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.

(Politico)   Left-wing idol-of-the-month Wendy Davis supports Texas open-carry gun law, becomes right-wing idol-of-the-month   (politico.com) divider line 542
    More: Interesting, Texas Opens, Texas, gun laws, Republican George W. Bush, Texas Democratic Party, right-wing, concealed handgun, Texas Attorney General  
•       •       •

1448 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2014 at 8:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



542 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-06 07:56:13 AM  
I'm purty darn Liberal. If you have a legally owned gun, that is registered and you have had proper training, then you should be able to open carry. Out in the country, in your own yard, in your car, at the range, when you are hunting, or at a gun show or other gun related event. If you carry it into a mall, a farmers market, or down main street, where the sole effect is to shock and frighten people, then you get arrested for disturbing the peace. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to be an attention  whore asshat.
 
2014-02-06 07:58:14 AM  
I thought her 15 minutes of liberal fame was over.
 
2014-02-06 07:59:07 AM  
It's Texas. If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.
 
2014-02-06 08:04:47 AM  
Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??
 
2014-02-06 08:10:41 AM  

xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??


It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero. Same thing that happens to Teabaggers who differ on some issues.
 
2014-02-06 08:10:41 AM  
So you could say her gun views are liberal, right?
 
2014-02-06 08:16:30 AM  

cman: If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.


What's the crime rate like in Kennesaw?
 
2014-02-06 08:18:14 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cman: If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.

What's the crime rate like in Kennesaw?


I was making a dumb joke. Don't take it seriously.
 
2014-02-06 08:18:57 AM  

Nadie_AZ: So you could say her gun views are liberal, right?


Heh.

You don't have to be a conservative to support an individual right to keep and bear arms.  In fact, there isn't really anything about that right that goes against any fundamental, classically liberal ideas.
 
2014-02-06 08:25:51 AM  

Nadie_AZ: So you could say her gun views are liberal, right?


Only if she supports gun ownership as an extension of a woman's right to shoot an unwanted fetus.
 
2014-02-06 08:29:26 AM  
Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.
 
2014-02-06 08:29:39 AM  
In my mind, I expect Texas to have Texas-style gun laws. It always weirds me out a little when I hear what their laws actually are. I expect Texas, of all places, to be all about open-carry. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised for constitutional carry. But the tight-ass laws just don't fit.
 
2014-02-06 08:33:14 AM  

dittybopper: Nadie_AZ: So you could say her gun views are liberal, right?

Heh.

You don't have to be a conservative to support an individual right to keep and bear arms.  In fact, there isn't really anything about that right that goes against any fundamental, classically liberal ideas.


I agree. I'm 'a liberal' and own a few guns. And when I can, I'd like a few more. It doesn't seem right that I live in Arizona and don't own a 30 30. It just doesn't.
 
2014-02-06 08:51:50 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cman: If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.

What's the crime rate like in Kennesaw?


They don't have such a wild hog problem
 
2014-02-06 08:54:44 AM  

Nadie_AZ: I agree. I'm 'a liberal' and own a few guns. And when I can, I'd like a few more. It doesn't seem right that I live in Arizona and don't own a 30 30. It just doesn't.


samesies except the idea of carrying a loaded gun outside of my house on my person is literally laughable to me
 
2014-02-06 08:56:01 AM  
As the liberalist libtard that ever libbed, I am more comfortable with open carry over concealed.  Open carry show you who the small-penissed paranoid morons are whereas concealed carry conceals the small penises.
 
2014-02-06 08:57:15 AM  

Dinki: The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to be an attention whore asshat.


No, that right is granted by the 1st amendment.
 
2014-02-06 08:57:28 AM  
Here's another lib who's fine with open carry, on the theory that you maybe can't judge a book by its cover, but a candy bar wrapper that says "NUTS" on the outside is a pretty good clue what might be inside
 
2014-02-06 08:58:00 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cman: If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.

What's the crime rate like in Kennesaw?


Looking for a place where you won't be pissing your panties in terror 24/7? There is no such place for a coward.
 
2014-02-06 08:58:06 AM  
Why is it that if you are for the second amendment you are automatically a right winger, I am a definite left winger and and have enough firepower to take out any threat from up to 500 yards away to right in my face.

(I would have a nuke if I could get away with it.)
 
2014-02-06 09:01:16 AM  

BunkoSquad: Here's another lib who's fine with open carry, on the theory that you maybe can't judge a book by its cover, but a candy bar wrapper that says "NUTS" on the outside is a pretty good clue what might be inside


This - if someone is qualified to carry legally, then whether they carry openly or concealed should be at their discretion.
And I don't think there is anything in the law that attempts to override owners controlling whether guns may be brought into private space.
 
2014-02-06 09:01:40 AM  
look this is just a distraction from the bigger, more important question

why the fark is an australian on the american idol judging panel
 
2014-02-06 09:02:04 AM  

Bareefer Obonghit: They don't have such a wild hog problem


+1
 
2014-02-06 09:02:15 AM  

gothelder: Why is it that if you are for the second amendment you are automatically a right winger, I am a definite left winger and and have enough firepower to take out any threat from up to 500 yards away to right in my face.

(I would have a nuke if I could get away with it.)


False premise -- question not answerable.
 
2014-02-06 09:04:49 AM  

jso2897: Dancin_In_Anson: cman: If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.

What's the crime rate like in Kennesaw?

Looking for a place where you won't be pissing your panties in terror 24/7? There is no such place for a coward.


Ouch.
 
2014-02-06 09:06:45 AM  

Candy Colored Clown: jso2897: Dancin_In_Anson: cman: If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.

What's the crime rate like in Kennesaw?

Looking for a place where you won't be pissing your panties in terror 24/7? There is no such place for a coward.

Ouch.


Troll the troll, is my policy.
And trolling is a art.

i18.photobucket.com
  (click to enlarge)
 
2014-02-06 09:07:56 AM  

Muta: As the liberalist libtard that ever libbed, I am more comfortable with open carry over concealed.  Open carry show you who the small-penissed paranoid morons are whereas concealed carry conceals the small penises.


NOT A FETISH!!!
 
2014-02-06 09:09:39 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cman: If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.

What's the crime rate like in Kennesaw?


What's the crime rate like on the moon?
 
2014-02-06 09:11:00 AM  

jso2897: Candy Colored Clown: jso2897: Dancin_In_Anson: cman: If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.

What's the crime rate like in Kennesaw?

Looking for a place where you won't be pissing your panties in terror 24/7? There is no such place for a coward.

Ouch.

Troll the troll, is my policy.
And trolling is a art.

[i18.photobucket.com image 125x88]
  (click to enlarge)


Dont you mean "an" art?
 
2014-02-06 09:12:28 AM  
There goes her hopes for a 2016 presidential run.
 
2014-02-06 09:12:37 AM  
Personally I've always been for open carrying.  A lot of my more conservative friends always make the case that guns deter crime ("an armed society is a polite society") -- if so, why not carry your gun openly?

In fact I thought the more contentious debate has always been about concealed carrying -- isn't that why a lot of states require licenses for that?
 
2014-02-06 09:13:01 AM  

xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??


I have been accused of being a "bagger" or a "teabagger" because I opposed a proposal to ban .50 caliber rifles and to confiscate all such rifles currently owned by civilians, despite my advocacy of same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, health care reform, legal abortion and access to birth control, an appropriately progressive tax rate (including increases on capital gains taxes), a higher minimum wage and the teaching of evolution in public schools (to the exclusion of religious claims).

To some irrational individuals, not advocating complete civilian disarmament is itself an indicator of being a hardcore Tea Partier, regardless of any other held position.
 
2014-02-06 09:14:35 AM  
One of the lesser mentioned benefits of open carry is that it lets me identify quickly which people have decided that they're willing to take a human life.
 
2014-02-06 09:15:45 AM  

Muta: As the liberalist libtard that ever libbed, I am more comfortable with open carry over concealed.  Open carry show you who the small-penissed paranoid morons are whereas concealed carry conceals the small penises.


Your attempt to introduce the subject of male genitalia into the discussion is entirely inappropriate. While you may be obsessed with the subject, attempting to shift an irrelevant conversation to that subject is rude.
 
2014-02-06 09:17:13 AM  

SomeoneDumb: One of the lesser mentioned benefits of open carry is that it lets me identify quickly which people have decided that they're willing to take a human life.


I assume that anyone is willing to take a life if their life is on the line.

I don't open carry, but if I am threatened with great bodily harm it's a sure bet I'm going to try my best to make sure that doesn't happen, even if it results in the loss of life for the perp.
 
2014-02-06 09:18:12 AM  

cman: I was making a dumb joke.


But of course. Carry on then.

Bareefer Obonghit: i1123.photobucket.com


I can see that! We are all so proud of you too!

jso2897: Looking for a place where you won't be pissing your panties in terror 24/7? There is no such place for a coward.


I assume that you never lock your doors on your house or vehicle. You also have a sign in your front yard proclaiming that fact and that you are brave enough to say that you are not afraid of anything. Because anything short of that would be pure unadulterated cowardice.

cousin-merle: What's the crime rate like on the moon?


0.
 
2014-02-06 09:18:23 AM  
Dimensio:

ooh the old 'i am going to berate you for a fallacy while making a bigger fallacy myself' canard

also you missed out on a phallucy joke which is pretty inexcusable
 
2014-02-06 09:18:29 AM  

joness0154: SomeoneDumb: One of the lesser mentioned benefits of open carry is that it lets me identify quickly which people have decided that they're willing to take a human life.

I assume that anyone is willing to take a life if their life is on the line.

I don't open carry, but if I am threatened with great bodily harm it's a sure bet I'm going to try my best to make sure that doesn't happen, even if it results in the loss of life for the perp.


And I think yours is the majority view.
 
2014-02-06 09:18:34 AM  

SomeoneDumb: One of the lesser mentioned benefits of open carry is that it lets me identify quickly which people have decided that they're willing to take a human life.


Honestly we should all just get free t-shirts or large buttons that we can carry, maybe of different colors and phrases to let you know how crazy/dangerous the person actually is.  Some with "Crazy basement dweller with paranoia" in red and others with "Willing to kill you for a Klondike Bar" in white for instance.
 
2014-02-06 09:19:02 AM  

joness0154: SomeoneDumb: One of the lesser mentioned benefits of open carry is that it lets me identify quickly which people have decided that they're willing to take a human life.

I assume that anyone is willing to take a life if their life is on the line.

I don't open carry, but if I am threatened with great bodily harm it's a sure bet I'm going to try my best to make sure that doesn't happen, even if it results in the loss of life for the perp.


Because you cannot know if an individual who attempts to rob you is merely trying to acquire funds to feed a starving family, I have been informed that your willingness to use deadly force against such an individual establishes you as being a sociopath.
 
2014-02-06 09:19:15 AM  
It's in better taste than sewing a patch onto the clothing of the feeble-minded.
 
2014-02-06 09:20:03 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You also have a sign in your front yard proclaiming that fact and that you are brave enough to say that you are not afraid of anything. Because anything short of that would be pure unadulterated cowardice.


speaking of phallucies
 
2014-02-06 09:20:50 AM  

dr_blasto: In my mind, I expect Texas to have Texas-style gun laws. It always weirds me out a little when I hear what their laws actually are. I expect Texas, of all places, to be all about open-carry. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised for constitutional carry. But the tight-ass laws just don't fit.


I was also surprised to learn that they don't have general open-carry.

orclover: Dont you mean "an" art?


No, I'm pretty sure he's not a moran.  LMGTFY

gothelder: (I would have a nuke if I could get away with it.)


As a person that has served on a SSBN, I can tell you: the paperwork alone for those bad boys would deter any sane person.
 
2014-02-06 09:20:57 AM  

sprawl15: Dimensio:

ooh the old 'i am going to berate you for a fallacy while making a bigger fallacy myself' canard

also you missed out on a phallucy joke which is pretty inexcusable


Muta was not presenting an argument, thus no "fallacy" was invoked; Muta was attempting to indulge an obsession in an entirely inappropriate forum, and I was commenting on that fact.
 
2014-02-06 09:21:08 AM  

sprawl15: speaking of phallucies


That's the best you can do? Weak.
 
2014-02-06 09:21:38 AM  

Arkanaut: Personally I've always been for open carrying.  A lot of my more conservative friends always make the case that guns deter crime ("an armed society is a polite society") -- if so, why not carry your gun openly?

In fact I thought the more contentious debate has always been about concealed carrying -- isn't that why a lot of states require licenses for that?


Yeah, open carry is not a big deal.

I can sort of see the argument, that even if you have open carry, some places ought to be off limits. I lived in AZ for a while, and I believe they had little gun lockers in most of the public buildings. I thought it was hysterical. Then again, I did see a douche bag (and really he was, socks with sandals, wearing a beret with a "I kill terrorists" t-shirt) carrying a 9mm in a holster at the local Ralphs. I remember thinking to myself, "Dude, the only thing you kill is ladies sex drives."

I think my of my arugula eating libby libtard friends and I are more concerned with making sure that background checks and registrations get done, and probably tightening up background checks. I don't care if a sane(!!) law abiding person has a gun. I mean, really, its when the whackjobs and criminals have guns when it's a problem. Solve that and I wouldn't give a fark how many guns you have and if you want to spend all your social security check on ammo. Go for it.
 
2014-02-06 09:21:40 AM  
And yet the left isn't fleeing from her.  Which really just shows that the right-wing's "thar gunna take mah metal peenus away!!!" hysteria about the left is just more right-wing bullshiat.
 
2014-02-06 09:23:08 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: That's the best you can do? Weak. Limp.


FTFY
 
2014-02-06 09:24:02 AM  

gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.


Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns
 
2014-02-06 09:24:24 AM  

Dimensio:

it is hilarious when your whole 'i have a ged in internet logic' facade breaks down into 'lol u liek dicks'

its like the smell of a gun thread is enough to rustle your jimmies

Dancin_In_Anson: That's the best you can do?


wait do you really think your horrible posting deserves an honest response
 
2014-02-06 09:25:35 AM  

xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??


Only to right and left-wing nut jobs that see the world in black and white.
 
2014-02-06 09:25:46 AM  
 
2014-02-06 09:25:57 AM  

orclover: jso2897: Candy Colored Clown: jso2897: Dancin_In_Anson: cman: If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.

What's the crime rate like in Kennesaw?

Looking for a place where you won't be pissing your panties in terror 24/7? There is no such place for a coward.

Ouch.

Troll the troll, is my policy.
And trolling is a art.

[i18.photobucket.com image 125x88]
  (click to enlarge)

Dont you mean "an" art?


i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-06 09:27:28 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cman: I was making a dumb joke.

But of course. Carry on then.

Bareefer Obonghit: [i1123.photobucket.com image 407x405]


I can see that! We are all so proud of you too!

jso2897: Looking for a place where you won't be pissing your panties in terror 24/7? There is no such place for a coward.

I assume that you never lock your doors on your house or vehicle. You also have a sign in your front yard proclaiming that fact and that you are brave enough to say that you are not afraid of anything. Because anything short of that would be pure unadulterated cowardice.

cousin-merle: What's the crime rate like on the moon?

0.


I love you, dude - don't ever change.
 
2014-02-06 09:27:35 AM  

WTF Indeed: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero


For some reason, most of those people (at least most of the ones I hear from) are conservative.

/libby lib lib
//just fine with open carry
 
2014-02-06 09:27:49 AM  

Dimensio: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

I have been accused of being a "bagger" or a "teabagger" because I opposed a proposal to ban .50 caliber rifles and to confiscate all such rifles currently owned by civilians, despite my advocacy of same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, health care reform, legal abortion and access to birth control, an appropriately progressive tax rate (including increases on capital gains taxes), a higher minimum wage and the teaching of evolution in public schools (to the exclusion of religious claims).

To some irrational individuals, not advocating complete civilian disarmament is itself an indicator of being a hardcore Tea Partier, regardless of any other held position.


You sound like a DINO
 
2014-02-06 09:27:58 AM  

Muta: As the liberalist libtard that ever libbed, I am more comfortable with open carry over concealed.  Open carry show you who the small-penissed paranoid morons are whereas concealed carry conceals the small penises.


Why do some people fixate on gun owners' penises? I have a gun. So now you are thinking about my penis. That's weird. I don't even know you, and right now, you are drawing a mental picture about my penis because I just said I own a gun. Creep.
 
2014-02-06 09:29:37 AM  

Dimensio: Muta was not presenting an argument, thus no "fallacy" was invoked; Muta was attempting to indulge an obsession in an entirely inappropriate forum, and I was commenting on that fact.


No, Muta was presenting his opinion on why he is more comfortable with open carry over concealed carry.  Apparently gun nuts are so closed minded that not only do you have to support open carry but you have to support it for the proper gun nut approved reasons.
 
2014-02-06 09:30:29 AM  

sprawl15: Dimensio:

it is hilarious when your whole 'i have a ged in internet logic' facade breaks down into 'lol u liek dicks'

its like the smell of a gun thread is enough to rustle your jimmies

Dancin_In_Anson: That's the best you can do?

wait do you really think your horrible posting deserves an honest response


Of course he doesn't - the knowledge that hardly anyone here does anything but goof on him anymore is an important component of his martyr complex. The fact that he gets troll responses to his inchoate blurts confirms, in his mind, the vast conspiracy against him.
 
2014-02-06 09:31:09 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: And yet the left isn't fleeing from her.  Which really just shows that the right-wing's "thar gunna take mah metal peenus away!!!" hysteria about the left is just more right-wing bullshiat.


Advocating this kind of thing in Texas is just about the only way They'd be electable. Show me democrats pushing for this in California and I'll be impressed.
 
2014-02-06 09:31:33 AM  

Dimensio: I have been accused of being a "bagger" or a "teabagger" because I opposed a proposal to ban .50 caliber rifles and to confiscate all such rifles currently owned by civilians, despite my advocacy of same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, health care reform, legal abortion and access to birth control, an appropriately progressive tax rate (including increases on capital gains taxes), a higher minimum wage and the teaching of evolution in public schools (to the exclusion of religious claims).


I have a close friend that is very into taxing the living shiat out of the rich, and corporations, and is also severely anti-abortion, and is very religious. Calls himself a conservative.

It's a mad world, people.
 
2014-02-06 09:33:50 AM  
Wow... it's almost as if there's no litmus test or loyalty oath needed to be a Democrat. Like... it's a party made up of many points of view, from liberal (Cardin, Boxer, Gillibrand), Progressives (Grayson, Conyers), to left leaning moderates (H. Clinton, Obama, Nelson), strict moderates (McCaskill, Carper), right leaning moderates (Wendy Davis, Mark Warner), and conservatives (Pryor, Landrieu, Barber, Barrow).

Funny how that works.
 
2014-02-06 09:34:01 AM  

jso2897: I love you, dude - don't ever change.


I assume that means "no" in response to my question. Why so scared? It's ok. We'll listen.

Or would you perefer to talk about penises too?
 
2014-02-06 09:34:45 AM  
Yeah, this... really doesn't bother me.
 
2014-02-06 09:36:03 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: jso2897: I love you, dude - don't ever change.

I assume that means "no" in response to my question. Why so scared? It's ok. We'll listen.

Or would you perefer to talk about penises too?


None of that works on me, as you know.
We were talking about open-carry. I have no problem with it.
Do you?
 
2014-02-06 09:36:18 AM  

Dimensio: To some irrational individuals, not advocating complete civilian disarmament is itself an indicator of being a hardcore Tea Partier


Well, the term "civilian disarmament" sounds pretty Teabaggery.
 
2014-02-06 09:36:22 AM  
Unpossible.  She's a limp-wristed, pearl-clutching, sniveling LIBeral!  They melt if they see a gun.  I have been assured this is the case by Troo Murrican Paytreeots many, many times.
 
2014-02-06 09:39:44 AM  

sugardave: Unpossible.  She's a limp-wristed, pearl-clutching, sniveling LIBeral!  They melt if they see a gun.  I have been assured this is the case by Troo Murrican Paytreeots many, many times.


Hey - stop talking about their penises!
Penis ist verboten!!
 
2014-02-06 09:40:22 AM  
Fine I support open carry but people who define their manliness by the size of their gun don't like it.  I can't handle the ridicule so please help me out here.  What are the NRA approved reasons for supporting open carry?
 
2014-02-06 09:42:47 AM  

Muta: What are the NRA approved reasons for supporting open carry?


an armed society is a polite society

for example poor people who cant afford guns should show deference to their betters
 
2014-02-06 09:44:00 AM  

Muta: As the liberalist libtard that ever libbed, I am more comfortable with open carry over concealed.  Open carry show you who the small-penissed paranoid morons are whereas concealed carry conceals the small penises.


*TWEEET*.   Markley's Law violation.  Fifteen post penalty and automatic loss of argument.
 
2014-02-06 09:44:54 AM  
I'm a t-shirt and jeans kind of guy who likes his automatics. With my giant hands I need pistols that aren't normally concealable. Srsly, I held a Walther PPK and realized I couldn't fire it without the action ripping a groove of flesh from my hand.

I sense a market for front door firearm lockers.
 
2014-02-06 09:45:24 AM  

HeartBurnKid: WTF Indeed: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero

For some reason, most of those people (at least most of the ones I hear from) are conservative.

/libby lib lib
//just fine with open carry


Concern trolls are just so VERY concerned.  Plenty of Democrats are pro-gun, only the NRA's partisan and racism-fueled psychoses say otherwise.
 
2014-02-06 09:46:32 AM  

Muta: Dimensio: Muta was not presenting an argument, thus no "fallacy" was invoked; Muta was attempting to indulge an obsession in an entirely inappropriate forum, and I was commenting on that fact.

No, Muta was presenting his opinion on why he is more comfortable with open carry over concealed carry.  Apparently gun nuts are so closed minded that not only do you have to support open carry but you have to support it for the proper gun nut approved reasons.


That your opinion of the carrying of firearms is in some way related to male genitalia is itself indication of an obsession with male genitalia.
 
2014-02-06 09:46:35 AM  
No, she just wants to see who the paranoid idiots are from far enough away to avoid them.
 
2014-02-06 09:47:20 AM  

Bareefer Obonghit: Dancin_In_Anson: cman: If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.

What's the crime rate like in Kennesaw?

They don't have such a wild hog problem


Know how I know you've not been to Kennesaw?  Well at least to the TGI Friday's in Kennesaw on Saturday at closing?
 
2014-02-06 09:48:06 AM  
I think this is a mighty fine piece of reverse psychology trollin' a la the joke about Obama being pro-breathing.
 
2014-02-06 09:50:35 AM  

Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns


kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com
OK.
 
2014-02-06 09:50:36 AM  

Dinki: I'm purty darn Liberal. If you have a legally owned gun, that is registered and you have had proper training, then you should be able to open carry. Out in the country, in your own yard, in your car, at the range, when you are hunting, or at a gun show or other gun related event. If you carry it into a mall, a farmers market, or down main street, where the sole effect is to shock and frighten people, then you get arrested for disturbing the peace. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to be an attention  whore asshat.


I think it should be mandatory for any personal carry.  At the very least it's a good short hand for who to avoid.  Conceal carry, that shiat should be illegal.
 
2014-02-06 09:50:40 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: No, she just wants to see who the paranoid idiots are from far enough away to avoid them.


Careful, she might escalate an argument and get shot, which would be her fault
 
2014-02-06 09:51:21 AM  

Nabb1: Muta: As the liberalist libtard that ever libbed, I am more comfortable with open carry over concealed.  Open carry show you who the small-penissed paranoid morons are whereas concealed carry conceals the small penises.

Why do some people fixate on gun owners' penises? I have a gun. So now you are thinking about my penis. That's weird. I don't even know you, and right now, you are drawing a mental picture about my penis because I just said I own a gun. Creep.


Your penis sounds smal.
 
2014-02-06 09:51:44 AM  

Dimensio: Muta: As the liberalist libtard that ever libbed, I am more comfortable with open carry over concealed.  Open carry show you who the small-penissed paranoid morons are whereas concealed carry conceals the small penises.

Your attempt to introduce the subject of male genitalia into the discussion is entirely inappropriate. While you may be obsessed with the subject, attempting to shift an irrelevant conversation to that subject is rude.


The useful idiots who will jump in behind every politician they like, are not happy about it. They are still mad and confused that they have to defend gun rights now. At least for this thread. That is why a lot of the B and C-level lib alts are showing up. None of the big names can.
 
2014-02-06 09:51:47 AM  
Meh, this is nothing compared to her shameless attempt to rebrand herself as pro-life.  Her house-of-cards campaign, based upon a momentary flash of fame and a ridiculous reinterpretation of her personal story, is in tatters, alienating the statewide media and leaving her with few options.  Time to get the popcorn.
 
2014-02-06 09:52:01 AM  

Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: No, she just wants to see who the paranoid idiots are from far enough away to avoid them.

Careful, she might escalate an argument and get shot, which would be her fault


*changes direction to avoid moron*
 
2014-02-06 09:52:18 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Dinki: I'm purty darn Liberal. If you have a legally owned gun, that is registered and you have had proper training, then you should be able to open carry. Out in the country, in your own yard, in your car, at the range, when you are hunting, or at a gun show or other gun related event. If you carry it into a mall, a farmers market, or down main street, where the sole effect is to shock and frighten people, then you get arrested for disturbing the peace. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to be an attention  whore asshat.

I think it should be mandatory for any personal carry.  At the very least it's a good short hand for who to avoid.  Conceal carry, that shiat should be illegal.


For what reason should concealed carry be illegal?
 
2014-02-06 09:52:22 AM  

Muta: Fine I support open carry but people who define their manliness by the size of their gun don't like it.


The only people who use the size of a gun to define manliness are those like you who find an imaginary inverse relationship.

For example:  I have a .54 caliber flintlock.  It's about 5 feet long.  The barrel is that length because physics:  It takes that length to efficiently burn the amount of powder I must use.

The bore size is that big because I sat down with a pen, paper, calculator, and a bunch of different formulas, and figured out the optimum bore size for shooting round ball at deer and black bear, with the possibility of going after larger species like elk and moose, while still maintaining as flat a trajectory as possible.  The .54" bore was the compromise I came up with.

Generally, people try to use "enough gun" for the expected task.  That's why most target rifles are small caliber*, why most self-defense guns are medium caliber, and why most large game rifles are larger caliber.  You don't use a .22LR to hunt grizzly bears and you don't use a .375 H&H Magnum to hunt squirrels.

But keep making penis jokes, because it says more about you than it does about us.


*Exceptions:  Long range and silhouette shooting, because small bullets don't carry as far nor do they have enough momentum to knock down a steel silhouette at a distance
 
2014-02-06 09:55:03 AM  
I've lived in a few open carry states and have no problem with it at all. Gun control nuts get just as crazy as gun rights nuts.

In fact I think that most Americans are fine with firearm ownership but would like to see more being done to curb mass shootings. Of course this is more of a mental health issue than a gun control issue.

/libby lib lib lib
//damn near socialist
///UHC please
 
2014-02-06 09:55:05 AM  

dittybopper: Generally, people try to use "enough gun" for the expected task.


you are talking about people who decide how much gun is "enough gun" to get their tires rotated

do you need more or less gun if you also plan on stopping and picking up chinese food on your way home

serious question since you seem to take this kind of thing very seriously
 
2014-02-06 09:55:05 AM  
This lib is gonna teach two of his libby friends to shoot this weekend (basic safety, how to hold, etc - I'm no expert, but I know that much), and in libby-lib MD, to boot. Though I'll be crossing the border from super-ultra-lib DC (so nobody tell them, OK? I don't own any weapons except an assault-style softball bat, but they might have the Secret Service sit on me if I say I like shooting too loud.)

They're both fixin' to become gun-owners themselves (for the LOWLOWPRICE of like $80, plus fingerprints, plus classes, plus, I think, a ballistic fingerprint of the firearm they buy).
 
2014-02-06 09:55:06 AM  

dittybopper: But keep making penis jokes, because it says more about you than it does about us.


If it wasn't effective, you wouldn't mention it.
 
2014-02-06 09:56:02 AM  

Without Fail: dittybopper: But keep making penis jokes, because it says more about you than it does about us.

If it wasn't effective, you wouldn't mention it.


at least he didn't jump directly to homophobia like some other shiatlords around here
 
2014-02-06 09:56:03 AM  

spelletrader: Gun control nuts get just as crazy as gun rights nuts.


Maybe. But the body count is lower.
 
2014-02-06 09:56:18 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.


And I could own a gun without needing a license if I only used it on private property, and if I chose to carry in public, my license to carry would be honored by all 50 states and every single town and city.  I wouldn't face arrest in New York City (and state), New Jersey, or Chicago because I was carrying on a concealed carry license issued in my home state.
 
