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.

(CNN)   Good news: if you sold an assault rifle in the past year then you made a nice profit. Bad news: if you bought an assault rifle in the past year then you're a sucker   (money.cnn.com) divider line 723
    More: Obvious, assault weapons, Wedbush Securities, assault rifles, Sandy Hook, Thunder, Falls Church  
•       •       •

9778 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 3:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-10 02:23:09 PM  

AltheaToldMe: See how easy that is to converse without being derogatory.


Yeah, I wish more people would do this. We're here to have a good time, and no one is really having a good time if everyone's getting all bent out of shape and calling names over lighthearted conversation. It's more important to talk to those you disagree with than it is to talk to those you agree with, but a person can't do that when they're calling names and making attacks.

And I really don't think that you and I are that far apart on this issue.
 
2014-04-10 02:25:02 PM  

ox45tallboy: redmid17: 1) Tom Dart doesn't know me because he's a sheriff in a county of 3 million people

But I'm willing to bet he know may of the criminals.

redmid17: 2) If the sheriff or CoP has police reports on someone, that person is likely going to be denied a gun purchase, let alone a CCW. The sheriff doesn't just magically give you a carry permit because you ask him nicely.

Ummm... I think maybe you need to look up the definition of "shall issue", because it means precisely that. If you don't have any felony convictions, the local authorities MUST give you a gun permit, no matter what kind of other trouble you are causing. I would prefer it to be the way you have described, but this is not the case in "shall issue" states.

redmid17: 3) If there is any type of substantial evidence, the permit will and should be denied. There  is almost no justification for denying permits on your grounds, not because it's a bad idea, but because there is almost no evidence to suggest it would benefit the state more than it would burden applicants

Once again, I'm not sure if you understand what you're arguing. "Shall issue" means the sheriff is not able to object to a firearms license - if the person passes the conviction check, then the person must be issued the permit. What you're thinking of is "may issue", which is exactly what I'm advocating for. I think we're actually on the same side here.


1) I doubt Tom Dart knows many criminals at all. His primary responsibilities don't include much of the way of law enforcement since Cook County is almost entirely incorporated. He handles mainly the prisons and the city/county buildings. The point was to illustrate that the sheriff isn't going to personally know anyone, and the way he would vet the person is by checking the NICS database (or equivalent), which means his personal judgment isn't needed anyway.
2) You're skirting around the issue. The sheriff's judgment is going to have almost no impact because he is not going to know any significant number of people applying for a permit. He's going to vet them through a background check system, which would weed out the criminals in the first place. Shall issue permits aren't a universal definition either. Indiana, for example, is a shall issue state but a person can be favorited!ed for vague reasons:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar47/ch2.html
(e) If it appears to the superintendent that the applicant:
        (1) has a proper reason for carrying a handgun;
        (2) is of good character and reputation;
        (3) is a proper person to be licensed; and

 3) No. I'm saying there is no justification for a may issue on the grounds you're arguing. It's fantasy. If there is any type of substantive issue with improper people being issued a CCW, please present it. The revocation rate for drug use/dealing or violence is vanishingly small compared to the general population, even narrowing for the ones who are able to get a permit.
 
2014-04-10 02:25:12 PM  

ox45tallboy: lighthearted conversation


There is nothing lighthearted about this.
 
2014-04-10 02:28:42 PM  

Doom MD: if the sheriff can't prove you're a lawbreaking troublemaker with actual evidence in a court of law he should not be able to restrict your ccw based on "a feeling".


Wait, you're really going there? We trust this man with a gun and the ability to take a human life based on a "feeling". Judges issue this man warrants for search and seizure based on his "feeling". He can pull you over and search your car based on a "feeling".

But he can't use these same feelings to keep you from carrying a loaded gun around the town he was elected to keep safe?

Doom MD: If you're denied a ccw based on a completely subjective reason then what the hell is going to occur at an appeal? There's already no evidence to support the applicant is a criminal, so is he applicant then subjecting themself to the arbitrary whims of a judge as well? You have an unhealthy and naive trust of authority.


The appeal means the sheriff has to show evidence as to why he denied the permit, including police reports of crime related to the individual that did not result in a conviction, or that resulted in a plea deal to a misdemeanor.
 
2014-04-10 02:29:42 PM  

Firethorn: PunGent: I think it's a pity the NRA doesn't believe in allowing doctors to discuss gun safes, or any other aspect of gun safety, with the parents of newborns...I guess they're just not a fan of the First Amendment.

The problem was that the doctors weren't discussing gun safes, they were discussing getting rid of the guns and handing out blatantly anti-gun propaganda and worse.


Citation needed.

And even if true, it doesn't justify gutting the First Amendment.

And even it it did, there's plenty of pro-gun doctors who WERE handing out good advice...I know, because I used to train with them on weekends with my old Reserve unit, a combat support hospital.

