop this craziness. Use the gun show loophole and whatever other dumbass republican laws you can to arm minorities. Watch those pants-pissing cowards twist.
 
2013-07-25 07:03:42 PM
Carrying a concealed weapon on a playground can have its ups and downs.

strangetwist.com
 
2013-07-25 07:04:41 PM

Fellate O'Fish: ArkAngel
Because people who would shoot up a playground are the type to follow the existing law?

Straw man.  It's difficult for law enforcement to figure out which persons carrying concealed on a playground are just law-abiding citizens, and which intend to engage in violence.  Much easier to enforce a rule -- no concealed carry on the playground.

To the objection that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to carry on a playground, please see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (noting that laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings, are presumptively lawful).


I honest to god don't know where this 'right to carry' comes from. The right to carry has been regulated since before day one.
 
2013-07-25 07:06:40 PM
It's almost as if they're trying to see how far they can push before someone calls them on their bullshiat. Oh. And they hate children too, apparently.
 
2013-07-25 07:10:48 PM

Warlordtrooper: FlashHarry: propasaurus: FlashHarry: this sounds like it would mix well with a stand your ground type law.

They'll regret it when some black kid gets caught on a playground carrying a gun.

you mean the law applies to blacks too? somebody should probably tell them...

Some black woman was told SYG applied to her,  She got 20 years for standing her ground walking out of the room, retreiving a firearm from the garage, returning to the room, and firing a "warning shot" above the head of her (abusive) husband and her son.



Don't believe the first thing you read about a story like this - do some digging, Alexander's conduct was reckless and had little to do with "stand your ground."  Now, I'd agree that she didn't deserve 20 years, but that has nothing to do with stand your ground and everything to do with mandatory minimums.
 
2013-07-25 07:11:46 PM
Hey now, the state religion thing never even came close to passing!

/In our defense, there's also a 24/7 protest going on outside the state Capitol building.
 
2013-07-25 07:14:16 PM

DarwiOdrade: propasaurus: DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.

They voted for the blah guy and the state GOP is going to punish them for it.

Obama only won NC by about 13.7K votes (about 0.4% of the votes). They also voted the state GOP into a supermajority in both houses - they kinda deserve it.


I assume you feel you deserved everything George Bush did during his two terms as well then.

/Obama only won by a few thousand votes so I'm comfortable shiatting on a state...very progressive of you
 
2013-07-25 07:19:51 PM
People keep asking "I thought North Carolina was smarter than this?" and I would pose this as an answer, and I hope that my experiences as a Louisiana resident would inform this somewhat (sorry for Jindal btw).

It doesn't matter if the population at large does not care about the policies or actively hate them, if right thinking people willingly remove themselves from the political process on a long term basis, regardless of the reasoning why, then only the ardent will vote.

What happened in North Carolina was a more extreme version of what happened writ-large in the country in 2010, a lot of Democratic supporters went soft and the Republican supporters went all in. The Tea Party wave hit so hard in NC that Bev Purdue was almost irrelevant as a governor.

At some point, if you want to see liberal or moderate-liberal policies in place, you  MUST vote that way in every election you can, all the way down to the proverbial dog catcher.

If you want the government to be what you think it should be, then farking act like it.
 
2013-07-25 07:24:01 PM
Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?
 
2013-07-25 07:25:00 PM

BlueDWarrior: At some point, if you want to see liberal or moderate-liberal policies in place, you MUST vote that way in every election you can, all the way down to the proverbial dog catcher.


I was working on a cruise ship that was out in the open Pacific when I filled out my ballot. I squeezed in time to mail it back to NC from a postcard basket in a store in Hawaii, and I STILL got this shiatty state government.

Eh, at least I got to move to the relatively liberal city of Greensboro.
 
2013-07-25 07:25:19 PM

Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?


(HINT: They're okay with it but most of us are just too stupid to understand.)
 
2013-07-25 07:27:11 PM

Granny_Panties: You get what you vote for. I don't feel a bit of pity for them. On the other hand I live in Wisconsin and I have Scott Walker, who I didn't vote for. So maybe I feel some pity for all 10 people in NC that don't vote straight ticket GOP.


Actually a large number of the people in North Carolina did not vote for this. The state is so gerrymandered that most of these guys are safe no matter how the vote falls. This is done on the national level, too. More people actually voted for Democrats for the House of Representatives, but gerrymandering saved the Republican control of the House.
 
2013-07-25 07:27:47 PM

Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?


Jerking off to pictures of guns?
 
2013-07-25 07:28:24 PM
Oh lord. Something just occurred to me: There are Skittles and soft drinks on playgrounds.
 
2013-07-25 07:28:39 PM

theorellior: DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.

I got friends who love NC and live in NC and are absolutely gobsmacked that it's come to this. They took pride in being the smarter Carolina for so long, and yet here we are.


And what gave them that idea?

/SC native
//Atlanta resident
//sometimes travels to Georgia
 
2013-07-25 07:30:34 PM
Seriously?  Am I the first pro-gun person here?  First, the article sucks.


Fellate O'Fish: Straw man. It's difficult for law enforcement to figure out which persons carrying concealed on a playground are just law-abiding citizens, and which intend to engage in violence. Much easier to enforce a rule -- no concealed carry on the playground.


I think you need to look up the definition of 'straw man' here.  He didn't attribute any real position to Mentat.

Anyways, your argument about 'difficult for law enforcement' and 'enforce a rule' is not specific to playgrounds.  Heck, it's MORE complicated because the officer now has to worry about whether he's on a playground or other prohibited spot vs somewhere where CCW is legal.  Plus, why prohibit in a public playground when it would be the adults carrying, and not the street they walk down to get there?  Why not the grocery store?  Daycare?

Or are you just anti-CCW and want to ban it (again) in as many places as possible as a creeping prohibition or rear-guard action?

Given that the state legislature has given the go-ahead to allow CCW with a permit, the question becomes one of 'Where do we prohibit'?  Some common categories:
1.  Controlled Access government buildings - Airports, police stations, prisons, court houses, etc...  Schools used to be pretty open, it's my understanding they're much more locked down now, but I don't think most of them have reached the level of justice system buildings, much less airports.  Eh.
2.  Public areas - The question becomes, given the purpose of a CCW permit, WHY?  These are precisely the sort of areas where spree killers tend to target.
3.  Bars/places that serve alcohol.  Two points here:  1.  It's illegal to CCW while intoxicated.  2. You can enter a bar without drinking alcohol.  What about the sober designated driver, who doesn't want to leave his piece in his car?  What about the owners and employees?  Etc..
4.  Other private institutions(including bars and such):  Should be the choice of the owner/operator or his designated representative.
 
2013-07-25 07:33:11 PM
bigbaddie.com

It's still Best Carolina to me, dammit!
 
2013-07-25 07:36:28 PM

Firethorn: rear-guard action?


HAAAAY-OOOOOH!!
 
2013-07-25 07:41:45 PM

Firethorn: Plus, why prohibit in a public playground when it would be the adults carrying, and not the street they walk down to get there?  Why not the grocery store?  Daycare?


I think you should be allowed to carry a gun wherever you need to feel safe, which is apparently everywhere.  shiat, you should be allowed to carry twelve guns if you feel you have to.  It's your right.  You never know when a school play could turn ugly.

You know what else we need?  Turrets.  More turrets in strategic locations like playgrounds or kindergartens and we would be even safer.  Maybe a couple at the churches, too, to protect our religious freedoms from Sharia law.
 
2013-07-25 07:42:22 PM
STOP VOTING THESE IDIOTS INTO OFFICE!
 
2013-07-25 07:42:23 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: There's nothing better than getting drunk and waving a pistol around. Then I lead the police on a quick chase into my exwife's trailer which I then leave. As the police are kicking in the front door, I sneak 'round the side and pull the brick out of the corner that holds the whole thing up. The trailer comes down and it is glorious. My ex-wife now has grounds to sue the cops. I quickly hide my pistol in the grill and get my brother in law to vouch for me. I was never at the bar; it was someone who looked like me.


Since you got divorced, does that mean she isn't your sister too or do you have to file other papers for that?
 
2013-07-25 07:42:48 PM

Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?


I'm hardly a gun nut I don't carry, I don't own a pistol, hell all of my guns were inherited from my grandfather.  They passed this law several years ago in Georgia (here it's still illegal to drink while carrying, but you can be armed in a bar) and we haven't had an upswing of bar shootings.

I'm not saying that I agree with the law, but the vast majority of people of sane and reasonable and don't go around shooting people just because they happen to be armed.  I usually carry a pocketknife (comes in handy while working) and I don't stab people every time someone sneezes and doesn't cover their nose/mouth.
 
2013-07-25 07:43:54 PM

Firethorn: 2. Public areas - The question becomes, given the purpose of a CCW permit, WHY? These are precisely the sort of areas where spree killers tend to target.


I just jizzed my pants reading that sentence.
 
2013-07-25 07:45:04 PM
Playgrounds? Why didn't I think of that!

i1162.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-25 07:45:43 PM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: I don't stab people every time someone sneezes and doesn't cover their nose/mouth.


Well, you're not doing your part, then.
 
2013-07-25 07:46:53 PM
After NC voted for Obama in 2008 and the state effectively went 'blue', some fart smellers decided that the traditional blue lettering on white background NC license plates should now be red lettering, and everybody had to change their plates, because NC isn't a blue state. It turns out Blue on White is a lot easier to read than Red on White while driving, so the cops wanted it changed back, and now it's slowly going back to blue and white. We don't call it North Cackalacky for nothing. I got married to an NC girl.. that's the only reason i'm here.
 
2013-07-25 07:48:44 PM

zelet: MinkeyMan: I here and now swear if I ever become rich, I going to start a charity aimed at arming the unemployed. Automatics, explosives, armored vehicles, body armor whatever they can legally get. And free training in the best use there of.

I'm sure the NRA and GOP will fully support my efforts.

That's the best way to stop this craziness. Use the gun show loophole and whatever other dumbass republican laws you can to arm minorities. Watch those pants-pissing cowards twist.


This.

Do they fear black people with guns in general? As much as they let on, probably not.

Now, organized black people marching with guns in their communities and outside their campaign offices? HELL YES.

/if I could start up a black gun club like the Black Bikers, I'd do it
//w/o the GOP derp of course
///2nd amendment is our right too
 
2013-07-25 07:49:13 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Farking great, Rick Perry is now going to call another session. He won't stand for being out-whataburgered like this


It's already legal to carry a gun in a park in Texas, and anywhere that sells alcohol as less than 51% of their total revenue.  It's not legal to drink while carrying though.  Much like pretty much all the states that allow carry.  NC isn't passing anything new, but that won't stop Farkers from freaking out and acting like it's the end of the world.
 
2013-07-25 07:52:20 PM
You'd think with a law like this that NC would be some sort of mad-max hellhole with the citizens simply shooting at each other for no reason at all.  hell, if we make it legal to carry firearms, we just have to expect that people are going to get into gunfights all the time.
 
2013-07-25 07:54:13 PM

Click Click D'oh: Peter von Nostrand: Farking great, Rick Perry is now going to call another session. He won't stand for being out-whataburgered like this

It's already legal to carry a gun in a park in Texas, and anywhere that sells alcohol as less than 51% of their total revenue.  It's not legal to drink while carrying though.  Much like pretty much all the states that allow carry.  NC isn't passing anything new, but that won't stop Farkers from freaking out and acting like it's the end of the world.


Pointing out that something is stupid isn't "freaking out and acting like it's the end of the world. ". Just like reasonable restrictions on firearms doesn't mean OBAMA IS COMIN FER YER GUNS!
 
2013-07-25 07:58:46 PM

JAGChem82: Now, organized black people marching with guns in their communities


Honestly that would freak me out.  I like guns, but in the same way I like Thai food.  I'm not going to go to a meeting about Thai food, or go to a Thai food rally, but if one of my friends wants to go get some noodles count me in.
 
2013-07-25 08:00:10 PM
I have never understood America's obscene obsession over guns.  The whole point of the 2nd amendment was to overthrow a tyrannical government, and over the course of 200+ years a well regulated militia is now defined as a single person secretly hiding his/her gun, which he/she may have bought w/o a background check at a gun show.
 
2013-07-25 08:03:01 PM

Granny_Panties: You get what you vote for. I don't feel a bit of pity for them. On the other hand I live in Wisconsin and I have Scott Walker, who I didn't vote for. So maybe I feel some pity for all 10 people in NC that don't vote straight ticket GOP.


More people voted for democrats than republicans in NC. A LOT more (for state house). It's that farking gerrymandered.
 
2013-07-25 08:04:32 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: I have never understood America's obscene obsession over guns.  The whole point of the 2nd amendment was to overthrow a tyrannical government, and over the course of 200+ years a well regulated militia is now defined as a single person secretly hiding his/her gun, which he/she may have bought w/o a background check at a gun show.


It was more intended to fight invading armies (as a 'well-regulated militia' was all they had in terms of a military at the time). The 2nd Amendment became obsolete when we formed a permanent military.
 
2013-07-25 08:06:26 PM
I need a logical explanation for districts 1, 2, 4, 9, 12 and 13

www.ncga.state.nc.us
 
2013-07-25 08:09:46 PM

Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?


I guess most people on Fark would consider me a gun nut because I don't shiat myself in fear every time I see a breakfast pastry that has been eaten into a shape that almost vaguely resembles a gun. I also own a few guns myself and I'm against most forms of gun control, so I guess I'll give you my two cents.

My view of laws like this is that it is a solution desperately searching for a problem. Was this really necessary? I don't really get it. Then again, I don't really get people who feel the need to walk around everywhere they go with a gun strapped to them either. I find it hard to believe that there were 1000's of parents out there who desperately wanted to go to the park with their children, but couldn't do it because they couldn't take their gun along. I'm also not sure that bars and guns are a great combination, but I grew up around guns and had the whole "guns and alcohol don't mix" rule pounded into my brain from a young age. More than anything, I guess I just think that anytime our government (at any level) takes the time and money to pass a new law or regulation, there should be a good justification for it. I'm just not seeing it in this case. "This will really piss off the libs!!" doesn't cut it. Not that I'm opposed to pissing off the libs - I've seen some liberal hissy-fits right here on Fark that have amused me greatly. I just don't think that it is proper justification to put a new law on the books.
 
2013-07-25 08:13:44 PM

js34603: DarwiOdrade: propasaurus: DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.

They voted for the blah guy and the state GOP is going to punish them for it.

Obama only won NC by about 13.7K votes (about 0.4% of the votes). They also voted the state GOP into a supermajority in both houses - they kinda deserve it.

I assume you feel you deserved everything George Bush did during his two terms as well then.

/Obama only won by a few thousand votes so I'm comfortable shiatting on a state...very progressive of you


I'm talking about their state legislature, not Obama, and that legislature has gone full retard. Do I really think all the residents deserve what the GOP supermajorities have done? No, but I'm not feeling too sorry for them either.
 
2013-07-25 08:14:20 PM

o5iiawah: You'd think with a law like this that NC would be some sort of mad-max hellhole with the citizens simply shooting at each other for no reason at all.  hell, if we make it legal to carry firearms, we just have to expect that people are going to get into gunfights all the time.


They just passed the law - give it time.
 
2013-07-25 08:17:38 PM

Granny_Panties: You get what you vote for. I don't feel a bit of pity for them. On the other hand I live in Wisconsin and I have Scott Walker, who I didn't vote for. So maybe I feel some pity for all 10 people in NC that don't vote straight ticket GOP.



Ditto for this Wisconsite.
 
2013-07-25 08:20:38 PM

Witty_Retort: I need a logical explanation for districts 1, 2, 4, 9, 12 and 13

[www.ncga.state.nc.us image 750x297]


They keep the wrong people from being elected.
 
2013-07-25 08:21:16 PM
On the one hand we have schools suspending five year olds for making a finger gun and on the other hand we have concealed carry in bars and playgrounds.
imageshack.us
 
2013-07-25 08:23:46 PM
Guns are SO AWESOME.

Everyone should have a whole armory of guns.  EV. VER. Y. ONE.

Fetii should be armed.  Retards should be HEAVILY armed.  Insanely irresponsible and violent people should have MOAR GUNS!!!!!

It's the only way to be sure.
 
2013-07-25 08:26:53 PM

grxymkjbn: Retards should be HEAVILY armed.  Insanely irresponsible and violent people should have MOAR GUNS!!!!!

It's the only way to be sure.


You could have just said "Republicans", and that would've pretty much covered both.
 
2013-07-25 08:26:55 PM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

I'm hardly a gun nut I don't carry, I don't own a pistol, hell all of my guns were inherited from my grandfather.  They passed this law several years ago in Georgia (here it's still illegal to drink while carrying, but you can be armed in a bar) and we haven't had an upswing of bar shootings.

I'm not saying that I agree with the law, but the vast majority of people of sane and reasonable and don't go around shooting people just because they happen to be armed.  I usually carry a pocketknife (comes in handy while working) and I don't stab people every time someone sneezes and doesn't cover their nose/mouth.


That's kind of disappointing, really. I keep hoping for more random gunfights. We have too many people anyway, and most of the participants, and thus wounded and killed, would be gun nuts. Win win.
 
2013-07-25 08:29:18 PM

Click Click D'oh: Peter von Nostrand: Farking great, Rick Perry is now going to call another session. He won't stand for being out-whataburgered like this

It's already legal to carry a gun in a park in Texas, and anywhere that sells alcohol as less than 51% of their total revenue.  It's not legal to drink while carrying though.  Much like pretty much all the states that allow carry.  NC isn't passing anything new, but that won't stop Farkers from freaking out and acting like it's the end of the world.


Pointing out that stupid laws are stupid doesn't equate to freaking out and acting like it's the end of the world but I'm sure you already knew that and were just feeling a little a bit derpy for a few seconds
 
2013-07-25 08:29:42 PM

El_Perro: Warlordtrooper: FlashHarry: propasaurus: FlashHarry: this sounds like it would mix well with a stand your ground type law.