2014-02-06 09:57:44 AM  

sprawl15: Without Fail: dittybopper: But keep making penis jokes, because it says more about you than it does about us.

If it wasn't effective, you wouldn't mention it.

at least he didn't jump directly to homophobia like some other shiatlords around here


If one particular behaviour trait upset both myself and my previous boyfriend, it is homophobia.
 
2014-02-06 09:57:59 AM  

Nemo's Brother: The useful idiots who will jump in behind every politician they like, are not happy about it. They are still mad and confused that they have to defend gun rights now. At least for this thread. That is why a lot of the B and C-level lib alts are showing up. None of the big names can.


What the actual heck are you gibbering about?
 
2014-02-06 09:59:22 AM  

dittybopper: Muta: Fine I support open carry but people who define their manliness by the size of their gun don't like it.

The only people who use the size of a gun to define manliness are those like you who find an imaginary inverse relationship.

For example:  I have a .54 caliber flintlock.  It's about 5 feet long.  The barrel is that length because physics:  It takes that length to efficiently burn the amount of powder I must use.

The bore size is that big because I sat down with a pen, paper, calculator, and a bunch of different formulas, and figured out the optimum bore size for shooting round ball at deer and black bear, with the possibility of going after larger species like elk and moose, while still maintaining as flat a trajectory as possible.  The .54" bore was the compromise I came up with.

Generally, people try to use "enough gun" for the expected task.  That's why most target rifles are small caliber*, why most self-defense guns are medium caliber, and why most large game rifles are larger caliber.  You don't use a .22LR to hunt grizzly bears and you don't use a .375 H&H Magnum to hunt squirrels.

But keep making penis jokes, because it says more about you than it does about us.


*Exceptions:  Long range and silhouette shooting, because small bullets don't carry as far nor do they have enough momentum to knock down a steel silhouette at a distance


Meh - it's not exactly the only shopworn, dumbass meme on the internets. If it was directed at me, I'd just laugh and ignore it - does it really warrant deconstruction?
Any way - it's evident that open-carry is not controversial - and that makes logical sense, to me. If an individual is legally qualified to carry a gun, it makes little material difference to me how he carries it - and it's really none of my business.
Think about it - once you accept that people are carrying guns, what material difference does it make?
 
2014-02-06 09:59:47 AM  

Pappas: Wow... it's almost as if there's no litmus test or loyalty oath needed to be a Democrat. Like... it's a party made up of many points of view, from liberal (Cardin, Boxer, Gillibrand), Progressives (Grayson, Conyers), to left leaning moderates (H. Clinton, Obama, Nelson), strict moderates (McCaskill, Carper), right leaning moderates (Wendy Davis, Mark Warner), and conservatives (Pryor, Landrieu, Barber, Barrow).

Funny how that works.


"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers or was it Rand Paul?
 
2014-02-06 10:00:21 AM  

Johnny_Whistle: Nabb1: Muta: As the liberalist libtard that ever libbed, I am more comfortable with open carry over concealed.  Open carry show you who the small-penissed paranoid morons are whereas concealed carry conceals the small penises.

Why do some people fixate on gun owners' penises? I have a gun. So now you are thinking about my penis. That's weird. I don't even know you, and right now, you are drawing a mental picture about my penis because I just said I own a gun. Creep.

Your penis sounds small.


Most people will deny they have a small penis when posting to internet forums.  Funny thing though, small penised people always support concealed carry.  It's a scientific fact.
 
2014-02-06 10:01:07 AM  
I have zero problem with open-carry laws. Lets you know who the morons are right off
 
2014-02-06 10:01:20 AM  

sprawl15: dittybopper: Generally, people try to use "enough gun" for the expected task.

you are talking about people who decide how much gun is "enough gun" to get their tires rotated

do you need more or less gun if you also plan on stopping and picking up chinese food on your way home

serious question since you seem to take this kind of thing very seriously


In that context, it's about self-defense.  If you are carrying a gun for self-defense*, the idea is that you have to carry it pretty much all the time where allowed for it to be useful.  If you only carry it rarely, then it's like not carrying one at all.

*Which I don't, btw, largely because my state makes it nearly impossible for all but the rich and politically connected to get "unrestricted" pistol permits.  Most are limited by issuing judges to "hunting and target shooting only", despite there being no specific statutory authority for them to limit them in that way.
 
2014-02-06 10:01:28 AM  

Nadie_AZ: So you could say her gun views are liberal, right?


No, only her claims about what her position is are liberal. That is, meaningless, unenforceable if she is elected and pandering. "If you like your plan you can keep your plan."
 
2014-02-06 10:01:54 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.


Well that's a straw man if ever I saw one.  Where's it on the list that you can't bring your car into NYC?  Or a can of gasoline?  Where is it that you have to have a permit to sell your used car?  Or that you can't sell more than four used cars in a year unless you're a dealer?  Or that you have to report the sale to the authorities?  Where is it that you have to wait to purchase a car while they run a background check on you?  Where is it that you can't purchase a car if you were in a mental institution in the last five years?  Where is it that you can't buy a car if you've been convicted of assault (or reckless driving, etc.)?  Where is it that you can't own a car if you're under 18?  Where is it that you're required to secure your vehicle and keys if anyone in your house is under 14?

And yes, the list goes on.
 
2014-02-06 10:02:04 AM  

sdd2000: Pappas: Wow... it's almost as if there's no litmus test or loyalty oath needed to be a Democrat. Like... it's a party made up of many points of view, from liberal (Cardin, Boxer, Gillibrand), Progressives (Grayson, Conyers), to left leaning moderates (H. Clinton, Obama, Nelson), strict moderates (McCaskill, Carper), right leaning moderates (Wendy Davis, Mark Warner), and conservatives (Pryor, Landrieu, Barber, Barrow).

Funny how that works.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers or was it Rand Paul?


static4.wikia.nocookie.net

It was Dumbledore.
 
2014-02-06 10:02:15 AM  
Funny thing is, 40% of us libs Libs LIBS own guns.  Some of us are just as armed as you are.
 
2014-02-06 10:03:10 AM  

Nemo's Brother: The useful idiots who will jump in behind every politician they like, are not happy about it. They are still mad and confused that they have to defend gun rights now.


Uh...

Dinki: I'm purty darn Liberal. If you have a legally owned gun, that is registered and you have had proper training, then you should be able to open carry.


gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.


BunkoSquad: Here's another lib who's fine with open carry, on the theory that you maybe can't judge a book by its cover, but a candy bar wrapper that says "NUTS" on the outside is a pretty good clue what might be inside


Arkanaut: Personally I've always been for open carrying.  A lot of my more conservative friends always make the case that guns deter crime ("an armed society is a polite society") -- if so, why not carry your gun openly?

In fact I thought the more contentious debate has always been about concealed carrying -- isn't that why a lot of states require licenses for that?


LouDobbsAwaaaay: And yet the left isn't fleeing from her.  Which really just shows that the right-wing's "thar gunna take mah metal peenus away!!!" hysteria about the left is just more right-wing bullshiat.


HeartBurnKid: For some reason, most of those people (at least most of the ones I hear from) are conservative.

/libby lib lib
//just fine with open carry


Do you ever argue with liberals who aren't inside your own head, Nemo?
 
2014-02-06 10:03:11 AM  

sdd2000: Pappas: Wow... it's almost as if there's no litmus test or loyalty oath needed to be a Democrat. Like... it's a party made up of many points of view, from liberal (Cardin, Boxer, Gillibrand), Progressives (Grayson, Conyers), to left leaning moderates (H. Clinton, Obama, Nelson), strict moderates (McCaskill, Carper), right leaning moderates (Wendy Davis, Mark Warner), and conservatives (Pryor, Landrieu, Barber, Barrow).

Funny how that works.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers or was it Rand Paul?


I dunno. I always thought it was Shia Labeouf.
 
2014-02-06 10:03:17 AM  

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

And I could own a gun without needing a license if I only used it on private property, and if I chose to carry in public, my license to carry would be honored by all 50 states and every single town and city.  I wouldn't face arrest in New York City (and state), New Jersey, or Chicago because I was carrying on a concealed carry license issued in my home state.


I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.
 
2014-02-06 10:03:21 AM  
I like to refer to the open-carry folks as Doomsday LARPers.
 
2014-02-06 10:04:59 AM  

dittybopper: In that context, it's about self-defense. If you are carrying a gun for self-defense*, the idea is that you have to carry it pretty much all the time where allowed for it to be useful.


no, you seem to be confused

you said that there is an objective method for determining how much gun is enough and i am asking the parameters that go into figuring that objective capability. we already assumed for sake of argument that i decided i need to pack a gun to go get my tires rotated, thats why the question is how much gun to pack for that and how that amount of gun changes if i also stop to get some singapore noodles

it is not complicated yet please dont get lost this early
 
2014-02-06 10:06:39 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.


Under this licensing scheme, would a race car be an equivalent to a fully automatic weapon? I can own a modern racecar, I cannot own a modern fully automatic weapon.  Or would you leave the current restrictions on fully automatic firearms in place?  Either way I'm mostly in agreement.  I'm not sure I'd like the pricing on liability insurance for a firearm.
 
2014-02-06 10:07:12 AM  

WTF Indeed: It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero. Same thing that happens to Teabaggers who differ on some issues.


Who's demanding purity?  Aside from subby's concern trolling, I don't think anyone cares.  I think open carry is dumb, but it's Texas.
 
2014-02-06 10:08:31 AM  

dr_blasto: In my mind, I expect Texas to have Texas-style gun laws. It always weirds me out a little when I hear what their laws actually are. I expect Texas, of all places, to be all about open-carry. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised for constitutional carry. But the tight-ass laws just don't fit.


How does Texas NOT have open-carry? That picture of Gov. Perry firing a gun over his head...was that illegal? Or is only open-firing legal in Texas.
 
2014-02-06 10:09:46 AM  
LOL. It's funny cuz libs hate guns and freedumb!
 
2014-02-06 10:10:15 AM  
Nice try libs, but she only carries a firearm so she can abort babies easier than if she carries a crock pot.
 
2014-02-06 10:10:18 AM  

Dimensio: If one particular behaviour trait upset both myself and my previous boyfriend, it is homophobia.


do you think i would at all care if you are gay or not? do you really think i would suddenly go 'oh sir i did not know oh please let me excuse your hilariously idiotic behavior and condescending shiatposts because if you are gay you cannot possibly be spouting homophobic nonsense feel free to tell people they must like dicks if they disagree with you all day long if it pleases you'
 
2014-02-06 10:11:37 AM  

Dimensio: For what reason should concealed carry be illegal?


Conceal carrying while hispanic or black?
 
2014-02-06 10:11:45 AM  

sprawl15: Dimensio: If one particular behaviour trait upset both myself and my previous boyfriend, it is homophobia.

do you think i would at all care if you are gay or not? do you really think i would suddenly go 'oh sir i did not know oh please let me excuse your hilariously idiotic behavior and condescending shiatposts because if you are gay you cannot possibly be spouting homophobic nonsense feel free to tell people they must like dicks if they disagree with you all day long if it pleases you'


Your attempt to insult me in no way alters the fact that referencing male genitalia within a discussion of firearms, as Muta did, is both inappropriate and demonstrative of an obsession with male genitalia.
 
2014-02-06 10:11:50 AM  

jso2897: dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

And I could own a gun without needing a license if I only used it on private property, and if I chose to carry in public, my license to carry would be honored by all 50 states and every single town and city.  I wouldn't face arrest in New York City (and state), New Jersey, or Chicago because I was carrying on a concealed carry license issued in my home state.

I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.


There isn't a downside.  It is reasonable and intelegent so we will never do it.
 
2014-02-06 10:12:05 AM  

Tyrano Soros: Nice try libs, but she only carries a firearm so she can abort babies easier than if she carries a crock pot.


If she didn't have a gun she would find something else to satisfy her fetal bloodlust.
 
2014-02-06 10:13:03 AM  

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

And I could own a gun without needing a license if I only used it on private property, and if I chose to carry in public, my license to carry would be honored by all 50 states and every single town and city.  I wouldn't face arrest in New York City (and state), New Jersey, or Chicago because I was carrying on a concealed carry license issued in my home state.


Title and tag at each point of transfer, and we can shake on it.
 
2014-02-06 10:14:09 AM  

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

And I could own a gun without needing a license if I only used it on private property, and if I chose to carry in public, my license to carry would be honored by all 50 states and every single town and city.  I wouldn't face arrest in New York City (and state), New Jersey, or Chicago because I was carrying on a concealed carry license issued in my home state.


And just like you have to follow the local traffic laws, you follow the local firearm laws.
 
2014-02-06 10:14:56 AM  

Dimensio: sprawl15: Dimensio: If one particular behaviour trait upset both myself and my previous boyfriend, it is homophobia.

do you think i would at all care if you are gay or not? do you really think i would suddenly go 'oh sir i did not know oh please let me excuse your hilariously idiotic behavior and condescending shiatposts because if you are gay you cannot possibly be spouting homophobic nonsense feel free to tell people they must like dicks if they disagree with you all day long if it pleases you'

Your attempt to insult me in no way alters the fact that referencing male genitalia within a discussion of firearms, as Muta did, is both inappropriate and demonstrative of an obsession with male genitalia.


Pretending you don't understand why some posters make mocking/joking Freudian interpretations of others' obsession with firearms is intellectually dishonest.
 
2014-02-06 10:15:19 AM  

Dimensio: Your attempt to insult me in no way alters the fact that referencing male genitalia within a discussion of firearms, as Muta did, is both inappropriate and demonstrative of an obsession with male genitalia.


Sir, you yourself are referencing male genetalia within a discussion of firearms, and I find this inappropriate and rude.  Your obsession with the male undercarriage and your declarations of sexual deviance have no place in this conversation.
 
2014-02-06 10:15:29 AM  

Saiga410: jso2897: dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

And I could own a gun without needing a license if I only used it on private property, and if I chose to carry in public, my license to carry would be honored by all 50 states and every single town and city.  I wouldn't face arrest in New York City (and state), New Jersey, or Chicago because I was carrying on a concealed carry license issued in my home state.

I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.

There isn't a downside.  It is reasonable and intelegent so we will never do it.


One problem I do see - the Motor Vehicle codes we are using as a model here are state laws, and even they are not uniform accross the board. So I think getting there would be an incremental process - state by state - like gay marriage.
I can't see this happening on some sort of national referendum.
 
2014-02-06 10:16:31 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Pretending you don't understand why some posters make mocking/joking Freudian interpretations of others' obsession with firearms is intellectually dishonest.


i am sure he is looking up several peer reviewed studies that support his hypothesis of "lol u liek dicks"
 
2014-02-06 10:18:21 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Tyrano Soros: Nice try libs, but she only carries a firearm so she can abort babies easier than if she carries a crock pot.

If she didn't have a gun she would find something else to satisfy her fetal bloodlust.



Crossbows are so much more time intensive. Guns are clearly the answer here.
 
2014-02-06 10:18:37 AM  

Dinki: I'm purty darn Liberal. If you have a legally owned gun, that is registered and you have had proper training, then you should be able to open carry. Out in the country, in your own yard, in your car, at the range, when you are hunting, or at a gun show or other gun related event. If you carry it into a mall, a farmers market, or down main street, where the sole effect is to shock and frighten people, then you get arrested for disturbing the peace. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to be an attention  whore asshat.


Done in one, last one out get the lights...
 
2014-02-06 10:18:47 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

And I could own a gun without needing a license if I only used it on private property, and if I chose to carry in public, my license to carry would be honored by all 50 states and every single town and city.  I wouldn't face arrest in New York City (and state), New Jersey, or Chicago because I was carrying on a concealed carry license issued in my home state.

Title and tag at each point of transfer, and we can shake on it.


And to get concealed carry would require a slightly tougher test, like you would have if you were getting a CDL or chauffeur's license. And a CCL would be required to work any job that requires you to carry a firearm.
 
2014-02-06 10:19:20 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.


Does "Health Requirements" refer to the vision test? I thought that was kind of a big omission until I looked over it a bit more.
 
2014-02-06 10:19:28 AM  
I've always preferred open-carry to concealed carry.  I want to know who NOT to fark with.
 
2014-02-06 10:20:23 AM  

sprawl15: Epic Fap Session: Pretending you don't understand why some posters make mocking/joking Freudian interpretations of others' obsession with firearms is intellectually dishonest.

i am sure he is looking up several peer reviewed studies that support his hypothesis of "lol u liek dicks"


This is the Internet - it's all about penises, and any component of it that isn't about penises is about boobies or vaginas.
If we are going to place artificial parameters on our discussions, they needs be realistic.
 
2014-02-06 10:22:20 AM  

Arkanaut: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

Does "Health Requirements" refer to the vision test? I thought that was kind of a big omission until I looked over it a bit more.


Mental health, too. Physician certifies.
 
2014-02-06 10:22:21 AM  

jso2897: Meh - it's not exactly the only shopworn, dumbass meme on the internets.


It's *THE* canonical (cannonical?) shopworn, dumb-ass meme.  It's been around since long *BEFORE* the farkin' internet.

In fact, it was an old meme back in 1976 when Barry Bruce-Briggs wrote "The Great American Gun War", and he comments on it at length pointing out that it was a shopworn cliche even back then, but a cliche with no actual scientific support whatsoever.

It's bankrupt, and it's been known to be so for, what, nearly 40 years now?

I mean, come on.  Use something that doesn't date to the time before personal computers.
 
2014-02-06 10:22:22 AM  

AntiGravitas: I've always preferred open-carry to concealed carry.  I want to know who NOT to fark with.


How about you just be a good person and not fark with anybody?
 
2014-02-06 10:22:34 AM  
Open carry even makes those who are not carrying a lot safer. If someone does start shooting, who do you think is going to absorb the first bullets? The rest of us will have time to take cover.
 
2014-02-06 10:25:17 AM  

Semi-Semetic: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

Under this licensing scheme, would a race car be an equivalent to a fully automatic weapon? I can own a modern racecar, I cannot own a modern fully automatic weapon.  Or would you leave the current restrictions on fully automatic firearms in place?  Either way I'm mostly in agreement.  I'm not sure I'd like the pricing on liability insurance for a firearm.


If you're not a felon and you have the proper license and have paid the fees, you most certainly can own an automatic firearm.
 
2014-02-06 10:25:21 AM  

AntiGravitas: I've always preferred open-carry to concealed carry.  I want to know who NOT to fark with.


Isn't it easier not to fark with anybody?
 
2014-02-06 10:25:47 AM  

Muta: Johnny_Whistle: Nabb1: Muta: As the liberalist libtard that ever libbed, I am more comfortable with open carry over concealed.  Open carry show you who the small-penissed paranoid morons are whereas concealed carry conceals the small penises.

Why do some people fixate on gun owners' penises? I have a gun. So now you are thinking about my penis. That's weird. I don't even know you, and right now, you are drawing a mental picture about my penis because I just said I own a gun. Creep.

Your penis sounds small.

Most people will deny they have a small penis when posting to internet forums.  Funny thing though, small penised people always support concealed carry.  It's a scientific fact.


You've done a lot of field research on that, have you?
 
2014-02-06 10:26:17 AM  

dittybopper: jso2897: Meh - it's not exactly the only shopworn, dumbass meme on the internets.

It's *THE* canonical (cannonical?) shopworn, dumb-ass meme.  It's been around since long *BEFORE* the farkin' internet.

In fact, it was an old meme back in 1976 when Barry Bruce-Briggs wrote "The Great American Gun War", and he comments on it at length pointing out that it was a shopworn cliche even back then, but a cliche with no actual scientific support whatsoever.

It's bankrupt, and it's been known to be so for, what, nearly 40 years now?

I mean, come on.  Use something that doesn't date to the time before personal computers.


All, true - but on the other hand, this is the internets. A "no penises" policy on internet discussions is probably doomed to failure at it's inception. Ii can't instruct others, of course - but I see laughter as the best medicine in this case. When it stops getting angry reactions, it will be replaced by some new stupidity.
 
2014-02-06 10:26:19 AM  
Generally speaking, southern liberals are more comfortable with guns than our northern counterparts. Most of us were raised around guns and were taught how to shoot and about gun safety from a very young age (I was 8 years old when I fired my first gun).

That's not to say that we don't support common sense restrictions on who carries them and where but it's uncommon to find a liberal down here that supports New York style gun laws.
 
2014-02-06 10:28:32 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Dimensio: sprawl15: Dimensio: If one particular behaviour trait upset both myself and my previous boyfriend, it is homophobia.

do you think i would at all care if you are gay or not? do you really think i would suddenly go 'oh sir i did not know oh please let me excuse your hilariously idiotic behavior and condescending shiatposts because if you are gay you cannot possibly be spouting homophobic nonsense feel free to tell people they must like dicks if they disagree with you all day long if it pleases you'

Your attempt to insult me in no way alters the fact that referencing male genitalia within a discussion of firearms, as Muta did, is both inappropriate and demonstrative of an obsession with male genitalia.

Pretending you don't understand why some posters make mocking/joking Freudian interpretations of others' obsession with firearms is intellectually dishonest.


I do understand the reason: unable to present any rational argumentation, they instead attempt to shift the subject of discussion to an irrelevant topic with which they are obsessed, and they project their obsession onto those with whom they disagree.
 
2014-02-06 10:28:45 AM  

sdd2000: AntiGravitas: I've always preferred open-carry to concealed carry.  I want to know who NOT to fark with.

Isn't it easier not to fark with anybody?


joness0154: AntiGravitas: I've always preferred open-carry to concealed carry.  I want to know who NOT to fark with.

How about you just be a good person and not fark with anybody?


Ok, ok, but the point was less about the farking with people and being aware of who is loaded.  I would rather be aware than unaware.
 
2014-02-06 10:29:53 AM  
There are seven shades of grey just on the Fark favorite bar. Even Fark trolls are afforded more nuance than the gun debate in America.

/and that's all I have to say about that
 
2014-02-06 10:30:33 AM  

Snapper Carr: Generally speaking, southern liberals are more comfortable with guns than our northern counterparts. Most of us were raised around guns and were taught how to shoot and about gun safety from a very young age (I was 8 years old when I fired my first gun).

That's not to say that we don't support common sense restrictions on who carries them and where but it's uncommon to find a liberal down here that supports New York style gun laws.


fark, I'm a New York liberal and I don't support New York style gun laws. Sure, I grew up in rural PA, but I never shot save for a blank-firing theater pistol. My parents weren't hunters. They were SCA nerds, though, so I learned how to use a recurve bow and throw knives and hatchets, which is rad.

This city is a pretty big pain in the ass for a few laws, including gun regulations. I'd love to keep a nice pistol in a lockbox for range shooting (and to learn range shooting), but it's too much mishugas around here. And a bit expensive for my budget...
 
2014-02-06 10:30:37 AM  

TheBigJerk: HeartBurnKid: WTF Indeed: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero

For some reason, most of those people (at least most of the ones I hear from) are conservative.

/libby lib lib
//just fine with open carry

Concern trolls are just so VERY concerned.  Plenty of Democrats are pro-gun, only the NRA's partisan and racism-fueled psychoses say otherwise.


There are plenty of Democrats that are pro-gun but pro-gun Democrat Politicians are an endangered species. When you spot one in the wild you can be pretty sure it is just wearing camouflage. Their own party bosses consider them traitors.
 
2014-02-06 10:31:17 AM  

jso2897: I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.


For one thing, it would pretty much wipe out all the local gun control laws that prohibit or highly restrict the carrying of concealed weapons.

I would *LOVE* for guns to be treated like cars, because it would result in a significant *LOOSENING* of the laws in my state.

But that's not what those proposals usually mean.  Generally, when people talk about treating guns like cars, what they really mean is that they want significantly stricter requirements on guns than we have on car ownership.   They want something like NYC, where getting permission to carry a gun for self-protection is nigh on impossible unless you are very rich and/or politically well connected.
 
2014-02-06 10:31:28 AM  

Dimensio: I do understand the reason: unable to present any rational argumentation, they instead attempt to shift the subject of discussion to an irrelevant topic with which they are obsessed, and they project their obsession onto those with whom they disagree.


You're really taking the fun out of lame dick jokes...
 
2014-02-06 10:32:30 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cman: If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.

What's the crime rate like in Kennesaw?


About average for the affluency level regardless of gun laws?

What do I win?
 
2014-02-06 10:33:02 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.


Can we do that with speech?
 
2014-02-06 10:33:28 AM  

AntiGravitas: sdd2000: AntiGravitas: I've always preferred open-carry to concealed carry.  I want to know who NOT to fark with.

Isn't it easier not to fark with anybody?

joness0154: AntiGravitas: I've always preferred open-carry to concealed carry.  I want to know who NOT to fark with.

How about you just be a good person and not fark with anybody?

Ok, ok, but the point was less about the farking with people and being aware of who is loaded.  I would rather be aware than unaware.


If the person is a good, law abiding citizen, what would it matter?  I guarantee you are around many individuals who are lawfully carrying concealed firearms and haven't bothered you at all.
 
2014-02-06 10:35:06 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: If you're not a felon and you have the proper license and have paid the fees, you most certainly can own an automatic firearm.


Provided, of course, that it's legal in your state, which it isn't in my state.  Despite the fact that they are very highly regulated at the federal level, and the supply is essentially frozen, because no new machine guns may be added to the NFA registry.  Since 1986.

Which is why transferable M-16 which should be worth about $1,000 is now worth $15-16,000.  So only the very rich can afford them.
 
2014-02-06 10:36:14 AM  

Muta: As the liberalist libtard that ever libbed, I am more comfortable with open carry over concealed.  Open carry show you who the small-penissed paranoid morons are whereas concealed carry conceals the small penises.


This dude wants to look at tiny penises.
 
2014-02-06 10:37:06 AM  

dittybopper: jso2897: I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.

For one thing, it would pretty much wipe out all the local gun control laws that prohibit or highly restrict the carrying of concealed weapons.

I would *LOVE* for guns to be treated like cars, because it would result in a significant *LOOSENING* of the laws in my state.

But that's not what those proposals usually mean.  Generally, when people talk about treating guns like cars, what they really mean is that they want significantly stricter requirements on guns than we have on car ownership.   They want something like NYC, where getting permission to carry a gun for self-protection is nigh on impossible unless you are very rich and/or politically well connected.


Or have a specific threat hanging over you?
 
2014-02-06 10:37:09 AM  

ex-nuke: There are plenty of Democrats that are pro-gun but pro-gun Democrat Politicians are an endangered species. When you spot one in the wild you can be pretty sure it is just wearing camouflage. Their own party bosses consider them traitors.


You know you're in a thread about a Democratic politician who is pro-gun, right?
 
2014-02-06 10:37:43 AM  

jso2897: All, true - but on the other hand, this is the internets. A "no penises" policy on internet discussions is probably doomed to failure at it's inception. Ii can't instruct others, of course - but I see laughter as the best medicine in this case. When it stops getting angry reactions, it will be replaced by some new stupidity.


Which is why I take every opportunity to point out (without getting angry), that it's a Markley's Law violation.

Markley's Law is the penis size/gun version of Godwin's Law.

The more we point out (rationally) that it's a stupid meme, the better our side looks compared to those using the meme.
 
2014-02-06 10:38:40 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

Can we do that with speech?


No, Mags, but we can license and tax commercial activity.
 
2014-02-06 10:38:42 AM  

joness0154: AntiGravitas: sdd2000: AntiGravitas: I've always preferred open-carry to concealed carry.  I want to know who NOT to fark with.

Isn't it easier not to fark with anybody?

joness0154: AntiGravitas: I've always preferred open-carry to concealed carry.  I want to know who NOT to fark with.

How about you just be a good person and not fark with anybody?

Ok, ok, but the point was less about the farking with people and being aware of who is loaded.  I would rather be aware than unaware.

If the person is a good, law abiding citizen, what would it matter?  I guarantee you are around many individuals who are lawfully carrying concealed firearms and haven't bothered you at all.


Oh, I'm fully aware.  I am one of them.  I have just never understood the need to have concealed carry versus open carry.  You should be able to carry or not.
 
2014-02-06 10:38:50 AM  

Dinki: I'm purty darn Liberal. If you have a legally owned gun, that is registered and you have had proper training, then you should be able to open carry. Out in the country, in your own yard, in your car, at the range, when you are hunting, or at a gun show or other gun related event. If you carry it into a mall, a farmers market, or down main street, where the sole effect is to shock and frighten people, then you get arrested for disturbing the peace. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to be an attention  whore asshat.