And it's not like my fellow pro-gunners haven't handed out blatant propaganda.  Heck, you've got pro-gun people in here arguing that the DICTIONARY is wrong, because they don't like the definitions   :)
 
2014-04-10 02:31:11 PM  

ox45tallboy: The appeal means the sheriff has to show evidence as to why he denied the permit, including police reports of crime related to the individual that did not result in a conviction, or that resulted in a plea deal to a misdemeanor.


Cops NEVER make up evidence. It is written in stone that you cannot take a right away without due process, why are you being such an obtuse, unAmerican, hateful, horrible person? I am getting to the point where I hope you step on a Lego.
 
2014-04-10 02:33:08 PM  

PunGent: Firethorn: PunGent: I think it's a pity the NRA doesn't believe in allowing doctors to discuss gun safes, or any other aspect of gun safety, with the parents of newborns...I guess they're just not a fan of the First Amendment.

The problem was that the doctors weren't discussing gun safes, they were discussing getting rid of the guns and handing out blatantly anti-gun propaganda and worse.

Citation needed.

And even if true, it doesn't justify gutting the First Amendment.

And even it it did, there's plenty of pro-gun doctors who WERE handing out good advice...I know, because I used to train with them on weekends with my old Reserve unit, a combat support hospital.

And it's not like my fellow pro-gunners haven't handed out blatant propaganda.  Heck, you've got pro-gun people in here arguing that the DICTIONARY is wrong, because they don't like the definitions   :)


No people disagreed with those dictionary entries because everyone who's actually involved with those weapons has a completely different definition. Hell one of the dictionary entries had an expanded section which contradicted the definition listed.
 
2014-04-10 02:35:22 PM  

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: if the sheriff can't prove you're a lawbreaking troublemaker with actual evidence in a court of law he should not be able to restrict your ccw based on "a feeling".

Wait, you're really going there? We trust this man with a gun and the ability to take a human life based on a "feeling". Judges issue this man warrants for search and seizure based on his "feeling". He can pull you over and search your car based on a "feeling".

But he can't use these same feelings to keep you from carrying a loaded gun around the town he was elected to keep safe?

Doom MD: If you're denied a ccw based on a completely subjective reason then what the hell is going to occur at an appeal? There's already no evidence to support the applicant is a criminal, so is he applicant then subjecting themself to the arbitrary whims of a judge as well? You have an unhealthy and naive trust of authority.

The appeal means the sheriff has to show evidence as to why he denied the permit, including police reports of crime related to the individual that did not result in a conviction, or that resulted in a plea deal to a misdemeanor.


in the United States we have a little thing called due process. People can't have civil rights taken away because they're undesirable. You can't use a criminal charge a person was exonerated of to remove their rights. You can't re-try them for this crime because that violates double jeopardy. If hey are convicted of anything that would preclude gun ownership it would show up on a nics.

People with no criminal history, etc have every right to be able to defend themselves. Don't like it? Prove they're unfit. You seem blissfully ignorant of the very dangerous precedent you're pushing for.
 
2014-04-10 02:38:07 PM  

Doom MD: in the United States we have a little thing called due process. People can't have civil rights taken away because they're undesirable.


We'll have none of that talk around here! Lock up everyone I say!
 
2014-04-10 02:43:43 PM  

ox45tallboy: lighthearted conversation


I will take issue with this part of your reply.  Whenever there are injuries killing and death involved, the conversation should be appropriately serious.  Many won't like this statement, but guns are killing machines and approaching the issue of firearms should be handled with at least a modicum of seriousness.

I am in agreement with R.A.Danny that there is nothing lighthearted about this.  Neither the issue, or the vociferousness of the actors engaging in the conversation.  It's a heated topic that deserves appropriately well-reasoned debate.  Waggling cocks over what a shroud does or doesn't do and if magazine is interchangeable with clip is pointless, fruitless and irrelevant.  What we certainly don't need is knee-jerk reactions based on emotions or how one "feels."
 
2014-04-10 02:47:29 PM  

R.A.Danny: We'll have none of that talk around here! Lock up everyone I say!


If you have nothing to hide, then you should have no fear of being locked up.  They will find you innocent eventually.  Amiright?

/Snark off.
 
2014-04-10 02:49:44 PM  

Doom MD: you need citations to support your fantasy narrative


okay, here you go.

http://www.vvdailypress.com/articles/ccw-45415-status-check.html

According to the release, Wills, 38, said on his application that he had never been convicted of any crimes. After a week-long investigation regarding his submitted California Department of Justice application for a Carry Concealed Weapons license, investigators learned Wills had multiple criminal convictions, including a felony.

Wills pleaded no contest to felony possession of marijuana for sale in 2002, court records show.


http://massinjustice.org/Stumpfy%20gun_control.htm

And here's the rest of it - the drug dealer still has his gun collection and all his police issued gun permits, including a "License to Carry Handguns"

http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-21/news/31220665_1_drug-dealer-se ri al-burglar-chitwood

A drug dealer with a permit to carry a gun shot and killed a man who tried to rob him Monday night in Upper Darby, police said.

