Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

8603 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jul 2013 at 6:08 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report