They'll regret it when some black kid gets caught on a playground carrying a gun.

you mean the law applies to blacks too? somebody should probably tell them...

Some black woman was told SYG applied to her,  She got 20 years for standing her ground walking out of the room, retreiving a firearm from the garage, returning to the room, and firing a "warning shot" above the head of her (abusive) husband and her son.


Don't believe the first thing you read about a story like this - do some digging, Alexander's conduct was reckless and had little to do with "stand your ground."  Now, I'd agree that she didn't deserve 20 years, but that has nothing to do with stand your ground and everything to do with mandatory minimums.


Yeah, turns out, while she had a restraining order against him, HE also had a restraining order against HER. Which she broke when she went over to his house. HE then ended up calling 911. He was still on the line when she came back into the house from the garage and fired the gun, with the children standing right next to him. Which was recorded on the call - which if I remember correctly went like this right around the time of the shots:

Him: I'm outta here.

Her: I got something for you. (sounds of shots being fired)

She was also offered a 3 year plea deal after it was explained to her why stand your ground wouldn't work, and what mandatory minimums were. Basically, she was breaking the law by violating the restraining order against her- and she fired a gun while doing that, after re-entering the situation she was supposedly fleeing from, when he was clearly not pursuing her as was evidenced by the fact that he was being recorded the whole time and it was clear from the recording he wasn't. The firing a weapon while committing a crime was what kicked it up to 20 years- the mandatory minimum, and violating the restraining order against her by entering his home (besides his person, his residence and any place he worked was also covered by the order) was what brought that into play.

Now, he had been abusive to her before, so it's not like he was an angel. And apparently she had been abusive before too. Clearly, it was a messed up domestic situation. I don't know what happened between them generally, but what happened that day was not him trying to beat her up and then her trying to scare him off with a warning shot, and what escalated the sentencing was not racial, it was the way the law was written.
 
2013-07-25 08:35:11 PM
The final version of the bill was stripped of a particularly controversial provision that would have dropped background check requirements for handguns

These people are insane.
 
2013-07-25 08:35:35 PM
If this ultimately results in fewer Republican voters, I'm all for it.
 
2013-07-25 08:38:17 PM
Do you guys just sit around all day waiting to be outraged by trivialities?
 
2013-07-25 08:43:49 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Pointing out that stupid laws are stupid doesn't equate to freaking out and acting like it's the end of the world but I'm sure you already knew that and were just feeling a little a bit derpy for a few seconds


Yes.  It's suddenly so clear that it's stupid to legalize the carrying of firearms by licensed individuals in bars and parks because....  Umm... Fark says so?  Oh, I know.  It's because in all the other states where it's already legal there were sudden up swings in bar and playground shootings by CHL holders... Hang on, someone just handed me something.  Hmmm.. Apparently that last claim about shooting sprees is completely false and that didn't happen.

Wait... hang on.. Don't Obama supporters try to claim he's not anti-gun because he legalized carry in National Parks?  OMG!  GUNS IN PARKS!!  OBAMA'S STUPID NUR NUR NUR!!

Try to pass a law legalizing carry while drinking? Yeah, that's stupid.  Making it illegal to carry simply because you are in the same room as alcohol?  Heck, the only way that makes sense is if you believe that inanimate objects have the power to... Oh, never mind.  Suddenly it makes sense.
 
2013-07-25 08:49:39 PM
As a North Carolinian...help us.  Goddamned morons the whole farking lot of them.  "Oh hey, we haven't had power for a while, so now that we do let's slap everyone we hate around with our tiny dicks and piss on their rights."  Why the hell am I in a district with Burlington, Raleigh, and Fayetteville?

/why do I still live here?
 
2013-07-25 08:51:32 PM

Click Click D'oh: Peter von Nostrand: Pointing out that stupid laws are stupid doesn't equate to freaking out and acting like it's the end of the world but I'm sure you already knew that and were just feeling a little a bit derpy for a few seconds

Yes.  It's suddenly so clear that it's stupid to legalize the carrying of firearms by licensed individuals in bars and parks because....  Umm... Fark says so?  Oh, I know.  It's because in all the other states where it's already legal there were sudden up swings in bar and playground shootings by CHL holders... Hang on, someone just handed me something.  Hmmm.. Apparently that last claim about shooting sprees is completely false and that didn't happen.

Wait... hang on.. Don't Obama supporters try to claim he's not anti-gun because he legalized carry in National Parks?  OMG!  GUNS IN PARKS!!  OBAMA'S STUPID NUR NUR NUR!!

Try to pass a law legalizing carry while drinking? Yeah, that's stupid.  Making it illegal to carry simply because you are in the same room as alcohol?  Heck, the only way that makes sense is if you believe that inanimate objects have the power to... Oh, never mind.  Suddenly it makes sense.


LOL. You get a funny vote for this comment. It's gold Jerry, GOLD!
 
2013-07-25 08:53:13 PM

DarwiOdrade: propasaurus: DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.

They voted for the blah guy and the state GOP is going to punish them for it.

Obama only won NC by about 13.7K votes (about 0.4% of the votes). They also voted the state GOP into a supermajority in both houses - they kinda deserve it.


I feel compelled to mention this in every North-Carolina-has-gone-retarded thread, but our problem is gerrymandering way way way more than it is retarded voters. Don't get me wrong, we have more than our share of retarded voters, but not as many as it would appear.

In the N.C. Senate Republicans received 52.57% of the vote, yet control 66% (33 of 50) of all available seats.

In the N.C. House Republicans received 51.25% of the vote, yet control 64% (77 of 120) of all available seats.

The U.S. House results are by far the worst (not that it applies to the bullshiat that the general assembly has been pulling on us, but it is pretty indicative of a problem ). In U.S. House races, Republicans received just 48.75% of the vote yet control 70% (9 of 13) of available seats.

So as a general population we're really not as bad as a first glance would indicate. Still boned though.
 
2013-07-25 08:57:19 PM

FlashHarry: this sounds like it would mix well with a stand your ground type law.


We already have a similar law to Florida's. NC legislators passed it a year or so ago, but even before that NC had a castle law; it was perfectly legal to shoot someone breaking into your home, whether they were armed or not. You just had to make sure you shot them in the front; many years ago a homeowner was convicted of manslaughter when he shot some kids who ran away after he caught them breaking into his garage.
 
2013-07-25 08:59:27 PM
My state passed a law allowing men to marry other men. Now that's some crazy shiat.
 
2013-07-25 08:59:28 PM
I recently hung out in Mississippi for a few days for a few days for my sweetie's niece's wedding. All the good stereotypes applied. There were many plump southern gals in the kitchen and at least one plump southern guy frying up catfish. I most definitely ate well.

But then there was the evening conversations. The idea of racist crakers is not without merit. And I'm pretty sure they were being careful about what they said because I was a Libby McLibberton from Maryland.
 
2013-07-25 09:00:41 PM

Robots are Strong: DarwiOdrade: propasaurus: DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.

They voted for the blah guy and the state GOP is going to punish them for it.

Obama only won NC by about 13.7K votes (about 0.4% of the votes). They also voted the state GOP into a supermajority in both houses - they kinda deserve it.

I feel compelled to mention this in every North-Carolina-has-gone-retarded thread, but our problem is gerrymandering way way way more than it is retarded voters. Don't get me wrong, we have more than our share of retarded voters, but not as many as it would appear.

In the N.C. Senate Republicans received 52.57% of the vote, yet control 66% (33 of 50) of all available seats.

In the N.C. House Republicans received 51.25% of the vote, yet control 64% (77 of 120) of all available seats.

The U.S. House results are by far the worst (not that it applies to the bullshiat that the general assembly has been pulling on us, but it is pretty indicative of a problem ). In U.S. House races, Republicans received just 48.75% of the vote yet control 70% (9 of 13) of available seats.

So as a general population we're really not as bad as a first glance would indicate. Still boned though.


Wow, just wow. That right there is all the argument one would really need to make about using computer to draw districts. Never happen though, both parties like the easy wins gerrymandering gives them
 
2013-07-25 09:02:45 PM

Noam Chimpsky: My state passed a law allowing men to marry other men. Now that's some crazy shiat.


Don't worry, no one will accidentally kill you with gay marriage
 
2013-07-25 09:04:44 PM

Cheesus: As a North Carolinian...help us.  Goddamned morons the whole farking lot of them.  "Oh hey, we haven't had power for a while, so now that we do let's slap everyone we hate around with our tiny dicks and piss on their rights."  Why the hell am I in a district with Burlington, Raleigh, and Fayetteville?

/why do I still live here?


Heh; my Congressional House district starts over in Chapel Hill, runs east between Raleigh and Cary, curves around Raleigh to the east and then north a bit towards Wake Forest, and also runs south along a very narrow path to northern Fayetteville. The intent was to dilute South and East Raleigh and Chapel Hill Democrats with a healthy dose of Republicans from west Raleigh, rural areas south of Raleigh and then Fayetteville, with the idea to force David Price to actually fight for his seat. Didn't work; Price's opponent was so far to the right even the NC Republican party disowned him, and he won only a small percentage of the vote.

Their gerrymandering of Wake County, however, was totally successful. That urban area (mostly Democrat) is divided amongst three districts now, and two incumbents were forced to run against each other or one had to retire.
 
2013-07-25 09:11:03 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Robots are Strong: DarwiOdrade: propasaurus: DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.

They voted for the blah guy and the state GOP is going to punish them for it.

Obama only won NC by about 13.7K votes (about 0.4% of the votes). They also voted the state GOP into a supermajority in both houses - they kinda deserve it.

I feel compelled to mention this in every North-Carolina-has-gone-retarded thread, but our problem is gerrymandering way way way more than it is retarded voters. Don't get me wrong, we have more than our share of retarded voters, but not as many as it would appear.

In the N.C. Senate Republicans received 52.57% of the vote, yet control 66% (33 of 50) of all available seats.

In the N.C. House Republicans received 51.25% of the vote, yet control 64% (77 of 120) of all available seats.

The U.S. House results are by far the worst (not that it applies to the bullshiat that the general assembly has been pulling on us, but it is pretty indicative of a problem ). In U.S. House races, Republicans received just 48.75% of the vote yet control 70% (9 of 13) of available seats.

So as a general population we're really not as bad as a first glance would indicate. Still boned though.

Wow, just wow. That right there is all the argument one would really need to make about using computer to draw districts. Never happen though, both parties like the easy wins gerrymandering gives them


Yeah, it's a farking nightmare, and we're stuck with it until at least 2020. Hell, it will take a minor miracle to be able to make any significant changes then. These assholes have a hell of a built in advantage and with all of the "voters rights" laws they're pushing through it's not going to get any better.
 
2013-07-25 09:12:18 PM
Peter von Nostrand

Noam Chimpsky: My state passed a law allowing men to marry other men. Now that's some crazy shiat.

Don't worry, no one will accidentally kill you with gay marriage


But will they destroy his nonexistent marriage and terrify him?
 
2013-07-25 09:17:52 PM
Ah the Landed Gentry. Ensuring the peasants are never quiet safe or settled.
 
2013-07-25 09:26:44 PM
You never know when a thug will walk by and incite you to stand your ground, eating Skittles like he owns the place.
 
2013-07-25 09:28:18 PM
Article mentions nothing about establishing a state religion or putting 13 year olds into adult prisons.
 
2013-07-25 09:28:48 PM
Nadie_AZ

Ah the Landed Gentry. Ensuring the peasants are never quiet safe or settled.

I am among the landed gentry. I know stupid and insane when I see it.
 
2013-07-25 09:29:08 PM

DarwiOdrade: o5iiawah: You'd think with a law like this that NC would be some sort of mad-max hellhole with the citizens simply shooting at each other for no reason at all.  hell, if we make it legal to carry firearms, we just have to expect that people are going to get into gunfights all the time.

They just passed the law - give it time.


They'll probably pass a law making it illegal to report when people shoot each other.
 
2013-07-25 09:34:17 PM

maxheck: Peter von Nostrand

Noam Chimpsky: My state passed a law allowing men to marry other men. Now that's some crazy shiat.

Don't worry, no one will accidentally kill you with gay marriage

But will they destroy his nonexistent marriage and terrify him?


They've obviously already terrified him/her
 
2013-07-25 09:35:12 PM

Fellate O'Fish: Straw man.  It's difficult for law enforcement to figure out which persons carrying concealed on a playground are just law-abiding citizens, and which intend to engage in violence.  Much easier to enforce a rule -- no concealed carry on the playground.


Not sure I understand your point. How would the police know anyone is carrying concealed on a playground in the first place?
 
2013-07-25 09:42:39 PM

Warlordtrooper: FlashHarry: propasaurus: FlashHarry: this sounds like it would mix well with a stand your ground type law.

They'll regret it when some black kid gets caught on a playground carrying a gun.

you mean the law applies to blacks too? somebody should probably tell them...

Some black woman was told SYG applied to her,  She got 20 years for standing her ground going into the house of a guy she put a restraining order on and firing randomly in the air because she apparently feared more for her life from the miller moths than the guy she said was threatening her.


FTFY

//yes there is racial injustice in this world.
//no it does not excuse being a jackass.
 
2013-07-25 09:42:55 PM

TV's Vinnie: Article mentions nothing about establishing a state religion or putting 13 year olds into adult prisons.


The headline didn't say it did. But yeah, NC Republicans have done both of those things.

/not subby
 
2013-07-25 09:46:36 PM

dukeblue219: Fellate O'Fish: Straw man.  It's difficult for law enforcement to figure out which persons carrying concealed on a playground are just law-abiding citizens, and which intend to engage in violence.  Much easier to enforce a rule -- no concealed carry on the playground.

Not sure I understand your point. How would the police know anyone is carrying concealed on a playground in the first place?


They'll be the ones to eagerly volunteer to be the cops during "Cops 'n Robbers"
 
2013-07-25 09:58:47 PM
Isn't it funny how all these things were just fine for years, decades even, then all of the sudden everyone(the right) thinks they're being repressed and shiat? How come the right to carry a gun into a bar didn't matter in 2005, but all of the sudden we need gins in bars "FOR FREEDOM!!"?
 
2013-07-25 09:58:56 PM
Even in the old west people knew it was a bad idea to let people into bars with guns, that is why they made them check their guns at the door. Hell some towns even made people check their guns at the police station as soon as they came into town.
 
2013-07-25 10:00:18 PM

dukeblue219: Fellate O'Fish: Straw man.  It's difficult for law enforcement to figure out which persons carrying concealed on a playground are just law-abiding citizens, and which intend to engage in violence.  Much easier to enforce a rule -- no concealed carry on the playground.

Not sure I understand your point. How would the police know anyone is carrying concealed on a playground in the first place?

 Sometimes laws are meant to give guidance to people who don't have the experience or judgement necessary to figure out that it's a bad idea to leave a Glock in an open diaper bag, or even though their car *can* do 60mph past my house, it takes away from my enjoyment of my property. I don't expect a cop to frisk you while you're putting baby's stinky into the trash can, any more than I expect them to set up a roadblock in my neighbor's driveway, because people often do follow the law, just because it's the law, even when there's almost zero risk of getting caught.
/other people won't, of course, and it's just one more charge to stack.
 
2013-07-25 10:00:22 PM

log_jammin: but all of the sudden we need gins in bars "FOR FREEDOM!!"?


You can have my porch swing when you pry it from my drunken hands.
 
2013-07-25 10:01:29 PM

mod3072: I just don't think that it is proper justification to put a new law on the books.


Thing is, this isn't really a 'new law on the books', it's a revision to existing law where they're shortening the list of prohibited places to CCW.

Soup4Bonnie: I think you should be allowed to carry a gun wherever you need to feel safe, which is apparently everywhere. shiat, you should be allowed to carry twelve guns if you feel you have to. It's your right. You never know when a school play could turn ugly.


Huh?  Dude, you're not even good at constructing a strawman because you can't attack my real standings.

My sole point is that if you're going to issue CCW licenses, you shouldn't get nitpicky about banning carry in XYZ more or less random areas that have no more security or safety/danger attributes than ABC other places.

Plus, well, I don't like the idea of leaving a firearm unattended outside of a security container(and a car doesn't count), and due to the distance between my home and town I tend to batch up my trips, you know?  If I want to carry because I'm going to the theater(Aurora), I might as well carry at the restaurant(Lubbys), the grocery and hardware stores, etc...

When I carry, and I don't carry all the time, I carry ONE gun with ONE magazine.  Most cops, who have ready backup, carry at least 3 magazines, and many have a backup gun.  If I'm actually expecting trouble I don't go.

Pincy: I just jizzed my pants reading that sentence.


Eww...

KeatingFive: Pointing out that something is stupid isn't "freaking out and acting like it's the end of the world. ". Just like reasonable restrictions on firearms doesn't mean OBAMA IS COMIN FER YER GUNS!


Okay, please explain why a specific prohibition on carrying in a playground or park, or at a bar where you're not legally allowed to get drunk anyways if you're carrying, when it's legal to carry at those locations in other states and they haven't had an excess of problems with legal CCW carriers in those locations is 'reasonable'.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.
 
2013-07-25 10:01:56 PM
Letting people into bars with guns sounds like a self-solving problem to me. Darwin would be proud.
 
2013-07-25 10:03:25 PM
Hasn't Ohio (and several other states) allowed carry in bars for some time now?  Didn't Illinois' concealed carry bill allow carry in restaurants that serve alcohol.  Isn't it still illegal to consume alcohol while carrying a weapon?

Has Ohio had a sudden uptick in bar shootings committed by concealed carriers who broke the law by consuming alcohol?
 
2013-07-25 10:04:30 PM

TV's Vinnie: Article mentions nothing about establishing a state religion or putting 13 year olds into adult prisons.


noting this discrepancy you then decided to verify if those claims were true through careful and proper research.

...or you just assumed it was bs because you want it to be bs and it "felt" like a lie.
 
