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.

(Rome News-Tribune)   If you had three days after Georgia's "guns in bars" bill was signed for the first fatal shooting in a bar, come on up and collect your prize   (northwestgeorgianews.com) divider line 355
    More: Obvious, Floyd County, guns  
•       •       •

11931 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Apr 2014 at 8:12 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-28 12:39:20 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Mugato: nhdjoseywales: Mugato: Adolf Oliver Nipples: and statistics have shown that permit holders are far less likely than the general population to commit violent crimes with guns

Yeah, giving $50 to some guy at a gun show makes you a responsible gun owner.

Know how i know you have no farking clue what you are talking about?

No, I don't, sorry.


First off because anyone who thinks you can go pick up a gun for $50 is delusional.

The cheapest of cheap POS guns are going to set you back more than $50....    more like $200....  and most are more like $500.


He's saying you can get a gun permitat a gun show for 50 bucks. So, he's even more delusional than you think.

/the dreaded gun show loophole rears its ugly Putin-like head yet again!
 
2014-04-28 12:54:05 PM  

theprinceofwands: stoli n coke: i have to ask, what do CCW holders hope to accomplish with a law like this?

Not even figuring in the intoxication factor, bars are often crowded, it's loud, it's dark, sometimes there's pushing and shoving. If they were suddenly faced with the "bad guy with a gun" scenario they get excited over, it seems they'd be more likely to shoot someone who had nothing to do with it. FFS, even Old West Saloons didn't want firearms inside.

It's the same reason guns in movie theaters is a horrible idea.

Well for me it's a big pain in the butt to have to disarm every time I walk into someplace 21 and over. It can create panic when people see me pulling the gun out in the parking lot. It opens me to having it stolen if my vehicle is broken into. It creates an opportunity for an accident (like an accidental discharge).

Further, none of what you say has any factual, statistical backing. There are almost no accidental shootings from permit holders. A few, certainly, but its very VERY rare. It's simply not a reasonable issue. What's more, there have almost never been any significant events from lawful carry of any kind, only the rare random accident. Nearly all crime is, and always has been, from criminals intent on committing the crimes.


If you know you're going to a bar, just leave the thing at home in the safe.  What part of responsible gun ownership involves you carrying while drinking anyway?
 
2014-04-28 01:00:17 PM  

theorellior: [www.mindhuestudio.com image 600x337]


Gun shops are a bit much for that. Change that to "shooting ranges."
 
2014-04-28 01:31:49 PM  

nhdjoseywales: Know how i know you have no farking clue what you are talking about?


You read his username?
 
2014-04-28 01:56:19 PM  

theorellior: Everyone sure loves their murder tools. Gotta have one with me at every moment, just in case there's a murder to be done.


So what kind of car do you drive???
 
2014-04-28 02:02:17 PM  

thisisarepeat: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Mugato: Adolf Oliver Nipples: and statistics have shown that permit holders are far less likely than the general population to commit violent crimes with guns

Yeah, giving $50 to some guy at a gun show makes you a responsible gun owner.

Getting a CCW permit is a lot more than forking $50 over to someone at a gun show.

Not a hell of a lot more.  I would like to see what the failure rate is for people that take the course to get the CHL.  If it is under 10% then they are just wasting everybody's time and they cancel the requirement.


Is that why you had to repeat 1st grade?
 
2014-04-28 02:19:18 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: nhdjoseywales: Know how i know you have no farking clue what you are talking about?

You read his username?


I didn't say anything that wasn't true. It's not my fault some moron can't read the thread before posting.
 
2014-04-28 02:27:21 PM  

tulax: theprinceofwands: stoli n coke: i have to ask, what do CCW holders hope to accomplish with a law like this?

Not even figuring in the intoxication factor, bars are often crowded, it's loud, it's dark, sometimes there's pushing and shoving. If they were suddenly faced with the "bad guy with a gun" scenario they get excited over, it seems they'd be more likely to shoot someone who had nothing to do with it. FFS, even Old West Saloons didn't want firearms inside.

It's the same reason guns in movie theaters is a horrible idea.

Well for me it's a big pain in the butt to have to disarm every time I walk into someplace 21 and over. It can create panic when people see me pulling the gun out in the parking lot. It opens me to having it stolen if my vehicle is broken into. It creates an opportunity for an accident (like an accidental discharge).

Further, none of what you say has any factual, statistical backing. There are almost no accidental shootings from permit holders. A few, certainly, but its very VERY rare. It's simply not a reasonable issue. What's more, there have almost never been any significant events from lawful carry of any kind, only the rare random accident. Nearly all crime is, and always has been, from criminals intent on committing the crimes.

If you know you're going to a bar, just leave the thing at home in the safe.  What part of responsible gun ownership involves you carrying while drinking anyway?