And once again, I'm bringing the citations, and you're not. I'm really sorry reality doesn't match up to what you believe to be true.
 
2014-04-10 02:52:35 PM  

R.A.Danny: There is nothing lighthearted about this.


Well, I can't take it too seriously when I'm providing citations to back up what I'm saying and all I'm hearing from the other side is ad hominem attacks and accusations that I am the one living in a fantasy land.

It's pretty silly, especially since I'm not even advocating anything radical - just buy up some excess guns to get them off the market, since that's cheaper than the societal costs of them being on the street.
 
2014-04-10 02:54:35 PM  

R.A.Danny: Cops NEVER make up evidence. It is written in stone that you cannot take a right away without due process, why are you being such an obtuse, unAmerican, hateful, horrible person? I am getting to the point where I hope you step on a Lego.


Due process is what allows local authorities to deny people CCW's in their jurisdiction in "may issue" states. It's not an arbitrary thing with no appeals process.
 
2014-04-10 02:55:43 PM  

ox45tallboy: Well, I can't take it too seriously when I'm providing citations to back up what I'm saying and all I'm hearing from the other side is ad hominem attacks and accusations that I am the one living in a fantasy land.


You called for the repeal of people's rights and claim that you have citations for that?
 
2014-04-10 02:58:12 PM  

AltheaToldMe: I will take issue with this part of your reply.  Whenever there are injuries killing and death involved, the conversation should be appropriately serious.  Many won't like this statement, but guns are killing machines and approaching the issue of firearms should be handled with at least a modicum of seriousness.


Dude, we're not deciding the fate of the universe here. We're debating a topic that should be taken seriously, but the way to do that is to explore different possibilities without accusations of absurdity. I didn't mean "lighthearted" as in "funny", I meant it as in, let's not be so totally without a sense of perspective that we're just ordinary people exploring an idea.

I've got to go mow the yard, but I'll be back later tonight.
 
2014-04-10 02:59:54 PM  

ox45tallboy: We're debating a topic that should be taken seriously, but the way to do that is to explore different possibilities without accusations of absurdity.


You just said it was lighthearted.
 
2014-04-10 03:10:18 PM  

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: you need citations to support your fantasy narrative

okay, here you go.

http://www.vvdailypress.com/articles/ccw-45415-status-check.html

According to the release, Wills, 38, said on his application that he had never been convicted of any crimes. After a week-long investigation regarding his submitted California Department of Justice application for a Carry Concealed Weapons license, investigators learned Wills had multiple criminal convictions, including a felony.

Wills pleaded no contest to felony possession of marijuana for sale in 2002, court records show.

http://massinjustice.org/Stumpfy%20gun_control.htm

And here's the rest of it - the drug dealer still has his gun collection and all his police issued gun permits, including a "License to Carry Handguns"

http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-21/news/31220665_1_drug-dealer-se ri al-burglar-chitwood

A drug dealer with a permit to carry a gun shot and killed a man who tried to rob him Monday night in Upper Darby, police said.

And once again, I'm bringing the citations, and you're not. I'm really sorry reality doesn't match up to what you believe to be true.


You've scrounged up 3 cases out of 8 million CCW holders.

The first example is a prime example of what should happen, even in a shall issue state. People with felony convictions apply for CCW permits more often than you think. They get denied. The gentleman was properly arrested for lying on his application. This does nothing but undermine your pint.

The second link is so poorly written I am having a lot of trouble making out much of it. It looks like the state police and the FBI failed to do their jobs and seize the guns along with the drugs. Given that this is the only thing I can find at all about the case, not even court dockets, I'm doubtful he kept his permit and guns.

The third link says the guy is a drug dealer. His guns and permit were confiscated.
 
2014-04-10 03:19:30 PM  
 
2014-04-10 05:04:11 PM  

ox45tallboy: Not convicted ones. You have any idea how many people involved in the drug trade have never been convicted, and who have all of the necessary paperwork for their firearms? Do you know how many drug users have CCW permits?


Given that I oppose the war on drugs in the first place, I'm not sure we need to prevent them from having legal guns.  Especially since if they're a hard core dealer despite not having previous convictions and thus have the guns semi-legally*.  It's a convenience for them, not a necessity.  They'll have guns even if they're prohibited by law.

Anyways, part of the problem with dealers having guns is that because they're doing illegal stuff they're seen as 'easy targets' for robbery and such as they can't call the cops, but generally have lots of money and valuable(black market) drugs.  So the dealers have to arm up to make themselves hard targets again.