2013-07-25 10:05:28 PM

log_jammin: gins


apparently I REALLY want to get home and make myself a drink.
 
2013-07-25 10:05:40 PM

maxheck: Peter von Nostrand

Noam Chimpsky: My state passed a law allowing men to marry other men. Now that's some crazy shiat.

Don't worry, no one will accidentally kill you with gay marriage

But will they destroy his nonexistent marriage and terrify him?


I think you'll all survive NC's new laws.
 
2013-07-25 10:05:55 PM

FirethornFirethorn: mod3072: I just don't think that it is proper justification to put a new law on the books.

Thing is, this isn't really a 'new law on the books', it's a revision to existing law where they're shortening the list of prohibited places to CCW.

Soup4Bonnie: I think you should be allowed to carry a gun wherever you need to feel safe, which is apparently everywhere. shiat, you should be allowed to carry twelve guns if you feel you have to. It's your right. You never know when a school play could turn ugly.

Huh?  Dude, you're not even good at constructing a strawman because you can't attack my real standings.

My sole point is that if you're going to issue CCW licenses, you shouldn't get nitpicky about banning carry in XYZ more or less random areas that have no more security or safety/danger attributes than ABC other places.

Plus, well, I don't like the idea of leaving a firearm unattended outside of a security container(and a car doesn't count), and due to the distance between my home and town I tend to batch up my trips, you know?  If I want to carry because I'm going to the theater(Aurora), I might as well carry at the restaurant(Lubbys), the grocery and hardware stores, etc...

When I carry, and I don't carry all the time, I carry ONE gun with ONE magazine.  Most cops, who have ready backup, carry at least 3 magazines, and many have a backup gun.  If I'm actually expecting trouble I don't go.

Pincy: I just jizzed my pants reading that sentence.

Eww...

KeatingFive: Pointing out that something is stupid isn't "freaking out and acting like it's the end of the world. ". Just like reasonable restrictions on firearms doesn't mean OBAMA IS COMIN FER YER GUNS!

Okay, please explain why a specific prohibition on carrying in a playground or park, or at a bar where you're not legally allowed to get drunk anyways if you're carrying, when it's legal to carry at those locations in other states and they haven't had an excess of problems with legal CCW carriers in those location ...

,

i1162.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-25 10:07:15 PM

log_jammin: Isn't it funny how all these things were just fine for years, decades even, then all of the sudden everyone(the right) thinks they're being repressed and shiat? How come the right to carry a gun into a bar didn't matter in 2005, but all of the sudden we need gins in bars "FOR FREEDOM!!"?


The people of NC decided that they would like more freedom on where they can carry a gun. Why do you have a problem with that?

Also, I believe every well stocked bar should have gin.
 
2013-07-25 10:10:20 PM

pueblonative: Some black woman was told SYG applied to her, She got 20 years for standing her ground going into the house of a guy she put a restraining order on and firing randomly in the air because she apparently feared more for her life from the miller moths than the guy she said was threatening her.


I'm somewhat familiar with that -
1.  He also had a restraining order against Her.  She violated that going to his house
2.  He was on the phone with 911 when she left, came back, and yelled "I've got something for you!" before shooting at him(and angle wasn't in the air; that was some bullshiat claim she tried to make; holes in drywall say angle much more horizontal).
3.  20 years was the mandatory minimum for her crimes; the prosecutors offered 3 for popping off in the direction of her own kids, for some reason she didn't take it.
 
2013-07-25 10:13:51 PM

Firethorn: pueblonative: Some black woman was told SYG applied to her, She got 20 years for standing her ground going into the house of a guy she put a restraining order on and firing randomly in the air because she apparently feared more for her life from the miller moths than the guy she said was threatening her.

I'm somewhat familiar with that -
1.  He also had a restraining order against Her.  She violated that going to his house
2.  He was on the phone with 911 when she left, came back, and yelled "I've got something for you!" before shooting at him(and angle wasn't in the air; that was some bullshiat claim she tried to make; holes in drywall say angle much more horizontal).
3.  20 years was the mandatory minimum for her crimes; the prosecutors offered 3 for popping off in the direction of her own kids, for some reason she didn't take it.


Well the important thing is that her 2nd Amendment rights weren't violated.
 
2013-07-25 10:14:25 PM

Firethorn: pueblonative: Some black woman was told SYG applied to her, She got 20 years for standing her ground going into the house of a guy she put a restraining order on and firing randomly in the air because she apparently feared more for her life from the miller moths than the guy she said was threatening her.

I'm somewhat familiar with that -
1.  He also had a restraining order against Her.  She violated that going to his house
2.  He was on the phone with 911 when she left, came back, and yelled "I've got something for you!" before shooting at him(and angle wasn't in the air; that was some bullshiat claim she tried to make; holes in drywall say angle much more horizontal).
3.  20 years was the mandatory minimum for her crimes; the prosecutors offered 3 for popping off in the direction of her own kids, for some reason she didn't take it.


She also had to be coaxed out of his house by the SWAT team.  She didn't have a legal right to be there, and admitted that she fired because she was angry. That is not even remotely close to a valid SYG case, it's not even self-defense.  She didn't deserve 20 years, but she was very clearly in the wrong and should have taken the plea bargain.
 
2013-07-25 10:17:52 PM

Witty_Retort: I need a logical explanation for districts 1, 2, 4, 9, 12 and 13

[www.ncga.state.nc.us image 750x297]


It keeps the Negros in their place.
 
2013-07-25 10:18:15 PM

MFAWG: Fellate O'Fish: ArkAngel
Because people who would shoot up a playground are the type to follow the existing law?

Straw man.  It's difficult for law enforcement to figure out which persons carrying concealed on a playground are just law-abiding citizens, and which intend to engage in violence.  Much easier to enforce a rule -- no concealed carry on the playground.

To the objection that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to carry on a playground, please see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (noting that laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings, are presumptively lawful).

I honest to god don't know where this 'right to carry' comes from. The right to carry has been regulated since before day one.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear  verb, #12: to carry
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arms noun2, #1: weapons, esp. firearms

So, the right to carry comes from the Constitution. Yes, rights can be limited (yelling fire in a theater, publishing lies, carrying firearms where alcohol is served), but it's up to the government to decide those restrictions and the courts to ensure they don't go too far.

Now, here... yeah, this sucks. Some parks I can see. In fact, in 2009 Obama signed into law a bill that allows for concealed carry in national parks if doing so doesn't violate state laws*. But a playground? Probably not. And maybe you can carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol if you're not drinking, but not a bar at all.

So, yeah, we have a "right to carry". Are these places people should be allowed to carry? That's debatable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Nat i onal_park_carry
 
2013-07-25 10:20:06 PM

maxheck: It has to be bad when a friend moved to NJ to get away from NC.


That's because while NJ can be crazy, they probably won't ever reach the sheer levels of batshiat insanity that many states south of the Mason/Dixon line have been dealing with these past few years.

Even though there are crazies and rednecks even in NJ, very few if any are ever elected to the state legislature.  And with most of the Republican doninated state legislatures, they seem to be trying to one up each other on how horrible they can make the lives of their citizens.
 
2013-07-25 10:22:14 PM
Really guys?
I'm the one who has to say it?
I've been here way too long and need to get a girlfriend or job or something.
A North Carolina thread and no one has showed up with...

Duke Sucks!
 
2013-07-25 10:23:44 PM

Frank N Stein: The people of NC decided that they would like more freedom on where they can carry a gun. Why do you have a problem with that?


they did? I missed the sentence that mentioned what the popular vote outcome was. could you quote it for me?

oh wait...you mean the state legislature decided it should be legal to carry a gun into bars, not "the people". If that's the case then by your own logic you lost the right to biatch about anything a state legislature does.  so you got that going for you.
 
2013-07-25 10:29:58 PM

log_jammin: Frank N Stein: The people of NC decided that they would like more freedom on where they can carry a gun. Why do you have a problem with that?

they did? I missed the sentence that mentioned what the popular vote outcome was. could you quote it for me?

oh wait...you mean the state legislature decided it should be legal to carry a gun into bars, not "the people". If that's the case then by your own logic you lost the right to biatch about anything a state legislature does.  so you got that going for you.


Perhaps you're right. However, your argument:

Isn't it funny how all these things were just fine for years, decades even, then all of the sudden everyone(the right) thinks they're being repressed and shiat? How come the right to carry a gun into a bar didn't matter in 2005, but all of the sudden we need gins in bars "FOR FREEDOM!!"?

Is complete bullocks.
 
2013-07-25 10:34:17 PM

Frank N Stein: However, your argument:


It wasn't an argument, it was an observation.
 
2013-07-25 10:35:28 PM

log_jammin: Frank N Stein: However, your argument:

It wasn't an argument, it was an observation.


Does the observation lead you to any conclusions?
 
2013-07-25 10:35:59 PM

Gilligann: The final version of the bill was stripped of a particularly controversial provision that would have dropped background check requirements for handguns

These people are insane.


Not really. This one I can see. Maybe you will too, once you understand...

In NC, in order to purchase a handgun, you have to get a pistol permit. It's $5 and it takes 10 business days to process. During the wait, your background is checked and then you get your permit.

The permit, however, is good for 5 YEARS. I can get a permit today and buy a gun five years later without anyone checking what happened in the 5 years in between. Is  that smart?

The bill doesn't get rid of background checks. It gets rid of the pistol purchase permits. If/when this change takes place, you'll still have to have a background check. It'll just be the one the majority of the rest of the country uses: NICS.

Now, we can argue about whether there should be a waiting period or not, but these pistol permits that are good for five years were never smart.

Oh, and I have a CCW in NC. I can walk into a gun store, show my CCW permit, and walk out with as many handguns as I want and there's not another background check done. No NICS, no calling the sherriff, nothing. They write my CCW permit number on a form and stick it in a drawer.

I wouldn't mind one bit having to go through a NICS check anytime I wanted purchase a handgun. It makes more sense to me than relying on an outdated background check associated with a pistol permit or CCW permit.
 
2013-07-25 10:40:33 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: I have never understood America's obscene obsession over guns.  The whole point of the 2nd amendment was to overthrow a tyrannical government, and over the course of 200+ years a well regulated militia is now defined as a single person secretly hiding his/her gun, which he/she may have bought w/o a background check at a gun show.




Actually, the whole purpose was that the founding fathers didn't want to have a standing federal army; this was their way to keep tyranny at bay...don't give the feds ANY army to begin with. So the 2nd works to ensure that the states would have "well regulated militias" that would be ready to form a temporary army if needed. Historically, the term "bear" meant to carry arms in a military sense, not "concealed to my local Walmart". The whole "overthrow the tyranical government" is a fairly recent manly, bootstrappy interpretation.

Of course, it didn't take long to realize that the only way to handle ocean kind of stuff is a national navy, and a few early battle where america didn't do to well, led to a change of heart about the standing army issue.
 
2013-07-25 10:41:24 PM
static.guim.co.uk

Challenge accepted!
 
2013-07-25 10:48:41 PM

Frank N Stein: Does the observation lead you to any conclusions?


that it is very possible that you have had too much of my gin
 
2013-07-25 10:50:17 PM

Frank N Stein: Do you guys just sit around all day waiting to be outraged by trivialities?


...basically, yeah. What's your point?
 
2013-07-25 10:52:14 PM

log_jammin: Frank N Stein: Does the observation lead you to any conclusions?

that it is very possible that you have had too much of my gin


No. I'm drinking PBR like a dirty hipster.

What I'm getting at is the argument* observation is useless. The same observation could be used about gay marriage, medical marijuana, or a number of issues and it would still as useless as using it for concealed carry.
 
2013-07-25 11:00:45 PM

Frank N Stein: The same observation could be used about gay marriage, medical marijuana, or a number of issues and it would still as useless as using it for concealed carry.


except that people have been trying to get those things legalized for a long time now. and, as I said, the right didn't give a shiat about the right to carry a gun in bars before. now it's suddenly a pressing issue.

Frank N Stein: What I'm getting at is the argument* observation is useless.


1. what do you think I'm "arguing"?

2. The observation I made doesn't need to be useful, nor was it intended to be. I just found it amusing.
 
2013-07-25 11:08:22 PM

log_jammin: Frank N Stein: The same observation could be used about gay marriage, medical marijuana, or a number of issues and it would still as useless as using it for concealed carry.

except that people have been trying to get those things legalized for a long time now. and, as I said, the right didn't give a shiat about the right to carry a gun in bars before. now it's suddenly a pressing issue.

Frank N Stein: What I'm getting at is the argument* observation is useless.

1. what do you think I'm "arguing"?

2. The observation I made doesn't need to be useful, nor was it intended to be. I just found it amusing.


Here's what I believe your argument is:

"I believe widespread concealed carry only became an issue in 2005, thus the merits of widespread concealed carry can be detracted"

Am I close?
 
2013-07-25 11:20:29 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: There's nothing better than getting drunk and waving a pistol around.


Technically, this would still be illegal.  Just means that the cops would have to breathalize you, see you consume a drink, or have the bartender tell them you'd had a drink before arresting you.  Being drunk or consuming alcohol while carrying a firearm is just as illegal as being drunk or consuming alcohol while operating a motor vehicle everywhere, and in many states  more illegal, in that it's a higher-level felony.

Albeit, since there's really no reason to be in a bar than to drink, the 51% rule did always seem like a reasonable simplification to me as far as cutting out some work for the cops while achieving the same end-game.

Same with the playground thing.  Technically, yes, it would still be illegal for a kid to gain access to your piece (and you'd still be legally liable for any resulting damage and guilty of a felony for allowing them to get hold of it regardless of damage), but since going into a playground full of children and playing around with them makes them getting a grip on basically anything on your person pretty inevitable, just making people not bring it on the grounds in the first place seems a pretty reasonable simplification for everyone that reduces the amount of time the cops need to spend being called out just to give some asshat a lecture on basic common sense instead of dealing with actual crime.

snowshovel: Actually, the whole purpose was that the founding fathers didn't want to have a standing federal army; this was their way to keep tyranny at bay...don't give the feds ANY army to begin with. So the 2nd works to ensure that the states would have "well regulated militias"


"Well regulated" refers to being trained to use your equipment.  While state-organized militias were technically part of it, the idea was more that any group of citizens should be allowed to get together and train as a unit with essentially no oversight (or, more importantly, funding) from a government whatsoever and with their own equipment, with a vague feeling that these groups could be conscripted into or volunteer for military action when necessary along with state militaries in place of a standing army.  Sort of the non-peaceable version of the first amendment's 'peaceable assembly' right.

The idea, of course, sprung from the significant use of irregular units in the revolutionary war, with a sort of "we don't need a standing army, we can just do that again if necessary" thrown in during the conventions.

While we can probably talk circles about how actually useful this idea is compared to a standing army (sure, there are severe downsides, but with the standing army we got the good old military-industrial complex so that hasn't exactly been lilacs and roses either), there actually isn't much debate historically about what was intended, given that, for instance, until the mid-1800s most of the US's non-naval  artillery was privately owned.  Not just the little hand-loaded things that could barely hit a man-sized target at fifteen paces, the big metal things you'd load with every bit of metal you could find and mow down an entire infantry line in a single shot.  Those were kept mostly in some dude's cellar next to the powder, and no one had any problem with this until almost the US civil war, essentially.

If you want to argue that standards have changed to the point it's not a relevant idea anymore and needs to be changed, well, firstly, I'd disagree since irregular military units have seen use as recently as the Irish war of Independence, and secondly, base your argument on that, not some imaginary version of 1700s America that you've idealized into agreeing with your politics for some reason.  That shiat gets just as old just as fast when you do it in support of gun control as when a TEA party guy does it in opposition to gay marriage or whatever the fark the TP idiots are all about this week.
 
2013-07-25 11:20:43 PM

Frank N Stein: I believe widespread concealed carry only became an issue in 2005


nope.

Frank N Stein: thus the merits of widespread concealed carry can be detracted"


nope.

I'm a gun owner and I've considered getting concealed carry permit. The main reason I haven't is I'm too lazy to go and do it.


you should probably read what people actually say and not try to guess what you think they really mean. but hey, you didn't lecture an empty chair like Eastwood did, so good for you on that.
 
2013-07-25 11:21:00 PM

Frank N Stein: log_jammin: Frank N Stein: The same observation could be used about gay marriage, medical marijuana, or a number of issues and it would still as useless as using it for concealed carry.

except that people have been trying to get those things legalized for a long time now. and, as I said, the right didn't give a shiat about the right to carry a gun in bars before. now it's suddenly a pressing issue.

Frank N Stein: What I'm getting at is the argument* observation is useless.

1. what do you think I'm "arguing"?

2. The observation I made doesn't need to be useful, nor was it intended to be. I just found it amusing.

Here's what I believe your argument is:

"I believe widespread concealed carry only became an issue in 2005, thus the merits of widespread concealed carry can be detracted"

Am I close?


You remember when Obama got all that flack for his 'guns and religion' comment?
Arguments like yours make me chuckle because you are proving him half-right (don't worry, your ilk proves the other half, just in a different thread).
I believe the point log was making with his joke was that this was unasked for and unprovoked, even in states that have already expanded conceal carry. There are real issues out there, some that need immediate attention, but instead of dealing with those, Republicans, apropros of nothing, decided people really really really need a gun on the swing set.
They cling to their guns (issues) because guns are popular with their base, they know it fires the base up, so they try to think of more and more ways to pander. It's a goody-bag in exchange for turnout come re-election time, nothing more.
 
2013-07-25 11:25:05 PM
Why ban guns in bars?  You'd probably save more lives by banning cars in bar parking lots...
 