As concealed carry laws become more permissive and permits become cheaper, the old "permit holders are more responsible" logic goes out the window.  In many states any non felon can get a carry permit for around $150 and an afternoon's time commitment. The other thing about bars is this:  Even if YOU are sober, and responsible, and totally in control that doesn't mean that the guy next to you is.  Unless we, as a society, are saying that I can carry a gun into a bar and shoot any UNARMED person that gets out of hand, this is a recipe for murder.  Finally, a four hour gun safety class does not make anyone a trained law enforcement officer, or even a good shooter.  Knowing when not to pull the trigger is half the battle, and anyone that can't be bothered to put their gun away before they start drinking obviously hasn't mastered common sense - let alone life and death crisis response.
 
2014-04-28 02:35:21 PM  

IvyLady: As concealed carry laws become more permissive and permits become cheaper, the old "permit holders are more responsible" logic goes out the window.  In many states any non felon can get a carry permit for around $150 and an afternoon's time commitment. The other thing about bars is this:  Even if YOU are sober, and responsible, and totally in control that doesn't mean that the guy next to you is.  Unless we, as a society, are saying that I can carry a gun into a bar and shoot any UNARMED person that gets out of hand, this is a recipe for murder.  Finally, a four hour gun safety class does not make anyone a trained law enforcement officer, or even a good shooter.  Knowing when not to pull the trigger is half the battle, and anyone that can't be bothered to put their gun away before they start drinking obviously hasn't mastered common sense - let alone life and death crisis response


Oh my god!  You are absolutely right!

No wait.  That's not it.  Retarded.  I meant to say retarded.

We have 20 years of statistics to back up the propensity of a concealed carrier to commit a violent crime.  The simple fact is that you are more likely to be shot by a police officer than a concealed carrier.  In fact, a concealed weapons licensee is less likely to commit crimes of any kind than any other segment of the population.  It's almost like they are law abiding citizens.  All 20-30 million of them.

You people can fantasize all you want about the "blood in the streets" scenario.  It simply does not happen.
 
2014-04-28 03:14:06 PM  
Right, because concealed carry permits used to be very limited in most jurisdictions- you had to have a good reason to have one. That's why, generally, the folks who held them had more training and were more responsible than your average yahoo.  Not so with more permissive regimes.
 
2014-04-28 03:18:00 PM  

IvyLady: Right, because concealed carry permits used to be very limited in most jurisdictions- you had to have a good reason to have one. That's why, generally, the folks who held them had more training and were more responsible than your average yahoo.  Not so with more permissive regimes.


It's impressive to keep repeating the same largely disproven or unprovable talking points in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
 
2014-04-28 03:34:04 PM  

Mugato: I didn't say anything that wasn't true. It's not my fault some moron can't read the thread before posting.


You most certainly did. $50 at a gun show most definitely does not get you a CCW permit.
 
2014-04-28 03:40:02 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: Mugato: I didn't say anything that wasn't true. It's not my fault some moron can't read the thread before posting.

You most certainly did. $50 at a gun show most definitely does not get you a CCW permit.


Speak for your own state.
 
2014-04-28 03:46:21 PM  

Mugato: Pokey.Clyde: Mugato: I didn't say anything that wasn't true. It's not my fault some moron can't read the thread before posting.

You most certainly did. $50 at a gun show most definitely does not get you a CCW permit.

Speak for your own state.


Were you able to walk into a gun show in your state, pay $50, and walk out with a CCW permit?
 
2014-04-28 03:51:40 PM  

mrshowrules: well: in a thorough manner

regulate: to make rules or laws that control (something)

militia: generally is an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel.


Altogether now:

Make thorough rules or laws that control a fighting force that is composed of citizens subject of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation.


You are incorrect, as academics proved and the supreme court affirmed. Well regulated, as used at the time of writing the Constitution, meant, practiced or trained. That's it. Period. There is no question or debate on this point, except by people who have no clue what they're talking about. Thanks for playing though.
 
2014-04-28 03:55:07 PM  

Mugato: theprinceofwands: No hyperbole whatsoever. In fact, there are a number of militias that have included this in their 'bright line' statements.

There is never going to be "another" armed revolution in the United States. Never. No matter how much the gun nuts masturbate to the thought of some sort of an uprising against their own government, it is not going to happen, no matter what the government does.

Enjoy your guns, I enjoy mine. But don't pretend that you're preparing for some day when you and your buddies have to take up arms against the United States military. So have another Budweiser, go to the range and pray that someone breaks into your house so you get to legally shoot a real person like a good gun nut. Because the revolution isn't happening.


And when proved incapable of winning the debate, ad hominem?
 
2014-04-28 04:00:10 PM  

Flappyhead: theprinceofwands: But if you want to talk successful revolutions:

French Revolution, US Revolution, Haitian slave rebellion, Cuban revolution, greek war of independence, the february revolution...I can go all day since one of my degrees was history/poli-sci.

None of which had anything to do with the government taking away guns, which is the premise of your mythical revolution in modern America.