*You're not allowed to have guns with you during the commission of a crime without it counting as an enhancement/illegal possession even if you're otherwise allowed to own guns.

ox45tallboy: People like that tend to be people who like to intimidate others. Carrying a gun around is intimidating to others, which is why they do it.


Are you speaking of 'people' who are 'like' Billy, our spouse abuser?  CCW holders in general(odd, removes the intimidation factor)?  Open carriers?  Who?  In any case, 'people like Billy' are precisely the types that tend to end up murdering their spouse, so I disagree with keeping it quiet.

ox45tallboy: Yes, some will. But this will keep them from doing so legally, giving the sheriff a reason to bust him.


Sheriff has already decided he doesn't want to bust the dude, remember?  The dude needs to be able to project at least the threat of force to keep others off his turf.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

Due process of law - in order to take somebody's rights away you need to do it via due process, IE a court trial, whether criminal or competency.  It should not be dependent upon a single government official, without so much as a hearing.

ox45tallboy: That depends on what you mean by "haven't worked". It's sometimes impossible to say what has and hasn't worked because there no way of proving the outcome if different decisions were made with the same external factors at a particular point in history, since the external factors are invariably different when something new is tried.


It's a bit complicated and requires a lot of statistics, but multiple studies have shown that gun control laws are ineffective at stopping crime, at least in the states.

ox45tallboy: The number of people who at some point in their lives have been convicted of a felony (or other crime which prevents firearm ownership) is increasing faster than the rate of said people either dying or being exonerated of the crime. Convictions themselves are going down, but the number of people who at some point have been convicted is going up.


Again - Citation please?

redmid17: If someone has paid their debt to society and is out free, they are no longer a criminal. They just can't own a gun.


I'd modify this as a person still on parole is still paying their debt.  In 'most' cases even felons can get their RKBA back; it generally requires spending some money for a judicial review after keeping their nose clean(better yet being a 'pillor' of the community, volunteering for all sorts of stuff) for at least a decade after getting out of prison/parole ending.  In the cases of federal felonies it takes a presidential pardon though.

ox45tallboy: I'm not talking about sheriffs doing all the background research, I'm talking about sheriffs having a veto power for the people they do know to be not quite of sound judgement.


What do you do when you get a Sheriff who vetos about as often as a tea-partier vetoes legislation?  For the wrong reasons?  Sure, he might be overturned on 99% of denials, but at some point you need to take that power away from him.

Doom MD: we should definitely allow the government to limit the rights of undesirables with no actual evidence of wrong-doing. What could go wrong?


I mean, it's certainly not going to end up like the no-fly list, right?

PunGent: Citation needed.

And even if true, it doesn't justify gutting the First Amendment.


Okay, I'll provide* some citations(some are sanitized).  Some of the more detailed ones/'horrific' were shared on a private gun forum, so I won't post them here.

I agree on the latter, by the way.  I'm fine with recommending secure storage of firearms, just where the implication is that you should get rid of them completely.

*Note: Many of the statistics she's citing are discredited ones.
Example: A household gun is 43 times more likely to kill someone known to the family than it is to kill someone in self-defense.

The problem with this statement?  Most murder victims know their killer.  Just because somebody is 'known to the family' doesn't mean that it isn't self defense.

PunGent: And it's not like my fellow pro-gunners haven't handed out blatant propaganda. Heck, you've got pro-gun people in here arguing that the DICTIONARY is wrong, because they don't like the definitions :)


And they actually cited different, more specific, sources to back themselves up.  It's probably that we're 'old school' and yelling at people to get off our lawn with an onion tied to our belt, but those were the definitions WE grew up with, and we don't appreciate the change, because we see it as being sloppy.

For example, I have both magazines and clips(nabbed during firing practice because the military considers them disposable) for .223 ammo.  The two are NOT interchangeable.  I have M1 Garand en-bloc clips, and 7.62x39 clips*, but the rifle that takes that caliber has a fixed magazine.  The military drilled it's definitions of 'assault rifle' as opposed to a 'battle rifle' into my head.

*I have a Yugoslavian SKS, makes reloading a lot easier

redmid17: The NJ one I find mystifying. I regularly see ATM repairmen or "restockers" in Chicago with a holstered gun, and Chicago didn't even allow ownership of handguns in the city until 4 years ago.


Armed security guards carrying company issued and controlled firearms was always allowed.  With the proper permitting the security guards can even be issued fully automatic weapons.
 
2014-04-10 05:13:23 PM  
Firethorn: Armed security guards carrying company issued and controlled firearms was always allowed.  With the proper permitting the security guards can even be issued fully automatic weapons.

 Let me rephrase that. I'm not surprised ATM maintenance guys and security guards can be licensed to carry weapons. It would be borderline idiotic if the state didn't allow for for that. What I found mystifying was that the guy who owns, repairs, and restocks ATMs was denied a permit. That's idiotic. Even Chicago doesn't block those, and Chicago isn't exactly a paragon of 2nd Amendment advocacy.
 
