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 62
    More: Interesting, Texas Opens, Texas, gun laws, Republican George W. Bush, Texas Democratic Party, right-wing, concealed handgun, Texas Attorney General  
•       •       •

1452 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-02-06 07:56:13 AM  
29 votes:
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 08:57:15 AM  
4 votes:

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 02:17:20 PM  
3 votes:

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 09:46:35 AM  
3 votes:
No, she just wants to see who the paranoid idiots are from far enough away to avoid them.
2014-02-06 08:10:41 AM  
3 votes:

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 01:04:43 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:09:32 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:13:01 AM  
2 votes:
Whites with guns: God-fearing Merkins showing their Patriotic Pride
www.theblaze.com

Blacks with guns: OMG DIRTY GANGBANGERS
breakingbrown.com
2014-02-06 09:33:50 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:21:40 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:15:45 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:13:01 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:56:01 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:54:44 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:18:57 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:10:41 AM  
2 votes:
So you could say her gun views are liberal, right?
2014-02-06 08:04:47 AM  
2 votes:
Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??
2014-02-06 04:08:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:27:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:14:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:04:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:04:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:47:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:26:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:21:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:17:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:12:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:03:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:02:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:52:20 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:30:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:01:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:40:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:39:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:38:28 AM  
1 votes:

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


Well, Tywin Lannister.
2014-02-06 11:19:36 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:13:11 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:52:50 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:48:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:37:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:31:17 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:25:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:22:34 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:22:21 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:13:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:01:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:01:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:52:22 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:51:44 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:44:00 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:34:45 AM  
1 votes:
Yeah, this... really doesn't bother me.
2014-02-06 09:24:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:18:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:17:13 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:14:35 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:58:06 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:58:00 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:57:28 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:51:50 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:29:26 AM  
1 votes:
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 07:59:07 AM  
1 votes:
It's Texas. If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.
2014-02-06 07:58:14 AM  
1 votes:
I thought her 15 minutes of liberal fame was over.
 
Displayed 62 of 62 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report