Yep.  We had an incident where a guy walked into a local grocery store with a rifle strapped to his back (it wasn't hunting season and the store was in the middle of the city).  He claimed he just wanted to buy some ice cream, which, for some reason necessitated him bringing a rifle along (!)  Anyhoo, it became one of those OHMIGOD INFRINGING MAH RIGHTS things, just like he wanted it to become.  Sorry, fella, there's no constitutional right to be a complete putz.
 
2014-02-06 10:39:34 AM  

jso2897: Dancin_In_Anson: cman: If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.

What's the crime rate like in Kennesaw?

Looking for a place where you won't be pissing your panties in terror 24/7? There is no such place for a coward.


ryanesaki.com
 
2014-02-06 10:40:58 AM  

ex-nuke: TheBigJerk: HeartBurnKid: WTF Indeed: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero

For some reason, most of those people (at least most of the ones I hear from) are conservative.

/libby lib lib
//just fine with open carry

Concern trolls are just so VERY concerned.  Plenty of Democrats are pro-gun, only the NRA's partisan and racism-fueled psychoses say otherwise.

There are plenty of Democrats that are pro-gun but pro-gun Democrat Politicians are an endangered species. When you spot one in the wild you can be pretty sure it is just wearing camouflage. Their own party bosses consider them traitors.


Sure thing.  I'm convinced she's just a stealth GOP operative.  All that pro-choice nonsense is just a smokescreen, isn't it?
 
2014-02-06 10:42:11 AM  
I think the 2nd amendment is a bad idea, but it exists.
 
2014-02-06 10:42:15 AM  
As a libby, lib gun owner I don't see the need for it other than identifying yourself as someone who lives in constant fear. But if your legal and licensed then feel free to brandish your paranoia on your hip.

I live in the lowest crime neighborhood in one of the lowest crime big cities in the US. However, I have a tea party uncle who brings a handgun with him whenever he visits. He is seriously scared of being mugged or becoming a victim of the "knockout game" which has never happened here, and that sidearm is going to protect him against the roving gangs of black youths that only exist in his mind.
 
2014-02-06 10:43:09 AM  

Dinki: I'm purty darn Liberal. If you have a legally owned gun, that is registered and you have had proper training, then you should be able to open carry. Out in the country, in your own yard, in your car, at the range, when you are hunting, or at a gun show or other gun related event. If you carry it into a mall, a farmers market, or down main street, where the sole effect is to shock and frighten people, then you get arrested for disturbing the peace. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to be an attention  whore asshat.


Feel the same way, except for the arrested part.

No need to feed they 2nd Amendment paranoia.
 
2014-02-06 10:43:51 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Dinki: I'm purty darn Liberal. If you have a legally owned gun, that is registered and you have had proper training, then you should be able to open carry. Out in the country, in your own yard, in your car, at the range, when you are hunting, or at a gun show or other gun related event. If you carry it into a mall, a farmers market, or down main street, where the sole effect is to shock and frighten people, then you get arrested for disturbing the peace. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to be an attention  whore asshat.

Yep.  We had an incident where a guy walked into a local grocery store with a rifle strapped to his back (it wasn't hunting season and the store was in the middle of the city).  He claimed he just wanted to buy some ice cream, which, for some reason necessitated him bringing a rifle along (!)  Anyhoo, it became one of those OHMIGOD INFRINGING MAH RIGHTS things, just like he wanted it to become.  Sorry, fella, there's no constitutional right to be a complete putz.


As long as private venues have the right to say "no firearms on premises" I don't see a problem with someone comically overestimating their ice-cream-buying security needs.

/another lib who doesn't care much about open-carry checking in
 
2014-02-06 10:44:10 AM  
I'm definitely a liberal socialist hippie according to my friends, but I'm as conservative as it gets when it comes to ownership of firearms.

/don't own any because I don't want to regret using one in anger
 
2014-02-06 10:44:34 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

And I could own a gun without needing a license if I only used it on private property, and if I chose to carry in public, my license to carry would be honored by all 50 states and every single town and city.  I wouldn't face arrest in New York City (and state), New Jersey, or Chicago because I was carrying on a concealed carry license issued in my home state.

Title and tag at each point of transfer, and we can shake on it.


That would be a much looser law but even as a gun rights guy I don't think this should replace background checks. And of course there's other things like the fact you can sell a car across state lines without going through a dealer and can build any kind of car you want from parts.
 
2014-02-06 10:44:50 AM  

MithrandirBooga: jso2897: Dancin_In_Anson: cman: If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.

What's the crime rate like in Kennesaw?

Looking for a place where you won't be pissing your panties in terror 24/7? There is no such place for a coward.

[ryanesaki.com image 624x317]

 
2014-02-06 10:45:10 AM  

mutterfark: There are seven shades of grey just on the Fark favorite bar. Even Fark trolls are afforded more nuance than the gun debate in America.

/and that's all I have to say about that


Ok Forest.
 
2014-02-06 10:45:16 AM  

ex-nuke: There are plenty of Democrats that are pro-gun but pro-gun Democrat Politicians are an endangered species. When you spot one in the wild you can be pretty sure it is just wearing camouflage. Their own party bosses consider them traitors.


I mean, it's not like a pro-gun Democrat could ever be the Senate Majority Leader, right?
 
2014-02-06 10:46:04 AM  

dittybopper: For one thing, it would pretty much wipe out all the local gun control laws that prohibit or highly restrict the carrying of concealed weapons.

I would *LOVE* for guns to be treated like cars, because it would result in a significant *LOOSENING* of the laws in my state.

But that's not what those proposals usually mean.  Generally, when people talk about treating guns like cars, what they really mean is that they want significantly stricter requirements on guns than we have on car ownership.   They want something like NYC, where getting permission to carry a gun for self-protection is nigh on impossible unless you are very rich and/or politically well connected.


Who are "they"?  I think those people are in your head.  People like me mostly just want you to register the thing and maybe take some training or a vision test or something, but even simple things like that send you guys into an irrational frenzy.
 
2014-02-06 10:48:10 AM  

dittybopper: jso2897: All, true - but on the other hand, this is the internets. A "no penises" policy on internet discussions is probably doomed to failure at it's inception. Ii can't instruct others, of course - but I see laughter as the best medicine in this case. When it stops getting angry reactions, it will be replaced by some new stupidity.

Which is why I take every opportunity to point out (without getting angry), that it's a Markley's Law violation.

Markley's Law is the penis size/gun version of Godwin's Law.

The more we point out (rationally) that it's a stupid meme, the better our side looks compared to those using the meme.


Look, bro, get over it.
Back when I was just an undergrad lad, my girlfriend took me to "educational" films (PNSFW), and I was disappointed to find out that mine is just an average endowment. I can live with that.
Suck it up and drive on.
 
2014-02-06 10:48:39 AM  

bluenovaman: I'm definitely a liberal socialist hippie according to my friends, but I'm as conservative as it gets when it comes to ownership of firearms.

/don't own any because I don't want to regret using one in anger


I'm an actual socialist and I keep a small arsenal in my safe.
 
2014-02-06 10:48:59 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: tinfoil-hat maggie: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

Can we do that with speech?

No, Mags, but we can license and tax commercial activity.


So your saying I can do that to speech but only when it is to make money like writing a book or hosting a radio show : )
 
2014-02-06 10:49:46 AM  
Ok, that's fine. She's running in Texas, that's understandable.

See how this works? Big tent.
 
2014-02-06 10:50:34 AM  

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: If you're not a felon and you have the proper license and have paid the fees, you most certainly can own an automatic firearm.

Provided, of course, that it's legal in your state, which it isn't in my state.  Despite the fact that they are very highly regulated at the federal level, and the supply is essentially frozen, because no new machine guns may be added to the NFA registry.  Since 1986.

Which is why transferable M-16 which should be worth about $1,000 is now worth $15-16,000.  So only the very rich can afford them.


That and I can go to my dads or a few buddy's garages with a few hundred feet of moly tubing and create my own racecar (my garage is too small).  Or turn an 80's Monty into a bomber.  Try that with firearms without getting in trouble.
 
2014-02-06 10:51:32 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: demaL-demaL-yeH: tinfoil-hat maggie: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

Can we do that with speech?

No, Mags, but we can license and tax commercial activity.

So your saying I can do that to speech but only when it is to make money like writing a book or hosting a radio show : )


FCC license and sales taxes.
Besides, the Supremes have ruled that money is speech.
 
2014-02-06 10:51:45 AM  
WShat Texas open carriers might look like.

www.opencarrytexas.org
 
2014-02-06 10:52:50 AM  

biscuit mcgravy: As a libby, lib gun owner I don't see the need for it other than identifying yourself as someone who lives in constant fear. But if your legal and licensed then feel free to brandish your paranoia on your hip.

I live in the lowest crime neighborhood in one of the lowest crime big cities in the US. However, I have a tea party uncle who brings a handgun with him whenever he visits. He is seriously scared of being mugged or becoming a victim of the "knockout game" which has never happened here, and that sidearm is going to protect him against the roving gangs of black youths that only exist in his mind.


I see your point.  Nothing bad can ever happen no matter how unlikely it may be.  That's why I never carry a spare tire in my vehicle and don't keep any fire extinguishers in my home.
 
2014-02-06 10:53:35 AM  

mrshowrules: mutterfark: There are seven shades of grey just on the Fark favorite bar. Even Fark trolls are afforded more nuance than the gun debate in America.

/and that's all I have to say about that

Ok Forest.


Yeah, it was was lamesauce. This thread alone makes my post 100% wrong, and unfunny to boot.

/once again into the corner with the cone of shame
//will shut up and listen
 
2014-02-06 10:53:56 AM  

Garet Garrett: Or that you can't sell more than four used cars in a year unless you're a dealer?


That is actually law in Georgia.
 
2014-02-06 10:54:11 AM  

Bloody William: Dimensio: I do understand the reason: unable to present any rational argumentation, they instead attempt to shift the subject of discussion to an irrelevant topic with which they are obsessed, and they project their obsession onto those with whom they disagree.

You're really taking the fun out of lame dick jokes...


One of my major talents is draining any fun out of any normally enjoyable activity through over-analysis. At times, however, humor may be derived from my hyper-literal nature.
 
2014-02-06 10:54:37 AM  

Saiga410: dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: If you're not a felon and you have the proper license and have paid the fees, you most certainly can own an automatic firearm.

Provided, of course, that it's legal in your state, which it isn't in my state.  Despite the fact that they are very highly regulated at the federal level, and the supply is essentially frozen, because no new machine guns may be added to the NFA registry.  Since 1986.

Which is why transferable M-16 which should be worth about $1,000 is now worth $15-16,000.  So only the very rich can afford them.

That and I can go to my dads or a few buddy's garages with a few hundred feet of moly tubing and create my own racecar (my garage is too small).  Or turn an 80's Monty into a bomber.  Try that with firearms without getting in trouble.


To be fair, you can make your own (non-NFA, anyway) firearms at home without getting into any trouble, as long as you don't sell them.
 
2014-02-06 10:54:39 AM  

Saiga410: dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: If you're not a felon and you have the proper license and have paid the fees, you most certainly can own an automatic firearm.

Provided, of course, that it's legal in your state, which it isn't in my state.  Despite the fact that they are very highly regulated at the federal level, and the supply is essentially frozen, because no new machine guns may be added to the NFA registry.  Since 1986.

Which is why transferable M-16 which should be worth about $1,000 is now worth $15-16,000.  So only the very rich can afford them.

That and I can go to my dads or a few buddy's garages with a few hundred feet of moly tubing and create my own racecar (my garage is too small).  Or turn an 80's Monty into a bomber.  Try that with firearms without getting in trouble.


Cars are for transportation.
Firearms are for killin'.

/And you can fold your predictable sophistry until it's all sharp corners and push it up in there past your neck.
 
2014-02-06 10:55:12 AM  

shamanwest: About average for the affluency level regardless of gun laws?


What was it prior to the passage of the mandatory ownership law? Higher? Lower? The same?

Our survey says!

shamanwest: What do I win?

 
2014-02-06 10:56:47 AM  

joness0154: Saiga410: dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: If you're not a felon and you have the proper license and have paid the fees, you most certainly can own an automatic firearm.

Provided, of course, that it's legal in your state, which it isn't in my state.  Despite the fact that they are very highly regulated at the federal level, and the supply is essentially frozen, because no new machine guns may be added to the NFA registry.  Since 1986.

Which is why transferable M-16 which should be worth about $1,000 is now worth $15-16,000.  So only the very rich can afford them.

That and I can go to my dads or a few buddy's garages with a few hundred feet of moly tubing and create my own racecar (my garage is too small).  Or turn an 80's Monty into a bomber.  Try that with firearms without getting in trouble.

To be fair, you can make your own (non-NFA, anyway) firearms at home without getting into any trouble, as long as you don't sell them.


You can also make your own cannon since it is a muzzle loader.

/I have considered building a bowling ball mortar, but then came to my senses.
 
2014-02-06 10:56:53 AM  
Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.
 
2014-02-06 10:57:03 AM  

mutterfark: mrshowrules: mutterfark: There are seven shades of grey just on the Fark favorite bar. Even Fark trolls are afforded more nuance than the gun debate in America.

/and that's all I have to say about that

Ok Forest.

Yeah, it was was lamesauce. This thread alone makes my post 100% wrong, and unfunny to boot.

/once again into the corner with the cone of shame
//will shut up and listen


Aw, quit beating yourself up - you're doing fine.
i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-06 10:57:26 AM  

jso2897: sprawl15: Dimensio:

it is hilarious when your whole 'i have a ged in internet logic' facade breaks down into 'lol u liek dicks'

its like the smell of a gun thread is enough to rustle your jimmies

Dancin_In_Anson: That's the best you can do?

wait do you really think your horrible posting deserves an honest response

Of course he doesn't - the knowledge that hardly anyone here does anything but goof on him anymore is an important component of his martyr complex. The fact that he gets troll responses to his inchoate blurts confirms, in his mind, the vast conspiracy against him.


He's no Gary, though...
 
2014-02-06 10:57:29 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: being


begin. I can to English.
 
2014-02-06 10:57:43 AM  

gravy chugging cretin.: WShat Texas open carriers might look like.

[www.opencarrytexas.org image 850x566]


I love that the all-murikan is carrying a chrome-plated AK.
 
2014-02-06 10:58:20 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: shamanwest: About average for the affluency level regardless of gun laws?

What was it prior to the passage of the mandatory ownership law? Higher? Lower? The same?

Our survey says!

shamanwest: What do I win?


*sigh*
And what is happening to the overall crime rate everywhere in the United States, Mister Correlation_is_causality?
 
2014-02-06 10:58:22 AM  

WTF Indeed: I thought her 15 minutes of liberal fame was over.


Conservative butthurt over her will last forever.
 
2014-02-06 10:58:31 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Cars are for transportation.
Firearms are for killin'.

/And you can fold your predictable sophistry until it's all sharp corners and push it up in there past your neck


Tell that to the guy that started with conflating firearm regulations and transportation regulations.  I was just taking the analogy a little farther.
 
2014-02-06 10:58:33 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.


This is basically my stance - I'm in favor of making gun control a local issue, like any other policy. It makes sense in some areas, not others. This is why I believe the 2nd amendment is a bad idea.

But that makes me a gun grabber, I guess, since I'm in favor of local control.
 
2014-02-06 10:58:39 AM  

mutterfark: mrshowrules: mutterfark: There are seven shades of grey just on the Fark favorite bar. Even Fark trolls are afforded more nuance than the gun debate in America.

/and that's all I have to say about that

Ok Forest.

Yeah, it was was lamesauce. This thread alone makes my post 100% wrong, and unfunny to boot.

/once again into the corner with the cone of shame
//will shut up and listen


I enjoyed it.
 
2014-02-06 10:59:22 AM  

Dinki: I'm purty darn Liberal.


Oh yeah?  Prove it!

 If you carry it into a mall, a farmers market, or down main street, where the sole effect is to shock and frighten people, then you get arrested for disturbing the peace.

Wanting to arrest people you disagree with, because they scare you?  Yep, you are pretty darn liberal.
 
2014-02-06 11:00:11 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cman: I was making a dumb joke.

But of course. Carry on then.

Bareefer Obonghit: [i1123.photobucket.com image 407x405]


I can see that! We are all so proud of you too!

jso2897: Looking for a place where you won't be pissing your panties in terror 24/7? There is no such place for a coward.

I assume that you never lock your doors on your house or vehicle. You also have a sign in your front yard proclaiming that fact and that you are brave enough to say that you are not afraid of anything. Because anything short of that would be pure unadulterated cowardice.

cousin-merle: What's the crime rate like on the moon?

0.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-06 11:00:33 AM  

sendtodave: Wanting to arrest people you disagree with, because they scare you?  Yep, you are pretty darn liberal.


Scaring people can and should be a crime, you don't think so? I agree there are limits, but as a general rule, causing someone to be terrified seems like a pretty offensive thing to do.
 
2014-02-06 11:01:22 AM  

gravy chugging cretin.: WShat Texas open carriers might look like.

[www.opencarrytexas.org image 850x566]


Man, the new G.I. Joe reboot SUCKS.
 
2014-02-06 11:02:12 AM  

Saiga410: demaL-demaL-yeH: Cars are for transportation.
Firearms are for killin'.

/And you can fold your predictable sophistry until it's all sharp corners and push it up in there past your neck

Tell that to the guy that started with conflating firearm regulations and transportation regulations.  I was just taking the analogy a little farther.


Hmm.  You're right. They should have different treatment.
 
2014-02-06 11:02:54 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: What was it prior to the passage of the mandatory ownership law? Higher? Lower? The same?

Our survey says!


I love that your argument comprises of one data point from a town with fewer people than the college I went to.  I mean, it's amazing how they went from a couple burlgaries a year to just one drunk guy pulling the heads off parking meters.  Guns must solve everything.
 
2014-02-06 11:03:00 AM  

gravy chugging cretin.: WShat Texas open carriers might look like.

[www.opencarrytexas.org image 850x566]


sweet jesus, joseph and mary, WTF is that on the left?
 
2014-02-06 11:03:38 AM  

DamnYankees: sendtodave: Wanting to arrest people you disagree with, because they scare you?  Yep, you are pretty darn liberal.

Scaring people can and should be a crime, you don't think so? I agree there are limits, but as a general rule, causing someone to be terrified seems like a pretty offensive thing to do.


This mentality is why we can't have fun Halloweens any more, or splintery wooden playgrounds with the burning metal slides :'(

Everyone wants to feel safe all the damned time.
 
2014-02-06 11:05:05 AM  

sendtodave: Everyone wants to feel safe all the damned time.


Yes. People like feeling safe. Oh noes?
 
2014-02-06 11:05:06 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Dancin_In_Anson: shamanwest: About average for the affluency level regardless of gun laws?

What was it prior to the passage of the mandatory ownership law? Higher? Lower? The same?

Our survey says!

shamanwest: What do I win?

*sigh*
And what is happening to the overall crime rate everywhere in the United States, Mister Correlation_is_causality?


Heh - yeah, in a few years, a whole lot of "highly effective" crime solutions are going to fail suddenly. Right now, success can be claimed for any anti-crime measure taken - because crime keeps going down.
Sadly, in  a few years, the Boomers are going to die, and crime will start upwards again, as society trends younger again. Then all these things that "worked" are going to fail.
 
2014-02-06 11:06:19 AM  

DamnYankees: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

This is basically my stance - I'm in favor of making gun control a local issue, like any other policy. It makes sense in some areas, not others. This is why I believe the 2nd amendment is a bad idea.

But that makes me a gun grabber, I guess, since I'm in favor of local control.


Pretty much my opinion too.  I always carry when I am out on my friend's land in the middle of nowhere. I'm paranoid about snakes, I never carry when I go into the city.
 
2014-02-06 11:07:42 AM  

cousin-merle: I love that your argument comprises of one data point from a town with fewer people than the college I went to.


So the drop no matter how dramatic doesn't matter because it was in a small town.

I see. At what population would you say that you could make a conclusion? Your university? The city it was located in? Toldeo? Seattle? Dallas? Chicago? NYC?
 
2014-02-06 11:07:44 AM  

sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: Wanting to arrest people you disagree with, because they scare you?  Yep, you are pretty darn liberal.

Scaring people can and should be a crime, you don't think so? I agree there are limits, but as a general rule, causing someone to be terrified seems like a pretty offensive thing to do.

This mentality is why we can't have fun Halloweens any more, or splintery wooden playgrounds with the burning metal slides :'(

Everyone wants to feel safe all the damned time.


I'm fairly strong in favor of Second Amendment rights, and while I think, strictly speaking, the act of carrying a rifle into the grocery store is not in and of itself a crime, the kind of person who feels the need to carry a rifle into the grocery store is probably not the most balanced human being in the world, because doing that makes a lot of folks unnecessarily unnerved, so yes, it is probably appropriate to ask the person to leave, and the police called if necessary.
 
2014-02-06 11:09:34 AM  

Nabb1: I'm fairly strong in favor of Second Amendment rights, and while I think, strictly speaking, the act of carrying a rifle into the grocery store is not in and of itself a crime, the kind of person who feels the need to carry a rifle into the grocery store is probably not the most balanced human being in the world, because doing that makes a lot of folks unnecessarily unnerved, so yes, it is probably appropriate to ask the person to leave, and the police called if necessary.


In a lot of ways its very analogous to freedom of speech. Do you have the right to speak your political opinions? Sure. Do you have the right to go into a supermarket and start screaming at the top of your lungs about how Obama is going to destroy America? Well, no. You're bothering and scaring people, and you will be escorted out of the building. What's the difference?
 
2014-02-06 11:11:34 AM  
list of state constitutional provisions regarding the keeping and bearing of firearms.

Since the article is about Texas, here's theirs:

Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights, cl. 14.
1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.
1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.
 
2014-02-06 11:12:24 AM  

DamnYankees: Nabb1: I'm fairly strong in favor of Second Amendment rights, and while I think, strictly speaking, the act of carrying a rifle into the grocery store is not in and of itself a crime, the kind of person who feels the need to carry a rifle into the grocery store is probably not the most balanced human being in the world, because doing that makes a lot of folks unnecessarily unnerved, so yes, it is probably appropriate to ask the person to leave, and the police called if necessary.

In a lot of ways its very analogous to freedom of speech. Do you have the right to speak your political opinions? Sure. Do you have the right to go into a supermarket and start screaming at the top of your lungs about how Obama is going to destroy America? Well, no. You're bothering and scaring people, and you will be escorted out of the building. What's the difference?


I think it just goes back to the Golden Rule: Don't be an asshole. You can be right and yet still be an asshole, but don't be an asshole if you don't need to.
 
2014-02-06 11:12:30 AM  

give me doughnuts: Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).


So Texas has a much more limited right to arms than even the 2nd Amendment. Interesting.
 
2014-02-06 11:13:01 AM  
Whites with guns: God-fearing Merkins showing their Patriotic Pride
www.theblaze.com

Blacks with guns: OMG DIRTY GANGBANGERS
breakingbrown.com
 
2014-02-06 11:13:11 AM  
I doubt I'm the first to say this, but I hope she's just doing what she has to do to get elected in the Great State of Texas and she actually would love to disarm the masses.

True liberals are our only hope for ending this gun insanity.
 
2014-02-06 11:14:08 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cousin-merle: I love that your argument comprises of one data point from a town with fewer people than the college I went to.

So the drop no matter how dramatic doesn't matter because it was in a small town.

I see. At what population would you say that you could make a conclusion? Your university? The city it was located in? Toldeo? Seattle? Dallas? Chicago? NYC?


Until you have a measure of the underlying variability, your numbers cannot be meaningfully interpreted.
/Helpful hint: Measures of a rare event in a small population will likely have a lot of variability.
 
2014-02-06 11:14:21 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cman: I was making a dumb joke.

But of course. Carry on then.

Bareefer Obonghit:


I can see that! We are all so proud of you too!

jso2897: Looking for a place where you won't be pissing your panties in terror 24/7? There is no such place for a coward.

I assume that you never lock your doors on your house or vehicle. You also have a sign in your front yard proclaiming that fact and that you are brave enough to say that you are not afraid of anything. Because anything short of that would be pure unadulterated cowardice.

cousin-merle: What's the crime rate like on the moon?

0.


Bullshiat. How quickly we forget about the unauthorized moon rocks being sold as souvenirs!
 
2014-02-06 11:15:58 AM  
Yes, but the SECRET plan is for an expectant mother to shoot her fetus.  Never trust a lefty.  That's why as a True Patriot, I oppose handguns to protect babies.
 
2014-02-06 11:16:08 AM  

DamnYankees: Nabb1: I'm fairly strong in favor of Second Amendment rights, and while I think, strictly speaking, the act of carrying a rifle into the grocery store is not in and of itself a crime, the kind of person who feels the need to carry a rifle into the grocery store is probably not the most balanced human being in the world, because doing that makes a lot of folks unnecessarily unnerved, so yes, it is probably appropriate to ask the person to leave, and the police called if necessary.

In a lot of ways its very analogous to freedom of speech. Do you have the right to speak your political opinions? Sure. Do you have the right to go into a supermarket and start screaming at the top of your lungs about how Obama is going to destroy America? Well, no. You're bothering and scaring people, and you will be escorted out of the building. What's the difference?


There is also the more ephemeral matter of place, time, and ambience. In the little East Texas town my dad hails from, during deer season, walking into Odom's Greengrocers with your .30-06 over your shoulder wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
On the other hand, that big old Von's down on Imperial right on the dividing line between the Sholine Crips and the Rolling 60s might not want be a store you'd want to walk into with a visible firearm.
 
2014-02-06 11:17:15 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cousin-merle: I love that your argument comprises of one data point from a town with fewer people than the college I went to.

So the drop no matter how dramatic doesn't matter because it was in a small town.

I see. At what population would you say that you could make a conclusion? Your university? The city it was located in? Toldeo? Seattle? Dallas? Chicago? NYC?


Do small towns have huge crime rates?
 
2014-02-06 11:17:33 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Saiga410: demaL-demaL-yeH: Cars are for transportation.
Firearms are for killin'.

/And you can fold your predictable sophistry until it's all sharp corners and push it up in there past your neck

Tell that to the guy that started with conflating firearm regulations and transportation regulations.  I was just taking the analogy a little farther.

Hmm.  You're right. They should have different treatment.


Yep we need rules on the proper use of them.  Though I guess you would disagree with my assertion that transportation of a firearm is not actual use,
 
2014-02-06 11:18:32 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Yes, but the SECRET plan is for an expectant mother to shoot her fetus.  Never trust a lefty.  That's why as a True Patriot, I oppose handguns to protect babies.


That's why you should support open carry for the fetus.
 
2014-02-06 11:19:36 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: So the drop no matter how dramatic doesn't matter because it was in a small town.


That's not what I said.  I said that I liked that it was your only data point.  You are just cherry-picking by looking at one year in one small town.  You linked an article that said the crime rate went from 7 burglaries per 100,000 before the law to 2.7 after.  Then what?  It's almost 20 times higher now than when they passed the law and higher than neighboring Acworth, which does not require gun ownership.  You are being intellectually dishonest, as usual.
 
2014-02-06 11:23:51 AM  
Left Wing Pol adopts Right Wing stance to appeal to the electorate: Media Darling

Right Wing Pol adopts Left Wing stance to appeal to the electorate: OMG RINO!

Keep pushing to the right. Right off a cliff...
 
2014-02-06 11:24:18 AM  

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

And I could own a gun without needing a license if I only used it on private property, and if I chose to carry in public, my license to carry would be honored by all 50 states and every single town and city.  I wouldn't face arrest in New York City (and state), New Jersey, or Chicago because I was carrying on a concealed carry license issued in my home state.


Well, New York could presumably choose to no longer license drivers if it wanted. But other than that, the rest sounds fine with me.

Personally, I would like to be able to open carry in my city. It is de jure legal to do so, but not de facto.

By that I mean I am permitted by state and local law to open carry, but I am a black guy, so if I did I would never be able to get from point A to point B without getting thrown on the ground and handcuffed by every cop I encountered.

Cops around here don't particularly like anyone to have guns but them, and they don't hesitate to make sure you know that.
 
2014-02-06 11:24:45 AM  
Despite being fairly liberal I don't mind open carry as long as it's legally owned, registered, and the person carrying it isn't a certified nutjob or criminal.

Not even about polite society or anything like that, infact I'd almost like to see someone being all "not only do I target shoot like a boss this color and style of holster and gun looks absolutely amazing with this outfit." It would be humorous and interesting.