No revolution has, as far as I know. That's not the point. The point is that when an issue is serious enough, and shared by enough people, they can (and HAVE) revolt against the government and form a new one.

Remember also that I stated clearly it would never happen because politicians aren't stupid enough to push us that far, knowing that there are 225,000,000-275,000,000 people in the country who disagree with such a course, and may take punitive actions (even if only electorally, or financially). I merely pointed out that if it ever DID happen it would cause open revolt, which it would. For god's sake, paying tax on grazing is enough to get some people worked up, and this is just a tad more important and universal, no?
 
2014-04-28 04:00:34 PM  

theprinceofwands: ad hominem


What ad hominem, I was describing two good friends of mine.
 
2014-04-28 04:05:36 PM  

stan unusual: Princeofwands:  You're talking about mostly fairly minor rebellions, not all-out revolutions, and nothing with the kind of popular support and centrality of culture firearm ownership enjoys in the US (we're talking 80-100 million owners at least, and ~85%+ support).

But if you want to talk successful revolutions:

French Revolution, US Revolution, Haitian slave rebellion, Cuban revolution, greek war of independence, the february revolution...I can go all day since one of my degrees was history/poli-sci.

And all of the minor rebellions I mentioned were led by folks, who like you, were certain that they were the vanguard of a successful revolution, and all of them were wrong in their predictions.  Sorry to spoil your gun absolutist wankfest with a dose of reality but total disarmament isn't the goal of gun regulation supporters and even the most ardent Second Amendment jurist Justice Scalia doesn't believe that the Second Amendment grants an unlimited personal right to carry or possess whatever firearms you want wherever you want.  Successful revolutions in the twenty-first century require either the tacit approval of or actual participation of the majority of the nation's military as well as widespread popular support (collapse of the Soviet Union and the failed counter coup there, the DDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the rest of the former Warsaw Pact nations,Tunisia) or military intervention from another country- (Libya, for example).  There is little to no chance of the bulk f the U.S. military to defect to your militia fantasy (see Australia's response to stricter gun regulation) and absolutely none of foreign military intervention in the U.S. for it.


Actually you're incorrect. Most revolutions occur with less than 50% popular support, and less than 10% active participation. See - all of the examples you mentioned, as well as all I mentioned.

Further, having been in the military and had these discussions at length with those around me (nearly all of whom were officers since I was stationed at comnavsurflant), the bulk of the military would NOT engage against its citizens in such an event. Study after study conducted by the military has shown this. Most would rebel, or at least refuse to engage. At least in the long term. This is shown true when looking at other nations whose militaries chose similarly, like many that you mentioned. The military, especially in the US, is merely citizens, not a separate entity, and they would almost certainly not engage in a domestic suppression so widescale.
 
2014-04-28 04:07:33 PM  

redmid17: Mugato: Pokey.Clyde: Mugato: I didn't say anything that wasn't true. It's not my fault some moron can't read the thread before posting.

You most certainly did. $50 at a gun show most definitely does not get you a CCW permit.

Speak for your own state.

Were you able to walk into a gun show in your state, pay $50, and walk out with a CCW permit?


No, I had to send for it of course but it gave me all I needed to get one

When I got it, it was only $50, my bad.
 
2014-04-28 04:10:05 PM  

tulax: theprinceofwands: stoli n coke: i have to ask, what do CCW holders hope to accomplish with a law like this?

Not even figuring in the intoxication factor, bars are often crowded, it's loud, it's dark, sometimes there's pushing and shoving. If they were suddenly faced with the "bad guy with a gun" scenario they get excited over, it seems they'd be more likely to shoot someone who had nothing to do with it. FFS, even Old West Saloons didn't want firearms inside.

It's the same reason guns in movie theaters is a horrible idea.

Well for me it's a big pain in the butt to have to disarm every time I walk into someplace 21 and over. It can create panic when people see me pulling the gun out in the parking lot. It opens me to having it stolen if my vehicle is broken into. It creates an opportunity for an accident (like an accidental discharge).

Further, none of what you say has any factual, statistical backing. There are almost no accidental shootings from permit holders. A few, certainly, but its very VERY rare. It's simply not a reasonable issue. What's more, there have almost never been any significant events from lawful carry of any kind, only the rare random accident. Nearly all crime is, and always has been, from criminals intent on committing the crimes.

If you know you're going to a bar, just leave the thing at home in the safe.  What part of responsible gun ownership involves you carrying while drinking anyway?


Leaving it at home removes the protection/preparedness it offers. It removes the POINT of having it in the first place. While not all permit holders carry universally, many do and there are fairly strong arguments for why this is preferable.

I never said I'd be drinking, I said going into places off limits to persons under 21. For instance, stop by Red Robin for a burger and the only open seats are in the restricted area. However, there is nothing in any way irresponsible about carrying while having a drink, so long as one is not drinking to the point of impairment. Even then I can make a fairly solid argument for the continuing right to defense. That's why so many states allow carry while intoxicated.
 