2014-04-10 05:21:30 PM  

redmid17: What I found mystifying was that the guy who owns, repairs, and restocks ATMs was denied a permit.


Ah, okay.  Yeah, as I've posted I have real problems with 'may issue' due to the amount of time it's used to deny permits due to race/location/social class/lack of donations to the decider's re-election campaign.  It was probably the last reason in this case.
 
2014-04-10 09:14:47 PM  

AltheaToldMe: I will take issue with this part of your reply.  Whenever there are injuries killing and death involved, the conversation should be appropriately serious.  Many won't like this statement, but guns are killing machines and approaching the issue of firearms should be handled with at least a modicum of seriousness.

I am in agreement with R.A.Danny that there is nothing lighthearted about this.  Neither the issue, or the vociferousness of the actors engaging in the conversation.  It's a heated topic that deserves appropriately well-reasoned debate.  Waggling cocks over what a shroud does or doesn't do and if magazine is interchangeable with clip is pointless, fruitless and irrelevant.  What we certainly don't need is knee-jerk reactions based on emotions or how one "feels."


Look, it's kind of hard to take people seriously when I'm being dogpiled by people arguing what they want to argue instead of actually reading what I wrote and arguing that. I'm writing my honest opinions, and others are just arguing whatever they feel like, so why exactly are you chastising me for not taking this seriously?
 
2014-04-10 09:15:49 PM  

R.A.Danny: You called for the repeal of people's rights and claim that you have citations for that?


What repeal of what people's rights have I called for?
 
2014-04-10 09:17:08 PM  

Firethorn: Ah, okay.  Yeah, as I've posted I have real problems with 'may issue' due to the amount of time it's used to deny permits due to race/location/social class/lack of donations to the decider's re-election campaign.  It was probably the last reason in this case


Oh, my turn.

Citation needed!
 
2014-04-10 09:23:22 PM  

ox45tallboy: R.A.Danny: You called for the repeal of people's rights and claim that you have citations for that?

What repeal of what people's rights have I called for?


All of them you disingenuous twit.
 
2014-04-10 10:04:01 PM  

ox45tallboy: R.A.Danny: You called for the repeal of people's rights and claim that you have citations for that?

What repeal of what people's rights have I called for?


Due process, for starters
 
2014-04-10 10:23:35 PM  

Firethorn: It's a bit complicated and requires a lot of statistics, but multiple studies have shown that gun control laws are ineffective at stopping crime, at least in the states.


Nothing you cited contains the actual data and is peer-reviewed, and the first two links go to the same "study", which cites Gary farking Kleck and the NRA-ILA as authoritative sources, and, well, I can't characterize it as "cherry-picking and massaging" the statistics, since pulverizing and sintering comes closer.  Do I even have to point out the funding sources?
When real  epidemiologists and statisticians look at it, the results (which include actual data, and account for factors like population density) say otherwise.
 
2014-04-10 10:32:25 PM  

Firethorn: Given that I oppose the war on drugs in the first place, I'm not sure we need to prevent them from having legal guns.


Wait, we've suddenly moved the argument to whether or not we should allow drug dealers to possess firearms? Especially considering we're all in agreement that the drug war is a huge cause of much of the gun violence in this country?

Seriously?

I really don't think allowing drug dealers to have unfettered access to firearms will reduce gun violence.

Firethorn: Sheriff has already decided he doesn't want to bust the dude, remember?  The dude needs to be able to project at least the threat of force to keep others off his turf.


In that case, it's the sheriff who keeps the other guys off his turf.

Firethorn: Due process of law - in order to take somebody's rights away you need to do it via due process, IE a court trial, whether criminal or competency.  It should not be dependent upon a single government official, without so much as a hearing.


Number one, you do not have an inherent, god-given right to tote a pistol around you everywhere you want in this country just because you were born here. You have to jump through some hoops first. There is already an application process in place. And allowing the local sheriff the right to veto your application does not mean it's over, it means you can go through the appeals process where the sheriff produces his evidence as to why you should not be allowed to tote a gun around on his turf.

Firethorn: It's a bit complicated and requires a lot of statistics, but multiple studies have shown that gun control laws are ineffective at stopping crime, at least in the states.


And I can provide just as many studies showing that proliferation of guns in a society increases gun violence. It's more than just a bit complicated, it's a lot complicated. There is no set "golden rule" of just the right amount of gun freedom or gun regulation which encompasses every society. This is why I strongly advocate for different jurisdictions being able to set their own rules on who is allowed to legally carry a gun around.

Firethorn: Again - Citation please?


Sure, how many you want?

felonvoting.procon.org

upload.wikimedia.org

media2.policymic.com

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

 
2014-04-10 10:40:43 PM  

redmid17: You've scrounged up 3 cases out of 8 million CCW holders.