More seriously disturbing the peace is such a generalized thing that you don't even need a gun or to try hard to get someone calling for that. Seen customers in a restaurant disturb the peace more than someone walking with a holstered gun.
 
2014-02-06 11:26:15 AM  

DamnYankees: Nabb1: I'm fairly strong in favor of Second Amendment rights, and while I think, strictly speaking, the act of carrying a rifle into the grocery store is not in and of itself a crime, the kind of person who feels the need to carry a rifle into the grocery store is probably not the most balanced human being in the world, because doing that makes a lot of folks unnecessarily unnerved, so yes, it is probably appropriate to ask the person to leave, and the police called if necessary.

In a lot of ways its very analogous to freedom of speech. Do you have the right to speak your political opinions? Sure. Do you have the right to go into a supermarket and start screaming at the top of your lungs about how Obama is going to destroy America? Well, no. You're bothering and scaring people, and you will be escorted out of the building. What's the difference?


It is the whole "my ;rights end at the tip of my nose" concept. Also, any property owner should be allowed to determine whether they will allow firearms in the place of business. If the attention whores want to walk into the mall with their ARs, and that mall has a no weapons policy, then they're trespassing. Simple as that, no longer responsible gun owners and now at the very least, committing a misdemeanor.

If a community thinks that walking down the street with your AR slung as you AW your way across town is brandishing, then it is brandishing. Again, local community rules are appropriate. These can all work within the Second Amendment, though. I'm not certain a community has as much of an interest in what you own but they could certainly decide how that item can be used and transported. They can also determine what is and what is not safe storage of items.

DamnYankees: give me doughnuts: Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).

So Texas has a much more limited right to arms than even the 2nd Amendment. Interesting.


Texas also has shorter license periods and higher fees for CCW than a lot of other places. There are some tough laws regarding printing (as in a weapon showing an outline through clothing).
 
2014-02-06 11:28:18 AM  

cman: It's Texas. If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.


Yeah, basically this.  People in the country hunt, people in the cities hit the range regularly.  Gun sports are probably the one hobby that beats out Football here, if only because most of us actually participate rather than watching them on the TV.

Long story short, no one's rabbit-hearted enough about 'em for it to be possible to incite an irrational panic about guns, since most people own a couple themselves or at least hang out with someone that does.  So they're not a viable political scare-mongering tool here and thus not an element of the Democratic platform.

// You get a lot of pro-immigration Republicans here, too, since we have an agricultural sector that depends on short-term labor.  State politics aren't necessarily national politics.
 
2014-02-06 11:29:14 AM  

Saiga410: demaL-demaL-yeH: Saiga410: demaL-demaL-yeH: Cars are for transportation.
Firearms are for killin'.

/And you can fold your predictable sophistry until it's all sharp corners and push it up in there past your neck

Tell that to the guy that started with conflating firearm regulations and transportation regulations.  I was just taking the analogy a little farther.

Hmm.  You're right. They should have different treatment.

Yep we need rules on the proper use of them.  Though I guess you would disagree with my assertion that transportation of a firearm is not actual use,


I wonder when one of the drooling morons who calls me a gun-grabber is going to catch the modal.

I am firmly of the school that walking around armed in public for no good reason should not be inflicted on the public. People who do so increase the risk to themselves and to the general public.
Examples of good reasons to walk around armed in public:
1) My job requires it.
2) I am in a combat zone.
3) It is hunting season.
4) I have received a specific threat to my person/family.
5) I am known to carry large sums of cash/diamonds/bearer bonds.

Examples of bad "reasons" to walk around armed in public:
1) I am afraid of non melanin-disdvantaged people.
2) I feel like it.
3) I am paranoid and the world is a scary place.
4) It's muh gol-durned right.

If you're walking around armed in public due to a non-specific threat, you had damned well better be carrying a first aid kit and a fire extinguisher. You will actually need those. You're also overdue for corrective training in threat assessment, and, failing that, a mental health exam.
 
2014-02-06 11:31:19 AM  
When I get home, I'm going to ask my FIL how he feels about open carry. I wouldn't call him a gun nut, but he is a gun collector. Some of you collectors would blush at the stuff he has (and even as a non-gun guy, some of his rifles are just beautiful). But he is also a retired cop, so it would be cool to ask him about it.

I'm a libby lib that is just conflicted about guns. About a year ago, my buddy and I did the trap shooting thing at a local range and it was insanely fun. I also have a .22 rifle sitting in a gun safe that my grandpa gave my dad that I will be good goddamned to ever give up. I have like 2 things from my grandpa and I'll go Heston on that one (speaking of such things, I need to hit my uncles up for my other grandpa's hunting rifles. I would like to have 1 or 2).
 
2014-02-06 11:34:00 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cousin-merle: I love that your argument comprises of one data point from a town with fewer people than the college I went to.

So the drop no matter how dramatic doesn't matter because it was in a small town.

I see. At what population would you say that you could make a conclusion? Your university? The city it was located in? Toldeo? Seattle? Dallas? Chicago? NYC?


Wait.  Is this that dumb Kennesaw thing again?  Kennesaw went from a redneck shiathole to an upper-middle class suburb.  It's crime rate dropped because its white trash population moved farther out to Douglasville (which has a crime rate of twice the national average).

It's always demographics, but gun nerds love to think their toys are the end all be all of safety.    I live in the most hippie libulardo zip code in GA and our crime rate is half of GA's crime rate because 25% of us have a Master's degree.  If you want to avoid crime, don't be poor.

Personally, I want mandatory gun ownership for all Americans so when nothing changes the gun nerds will shut up about it.  Wait, who am I kidding? They'll just mandate more guns for every citizen.

We'll all be wearing pants made of guns and then when nothing changes they'll demand we all wear shirts made of guns.
 
2014-02-06 11:34:58 AM  
I want to open carry a crossbow. Who farks with a guy with a crossbow?
 
2014-02-06 11:35:15 AM  

Nabb1: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: Wanting to arrest people you disagree with, because they scare you?  Yep, you are pretty darn liberal.

Scaring people can and should be a crime, you don't think so? I agree there are limits, but as a general rule, causing someone to be terrified seems like a pretty offensive thing to do.

This mentality is why we can't have fun Halloweens any more, or splintery wooden playgrounds with the burning metal slides :'(

Everyone wants to feel safe all the damned time.

I'm fairly strong in favor of Second Amendment rights, and while I think, strictly speaking, the act of carrying a rifle into the grocery store is not in and of itself a crime, the kind of person who feels the need to carry a rifle into the grocery store is probably not the most balanced human being in the world, because doing that makes a lot of folks unnecessarily unnerved, so yes, it is probably appropriate to ask the person to leave, and the police called if necessary.


Yeah, but that gets tricky.  Police arrive:

"Why are you carrying a rifle in the grocery store?"

Average mentally unhinged person:  "Brahahahaggh!  I do what I want!  I have rights!"

Average second amendment champion:  "Brahahahaggh!  I do what I want!  I have rights!"

See?  How to tell the difference?

If the police arrest the former, they're keeping the place safe, but if they arrest the latter, they're trampling someone rights with their jackboots.

Better to either allow or deny everyone.  And we can't deny everyone, because  rights.
 
2014-02-06 11:35:24 AM  

ladodger34: When I get home, I'm going to ask my FIL how he feels about open carry. I wouldn't call him a gun nut, but he is a gun collector. Some of you collectors would blush at the stuff he has (and even as a non-gun guy, some of his rifles are just beautiful). But he is also a retired cop, so it would be cool to ask him about it.


My old man carries concealed on a regular basis because he carries a lot of cash for his business.  He considers open carry people to be attention whores.
 
2014-02-06 11:36:59 AM  
Though I once admired her for her heroic stance against restricting abortion rights, now that I know there is this one issue I disagree with her on she is dead to me.
 
2014-02-06 11:38:28 AM  

Epic Fap Session: I want to open carry a crossbow. Who farks with a guy with a crossbow?


Well, Tywin Lannister.
 
2014-02-06 11:38:34 AM  

BunkoSquad: Here's another lib who's fine with open carry, on the theory that you maybe can't judge a book by its cover, but a candy bar wrapper that says "NUTS" on the outside is a pretty good clue what might be inside


So, if I gave you a Snickers, and you unwrapped the candy, you would except to get some Snickers instead of, let's say... A... Angry live King Cobra!

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-06 11:39:14 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Epic Fap Session: I want to open carry a crossbow. Who farks with a guy with a crossbow?

Well, Tywin Lannister.


*Ahem* Let us not spoil the children, please.
 
2014-02-06 11:39:36 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: jso2897: I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.

For one thing, it would pretty much wipe out all the local gun control laws that prohibit or highly restrict the carrying of concealed weapons.

I would *LOVE* for guns to be treated like cars, because it would result in a significant *LOOSENING* of the laws in my state.

But that's not what those proposals usually mean.  Generally, when people talk about treating guns like cars, what they really mean is that they want significantly stricter requirements on guns than we have on car ownership.   They want something like NYC, where getting permission to carry a gun for self-protection is nigh on impossible unless you are very rich and/or politically well connected.

Or have a specific threat hanging over you?


We've been over why that doesn't work
 
2014-02-06 11:39:51 AM  

Dinki: I'm purty darn Liberal. If you have a legally owned gun, that is registered and you have had proper training, then you should be able to open carry. Out in the country, in your own yard, in your car, at the range, when you are hunting, or at a gun show or other gun related event. If you carry it into a mall, a farmers market, or down main street, where the sole effect is to shock and frighten people, then you get arrested for disturbing the peace. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to be an attention  whore asshat.



That's what the First Amendment is for.

/Only carry concealed.
 
2014-02-06 11:40:06 AM  
I prefer open carry to concealed carry. Makes it easier to spot the big swinging dicks.

And if somebody is starting to cause a ruckus, and I see they have some chromium confidence strapped to them, I know to get the fark out of there asap.
 
2014-02-06 11:40:07 AM  

Dinki: The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to be an attention whore asshat


No, but the 1st amendment does.
 
2014-02-06 11:40:22 AM  
So, basically, a politician in favor of freedom of choice in one area...abortion..is also in favor of freedom of choice in another area...open carry...

I am shocked and dismayed by her consistency.

Actually, I'm not.
 
2014-02-06 11:41:58 AM  

gravy chugging cretin.: WShat Texas open carriers might look like.

[www.opencarrytexas.org image 850x566]


Fred felt like an idiot because he thought everyone agreed to wear a mask. Now he's just silly.
 
2014-02-06 11:42:05 AM  

xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??


She's Texan if she doesn't support open carry she will become a pariah. You'll find some big ol pro-gay marriage, give us canada health care and free uni socialist style liberals down there that are also VERY open Carey.
 
2014-02-06 11:42:35 AM  
Now I REALLY look forward to voting for her.

I'm a pretty solid Democrat voter these days, but I do agree with the Republicans on guns. (Even if I want to smack some of them with a rolled up newspaper for how they make their arguments.) So to have a Democrat be pro-gun just seals the deal for me
 
2014-02-06 11:44:59 AM  

Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: jso2897: I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.

For one thing, it would pretty much wipe out all the local gun control laws that prohibit or highly restrict the carrying of concealed weapons.

I would *LOVE* for guns to be treated like cars, because it would result in a significant *LOOSENING* of the laws in my state.

But that's not what those proposals usually mean.  Generally, when people talk about treating guns like cars, what they really mean is that they want significantly stricter requirements on guns than we have on car ownership.   They want something like NYC, where getting permission to carry a gun for self-protection is nigh on impossible unless you are very rich and/or politically well connected.

Or have a specific threat hanging over you?

We've been over why that doesn't work


No, you just make excuses for doing something in almost the most stupid way possible, you know - the American way (c.f. health insurance, progressive taxation, business regulation, etc.).
/Are you angling for demotion from pharma sales rep to internet dentist?
 
2014-02-06 11:46:35 AM  

Epic Fap Session: I want to open carry a crossbow. Who farks with a guy with a crossbow?


Obviously a druid with the warp wood spell, duh.
 
2014-02-06 11:48:08 AM  
I'm playing Borderlands 2 right now it is awesome.  Is that what Texas is going to be like?
 
2014-02-06 11:48:33 AM  

dittybopper: But that's not what those proposals usually mean.  Generally, when people talk about treating guns like cars, what they really mean is that they want significantly stricter requirements on guns than we have on car ownership.   They want something like NYC, where getting permission to carry a gun for self-protection is nigh on impossible unless you are very rich and/or politically well connected.


NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

I guess you can argue "well, they have to be more restrictive because there are so many people there."

China also argues that.

/the future?
 
2014-02-06 11:49:09 AM  

Great_Milenko: I prefer open carry to concealed carry. Makes it easier to spot the big swinging dicks.

And if somebody is starting to cause a ruckus, and I see they have some chromium confidence strapped to them, I know to get the fark out of there asap.


You do realize that like 99% of the open carry movement is about just not worrying about it, right?  It's about people not panicking or there being any particular connotation to seeing a gun being carried around, beyond a general impression that now you know something about the person's hobbies.

Being strapped for the purposes of intimidating people is and always will be in the "still illegal" category.

// Open carry used to be legal basically everywhere, and you only got in trouble if you tried to conceal your piece.  The logic being that people have guns, deal with it, you pussy, but if they were trying to hide it they were likely up to no good.  Current law is weirdly backward.
 
2014-02-06 11:50:02 AM  

sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?


Yes, NYC is a freedomless hellhole. You nailed it.
 
2014-02-06 11:52:09 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Great_Milenko: I prefer open carry to concealed carry. Makes it easier to spot the big swinging dicks.

And if somebody is starting to cause a ruckus, and I see they have some chromium confidence strapped to them, I know to get the fark out of there asap.

You do realize that like 99% of the open carry movement is about just not worrying about it, right?  It's about people not panicking or there being any particular connotation to seeing a gun being carried around, beyond a general impression that now you know something about the person's hobbies.

Being strapped for the purposes of intimidating people is and always will be in the "still illegal" category.

// Open carry used to be legal basically everywhere, and you only got in trouble if you tried to conceal your piece.   The logic being that people have guns, deal with it, you pussy, but if they were trying to hide it they were likely up to no good.  Current law is weirdly backward.


*blink*
On your home planet, the people going about their daily business UNarmed are the ones who are afraid.
That's ...


that's ....


special.
 
2014-02-06 11:54:42 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Whites with guns: God-fearing Merkins showing their Patriotic Pride
[www.theblaze.com image 620x302]

Blacks with guns: OMG DIRTY GANGBANGERS
[breakingbrown.com image 600x450]


Is it just me, or do the folks in the first picture remind anyone else of those kids from high school who played D&D and read comics, and yet still ended up Republicans?
 
2014-02-06 11:55:15 AM  

Dimensio: Muta: Dimensio: Muta was not presenting an argument, thus no "fallacy" was invoked; Muta was attempting to indulge an obsession in an entirely inappropriate forum, and I was commenting on that fact.

No, Muta was presenting his opinion on why he is more comfortable with open carry over concealed carry.  Apparently gun nuts are so closed minded that not only do you have to support open carry but you have to support it for the proper gun nut approved reasons.

That your opinion of the carrying of firearms is in some way related to male genitalia is itself indication of an obsession with male genitalia.


You seem to be fixated on that part of his post while ignoring the rest of it.  Thou doth protest too much.
 
2014-02-06 11:55:18 AM  
Open Carry: Be the first target!
 
2014-02-06 11:55:21 AM  

DamnYankees: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

Yes, NYC is a freedomless hellhole. You nailed it.


Freedom is being able to piss off of your back porch.

So I guess NYC is still cool.
 
2014-02-06 11:55:55 AM  

gravy chugging cretin.: WShat Texas open carriers might look like.

[www.opencarrytexas.org image 850x566]


*SNICKER*
 
2014-02-06 11:58:13 AM  

Doublespeak: Dimensio: Muta: Dimensio: Muta was not presenting an argument, thus no "fallacy" was invoked; Muta was attempting to indulge an obsession in an entirely inappropriate forum, and I was commenting on that fact.

No, Muta was presenting his opinion on why he is more comfortable with open carry over concealed carry.  Apparently gun nuts are so closed minded that not only do you have to support open carry but you have to support it for the proper gun nut approved reasons.

That your opinion of the carrying of firearms is in some way related to male genitalia is itself indication of an obsession with male genitalia.

You seem to be fixated on that part of his post while ignoring the rest of it.  Thou doth

dost* protest too much.

The laddy doth protest too much, methinks.

/Would have also accepted doest.
 
2014-02-06 11:58:21 AM  
Davis' position now aligns her with her Republican gubernatorial rival, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, marking her latest effort to eliminate it as a wedge issue in the campaign.

I thought she was different, now I see she too will say anything to get elected.
 
2014-02-06 12:01:21 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: No


Actually, yes we have.

Again, who gets to determine what constitutes a threat and if it is specific enough?  You still have yet to respond to repeated questions on this as you know that you are hosed as soon as you do.
 
2014-02-06 12:02:01 PM  

Descartes: Davis' position now aligns her with her Republican gubernatorial rival, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, marking her latest effort to eliminate it as a wedge issue in the campaign.

I thought she was different, now I see she too will say anything to get elected.


Um with the exception of cc on college campuses she has a pretty pro-gun record.
 
2014-02-06 12:03:13 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: am firmly of the school that walking around armed in public for no good reason should not be inflicted on the public. People who do so increase the risk to themselves and to the general public.


I can look at that and conceptially agree that the having firearms probably do increase the risks for everyone.... but we just went through a time where carry laws have changed.  We have data on before and after allowing carry.  There is no stastical bump, nothing.  I do not feel right basing law on your gut feeling.
 
2014-02-06 12:04:46 PM  

dababler: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

She's Texan if she doesn't support open carry she will become a pariah. You'll find some big ol pro-gay marriage, give us canada health care and free uni socialist style liberals down there that are also VERY open Carey.


Actually, guns just aren't that big of  a deal in Texas. Everyone here either shoots or knows someone that does so guns aren't that scary. I'm not surprised she supports open-carry, she probably just doesn't want to talk about guns because it's a non-issue here.
 
2014-02-06 12:05:24 PM  

sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?


It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.
 
2014-02-06 12:06:51 PM  
It's almost like liberals aren't single issue voters.
 
2014-02-06 12:08:01 PM  

gravy chugging cretin.: WShat Texas open carriers might look like.

[www.opencarrytexas.org image 850x566]


Looks like the local LARP group.
 
2014-02-06 12:08:30 PM  

Fart_Machine: Dancin_In_Anson: cousin-merle: I love that your argument comprises of one data point from a town with fewer people than the college I went to.

So the drop no matter how dramatic doesn't matter because it was in a small town.

I see. At what population would you say that you could make a conclusion? Your university? The city it was located in? Toldeo? Seattle? Dallas? Chicago? NYC?

Do small towns have huge crime rates?


Well, there's this little town in Maine, Cabot Cove, that is just off the charts.
 
2014-02-06 12:09:32 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Current law is weirdly backward.


It isn't backward if you remember where the bans on open carry came from.
images.flatworldknowledge.com
mije.org
 
2014-02-06 12:11:30 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: metal peenus


NOT A FETISH!!
 
2014-02-06 12:13:50 PM  

Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.


They tried to ban soda.
 
2014-02-06 12:14:31 PM  

dr_blasto: Jim_Callahan: Current law is weirdly backward.

It isn't backward if you remember where the bans on open carry came from.
[images.flatworldknowledge.com image 850x607]
[mije.org image 536x409]


The dude in the front looks like The Fresh Prince.
 
2014-02-06 12:15:44 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: cousin-merle: What's the crime rate like on the moon?

0.


Incorrect, every person who has visited is an unrepentant litterer.
 
2014-02-06 12:16:24 PM  

dr_blasto: Jim_Callahan: Current law is weirdly backward.

It isn't backward if you remember where the bans on open carry came from.
[images.flatworldknowledge.com image 850x607]
[mije.org image 536x409]


OMIGOD look at those THUGS!
 
2014-02-06 12:16:29 PM  

DarnoKonrad: Dinki: I'm purty darn Liberal. If you have a legally owned gun, that is registered and you have had proper training, then you should be able to open carry. Out in the country, in your own yard, in your car, at the range, when you are hunting, or at a gun show or other gun related event. If you carry it into a mall, a farmers market, or down main street, where the sole effect is to shock and frighten people, then you get arrested for disturbing the peace. The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to be an attention  whore asshat.

I think it should be mandatory for any personal carry.  At the very least it's a good short hand for who to avoid.  Conceal carry, that shiat should be illegal.


I'm a libtard too... and I believe open carry is the only thing that makes sense, and may even be a real crime deterrent.  It is the guys who insist on the "element of surprise" angle to concealed carry that creep me out.  If you only cared about preventing crime, open carry that shiat.
 
2014-02-06 12:20:51 PM  

Nadie_AZ: dittybopper: Nadie_AZ: So you could say her gun views are liberal, right?

Heh.

You don't have to be a conservative to support an individual right to keep and bear arms.  In fact, there isn't really anything about that right that goes against any fundamental, classically liberal ideas.

I agree. I'm 'a liberal' and own a few guns. And when I can, I'd like a few more. It doesn't seem right that I live in Arizona and don't own a 30 30. It just doesn't.


Same here.  I'm a pretty staunch liberal but I have a Sig p226 and a Mossberg.
 
2014-02-06 12:22:53 PM  
I'm as liberal as can be and don't mind open carry, lets you know what pathetic cowardly limpdicks not to associate with.
 
2014-02-06 12:23:07 PM  

sendtodave: Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.

They tried to ban soda.


False, and I'm pretty sure I've corrected you about this in the past.
 
2014-02-06 12:23:24 PM  

dr_blasto: Jim_Callahan: Current law is weirdly backward.

It isn't backward if you remember where the bans on open carry came from.
[images.flatworldknowledge.com image 850x607]
[mije.org image 536x409]


The Mulford Act signed into law by the liberal Gov. Ronald Reagan! (also supported by the NRA!) We can't let them uppity blah people be carrying guns.
 
2014-02-06 12:25:09 PM  

factoryconnection: gothelder: (I would have a nuke if I could get away with it.)

As a person that has served on a SSBN, I can tell you: the paperwork alone for those bad boys would deter any sane person.


They also don't react very well to bulletsh.
 
2014-02-06 12:26:02 PM  

Saiga410: demaL-demaL-yeH: am firmly of the school that walking around armed in public for no good reason should not be inflicted on the public. People who do so increase the risk to themselves and to the general public.

I can look at that and conceptially agree that the having firearms probably do increase the risks for everyone.... but we just went through a time where carry laws have changed.  We have data on before and after allowing carry.  There is no stastical bump, nothing.  I do not feel right basing law on your gut feeling.


In Arizona, the number of firearm homicides went up when constitutional carry was enacted. Guess what happened with suicides.
And, given that Arizona has roughly 40% higher firearm violence rates than the national average, it should come as no surprise that I walk around unarmed.
 
2014-02-06 12:27:17 PM  

dr_blasto: Jim_Callahan: Current law is weirdly backward.

It isn't backward if you remember where the bans on open carry came from.
[images.flatworldknowledge.com image 850x607]
[mije.org image 536x409]


Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan, who saw no need for people to walk around armed in public.
 
2014-02-06 12:27:46 PM  

sendtodave: Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.

They tried to ban soda.


You know that's not true, and even if it was, it wouldn't justify your original generalization.
 
2014-02-06 12:28:22 PM  

Rapmaster2000: dr_blasto: Jim_Callahan: Current law is weirdly backward.

It isn't backward if you remember where the bans on open carry came from.
[images.flatworldknowledge.com image 850x607]
[mije.org image 536x409]

OMIGOD look at those THUGS!


Which makes this f*cking hilarious:
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-06 12:29:17 PM  

Cletus C.: I doubt I'm the first to say this, but I hope she's just doing what she has to do to get elected in the Great State of Texas and she actually would love to disarm the masses.

True liberals are our only hope for ending this gun insanity.


Or she realizes that anti-gun hysteria is stupid, and people should be free to get an abortion, get gay married, and own a gun ,if not open carry it, if they so choose. I would actually like her less if she planned to be anti-gun once in office.

DamnYankees: sendtodave: Everyone wants to feel safe all the damned time.

Yes. People like feeling safe. Oh noes?


Feeling safe and being safe are often two different things. That's why we have the TSA at the airports. What they do is theater. It makes people feel safe, but it doesn't actually make us safer. Actual safety measures are often unseen, happing behind the curtain. But that's not good enough, people want to feel safe, so they tolerate the scanners, pat downs, and other needless "security."

Remember, people who don't vaccinate their children also do it to "feel safe."

demaL-demaL-yeH: I am firmly of the school that walking around armed in public for no good reason should not be inflicted on the public. People who do so increase the risk to themselves and to the general public.


Citation needed. People against gay marriage are so certain that it will be bad for society and children, but they have no evidence to back up what they "know" to be true. Same thing with your argument. It's based on personal feeling and hysteria, not actual facts or logic.
 
2014-02-06 12:30:14 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: dr_blasto: Jim_Callahan: Current law is weirdly backward.

It isn't backward if you remember where the bans on open carry came from.
[images.flatworldknowledge.com image 850x607]
[mije.org image 536x409]

Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan, who saw no need for people to walk around armed in public.


s.quickmeme.com
 
2014-02-06 12:30:40 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.


Why?
 
2014-02-06 12:30:49 PM  

dr_blasto: Rapmaster2000: dr_blasto: Jim_Callahan: Current law is weirdly backward.

It isn't backward if you remember where the bans on open carry came from.
[images.flatworldknowledge.com image 850x607]
[mije.org image 536x409]

OMIGOD look at those THUGS!

Which makes this f*cking hilarious:
[25.media.tumblr.com image 398x480]


The guy who pressured the final two Republicans needed to pass the AWB?
The guy who urged passage of the Brady Bill, and especially the waiting period?
That guy?
 
2014-02-06 12:32:51 PM  

soporific: People against gay marriage are so certain that it will be bad for society and children, but they have no evidence to back up what they "know" to be true. Same thing with your argument. It's based on personal feeling and hysteria, not actual facts or logic.


While I don't necessarily agree that there is a plethora of evidence on the effect of open carry on crime, this is a poor strawman analogy.   The "harms" of gay marriage on society and children are 100% speculative, the harms of a piece of metal being shot at high speed from a deadly weapon designed to kill human beings are fairly definitive.
 
2014-02-06 12:33:37 PM  

DamnYankees: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

This is basically my stance - I'm in favor of making gun control a local issue, like any other policy. It makes sense in some areas, not others. This is why I believe the 2nd amendment is a bad idea.

But that makes me a gun grabber, I guess, since I'm in favor of local control.


Fantastic, so gun owners need to be aware of the legal status of their firearm while driving through dozens of townships on their way to the range
 
2014-02-06 12:33:49 PM  

Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?


Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.
 
2014-02-06 12:34:17 PM  

soporific: Citation needed. People against gay marriage are so certain that it will be bad for society and children, but they have no evidence to back up what they "know" to be true. Same thing with your argument. It's based on personal feeling and hysteria, not actual facts or logic.


Even with that, his biggest issue that he cannot explain is who gets to decide if a reason is good enough or if a specific threat is either specific or threatening enough.

Seriously, if he cannot even answer these questions - his entire proposal is bunk.
 
2014-02-06 12:34:53 PM  

soporific: Citation needed. People against gay marriage are so certain that it will be bad for society and children, but they have no evidence to back up what they "know" to be true. Same thing with your argument. It's based on personal feeling and hysteria, not actual facts or logic.


How many people get killed by unintentional gay marriage discharges every year?  Actually, I really don't want to know.
 
2014-02-06 12:35:09 PM  

DamnYankees: sendtodave: Wanting to arrest people you disagree with, because they scare you?  Yep, you are pretty darn liberal.

Scaring people can and should be a crime, you don't think so? I agree there are limits, but as a general rule, causing someone to be terrified seems like a pretty offensive thing to do.


Your talk is scaring me, you should be arrested
 
2014-02-06 12:37:55 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Whites with guns: God-fearing Merkins showing their Patriotic Pride


Blacks with guns: OMG DIRTY GANGBANGERS


the guy at the bottom is an NRA spokesperson. Colin Noir is awesome.
 
2014-02-06 12:38:11 PM  

Wooly Bully: As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.


Just got back from NYC.  It was a lovely trip where I met the most wonderful NYers.  Never felt my freedom was limited.  I did not understand why there was a West 3rd St, West 4th St and then a couple of blocks later East 9th, but somehow we managed to find our restaurant with the help of a nice taxi driver.

Does anyone need a metro card?  I brought mine home for no good reason.
 