2013-07-25 11:32:16 PM

Umeraken Ideut: I believe the point log was making with his joke was that this was unasked for and unprovoked, even in states that have already expanded conceal carry. There are real issues out there, some that need immediate attention, but instead of dealing with those, Republicans, apropros of nothing, decided people really really really need a gun on the swing set.
They cling to their guns (issues) because guns are popular with their base, they know it fires the base up, so they try to think of more and more ways to pander. It's a goody-bag in exchange for turnout come re-election time, nothing more.


exactly
 
2013-07-25 11:37:00 PM

Mentat: ArkAngel: Mentat: I see no way this cunning plan could fail.

Because people who would shoot up a playground are the type to follow the existing law?

It's not about "existing law" or "self-defense" or any of the other tropes that are hauled out.  It's about creating a culture of fear and then selling the solution to that fear: lots and lots of guns.

I've lived in and traveled to a lot of places and there have been a lot of times I've found myself in sketchy parts of town.  Despite that, I've never been mugged, robbed, carjacked, assaulted, or in any way abused, nor have I ever fired anything more powerful than a paintgun.  There may come a time in my life where that changes and I feel I need a weapon to protect myself, but that time hasn't come yet.  If I've managed to go for almost 40 years without needing a weapon to protect myself, maybe it means that America isn't the hellish post-liberal apocalypse the right portrays it as.


I've been in crackhouses and places that are so dark and scary ....oh, shiat, I dint have time to type it out on my phone.

but I did get my face kicked in by a white yuppy while waiting for a cab outside a bar with a bluegrass band playing. I now have titanium plates all over my face and an under bite.

he didn't even get farking indicted.
 
2013-07-25 11:37:54 PM
never go full crypto-fascist retard
 
2013-07-25 11:42:57 PM

serial_crusher: Why ban guns in bars?  You'd probably save more lives by banning cars in bar parking lots...


Pretty sure the high order bit here is to stay away from heavy machinery/ dangerous weapons of any sort while impaired.
 
2013-07-25 11:45:34 PM
Is there some abnormal rise in crime on playgrounds that made the NC Legislature obligated to be sure to include that in their new gun bill?
 
2013-07-25 11:49:24 PM

Mrtraveler01: Is there some abnormal rise in crime on playgrounds that made the NC Legislature obligated to be sure to include that in their new gun bill?


I think the assumption was that after they took out the need for background checks there would be a corollary rise in maniacs wandering around armed, so best to arm the parents in the playground. Seems like they really thought this one through if you ask me.
 
2013-07-25 11:50:31 PM

maxheck: I know this is is a crazy question... But is it all possible that you people are electing the insane to write your laws? Might that be the problem?

Sincerely, the rest of the world.


it works for us here in florida
 
2013-07-25 11:59:59 PM

Firethorn: pueblonative: Some black woman was told SYG applied to her, She got 20 years for standing her ground going into the house of a guy she put a restraining order on and firing randomly in the air because she apparently feared more for her life from the miller moths than the guy she said was threatening her.

I'm somewhat familiar with that -
1.  He also had a restraining order against Her.  She violated that going to his house
2.  He was on the phone with 911 when she left, came back, and yelled "I've got something for you!" before shooting at him(and angle wasn't in the air; that was some bullshiat claim she tried to make; holes in drywall say angle much more horizontal).


I'm not exactly a gun nut, and if that happened that would be better than her claiming she fired in the air.  At least then she's taking action against somebody who she said she fears will do her bodily harm.  The firing in the air pretty much says she not only doesn't fear the guy, but she doesn't give a damn what innocent bystander gets hurt.
 
2013-07-26 12:02:49 AM

serial_crusher: Why ban guns in bars?  You'd probably save more lives by banning cars in bar parking lots...


Real estate near a large number of bus lines is prized territory in the bar industry, and cities encourage "bar districts" in distinct areas that they can subsequently route all the busses through in the evening, for precisely this reason.

This isn't something that the industry and the government are unaware of, is what I'm getting at.  Large organizations can in fact focus on more than one issue at a time.
 
2013-07-26 12:04:45 AM

cameroncrazy1984: TV's Vinnie: Article mentions nothing about establishing a state religion or putting 13 year olds into adult prisons.

The headline didn't say it did. But yeah, NC Republicans have done both of those things.

/not subby


Propsed, but not signed, right (unless NC state attorneys LOVE to go to the Supreme Court and lose)?
 
2013-07-26 12:47:35 AM

Witty_Retort: I need a logical explanation for districts 1, 2, 4, 9, 12 and 13

[www.ncga.state.nc.us image 750x297]


good luck with that
 
2013-07-26 12:54:38 AM

Noam Chimpsky: My state passed a law allowing men to marry other men. Now that's some crazy shiat.


You think equal rights are crazy shiat?
 
2013-07-26 12:58:44 AM

MSFT: serial_crusher: Why ban guns in bars?  You'd probably save more lives by banning cars in bar parking lots...

Pretty sure the high order bit here is to stay away from heavy machinery/ dangerous weapons of any sort while impaired.


You're talking to a strictly low-order bit Farker
 
2013-07-26 02:27:27 AM
Guns alone isn't the issue. A gun is a tool, and any tool can be used as a weapon if you hold it right. Then again, in a bar, the last thing you want is someone who is intoxicated and with impaired judgment with a weapon. It's not a law in Mass that forbids firearms in bars, but most do not encourage the practice, and as private property, they can ask you to take that sh*t outside, and lock it up in your car, or be you will be denied entry. You CAN be nicked for carrying while intoxicated, and that can lose your carry license. Clubs and bars also tend to ban anything that might be used as a concealed weapon, for the same reason. It's just not a good idea to have armed folks drinking. It leads to funny places.

I suspect that this law is going to get tested out, relatively soon after passage when some Cletus brings his gun to the playground to pick up his kid, and the weapon accidentally discharges, because said Cletus was more excited about where he could bring his gun, than thinking clearly on gun safety, or the fact that children often clamber all over things, and people.

If folks would simply use some common sense, and carry weapons with some responsibility, we wouldn't need laws like this, and without the fetishization of weapons, we wouldn't have idiots carrying loaded rifles in an unsafe fashion, and putting folks at risk. The simple having doesn't negate danger. I've carried in Mass, and it was work related--night deposits back when the Combat Zone was still dicey--and most of the time, I generally didn't carry, because not having a weapon made me think a bit harder about what I was doing and where I was going, because a weapon can breed overconfidence. When I was bouncing, we didn't carry sprays, we didn't have tasers or stun guns, because those are things that can miss, can put folks in the club in danger, and can get taken from you, and used in bad ways. The best "weapon" we carried was a Maglight, and the small ones at that, because they could be used as hand load if you needed one, could be used to help a finger lock that often shocked a drunk or someone getting uppity, into rethinking their strategy. Without training, they were not quite as dangerous for bystanders either. Most times you used an extra load for a finger lock, it was a Sharpie that got used, because it was a lot more easier for folks to miss, and as a hand load, they suck, unless you are REALLY concentrating.

And that's really the point. You don't carry into situations where you might be in a position to be up close and personal, and in a crowd. Not unless you have training, and a good reason to carry. Potential for accidents, or for bystanders to get hit, it just doesn't add up to carry everywhere. And if folks used some sense, as opposed to making it a "rights" issue to want a weapon everywhere, it actually detracts from the issue.

I have a strong support of the 2nd Amendment. I don't think we need to control weapons as much as we need to educate people, and to understand safe handling, and how to safely carry, and most importantly, to inculcate a sense of responsibility. Most gun owners get this. Carrying in public is a responsibility, and needs to be treated as such. Not as a lark, or a "statement" and sadly, a lot of folks simply carry because they need to prop up themselves as a badass on the inside, to make up for the fact that they feel powerless otherwise. And a gun is a piss poor prop for ego. The right to carry doesn't mean it's smart to carry. Same as the right to free speech doesn't absolve you of the consequences of said speech from those private citizens who hear it.

State parks and national parks, unless you're going into some wild and wooly country, why the heck do you feel the need to carry? Wild gulls and crows scare you that much? In National Parks you need to consult the laws applicable, which are actually a lot more liberal than folks seem to think, but in many, you can carry, but if you are found hunting or discharge a weapon, especially without immediate danger, like plinking cans at the end of your campsite, that will get you more than ejected. Oddly enough, because you are sharing space with a lot of humans, wild animals, and you miss that target, you can be putting folks a fair distance away at risk. Or protected species for that matter.

If more folks used some damn sense, instead of treating their guns like accessories, then there wouldn't be so much furor. The folks who seem to be most hett up about this sort of thing, and the most vocal, they tend to be the folks who probably shouldn't be carrying in the first place. Use some damn sense. Most folks who carry do, but gun owners need to be harder on the gun fetish folks. The community needs to encourage folks to carry responsibly, and to address folks who are carrying in an unsafe fashion, not with rolls of eyes, but reminding folks that they're doing a lot more harm to their "cause" than good.

Responsible gun owners understand the law, and understand that not everywhere, and not every situation NEEDS a concealed weapon. Even if you've the right to do so, simply put, it's not always a good idea.
 
2013-07-26 04:18:07 AM
And remember, the one who makes the CRAZIEST law in the country gets to be the 2016 VP nominee!
 
2013-07-26 04:39:20 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-26 06:18:14 AM

DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.


Gerrymandering happened.
cdn.pjmedia.com
 
2013-07-26 06:20:37 AM

Witty_Retort: I need a logical explanation for districts 1, 2, 4, 9, 12 and 13

[www.ncga.state.nc.us image 750x297]


Corralling all the blah people into 1, 4 and 12.
 
2013-07-26 06:21:43 AM

serial_crusher: Why ban guns in bars?  You'd probably save more lives by banning cars in bar parking lots...


Odd that you should say that.  I've actually said that a possible regulation that might reduce the number of DUIs would be to ban bars having non-employee parking at all.  (Well, when first proposed I just said 'don't let bars have parking lots', but on further thought you probably do need a few for the employees).

pueblonative: I'm not exactly a gun nut, and if that happened that would be better than her claiming she fired in the air. At least then she's taking action against somebody who she said she fears will do her bodily harm. The firing in the air pretty much says she not only doesn't fear the guy, but she doesn't give a damn what innocent bystander gets hurt.


Except that she also fired in the general direction of her own kids.  And keep in mind that she left and then RETURNED WITH THE GUN.  I'm not saying the guy was perfect or even good, but he was on 911 because she'd violated the order against HER, then she left and he was still on the phone with 911 when she returned with the firearm and opened up.

The firing into the air at birds is probably some sort of insanity defense attempt.  Which is what I actually imagine that SYG is mutating into for criminals at the moment - they don't have any other straws to grasp to try to get off, so claim defense under SYG as it might work better than the old insanity plea.  BTW, I'm not saying she or her attorney were smart.

hubiestubert: I suspect that this law is going to get tested out, relatively soon after passage when some Cletus brings his gun to the playground to pick up his kid, and the weapon accidentally discharges, because said Cletus was more excited about where he could bring his gun, than thinking clearly on gun safety, or the fact that children often clamber all over things, and people.


Given that we average like 6 ND's a year with CCW permit holders carrying, in the whole COUNTRY, be aware that 'relatively soon' might be sometime next century for a ND by a CCW permit holder in a NC playground.  The ND rate where police actually end up KILLING somebody is something like 3X that per year.

hubiestubert: I generally didn't carry, because not having a weapon made me think a bit harder about what I was doing and where I was going, because a weapon can breed overconfidence.


Huh, from testimonials I've read, you're very unusual because most carriers report that they're MORE aware when they're carrying.

If more folks used some damn sense, instead of treating their guns like accessories, then there wouldn't be so much furor.

Is there really that much furor over this?  Is the danger from NDs or missed defensive shots such a risk?  I mean, we get a couple dozen people shot accidentally by cops on average every year, but I've yet to see a news article about a CCW holder carrying concealed doing it.  There's been some incidents at home(note:LOCK UP YOUR WEAPONS! especially if you have kids!), but none that I'm aware of out in the field.

As such, your fears remain conjecture, and I say therefore invalid.  You make some good points about being safe, but I'd argue that a ban on carry in playgrounds doesn't make CCW any safer, it's just one of many locations that trouble could be caused if a permit holder acts improperly.  Your arguments call for more training of permit holders, but even then, in general they're reducing training requirements because the experience around the country is that the training isn't really required.  Vermont has never required a permit for CCW, they don't have special problems because of it.  Alaska got rid of the requirement for the permit in the state, and again, no additional problems.

ND:Negligent Discharge; accidental discharge is when the weapon breaks, some claim there's no such thing.
 
2013-07-26 06:27:36 AM

Robots are Strong: DarwiOdrade: propasaurus: DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.

They voted for the blah guy and the state GOP is going to punish them for it.

Obama only won NC by about 13.7K votes (about 0.4% of the votes). They also voted the state GOP into a supermajority in both houses - they kinda deserve it.

I feel compelled to mention this in every North-Carolina-has-gone-retarded thread, but our problem is gerrymandering way way way more than it is retarded voters. Don't get me wrong, we have more than our share of retarded voters, but not as many as it would appear.

In the N.C. Senate Republicans received 52.57% of the vote, yet control 66% (33 of 50) of all available seats.

In the N.C. House Republicans received 51.25% of the vote, yet control 64% (77 of 120) of all available seats.

The U.S. House results are by far the worst (not that it applies to the bullshiat that the general assembly has been pulling on us, but it is pretty indicative of a problem ). In U.S. House races, Republicans received just 48.75% of the vote yet control 70% (9 of 13) of available seats.

So as a general population we're really not as bad as a first glance would indicate. Still boned though.


What sort of 19th Century third world anti-democratic shiathole do you have to live in that gerrymandering is still a normal part of the political process?
 
2013-07-26 06:34:12 AM

xria: Robots are Strong: DarwiOdrade: propasaurus: DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.

They voted for the blah guy and the state GOP is going to punish them for it.

Obama only won NC by about 13.7K votes (about 0.4% of the votes). They also voted the state GOP into a supermajority in both houses - they kinda deserve it.

I feel compelled to mention this in every North-Carolina-has-gone-retarded thread, but our problem is gerrymandering way way way more than it is retarded voters. Don't get me wrong, we have more than our share of retarded voters, but not as many as it would appear.

In the N.C. Senate Republicans received 52.57% of the vote, yet control 66% (33 of 50) of all available seats.

In the N.C. House Republicans received 51.25% of the vote, yet control 64% (77 of 120) of all available seats.

The U.S. House results are by far the worst (not that it applies to the bullshiat that the general assembly has been pulling on us, but it is pretty indicative of a problem ). In U.S. House races, Republicans received just 48.75% of the vote yet control 70% (9 of 13) of available seats.

So as a general population we're really not as bad as a first glance would indicate. Still boned though.

What sort of 19th Century third world anti-democratic shiathole do you have to live in that gerrymandering is still a normal part of the political process?


North Carolina.
 
2013-07-26 07:02:17 AM
The nut jobs can't go a minute without having a gun strapped to their hips... Scared, paranoid, pathetic little people whose sense of self-worth comes from a product, they treat like a fashion accessory or a political statement.

Whatever... I don't live there, nor do I plan on patronizing the state, so, have fun hillbillies, rednecks, and assorted shiat-kickers!
 
2013-07-26 07:07:04 AM

Granny_Panties: You get what you vote for. I don't feel a bit of pity for them. On the other hand I live in Wisconsin and I have Scott Walker, who I didn't vote for. So maybe I feel some pity for all 10 people in NC that don't vote straight ticket GOP.


Actually, in 2012, a majority of North Carolinians voted for Democratic state legislative candidates. But the Republicans have gerrymandered the state so completely that it didn't matter.
 
2013-07-26 08:05:58 AM

SixPaperJoint: Because People in power are Stupid: There's nothing better than getting drunk and waving a pistol around. Then I lead the police on a quick chase into my exwife's trailer which I then leave. As the police are kicking in the front door, I sneak 'round the side and pull the brick out of the corner that holds the whole thing up. The trailer comes down and it is glorious. My ex-wife now has grounds to sue the cops. I quickly hide my pistol in the grill and get my brother in law to vouch for me. I was never at the bar; it was someone who looked like me.

Y'all are brutalizing me!

[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x270]


That's the bad uncle from the Chipmunks movie, right?
 
2013-07-26 08:32:58 AM

Soup4Bonnie: Carrying a concealed weapon on a playground can have its ups and downs.

[strangetwist.com image 267x400]




Is... that... a seat belt on a teeter totter?

media.tumblr.com

/Oh, and North Carolina sucks too.
 
2013-07-26 08:35:00 AM

Mentat: ArkAngel: Mentat: I see no way this cunning plan could fail.

Because people who would shoot up a playground are the type to follow the existing law?

It's not about "existing law" or "self-defense" or any of the other tropes that are hauled out.  It's about creating a culture of fear and then selling the solution to that fear: lots and lots of guns.

I've lived in and traveled to a lot of places and there have been a lot of times I've found myself in sketchy parts of town.  Despite that, I've never been mugged, robbed, carjacked, assaulted, or in any way abused, nor have I ever fired anything more powerful than a paintgun.  There may come a time in my life where that changes and I feel I need a weapon to protect myself, but that time hasn't come yet.  If I've managed to go for almost 40 years without needing a weapon to protect myself, maybe it means that America isn't the hellish post-liberal apocalypse the right portrays it as.


I totally agree.  I've managed to make it to 56 without carrying a gun.  No muggings, carjackings, etc in my history either.  I developed good radar, while in high school, for douche-bag types (mostly future Republicans).  The ones you really have to worry about don't actually carry guns when they rob you.  Mostly, they work to change laws to favor the super rich while picking the pockets of the poor and middle class.  These are the criminals that have been stealing from me for the last 30-40 years and, apparently, how they steal is all legal.   Oh, but make sure that guns are everywhere - that'll improve our standards of living and the future of America.
 
2013-07-26 08:36:58 AM

Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?


It's ridiculous to think this is a huge deal. I'm originally from Iowa and they recently became a "shall issue" state. There is no law against carrying a firearm in places that sell alcohol there. There hasn't been an increase in bar shootings. I know for sure that concealed carry in bars is allowed in Tennessee and Arizona and there are probably other states as well.