I ran a Google search and cited the first three I came to regarding drug dealers and CCW permits. Two of them were actually granted CCW's. You laughed at my notion that this was the case, and now I have shown evidence backing up my assertion.

redmid17: The third link says the guy is a drug dealer. His guns and permit were confiscated.


Yes, but the fact is, he was granted the CCW in the first place.

Drug dealers do sometimes have CCW permits. I am sorry, but you were not correct.

You gave the figure "3 out of 8 million". Aside from the fact that this is disingenuous as I never claimed that these were the only three, I am well aware that this number does not encompass the majority of drug dealers. I am not suggesting that a large number of CCW applicants be denied permits, I am showing that on occasion there is a person who can pass a background check but is known to local law enforcement as someone who is likely to do harm to himself or others. Isn't this precisely the type of person who you want to be stopped from carrying a gun, so that society never gets to the point of saying "screw CCW, too many people are dying here"?
 
2014-04-10 10:42:02 PM  

Doom MD: ox45tallboy: R.A.Danny: You called for the repeal of people's rights and claim that you have citations for that?

What repeal of what people's rights have I called for?

Due process, for starters


How so? What due process have I advocated anyone be deprived of? Due process of what? Be specific.
 
2014-04-10 10:45:03 PM  

ox45tallboy: so why exactly are you chastising me for not taking this seriously?


No chastising at all.  Just continuing the reasonable, polite dialog.  I just address points with my thoughts and opinions.  I didn't mean to make you feel like I was piling on.  I was just trying to express the fact that we can argue and disagree without resorting to name calling and petty, bullshiat personal attacks.  No harm, no foul.

You're taking it as serious as should be expected, but you *did* make the comment about lighthearted and I had a reply.  I thought I replied with a reasonable response, but emotions, tone and inflection do not translate well in the internet world.
 
2014-04-10 10:52:49 PM  

ox45tallboy: How so? What due process have I advocated anyone be deprived of? Due process of what? Be specific.


By depriving folks that you consider 'dangerous' of their enumerated rights.  To wit:

ox45tallboy: R.A.Danny: So you are saying that we should take away rights without a conviction? Is this really what I am hearing?

If you want to phrase it that way, then yes, I'm saying that we should remove the ability of known dangerous people to carry guns around, even when they haven't been convicted of a crime, as long as there is an appeals process in place that prevents those in authority from abusing this power.


That is direct affront of due process rights.  Unless the courts say that the folks are a known danger and convict them of some crime, their rights should be preserved.
 
2014-04-10 10:54:59 PM  

ox45tallboy: redmid17: You've scrounged up 3 cases out of 8 million CCW holders.

I ran a Google search and cited the first three I came to regarding drug dealers and CCW permits. Two of them were actually granted CCW's. You laughed at my notion that this was the case, and now I have shown evidence backing up my assertion.

redmid17: The third link says the guy is a drug dealer. His guns and permit were confiscated.

Yes, but the fact is, he was granted the CCW in the first place.

Drug dealers do sometimes have CCW permits. I am sorry, but you were not correct.

You gave the figure "3 out of 8 million". Aside from the fact that this is disingenuous as I never claimed that these were the only three, I am well aware that this number does not encompass the majority of drug dealers. I am not suggesting that a large number of CCW applicants be denied permits, I am showing that on occasion there is a person who can pass a background check but is known to local law enforcement as someone who is likely to do harm to himself or others. Isn't this precisely the type of person who you want to be stopped from carrying a gun, so that society never gets to the point of saying "screw CCW, too many people are dying here"?


Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Please show me evidence documenting that criminals are widely being granted ccws and that this is a serious problem worthy of restricting the rights of others. Shall issue has been abused countless times in the past to deny people their rights. A few random cases of criminals being caught with ccws does not pass muster for massive trespasses on people's rights. Would you be ok with your local sheriff approving your right to free speech? To vote? You don't think those two things have caused a lot of death and carnage?

Like I said, if a sheriff has evidence a citizen is in fact a criminal , then he should arrest him/her and press charges. That's their job. They're not arbiters of who gets to exercise their rights. Your vague notion that this can be appealed is not reasonable. Such a process could be drawn out, expensive, and vulnerable to the same subjective flaws that sheriff approval has. Their are states doing exactly what you're advocating right now and they're dropping like flies because the courts are striking them down.
 
2014-04-10 11:10:36 PM  

ox45tallboy: redmid17: You've scrounged up 3 cases out of 8 million CCW holders.

I ran a Google search and cited the first three I came to regarding drug dealers and CCW permits. Two of them were actually granted CCW's. You laughed at my notion that this was the case, and now I have shown evidence backing up my assertion.

redmid17: The third link says the guy is a drug dealer. His guns and permit were confiscated.

Yes, but the fact is, he was granted the CCW in the first place.

Drug dealers do sometimes have CCW permits. I am sorry, but you were not correct.

