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
    More: Interesting, Texas Opens, Texas, gun laws, Republican George W. Bush, Texas Democratic Party, right-wing, concealed handgun, Texas Attorney General  
•       •       •

1455 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2014 at 8:51 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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-interpretation.
 
2014-02-06 04:16:34 PM  

Doom MD: 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.


O.o

"You SHOULD NOT walk around armed in public without good reason."
What external agency does that propose, o internet dentist?
What new laws?
What restrictions, other than attempting to remind you to invoke the self-control to stop being an asshat endangering public for no good reason, have I proposed?
Is it prescriptive? Certainly, but it has no force other than shaming attached, and you should be ashamed.
 
2014-02-06 04:17:31 PM  

HeadLever: 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?


If rights need to be enumerated and enforced to have any validity, doesn't that really make them legal rights, as opposed to natural rights?

Or, as George Carlin put it, doesn't that really make them just privileges?
 
2014-02-06 04:17:40 PM  

sprawl15: you do know i am asking you why that makes a difference, right?


Yeah, why would it make a difference if something was codified in the BoR.  I mean, it is only paper that some guy wrote on a few hundred years ago and serves as our foundation for our government.  Nothing substantial about that at all.

Sorry, I didn't know you were being a comedian.
 
2014-02-06 04:20:12 PM  

lilplatinum: 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-interpretation.


Ultimately what it boils down to, when alls said and done, is that this guy thinks that the 2nd ammendment is, and always has been an unlimited right for any citizen to own any weapon they want, without any regulation.

In other words, "Area Man Passionate Defender of what he Imagines Constitution to mean."

He's been here long enough to know he's wrong, so no amount of trying to catch him in his own bullshiat is going to work on him.
 
2014-02-06 04:20:25 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.


So ... this violent felon lives in your neighborhood and has threatened you.
 
2014-02-06 04:21:55 PM  

HeadLever: Yeah, why would it make a difference if something was codified in the BoR. I mean, it is only paper that some guy wrote on a few hundred years ago and serves as our foundation for our government.


and there is your answer. this kind of hilarious drivel is why i said:

sprawl15: it is like a giant neon arrow that says "hey this guy doesnt know what the fark theyre talking about"


it is always fascinating to see how hilariously unaware the biggest MAH CONSTITUTION dickwads are of how the constitution actually works or where its ideas come from
 
2014-02-06 04:22:21 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Doom MD: 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.

O.o

"You SHOULD NOT walk around armed in public without good reason."
What external agency does that propose, o internet dentist?
What new laws?
What restrictions, other than attempting to remind you to invoke the self-control to stop being an asshat endangering public for no good reason, have I proposed?
Is it prescriptive? Certainly, but it has no force other than shaming attached, and you should be ashamed.


Wow, look at those goalposts move! I'm glad you're in favor of people using their discretion in determining when to carry their firearms, both concealed and openly.
 
2014-02-06 04:24:02 PM  

lilplatinum: Which erosions are you referring to?


When you have the Free Republic and ACLU both warning about surveillance and how that impacts our privacy, I am surprised that you can even ask that question with a straight face.

And while both can be modified, enumerated right has a specific foundation that is explicit in the BoR. Some modifications of enumerate rights cannot be done without first amending the constitution.
 
2014-02-06 04:27:21 PM  

justtray: Ultimately what it boils down to, when alls said and done, is that this guy thinks that the 2nd ammendment is, and always has been an unlimited right for any citizen to own any weapon they want, without any regulation


Nice strawman!   Must be about 7 feet tall.
 
Displayed 50 of 542 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report