2014-04-28 04:11:31 PM  

Mugato: redmid17: Mugato: Pokey.Clyde: Mugato: I didn't say anything that wasn't true. It's not my fault some moron can't read the thread before posting.

You most certainly did. $50 at a gun show most definitely does not get you a CCW permit.

Speak for your own state.

Were you able to walk into a gun show in your state, pay $50, and walk out with a CCW permit?

No, I had to send for it of course but it gave me all I needed to get one

When I got it, it was only $50, my bad.


Pretty sweet how you omitted all the other steps like the background check, fingerprinting. The fact you tried to correct the cost and failed says a lot too.

I can understand preferring or wanting more stringent requirements for carrying with regards to training, but it doesn't need you mean to outright lie about it.
 
2014-04-28 04:15:52 PM  

IvyLady: tulax: theprinceofwands: stoli n coke: i have to ask, what do CCW holders hope to accomplish with a law like this?

Not even figuring in the intoxication factor, bars are often crowded, it's loud, it's dark, sometimes there's pushing and shoving. If they were suddenly faced with the "bad guy with a gun" scenario they get excited over, it seems they'd be more likely to shoot someone who had nothing to do with it. FFS, even Old West Saloons didn't want firearms inside.

It's the same reason guns in movie theaters is a horrible idea.

Well for me it's a big pain in the butt to have to disarm every time I walk into someplace 21 and over. It can create panic when people see me pulling the gun out in the parking lot. It opens me to having it stolen if my vehicle is broken into. It creates an opportunity for an accident (like an accidental discharge).

Further, none of what you say has any factual, statistical backing. There are almost no accidental shootings from permit holders. A few, certainly, but its very VERY rare. It's simply not a reasonable issue. What's more, there have almost never been any significant events from lawful carry of any kind, only the rare random accident. Nearly all crime is, and always has been, from criminals intent on committing the crimes.

If you know you're going to a bar, just leave the thing at home in the safe.  What part of responsible gun ownership involves you carrying while drinking anyway?

As concealed carry laws become more permissive and permits become cheaper, the old "permit holders are more responsible" logic goes out the window.  In many states any non felon can get a carry permit for around $150 and an afternoon's time commitment. The other thing about bars is this:  Even if YOU are sober, and responsible, and totally in control that doesn't mean that the guy next to you is.  Unless we, as a society, are saying that I can carry a gun into a bar and shoot any UNARMED person that gets out of hand, this is a recipe for murder.   ...


I believe you are correct on the first part, but wrong on the second and third parts.

In many states all you actually need is to not have lost your rights...no permit or other factors exist. In MANY others you just need to pay the $50 and pass the basic background verification. Only a few require larger sums or any real process beyond that.

On the last part, you have already been proved incorrect through hundreds of years of data collection. The fact is that there is no elevated incident of crime/violence/accident from any form of allowance with regards to weapons, nor any reduced negative impacts from any form of gun control, as shown by repeated studies and analysis by Harvard, the CDC, the NAS, etc.

What's more, there remains the question of inherent rights (not to mention enumerated rights), which many would argue trump your baseless fears. In other words, regardless of potential dangers, the fact remains that many embrace the idea of individual over collective.
 
2014-04-28 04:18:07 PM  

IvyLady: Right, because concealed carry permits used to be very limited in most jurisdictions- you had to have a good reason to have one. That's why, generally, the folks who held them had more training and were more responsible than your average yahoo.  Not so with more permissive regimes.


Even though I agree with the overall sentiment of your earlier statement, he is correct that over the last 60 years of increasing permissiveness and saturation of concealed carry not only have things not gotten worse, they've continued to get better.

I think your dilution argument holds, but only when taken to the extreme...FAR FAR FAR beyond where it currently exists, despite almost universal allowance for carry.
 
2014-04-28 04:18:29 PM  

redmid17: Pretty sweet how you omitted all the other steps like the background check, fingerprinting. The fact you tried to correct the cost and failed says a lot too.


Yes, I said when I got it it was $50 and now it's $59, holy shiat what a liar I am. If you read my post I mentioned the class and not being a felon. WTF point are you trying to make? My original point is that none of that is going to make anyone more responsible or less likely to shoot someone. People in this thread were acting like having a CC gives one 00 status,
 
2014-04-28 04:26:38 PM  

theprinceofwands: However, there is nothing in any way irresponsible about carrying while having a drink, so long as one is not drinking to the point of impairment. Even then I can make a fairly solid argument for the continuing right to defense. That's why so many states allow carry while intoxicated.


Seriously? Which ones?

I can't see how that makes any sense... You're not allowed to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated, so I certainly wouldn't think you should be allowed to operate a farking gun while intoxicated! Or, are you just saying you can "carry" it, but not actually use it? In which case, it would seem completely useless to carry it at all...
 