You gave the figure "3 out of 8 million". Aside from the fact that this is disingenuous as I never claimed that these were the only three, I am well aware that this number does not encompass the majority of drug dealers. I am not suggesting that a large number of CCW applicants be denied permits, I am showing that on occasion there is a person who can pass a background check but is known to local law enforcement as someone who is likely to do harm to himself or others. Isn't this precisely the type of person who you want to be stopped from carrying a gun, so that society never gets to the point of saying "screw CCW, too many people are dying here"?


I don't think you're really getting the concept of measurable evidence, and once again it was two cases, not three. Any substantive breakdown of permit renovations, like the one I linked too earlier, will show that it's not even really something that registers on the the radar in shall issue states.
 
2014-04-10 11:11:18 PM  
 
2014-04-10 11:12:35 PM  

AltheaToldMe: ox45tallboy: so why exactly are you chastising me for not taking this seriously?

No chastising at all.  Just continuing the reasonable, polite dialog.  I just address points with my thoughts and opinions.  I didn't mean to make you feel like I was piling on.  I was just trying to express the fact that we can argue and disagree without resorting to name calling and petty, bullshiat personal attacks.  No harm, no foul.

You're taking it as serious as should be expected, but you *did* make the comment about lighthearted and I had a reply.  I thought I replied with a reasonable response, but emotions, tone and inflection do not translate well in the internet world.


Fair enough.

Too many people have been conditioned over the past few years on how to respond to even the slightest hint of a suggestion of reducing the number of guns, or making it harder for criminals to get them, as some kind of "tyranny" or "taking away my rights", and the always lovely "slippery slope to gun confiscation". I'm a gun owner. I don't want my gun taken away. But I also don't think Jim Bob up the road, who fetishizes his gun and brags about having killed people in the past (I have no idea if it's true or not) and who demanded that he be permitted to stand guard over the local elementary school after Sandy Hook - that guy has no business having a gun. If I were involved in a firefight, I believe that I would stand a better chance of coming out unharmed if I did not have a gun than if Jim Bob did and decided to "save the day". You know this guy, too, I'm sure, and you probably don't think he needs a gun, either.

That's the balance I'm trying to achieve - keep the guns away from the people who are likely to hurt someone with them.
 
2014-04-10 11:16:28 PM  

HeadLever: By depriving folks that you consider 'dangerous' of their enumerated rights.  To wit:


Nope.

By giving someone in a position of trust, the person charged with keeping the peace in their community, the authority to veto a gun application, *I* am somehow depriving someone of their enumerated rights?

Never mind the fact that plenty of jurisdictions had firearms regulations throughout American history?

HeadLever: That is direct affront of due process rights.  Unless the courts say that the folks are a known danger and convict them of some crime, their rights should be preserved.


Due process is the appeals process where the sheriff must show evidence that this person does not need to have access to a firearm.

Still not seeing where I am depriving anyone of their enumerated rights here.
 
2014-04-10 11:20:20 PM  

ox45tallboy: That's the balance I'm trying to achieve - keep the guns away from the people who are likely to hurt someone with them.


The devil in this statement is who gets to decide 'who are likely to hurt someone'.  Again, the road of depriving citizens of their enumerated rights without due process (being convicted of a significant crime or being found mentally unfit) is not a road that you will find many wanting to travel down.
 
2014-04-10 11:20:43 PM  

ox45tallboy: By giving someone in a position of trust


Everything after this is utter nonsense. The only trust is in a jury, the only way to take away rights is via due process. Not some cop that people think is nice.
 
2014-04-10 11:22:31 PM  

ox45tallboy: By giving someone in a position of trust, the person charged with keeping the peace in their community, the authority to veto a gun application, *I* am somehow depriving someone of their enumerated rights?


What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?
 
2014-04-10 11:25:13 PM  

Doom MD: Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Please show me evidence documenting that criminals are widely being granted ccws and that this is a serious problem worthy of restricting the rights of others. Shall issue has been abused countless times in the past to deny people their rights. A few random cases of criminals being caught with ccws does not pass muster for massive trespasses on people's rights. Would you be ok with your local sheriff approving your right to free speech? To vote? You don't think those two things have caused a lot of death and carnage?


I didn't say that criminals were "widely being granted" CCW. Once again, you're responding to something I never said. Please read what I actually say and respond to that. I am not going to defend what you are arguing, because I never said it.

I stated that "shall issue" is not a Good Thing. I was asked to provide examples of why this was a Bad Thing. I stated a few circumstances in which it would be prudent for law enforcement to deny a permit. I was ridiculed. I answered with citations of that exact thing occurring. I was told that that is a very rare occurrence, to which I reply, "Yes! It is indeed very rare! That's exactly what I'm saying - there are certain times when it is in society's best interests to deny someone a permit to tote a gun around!" I never once said that there circumstances would occur on a regular basis. I said that when they do occur, the sheriff's hands are tied and he must allow someone he knows to be dangerous to carry a gun in the community he is charged with keeping safe.
 