The anti-gun side of the argument is that now there is nothing to stop people from getting drunk and shooting each other in bars. The pro-carry movement says it's still illegal to be intoxicated while carrying. The anti-gun crowd is skeptical that ccw permit holders are law abiding and will abstain from drinking alcohol while carrying.

If you don't think people are going to follow the law, then what was stopping them from carrying firearms into bars before the law allowed them to? What is the difference between the law that prevented people from carrying concealed in a bar and the law that prevents people from being intoxicated while carrying? Was the former a magical forcefield that couldn't be passed while the latter is simply writing on paper?

Personally, I think it is stupid to carry a gun in a bar. At the same time it was illegal to carry a firearm into restaurants that serve alcohol as well. The point is the gunpocalypse is not coming yet. Liberals are as paranoid about wild west shootouts as conservatives are about the government confiscating their guns.

Liberals + Conservatives = a pack of retards.
 
2013-07-26 08:38:25 AM

Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?


By the way 25 states have stand your ground laws. If that means what liberals say it means, there should be at least one George Zimmerman trial a day.
 
2013-07-26 08:48:38 AM

numbquil: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

It's ridiculous to think this is a huge deal. I'm originally from Iowa and they recently became a "shall issue" state. There is no law against carrying a firearm in places that sell alcohol there. There hasn't been an increase in bar shootings. I know for sure that concealed carry in bars is allowed in Tennessee and Arizona and there are probably other states as well.

The anti-gun side of the argument is that now there is nothing to stop people from getting drunk and shooting each other in bars. The pro-carry movement says it's still illegal to be intoxicated while carrying. The anti-gun crowd is skeptical that ccw permit holders are law abiding and will abstain from drinking alcohol while carrying.

If you don't think people are going to follow the law, then what was stopping them from carrying firearms into bars before the law allowed them to? What is the difference between the law that prevented people from carrying concealed in a bar and the law that prevents people from being intoxicated while carrying? Was the former a magical forcefield that couldn't be passed while the latter is simply writing on paper?

Personally, I think it is stupid to carry a gun in a bar. At the same time it was illegal to carry a firearm into restaurants that serve alcohol as well. The point is the gunpocalypse is not coming yet. Liberals are as paranoid about wild west shootouts as conservatives are about the government confiscating their guns.

Liberals + Conservatives = a pack of retards.



Yeah but the obvious question is - why?  Why in God's name does anyone need to carry a gun around with them period, let alone carry into bars?  We're becoming way too casual in this country with letting any idiot carry a deadly weapon just because they feel cool doing it.

/cue the "police are teh suck, and the constitution!" crowd
 
2013-07-26 08:51:31 AM

DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.


Redistricting happened. Citizen's United happened.
 
2013-07-26 08:57:12 AM

MFAWG: Fellate O'Fish: ArkAngel
Because people who would shoot up a playground are the type to follow the existing law?

Straw man.  It's difficult for law enforcement to figure out which persons carrying concealed on a playground are just law-abiding citizens, and which intend to engage in violence.  Much easier to enforce a rule -- no concealed carry on the playground.

To the objection that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to carry on a playground, please see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (noting that laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings, are presumptively lawful).

I honest to god don't know where this 'right to carry' comes from. The right to carry has been regulated since before day one.


It comes from stupid, history-ignorant, entitled libertarians and very greedy gun manufacturers.
 
2013-07-26 09:15:01 AM

Chummer45: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

It's ridiculous to think this is a huge deal. I'm originally from Iowa and they recently became a "shall issue" state. There is no law against carrying a firearm in places that sell alcohol there. There hasn't been an increase in bar shootings. I know for sure that concealed carry in bars is allowed in Tennessee and Arizona and there are probably other states as well.

The anti-gun side of the argument is that now there is nothing to stop people from getting drunk and shooting each other in bars. The pro-carry movement says it's still illegal to be intoxicated while carrying. The anti-gun crowd is skeptical that ccw permit holders are law abiding and will abstain from drinking alcohol while carrying.

If you don't think people are going to follow the law, then what was stopping them from carrying firearms into bars before the law allowed them to? What is the difference between the law that prevented people from carrying concealed in a bar and the law that prevents people from being intoxicated while carrying? Was the former a magical forcefield that couldn't be passed while the latter is simply writing on paper?

Personally, I think it is stupid to carry a gun in a bar. At the same time it was illegal to carry a firearm into restaurants that serve alcohol as well. The point is the gunpocalypse is not coming yet. Liberals are as paranoid about wild west shootouts as conservatives are about the government confiscating their guns.

Liberals + Conservatives = a pack of retards.


Yeah but the obvious question is - why?  Why in God's name does anyone need to carry a gun around with them period, let alone carry into bars?  We're becoming way too casual in this country with letting any idiot carry a deadly weapon just because they feel cool doing it.

/cue the "police are teh suck, and the constitution!" crowd


Not needing to do something is not a reason to pass a law against it. We have so many laws in the country that you're probably accidentally breaking several of them each day without even knowing it. If you use any household chemical in a manner that does not strictly follow the label, you are in violation of federal law. It says so right on the label. I had a friend who used oven cleaner to strip the finish off of some wood. Technically he broke a federal law. That is stupid.

If you are not hurting anyone by carrying around a firearm that you feel is necessary to protect yourself, what justification do we have as a society to stop you?

Before all you people come back with well what about abortion? what about voting rights? blah blah blah what about your tiny penis waaah wahhh. I'd just like to save you the trouble and let you know that I'm an anarchist.
 
2013-07-26 09:16:56 AM

numbquil: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

By the way 25 states have stand your ground laws. If that means what liberals say it means, there should be at least one George Zimmerman trial a day.


You're right. Gun violence is at completely acceptable levels in those states now.
 
2013-07-26 09:32:55 AM

Whiskey Pete: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

By the way 25 states have stand your ground laws. If that means what liberals say it means, there should be at least one George Zimmerman trial a day.

You're right. Gun violence is at completely acceptable levels in those states now.


What is an acceptable level of gun violence? What is the end goal to gun control?
 
2013-07-26 09:37:34 AM

numbquil: Whiskey Pete: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

By the way 25 states have stand your ground laws. If that means what liberals say it means, there should be at least one George Zimmerman trial a day.

You're right. Gun violence is at completely acceptable levels in those states now.

What is an acceptable level of gun violence? What is the end goal to gun control?


less?
 
2013-07-26 09:37:56 AM

numbquil: What is an acceptable level of gun violence?


You tell me. It must be good if allowing people to be armed in areas that they previously weren't is okay with you.
 
2013-07-26 09:39:25 AM

Whiskey Pete: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

By the way 25 states have stand your ground laws. If that means what liberals say it means, there should be at least one George Zimmerman trial a day.

You're right. Gun violence is at completely acceptable levels in those states now.



And how much of that gun violence has anything to do with stand your ground laws. If you want to make an argument you're going to have to break the statistics down so we can see the correlation.
 
2013-07-26 09:42:27 AM

numbquil: Whiskey Pete: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

By the way 25 states have stand your ground laws. If that means what liberals say it means, there should be at least one George Zimmerman trial a day.

You're right. Gun violence is at completely acceptable levels in those states now.


And how much of that gun violence has anything to do with stand your ground laws. If you want to make an argument you're going to have to break the statistics down so we can see the correlation.


No, as a matter of fact I don't. I didn't mention SYG laws. You seem confused. I will tell you this though: The amount of gun violence correlates with the easy accessibility of firearms.
 
2013-07-26 09:46:05 AM

Whiskey Pete: numbquil: What is an acceptable level of gun violence?

You tell me. It must be good if allowing people to be armed in areas that they previously weren't is okay with you.


Allowing people to be armed in areas they previosly weren't is okay with me because the individual trying to perform some action whether it be smoking marijuana or carrying a firearm shouldn't have to prove they have a right to do so. Those trying to prohibit such action should have to justify their reasoning for prohibiting the action. Being armed in an establishment that serves alcohol is not detrimental to society. If it is, we should prohibit the police from carrying firearms in bars. After all, there is nothing stopping them from having a drink or two.
 
2013-07-26 09:48:45 AM

Whiskey Pete: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

By the way 25 states have stand your ground laws. If that means what liberals say it means, there should be at least one George Zimmerman trial a day.

You're right. Gun violence is at completely acceptable levels in those states now.


And how much of that gun violence has anything to do with stand your ground laws. If you want to make an argument you're going to have to break the statistics down so we can see the correlation.

No, as a matter of fact I don't. I didn't mention SYG laws. You seem confused. I will tell you this though: The amount of gun violence correlates with the easy accessibility of firearms.



you mentioned it implicitly in your reply. "Gun violence is at completely acceptable levels in those states (that have stand your ground laws) now."
 
2013-07-26 09:48:48 AM

numbquil: If it is, we should prohibit the police from carrying firearms in bars


And with this statement you are no longer worth the time. Derp on , Garth.
 
2013-07-26 09:56:56 AM

FlashHarry: this sounds like it would mix well with a stand your ground type law.




It says to me, don't fark with strangers.
 
2013-07-26 09:57:22 AM
Similar legislation was enacted in Virginia and in Tennessee several years ago.

I await data showing the disastrous consequences of that legislation.
 
2013-07-26 10:01:05 AM

Whiskey Pete: numbquil: If it is, we should prohibit the police from carrying firearms in bars

And with this statement you are no longer worth the time. Derp on , Garth.


Why because you don't have an argument against it?
 
2013-07-26 10:11:16 AM

CPennypacker: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

By the way 25 states have stand your ground laws. If that means what liberals say it means, there should be at least one George Zimmerman trial a day.

You're right. Gun violence is at completely acceptable levels in those states now.

What is an acceptable level of gun violence? What is the end goal to gun control?

less?


Rates of violent crime, including crimes committed with use of firearms, have been declining and are currently at relatively low levels when considering the previous fifty years. No data suggests that prohibiting legally licensed individuals from carrying firearms in establishments where alcohol is served (and where they are still not legally permitted to imbibe alcoholic beverages) affects rates of violent crime.

Some regulatory measures are effective at reducing rates of violent crime. Based upon available data, the regulation of prohibiting lawful firearm carriers from carrying firearms in any establishment where alcohol is served (even if they consume no alcohol while on the premises) is not such a measure.
 
2013-07-26 10:22:45 AM

Granny_Panties: You get what you vote for. I don't feel a bit of pity for them. On the other hand I live in Wisconsin and I have Scott Walker, who I didn't vote for. So maybe I feel some pity for all 10 people in NC that don't vote straight ticket GOP.


A few more than 10. Heard about Moral Monday protests? Not an NC native myself, but have spent most of my life here. There is much I love about NC....the varied geography (Outer Banks to Appalachians) the cultural contributions (John Coltrane, Nina Simone, Earl Scruggs, Doc Watson, Thomas Wolfe, etc...) but SWEET FREAKING JESUS and a Milkshake our legislature is a gotdamn abomination and embarrassment.......and I sure as fark didn't vote for any of'em!
 
2013-07-26 10:29:28 AM

Dimensio: CPennypacker: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

By the way 25 states have stand your ground laws. If that means what liberals say it means, there should be at least one George Zimmerman trial a day.

You're right. Gun violence is at completely acceptable levels in those states now.

What is an acceptable level of gun violence? What is the end goal to gun control?

less?

Rates of violent crime, including crimes committed with use of firearms, have been declining and are currently at relatively low levels when considering the previous fifty years. No data suggests that prohibiting legally licensed individuals from carrying firearms in establishments where alcohol is served (and where they are still not legally permitted to imbibe alcoholic beverages) affects rates of violent crime.

Some regulatory measures are effective at reducing rates of violent crime. Based upon available data, the regulation of prohibiting lawful firearm carriers from carrying firearms in any establishment where alcohol is served (even if they consume no alcohol while on the premises) is not such a measure.




While traveling, where do you store your arms when entering a gun-free area?
 
2013-07-26 10:33:47 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Dimensio: CPennypacker: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: Where are the resident FARK gun nuts™ to either defend or denounce this particular bit of legislation?

By the way 25 states have stand your ground laws. If that means what liberals say it means, there should be at least one George Zimmerman trial a day.

You're right. Gun violence is at completely acceptable levels in those states now.

What is an acceptable level of gun violence? What is the end goal to gun control?

less?

Rates of violent crime, including crimes committed with use of firearms, have been declining and are currently at relatively low levels when considering the previous fifty years. No data suggests that prohibiting legally licensed individuals from carrying firearms in establishments where alcohol is served (and where they are still not legally permitted to imbibe alcoholic beverages) affects rates of violent crime.

Some regulatory measures are effective at reducing rates of violent crime. Based upon available data, the regulation of prohibiting lawful firearm carriers from carrying firearms in any establishment where alcohol is served (even if they consume no alcohol while on the premises) is not such a measure.

While traveling, where do you store your arms when entering a gun-free area?


Typically I keep my firearms securely locked in my vehicle. In the past, I locked my firearm in the glove box but, as my current vehicle's glove box does not lock, I store the firearm in the trunk instead.
 
2013-07-26 10:39:17 AM

hubiestubert: If folks would simply use some common sense,


Exactly.

I know a couple who are a perfect example of gun owners with no common sense. They both have concealed carry permits. She doesn't generally carry, but he never goes anywhere without two guns on him, including his own office. He does developer support for a web hosting company, which is apparently fraught with danger.

Also fraught with danger is their suburban house in a practically antiseptic neighborhood. They have a large array of guns, which are mostly kept in a gun locker, but they keep a loaded, unsecured shotgun in their bedroom closet in case of intruders, because obviously the multiple deadlocks, electronic security system, and three 75-lb. plus dogs couldn't possibly be expected to stop one. (They also have a collection of more than 100 knives, most of them of the combat variety, just in case.)

Oh, and did I mention that the female half of this couple has been diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, social anxiety, agoraphobia, and severe depression, and has been hospitalized at least five times for being suicidal in the time I've known them? One day she described to me in crystal-clear detail exactly how she planned to kill herself, including which gun she would use, which room she'd do it in, and what the note would say. When, understandably concerned, I brought it up with her husband, he said "oh, she won't really do it."

They shopped psychiatrists for six months before they found one who would sign the paperwork saying she was sane enough to have a CCP.

He's also on antidepressants and anti-anxiety meds, but at least he's not much of a suicide risk, unless you consider how much difficulty someone so morbidly obese (he's 5'9" and weighs at least 350 lbs.) could have retrieving a gun from an ankle holster in an emergency situation. This guy could lose a Peacemaker in his folds. Of course, since he spends most of his free time in a recliner at home, he'd first have to set aside his gigantic laptop (which he even takes to the bathroom) and struggle out of the chair in order to reach anything at all. And yes, he sits there in his own living room wearing two guns. Because you never know, right?

Neither of them has ever been robbed, assaulted, or otherwise a victim of a crime. They do not hunt (in fact, she volunteers at a wildlife rescue center when she's not too afraid to leave the house). They take a couple of guns to the range a couple of times a year to make sure they remember which direction to point them. (They took me with them once. Neither of them can hit a damned thing.) He's always on some paranoid rant about ammunition shortages, of course, I guess because when the zombies come he's going to have to arm his entire neighborhood singlehandedly.

I lived in their spare room for a short while. I could easily have taken the key to the gun locker from their bedside table, picked out a gun or two, and wandered off with them, and they wouldn't have noticed anything amiss for weeks or months.

At least they don't have kids, so they're primarily a danger to themselves. I stopped hanging around with them years ago because their bizarre survivalist folie à deux, but mutual friends assure me they've only gotten crazier over time. And of course, they are fervent gun-rights advocates. (Although, interestingly, they are otherwise far-left liberals.)

My boss carries a gun around the office as well, which is just great since he's an unmedicated bipolar narcissist prone to explosive temper tantrums. Two of my co-workers also carry guns, and both say it's because they're afraid of the boss. So I guess if our ten-person environmental compliance business in a pleasant office park between a catholic church and a playground and duck pond is ever invaded by the well-known terrorist group Al-Qaeda In Central Texas, we'll be fully prepared to stand our ground.

Last year I had a job doing phone support for the texas.gov website. The second most common type of call we got was from people having difficulty applying for or renewing their concealed carry permits online. Most of the callers were elderly. At least a few times a week we'd have someone complaining the text was too small on their screen. On one memorable occasion, it was an elderly woman who was renewing for her husband "because he doesn't see so good anymore." (Yes, I also spoke to plenty of elderly people who sounded completely competent to be carrying, including an awesome 84-year-old woman who said she was renewing her CCP online because her son had taken off with her motorcycle, but they were in the minority.)

And then there was the time my neighbor blew a hole through my house with his elephant gun while cleaning it. Came running over pounding on the door wanting to know if we were ok. He was obviously drunk.Of course, he was usually obviously drunk.

These are the gun owners who scare me, and they vastly outnumber the responsible gun owners I know. I will presume for the sake of argument that all the gun owners in this thread are the responsible sort. You're the experts -- how do we keep guns out of the hands of these people? Never mind the criminals, they'll get their hands on guns one way or another, probably by stealing them from idiots like these. I want to know how we keep crazy and/or incompetent people from walking around armed to the teeth.
 
2013-07-26 10:56:37 AM

PaulRB: Mentat: ArkAngel: Mentat: I see no way this cunning plan could fail.

Because people who would shoot up a playground are the type to follow the existing law?

It's not about "existing law" or "self-defense" or any of the other tropes that are hauled out.  It's about creating a culture of fear and then selling the solution to that fear: lots and lots of guns.

I've lived in and traveled to a lot of places and there have been a lot of times I've found myself in sketchy parts of town.  Despite that, I've never been mugged, robbed, carjacked, assaulted, or in any way abused, nor have I ever fired anything more powerful than a paintgun.  There may come a time in my life where that changes and I feel I need a weapon to protect myself, but that time hasn't come yet.  If I've managed to go for almost 40 years without needing a weapon to protect myself, maybe it means that America isn't the hellish post-liberal apocalypse the right portrays it as.