2014-04-28 04:30:47 PM  

Mugato: redmid17: Pretty sweet how you omitted all the other steps like the background check, fingerprinting. The fact you tried to correct the cost and failed says a lot too.

Yes, I said when I got it it was $50 and now it's $59, holy shiat what a liar I am. If you read my post I mentioned the class and not being a felon. WTF point are you trying to make? My original point is that none of that is going to make anyone more responsible or less likely to shoot someone. People in this thread were acting like having a CC gives one 00 status,


Keep moving those goalposts, jefe. If you had wanted to make that point, you wouldn't have lied in the first place.
 
2014-04-28 04:41:42 PM  

redmid17: Keep moving those goalposts, jefe. If you had wanted to make that point, you wouldn't have lied in the first place.


Dude, everything I said was consistent. Either show my where I lied or get off my dick.
 
2014-04-28 04:43:38 PM  

Mugato: redmid17: Keep moving those goalposts, jefe. If you had wanted to make that point, you wouldn't have lied in the first place.

Dude, everything I said was consistent. Either show my where I lied or get off my dick.


Your Boobies in the thread, which a dozen people called bullshiat on?

http://www.fark.com/comments/8238195/90541998#c90541998
 
2014-04-28 04:44:56 PM  

Bullseyed: Liberals never let facts get in the way of their fascism.


Liberal fascism? What the fark does that even mean?
 
2014-04-28 04:44:57 PM  

RobSeace: theprinceofwands: However, there is nothing in any way irresponsible about carrying while having a drink, so long as one is not drinking to the point of impairment. Even then I can make a fairly solid argument for the continuing right to defense. That's why so many states allow carry while intoxicated.

Seriously? Which ones?

I can't see how that makes any sense... You're not allowed to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated, so I certainly wouldn't think you should be allowed to operate a farking gun while intoxicated! Or, are you just saying you can "carry" it, but not actually use it? In which case, it would seem completely useless to carry it at all...


So you want people to just leave their gun on the ground when they start drinking? Little Bobby-Sue could pick it up and accidentally kill his entire family!

Think of the children you heartless bastard.
 
2014-04-28 04:46:29 PM  

redmid17: Mugato: redmid17: Keep moving those goalposts, jefe. If you had wanted to make that point, you wouldn't have lied in the first place.

Dude, everything I said was consistent. Either show my where I lied or get off my dick.

Your Boobies in the thread, which a dozen people called bullshiat on?

http://www.fark.com/comments/8238195/90541998#c90541998


...and?
 
2014-04-28 04:50:08 PM  

Mugato: redmid17: Mugato: redmid17: Keep moving those goalposts, jefe. If you had wanted to make that point, you wouldn't have lied in the first place.

Dude, everything I said was consistent. Either show my where I lied or get off my dick.

Your Boobies in the thread, which a dozen people called bullshiat on?

http://www.fark.com/comments/8238195/90541998#c90541998

...and?


"So what" or "and?" are always great responses when someone points out where you went wrong. Yeoman's work at trolling the thread.
 
2014-04-28 05:00:37 PM  

RobSeace: theprinceofwands: However, there is nothing in any way irresponsible about carrying while having a drink, so long as one is not drinking to the point of impairment. Even then I can make a fairly solid argument for the continuing right to defense. That's why so many states allow carry while intoxicated.

Seriously? Which ones?

I can't see how that makes any sense... You're not allowed to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated, so I certainly wouldn't think you should be allowed to operate a farking gun while intoxicated! Or, are you just saying you can "carry" it, but not actually use it? In which case, it would seem completely useless to carry it at all...


Almost half of them. Washington for instance. I have the list on my home system, but no access to it from here.

It's legal to use a gun for defense in all 50 states. You can ALWAYS defend yourself (providing you meet the burden for self-defense). It's just not always legal to carry it (which is obviously as bad, or worse, than the other way around from a logic standpoint).
 
2014-04-28 05:05:53 PM  

Bob Robert: Bullseyed: Liberals never let facts get in the way of their fascism.

Liberal fascism? What the fark does that even mean?


I think it's where a 14-year old girl should be allowed to decide to get an abortion at will without parental consent because she can do whatever she wants with her body, but a 30-year old veteran who successfully undergoes a criminal and psychological background check has no reason to own a firearm for self-defense even if he is purchasing it to protect his own life and those of his family.
 
2014-04-28 05:07:41 PM  
princeofwands: Actually you're incorrect. Most revolutions occur with less than 50% popular support, and less than 10% active participation. See - all of the examples you mentioned, as well as all I mentioned.

"Widespread" does not equal >50% and you ignore what those percentages include the military.

Further, having been in the military and had these discussions at length with those around me (nearly all of whom were officers since I was stationed at comnavsurflant), the bulk of the military would NOT engage against its citizens in such an event. Study after study conducted by the military has shown this. Most would rebel, or at least refuse to engage. At least in the long term. This is shown true when looking at other nations whose militaries chose similarly, like many that you mentioned. The military, especially in the US, is merely citizens, not a separate entity, and they would almost certainly not engage in a domestic suppression so widescale.