2014-02-06 12:39:00 PM  
Dear subtard, a Texas Democrat is not Left Wing... a Texas Democrat has roughly the same political ideology as a TEA Party Member in the Northeast.
 
2014-02-06 12:40:05 PM  

SomeoneDumb: One of the lesser mentioned benefits of open carry is that it lets me identify quickly which people have decided that they're willing

itchingto take a human life.

FTFY.
 
2014-02-06 12:40:29 PM  

soporific: Citation needed. People against gay marriage are so certain that it will be bad for society and children, but they have no evidence to back up what they "know" to be true. Same thing with your argument. It's based on personal feeling and hysteria, not actual facts or logic.


How many of these would happen without firearms?
Or these?
Or these?
Or these?

Really? What will you want next, evidence that water is wet?
 
2014-02-06 12:42:49 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.


Slippery slope there. Well, kinda..

Though I agree with this stance, open carry, I'm curious how people would feel if home, health, and life insurance were factored in. Possibly pay more, if insurance charged because of that? AFAIK, it would be legal. It's at their discretion for terms. You can't argue 2nd amendment on it, since you're opting in. Yes, I realize it's a state* requirement for cars, and now health*, but owning a gun isn't required.

Statistically, accident and death by firearm goes up if there is one or more in the home. Stands to reason, given that side by side between cars and guns, that insurance is the next step. Given how most of you feel about Open Carry, and CCL, how would all of you feel if you had to pay more, or got less on the home, health, and life insurance side of things, if it indeed went that way?

Just food for thought.. Election is going to be interesting this year....
 
2014-02-06 12:43:18 PM  

soporific: Now I REALLY look forward to voting for her.

I'm a pretty solid Democrat voter these days, but I do agree with the Republicans on guns. (Even if I want to smack some of them with a rolled up newspaper for how they make their arguments.) So to have a Democrat be pro-gun just seals the deal for me


See, my beef with that statement is that it's largely a myth, mostly perpetuated by Republicans to get a few fence-sitters who would vote for Democrats, but cling to their guns a little too tightly.  In fact, I would say that the track record for the last decade is that Democrats have been largely better on gun rights than Republicans.  At the very least, Democrats are open about wanting to curb crime, but are also more open to the fact that the 2nd amendment exists.  They wouldn't do something stupid like kill a bill that would ease firearms restrictions on public lands solely because a Democrat introduced it, then say wit was because of a minor increase in a duck stamp fee (See Sportsmen's Act of 2012, S.3525 of 112th Congress, introduced by Jon Tester, D-MT).  Democrats are more flexible to using other means to curb such violence, even if they aren't nearly as effective as an unconstitutional gun grab.  Meanwhile, Republicans are hurting their own cause by being totally inflexible about gun legislation, by seeing any gun legislation as being an "assault on law-abiding gun owners"...yet hypocritically killing gun rights measures just because they were proposed by Democrats.
 
2014-02-06 12:43:42 PM  

HeadLever: soporific: Citation needed. People against gay marriage are so certain that it will be bad for society and children, but they have no evidence to back up what they "know" to be true. Same thing with your argument. It's based on personal feeling and hysteria, not actual facts or logic.

Even with that, his biggest issue that he cannot explain is who gets to decide if a reason is good enough or if a specific threat is either specific or threatening enough.

Seriously, if he cannot even answer these questions - his entire proposal is bunk.


Am I the 'he' in that sentence?
 
2014-02-06 12:43:50 PM  

Muta: As the liberalist libtard that ever libbed, I am more comfortable with open carry over concealed.  Open carry show you who the small-penissed paranoid morons are whereas concealed carry conceals the small penises.


That's easy enough to solve. Require that all people who conceal a firearm go without pants. There are few social situations that going without pants can't improve immeasurably.
 
2014-02-06 12:45:18 PM  

Wooly Bully: sendtodave: Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.

They tried to ban soda.

You know that's not true, and even if it was, it wouldn't justify your original generalization.


I can still go to New York and buy soda.
 
2014-02-06 12:48:42 PM  

DamnYankees: Am I the 'he' in that sentence?


No.  not unless you are an alt of  demaL-demaL-yeHor think that no one should be carry a firearm unless they are subject to a specific threat.
 
2014-02-06 12:49:14 PM  
Nice concern trolling.  Who, exactly, is outraged about this?
 
2014-02-06 12:49:28 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: jso2897: I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.

For one thing, it would pretty much wipe out all the local gun control laws that prohibit or highly restrict the carrying of concealed weapons.

I would *LOVE* for guns to be treated like cars, because it would result in a significant *LOOSENING* of the laws in my state.

But that's not what those proposals usually mean.  Generally, when people talk about treating guns like cars, what they really mean is that they want significantly stricter requirements on guns than we have on car ownership.   They want something like NYC, where getting permission to carry a gun for self-protection is nigh on impossible unless you are very rich and/or politically well connected.

Or have a specific threat hanging over you?

We've been over why that doesn't work

No, you just make excuses for doing something in almost the most stupid way possible, you know - the American way (c.f. health insurance, progressive taxation, business regulation, etc.).
/Are you angling for demotion from pharma sales rep to internet dentist?


There are numerous examples of why it is a grave error to allow the government to grant permission to individual citizens to exercise their rights based on something as arbitrary as "need". You're so vehemently anti-gun you've already demonstrated your bias that people wanting to be armed are generally up to no good. You might not remember that thread so well since you ran out of it shrieking when you couldn't back up anything you said.
 
2014-02-06 12:52:19 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Great_Milenko: I prefer open carry to concealed carry. Makes it easier to spot the big swinging dicks.

And if somebody is starting to cause a ruckus, and I see they have some chromium confidence strapped to them, I know to get the fark out of there asap.

You do realize that like 99% of the open carry movement is about just not worrying about it, right?  It's about people not panicking or there being any particular connotation to seeing a gun being carried around, beyond a general impression that now you know something about the person's hobbies.

Being strapped for the purposes of intimidating people is and always will be in the "still illegal" category.

// Open carry used to be legal basically everywhere, and you only got in trouble if you tried to conceal your piece.  The logic being that people have guns, deal with it, you pussy, but if they were trying to hide it they were likely up to no good.  Current law is weirdly backward.


Agreed, a big part of it for me is the paranoia that my gun might print or someone might catch a glimpse while I reach for my wallet or adjust my shirt
 
2014-02-06 12:52:20 PM  
So in a thread where every liberal chiming in basically says "meh, who cares?" the gun, um, enthusiasts are so desperate for some argument, some sort of conflict, that they are either attacking strawmen or trying to threadjack to the standard tired gun arguments.

I guess one shouldn't be surprised that people obsessed with weapons are also desperately looking to create conflict where none yet exists.
 
2014-02-06 12:54:36 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: Citation needed. People against gay marriage are so certain that it will be bad for society and children, but they have no evidence to back up what they "know" to be true. Same thing with your argument. It's based on personal feeling and hysteria, not actual facts or logic.

How many of these would happen without firearms?
Or these?
Or these?
Or these?

Really? What will you want next, evidence that water is wet?


Those links don't prove what you think they prove. Some idiot accidentally shooting himself doesn't mean that every gun owner is going to shoot himself/herself or others.

What percent of gun owners do those stories represent? Out of 100,000 gun owners, how many is that? How many is that out of people licenced to conceal carry? How many is that of people who have gone through gun safety training.

If you want to prove that open carry makes things worse, show me actual stats of a community that has open carry before and after. Show me the trends over time. Shoe me what the open carry, what the very sight of guns, specifically caused.

You'll have to do better than that.
 
2014-02-06 12:54:51 PM  
Good.  Anyone who aces a political purity test is unfit for office.
 
2014-02-06 12:54:55 PM  

soporific: Feeling safe and being safe are often two different things. That's why we have the TSA at the airports. What they do is theater. It makes people feel safe, but it doesn't actually make us safer. Actual safety measures are often unseen, happing behind the curtain. But that's not good enough, people want to feel safe, so they tolerate the scanners, pat downs, and other needless "security."

Remember, people who don't vaccinate their children also do it to "feel safe."


There's definitely a substantive argument on a case by case basis as to whether any given policy actually achieves the goal of increasing safety and the feeling of safety. But that doesn't mean safety is not a worthy goal.
 
2014-02-06 12:56:21 PM  

DamnYankees: HeadLever: soporific: Citation needed. People against gay marriage are so certain that it will be bad for society and children, but they have no evidence to back up what they "know" to be true. Same thing with your argument. It's based on personal feeling and hysteria, not actual facts or logic.

Even with that, his biggest issue that he cannot explain is who gets to decide if a reason is good enough or if a specific threat is either specific or threatening enough.

Seriously, if he cannot even answer these questions - his entire proposal is bunk.

Am I the 'he' in that sentence?


No, that was directed at me because drooling morons can't process a modal when they see it.
 
2014-02-06 12:56:50 PM  

Doom MD: DamnYankees: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

This is basically my stance - I'm in favor of making gun control a local issue, like any other policy. It makes sense in some areas, not others. This is why I believe the 2nd amendment is a bad idea.

But that makes me a gun grabber, I guess, since I'm in favor of local control.

Fantastic, so gun owners need to be aware of the legal status of their firearm while driving through dozens of townships on their way to the range


How is this different than any other laws? Different jurisdictions  are all allowed to have different rules on what you may or may not possess within its border. Some jurisdictions  say you can posses wild animals, some say no. Some jurisdictions say that cars can have gas emissions up to X, some say Y. Some jurisdictions allow the possession of certain chemicals, some don't.

These types of distinctions are everywhere. People need to obey the law - as the old saying goes "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Why should guns get some kind of special exemption from this general idea?
 
2014-02-06 12:57:49 PM  

Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: jso2897: I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.
........


No, you just make excuses for doing something in almost the most stupid way possible, you know - the American way (c.f. health insurance, progressive taxation, business regulation, etc.).
/Are you angling for demotion from pharma sales rep to internet dentist?

There are numerous examples of why it is a grave error to allow the government to grant permission to individual citizens to exercise their rights based on something as arbitrary as "need". You're so vehemently anti-gun you've already demonstrated your bias that people wanting to be armed are generally up to no good. You might not remember that thread so well since you ran out of it shrieking when you couldn't back up anything you said.


You mean like the government granting me permission to vote only if I have one of the difficult to obtain voter ID's they approve of that has my middle initial in exactly the same form as my voter registration which might spell out my middle name?
 
2014-02-06 12:58:45 PM  

Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: jso2897: I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.

For one thing, it would pretty much wipe out all the local gun control laws that prohibit or highly restrict the carrying of concealed weapons.

I would *LOVE* for guns to be treated like cars, because it would result in a significant *LOOSENING* of the laws in my state.

But that's not what those proposals usually mean.  Generally, when people talk about treating guns like cars, what they really mean is that they want significantly stricter requirements on guns than we have on car ownership.   They want something like NYC, where getting permission to carry a gun for self-protection is nigh on impossible unless you are very rich and/or politically well connected.

Or have a specific threat hanging over you?

We've been over why that doesn't work

No, you just make excuses for doing something in almost the most stupid way possible, you know - the American way (c.f. health insurance, progressive taxation, business regulation, etc.).
/Are you angling for demotion from pharma sales rep to internet dentist?

There are numerous examples of why it is a grave error to allow the government to grant permission to individual citizens to exercise their rights based on something as arbitrary as "need". You're so vehemently anti-gun you've already demonstrated your bias that people wanting to be armed are generally up to no good. You might not remember that thread so well since you ran out of it shrieking when you couldn't back up anything you said.


That's it: You are officially an internet dentist because you cannot parse a modal verb.
You could be proud of yourself. Mazal tov!
 
2014-02-06 12:58:48 PM  

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

And I could own a gun without needing a license if I only used it on private property, and if I chose to carry in public, my license to carry would be honored by all 50 states and every single town and city.  I wouldn't face arrest in New York City (and state), New Jersey, or Chicago because I was carrying on a concealed carry license issued in my home state.


That would be a terrific solution actually. Though actually I might suggest bi-yearly refresher courses for driving and gun ownership. Look at how many shiatty drivers there are.
 
2014-02-06 12:59:15 PM  
Doesn't Texas allow open carry in the statehouse?  No need for term limits or even elections.
 
2014-02-06 12:59:56 PM  

Doom MD: TV's Vinnie: Whites with guns: God-fearing Merkins showing their Patriotic Pride


Blacks with guns: OMG DIRTY GANGBANGERS

the guy at the bottom is an NRA spokesperson token. Colin Noir is awesome.


FTFY
 
2014-02-06 01:01:58 PM  

Jormungandr: dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: gilgigamesh: Put this libbie lib socialist down for a hearty "meh" as well.

I'm for some restrictions on guns, mainly that I think they should be treated like cars.

But open carry? Seems like a pretty basic right to me.

Treating guns like cars would actually really remove a lot of restrictions on guns

[kennedystarbucks.files.wordpress.com image 500x675]
OK.

And I could own a gun without needing a license if I only used it on private property, and if I chose to carry in public, my license to carry would be honored by all 50 states and every single town and city.  I wouldn't face arrest in New York City (and state), New Jersey, or Chicago because I was carrying on a concealed carry license issued in my home state.

That would be a terrific solution actually. Though actually I might suggest bi-yearly refresher courses for driving and gun ownership. Look at how many shiatty drivers there are.


Yup, and proficiency/qualification to carry/drive in public.
/But they'll tell us that that's infringing and unpossible.
 
2014-02-06 01:02:13 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Doom MD: TV's Vinnie: Whites with guns: God-fearing Merkins showing their Patriotic Pride


Blacks with guns: OMG DIRTY GANGBANGERS

the guy at the bottom is an NRA spokesperson token. Colin Noir is awesome.

FTFY


He's probably an Uncle Tom, right?
 
2014-02-06 01:02:47 PM  
Good for her. Just makes he a more winnable candidate in Texas.
 
2014-02-06 01:03:52 PM  

DamnYankees: Doom MD: DamnYankees: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

This is basically my stance - I'm in favor of making gun control a local issue, like any other policy. It makes sense in some areas, not others. This is why I believe the 2nd amendment is a bad idea.

But that makes me a gun grabber, I guess, since I'm in favor of local control.

Fantastic, so gun owners need to be aware of the legal status of their firearm while driving through dozens of townships on their way to the range

How is this different than any other laws? Different jurisdictions  are all allowed to have different rules on what you may or may not possess within its border. Some jurisdictions  say you can posses wild animals, some say no. Some jurisdictions say that cars can have gas emissions up to X, some say Y. Some jurisdictions allow the possession of certain chemicals, some don't.

These types of distinctions are everywhere. People need to obey the law - as the old saying goes "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Why should guns get some kind of special exemption from this general idea?


If I don't live in jurisdiction X, the laws for homeowners in jurisdiction Y don't apply to me.  If I take my jalopy registered in Nevada on a road trip through California, the emissions laws for cars registered in California do not apply to me.

I think you need to find a different way to argue that.  I'm not aware of any restrictions on free speech that vary by state (I could be wrong, however), therefore I don't think 2nd Amendment restrictions should vary by state/locality.  They should be uniform across the nation.
 
2014-02-06 01:04:43 PM  

Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.


As a lifelong New Yorker, you wouldn't really know what freedoms people living outside the city have, by your logic.

I lived in NYC for several years. There's a reason I'm not. I definitely feel like I have more freedoms outside the city than in. Enjoy your gun bans/confiscations, e-cig bans, soda bans and all that other fun nonsense your city pushes for.
 
2014-02-06 01:05:42 PM  
Did anyone else lol at Obamas mere lip service to gun control at the SOTU? He knows it's an election year and pushing hard for gun control all but guarantees the Dems get raped during the elections.
Plus he doesn't want to once again take a strong stance on gun control and cry about it when it doesn't go through.
 
2014-02-06 01:05:47 PM  

soporific: demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: Citation needed. People against gay marriage are so certain that it will be bad for society and children, but they have no evidence to back up what they "know" to be true. Same thing with your argument. It's based on personal feeling and hysteria, not actual facts or logic.

How many of these would happen without firearms?
Or these?
Or these?
Or these?

Really? What will you want next, evidence that water is wet?

Those links don't prove what you think they prove. Some idiot accidentally shooting himself doesn't mean that every gun owner is going to shoot himself/herself or others.

What percent of gun owners do those stories represent? Out of 100,000 gun owners, how many is that? How many is that out of people licenced to conceal carry? How many is that of people who have gone through gun safety training.

If you want to prove that open carry makes things worse, show me actual stats of a community that has open carry before and after. Show me the trends over time. Shoe me what the open carry, what the very sight of guns, specifically caused.

You'll have to do better than that.


I said: Having firearms in public increases the danger to yourself and the public.
You demanded citations, so I blasted them at you.
Quit whining, sniveling, and trying to move the goalpost, go slink off to the corner, and stay there until you can acknowledge you done been whupped on your own terms.
 
2014-02-06 01:07:02 PM  

joness0154: I think you need to find a different way to argue that.  I'm not aware of any restrictions on free speech that vary by state (I could be wrong, however), therefore I don't think 2nd Amendment restrictions should vary by state/locality.  They should be uniform across the nation.


We're well past the point where I said I think the second amendment is a bad idea and should be repealed, and am arguing on that basis. I understand a lot of my ideas are unconstitutional given our existing law on this.
 
2014-02-06 01:09:18 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: No, that was directed at me because drooling morons can't process a modal when they see it.


And you still can't respond to that direct question can you?  Its gocha stumped, doesn't it?
 
2014-02-06 01:09:31 PM  
I fall pretty damn far towards the 'ban all guns' position, but I'd still support her since I agree with most everything else she represents.

Single issue voters are morans.
 
2014-02-06 01:10:32 PM  

joness0154: DamnYankees: Doom MD: DamnYankees: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

This is basically my stance - I'm in favor of making gun control a local issue, like any other policy. It makes sense in some areas, not others. This is why I believe the 2nd amendment is a bad idea.

But that makes me a gun grabber, I guess, since I'm in favor of local control.

Fantastic, so gun owners need to be aware of the legal status of their firearm while driving through dozens of townships on their way to the range

How is this different than any other laws? Different jurisdictions  are all allowed to have different rules on what you may or may not possess within its border. Some jurisdictions  say you can posses wild animals, some say no. Some jurisdictions say that cars can have gas emissions up to X, some say Y. Some jurisdictions allow the possession of certain chemicals, some don't.

These types of distinctions are everywhere. People need to obey the law - as the old saying goes "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Why should guns get some kind of special exemption from this general idea?

If I don't live in jurisdiction X, the laws for homeowners in jurisdiction Y don't apply to me.  If I take my jalopy registered in Nevada on a road trip through California, the emissions laws for cars registered in California do not apply to me.

I think you need to find a different way to argue that.  I'm not aware of any restrictions on free speech that vary by state (I could be wrong, however), therefore I don't think 2nd Amendment restrictions should vary by state/locality.  They should be uniform across the nation.


The traffic laws of wherever you're driving, however, do apply to you.
In Tucson, for example, U-turns yield to right turns. And left arrows follow the green.
/Because it makes better sense for 15% of traffic to wait for 85% of traffic, and not vice-versa.
 
2014-02-06 01:12:13 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: I said: Having firearms in public increases the danger to yourself and the public.
You demanded citations, so I blasted them at you.
Quit whining, sniveling, and trying to move the goalpost, go slink off to the corner, and stay there until you can acknowledge you done been whupped on your own terms.


You have yet to defend the "in public" part of your argument. Some of these happened in private. Others happened in places without open carry.

Show me incidents that arose from actual open carry, the kind advocated for by Wendy Davis, and show me how they made things worse for those places that enacted them, you'll have a point. Otherwise, it is you who are moving the goalposts by refusing to provide the citations that support the specific point that you are making.

The argument is about Open Carry. Your claims about Open Carry need citations.
 
2014-02-06 01:12:37 PM  

lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.


Frangible ammo. Next concern?
 
2014-02-06 01:13:08 PM  

Doom MD: I lived in NYC for several years. There's a reason I'm not. I definitely feel like I have more freedoms outside the city than in. Enjoy your gun bans/confiscations, e-cig bans, soda bans and all that other fun nonsense your city pushes for.


Most of us do enjoy the functional gun ban in a highly dense area, especially as  we are one of the safest big cities in the country.  E-cig bans, like tobacco bans, are going to happen everywhere, and there is not, nor was there ever proposed, a soda ban in NYC.

Having lived here, Alaska, Georgia, Washington, Texas, China, and Germany, the idea that NYC somehow significant is less "free" than other places in US due to some ordinances (or has a lack of freedoms compared to most places in the world) is right wing nonsense. 

shiat, my HOA in Texas was more restrictive than any of shiathead Bloomberg's rules.
 
2014-02-06 01:14:00 PM  

Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?


So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?
 
2014-02-06 01:15:30 PM  

soporific: Those links don't prove what you think they prove. Some idiot accidentally shooting himself doesn't mean that every gun owner is going to shoot himself/herself or others.

What percent of gun owners do those stories represent? Out of 100,000 gun owners, how many is that? How many is that out of people licenced to conceal carry? How many is that of people who have gone through gun safety training.

If you want to prove that open carry makes things worse, show me actual stats of a community that has open carry before and after. Show me the trends over time. Shoe me what the open carry, what the very sight of guns, specifically caused.


You said not wanting to see guns around is the same as not wanting to see gay marriage, an emotional issue.  He said, yeah, but sometimes people get shot on accident, so they're not really the same.  You responded with a crazy wall of text lauding the ability of some gun owners not to shoot people accidentally, then asked for all the data ever which you know doesn't exist and is completely irrelevant to your original position.  I think the only thing you are missing compared to gun arguments in my Facebook feed is links to a half-dozen 45-minute YouTube videos filmed in someone's basement supporting your position.
 
2014-02-06 01:16:12 PM  

soporific: demaL-demaL-yeH: I said: Having firearms in public increases the danger to yourself and the public.
You demanded citations, so I blasted them at you.
Quit whining, sniveling, and trying to move the goalpost, go slink off to the corner, and stay there until you can acknowledge you done been whupped on your own terms.

You have yet to defend the "in public" part of your argument. Some of these happened in private. Others happened in places without open carry.

Show me incidents that arose from actual open carry, the kind advocated for by Wendy Davis, and show me how they made things worse for those places that enacted them, you'll have a point. Otherwise, it is you who are moving the goalposts by refusing to provide the citations that support the specific point that you are making.

The argument is about Open Carry. Your claims about Open Carry need citations.


Look upthread: I said walking around armed in public increases the danger to yourself and to the public.
You challenged my statement, demanding evidence.
I gave you evidence.

Now get yourself over to the corner, whining goalpost mover.
 
2014-02-06 01:17:05 PM  

cold_weather_tex: Statistically, accident and death by firearm goes up if there is one or more in the home. Stands to reason, given that side by side between cars and guns, that insurance is the next step. Given how most of you feel about Open Carry, and CCL, how would all of you feel if you had to pay more, or got less on the home, health, and life insurance side of things, if it indeed went that way?


Actually, even that's still a question.

A few years ago, I bought a life insurance policy on myself. They asked me all sorts of questions - my medical history, if I used drugs/alcohol/tobacco, if I rode motorcycles, if I went skydiving, etc, etc.

Never was I asked if I owned a firearm or had access to one in my house. I mentioned my substantial collection to my agent, and she merely offered me a rider on my homeowners policy in case they were stolen. She told me that ownership/possession of a firearm did not change my life-insurance (or any other insurance) premiums at all.

If owning a firearm did increase my chance of dying, you can bet that the insurance agents would be using that to increase my premiums. They have this thing down to a science.
 
2014-02-06 01:17:37 PM  

Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?


I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.
 
2014-02-06 01:19:35 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: jso2897: I'm dumb about this maybe - but is there a downside to what you just described? I'm not seeing it.

For one thing, it would pretty much wipe out all the local gun control laws that prohibit or highly restrict the carrying of concealed weapons.

I would *LOVE* for guns to be treated like cars, because it would result in a significant *LOOSENING* of the laws in my state.

But that's not what those proposals usually mean.  Generally, when people talk about treating guns like cars, what they really mean is that they want significantly stricter requirements on guns than we have on car ownership.   They want something like NYC, where getting permission to carry a gun for self-protection is nigh on impossible unless you are very rich and/or politically well connected.

Or have a specific threat hanging over you?

We've been over why that doesn't work

No, you just make excuses for doing something in almost the most stupid way possible, you know - the American way (c.f. health insurance, progressive taxation, business regulation, etc.).
/Are you angling for demotion from pharma sales rep to internet dentist?

There are numerous examples of why it is a grave error to allow the government to grant permission to individual citizens to exercise their rights based on something as arbitrary as "need". You're so vehemently anti-gun you've already demonstrated your bias that people wanting to be armed are generally up to no good. You might not remember that thread so well since you ran out of it shrieking when you couldn't back up anything you said.

That's it: You are officially an internet dentist because you cannot parse a modal verb.
You could be proud of yourself. Mazal tov!


So are you going to explain how one would arbitrate what sufficient need is?
 
2014-02-06 01:21:26 PM  

lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?


I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.
 
2014-02-06 01:22:04 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Doom MD: TV's Vinnie: Whites with guns: God-fearing Merkins showing their Patriotic Pride


Blacks with guns: OMG DIRTY GANGBANGERS

the guy at the bottom is an NRA spokesperson token. Colin Noir is awesome.

FTFY


Yeah, like whoopi Goldberg, James Earl Jones, and Karl Malone. Please tell me how they're race traitors.
 
2014-02-06 01:22:45 PM  

Doom MD: So are you going to explain how one would arbitrate what sufficient need is?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Firearms_own er ship_license 

Worked pretty good in Germany when I was there... criminals weren't overruning the country as Fark Independents usually assert they would if it weren't for the stalwart gun brigade.
 
2014-02-06 01:26:46 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: joness0154: DamnYankees: Doom MD: DamnYankees: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

This is basically my stance - I'm in favor of making gun control a local issue, like any other policy. It makes sense in some areas, not others. This is why I believe the 2nd amendment is a bad idea.

But that makes me a gun grabber, I guess, since I'm in favor of local control.

Fantastic, so gun owners need to be aware of the legal status of their firearm while driving through dozens of townships on their way to the range

How is this different than any other laws? Different jurisdictions  are all allowed to have different rules on what you may or may not possess within its border. Some jurisdictions  say you can posses wild animals, some say no. Some jurisdictions say that cars can have gas emissions up to X, some say Y. Some jurisdictions allow the possession of certain chemicals, some don't.

These types of distinctions are everywhere. People need to obey the law - as the old saying goes "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Why should guns get some kind of special exemption from this general idea?

If I don't live in jurisdiction X, the laws for homeowners in jurisdiction Y don't apply to me.  If I take my jalopy registered in Nevada on a road trip through California, the emissions laws for cars registered in California do not apply to me.

I think you need to find a different way to argue that.  I'm not aware of any restrictions on free speech that vary by state (I could be wrong, however), therefore I don't think 2nd Amendment restrictions should vary by state/locality.  They should be uniform across the nation.

The traffic laws of wherever you're driving, however, do apply to you.
In Tucson, for example, U-turns yield to right turns. And left arrows follow the green.
/B ...


True, but for the most part, traffic code in the US is uniform.  There may be small idiosyncrasies here and there - like your green light example.  Whether or not the green arrow comes before the green light doesn't really matter since we have uniform code across states that says green arrow means X and green light means Y.  Everyone knows what a double yellow line is and everyone knows what a dashed white line is.  Speed limits may differ, but they're posted on signs.  Same with parking provisions, etc.

Imagine if green, yellow and red meant different things in each state.  Or if dashed yellow lines meant different things in each state.  For the most part, that's how gun laws in the states work today.
 
2014-02-06 01:27:37 PM  
Could somebody please explain should and should not to the internet dentist?
 
2014-02-06 01:27:48 PM  

lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?


NYC already has pretty onerous ammo restrictions but no I wouldn't support the measure. Not everyone in NYC lives in tightly grouped apartments and I should be free to choose how to defend myself. I would get frangible ammo if I lived in a tight little apartment. The apartment building I lived in Brooklyn had exactly 4 people living in a 3 story building. People in NYC don't all live like packed sardines and those that do have viable gun defense options regardless.
 
2014-02-06 01:29:01 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.


You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.
 
2014-02-06 01:29:06 PM  

Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.


So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?
 
2014-02-06 01:31:14 PM  

Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.


I would suggest he's mentioning the ones that get shot not caring whether they're shot by frangible ammo or the ridiculous "RIP" bullets. If you miss your target, the thing still goes somewhere.
 
2014-02-06 01:31:58 PM  

sendtodave: Nabb1: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: Wanting to arrest people you disagree with, because they scare you?  Yep, you are pretty darn liberal.