I totally agree.  I've managed to make it to 56 without carrying a gun.  No muggings, carjackings, etc in my history either.  I developed good radar, while in high school, for douche-bag types (mostly future Republicans).  The ones you really have to worry about don't actually carry guns when they rob you.  Mostly, they work to change laws to favor the super rich while picking the pockets of the poor and middle class.  These are the criminals that have been stealing from me for the last 30-40 years and, apparently, how they steal is all legal.   Oh, but make sure that guns are everywhere - that'll improve our standards of living and the future of America.


But liberals like you leech off the system that you despise. You talk about the evils of capitalist system but your well being depends on its success. The truth is you are an authoritarian just like the conservatives. You want to force people to live one way while conservatives want to force people to live another way. Once you come to terms with your error you should look into anarcho-syndicalism.
 
2013-07-26 10:59:53 AM

gglibertine: These are the gun owners who scare me, and they vastly outnumber the responsible gun owners I know. I will presume for the sake of argument that all the gun owners in this thread are the responsible sort. You're the experts -- how do we keep guns out of the hands of these people? Never mind the criminals, they'll get their hands on guns one way or another, probably by stealing them from idiots like these. I want to know how we keep crazy and/or incompetent people from walking around armed to the teeth.


As you claim to have personally witnessed the behaviour that disturbs you, a system to enable better reporting of suspected mental health problems would be an ideal first step. Such a system would not be established specifically to prevent access to firearms to such individuals, but would instead serve to allow such individuals to be identified and given any treatment necessary (if necessary, as such a system would inevitably receive reports from individuals who are not actually mentally disturbed).

Unfortunately, in the United States of America, such a system would be socialism.
 
2013-07-26 11:03:41 AM

Dimensio: gglibertine: These are the gun owners who scare me, and they vastly outnumber the responsible gun owners I know. I will presume for the sake of argument that all the gun owners in this thread are the responsible sort. You're the experts -- how do we keep guns out of the hands of these people? Never mind the criminals, they'll get their hands on guns one way or another, probably by stealing them from idiots like these. I want to know how we keep crazy and/or incompetent people from walking around armed to the teeth.

As you claim to have personally witnessed the behaviour that disturbs you, a system to enable better reporting of suspected mental health problems would be an ideal first step. Such a system would not be established specifically to prevent access to firearms to such individuals, but would instead serve to allow such individuals to be identified and given any treatment necessary (if necessary, as such a system would inevitably receive reports from individuals who are not actually mentally disturbed).

Unfortunately, in the United States of America, such a system would be socialism.


Yeah, it's called public school.
 
2013-07-26 11:05:34 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Dimensio: gglibertine: These are the gun owners who scare me, and they vastly outnumber the responsible gun owners I know. I will presume for the sake of argument that all the gun owners in this thread are the responsible sort. You're the experts -- how do we keep guns out of the hands of these people? Never mind the criminals, they'll get their hands on guns one way or another, probably by stealing them from idiots like these. I want to know how we keep crazy and/or incompetent people from walking around armed to the teeth.

As you claim to have personally witnessed the behaviour that disturbs you, a system to enable better reporting of suspected mental health problems would be an ideal first step. Such a system would not be established specifically to prevent access to firearms to such individuals, but would instead serve to allow such individuals to be identified and given any treatment necessary (if necessary, as such a system would inevitably receive reports from individuals who are not actually mentally disturbed).

Unfortunately, in the United States of America, such a system would be socialism.

Yeah, it's called public school.


The public education system in the United States of America does not typically employ individuals qualified to diagnose mental illness. As public schools are themselves seen as socialism, expanded funding for such a measure is unlikely in the current political environment.
 
2013-07-26 11:07:20 AM

Frank N Stein: Do you guys just sit around all day waiting to be outraged by trivialities?


static.ddmcdn.com
 
2013-07-26 11:29:06 AM

Dimensio: StoPPeRmobile: Dimensio: gglibertine: These are the gun owners who scare me, and they vastly outnumber the responsible gun owners I know. I will presume for the sake of argument that all the gun owners in this thread are the responsible sort. You're the experts -- how do we keep guns out of the hands of these people? Never mind the criminals, they'll get their hands on guns one way or another, probably by stealing them from idiots like these. I want to know how we keep crazy and/or incompetent people from walking around armed to the teeth.

As you claim to have personally witnessed the behaviour that disturbs you, a system to enable better reporting of suspected mental health problems would be an ideal first step. Such a system would not be established specifically to prevent access to firearms to such individuals, but would instead serve to allow such individuals to be identified and given any treatment necessary (if necessary, as such a system would inevitably receive reports from individuals who are not actually mentally disturbed).

Unfortunately, in the United States of America, such a system would be socialism.

Yeah, it's called public school.

The public education system in the United States of America does not typically employ individuals qualified to diagnose mental illness. As public schools are themselves seen as socialism, expanded funding for such a measure is unlikely in the current political environment.




Yeah, your right, it's a lot cheaper to ban all guns in America. Unless you are rich, of course.
 
2013-07-26 11:34:30 AM

Dimensio: As you claim to have personally witnessed the behaviour that disturbs you, a system to enable better reporting of suspected mental health problems would be an ideal first step. Such a system would not be established specifically to prevent access to firearms to such individuals, but would instead serve to allow such individuals to be identified and given any treatment necessary (if necessary, as such a system would inevitably receive reports from individuals who are not actually mentally disturbed).


Actually, Texas does have a system for this. However, in order to make use of it I would have to submit a signed, notarized statement. That makes good sense to me, since you don't want people randomly reporting people they're pissed off at, but it also means that I'd be opening myself up to all kinds of potential lawsuits, drama, and retribution. I could live with social drama, but frankly, my life is not worth the shiatstorm my boss would bring down on my head if I reported him. I'd rather he just shoot me.
 
2013-07-26 11:50:49 AM
numbquil:
If you don't think people are going to follow the law, then what was stopping them from carrying firearms into bars before the law allowed them to? What is the difference between the law that prevented people from carrying concealed in a bar and the law that prevents people from being intoxicated while carrying? Was the former a magical forcefield that couldn't be passed while the latter is simply writing on paper?


Can't tell if you're serious, but I guess I'l try and answer anyway. I'm not aware of any laws that are set up to catch any and all offenders, every time, with 100% rate of efficacy. But the general idea seems to be that we slowly weed out the more egregious repeat offenders and separate them from the rest of society based on their level of danger to other people. The other intent is to try and catch people at a stage before they do serious harm to others, e.g., rather than waiting for them to actually shoot and kill someone, perhaps haul them into jail for a few days of polite social intervention for flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated and defending the virtues of their favorite NASCAR driver.
 
2013-07-26 11:53:03 AM

Chummer45: We're becoming way too casual in this country with letting any idiot carry a deadly weapon just because they feel cool doing it.


You're attributing motive to the people who carry without any real proof in this.  How the hell do you know why any individual carries.  Have you seen a survey or something?

Whiskey Pete: The amount of gun violence correlates with the easy accessibility of firearms.


The difficulty to this is that I care about violence levels period, not just gun violence.  We can reduce violence better by doing some things like addressing poverty and ending the 'war on drugs' than by restricting firearms.

gglibertine: And yes, he sits there in his own living room wearing two guns. Because you never know, right?


Is he actually a danger to you?  If not, why the hell do you care?

I lived in their spare room for a short while. I could easily have taken the key to the gun locker from their bedside table, picked out a gun or two, and wandered off with them, and they wouldn't have noticed anything amiss for weeks or months.

You're the one that knows them, I guess.  I'd notice sooner, but that's me.

And then there was the time my neighbor blew a hole through my house with his elephant gun while cleaning it. Came running over pounding on the door wanting to know if we were ok. He was obviously drunk.Of course, he was usually obviously drunk.

On the behalf of the responsible gun owners, I'm forced to apologize for your horrid experiences.  I don't drink and handle firearms.

On the other hand, given my current understanding of Texas law(I'm in Alaska, so take it with a big grain of salt), I think I need to point out that none of your stories really has any standing on CCW.  Why?  As far as I'm aware you can carry inside your house and place of business however you like completely legally within the state of Texas.  So that covers your paranoid couple and boss.  The mental standard to take guns away is far higher than merely denying a CCW permit.  The 'elephant gun' incident, well, you don't get a CCW in order to hunt, and the guns I know of that are worthy of being called an 'elephant gun' are spectacularly unsuited to CCW, and probably self-defense in general.  They'll solve the problem if you actually manage to shoot the person attacking you, certainly, but they're not known for being easy to carry or very nimble, you know?

By the way, owning a gun for self defense isn't about hunting, and I've both hunted and volunteered at wildlife shelters.  Weird, huh?

These are the gun owners who scare me, and they vastly outnumber the responsible gun owners I know.

I'd probably rephrase that as "responsible people that I know also own guns".  Thing about most responsible gun owners is that, at least IRL they don't disclose that they own firearms willy-nilly.  Something like 1/3rd of households own at least one firearm in the USA.  So if you know at least 30 people, that's 10 total firearm owners, of which only 4 you know about are 'bad'.  Of course, that depends on how you define 'bad'.  The couple were obviously nice enough to let you crash there for a while, demonstrating a lot of trust for paranoid sorts like you described.
 
2013-07-26 11:55:05 AM

JAGChem82: zelet: MinkeyMan: I here and now swear if I ever become rich, I going to start a charity aimed at arming the unemployed. Automatics, explosives, armored vehicles, body armor whatever they can legally get. And free training in the best use there of.

I'm sure the NRA and GOP will fully support my efforts.

That's the best way to stop this craziness. Use the gun show loophole and whatever other dumbass republican laws you can to arm minorities. Watch those pants-pissing cowards twist.

This.

Do they fear black people with guns in general? As much as they let on, probably not.

Now, organized black people marching with guns in their communities and outside their campaign offices? HELL YES.

/if I could start up a black gun club like the Black Bikers, I'd do it
//w/o the GOP derp of course
///2nd amendment is our right too


You just need a group like this, but with an explicit mandate to "teach traditional American marksmanship skills" to minority populations.  Then, to raise awareness about your group, you can organize armed marches.  After all, what better way to illustrate what the group is about?
 
2013-07-26 12:02:01 PM

gglibertine: Actually, Texas does have a system for this. However, in order to make use of it I would have to submit a signed, notarized statement. That makes good sense to me, since you don't want people randomly reporting people they're pissed off at, but it also means that I'd be opening myself up to all kinds of potential lawsuits, drama, and retribution. I could live with social drama, but frankly, my life is not worth the shiatstorm my boss would bring down on my head if I reported him. I'd rather he just shoot me.


Seems that you don't think that he's 'that' dangerous then.

MSFT: The other intent is to try and catch people at a stage before they do serious harm to others, e.g., rather than waiting for them to actually shoot and kill someone, perhaps haul them into jail for a few days of polite social intervention for flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated and defending the virtues of their favorite NASCAR driver.


You kind of missed Numbquil's point.  The consequences for 'flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated', before and after the elimination of the prohibition on carry in bars, remains substantially identical.  Remember, it's illegal to carry while intoxicated.  It's illegal to 'brandish' a firearm(if the flashing was deliberate).

Either offense isn't just a 'few days in jail', it's a RKBA ending event if they're convicted.  Adding a third misdemeanor charge that doesn't(at least for a first offense) isn't much of a difference.

Remember people; eliminating the prohibition on carry in bars&parks doesn't mean that you're free to carry while drunk, that minors can suddenly carry, etc...
 
2013-07-26 12:10:51 PM

gglibertine: Dimensio: As you claim to have personally witnessed the behaviour that disturbs you, a system to enable better reporting of suspected mental health problems would be an ideal first step. Such a system would not be established specifically to prevent access to firearms to such individuals, but would instead serve to allow such individuals to be identified and given any treatment necessary (if necessary, as such a system would inevitably receive reports from individuals who are not actually mentally disturbed).

Actually, Texas does have a system for this. However, in order to make use of it I would have to submit a signed, notarized statement. That makes good sense to me, since you don't want people randomly reporting people they're pissed off at, but it also means that I'd be opening myself up to all kinds of potential lawsuits, drama, and retribution. I could live with social drama, but frankly, my life is not worth the shiatstorm my boss would bring down on my head if I reported him. I'd rather he just shoot me.


Just reporting people isn't enough either.  Need to do more with the ones we know about.  I have an aunt who gets popped every couple years for "driving while inhibited" or something.  Basically her mental illness makes her such a bad driver as to be a danger to others on the road.
But once they've got her in the clink, they medicate her and her situation approves, so they send her home and say "ok, just keep taking your meds and you'll be fine."  She does for a while, but misses one dose for whatever reason and boom, back off the deep end.
What she really needs is routine testing for the rest of her life to make sure she's staying on the meds, but they don't have that so you've just got to wait until she farks up again, and hope nobody gets hurt in the process.
 
2013-07-26 12:15:11 PM

serial_crusher: gglibertine: Dimensio: As you claim to have personally witnessed the behaviour that disturbs you, a system to enable better reporting of suspected mental health problems would be an ideal first step. Such a system would not be established specifically to prevent access to firearms to such individuals, but would instead serve to allow such individuals to be identified and given any treatment necessary (if necessary, as such a system would inevitably receive reports from individuals who are not actually mentally disturbed).

Actually, Texas does have a system for this. However, in order to make use of it I would have to submit a signed, notarized statement. That makes good sense to me, since you don't want people randomly reporting people they're pissed off at, but it also means that I'd be opening myself up to all kinds of potential lawsuits, drama, and retribution. I could live with social drama, but frankly, my life is not worth the shiatstorm my boss would bring down on my head if I reported him. I'd rather he just shoot me.

Just reporting people isn't enough either.  Need to do more with the ones we know about.  I have an aunt who gets popped every couple years for "driving while inhibited" or something.  Basically her mental illness makes her such a bad driver as to be a danger to others on the road.
But once they've got her in the clink, they medicate her and her situation approves, so they send her home and say "ok, just keep taking your meds and you'll be fine."  She does for a while, but misses one dose for whatever reason and boom, back off the deep end.
What she really needs is routine testing for the rest of her life to make sure she's staying on the meds, but they don't have that so you've just got to wait until she farks up again, and hope nobody gets hurt in the process.


Lawsuits filed by American Civil Liberties Union has, in some respects, limited the ability to regulate the behaviour of mentally ill individuals. Unfortunately, politicians thus far are uninterested in establishing new systems to replace the overturned ones.
 
2013-07-26 12:22:23 PM

MSFT: numbquil:
If you don't think people are going to follow the law, then what was stopping them from carrying firearms into bars before the law allowed them to? What is the difference between the law that prevented people from carrying concealed in a bar and the law that prevents people from being intoxicated while carrying? Was the former a magical forcefield that couldn't be passed while the latter is simply writing on paper?


Can't tell if you're serious, but I guess I'l try and answer anyway. I'm not aware of any laws that are set up to catch any and all offenders, every time, with 100% rate of efficacy. But the general idea seems to be that we slowly weed out the more egregious repeat offenders and separate them from the rest of society based on their level of danger to other people. The other intent is to try and catch people at a stage before they do serious harm to others, e.g., rather than waiting for them to actually shoot and kill someone, perhaps haul them into jail for a few days of polite social intervention for flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated and defending the virtues of their favorite NASCAR driver.


People with permits to carry firearms are extremely unlikely to be repeat offenders. Unless they managed to slip through the system. Up to the point of them getting their permit they have not shown themselves to be a danger to the people. I've lived in North Carolina. It was much harder for me to purchase a handgun there than it is to purchase one in my home state of Iowa or in my current state of Virginia.

As far as catching people before causing serious harm I would argue that the individual must show intent to cause harm. As someone pointed out in another gun thread, if you have a penis, you have the necessary tool to carry out sexual assault. That doesn't mean that you should be punished. Should you have to register your DNA simply because you have a penis. Should you not be allowed into establishments that serve alcohol because you have a penis and you could take advantage of someone who is intoxicated?

I don't disagree with you but you had to exaggerate your point to get it across. Go read the law in North Carolina and then come back and tell me whether or not it is legal to flash a gun in a bar while intoxicated. Throwing in the part about Nascar just tells me you are basing your judgement on stereotypes. If I was prejudiced I may agree with you. I'm not because I'm a gun owner and I don't watch Nascar. I'm not what you would call a "redneck" In fact, I'm an atheist and college educated. At some point I realized that both liberals and conservatives were going to screw me over. That's why I turned to anarchist philosophy. I believe in the right to defend yourself against violence. Like I said before, if you believe you need to carry a firearm for self defense and you're not harming anyone, the government should have to prove that being armed is so dangerous that it infringes on the rights of others. Furthermore, if being armed in and of itself is so damn dangerous, why are police armed?
 
2013-07-26 12:43:44 PM

numbquil: As far as catching people before causing serious harm I would argue that the individual must show intent to cause harm.




See DUI laws.

So you want drunks on the roads, killing innocent American families with little, tiny, defenseless children?
 
2013-07-26 12:55:53 PM

Firethorn: gglibertine: Actually, Texas does have a system for this. However, in order to make use of it I would have to submit a signed, notarized statement. That makes good sense to me, since you don't want people randomly reporting people they're pissed off at, but it also means that I'd be opening myself up to all kinds of potential lawsuits, drama, and retribution. I could live with social drama, but frankly, my life is not worth the shiatstorm my boss would bring down on my head if I reported him. I'd rather he just shoot me.

Seems that you don't think that he's 'that' dangerous then.

MSFT: The other intent is to try and catch people at a stage before they do serious harm to others, e.g., rather than waiting for them to actually shoot and kill someone, perhaps haul them into jail for a few days of polite social intervention for flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated and defending the virtues of their favorite NASCAR driver.