Billy Mitchell used Martin B-1's to provide recon for arial bombing of UMW strikers in West Virginia.  George Patton lead an attack on veterans in the Bonus Army at the direct order of Douglas Mac Arthur.  The Colorado National Guard participated in the Ludlow Massacre.  The US military  conducted the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII.  The Ohio National Guard fired on protesters at Kent State. The willingness of both National Guard and regular military units to fire on their fellow citizens  is well established once they are labeled as law breakers threatening law and order.

Most importantly, your scenario depends upon a paranoid fantasy- that the goal of gun laws is total disarmament of the public. The goal of gun laws have been regulating the type of weapons permissible for civilian ownership, keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill, felons and domestic abusers and finally regulating where and when weapons may be possessed and limiting or outright banning the carrying of concealed weapons all of which Justice Scalia expressly excluded from the prohibition set forth in the Second Amendment in part III of his opinion in D.C. v Heller: Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.  For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis of the scope of the Second Amendment here nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.He goes on to acknowledge in the next paragraph that neither does the Second Amendment  extend to prohibition of the possession or use of "dangerous or unusual weapons."
 
2014-04-28 05:20:39 PM  

AngryDragon: but a 30-year old veteran who successfully undergoes a criminal and psychological background check has no reason to own a firearm for self-defense even if he is purchasing it to protect his own life and those of his family.


Who was claiming this? Was it your strawman you have to use when making arguments because you can't use logic? Good job throwing in veteran and family though, great appeals to emotion.
 
2014-04-28 05:27:19 PM  

theprinceofwands: RobSeace: theprinceofwands: However, there is nothing in any way irresponsible about carrying while having a drink, so long as one is not drinking to the point of impairment. Even then I can make a fairly solid argument for the continuing right to defense. That's why so many states allow carry while intoxicated.

Seriously? Which ones?

I can't see how that makes any sense... You're not allowed to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated, so I certainly wouldn't think you should be allowed to operate a farking gun while intoxicated! Or, are you just saying you can "carry" it, but not actually use it? In which case, it would seem completely useless to carry it at all...

Almost half of them. Washington for instance. I have the list on my home system, but no access to it from here.

It's legal to use a gun for defense in all 50 states. You can ALWAYS defend yourself (providing you meet the burden for self-defense). It's just not always legal to carry it (which is obviously as bad, or worse, than the other way around from a logic standpoint).


Yes, but the point is that a truly intoxicated person is no longer thinking clearly and their senses are dulled... What they might think is a threat might not be one in reality... Or, it might be a real threat, but in their drunken state they can't hit the target, but instead hit a bunch of innocent bystanders... Or, since they're drunk, maybe they just think it's a really funny idea to pull out the gun and point it at random people... Drunk people aren't known for their great thinking skills...

It just sounds to me like a really, really horrible idea to allow drunk people to walk around armed with a gun... I'm not talking about "had a drink or two"; I'm talking about drunk... If places really allow that, well I'm surprised, and I hope to avoid being around drunk people in those states...
 
2014-04-28 06:08:25 PM  

theprinceofwands: Flappyhead: theprinceofwands: But if you want to talk successful revolutions:

French Revolution, US Revolution, Haitian slave rebellion, Cuban revolution, greek war of independence, the february revolution...I can go all day since one of my degrees was history/poli-sci.

None of which had anything to do with the government taking away guns, which is the premise of your mythical revolution in modern America.

No revolution has, as far as I know. That's not the point. The point is that when an issue is serious enough, and shared by enough people, they can (and HAVE) revolt against the government and form a new one.


Which in the case you were describing was...

theprinceofwands:
No requirements for insurance can be held lawful/constitutional. Attempts to require it would result in immediate, total revolution.

Your entire premise was people being required to carry insurance for a firearm would result in immediate, total revolution.
 
2014-04-28 06:16:46 PM  

Bob Robert: AngryDragon: but a 30-year old veteran who successfully undergoes a criminal and psychological background check has no reason to own a firearm for self-defense even if he is purchasing it to protect his own life and those of his family.

Who was claiming this? Was it your strawman you have to use when making arguments because you can't use logic? Good job throwing in veteran and family though, great appeals to emotion.


Really?  The liberal Democratic plank in the US is basically pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun.  It's really not a stretch unless you're being willfully blind.
 
2014-04-28 06:26:51 PM  

AngryDragon: Really? The liberal Democratic plank in the US is basically pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun. It's really not a stretch unless you're being willfully blind.


Why not just go full-retard and say "anti-life"?

How many real life people have you really encountered actually arguing in favor of women have more abortions? Like they're a great thing we should be encouraging, maybe even making mandatory!