Scaring people can and should be a crime, you don't think so? I agree there are limits, but as a general rule, causing someone to be terrified seems like a pretty offensive thing to do.

This mentality is why we can't have fun Halloweens any more, or splintery wooden playgrounds with the burning metal slides :'(

Everyone wants to feel safe all the damned time.

I'm fairly strong in favor of Second Amendment rights, and while I think, strictly speaking, the act of carrying a rifle into the grocery store is not in and of itself a crime, the kind of person who feels the need to carry a rifle into the grocery store is probably not the most balanced human being in the world, because doing that makes a lot of folks unnecessarily unnerved, so yes, it is probably appropriate to ask the person to leave, and the police called if necessary.

Yeah, but that gets tricky.  Police arrive:

"Why are you carrying a rifle in the grocery store?"

Average mentally unhinged person:  "Brahahahaggh!  I do what I want!  I have rights!"

Average second amendment champion:  "Brahahahaggh!  I do what I want!  I have rights!"

See?  How to tell the difference?

If the police arrest the former, they're keeping the place safe, but if they arrest the latter, they're trampling someone rights with their jackboots.

Better to either allow or deny everyone.  And we can't deny everyone, because  rights.


Well, bless your poor, little heart, but you do try so very, very hard.
 
2014-02-06 01:33:03 PM  

Doom MD: NYC already has pretty onerous ammo restrictions but no I wouldn't support the measure.


Then your response to my concern did not address my concern. I am aware such ammo exists, that doesn't mean people will use it.

Not everyone in NYC lives in tightly grouped apartments and I should be free to choose how to defend myself. I would get frangible ammo if I lived in a tight little apartment. The apartment building I lived in Brooklyn had exactly 4 people living in a 3 story building. People in NYC don't all live like packed sardines and those that do have viable gun defense options regardless.

I never claimed everyone lived in tightly grouped apartments, but it is one of the most densely populated areas in the country and if you are in an apartment you still have shared walls and ceilings, thus making gun ownership a pretty big danger for your neighbors who have to hope that you actually give a fark about them and spend money on proper ammo (or use a shotgun, which you should be using if you are a fearful coward and want to defend your studio apartment from all the scary people out to get you).
 
2014-02-06 01:33:20 PM  

dr_blasto: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.

So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?


Not a ban, no. But I suppose I'd be fine with a law that regulates the citizens of a large, populous urban area to the  use of frangible ammo within city limits if it can be demonstrated that stray bullets injuring people are a problem.
 
2014-02-06 01:33:33 PM  

lilplatinum: Worked pretty good in Germany when I was there... criminals weren't overruning the country as Fark Independents usually assert they would if it weren't for the stalwart gun brigade.


You would have to repeal the second amendment for that to happen as a right is not based upon need.
 
2014-02-06 01:33:49 PM  

sugar_fetus: If owning a firearm did increase my chance of dying, you can bet that the insurance agents would be using that to increase my premiums. They have this thing down to a science.


Why don't we require liability insurance for gun ownership like we do for cars? With so many firearm deaths every year, making that case that there is a "compelling government interest" in mandating liability insurance wouldn't be hard. (Congress has thought about it, too.)

The NRA offers liability insurance, just BTW - $254 gets you $250k in coverage.
 
2014-02-06 01:33:49 PM  

dr_blasto: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

I would suggest he's mentioning the ones that get shot not caring whether they're shot by frangible ammo or the ridiculous "RIP" bullets. If you miss your target, the thing still goes somewhere.


It's almost as if adults need to make responsible decisions. You're not going to see shootouts in Times Square, save that for the nypd to do (which they have). So if that's his concern, is he ok with NYC residents carrying bladed weapons in any manner they choose including packing a claymore?
 
2014-02-06 01:36:41 PM  

Doom MD: You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.


Does "frangible ammo" mean "magical bullets that only hit bad guys"?  Pretty sure that frangible ammo still penetrates drywall.
 
2014-02-06 01:36:42 PM  

Dr Dreidel: sugar_fetus: If owning a firearm did increase my chance of dying, you can bet that the insurance agents would be using that to increase my premiums. They have this thing down to a science.

Why don't we require liability insurance for gun ownership like we do for cars? With so many firearm deaths every year, making that case that there is a "compelling government interest" in mandating liability insurance wouldn't be hard. (Congress has thought about it, too.)

The NRA offers liability insurance, just BTW - $254 gets you $250k in coverage.


Congress has also thought about repealing Obamacare. Congress has thought of a whole bunch of whacky things :)
 
2014-02-06 01:37:29 PM  

Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.

So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?

Not a ban, no. But I suppose I'd be fine with a law that regulates the citizens of a large, populous urban area to the  use of frangible ammo within city limits if it can be demonstrated that stray bullets injuring people are a problem.


I see stories of police injuring bystanders all the time (especially in NYC).

I don't think I've ever seen a story where a bystander was shot by a homeowner in a self-defense situation or by a CCW holder in a self-defense situation.  I don't know why people are arguing it's a problem.

Before people bring it up, yes, people do get shot due to negligence of firearm owners when they are "cleaning" their guns or "showing them to friends."  That's a different situation altogether.
 
2014-02-06 01:38:00 PM  

joness0154: rue, but for the most part, traffic code in the US is uniform.  There may be small idiosyncrasies here and there - like your green light example.  Whether or not the green arrow comes before the green light doesn't really matter since we have uniform code across states that says green arrow means X and green light means Y.  Everyone knows what a double yellow line is and everyone knows what a dashed white line is.  Speed limits may differ, but they're posted on signs.  Same with parking provisions, etc.

Imagine if green, yellow and red meant different things in each state.  Or if dashed yellow lines meant different things in each state.  For the most part, that's how gun laws in the states work today.


This is true.
If only Congress has some specified, enumerated, uh, let's call them "Powers", for giggles, that would let them set training standards and discipline and regulations for people bearing arms in the United States, and even to write any laws necessary and proper to exercise those Powers to implement standards, but leave it to the states to provide the training and trainers. If only.
/*sigh*
 
2014-02-06 01:38:21 PM  

HeadLever: lilplatinum: Worked pretty good in Germany when I was there... criminals weren't overruning the country as Fark Independents usually assert they would if it weren't for the stalwart gun brigade.

You would have to repeal the second amendment for that to happen as a right is not based upon need.


Or wait for the supreme court to change the decision of the activist judges who changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment from what it was originally intended to be. 

But yes, I am aware that our constitution and case law as it stands is a large impediment to reasoanble gun control, even if the politics of the country weren't prohibitively against it.   I was just talking about how it is successfully done elsewhere.
 
2014-02-06 01:39:11 PM  

cousin-merle: Does "frangible ammo" mean "magical bullets that only hit bad guys"?  Pretty sure that frangible ammo still penetrates drywall.


What other type of ammo that is used in self defense would have a less likely chance of striking a bystander?

Since there is no ammo that is magic, your choices are pretty much limited to what can be bought off the store shelves.  Again, which would be best in this regard?
 
2014-02-06 01:39:53 PM  

joness0154: Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.

So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?

Not a ban, no. But I suppose I'd be fine with a law that regulates the citizens of a large, populous urban area to the  use of frangible ammo within city limits if it can be demonstrated that stray bullets injuring people are a problem.

I see stories of police injuring bystanders all the time (especially in NYC).

I don't think I've ever seen a story where a bystander was shot by a homeowner in a self-defense situation or by a CCW holder in a self-defense situation.  I don't know why people are arguing it's a problem.

Before people bring it up, yes, people do get shot due to negligence of firearm owners when they are "cleaning" their guns or "showing them to friends."  That's a different situation altogether.


People are bringing it up because they're reaching. They need to find any old excuse to get more regulation. And I'm pretty sure that at least one person is scouring Google as I type to throw together a couple incidences to "prove" that this is a problem.
 
2014-02-06 01:40:37 PM  

Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.


You clearly don't know what in public is.

/Not surprising, considering the whole modal verb thing.
 
2014-02-06 01:41:49 PM  

lilplatinum: Or wait for the supreme court to change the decision of the activist judges who changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment from what it was originally intended to be.


I'll disagree that they got the individual vs collectivist interpretation wrong and I suspect that you will be waiting a while for them to change that.
 
2014-02-06 01:41:55 PM  

lilplatinum: HeadLever: lilplatinum: Worked pretty good in Germany when I was there... criminals weren't overruning the country as Fark Independents usually assert they would if it weren't for the stalwart gun brigade.

You would have to repeal the second amendment for that to happen as a right is not based upon need.

Or wait for the supreme court to change the decision of the activist judges who changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment from what it was originally intended to be. 

But yes, I am aware that our constitution and case law as it stands is a large impediment to reasoanble gun control, even if the politics of the country weren't prohibitively against it.   I was just talking about how it is successfully done elsewhere.


Not to sound like a dick, but do you know how common law works?
 
2014-02-06 01:42:12 PM  

Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.

So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?

Not a ban, no. But I suppose I'd be fine with a law that regulates the citizens of a large, populous urban area to the  use of frangible ammo within city limits if it can be demonstrated that stray bullets injuring people are a problem.


Frangible bullets don't always hit drywall. A stray frangible bullet that hits a by-stander does as much damage as a non-frangible bullet. While regulating ammunition so that only frangible bullets can be used in urban areas has it's advantages, not everyone carries a sheet of gyprock everywhere they go.
 
2014-02-06 01:42:46 PM  

joness0154: don't think I've ever seen a story where a bystander was shot by a homeowner in a self-defense situation or by a CCW holder in a self-defense situation.  I don't know why people are arguing it's a problem.


Probably because the most densly populated portion of the US has strict gun laws.
 
2014-02-06 01:43:10 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

You clearly don't know what in public is.

/Not surprising, considering the whole modal verb thing.


The police are the ones shooting bystanders, not CCW permit holders or individuals open carrying.  Why are people in here claiming otherwise?  There's no facts to back up statements in here that these individuals are dangerous to the public.
 
2014-02-06 01:44:47 PM  

lilplatinum: joness0154: don't think I've ever seen a story where a bystander was shot by a homeowner in a self-defense situation or by a CCW holder in a self-defense situation.  I don't know why people are arguing it's a problem.

Probably because the most densly populated portion of the US has strict gun laws.


It's not a problem in any other densely populated area that allows citizens to carry firearms, either...
 
2014-02-06 01:45:22 PM  

soporific: You have yet to defend the "in public" part of your argument. Some of these happened in private. Others happened in places without open carry.


Requesting data that is actually directly relevant to your request, and that is not mixed with irrelevant data, is a "moving of goalposts". He has provided information; your demand that the information actually be meaningful is unreasonable.
 
2014-02-06 01:46:50 PM  

HeadLever: lilplatinum: Or wait for the supreme court to change the decision of the activist judges who changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment from what it was originally intended to be.

I'll disagree that they got the individual vs collectivist interpretation wrong and I suspect that you will be waiting a while for them to change that.


I don't doubt it.  I really care very little, its an archaic law that has no bearing in my life and guns won't go away in my lifetime.

Frank N Stein: Not to sound like a dick, but do you know how common law works?


Yes.   The courts decisions stand until some other court decides the decision was improper based on the development of law between then and now or a mistake in interpretation from a previous court.   

I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon because it would require them to admit that our standing army is kinda against the constitution, but hey - who knows.
 
2014-02-06 01:47:17 PM  

Mouldy Squid: Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.

So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?

Not a ban, no. But I suppose I'd be fine with a law that regulates the citizens of a large, populous urban area to the  use of frangible ammo within city limits if it can be demonstrated that stray bullets injuring people are a problem.

Frangible bullets don't always hit drywall. A stray frangible bullet that hits a by-stander does as much damage as a non-frangible bullet. While regulating ammunition so that only frangible bullets can be used in urban areas has it's advantages, not everyone carries a sheet of gyprock everywhere they go.


Well then let's not put in that regulation. I'll keep the hollow points in my HD gun's magazine. Save's me a few bucks.
 
2014-02-06 01:47:39 PM  

Dr Dreidel: sugar_fetus: If owning a firearm did increase my chance of dying, you can bet that the insurance agents would be using that to increase my premiums. They have this thing down to a science.

Why don't we require liability insurance for gun ownership like we do for cars? With so many firearm deaths every year, making that case that there is a "compelling government interest" in mandating liability insurance wouldn't be hard. (Congress has thought about it, too.)

The NRA offers liability insurance, just BTW - $254 gets you $250k in coverage.


Automobile insurance requirements are not driven by the number of deaths caused by automobiles, but by the amount of property damage accidents cause. 

Also, liability insurance usually doesn't cover you if the liability is the result of an unlawful action. Most firearm deaths in the US are a result of criminal activity, and would not be covered.

Accidental deaths are covered by insurance. When I got my first CHL, the state I was living in required that I also have a liability policy. It cost me all of 12 dollars a year, IIRC. They dropped that requirement a couple of years later due to the very, very small numbers of CHL holders who ever found themselves in such a situation.

The state I reside in now does not require it, but I still have the rider, because it costs little and it might save me a whole bunch if I ever have to use my firearm in a defensive manner.

In other words, accidental damage by firearms is negligible, while willful damage is covered by the criminal laws already established.
 
2014-02-06 01:47:56 PM  

joness0154: lilplatinum: joness0154: don't think I've ever seen a story where a bystander was shot by a homeowner in a self-defense situation or by a CCW holder in a self-defense situation.  I don't know why people are arguing it's a problem.

Probably because the most densly populated portion of the US has strict gun laws.

It's not a problem in any other densely populated area that allows citizens to carry firearms, either...


How many cities have a density like Manhattan and liberal gun laws?
 
2014-02-06 01:48:41 PM  

HeadLever: What other type of ammo that is used in self defense would have a less likely chance of striking a bystander?

Since there is no ammo that is magic, your choices are pretty much limited to what can be bought off the store shelves. Again, which would be best in this regard?


www.corporategiftscompany.com

I can think of one at least.  As an added bonus, when some kid picks it up to play with it, they can actually use it for its intended purpose without you having to worry about them shooting someone in the head.
 
2014-02-06 01:49:35 PM  

lilplatinum: HeadLever: lilplatinum: Or wait for the supreme court to change the decision of the activist judges who changed the meaning of the 2nd amendment from what it was originally intended to be.

I'll disagree that they got the individual vs collectivist interpretation wrong and I suspect that you will be waiting a while for them to change that.

I don't doubt it.  I really care very little, its an archaic law that has no bearing in my life and guns won't go away in my lifetime.

Frank N Stein: Not to sound like a dick, but do you know how common law works?

Yes.   The courts decisions stand until some other court decides the decision was improper based on the development of law between then and now or a mistake in interpretation from a previous court.   

I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon because it would require them to admit that our standing army is kinda against the constitution, but hey - who knows.


That's why I said "not to sound like a dick" because I figured you more than likely did understand the concept.
I think we might be at the opposite ends of this issue. I feel pretty confident that there will be no radical changes to our existing gun laws. God bless the NRA :)
 
2014-02-06 01:49:54 PM  

cousin-merle: Doom MD: You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

Does "frangible ammo" mean "magical bullets that only hit bad guys"?  Pretty sure that frangible ammo still penetrates drywall.


Frangible ammo is what the Federal Air Marshals use, just in case a marshal ever has to use his weapon during a flight and misses, that bullet will not go thru the walls of the plane or window and depressurize the cabin.
 
2014-02-06 01:52:31 PM  

Frank N Stein: That's why I said "not to sound like a dick" because I figured you more than likely did understand the concept.
I think we might be at the opposite ends of this issue. I feel pretty confident that there will be no radical changes to our existing gun laws. God bless the NRA :)


Like I said, I agree we aren't getting rid of guns any time in the forseeable future.

I actually agree with the God bless the NRA, as long as the far right rails against something largely insignificant like gun rights they aren't spending those resources somewhere where they could do far more damage.
 
2014-02-06 01:53:05 PM  
Oh shiat, the GOP will really shiat their pants now.
 
2014-02-06 01:54:45 PM  

dmaestaz: Frangible ammo is what the Federal Air Marshals use, just in case a marshal ever has to use his weapon during a flight and misses, that bullet will not go thru the walls of the plane or window and depressurize the cabin.


First, air marshals have not used frangible ammo for years (they use 357 SIG).  Second, apartment complexes and airplanes are made out of different materials.  Hope that helps.
 
2014-02-06 01:55:00 PM  

lilplatinum: I don't doubt it.  I really care very little, its an archaic law that has no bearing in my life and guns won't go away in my lifetime.


That is fine but you also must consider the 'other foot' if you will.  Some of us own guns, use them regularly, have them for self defense and are engaged in sports or activities that we really enjoy.  Capricious and arbitrary limitations forced by those with no dog in this fight will be resisted. You must see this as a logical reaction, no?
 
2014-02-06 01:55:18 PM  

Doom MD: dr_blasto: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

I would suggest he's mentioning the ones that get shot not caring whether they're shot by frangible ammo or the ridiculous "RIP" bullets. If you miss your target, the thing still goes somewhere.

It's almost as if adults need to make responsible decisions. You're not going to see shootouts in Times Square, save that for the nypd to do (which they have). So if that's his concern, is he ok with NYC residents carrying bladed weapons in any manner they choose including packing a claymore?


I've always been somewhat bemused by the laws that prohibit knives. Sure, if some weirdo wants to wander around with a claymore, let them. If I stand a couple yards away, he's no threat to me and I probably wouldn't have to listen to his crazy mutterings about demons or whatever, and let's be honest, anyone wandering around Times Square with a claymore is going to be crazy as fark.
 
2014-02-06 01:56:36 PM  

lilplatinum: Doom MD: NYC already has pretty onerous ammo restrictions but no I wouldn't support the measure.

Then your response to my concern did not address my concern. I am aware such ammo exists, that doesn't mean people will use it.

Not everyone in NYC lives in tightly grouped apartments and I should be free to choose how to defend myself. I would get frangible ammo if I lived in a tight little apartment. The apartment building I lived in Brooklyn had exactly 4 people living in a 3 story building. People in NYC don't all live like packed sardines and those that do have viable gun defense options regardless.

I never claimed everyone lived in tightly grouped apartments, but it is one of the most densely populated areas in the country and if you are in an apartment you still have shared walls and ceilings, thus making gun ownership a pretty big danger for your neighbors who have to hope that you actually give a fark about them and spend money on proper ammo (or use a shotgun, which you should be using if you are a fearful coward and want to defend your studio apartment from all the scary people out to get you).


Of course I care about my neighbors, that's why I arm myself appropriately and don't use ammo that will drill straight through the building I currently reside at. If you cared about your neighbors, you'd allow them to defend themselves. You deem someone a coward because they want to be safe? As opposed to the courageous person that will sit by the bedside for 10-30 minutes while a bunch of guys take turns raping his wife? Do you not have survival instinct? I have pretty damn good reason to want to arm myself. Would you want some hoods to get their hands on my prescription pad?
 
2014-02-06 01:58:50 PM  

HeadLever: That is fine but you also must consider the 'other foot' if you will.  Some of us own guns, use them regularly, have them for self defense and are engaged in sports or activities that we really enjoy.  Capricious and arbitrary limitations forced by those with no dog in this fight will be resisted. You must see this as a logical reaction, no?


Most of my family are gun nuts, and I can sympathize with the idea of something you care passionately about being limited.

I still will never comprehend how one can be passionate about guns.  Either they are just a tool, as some espouse, in which case the idea of being passionate about a tool is just seems fundamentally bizzare (God, I love my lathe and power sander so much! I'm going to post pictures of it to share with my friends), or they are a weapon in which case that passion is kinda creepy.

Probably stems from being forced to go farking hunting as a kid with my family... there might be a more boring activity on earth, but I have yet to find it... and I sat through contract law one semester.
 
2014-02-06 01:59:18 PM  

dr_blasto: Doom MD: dr_blasto: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

I would suggest he's mentioning the ones that get shot not caring whether they're shot by frangible ammo or the ridiculous "RIP" bullets. If you miss your target, the thing still goes somewhere.

It's almost as if adults need to make responsible decisions. You're not going to see shootouts in Times Square, save that for the nypd to do (which they have). So if that's his concern, is he ok with NYC residents carrying bladed weapons in any manner they choose including packing a claymore?

I've always been somewhat bemused by the laws that prohibit knives. Sure, if some weirdo wants to wander around with a claymore, let them. If I stand a couple yards away, he's no threat to me and I probably wouldn't have to listen to his crazy mutterings about demons or whatever, and let's be honest, anyone wandering around Times Square with a claymore is going to be crazy as fark.


I for one think it's perfectly sane for me to walk around with this

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-06 01:59:20 PM  

cousin-merle: I can think of one at least.


Ammo?  really?

At least you could have linked to a picture of a rock. At least your weapon range would be 15 to 20 feet instead of 6. Neither one is going to be as useful as a firearm for self defense, though.
 
2014-02-06 01:59:30 PM  
I support the second amendment rights of gays and lesbians to carry firearms for home defense or to defend their marijuana at their weddings.  There. are they any political groups i didn't piss off?
 
2014-02-06 01:59:44 PM  

WTF Indeed: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero. Same thing that happens to Teabaggers who differ on some issues.


Bullshiat.  Liberals don't demand purity because "liberal" is a catch all term for people who have a batch of progressive ideas and are willing to accept that government has a role in implementing those ideas.  Davis is a Texas Democrat.  That means she likes guns, but notice that it's regulation of something people will do anyway and done for public safety.

And it's easy to be pure to the tea party because their whole point could be drawn up on a napkin.  liberal positions are disparate, possibly contradictory and numerous.  One couldn't find a pure liberal if one tried.
 
2014-02-06 02:00:18 PM  

Triaxis: I support the second amendment rights of gays and lesbians to carry firearms for home defense or to defend their marijuana at their weddings.  There. are they any political groups i didn't piss off?


Your newsletter, I wish to subscribe!
 
2014-02-06 02:01:36 PM  

joness0154: The police are the ones shooting bystanders, not CCW permit holders or individuals open carrying.  Why are people in here claiming otherwise?  There's no facts to back up statements in here that these individuals are dangerous to the public.


Ya.
Sure ting.
You betchya.
Fer shure.
Yessiree Bob.
Uh-huh.
Yup.
Right.
Proceed.
Walking around armed in public does not increase the danger to yourself and the public. In a pig's eye.

NB: Licensed concealed carriers for every single one of those, um   isolated incidents  up there in the last few months.
 
2014-02-06 02:01:42 PM  

lilplatinum: HeadLever: That is fine but you also must consider the 'other foot' if you will.  Some of us own guns, use them regularly, have them for self defense and are engaged in sports or activities that we really enjoy.  Capricious and arbitrary limitations forced by those with no dog in this fight will be resisted. You must see this as a logical reaction, no?

Most of my family are gun nuts, and I can sympathize with the idea of something you care passionately about being limited.

I still will never comprehend how one can be passionate about guns.  Either they are just a tool, as some espouse, in which case the idea of being passionate about a tool is just seems fundamentally bizzare (God, I love my lathe and power sander so much! I'm going to post pictures of it to share with my friends), or they are a weapon in which case that passion is kinda creepy.

Probably stems from being forced to go farking hunting as a kid with my family... there might be a more boring activity on earth, but I have yet to find it... and I sat through contract law one semester.


A power sander, sure. It's mundane. But how about a computer? That's just a tool as well, when you get down to it. But computers represent more than just a computing machine.
 
2014-02-06 02:02:35 PM  

cousin-merle: HeadLever: What other type of ammo that is used in self defense would have a less likely chance of striking a bystander?

Since there is no ammo that is magic, your choices are pretty much limited to what can be bought off the store shelves. Again, which would be best in this regard?

[www.corporategiftscompany.com image 400x600]

I can think of one at least.  As an added bonus, when some kid picks it up to play with it, they can actually use it for its intended purpose without you having to worry about them shooting someone in the head.


Please by all means give that to your grandmother to defend herself from a hood at 3 am.
 
2014-02-06 02:03:22 PM  

Frank N Stein: Mouldy Squid: Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.

So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?

Not a ban, no. But I suppose I'd be fine with a law that regulates the citizens of a large, populous urban area to the  use of frangible ammo within city limits if it can be demonstrated that stray bullets injuring people are a problem.

Frangible bullets don't always hit drywall. A stray frangible bullet that hits a by-stander does as much damage as a non-frangible bullet. While regulating ammunition so that only frangible bullets can be used in urban areas has it's advantages, not everyone carries a sheet of gyprock everywhere they go.

Well then let's not put in that regulation. I'll keep the hollow points in my HD gun's magazine. Save's me a few bucks.


I didn't say it was a bad idea, in fact I said that it has it's advantages. The problem is that by-standers are catching stray rounds, frangible or not. Proper training and practice will do more to stop innocents from being shot, yet mandating training standards and requiring minimums for range time seems to be anti-freedom.

/yes, I am aware that many states require training for CCW and open carry. But do they require a certain number of range hours to ensure you can actually shoot without missing?
//I've practiced about four hours, weekly, for the past three years and I am still only a IPSC/IPDA "B-class" shooter.
///slashies for my CZ-SP01 Tactical
 
2014-02-06 02:03:46 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: sprawl15: speaking of phallucies

That's the best you can do? Weak.


That's rich coming from you.
 
2014-02-06 02:04:20 PM  

Doom MD: Of course I care about my neighbors, that's why I arm myself appropriately and don't use ammo that will drill straight through the building I currently reside at.


Thats super, most human beings are super selfish, so what you would chose to do does not really really reflect what most people would choose to do.

You deem someone a coward because they want to be safe?

We live in pretty much the safest period of human history, so yes, I think those who are too afraid to go outside their houses in this day and age without being armed are gaping pussies.    Home defense is a little more reasonable, but concealed carry folk are cowards.

Do you not have survival instinct? I have pretty damn good reason to want to arm myself. Would you want some hoods to get their hands on my prescription pad?

I've spent time in Johannesburg and Bogota, places where you would actually need to defend yourselves with weapon.   Nothing about anywhere in the US I have been, with the possible exception of parts of NOLA, have even remotely ticked my 'survival instinct'.

Theres always a base chance that some random event of violence will occur with you.  For people who take reasonable precautions this chance is so miniscule that the chance of a gun getting you into more trouble is equal or greater.
 
2014-02-06 02:04:49 PM  

lilplatinum: Most of my family are gun nuts, and I can sympathize with the idea of something you care passionately about being limited.

I still will never comprehend how one can be passionate about guns.  Either they are just a tool, as some espouse, in which case the idea of being passionate about a tool is just seems fundamentally bizzare (God, I love my lathe and power sander so much! I'm going to post pictures of it to share with my friends), or they are a weapon in which case that passion is kinda creepy.

Probably stems from being forced to go farking hunting as a kid with my family... there might be a more boring activity on earth, but I have yet to find it... and I sat through contract law one semester.


Ok, Fair enough.To each their own.  I definable can see where it is not for everyone, but I love to hunt and I love to shoot.  For me, being able to hit an egg at 150 yards every time with ammunition you have loaded yourself is really satisfying.  Though, the biggest pain right now is all the damn hysteria and hoarders out there is making it very difficult to find reloading components even today.
 
2014-02-06 02:04:51 PM  

Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: HeadLever: That is fine but you also must consider the 'other foot' if you will.  Some of us own guns, use them regularly, have them for self defense and are engaged in sports or activities that we really enjoy.  Capricious and arbitrary limitations forced by those with no dog in this fight will be resisted. You must see this as a logical reaction, no?

Most of my family are gun nuts, and I can sympathize with the idea of something you care passionately about being limited.

I still will never comprehend how one can be passionate about guns.  Either they are just a tool, as some espouse, in which case the idea of being passionate about a tool is just seems fundamentally bizzare (God, I love my lathe and power sander so much! I'm going to post pictures of it to share with my friends), or they are a weapon in which case that passion is kinda creepy.

Probably stems from being forced to go farking hunting as a kid with my family... there might be a more boring activity on earth, but I have yet to find it... and I sat through contract law one semester.

A power sander, sure. It's mundane. But how about a computer? That's just a tool as well, when you get down to it. But computers represent more than just a computing machine.


I was  thinking cars.  Sure it gets you from point a to b but dont this look nice once I change the paint, change the suspension and wheel/tires.
 
2014-02-06 02:04:54 PM  

lilplatinum: joness0154: lilplatinum: joness0154: don't think I've ever seen a story where a bystander was shot by a homeowner in a self-defense situation or by a CCW holder in a self-defense situation.  I don't know why people are arguing it's a problem.

Probably because the most densly populated portion of the US has strict gun laws.