You kind of missed Numbquil's point.  The consequences for 'flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated', before and after the elimination of the prohibition on carry in bars, remains substantially identical.  Remember, it's illegal to carry while intoxicated.  It's illegal to 'brandish' a firearm(if the flashing was deliberate).

Either offense isn't just a 'few days in jail', it's a RKBA ending event if they're convicted.  Adding a third misdemeanor charge that doesn't(at least for a first offense) isn't much of a difference.

Remember people; eliminating the prohibition on carry in bars&parks doesn't mean that you're free to carry while drunk, that minors can suddenly carry, etc...


What is RKBA?

If I missed his point I apologize. My intent was to show that we have a gradation of laws and where we decide to draw the line is an ongoing process... but it's not very practical to drop laws from the books based on the fact that we cannot catch every infraction.
 
2013-07-26 01:02:13 PM

numbquil: MSFT: numbquil:
If you don't think people are going to follow the law, then what was stopping them from carrying firearms into bars before the law allowed them to? What is the difference between the law that prevented people from carrying concealed in a bar and the law that prevents people from being intoxicated while carrying? Was the former a magical forcefield that couldn't be passed while the latter is simply writing on paper?


Can't tell if you're serious, but I guess I'l try and answer anyway. I'm not aware of any laws that are set up to catch any and all offenders, every time, with 100% rate of efficacy. But the general idea seems to be that we slowly weed out the more egregious repeat offenders and separate them from the rest of society based on their level of danger to other people. The other intent is to try and catch people at a stage before they do serious harm to others, e.g., rather than waiting for them to actually shoot and kill someone, perhaps haul them into jail for a few days of polite social intervention for flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated and defending the virtues of their favorite NASCAR driver.

People with permits to carry firearms are extremely unlikely to be repeat offenders. Unless they managed to slip through the system. Up to the point of them getting their permit they have not shown themselves to be a danger to the people. I've lived in North Carolina. It was much harder for me to purchase a handgun there than it is to purchase one in my home state of Iowa or in my current state of Virginia.

As far as catching people before causing serious harm I would argue that the individual must show intent to cause harm. As someone pointed out in another gun thread, if you have a penis, you have the necessary tool to carry out sexual assault. That doesn't mean that you should be punished. Should you have to register your DNA simply because you have a penis. Should you not be allowed into establishments that serve alcohol because yo ...


Having a penis, no. Showing it to people in public, however, may be indicative of an escalating behavior of a person with poor impulse control.

As for NASCAR I really don't give a shiat one way or the other. I like to punch up my analogies so that they resonate a bit more with the reader - people who are offended in any way are entitled to a full refund.
 
2013-07-26 01:05:24 PM

MSFT: Firethorn: gglibertine: Actually, Texas does have a system for this. However, in order to make use of it I would have to submit a signed, notarized statement. That makes good sense to me, since you don't want people randomly reporting people they're pissed off at, but it also means that I'd be opening myself up to all kinds of potential lawsuits, drama, and retribution. I could live with social drama, but frankly, my life is not worth the shiatstorm my boss would bring down on my head if I reported him. I'd rather he just shoot me.

Seems that you don't think that he's 'that' dangerous then.

MSFT: The other intent is to try and catch people at a stage before they do serious harm to others, e.g., rather than waiting for them to actually shoot and kill someone, perhaps haul them into jail for a few days of polite social intervention for flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated and defending the virtues of their favorite NASCAR driver.

You kind of missed Numbquil's point.  The consequences for 'flashing their gun in a bar while intoxicated', before and after the elimination of the prohibition on carry in bars, remains substantially identical.  Remember, it's illegal to carry while intoxicated.  It's illegal to 'brandish' a firearm(if the flashing was deliberate).

Either offense isn't just a 'few days in jail', it's a RKBA ending event if they're convicted.  Adding a third misdemeanor charge that doesn't(at least for a first offense) isn't much of a difference.

Remember people; eliminating the prohibition on carry in bars&parks doesn't mean that you're free to carry while drunk, that minors can suddenly carry, etc...

What is RKBA?

If I missed his point I apologize. My intent was to show that we have a gradation of laws and where we decide to draw the line is an ongoing process... but it's not very practical to drop laws from the books based on the fact that we cannot catch every infraction.




Yep, you never know when you might need them.
 
2013-07-26 01:06:26 PM

StoPPeRmobile: numbquil: As far as catching people before causing serious harm I would argue that the individual must show intent to cause harm.

See DUI laws.

So you want drunks on the roads, killing innocent American families with little, tiny, defenseless children?


I was specifically answering the question in regard to willingly shooting someone. We haven't gotten into negligence yet. I was waiting for someone else to bring it up. Wikipedia says criminal negligence is "careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant." Carrying a firearm in a holster which is the commonly accepted method for police and military would be acceptable. Whereas sitting at the bar while twirling your six shooter would put others in danger. It's interesting that you bring this up because bars serve alcohol which is poisonous in large quantities. The bartender can be found criminally negligent for serving alcohol to a patron who has had to much if that individual suffers any medical issue including death. Why is alcohol not banned from bars? When used improperly it can lead to death. Either directly or by DUI.
 
2013-07-26 01:08:15 PM
I admit it: I don't understand Southerners.  For folks that huge on self-determination and the culture of Jesus-24-7, the ruthless intolerance and merciless ideas of "justice" are too ironic to be funny anymore.  As a mother of a 13 year old boy, the idea of some poor boy his age in prison is just... Ugh. 

This is why none of the really fun aliens ever visit, y'know.
 
2013-07-26 01:08:33 PM
Brandishing a firearm is illegal in North Carolina. Like I said I lived there and I'm a firearm owner. I guess in that way it is similar to brandishing a penis. As long as you keep your penis and your pistol in their holsters you should be good.
 
2013-07-26 01:08:55 PM

StoPPeRmobile: If I missed his point I apologize. My intent was to show that we have a gradation of laws and where we decide to draw the line is an ongoing process... but it's not very practical to drop laws from the books based on the fact that we cannot catch every infraction.

Yep, you never know when you might need them.


If we only cared about laws that we can effectively enforce I suspect we would be a nation of traffic cameras and nothing else.
 
2013-07-26 01:11:05 PM

numbquil: Brandishing a firearm is illegal in North Carolina. Like I said I lived there and I'm a firearm owner. I guess in that way it is similar to brandishing a penis. As long as you keep your penis and your pistol in their holsters you should be good.


I think we've found some common ground. Although to be honest I suspect we have far more common ground than this thread would indicate.
 
2013-07-26 01:12:49 PM

MSFT: StoPPeRmobile: If I missed his point I apologize. My intent was to show that we have a gradation of laws and where we decide to draw the line is an ongoing process... but it's not very practical to drop laws from the books based on the fact that we cannot catch every infraction.

Yep, you never know when you might need them.

If we only cared about laws that we can effectively enforce I suspect we would be a nation of traffic cameras and nothing else.


The argument has nothing to do with the idea that it can be enforced. The argument is that the law limits an action that is in no way detrimental to society. If being armed was detrimental to society, the government wouldn't be armed. The government doesn't do things that are detrimental to society.
 
2013-07-26 01:22:41 PM

numbquil: MSFT: StoPPeRmobile: If I missed his point I apologize. My intent was to show that we have a gradation of laws and where we decide to draw the line is an ongoing process... but it's not very practical to drop laws from the books based on the fact that we cannot catch every infraction.

Yep, you never know when you might need them.

If we only cared about laws that we can effectively enforce I suspect we would be a nation of traffic cameras and nothing else.

The argument has nothing to do with the idea that it can be enforced. The argument is that the law limits an action that is in no way detrimental to society. If being armed was detrimental to society, the government wouldn't be armed. The government doesn't do things that are detrimental to society.


Originally I was speaking to this:
"If you don't think people are going to follow the law, then what was stopping them from carrying firearms into bars before the law allowed them to? What is the difference between the law that prevented people from carrying concealed in a bar and the law that prevents people from being intoxicated while carrying? Was the former a magical forcefield that couldn't be passed while the latter is simply writing on paper? "

Again, where society draws the line of what is detrimental to society is an ongoing process. We legalized pot here in Washington and I'm A-OK with that because I don't see the value in locking people up for smoking weed. As for guns I grew in up in Texas so I'll let you do the math on where I stand on guns in general, but I'm OK with local towns or states setting their own limits within the federal framework that already exists.
 
2013-07-26 01:30:44 PM
For anyone who is interested to know, you do have to take an approved firearms safety course which "involves the actual firing of handguns and instruction in the law governing the carrying of a concealed handgun and the use of deadly force". When I was there I was on active duty in the United States Marine Corps so I was exempt from taking the course. Ironically, I had never fired a handgun before. Most Marines are trained only spend a significant amount of time training with the M16. To someone who isn't trained with firearms that seems legit. If you can shoot a big gun you can shoot a small gun right? That is not really the case. Hand guns are more dangerous because it's much easier to aim a handgun at your own body on accident. The marksmanship principles are also completely different and the mechanisms to operate handguns tend to be more complex to operate. So much for those super humans are so much better than the average citizen at using firearms.

I'd also like to point out that I never received any kind of special training to be able to control adrenaline or shoot people while being shot at. Fortunately, I was never in combat but I have met a lot of people who were. They all say the same thing. No amount of training can prepare you for a firefight. Training can make you more technically skilled but you are still going to experience chaos. Being a police officer or in the military does not make you better suited to use deadly force.
 
2013-07-26 01:33:11 PM

numbquil: The government doesn't do things that are detrimental to society.


In what nation do you reside?
 
2013-07-26 01:33:51 PM

numbquil: Why because you don't have an argument against it?


No, Archimedes. Limiting access to law enforcement and the military is not the issue. Even a drooling, slope-headed, inbred moron knows this.

Well. Evidently not.
 
2013-07-26 01:38:13 PM

Firethorn: The difficulty to this is that I care about violence levels period, not just gun violence. We can reduce violence better by doing some things like addressing poverty and ending the 'war on drugs' than by restricting firearms.


Exactly. Because we need to address the overwhelming number of crimes that are committed while wielding a rutabaga.
 
2013-07-26 01:46:09 PM

Whiskey Pete: Firethorn: The difficulty to this is that I care about violence levels period, not just gun violence. We can reduce violence better by doing some things like addressing poverty and ending the 'war on drugs' than by restricting firearms.

Exactly. Because we need to address the overwhelming number of crimes that are committed while wielding a rutabaga.


I read his comments as we should focus more on root cause as opposed to emergent symptoms of the disease, which I tend to agree with.
 
2013-07-26 01:58:34 PM

MSFT: Whiskey Pete: Firethorn: The difficulty to this is that I care about violence levels period, not just gun violence. We can reduce violence better by doing some things like addressing poverty and ending the 'war on drugs' than by restricting firearms.

Exactly. Because we need to address the overwhelming number of crimes that are committed while wielding a rutabaga.

I read his comments as we should focus more on root cause as opposed to emergent symptoms of the disease, which I tend to agree with.


This is why you should never take a butter knife away from a toddler when they are about to shove it in an electrical outlet. You should find out why they want to do it first.
 
2013-07-26 01:59:11 PM

numbquil: For anyone who is interested to know, you do have to take an approved firearms safety course which "involves the actual firing of handguns and instruction in the law governing the carrying of a concealed handgun and the use of deadly force". When I was there I was on active duty in the United States Marine Corps so I was exempt from taking the course. Ironically, I had never fired a handgun before. Most Marines are trained only spend a significant amount of time training with the M16. To someone who isn't trained with firearms that seems legit. If you can shoot a big gun you can shoot a small gun right? That is not really the case. Hand guns are more dangerous because it's much easier to aim a handgun at your own body on accident. The marksmanship principles are also completely different and the mechanisms to operate handguns tend to be more complex to operate. So much for those super humans are so much better than the average citizen at using firearms.

I'd also like to point out that I never received any kind of special training to be able to control adrenaline or shoot people while being shot at. Fortunately, I was never in combat but I have met a lot of people who were. They all say the same thing. No amount of training can prepare you for a firefight. Training can make you more technically skilled but you are still going to experience chaos. Being a police officer or in the military does not make you better suited to use deadly force.


Just out of curiosity how do you reconcile the belief in anarchy with the concept of semper fidelis?
 
2013-07-26 02:04:26 PM

DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.


They have good basketball and some nice scenery.  If they didn't have mountains and trees they could call themselves Kansas.
 
2013-07-26 02:05:47 PM

MSFT: I'd also like to point out that I never received any kind of special training to be able to control adrenaline or shoot people while being shot at. Fortunately, I was never in combat but I have met a lot of people who were. They all say the same thing. No amount of training can prepare you for a firefight. Training can make you more technically skilled but you are still going to experience chaos. Being a police officer or in the military does not make you better suited to use deadly force.


Therefore, I'm kinda, sorta a policeman, kinda sorta.
 
2013-07-26 02:07:15 PM

Whiskey Pete: MSFT: Whiskey Pete: Firethorn: The difficulty to this is that I care about violence levels period, not just gun violence. We can reduce violence better by doing some things like addressing poverty and ending the 'war on drugs' than by restricting firearms.

Exactly. Because we need to address the overwhelming number of crimes that are committed while wielding a rutabaga.

I read his comments as we should focus more on root cause as opposed to emergent symptoms of the disease, which I tend to agree with.

This is why you should never take a butter knife away from a toddler when they are about to shove it in an electrical outlet. You should find out why they want to do it first.


Notice I said focus *more* on root cause and nothing about absolutes.
 
2013-07-26 02:07:39 PM

Whiskey Pete: MSFT: I'd also like to point out that I never received any kind of special training to be able to control adrenaline or shoot people while being shot at. Fortunately, I was never in combat but I have met a lot of people who were. They all say the same thing. No amount of training can prepare you for a firefight. Training can make you more technically skilled but you are still going to experience chaos. Being a police officer or in the military does not make you better suited to use deadly force.

Therefore, I'm kinda, sorta a policeman, kinda sorta.


I apologize. I meant to quote numbquill:
 
2013-07-26 02:09:50 PM

MSFT: Notice I said focus *more* on root cause and nothing about absolutes.


Fair enough. But gun violence is out of control in this country and it seems there are people who have an interest in minimizing this fact by equating it with other types of violence.
 
2013-07-26 02:44:33 PM

Whiskey Pete: MSFT: Notice I said focus *more* on root cause and nothing about absolutes.

Fair enough. But gun violence is out of control in this country and it seems there are people who have an interest in minimizing this fact by equating it with other types of violence.



Completely agree we should go after it wholesale. But to use the medical analogy we have to fight cancer on several fronts - education about the dangers of tobacco use, developing more effective chemotherapy treatments, etc. etc. TL;DR: Prevention of cancer appears to be more effective than treating cancer, but we'll need to continue to invest in both areas for some time.
 
2013-07-26 03:12:49 PM

numbquil: PaulRB


I want the system to be "of the people, for the people, and by the people" like it's supposed to be.  It should benefit us all not just the super rich who basically own it.
 
2013-07-26 04:00:20 PM

Whiskey Pete: Firethorn: The difficulty to this is that I care about violence levels period, not just gun violence. We can reduce violence better by doing some things like addressing poverty and ending the 'war on drugs' than by restricting firearms.

Exactly. Because we need to address the overwhelming number of crimes that are committed while wielding a rutabaga.


Actually, you address the causes of violence, and reduce the stresses that allow folks to feel that violence is an acceptable risk.

Gun control legislation boils down to a perception of safety and crime prevention. There are several places where folks have access to arms, and that includes military arms as a matter of course, that don't have the US rates of violence. Why? Are they inherently more peaceful? Or are their populations generally better educated, with greater social mobility, and better access to health care and with a better social safety net?

Gun control debates aren't about guns, they are a useful way of sidestepping the real discussion we need to be having about education, opportunity, health and mental health care, and how we treat our citizens. And oddly enough, the folks who seem most comfortable with the thought of simply shooting their way through their fellow citizens, are also the folks who give the least amount of f*cks for the root causes of violence.

You want to reduce violence, you have to alleviate the conditions that put folks into the position where violence becomes an acceptable option. That is the discussion that folks are desperate to avoid, because it will lead to folks having to admit that we are creating our own monsters in an efficient fashion...
 
2013-07-26 04:48:35 PM

MSFT: What is RKBA?


Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  It's in the constitution that the only way to lose your protected rights(including but not limited to those explicitly mentioned therein) is by due process in a court of law.

If I missed his point I apologize. My intent was to show that we have a gradation of laws and where we decide to draw the line is an ongoing process... but it's not very practical to drop laws from the books based on the fact that we cannot catch every infraction.

Okay, I'm going to get a bit philosophical here:  I believe that crime can be divided into two categories:  Primary or victim crime -  this is where there's an identifiable victim who has been harmed by the criminal act.  Murder, rape, arson, burglary, assault, battery, etc...  These are all victim crimes.  Somebody other than a fully informed consenting adult has been harmed.  The other category would be secondary or victimless crime - recreational drug prohibitions, seat belt laws, prohibitions against drunk driving, knives that are longer than 3" or automatic, magazine restrictions, assault weapon bans, running stop signs/lights, etc...  By default, there is no victim in said crimes.  To me said laws have to justify themselves in preventing primary offenses(harming others) more than they cost society.

Requiring a permit to carry CCW is a secondary offense.  Subsequently banning carry, even with a permit, is almost tertiary.  Ergo, the standard for having the ban should be in harm prevention - and the evidence is that it doesn't prevent a significant amount of harm, so why not streamline the lawbooks by removing a few lines?

MSFT: As for NASCAR I really don't give a shiat one way or the other. I like to punch up my analogies so that they resonate a bit more with the reader - people who are offended in any way are entitled to a full refund.


In this case it made you look like a thoughtless stereotyper, ergo detracting from your main point.  I'm big on firearms, but otherwise I'm about as far from the rest of your 'example' as it's possible to get - I don't drink, watch NASCAR, etc...

numbquil: The government doesn't do things that are detrimental to society.