Also, total "anti-gun" stances are pretty rare... Yes, some of them want to basically repeal the Second Amendment, but I wouldn't say it's a major Democratic platform... Lots of them want more gun control, yes, but very few want to completely ban all guns... And, yes, many of their ideas for gun control are really, really stupid and pointless and do nothing at all to stop gun voilence and crime... So, yes, by all means complain about their stupidity, but there's no need to be disingenuous and imply they want to ban all guns while forcing all mothers to abort their unborn children...
 
2014-04-28 06:31:36 PM  

RobSeace: theprinceofwands: RobSeace: theprinceofwands: However, there is nothing in any way irresponsible about carrying while having a drink, so long as one is not drinking to the point of impairment. Even then I can make a fairly solid argument for the continuing right to defense. That's why so many states allow carry while intoxicated.

Seriously? Which ones?

I can't see how that makes any sense... You're not allowed to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated, so I certainly wouldn't think you should be allowed to operate a farking gun while intoxicated! Or, are you just saying you can "carry" it, but not actually use it? In which case, it would seem completely useless to carry it at all...

Almost half of them. Washington for instance. I have the list on my home system, but no access to it from here.

It's legal to use a gun for defense in all 50 states. You can ALWAYS defend yourself (providing you meet the burden for self-defense). It's just not always legal to carry it (which is obviously as bad, or worse, than the other way around from a logic standpoint).

Yes, but the point is that a truly intoxicated person is no longer thinking clearly and their senses are dulled... What they might think is a threat might not be one in reality... Or, it might be a real threat, but in their drunken state they can't hit the target, but instead hit a bunch of innocent bystanders... Or, since they're drunk, maybe they just think it's a really funny idea to pull out the gun and point it at random people... Drunk people aren't known for their great thinking skills...

It just sounds to me like a really, really horrible idea to allow drunk people to walk around armed with a gun... I'm not talking about "had a drink or two"; I'm talking about drunk... If places really allow that, well I'm surprised, and I hope to avoid being around drunk people in those states...


Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view), it doesn't matter. The law doesn't require an ACTUAL threat to use self defense. It merely requires a perceived threat on the part of the actor. So long as 12 people say 'it would have been reasonable to feel threatened', self-defense is authorized.

I agree that it'd be dangerous for completely wiped people, but completely wiped people aren't able or willing to obey laws anyway (or even comprehend them), and therefore the laws themselves accomplish nothing. It all comes down to basic competence and responsibility, neither of which can ever be tested for.

What it hinges on is a basic concept: can you do anything not explicitly forbidden by law, or can you only do what is explicitly allowed by law? If you are in the first mindset then in roughly half the states you can be drunk with a gun because there is no law forbidding it. If you are in the second mindset then you cannot carry and drink anywhere because there is no law explicitly allowing it. Fortunately, the US utilizes the first mindset in legal matters (usually). Most important to this discussion is knowing that there is no significant correlation regarding this factor, rendering such laws irrelevant anyway.
 
2014-04-28 06:35:28 PM  

stan unusual: princeofwands: Actually you're incorrect. Most revolutions occur with less than 50% popular support, and less than 10% active participation. See - all of the examples you mentioned, as well as all I mentioned.

"Widespread" does not equal >50% and you ignore what those percentages include the military.

Further, having been in the military and had these discussions at length with those around me (nearly all of whom were officers since I was stationed at comnavsurflant), the bulk of the military would NOT engage against its citizens in such an event. Study after study conducted by the military has shown this. Most would rebel, or at least refuse to engage. At least in the long term. This is shown true when looking at other nations whose militaries chose similarly, like many that you mentioned. The military, especially in the US, is merely citizens, not a separate entity, and they would almost certainly not engage in a domestic suppression so widescale.

Billy Mitchell used Martin B-1's to provide recon for arial bombing of UMW strikers in West Virginia.  George Patton lead an attack on veterans in the Bonus Army at the direct order of Douglas Mac Arthur.  The Colorado National Guard participated in the Ludlow Massacre.  The US military  conducted the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII.  The Ohio National Guard fired on protesters at Kent State. The willingness of both National Guard and regular military units to fire on their fellow citizens  is well established once they are labeled as law breakers threatening law and order.

Most importantly, your scenario depends upon a paranoid fantasy- that the goal of gun laws is total disarmament of the public. The goal of gun laws have been regulating the type of weapons permissible for civilian ownership, keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill, felons and domestic abusers and finally regulating where and when weapons may be possessed and limiting or outright banning the carrying of concealed weapons al ...


Oh I'm well aware that it happens. In the American revolution a large number of English patriots actively resisted as well. However, there are numerous factors that make such acts unsustainable, or unwise at least, in the long term. This is all beyond the point of this thread however.

We disagree on your second point. The goal of MANY anti-gun nazis IS total disarmament (at least effectively). Many are completely open on this issue. There are probably far more who are moderate, however, as you suggest. That doesn't change the reality of the others however. This too, however, isn't relevant to the topic.