2014-04-10 11:25:19 PM  

HeadLever: ox45tallboy: By giving someone in a position of trust, the person charged with keeping the peace in their community, the authority to veto a gun application, *I* am somehow depriving someone of their enumerated rights?

What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?


We're just being trolled. No one is that obtuse on accident.
 
2014-04-10 11:25:54 PM  

ox45tallboy: Never mind the fact that plenty of jurisdictions had firearms regulations throughout American history?


Yep, but those are have been (mostly) deemed to be reasonable restrictions based upon convicted felons not being able to own guns, mentally unstable not being able to own guns, etc.  Complete infringement on this right will not pass judicial muster for obvious reasons.
 
2014-04-10 11:28:02 PM  

R.A.Danny: We're just being trolled. No one is that obtuse on accident.


Yeah, you are probably correct.  Should have known at 'position of trust'.
 
2014-04-10 11:29:52 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Firethorn: It's a bit complicated and requires a lot of statistics, but multiple studies have shown that gun control laws are ineffective at stopping crime, at least in the states.

Nothing you cited contains the actual data and is peer-reviewed, and the first two links go to the same "study", which cites Gary farking Kleck and the NRA-ILA as authoritative sources, and, well, I can't characterize it as "cherry-picking and massaging" the statistics, since pulverizing and sintering comes closer.  Do I even have to point out the funding sources?
When real  epidemiologists and statisticians look at it, the results (which include actual data, and account for factors like population density) say otherwise.


First link:  Doesn't cover whether increased gun control does anything.  Includes illegal ownership of guns.  I'm more interested in overall homicide rate than firearm homicide rate(want to know substitution effect)
Second: The 83k defines 'used a firearm' to mean they actually SHOT the firearm.
Third:  What caught my eye is that in '96 27% refused and it had jumped up to 35% in '99. Still looking at overall ownership and not laws.
Fourth:  Not really concerned with Suicide(Japan, land of no guns, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world), and again, merely looks at firearm ownership
Fifth: Let's see, defines 'children' as under 20, most were 15-19, 1994, I wonder how much of that was gang activity?

Anyways, now that I'm home and have some time:
Law Enforcement says restrictions ineffective
MIT '94, ineffective in Chicago and Washington DC
 
2014-04-10 11:31:53 PM  

Firethorn: ox45tallboy: Citation needed!

Racist origins
Need to be wealthy(or at least famous)
Donations(or back-scratching) also helps.


Your first link is to a blog post reprinted by Free Republic. Really?

The second link was far more interesting. It cites 1920's California. While I'm not about to say racism is gone (Sheriff Joe, the NYPD's Stop ad Frisk, etc.), the statewide insitutionalization of racism prevalent prior to the Civil Rights Act is a far different world than we live in today. I feel like a broken record when I keep saying "Appeals process! The sheriff must show cause for denial!"
 
2014-04-10 11:38:51 PM  

HeadLever: The devil in this statement is who gets to decide 'who are likely to hurt someone'.  Again, the road of depriving citizens of their enumerated rights without due process (being convicted of a significant crime or being found mentally unfit) is not a road that you will find many wanting to travel down.


The local guy charged with keeping the community safe, and an appeals panel in which the sheriff must provide evidence to back up his decision.

This is "due process". This is not a totally arbitrary method of denying someone the ability to legally carry a gun around. It's the same "due process" that anyone follows when they go to traffic court over a speeding ticket. You are forced to take off from work and show up to traffic court to sit around for a few hours to tell a bored judge why you shouldn't have to pay for going 36 in a 30 - all on the word of one individual.

If you wish to argue "you don't have an enumerated right to drive in the Constitution", keep in mind the same process will occur if an officer deems you are disturbing the peace while exercising your enumerated right to free speech.

I'm still not seeing how this is a violation of due process. One person doesn't get to say for certain - you still have an appeals process where the burden of proof is on that person to show why he has denied your permit.
 
2014-04-10 11:42:17 PM  

HeadLever: What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?


The part where the victims of gun violence don't get to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. They just kind of lay there and don't get to keep and bear arms, unless you want to pry a gun into their cold, dead hands.
 
2014-04-10 11:43:24 PM  

ox45tallboy: I feel like a broken record


One that says this is lighthearted, then says it is serious. Then goes on to make many statements counter to rights we hold dearly , then asking us where you said such things.

You're a circular mess. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are speaking hypothetically of some type of nirvana where your wishes are constitutionally sound (and I am talking more about due process than bearing arms here) but they are not. Not even close. Of course you're going to ask me why I feel this way, but we have already made our points both vociferously and eloquently and you have become tiresome to deal with. Go ahead and jump up and down and yell "I win, I win!", you have outlasted my patience.
 
Displayed 50 of 723 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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