I mostly agree with you otherwise, but I couldn't help but snort upon reading this.

MSFT: As for guns I grew in up in Texas so I'll let you do the math on where I stand on guns in general, but I'm OK with local towns or states setting their own limits within the federal framework that already exists.


I agree with you on legalizing pot; but I'm iffy on towns setting up limits on weapons carry because it can be such a hidden 'gotcha!'.  See the idiots who don't know about NYC gun laws - one of the largest and most notorious anti-gun cities and people don't realize that they can't legally carry there at least a dozen times a year.  I think state level should be the lowest level gun control laws devolve to.

numbquil:  To someone who isn't trained with firearms that seems legit. If you can shoot a big gun you can shoot a small gun right? That is not really the case. Hand guns are more dangerous because it's much easier to aim a handgun at your own body on accident.

I can understand, seeing as how you didn't take the course, but I have in 2 states, and the thing to realize is that the course isn't for handgun ownership or to prevent you from shooting yourself, deliberately or negligently.  It's to hopefully keep you from shooting somebody else by accident or improperly thinking you were justified in shooting.  Well, that and to make the marginal parties more happy with the law because they can have warm fuzzies that at least CCW permit holders are 'trained'.  Really, my hunter's safety course was more in depth, and my military M-4 training(USAF) was plenty deep enough on use of force rules(though brushing up on state law is never a bad idea, and mentioned in the courses).

While there are some differences between a AR-15 type rifle and a handgun, I'd say there's more differences between different lines of rifles(bolt, lever, semi, single, pump) than between a semi-auto rifle and semi-auto handgun.  There's generally only 3-7 controls to worry about, and the 4 rules of gun safety remain. (gun is always loaded, keep finger off trigger until ready to fire, don't point weapon at something you're not willing to destroy, be aware of target and what's behind it)

The marksmanship principles are also completely different and the mechanisms to operate handguns tend to be more complex to operate. So much for those super humans are so much better than the average citizen at using firearms.

CCW permits are kind of like learner's permits, besides there's factors to consider:
1. There is not requirement for a CCW holder to engage outside of his or her ability zone.  Police and military train to push this out, but the call for a CCW holder to make a shot, much less a longer range shot, is practically nil.
2.  The average engagement range for self defense is under 7 yards.  Legally blind people have successfully placed 7 of 10 shots on man sized targets at that range(used to be legal minimum for one of my states; his qualifying made the news, and I think he actually made 10 out of 10).
3.  There's no precedent that I'm aware of where a CCW holder's accuracy, or lack theirin, has resulted in tragedy.  By this I mean them shooting somebody not targeted by accident.  There have been a few murders anyways, but fewer than you'd expect out of the general population.

Being a police officer or in the military does not make you better suited to use deadly force.

You know, I was getting all geared up for a big rant until I hit this?  Agreed.  Experience counts, yes, but it's not something you want experience in, nor can you normally get it through training.  You have to live it.

MSFT: I read his comments as we should focus more on root cause as opposed to emergent symptoms of the disease, which I tend to agree with.


Exactly

Whiskey Pete: This is why you should never take a butter knife away from a toddler when they are about to shove it in an electrical outlet. You should find out why they want to do it first.


Is this a Strawman?  I support taking knives away from toddlers in general as well as firearms from criminals and the mentally incompetent.  Well, I actually think that said criminals and mentally ill people need to be confined into appropriate institutions until they can be trusted within society at large(reform and treatment should be emphasized, of course).

Whiskey Pete: Fair enough. But gun violence is out of control in this country and it seems there are people who have an interest in minimizing this fact by equating it with other types of violence.


How do you define 'out of control'?  Here's a question:  Is there more or less gun violence today or 20 years ago?  What about 30?  Are you aware that while firearms account for about 2/3rds of murders in the USA, our NON-firearm murder rate still exceeds the UK's by a decent margin?  That the vast majority of murders are criminal on criminal, and even more concentrated as 'black male on black male'?  Seriously, if black males killed each other no more than the rest of the population of the USA, we'd have a European level of murder, even without removing firearms.

Also, most violence(as opposed to murders) in the USA is still not done with firearms.

My point is that we have so much violence associated with the War on Drugs, especially when combined with poverty, that I want to seriously reform that, we'd save so many more lives that way.
 
2013-07-26 05:21:38 PM

MSFT: Prevention of cancer appears to be more effective than treating cancer, but we'll need to continue to invest in both areas for some time.


Of course, just be aware that banning guns in the USA is such a long term action that even a 100% ban would take enough time that current high school students would be retiring before the supply to criminals really started drying up.

As such, preventing high school students from becoming criminals in the first place is actually the faster option.

hubiestubert: And oddly enough, the folks who seem most comfortable with the thought of simply shooting their way through their fellow citizens, are also the folks who give the least amount of f*cks for the root causes of violence.


That makes me wonder, are you picturing the gunnies or the gun control supporters in this role?  Because the gun control types seem to love positing that the gunnies will respond to XYZ stimulus(despite it never really happening in the past) by 'shooting their way through'.  Meanwhile, I only posit myself shooting somebody if they're a lethal threat, and honestly hope it never happens(though I'd rather it happen to me and I'm able to adequately respond than to somebody who can't).

Also, while I'm tooting my own horn here, I believe I was the first in the thread to address treating the causes of violence over the implements used during.  But this thread is about guns, not social reform, so I kept it short.
 
2013-07-26 06:12:50 PM

Firethorn: How do you define 'out of control'?



Murder weapons, 2011Firearms
68%Knives or cutting instruments
13%Other
9%Personal weapons
6%Blunt objects
4%Total:
12,664Source: www.washingtonpost.com
 
2013-07-26 06:28:20 PM

Firethorn: MSFT: Prevention of cancer appears to be more effective than treating cancer, but we'll need to continue to invest in both areas for some time.

Of course, just be aware that banning guns in the USA is such a long term action that even a 100% ban would take enough time that current high school students would be retiring before the supply to criminals really started drying up.

As such, preventing high school students from becoming criminals in the first place is actually the faster option.

hubiestubert: And oddly enough, the folks who seem most comfortable with the thought of simply shooting their way through their fellow citizens, are also the folks who give the least amount of f*cks for the root causes of violence.

That makes me wonder, are you picturing the gunnies or the gun control supporters in this role?  Because the gun control types seem to love positing that the gunnies will respond to XYZ stimulus(despite it never really happening in the past) by 'shooting their way through'.  Meanwhile, I only posit myself shooting somebody if they're a lethal threat, and honestly hope it never happens(though I'd rather it happen to me and I'm able to adequately respond than to somebody who can't).

Also, while I'm tooting my own horn here, I believe I was the first in the thread to address treating the causes of violence over the implements used during.  But this thread is about guns, not social reform, so I kept it short.


The problem is BOTH sides of this debate conflate and confuse, and it's essentially a bait and switch issue. The real discussion needs to be about safety and crime.

Which is why I try to stay out of these threads for the most part. None of the "sides" want to discuss the real issues that we face. Gun control won't help. More guns won't help. It's just a chance for folks to fellate themselves over the "other" sides ignorance and intransigence. And the actual issues are buried because looking at the society we've created is a damn sight harder to talk about than banning or freeing guns as the "solution" and a lot of folks get paid very well to keep the discussion in those terms, because it would cost them a lot of dollars if we actually got into it...
 
2013-07-26 06:39:08 PM
This is something that I'd to present to the pro-gun folks: Do you think that the framers of the second amendment would present it the same way if they were aware of the current climate in this country?
 
2013-07-26 07:08:11 PM

Whiskey Pete: Firethorn: How do you define 'out of control'?


Murder weapons, 2011Firearms
68%Knives or cutting instruments
13%Other
9%Personal weapons
6%Blunt objects
4%Total:
12,664Source: [www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]


I like that "excluding Mexico" in the asterisk down there.  Because guns are illegal in Mexico, so why would you even count them amirite?  Obviously they can't have any gun murders without any guns.
 
2013-07-26 07:11:25 PM

Whiskey Pete: This is something that I'd to present to the pro-gun folks: Do you think that the framers of the second amendment would present it the same way if they were aware of the current climate in this country?


Yes.
 
2013-07-26 07:15:20 PM

Whiskey Pete: This is something that I'd to present to the pro-gun folks: Do you think that the framers of the second amendment would present it the same way if they were aware of the current climate in this country?


Not sure, I'm not exactly a scholar of the founders.  I've read some of their writings, read the constitution multiple times and seen some other materials, but people's views have evolved since then.  Not to mention that the founders were actually a pretty varied and contentious lot.  Franklin's views would vary from Washington's from Webster's, Johnson, Hancock, etc...

Would they frame it differently?  Despite rumors to the contrary, I think they'd believe the modern USA a very nice place compared to their time - and that includes levels of violence.  The spike in violence/murder that peaked in the '80s aside, we're pretty low now. Though it's tough to go back to the founder's time; good statistics are harder to come by, but they say that violent crime has been dropping from at least the 13th Century.  Odds are that violence was a greater problem in the 18th century than today.  Heck, they had fistfights in congress back then.  But I think the fact that most founders knew somebody, personally, killed in a duel would say something about the rate.

In the end, I agree with hubiestubert, the problem isn't firearms, it's violence, and the systematic policies and culture in the USA that encourages violence, and lethal violence at that.  But fixing that is hard compared to talking about banning guns.  The UK did it, and found that banning methods doesn't really work - but they're now trying to ban more offensive tools, knives and such.
 
2013-07-26 07:17:48 PM

Whiskey Pete: This is something that I'd to present to the pro-gun folks: Do you think that the framers of the second amendment would present it the same way if they were aware of the current climate in this country?


Forgot my conclusion:  Considering that despite even greater levels of violence that they even had numerous laws(militia) requiring every adult male to have a functioning musket, that private citizens outright owned artillery, etc...

I'm going to go with 'Yes', though if they find out the trouble the militia clause has caused they might even nix that or phrase 'shall not be infringed' even more strongly.
 
2013-07-26 07:57:24 PM

theorellior: DarwiOdrade: What happened to you, North Carolina? You used to be cool.

I got friends who love NC and live in NC and are absolutely gobsmacked that it's come to this. They took pride in being the smarter Carolina for so long, and yet here we are.


American smart.
 
2013-07-26 09:06:11 PM

Whiskey Pete: Whiskey Pete: MSFT: I'd also like to point out that I never received any kind of special training to be able to control adrenaline or shoot people while being shot at. Fortunately, I was never in combat but I have met a lot of people who were. They all say the same thing. No amount of training can prepare you for a firefight. Training can make you more technically skilled but you are still going to experience chaos. Being a police officer or in the military does not make you better suited to use deadly force.

Therefore, I'm kinda, sorta a policeman, kinda sorta.

I apologize. I meant to quote numbquill:


I never claimed to be a police officer at all. I never claimed to have been involved with law enforcement in any capacity. Due to the fact that Marines sometimes perform security duty, I have received training in non-lethal baton techniques, escalation of force, and how to determine when deadly force is authorized. It doesn't make me special. You can learn all of that stuff on the internet. The point completely went over your head. You think the point is that i'm special. The point is that I'm not special nor is any other individual who has been given special legal authority to use deadly force. The Marines I served with are human beings just like you and I. We aren't genetically modified, the physical training we do make us no more fit than a college athlete if that, we don't have a special center in our brain to make quick judgement calls, and we make mistakes. Unless they are injecting something into the local police I'm assuming they are human too. There is nothing about the average citizen that makes it more dangerous for them to walk into a bar with a holstered weapon compared to a police officer doing the same thing. In fact, police are held to a lower standard when it comes to justification of the use of deadly force. My post was written for those who think that police and the military are special people which is why they should be allowed to use firearms while the average citizen should not.
 
2013-07-26 09:11:34 PM

numbquil: I never claimed to be a police officer at all


..and  that was my point.
 
2013-07-26 09:16:13 PM
Okay. Ima go out on a limb and say that our founding fathers were very wise men and would think that the gun violence in our country is unacceptable. Please telll me why they would NOT feel this way.
 
2013-07-26 09:21:53 PM

Whiskey Pete: This is something that I'd to present to the pro-gun folks: Do you think that the framers of the second amendment would present it the same way if they were aware of the current climate in this country?


After reading some of Thomas Jefferson's writings I'm convinced that if he had read Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman, he would have been an anarchist. He was clearly apprehensive about supporting any government but found there were positive reasons to support limited government. Therefore, I have to conclude that I believe at least Thomas Jefferson would have supported the right to defend yourself against violence. In modern times that means being able to carry a modern firearm.

Unlike you, I'm not convinced that the number of firearms is the problem. As Michael Moore pointed out in Bowling for Columbine there seems to be something else in play. He found that the Canadians own a fark ton of guns but don't kill each other nearly as often. He goes on a rant about how the NRA = the KKK. I have to disagree with him. I believe the the root causes of violence in the country are income inequality and the war on drugs. Most gang violence revolves around the production and distribution of controlled substances. Much like the failure of prohibition this issue has cause the country many problems. We should decriminalize drugs, stop treating drug addicts as criminals, and treat them as medical patients.

Income inequality causes a lot of problems because a close second to drugs is property crime. Why do people rob and steal? Because they don't have money. It's a class war. Those who don't have wealth are taking it from those who do. If we take steps to repair the economy it will help with this issue. On top of that we have to face the fact that a lot of the gun violence is being carried out by African Americans in places like Chicago and Los Angeles. Unfortunately, discrimination is alive and well in this country and African Americans are more likely to live in poverty, not have access to the best education, healthcare, etc.

The root of all these problems is that the politicians we have to not represent the people. If you want to stop gun violence, get at the root of the problem. If you destroyed every single gun, it wouldn't end violence. It might prevent someone from carrying out mass violence but mass murders are a small percentage of the overall statistics on violence.

What do you do to help end violence other than arguing with people on fark?
 
2013-07-26 09:23:49 PM

numbquil: What do you do to help end violence other than arguing with people on fark?


You have no idea so don't act as if you do.
 
2013-07-26 09:25:34 PM

Whiskey Pete: Okay. Ima go out on a limb and say that our founding fathers were very wise men and would think that the gun violence in our country is unacceptable. Please telll me why they would NOT feel this way.


I'd say you're right. At the same time you're not telling us how the law that prevented people with training and a clean record from carrying a firearm in certain establishments helped to prevent gun violence.
 
2013-07-26 09:26:21 PM

Whiskey Pete: numbquil: What do you do to help end violence other than arguing with people on fark?

You have no idea so don't act as if you do.


I'm not. I'm asking a question. What do you do?
 
2013-07-26 09:29:33 PM

numbquil: {DERP}

The answer answer is that they would find the current gun-culture abhorrent and would likely install bans that would make folks like you defecate all over yourselves. In fact, they would very likely institute an outright ban on firearms.

 
2013-07-26 09:32:01 PM

numbquil: Whiskey Pete: numbquil: What do you do to help end violence other than arguing with people on fark?

You have no idea so don't act as if you do.

I'm not. I'm asking a question. What do you do?


You made the same mistake that I did and quoted the wrong source. :)
 
2013-07-26 09:33:53 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoD-PbbUPYQ

What someone with training and a clean record might look like.
 
2013-07-26 09:37:59 PM

Whiskey Pete: numbquil: Whiskey Pete: numbquil: What do you do to help end violence other than arguing with people on fark?

You have no idea so don't act as if you do.

I'm not. I'm asking a question. What do you do?

You made the same mistake that I did and quoted the wrong source. :)


This is stupid because the truth is I believe in non-violence. The issue is not that I think firearms are great. If I had the power, I would destroy every single firearm in existence. The issue is that I don't believe there should be a special class of humans that have been given privilege to legally use deadly force while others do not. You call that "derp" while at the same time biatching about a law that probably wouldn't have passed if the power was equally distributed among the people and rules were determined through formal consensus.
 
2013-07-26 10:41:04 PM

Whiskey Pete: Okay. Ima go out on a limb and say that our founding fathers were very wise men and would think that the gun violence in our country is unacceptable. Please telll me why they would NOT feel this way.


You do realize that 'gun violence' was far higher in their time and they still decided to have the 2nd, right?  Heck, dueling was still common practice!
 
2013-07-26 11:46:50 PM

hubiestubert: Guns alone isn't the issue. A gun is a tool, and any tool can be used as a weapon if you hold it right. Then again, in a bar, the last thing you want is someone who is intoxicated and with impaired judgment with a weapon. It's not a law in Mass that forbids firearms in bars, but most do not encourage the practice, and as private property, they can ask you to take that sh*t outside, and lock it up in your car, or be you will be denied entry. You CAN be nicked for carrying while intoxicated, and that can lose your carry license. Clubs and bars also tend to ban anything that might be used as a concealed weapon, for the same reason. It's just not a good idea to have armed folks drinking. It leads to funny places.

I suspect that this law is going to get tested out, relatively soon after passage when some Cletus brings his gun to the playground to pick up his kid, and the weapon accidentally discharges, because said Cletus was more excited about where he could bring his gun, than thinking clearly on gun safety, or the fact that children often clamber all over things, and people.

If folks would simply use some common sense, and carry weapons with some responsibility, we wouldn't need laws like this, and without the fetishization of weapons, we wouldn't have idiots carrying loaded rifles in an unsafe fashion, and putting folks at risk. The simple having doesn't negate danger. I've carried in Mass, and it was work related--night deposits back when the Combat Zone was still dicey--and most of the time, I generally didn't carry, because not having a weapon made me think a bit harder about what I was doing and where I was going, because a weapon can breed overconfidence. When I was bouncing, we didn't carry sprays, we didn't have tasers or stun guns, because those are things that can miss, can put folks in the club in danger, and can get taken from you, and used in bad ways. The best "weapon" we carried was a Maglight, and the small ones at that, because they could be used as ...


Every gun owner should be required to read this.
 
Displayed 270 of 270 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report