It's not a problem in any other densely populated area that allows citizens to carry firearms, either...

How many cities have a density like Manhattan and liberal gun laws?


Not even Phoenix, but Phoenix is far more dangerous and has extremely liberal firearm laws.
 
2014-02-06 02:06:05 PM  

Frank N Stein: A power sander, sure. It's mundane. But how about a computer? That's just a tool as well, when you get down to it. But computers represent more than just a computing machine.


I would probably find passion about a computer itself a bit weird as well, but not as creepy as computers were not fundamentally made to kill other people (instead they were made to display pornography).
 
2014-02-06 02:06:05 PM  

Doom MD: Please by all means give that to your grandmother to defend herself from a hood at 3 am.


My grandmother is legally blind, but you sound like you know what you're talking about, so I'll go ahead and get her a couple firearms instead.

/Charles Bronson movies aren't real life
 
2014-02-06 02:06:47 PM  

Saiga410: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: HeadLever: That is fine but you also must consider the 'other foot' if you will.  Some of us own guns, use them regularly, have them for self defense and are engaged in sports or activities that we really enjoy.  Capricious and arbitrary limitations forced by those with no dog in this fight will be resisted. You must see this as a logical reaction, no?

Most of my family are gun nuts, and I can sympathize with the idea of something you care passionately about being limited.

I still will never comprehend how one can be passionate about guns.  Either they are just a tool, as some espouse, in which case the idea of being passionate about a tool is just seems fundamentally bizzare (God, I love my lathe and power sander so much! I'm going to post pictures of it to share with my friends), or they are a weapon in which case that passion is kinda creepy.

Probably stems from being forced to go farking hunting as a kid with my family... there might be a more boring activity on earth, but I have yet to find it... and I sat through contract law one semester.

A power sander, sure. It's mundane. But how about a computer? That's just a tool as well, when you get down to it. But computers represent more than just a computing machine.

I was  thinking cars.  Sure it gets you from point a to b but dont this look nice once I change the paint, change the suspension and wheel/tires.


I hate the oft used car examples in these threads. It always end with people debating car regulations. Plus, computers, and by extension, represent information and communication. 1st amendment shiat. So it relates in that matter.
 
2014-02-06 02:07:36 PM  

Mouldy Squid: Frank N Stein: Mouldy Squid: Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

So you would support a regulation allowing guns in the city with the caveat that only frangible ammo was used?

I'm going to butt in and answer this. For me, I wouldn't have a problem with this restriction as long as the possession of non frangible ammo wasn't not illegal.

So, you would be OK with a ban on regular ammunition? What about FMJ for the range or whatnot?

Not a ban, no. But I suppose I'd be fine with a law that regulates the citizens of a large, populous urban area to the  use of frangible ammo within city limits if it can be demonstrated that stray bullets injuring people are a problem.

Frangible bullets don't always hit drywall. A stray frangible bullet that hits a by-stander does as much damage as a non-frangible bullet. While regulating ammunition so that only frangible bullets can be used in urban areas has it's advantages, not everyone carries a sheet of gyprock everywhere they go.

Well then let's not put in that regulation. I'll keep the hollow points in my HD gun's magazine. Save's me a few bucks.

I didn't say it was a bad idea, in fact I said that it has it's advantages. The problem is that by-standers are catching stray rounds, frangible or not. Proper training and practice will do more to stop innocents from being shot, yet mandating training standards and requiring minimums for range time seems to be anti-freedom.

/yes, I am aware that many states require training for CCW and open carry. But do th ...


CCW holders have had vastly superior accuracy in violent confrontations than police officers (possibly attributable to the fact ccw holders are generally avid shooters whereas police officers just have to qualify to retain their jobs and their duty pistols have extremely heavy triggers). Readily available training is great, the problem is mandating it has been used as a means to make obtaining a ccw difficult. OTOH, NY state forbids you to hold a firearm during CCW training so you can't even legally shoot it at a target.
 
2014-02-06 02:08:01 PM  

sugar_fetus: Triaxis: I support the second amendment rights of gays and lesbians to carry firearms for home defense or to defend their marijuana at their weddings.  There. are they any political groups i didn't piss off?

Your newsletter, I wish to subscribe!


Hey! two more socialists!
 
2014-02-06 02:08:44 PM  

HeadLever: Ok, Fair enough.To each their own.  I definable can see where it is not for everyone, but I love to hunt and I love to shoot.  For me, being able to hit an egg at 150 yards every time with ammunition you have loaded yourself is really satisfying.  Though, the biggest pain right now is all the damn hysteria and hoarders out there is making it very difficult to find reloading components even today.


I actually don't mind going to the range and am a fairly good shot, and will admit that firing weapons is amusing, they are fun toys at times...  I just think the social costs are high.

But the cats out of the bag both legally, socially, and practically so it ain't going to change.

For what its worth I think the whole obsesion over assault weapons is silly, as they are irrelevant in most gun crimes.
 
2014-02-06 02:08:50 PM  

Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Doom MD: dr_blasto: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

I would suggest he's mentioning the ones that get shot not caring whether they're shot by frangible ammo or the ridiculous "RIP" bullets. If you miss your target, the thing still goes somewhere.

It's almost as if adults need to make responsible decisions. You're not going to see shootouts in Times Square, save that for the nypd to do (which they have). So if that's his concern, is he ok with NYC residents carrying bladed weapons in any manner they choose including packing a claymore?

I've always been somewhat bemused by the laws that prohibit knives. Sure, if some weirdo wants to wander around with a claymore, let them. If I stand a couple yards away, he's no threat to me and I probably wouldn't have to listen to his crazy mutterings about demons or whatever, and let's be honest, anyone wandering around Times Square with a claymore is going to be crazy as fark.

I for one think it's perfectly sane for me to walk around with this

[img.fark.net image 504x435]


Strapped to your chest?
 
2014-02-06 02:08:54 PM  

HeadLever: At least you could have linked to a picture of a rock. At least your weapon range would be 15 to 20 feet instead of 6. Neither one is going to be as useful as a firearm for self defense, though.


Considering the topic was the unintended consequences of acting in self-defense in a densely populated area like New York, that's not too bad.  6 feet might be the length of your entire apartment.
 
2014-02-06 02:09:11 PM  

lilplatinum: Frank N Stein: A power sander, sure. It's mundane. But how about a computer? That's just a tool as well, when you get down to it. But computers represent more than just a computing machine.

I would probably find passion about a computer itself a bit weird as well, but not as creepy as computers were not fundamentally made to kill other people (instead they were made to display pornography).


I think we are thinking of slightly different meanings of "passion" which have almost entirely different connotations. I'm thinking more in the terms of an enjoyable hobby that one takes care to be well versed in.
 
2014-02-06 02:09:18 PM  

sugar_fetus: Dr Dreidel: sugar_fetus: If owning a firearm did increase my chance of dying, you can bet that the insurance agents would be using that to increase my premiums. They have this thing down to a science.

Why don't we require liability insurance for gun ownership like we do for cars? With so many firearm deaths every year, making that case that there is a "compelling government interest" in mandating liability insurance wouldn't be hard. (Congress has thought about it, too.)

The NRA offers liability insurance, just BTW - $254 gets you $250k in coverage.

Automobile insurance requirements are not driven by the number of deaths caused by automobiles, but by the amount of property damage accidents cause. 

Also, liability insurance usually doesn't cover you if the liability is the result of an unlawful action. Most firearm deaths in the US are a result of criminal activity, and would not be covered.

Accidental deaths are covered by insurance. When I got my first CHL, the state I was living in required that I also have a liability policy. It cost me all of 12 dollars a year, IIRC. They dropped that requirement a couple of years later due to the very, very small numbers of CHL holders who ever found themselves in such a situation.

The state I reside in now does not require it, but I still have the rider, because it costs little and it might save me a whole bunch if I ever have to use my firearm in a defensive manner.

In other words, accidental damage by firearms is negligible, while willful damage is covered by the criminal laws already established.


I notice you missed "damage to property", which guns can cause (like Jesse/Walt's RV door).

In order to make a new gun law, Congress would have to show that such a law served a "compelling government interest", else it would likely be a violation of Amdt 2 (compare to the government slapping a $9 million excise on gun sales - that would be unConstitutional as it serves no compelling interest). The way you show that interest is by pointing the number of deaths. We have to treat it differently from cars because of arms' special place in law (we don't need much of a legal reason or basis for new car laws).

// the bolded part is the idea behind insurance, chief
// for lulz, I can make a bunch of suggestions to gun insurance that mirror provisions of the ACA - like the 80/20 (or 85/15) rule
 
2014-02-06 02:09:19 PM  

Doom MD: Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.

As a lifelong New Yorker, you wouldn't really know what freedoms people living outside the city have, by your logic.

I lived in NYC for several years. There's a reason I'm not. I definitely feel like I have more freedoms outside the city than in. Enjoy your gun bans/confiscations, e-cig bans, soda bans and all that other fun nonsense your city pushes for.


I've been informed that you can still buy soda, so NYC is still a bastion of freedom.
 
2014-02-06 02:09:44 PM  

Saiga410: I was  thinking cars.  Sure it gets you from point a to b but dont this look nice once I change the paint, change the suspension and wheel/tires.


I will never understand car fanaticism either... then again I hate those farking things too, which is why when moving back to America I moved to a place where one is unecessary.
 
2014-02-06 02:09:47 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: I did not understand why there was a West 3rd St, West 4th St and then a couple of blocks later East 9th, but somehow we managed to find our restaurant with the help of a nice taxi driver.


Nobody here understands that either! Glad you had fun here and that you got a nice cabbie - it can be hit or miss with them.
 
2014-02-06 02:10:06 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Doom MD: dr_blasto: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

I would suggest he's mentioning the ones that get shot not caring whether they're shot by frangible ammo or the ridiculous "RIP" bullets. If you miss your target, the thing still goes somewhere.

It's almost as if adults need to make responsible decisions. You're not going to see shootouts in Times Square, save that for the nypd to do (which they have). So if that's his concern, is he ok with NYC residents carrying bladed weapons in any manner they choose including packing a claymore?

I've always been somewhat bemused by the laws that prohibit knives. Sure, if some weirdo wants to wander around with a claymore, let them. If I stand a couple yards away, he's no threat to me and I probably wouldn't have to listen to his crazy mutterings about demons or whatever, and let's be honest, anyone wandering around Times Square with a claymore is going to be crazy as fark.

I for one think it's perfectly sane for me to walk around with this

[img.fark.net image 504x435]

Strapped to your chest?


Yes. But the front faces towards the enemy. So if anyone tries to mug me he'll get his.
 
2014-02-06 02:10:46 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: words words words


The plural of "anecdotes" is not "data."

First off, we seem to have nebulous arguments.  Open carry vs. Concealed carry tends to be the setup, since I presume (?) you are not behind complete banning of guns in public places (such a ban would mean a ban of guns in general, really, how else would those gun move from store to home to shooting range?   If we assume that, then "increased risk" can discount accidents because, like it or not, a concealed firearm is as likely to result in an accident as an open firearm.

Moving forward,  demaL-demaL-yeH's citations just refer to criminal activity with guns.  Open carry vs. concealed carry don't change the relevant portions of that story unless carrying a gun openly somehow increases the likelihood of it being used.  To prove that you would need the weapons effect and (since we're now in the realm of the fuzzy soft science of psychology) you also need evidence and citations suggesting that the weapons effect is greater than the deterrent effect of knowing members of the populace are armed as well as a successful argument that the right to the self-defense capacity of a gun is lower priority than the number of lives that might be saved (and you need a number that has some semblance of vetting) by not allowing open carry.

But it doesn't stop there!

Statistically speaking all crimes committed with guns (the legal guns are equivalent to a farking rounding error) which were already illegal. The man with a gun to his name is not going to use it for a stop'n'rob or a shoot-out, the gun is in his name and too traceable.  How do these guns get into the black market?  Well that's a fair question, but you need the answer and how it relates to legislation for it to back up such legislation.

But I believe this thread was about concern-trolling from the NRA-crowd explaining that the democrats need to divide and conquer themselves instead of standing united against the GOP and its freedom-hating, aristocrat-blowing ways.
 
2014-02-06 02:14:20 PM  

dr_blasto:  and let's be honest, anyone wandering around Times Square with a claymore is going to be crazyAWESOME as fark.


ftfy

/BLOOD FOR ODIN!
 
2014-02-06 02:14:49 PM  

cousin-merle: Considering the topic was the unintended consequences of acting in self-defense in a densely populated area like New York, that's not too bad.  6 feet might be the length of your entire apartment.


Ha.  Nice.
 
2014-02-06 02:15:26 PM  

Frank N Stein: demaL-demaL-yeH: Frank N Stein: dr_blasto: Doom MD: dr_blasto: Doom MD: demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: lilplatinum: Doom MD: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

Why?

Because the ability to safely fire your weapon is significantly less in a city where most people share walls (if not ceilings or floors) with neighbors.

Frangible ammo. Next concern?

I'm sure that will comfort the bystanders who get shot and their families.

You clearly don't know what frangible ammo is.

I would suggest he's mentioning the ones that get shot not caring whether they're shot by frangible ammo or the ridiculous "RIP" bullets. If you miss your target, the thing still goes somewhere.

It's almost as if adults need to make responsible decisions. You're not going to see shootouts in Times Square, save that for the nypd to do (which they have). So if that's his concern, is he ok with NYC residents carrying bladed weapons in any manner they choose including packing a claymore?

I've always been somewhat bemused by the laws that prohibit knives. Sure, if some weirdo wants to wander around with a claymore, let them. If I stand a couple yards away, he's no threat to me and I probably wouldn't have to listen to his crazy mutterings about demons or whatever, and let's be honest, anyone wandering around Times Square with a claymore is going to be crazy as fark.

I for one think it's perfectly sane for me to walk around with this

[img.fark.net image 504x435]

Strapped to your chest?

Yes. But the front faces towards the enemy. So if anyone tries to mug me he'll get his.


Not too into claymores. Competent with them, but I'm more of a saber man, myself. They're super.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-06 02:15:34 PM  

TheBigJerk: dr_blasto:  and let's be honest, anyone wandering around Times Square with a claymore is going to be crazyAWESOME as fark.

ftfy

/BLOOD FOR ODIN!


barbarian. Get a gladius like a true patrician.
 
2014-02-06 02:15:40 PM  

Frank N Stein: lilplatinum: Frank N Stein: A power sander, sure. It's mundane. But how about a computer? That's just a tool as well, when you get down to it. But computers represent more than just a computing machine.

I would probably find passion about a computer itself a bit weird as well, but not as creepy as computers were not fundamentally made to kill other people (instead they were made to display pornography).

I think we are thinking of slightly different meanings of "passion" which have almost entirely different connotations. I'm thinking more in the terms of an enjoyable hobby that one takes care to be well versed in.


I know lots of people for whom this is the most important issue on the political spectrum.   Thats what I find fundamentally mindboggling.  I grant you that it sucks when the government goes against something you like to do.  Hell, I like to smoke grass and the governments stupid laws are annoying.  (Less so living in a city where it can be delivered as easy as seamless).  Legalization still isn't in my top 10 list of political concerns.
 
2014-02-06 02:17:20 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: joness0154: The police are the ones shooting bystanders, not CCW permit holders or individuals open carrying.  Why are people in here claiming otherwise?  There's no facts to back up statements in here that these individuals are dangerous to the public.

Ya.
Sure ting.  - No guns went off and the article doesn't state whether he had a valid carry permit.
You betchya.
Fer shure.  - No verification on whether this lady had a valid carry permit.
Yessiree Bob.-  This guy was breaking the law (under the influence) while carrying.
Uh-huh. -  The article states this woman did NOT have a permit to carry a concealed firearm.
Yup. -  Cop, not a civilian, carrying a firearm under LEOSA
Right.
Proceed.
Walking around armed in public does not increase the danger to yourself and the public. In a pig's eye.

NB: Licensed concealed carriers for every single one of those, um   isolated incidents  up there in the last few months.


Every single one, eh?  Try again.  Even so, a minuscule number of incidents somehow makes all CCWers and open carriers a menace to the public?
 
2014-02-06 02:18:12 PM  

Doom MD: CCW holders have had vastly superior accuracy in violent confrontations than police officers (possibly attributable to the fact ccw holders are generally avid shooters whereas police officers just have to qualify to retain their jobs and their duty pistols have extremely heavy triggers). Readily available training is great, the problem is mandating it has been used as a means to make obtaining a ccw difficult. OTOH, NY state forbids you to hold a firearm during CCW training so you can't even legally shoot it at a target.


Thanks for supporting my point. If you are going to walk around armed, you had better be proficient at hitting your target. CCW holders might not be the problem regarding stray rounds, but with the rise of "Constitutional Carry" and states that don't have mandatory training for weapons carry there are a lot of numbskulls out there who pack but can't shoot worth a damn. If mandating training makes it more difficult for these geniuses to get a carry license, I can't see how that is a bad thing. Mandatory training also tends to weed out the unstable ones as well.

/I know all about cops who can't shoot well. Seen several of them in my IPSC career, they tend to either get much better, or they don't last long in the sport (they also tend to think they're hot shiat until their first match)
//Father is RCMP with Superior Marksman Distinction Handgun and Longarm, and you should hear him biatch about proficiencies in the force
///Guess where I learned to shoot
 
2014-02-06 02:19:08 PM  

TheBigJerk: The man with a gun to his name is not going to use it for a stop'n'rob or a shoot-out, the gun is in his name and too traceable.  How do these guns get into the black market?  Well that's a fair question, but you need the answer and how it relates to legislation for it to back up such legislation.


I think this is a different issue, but fundamentally so long as any gun isn't stolen, it can be sold face-to-face to anyone, legally, which means there's no real traceability or classic black market, with some weapons platforms excepted.
 
2014-02-06 02:21:53 PM  

TheBigJerk: demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: words words words

The plural of "anecdotes" is not "data."

First off, we seem to have nebulous arguments.  Open carry vs. Concealed carry tends to be the setup, since I presume (?) you are not behind complete banning of guns in public places (such a ban would mean a ban of guns in general, really, how else would those gun move from store to home to shooting range?   If we assume that, then "increased risk" can discount accidents because, like it or not, a concealed firearm is as likely to result in an accident as an open firearm.

Moving forward,  demaL-demaL-yeH's citations just refer to criminal activity with guns.  Open carry vs. concealed carry don't change the relevant portions of that story unless carrying a gun openly somehow increases the likelihood of it being used.  To prove that you would need the weapons effect and (since we're now in the realm of the fuzzy soft science of psychology) you also need evidence and citations suggesting that the weapons effect is greater than the deterrent effect of knowing members of the populace are armed as well as a successful argument that the right to the self-defense capacity of a gun is lower priority than the number of lives that might be saved (and you need a number that has some semblance of vetting) by not allowing open carry.

But it doesn't stop there!

Statistically speaking all crimes committed with guns (the legal guns are equivalent to a farking rounding error) which were already illegal. The man with a gun to his name is not going to use it for a stop'n'rob or a shoot-out, the gun is in his name and too traceable.  How do these guns get into the black market?  Well that's a fair question, but you need the answer and how it relates to legislation for it to back up such legislation.

But I believe this thread was about concern-trolling from the NRA-crowd explaining that the democrats need to divide and conquer themselves instead of standing united aga ...


Criminal or stupid activities by concealed carry license holders, including a Chief of Police.
I'm not against owning firearms.
I'm not against carrying one when there is good reason.
I am vehemently against fearful, untrained, undertrained, incompetent people walking around armed in public.

I want every person sixteen and over in the United States who is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a conscientious objector, to receive mandatory, regular firearm training, regularly pass qualification will all firearms owned, and I want it to be mandatory.
 
2014-02-06 02:24:56 PM  

Mouldy Squid: Doom MD: CCW holders have had vastly superior accuracy in violent confrontations than police officers (possibly attributable to the fact ccw holders are generally avid shooters whereas police officers just have to qualify to retain their jobs and their duty pistols have extremely heavy triggers). Readily available training is great, the problem is mandating it has been used as a means to make obtaining a ccw difficult. OTOH, NY state forbids you to hold a firearm during CCW training so you can't even legally shoot it at a target.

Thanks for supporting my point. If you are going to walk around armed, you had better be proficient at hitting your target. CCW holders might not be the problem regarding stray rounds, but with the rise of "Constitutional Carry" and states that don't have mandatory training for weapons carry there are a lot of numbskulls out there who pack but can't shoot worth a damn. If mandating training makes it more difficult for these geniuses to get a carry license, I can't see how that is a bad thing. Mandatory training also tends to weed out the unstable ones as well.

/I know all about cops who can't shoot well. Seen several of them in my IPSC career, they tend to either get much better, or they don't last long in the sport (they also tend to think they're hot shiat until their first match)
//Father is RCMP with Superior Marksman Distinction Handgun and Longarm, and you should hear him biatch about proficiencies in the force
///Guess where I learned to shoot


I live in a constitutional carry state. As far as I can tell, there has been zero change in the number of weapon discharges - justified or not - since the law became active. I'll admit, though, we have some of the lowest population density of the entire continent.

I'm pretty certain, though, there was a pretty big jump in the number of people who began carrying, but that number has tapered off over time. It was more a novelty for some, probably too much of a pain in the ass as you still can't carry wherever federal laws prohibit it nor can you carry in bars, churches or any government office buildings. Most employers prohibit weapons as well, as do most malls and the like.
 
2014-02-06 02:25:07 PM  

Mouldy Squid: If mandating training makes it more difficult for these geniuses to get a carry license, I can't see how that is a bad thing. Mandatory training also tends to weed out the unstable ones as well.


The problem is that mandating any requirement in order to exercise an enumerated right is pretty much frowned upon.  It could be argued that these mandatory licenses could be manipulated in order to deny the standard citizen's right to bear arms.
 
2014-02-06 02:27:47 PM  

HeadLever: enumerated right


it is always funny when someone parades this phrase around

it is like a giant neon arrow that says "hey this guy doesnt know what the fark theyre talking about"
 
2014-02-06 02:27:50 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: TheBigJerk: demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: words words words

The plural of "anecdotes" is not "data."

First off, we seem to have nebulous arguments.  Open carry vs. Concealed carry tends to be the setup, since I presume (?) you are not behind complete banning of guns in public places (such a ban would mean a ban of guns in general, really, how else would those gun move from store to home to shooting range?   If we assume that, then "increased risk" can discount accidents because, like it or not, a concealed firearm is as likely to result in an accident as an open firearm.

Moving forward,  demaL-demaL-yeH's citations just refer to criminal activity with guns.  Open carry vs. concealed carry don't change the relevant portions of that story unless carrying a gun openly somehow increases the likelihood of it being used.  To prove that you would need the weapons effect and (since we're now in the realm of the fuzzy soft science of psychology) you also need evidence and citations suggesting that the weapons effect is greater than the deterrent effect of knowing members of the populace are armed as well as a successful argument that the right to the self-defense capacity of a gun is lower priority than the number of lives that might be saved (and you need a number that has some semblance of vetting) by not allowing open carry.

But it doesn't stop there!

Statistically speaking all crimes committed with guns (the legal guns are equivalent to a farking rounding error) which were already illegal. The man with a gun to his name is not going to use it for a stop'n'rob or a shoot-out, the gun is in his name and too traceable.  How do these guns get into the black market?  Well that's a fair question, but you need the answer and how it relates to legislation for it to back up such legislation.

But I believe this thread was about concern-trolling from the NRA-crowd explaining that the democrats need to divide and conquer themselves instead of standing ...


I didn't open any of those links, but did they have the chief of police from wyoming that tased his officer, a guy in his house and himself all "accidentally" while trying to serve some summons or respond to a complaint about the guy's cats?

Because that was funny shiat and should be forwarded everywhere.
 
2014-02-06 02:28:39 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: I am vehemently against fearful, untrained, undertrained, incompetent people walking around armed in public.


Let me guess, only you can determine who is not fearful, untrained, undertrained, or incompetent, amiright?  Is that requirement instituted before or after you get to choose whose reasons are justified in order to carry in public?
 
2014-02-06 02:32:22 PM  
*sigh* Whatever...

/Not a fan of it, but the world isn't going to end if open-carry even became law, so oh, well.
 
2014-02-06 02:33:32 PM  

sprawl15: it is always funny when someone parades this phrase around

it is like a giant neon arrow that says "hey this guy doesnt know what the fark theyre talking about"


Please explain.  An enumerated right has a specific definition.  I didn't think it was that hard to understand.
 
2014-02-06 02:34:11 PM  

Bloody William: sendtodave: Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.

They tried to ban soda.

False, and I'm pretty sure I've corrected you about this in the past.


You can't fix satire.

NY is a joke.  Want to see real cities?  Try Asia.
 
2014-02-06 02:37:01 PM  

HeadLever: An enumerated right has a specific definition.


and why do you think a right being enumerated matters?

put another way, why bother appending 'enumerated' to the word 'right'?
 
2014-02-06 02:37:35 PM  
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneillinstitute/gostin_hcr_bloombergsh e althlegacy.cfm

 "Bloomberg's Health Legacy: Urban Innovator or Meddling Nanny"

"Paternalistic" seems to come up a lot.
 
2014-02-06 02:38:53 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Criminal or stupid activities by concealed carry license holders, including a Chief of Police.
I'm not against owning firearms.
I'm not against carrying one when there is good reason.
I am vehemently against fearful, untrained, undertrained, incompetent people walking around armed in public.

I want every person sixteen and over in the United States who is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a conscientious objector, to receive mandatory, regular firearm training, regularly pass qualification will all firearms owned, and I want it to be mandatory.


Half the people in the articles you posted didn't have valid carry permits (including the cop, who actually is legally able to carry under LEOSA).

Regardless, what's a "good reason" to be carrying?  Is not wanting to protect oneself a good enough reason?
 
2014-02-06 02:40:14 PM  

sendtodave: Bloody William: sendtodave: Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.

They tried to ban soda.

False, and I'm pretty sure I've corrected you about this in the past.

You can't fix satire.

NY is a joke.  Want to see real cities?  Try Asia.


That's a continent.
 
2014-02-06 02:42:24 PM  

Bloody William: sendtodave: Bloody William: sendtodave: Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.

They tried to ban soda.

False, and I'm pretty sure I've corrected you about this in the past.

You can't fix satire.

NY is a joke.  Want to see real cities?  Try Asia.

That's a continent.


Where as NYC is incontinent.  Heyo!
 
2014-02-06 02:44:18 PM  

sendtodave: NY is a joke.  Want to see real cities?  Try Asia.


Lived in Shanghai, doesn't make NY a joke.  It might have more people, but we don't have rotting pig corpses flowing down the hudson.

/although we do have people from New Jersey and Staten Island, so maybe it is a wash.
 
2014-02-06 02:46:23 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: I want every person sixteen and over in the United States who is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a conscientious objector, to receive mandatory, regular firearm training, regularly pass qualification will all firearms owned, and I want it to be mandatory.


So, basically, you want me to pay for you to get classes in your study hobby?

Go fark yourself.
 
2014-02-06 02:48:50 PM  

dr_blasto: Mouldy Squid: Doom MD: CCW holders have had vastly superior accuracy in violent confrontations than police officers (possibly attributable to the fact ccw holders are generally avid shooters whereas police officers just have to qualify to retain their jobs and their duty pistols have extremely heavy triggers). Readily available training is great, the problem is mandating it has been used as a means to make obtaining a ccw difficult. OTOH, NY state forbids you to hold a firearm during CCW training so you can't even legally shoot it at a target.

Thanks for supporting my point. If you are going to walk around armed, you had better be proficient at hitting your target. CCW holders might not be the problem regarding stray rounds, but with the rise of "Constitutional Carry" and states that don't have mandatory training for weapons carry there are a lot of numbskulls out there who pack but can't shoot worth a damn. If mandating training makes it more difficult for these geniuses to get a carry license, I can't see how that is a bad thing. Mandatory training also tends to weed out the unstable ones as well.

/I know all about cops who can't shoot well. Seen several of them in my IPSC career, they tend to either get much better, or they don't last long in the sport (they also tend to think they're hot shiat until their first match)
//Father is RCMP with Superior Marksman Distinction Handgun and Longarm, and you should hear him biatch about proficiencies in the force
///Guess where I learned to shoot

I live in a constitutional carry state. As far as I can tell, there has been zero change in the number of weapon discharges - justified or not - since the law became active. I'll admit, though, we have some of the lowest population density of the entire continent.

I'm pretty certain, though, there was a pretty big jump in the number of people who began carrying, but that number has tapered off over time. It was more a novelty for some, probably too much of a pain in the ass as ...