I appreciate the rational discourse however. 8-)
 
2014-04-28 06:40:07 PM  

Flappyhead: theprinceofwands: Flappyhead: theprinceofwands: But if you want to talk successful revolutions:

French Revolution, US Revolution, Haitian slave rebellion, Cuban revolution, greek war of independence, the february revolution...I can go all day since one of my degrees was history/poli-sci.

None of which had anything to do with the government taking away guns, which is the premise of your mythical revolution in modern America.

No revolution has, as far as I know. That's not the point. The point is that when an issue is serious enough, and shared by enough people, they can (and HAVE) revolt against the government and form a new one.

Which in the case you were describing was...

theprinceofwands:
No requirements for insurance can be held lawful/constitutional. Attempts to require it would result in immediate, total revolution.

Your entire premise was people being required to carry insurance for a firearm would result in immediate, total revolution.


If it somehow passed muster (which it wouldn't, due to aforementioned 14th amendment issues), then yes. People would rally and draw a bright line. Again, the government likely wouldn't cross it. 'Revolution' doesn't require firing weapons at people however. Organizing widespread strikes, refusing to pay taxes, and pursuing removal of officials are all valid methods.
 
2014-04-28 07:19:32 PM  

AngryDragon: Bob Robert: AngryDragon: but a 30-year old veteran who successfully undergoes a criminal and psychological background check has no reason to own a firearm for self-defense even if he is purchasing it to protect his own life and those of his family.

Who was claiming this? Was it your strawman you have to use when making arguments because you can't use logic? Good job throwing in veteran and family though, great appeals to emotion.

Really?  The liberal Democratic plank in the US is basically pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun.  It's really not a stretch unless you're being willfully blind.



Too little effort in your trolling. "It's not a stretch to go from restrictions on gun ownership to complete and total federal bans" that is the scare tactic you need to remind yourself every time you go vote. What a scary concept.
 
2014-04-28 07:50:46 PM  

Mugato: nhdjoseywales: Mugato: Adolf Oliver Nipples: and statistics have shown that permit holders are far less likely than the general population to commit violent crimes with guns

Yeah, giving $50 to some guy at a gun show makes you a responsible gun owner.

Know how i know you have no farking clue what you are talking about?

No, I don't, sorry.


I'm willing to wager my home and car you didn't hand a guy $50 and get a gun permit at a gun show. I excitedly await your evidence. Oh wait, you don't have any because either you don't understand the problem with saying "X" when you mean "Y" or you are just a liar. Maybe some of both?
 
2014-04-28 07:53:55 PM  

nhdjoseywales: 'm willing to wager my home and car you didn't hand a guy $50 and get a gun permit at a gun show. I excitedly await your evidence. Oh wait, you don't have any because either you don't understand the problem with saying "X" when you mean "Y" or you are just a liar. Maybe some of both?


Just read the Goddamned thread.

Jesus you people are tiresome.
 
2014-04-28 07:55:50 PM  

RobSeace: AngryDragon: Really? The liberal Democratic plank in the US is basically pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun. It's really not a stretch unless you're being willfully blind.

Why not just go full-retard and say "anti-life"?

How many real life people have you really encountered actually arguing in favor of women have more abortions? Like they're a great thing we should be encouraging, maybe even making mandatory!

Also, total "anti-gun" stances are pretty rare... Yes, some of them want to basically repeal the Second Amendment, but I wouldn't say it's a major Democratic platform... Lots of them want more gun control, yes, but very few want to completely ban all guns... And, yes, many of their ideas for gun control are really, really stupid and pointless and do nothing at all to stop gun voilence and crime... So, yes, by all means complain about their stupidity, but there's no need to be disingenuous and imply they want to ban all guns while forcing all mothers to abort their unborn children...


I don't care about abortion in any way.  I do resent the hypocrisy that supports abortion because a woman can do with her body as she pleases, but denigrates firearms ownership which is me protecting my person as I please.

It's hypocritical.
 
2014-04-28 08:11:40 PM  
theprinceofwands:

If it somehow passed muster (which it wouldn't, due to aforementioned 14th amendment issues), then yes. People would rally and draw a bright line. Again, the government likely wouldn't cross it. 'Revolution' doesn't require firing weapons at people however. Organizing widespread strikes, refusing to pay taxes, and pursuing removal of officials are all valid methods.

If you keep moving those goalposts you're going to wind up walking into traffic.
 
2014-04-28 08:34:09 PM  

Flappyhead: theprinceofwands:

If it somehow passed muster (which it wouldn't, due to aforementioned 14th amendment issues), then yes. People would rally and draw a bright line. Again, the government likely wouldn't cross it. 'Revolution' doesn't require firing weapons at people however. Organizing widespread strikes, refusing to pay taxes, and pursuing removal of officials are all valid methods.

If you keep moving those goalposts you're going to wind up walking into traffic.


Nice attempted distraction, but I have moved nothing.
 
Displayed 50 of 355 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report