I take it that you live in a mostly rural state? In my experience, mainly rural populations tend to have been raised in shooting culture and are more responsible with their firearms. I don't have a problem with them. I have a problem with dickwads and mental cases packing. If they want to carry then they should have the training. If that comes at the price of making it marginally more difficult for responsible owners (who shouldn't have any trouble passing the proficiencies), I would call that fair.

I, obviously, don't have a problem with the responsible gun owners. The problem is that any attempt at weeding out the irresponsible ones requires some kind of regulation, and that is antithetical to the rabid gun nuts.
 
2014-02-06 02:49:05 PM  

sendtodave: Bloody William: sendtodave: Wooly Bully: sendtodave: NYC just seems to kinda suck when it comes to personal freedoms, doesn't it?

It really doesn't. You can point to a specific local law and say it's more restrictive than where you live, but you can't generalize from that.

As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm always amused by the non-New Yorkers who seem to think they understand the city better than we do, and invariably say it's worse than it really is.

They tried to ban soda.

False, and I'm pretty sure I've corrected you about this in the past.

You can't fix satire.

NY is a joke.  Want to see real cities?  Try Asia.


One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble.
 
2014-02-06 02:51:28 PM  

BunkoSquad: Here's another lib who's fine with open carry, on the theory that you maybe can't judge a book by its cover, but a candy bar wrapper that says "NUTS" on the outside is a pretty good clue what might be inside


THIS. Nothing like a big steel "I'm a pants sh*tting paranoid idiot" sign displayed prominently in public to let you know who to avoid at all costs.
/has owned guns
//has used guns
///has left his guns IN THE FARKING HOUSE
 
2014-02-06 02:53:43 PM  

Fart_Machine: One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble.


omg.  I am going to kill you for that.  Damn it.  There it is.  Stuck in my head.
 
2014-02-06 02:54:20 PM  

lilplatinum: sendtodave: NY is a joke. Want to see real cities? Try Asia.

Lived in Shanghai, doesn't make NY a joke. It might have more people, but we don't have rotting pig corpses flowing down the hudson.

/although we do have people from New Jersey and Staten Island, so maybe it is a wash.


I laughed, but in seriousness, it is interesting that a certain type of person feels the need to tell everyone what a "joke" NYC is.

The first time I encountered this phenomenon I must have been about 12. Some kids asks where I'm from, I tell him New York, and he goes into this slightly angry speech about what a lousy place it is and how he doesn't feel any need to go there.

This type feels personally threatened by whatever New York represents to them, and that accounts for the anger. It has nothing to do with what life here is really like.
 
2014-02-06 02:54:34 PM  

joness0154: demaL-demaL-yeH: Criminal or stupid activities by concealed carry license holders, including a Chief of Police.
I'm not against owning firearms.
I'm not against carrying one when there is good reason.
I am vehemently against fearful, untrained, undertrained, incompetent people walking around armed in public.

I want every person sixteen and over in the United States who is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a conscientious objector, to receive mandatory, regular firearm training, regularly pass qualification will all firearms owned, and I want it to be mandatory.

Half the people in the articles you posted didn't have valid carry permits (including the cop, who actually is legally able to carry under LEOSA).

Regardless, what's a "good reason" to be carrying?  Is not wanting to protect oneself a good enough reason?


From what?
If you can name a specific threat (you're a diamond courier, for example), and you're competent, both with the firearm and mentally, and you're in a place where it's legal for you to carry, no problemo.
If you're just afraid of generic crime, shadows, darker/lighter than you people, loud noises, FoxNews says they're a'-comin-fer-yer-gunz, then no, that's not good reason to walk around armed in public. (Although they are very good reasons to refer you to a mental health professional.)

The streets of this country are safer than they have been since the early 1960s.
 
2014-02-06 02:55:45 PM  

Mouldy Squid: I take it that you live in a mostly rural state? In my experience, mainly rural populations tend to have been raised in shooting culture and are more responsible with their firearms. I don't have a problem with them. I have a problem with dickwads and mental cases packing. If they want to carry then they should have the training. If that comes at the price of making it marginally more difficult for responsible owners (who shouldn't have any trouble passing the proficiencies), I would call that fair.

I, obviously, don't have a problem with the responsible gun owners. The problem is that any attempt at weeding out the irresponsible ones requires some kind of regulation, and that is antithetical to the rabid gun nuts.


yeah, Wyoming is pretty close to the least population density you can have and still be a state. I think only Alaska is less dense, but they also have bigger cities.

I'd say that what's good for wide-open Wyoming doesn't necessarily translate to NYC or any other densely populated area. Honestly, the world would be a better place if a lot of gun owners didn't have guns, just like if a lot of people who currently drive ceased to do so. If we, in general, were better at self-appraisal regarding our responsibility or capabilities we'd all be better off.

Unfortunately, a lot of people who carry firearms do so because they can with little to no thought of whether they should.
 
2014-02-06 02:56:13 PM  

skozlaw: demaL-demaL-yeH: I want every person sixteen and over in the United States who is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a conscientious objector, to receive mandatory, regular firearm training, regularly pass qualification will all firearms owned, and I want it to be mandatory.

So, basically, you want me to pay for you to get classes in your study hobby?

Go fark yourself.


Go get trained and competent before you inflict your armed self on the public.
 
2014-02-06 02:59:16 PM  

Wooly Bully: The first time I encountered this phenomenon I must have been about 12. Some kids asks where I'm from, I tell him New York, and he goes into this slightly angry speech about what a lousy place it is and how he doesn't feel any need to go there.

This type feels personally threatened by whatever New York represents to them, and that accounts for the anger. It has nothing to do with what life here is really like.


A good number of my relatives in the south are vehemently against everything NYC stands for, which is odd since several of the more vocal ones have literally never been farther than a couple hundred miles of where they were born.
 
2014-02-06 03:00:03 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Go get trained and competent before you inflict your armed self on the public.


If YOU want to play with YOUR guns YOU go get the training on YOUR dime. I'm neither paying for your cowardice nor will I be mandated to participate in it.
 
2014-02-06 03:00:30 PM  

dr_blasto: Mouldy Squid: I take it that you live in a mostly rural state? In my experience, mainly rural populations tend to have been raised in shooting culture and are more responsible with their firearms. I don't have a problem with them. I have a problem with dickwads and mental cases packing. If they want to carry then they should have the training. If that comes at the price of making it marginally more difficult for responsible owners (who shouldn't have any trouble passing the proficiencies), I would call that fair.

I, obviously, don't have a problem with the responsible gun owners. The problem is that any attempt at weeding out the irresponsible ones requires some kind of regulation, and that is antithetical to the rabid gun nuts.

yeah, Wyoming is pretty close to the least population density you can have and still be a state. I think only Alaska is less dense, but they also have bigger cities.

I'd say that what's good for wide-open Wyoming doesn't necessarily translate to NYC or any other densely populated area. Honestly, the world would be a better place if a lot of gun owners didn't have guns, just like if a lot of people who currently drive ceased to do so. If we, in general, were better at self-appraisal regarding our responsibility or capabilities we'd all be better off.

Unfortunately, a lot of people who carry firearms do so because they can with little to no thought of whether they should.


I agree completely.
 
2014-02-06 03:03:22 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: joness0154: demaL-demaL-yeH: Criminal or stupid activities by concealed carry license holders, including a Chief of Police.
I'm not against owning firearms.
I'm not against carrying one when there is good reason.
I am vehemently against fearful, untrained, undertrained, incompetent people walking around armed in public.

I want every person sixteen and over in the United States who is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a conscientious objector, to receive mandatory, regular firearm training, regularly pass qualification will all firearms owned, and I want it to be mandatory.

Half the people in the articles you posted didn't have valid carry permits (including the cop, who actually is legally able to carry under LEOSA).

Regardless, what's a "good reason" to be carrying?  Is not wanting to protect oneself a good enough reason?

From what?
If you can name a specific threat (you're a diamond courier, for example), and you're competent, both with the firearm and mentally, and you're in a place where it's legal for you to carry, no problemo.
If you're just afraid of generic crime, shadows, darker/lighter than you people, loud noises, FoxNews says they're a'-comin-fer-yer-gunz, then no, that's not good reason to walk around armed in public. (Although they are very good reasons to refer you to a mental health professional.)

The streets of this country are safer than they have been since the early 1960s.


Ccw has flourished since the 1960s with a drop in crime in that period.

What you propose would be easily abused by anyone with a bone to pick against guns or any group that could conceivably be discriminated against. People are adults and should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding their need to defend themselves rather than the judgement of a bureaucrat who may not even be looking out for their best interest.
 
2014-02-06 03:04:15 PM  

Doom MD: Ccw has flourished since the 1960s with a drop in crime in that period.


There was also a gigantic spike in crime inthat period as well...
 
2014-02-06 03:04:46 PM  

skozlaw: demaL-demaL-yeH: Go get trained and competent before you inflict your armed self on the public.

If YOU want to play with YOUR guns YOU go get the training on YOUR dime. I'm neither paying for your cowardice nor will I be mandated to participate in it.


Do you take this same view on other mandates such as contraceptives?
 
2014-02-06 03:08:45 PM  

Wooly Bully: I laughed, but in seriousness, it is interesting that a certain type of person feels the need to tell everyone what a "joke" NYC is.

The first time I encountered this phenomenon I must have been about 12. Some kids asks where I'm from, I tell him New York, and he goes into this slightly angry speech about what a lousy place it is and how he doesn't feel any need to go there.

This type feels personally threatened by whatever New York represents to them, and that accounts for the anger. It has nothing to do with what life here is really like.


There are two criticisms of NYC I'll countenance:
-it's a city. It's loud, there's lots of people and big buildings, and things "move quickly" - and some people are shocked at all this.
-it's built for small people. A taller and broader person myself, I've found that unless I'm in a newer area, everything is built for people 75% the size they are now (and I don't just mean waistlines). Marshall Eriksen had a great rant about "elf doorways" in NYC on one ep of HIMYM; and I personally agree, especially regarding the narrowness of aisles in stores.

Everything else means you need to get out of Skeeter Holler more.
 
2014-02-06 03:08:45 PM  

Frank N Stein: Do you take this same view on other mandates such as contraceptives?


No, but I feel that way about heart bypass surgery.

Did you have an analogy that made sense or did you just want to keep plugging away based on your fundamental misunderstanding of how health insurance works?
 
2014-02-06 03:09:23 PM  
SO basically, there is no reason for me NOT to vote for Wendy Davis now?
 
2014-02-06 03:10:00 PM  

lilplatinum: Doom MD: Ccw has flourished since the 1960s with a drop in crime in that period.

There was also a gigantic spike in crime inthat period as well...


Doom DM misstated the year. Concealed weapons permits actually became popular nationwide in the 1990s, not in the 1960s.
 
2014-02-06 03:10:32 PM  

sprawl15: and why do you think a right being enumerated matters?

put another way, why bother appending 'enumerated' to the word 'right'?


Because this one is specifically called out in the BoR.  This is in contrast to unenumerated rights that is discussed in the 9th.  Not sure how indicating that this right is specifically documented in the Bill of Rights indicates some sort of ignorance on this issue.
 
2014-02-06 03:10:44 PM  

Frank N Stein: Do you take this same view on other mandates such as contraceptives?


Health insurance companies don't charge anyone more to cover contraception, they are willing to do it for free since it is cheaper than people pumping out little parasites...
 
2014-02-06 03:12:53 PM  

Dimensio: lilplatinum: Doom MD: Ccw has flourished since the 1960s with a drop in crime in that period.

There was also a gigantic spike in crime inthat period as well...

Doom DM misstated the year. Concealed weapons permits actually became popular nationwide in the 1990s, not in the 1960s.


Fair enough - still correlation vs causation though, crime during that period dropped significantly all over the country in both places with CCW and wihout it.    You can't attribute the difference of NYC in the 80s to what it is today to CCW.
 
2014-02-06 03:13:00 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: If you can name a specific threat (you're a diamond courier, for example), and you're competent, both with the firearm and mentally, and you're in a place where it's legal for you to carry, no problemo.


Other people that would like to have what I currently have.  Is that a specific threat that is good enough?
 
2014-02-06 03:13:22 PM  

skozlaw: Frank N Stein: Do you take this same view on other mandates such as contraceptives?

No, but I feel that way about heart bypass surgery.

Did you have an analogy that made sense or did you just want to keep plugging away based on your fundamental misunderstanding of how health insurance works?


it was just a question. No need to get defensive. But thanks for the answer. Your reaction was what I expected.
 
2014-02-06 03:14:31 PM  

Wessoman: SO basically, there is no reason for me NOT to vote for Wendy Davis now?


Well I'm not a resident of the State of Texas so it would be illegal for me to vote for her in this election.

/there's your reason.
 
2014-02-06 03:15:57 PM  

lilplatinum: Dimensio: lilplatinum: Doom MD: Ccw has flourished since the 1960s with a drop in crime in that period.

There was also a gigantic spike in crime inthat period as well...

Doom DM misstated the year. Concealed weapons permits actually became popular nationwide in the 1990s, not in the 1960s.

Fair enough - still correlation vs causation though, crime during that period dropped significantly all over the country in both places with CCW and wihout it.    You can't attribute the difference of NYC in the 80s to what it is today to CCW.


I do not assert causation. I merely recognize that the prediction of increased incidence of violent confrontations, from opponents of concealed weapons permit systems, have proved to be as successful as the predictions of harm to children made by same-sex marriage opponents.
 
2014-02-06 03:16:50 PM  

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: If you can name a specific threat (you're a diamond courier, for example), and you're competent, both with the firearm and mentally, and you're in a place where it's legal for you to carry, no problemo.

Other people that would like to have what I currently have.  Is that a specific threat that is good enough?


Not in places like Germany that have such systems in place and which have no particular problems with random people getting killed because they aren't armed.
 
2014-02-06 03:19:52 PM  

Dimensio: I do not assert causation. I merely recognize that the prediction of increased incidence of violent confrontations, from opponents of concealed weapons permit systems, have proved to be as successful as the predictions of harm to children made by same-sex marriage opponents.


Yup, its unlikely that the CCW has any affect on overall violent crime one way or another since most violent crime is between non-strangers.  All CCW does is help facilitate the circulation of more guns (which is either good or bad depending on who you talk to).
 
2014-02-06 03:20:56 PM  

Frank N Stein: it was just a question.


No, it wasn't, but if you're just going to tuck tail and run because you suddenly realized you were full of shiat that's fine by me.

If you're going to get pissy because health insurance is mandated, fine, but health insurance isn't a hobby like shootin' yer gernz so it's still a completely invalid analogy.
 
2014-02-06 03:22:05 PM  

skozlaw: Frank N Stein: it was just a question.

No, it wasn't, but if you're just going to tuck tail and run because you suddenly realized you were full of shiat that's fine by me.

If you're going to get pissy because health insurance is mandated, fine, but health insurance isn't a hobby like shootin' yer gernz so it's still a completely invalid analogy.


You're getting upset. You should probably get off the internet for a bit and calm down.
 
2014-02-06 03:23:26 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: joness0154: demaL-demaL-yeH: Criminal or stupid activities by concealed carry license holders, including a Chief of Police.
I'm not against owning firearms.
I'm not against carrying one when there is good reason.
I am vehemently against fearful, untrained, undertrained, incompetent people walking around armed in public.

I want every person sixteen and over in the United States who is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a conscientious objector, to receive mandatory, regular firearm training, regularly pass qualification will all firearms owned, and I want it to be mandatory.

Half the people in the articles you posted didn't have valid carry permits (including the cop, who actually is legally able to carry under LEOSA).

Regardless, what's a "good reason" to be carrying?  Is not wanting to protect oneself a good enough reason?

From what?
If you can name a specific threat (you're a diamond courier, for example), and you're competent, both with the firearm and mentally, and you're in a place where it's legal for you to carry, no problemo.
If you're just afraid of generic crime, shadows, darker/lighter than you people, loud noises, FoxNews says they're a'-comin-fer-yer-gunz, then no, that's not good reason to walk around armed in public. (Although they are very good reasons to refer you to a mental health professional.)

The streets of this country are safer than they have been since the early 1960s.


I would venture to say that most of the time, muggings/rapes/carjackings/etc. are not prior known threats to the individual.

I'll give you a good example, only because it hits home close to me and she's the reason we now have a concealed carry law in IL:

Mary Shepard.

By most standards, she had a lot of firearms training with the certificates to prove it.  Concealed carry permits for 2 states that allowed her to carry in many other states EXCEPT for IL, where she lives.  She and another person were viciously attacked by a parolee at the church where she works and left to die.  She was in her 70's - trying to fight back against a younger and much stronger violent felon.  She had to sue (and won) to get IL to pass a concealed carry law, only AFTER she nearly was killed.

Take a look at her after the beating and tell me how, because she isn't a diamond courier (per your example), she shouldn't be able to defend herself.  Tell me how ANYONE shouldn't have the right to defend themselves.  Go on...i'll wait.

www.humanevents.com
 
2014-02-06 03:24:11 PM  

joness0154: I'm not aware of any restrictions on free speech that vary by state (I could be wrong, however)


Many states have passed laws making it illegal to malign local agricultural products.  Texas passed a law against criticizing Texas beef.  I suppose these laws could make life interesting if you were flying over flyover country, the plane had to make an unscheduled landing, and there was a warrant out for your arrest because you had made negative comments about the local produce.
 
2014-02-06 03:27:36 PM  

joness0154: I would venture to say that most of the time, muggings/rapes/carjackings/etc. are not prior known threats to the individual.

I'll give you a good example, only because it hits home close to me and she's the reason we now have a concealed carry law in IL:

Mary Shepard.

By most standards, she had a lot of firearms training with the certificates to prove it.  Concealed carry permits for 2 states that allowed her to carry in many other states EXCEPT for IL, where she lives.  She and another person were viciously attacked by a parolee at the church where she works and left to die.  She was in her 70's - trying to fight back against a younger and much stronger violent felon.  She had to sue (and won) to get IL to pass a concealed carry law, only AFTER she nearly was killed.

Take a look at her after the beating and tell me how, because she isn't a diamond courier (per your example), she shouldn't be able to defend herself.  Tell me how ANYONE shouldn't have the right to defend themselves.  Go on...i'll wait.


Funny how if we post pictures of little kids who have died from guns, or cite the myriad of school shootings that happen then all the excuses from gun champions start flying about how we are manipulating tragedies for a political agenda... but apparently trotting out pictures of beat up old ladies to pull at peoples emotions is not the same thing at all.
 
2014-02-06 03:28:16 PM  

HeadLever: Because this one is specifically called out in the BoR.  This is in contrast to unenumerated rights that is discussed in the 9th.


what contrast would that be?

one of substance, or simply one of rhetoric?
 
2014-02-06 03:28:46 PM  

joness0154: demaL-demaL-yeH: joness0154: demaL-demaL-yeH: Criminal or stupid activities by concealed carry license holders, including a Chief of Police.
I'm not against owning firearms.
I'm not against carrying one when there is good reason.
I am vehemently against fearful, untrained, undertrained, incompetent people walking around armed in public.

I want every person sixteen and over in the United States who is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a conscientious objector, to receive mandatory, regular firearm training, regularly pass qualification will all firearms owned, and I want it to be mandatory.

Half the people in the articles you posted didn't have valid carry permits (including the cop, who actually is legally able to carry under LEOSA).

Regardless, what's a "good reason" to be carrying?  Is not wanting to protect oneself a good enough reason?

From what?
If you can name a specific threat (you're a diamond courier, for example), and you're competent, both with the firearm and mentally, and you're in a place where it's legal for you to carry, no problemo.
If you're just afraid of generic crime, shadows, darker/lighter than you people, loud noises, FoxNews says they're a'-comin-fer-yer-gunz, then no, that's not good reason to walk around armed in public. (Although they are very good reasons to refer you to a mental health professional.)

The streets of this country are safer than they have been since the early 1960s.

I would venture to say that most of the time, muggings/rapes/carjackings/etc. are not prior known threats to the individual.

I'll give you a good example, only because it hits home close to me and she's the reason we now have a concealed carry law in IL:

Mary Shepard.

By most standards, she had a lot of firearms training with the certificates to prove it.  Concealed carry permits for 2 states that allowed her to carry in many other states EXCEPT for IL, where she lives.  She and another person were viciously attacked by a parolee at the church where she ...


Ms. Shepard survived the attack. Had she used a firearm in self-defense, one of her attackers may not have survived the attack.

An attack with no deaths is always preferable to an attack with more than zero deaths.

Q.E.Derp.
 
2014-02-06 03:31:47 PM  

sprawl15: what contrast would that be?


Again the contrast is between enumerated and unenumerated rights within the context of the Bill of Rights. This distinction is not rhetorical but real and substantive.
 
2014-02-06 03:32:48 PM  

HeadLever: This distinction is not rhetorical but real and substantive.


what is the substantive difference between an enumerated and an unenumerated right?

be specific
 
2014-02-06 03:37:16 PM  

sprawl15: what is the substantive difference between an enumerated and an unenumerated right?


From a functional standpoint, very little.   The fact that they used substantive due process to invent a right to privacy in Roe v. Wade doesn't somehow subordinate it to protections enacted based on the 2nd amendment.
 
2014-02-06 03:37:43 PM  
She's just doing this to make up for an inept looking photo op and balance her views against a Republican opponent. I suspect alot of people wouldn't believe her stance simply because she's a Democrat.

I would suggest going one better. Maybe offering  SBR/Suppressor without permit or creating a machine gun registry in State.

/Toss up something for gun owners that the other party has always dragged its feet on.
 
2014-02-06 03:38:36 PM  

lilplatinum: Funny how if we post pictures of little kids who have died from guns, or cite the myriad of school shootings that happen then all the excuses from gun champions start flying about how we are manipulating tragedies for a political agenda... but apparently trotting out pictures of beat up old ladies to pull at peoples emotions is not the same thing at all.


Hypocrisy is one of the three major pillars of conservatism, you shouldn't be surprised. They only get pissed when you appeal to emotion because they feel like they should have a monopoly on it. See - Death Panels.
 
2014-02-06 03:38:54 PM  
Liberal gun lover reporting in.
 
2014-02-06 03:40:34 PM  

sprawl15: HeadLever: This distinction is not rhetorical but real and substantive.

what is the substantive difference between an enumerated and an unenumerated right?

be specific


Good luck with that one. You're talking to someone who literally doesn't understand what the constitution means, but is adamant that he does. You know, like most gun nuts who I just instantly put on ignore as to not let their stupid rub off.
 
2014-02-06 03:42:10 PM  

sprawl15: what is the substantive difference between an enumerated and an unenumerated right?


Unenumerated rights are legal rights inferred from other legal rights that are officiated in a retrievable form codified by law institutions, such as in written constitutions, but are not themselves expressly coded or "enumerated" among the explicit writ of the law.  

Here is a good place to start
 
2014-02-06 03:44:39 PM  

justtray: Good luck with that one


Feel free to debunk,sparky.
 
2014-02-06 03:44:49 PM  

HeadLever: Unenumerated rights are legal rights inferred from other legal rights that are officiated in a retrievable form codified by law institutions, such as in written constitutions, but are not themselves expressly coded or "enumerated" among the explicit writ of the law.


so if this is the only distinction you're asserting exists (i.e., the source) then in context of a right that everyone understands exists, the enumeration of said right is irrelevant to the argument and you agree your use of 'enumeration' in context is rhetorical.

correct?

/i am setting aside the silly idea that rights are granted by the government for now
 
2014-02-06 03:47:19 PM  

lilplatinum: The fact that they used substantive due process to invent a right to privacy in Roe v. Wade doesn't somehow subordinate it to protections enacted based on the 2nd amendment.


It is not necessarily about subordination of one right to another, but about the nature of being inferred vs being an explicit statement.
 
2014-02-06 03:48:57 PM  

HeadLever: lilplatinum: The fact that they used substantive due process to invent a right to privacy in Roe v. Wade doesn't somehow subordinate it to protections enacted based on the 2nd amendment.

It is not necessarily about subordination of one right to another, but about the nature of being inferred vs being an explicit statement.


But from a functional standpoint as a citizen and not a constitutional scholar, the distinction between the two are irrelevant.  A violation to the right to privacy, which is not an enumerated right created by substantive due process, is currently equally unconstitutional to a violation to the second amendemnt, which is an enumerated right.
 
2014-02-06 03:50:31 PM  

sprawl15: so if this is the only distinction you're asserting exists (i.e., the source) then in context of a right that everyone understands exists, the enumeration of said right is irrelevant to the argument and you agree your use of 'enumeration' in context is rhetorical.


No, it give substantial context to the origin of said right as being an explicit right rather than inferred.  How did you miss this the first time?
 
2014-02-06 03:56:24 PM  

HeadLever: it give substantial context to the origin of said right as being an explicit right rather than inferred


just to be clear...you think the only substantial difference between the two is that they are substantially different?

that is a fascinating position

since you apparently do not know what the term 'substantial differences' means, let me rephrase: how does adding the word 'enumerated' in the context you used it change the meaning of the sentence at all? what would be lost if you did not use the word 'enumerated'?
 
2014-02-06 03:57:02 PM  

WTF Indeed: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero. Same thing that happens to Teabaggers who differ on some issues.


Mostly, though, the purity-of-stance people on the left have been drowned out. They used to have a lot of influence, but Clinton did a lot to show people that Democrats actually win when they stop looking for purity. Then Bush was elected, and people on the left saw that there really was a difference between the two parties, even if they had things in common. Obama was elected twice, and no one thinks of him as having purity in his so-called liberal stances. There's no push to purge DINOs anymore.
 
2014-02-06 04:01:55 PM  

lilplatinum: But from a functional standpoint as a citizen and not a constitutional scholar, the distinction between the two are irrelevant.


Not necessarily as inferred rights don't have the explicit legal foundation that enumerated rights have.

Look how easy that 'Right to Privacy' has eroded.  Do you think that the lack of an explicit foundation for this right may be part of that?
 
2014-02-06 04:04:35 PM  

sprawl15: ust to be clear...you think the only substantial difference between the two is that they are substantially different?


No, for the 3rd time, one is inferred, the other is explicit.  Not sure why you keep discounting this other than to try to detract from that point.
 
2014-02-06 04:05:27 PM  

Frank N Stein: TV's Vinnie: Doom MD: TV's Vinnie: Whites with guns: God-fearing Merkins showing their Patriotic Pride


Blacks with guns: OMG DIRTY GANGBANGERS

the guy at the bottom is an NRA spokesperson token. Colin Noir is awesome.

FTFY

He's probably an Uncle Tom, right?


If he's helping the right wing, he's downright Toby!
 
2014-02-06 04:07:12 PM  

sprawl15: what would be lost if you did not use the word 'enumerated'?


That it is explicitly codified in the Bill of Rights.  Any more dumb questions?
 
2014-02-06 04:08:53 PM  

way south: She's just doing this to make up for an inept looking photo op and balance her views against a Republican opponent. I suspect alot of people wouldn't believe her stance simply because she's a Democrat.

I would suggest going one better. Maybe offering  SBR/Suppressor without permit or creating a machine gun registry in State.

/Toss up something for gun owners that the other party has always dragged its feet on.


It is entirely possible that she means it. Just because she's a member of the Democratic party means little with regard to any single platform issue and the Democratic party isn't all about the purity tests like the modern Republicans seem to find fashionable.

It is apparent that the gun control issue is a lost cause in this country and it is going to take a massive sea change to reverse that.
 
2014-02-06 04:11:31 PM  

HeadLever: No, for the 3rd time, one is inferred, the other is explicit.


HeadLever: That it is explicitly codified in the Bill of Rights.


you do know i am asking you why that makes a difference, right?

"why does it make a difference if one is explicit" "because it says it is explicit" "yes but i am asking you what is substantially different because it is explicit" "because it says it is explicit" "yes but why do you think that means anything" "because it says it is explicit"

i mean there is probably not a dumber way to attempt to respond to the question beyond repeating your idiotic mantra and then insulting me but there's still quite a bit of pixels left for you to try to explain why you think explicit enumeration makes a right in any way different from any other right
 
2014-02-06 04:12:04 PM  

HeadLever: Not necessarily as inferred rights don't have the explicit legal foundation that enumerated rights have.

Look how easy that 'Right to Privacy' has eroded.  Do you think that the lack of an explicit foundation for this right may be part of that?


Which erosions are you referring to?   It was narrowly defined in the first place.     All it would take is 5 justices to seriously erode what your view of your second amendment rights are.   Enumerated rights are not immune to erosion through case law any more than unenumerated rights are.   Both are often roughly one overturned decision away from a big re-i