http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ng-gun-rights/
What do you think?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ng-gun-rights/
What do you think?
As Mr. Maher called it:The "What Could go Wrong" law. I'm sorry to say GG, but this kind of backwards logic is why young people today have no faith in old ways. It also proves everyone who ever claimed that southeners were, uhm... stoopid, was absolutely correct.
The worst job in the world is better than being broke and homeless
Eh? People who are lawfully carrying are the ones that will be obeying these laws, and they aren't likely to be the same ones committing violent crimes. Those who would be willing to behave irresponsibly or illegally also likely would do so regardless of this piece of legislation. It seems like it probably won't make too much of a difference one way or the other, but I'm not seeing the dangers, or the stupidity that you seem to be.
The only thing alarming that I can see in that article is the claim that the legislation that waives prosecution of felons who used a firearm in self defense, and even that I'm borderline ambivalent about.
I just came back from a trip to Real America and noticed all sorts of signs clarifying that weapons weren't allowed inside.
Yeah, those signs are everywhere here. Kind of amusing.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yeah, not seeing what has the anti gun crowd in a tizzy. The law just allows certain places to allow guns, it does not force them to.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Hope is the denial of reality
So I guess that somebody already has pointed out that running into a an armed person when you didn't really expect that (let's say, an AK-47 at your local drive-through Burger King) could be a justifiable reason to use lethal force against that person in 'stand your ground' states?
Congratulations America
Guns in bars make bad bedfellows. Serving booze in public places is already a risky business....from drunken altercations on the premises, to drunk drivers afterward. Bartenders can refuse serving booze to the "already-intoxicated", bouncers can evict anyone using pool sticks or steak knives as weapons....but once guns come into play it's a totally different scenario. I'm surprised you don't see the dangers, let alone the legal conflicts and dilemmas.
I'm curious how you weigh "property rights", "gun rights", and "state rights" using Libertarian principles. Please explain and expound. Don't leave out the first responders, from police to EMS.
Why do you automatically assume all gun owners will become morons if they walk into a bar?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Sure, and don't drink and drive. Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to take your keys into a bar?
Let's be clear, the laws that this replaced didn't stop people from carrying in bars. People carried in bars, got drunk in bars, brawled in bars, and shot each other in bars long before it was legal to carry in bars. This law ensures that the law-abiding citizen can carry in a bar if they choose. Irresponsible gun owners, the kind most likely to get in drunken brawls at the bars, or be otherwise belligerent with their firearms, were carrying long before it was legal for them to do so.Originally Posted by GGT
If it's your property you can determine who is allowed and under what conditions. If you want to post a sign saying that firearms are forbidden from the premises, that is your right. There are many businesses that do this - companies, I might add, that I've decided didn't want my business - and can have patrons who violate this rule removed for trespassing. This isn't rocket science, it's a system that's been around for years.I'm curious how you weigh "property rights", "gun rights", and "state rights" using Libertarian principles. Please explain and expound. Don't leave out the first responders, from police to EMS.
I can't say I really understand why or how you are trying to tie this to state rights and first responders.
Are you seriously claiming that a "good citizen" who gets drunk for whatever reason (failing marriage, bad day at work, etc.) has no chance of acting out of impulse or otherwise doing things they would not do if not drunk?
Hope is the denial of reality
Well banning alcohol didn't fix that either...maybe we should have banned both at the same time.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Are you seriously claiming that is what you got from my post?
I'm seriously claiming that people with concealed carry permits are less likely to commit homicides than police officers, and studies have borne out that concealed carry holders are on average more law abiding than average citizens. That tells me as a rule they go out of their way not to abuse the privilege. That means behaving responsibly with their firearm, especially when under the influence of mind altering substances.
I'm also seriously claiming that other states that have allowed guns to be carried in bars have actually seen a decline in the number of firearms related crimes.
That doesn't mean reasonable precautions can't be taken. Why not allow armed guns on planes while we're at it?
I doubt there are many shootings at bars to start with and I doubt that the existence of a conceal carry law has much of an effect in either direction. But why not take relatively minor precautions and prevent people from being needlessly intimidated while we're at it? Even the NRA said as much...
Hope is the denial of reality
Like, say pilots? Or air marshals? Or the police? Frankly if an airline wanted to allow legally capable civilians from doing so I wouldn't complain.
Why not leave the decision up to property owners where it belongs?I doubt there are many shootings at bars to start with and I doubt that the existence of a conceal carry law has much of an effect in either direction. But why not take relatively minor precautions and prevent people from being needlessly intimidated while we're at it? Even the NRA said as much...
How do you know the difference....if legally buying a gun doesn't have background checks?
Ask police, sheriffs, ambulance drivers, EMS personnel, and hospital Emergency Room personnel for their perspective.If it's your property you can determine who is allowed and under what conditions. If you want to post a sign saying that firearms are forbidden from the premises, that is your right.[/quoter]
Sounds similar to Jim Crow laws. Make a distinction.
I can't say I really understand why or how you are trying to tie this to state rights and first responders.There are many businesses that do this - companies, I might add, that I've decided didn't want my business - and can have patrons who violate this rule removed for trespassing. This isn't rocket science, it's a system that's been around for years.
Seeing as how you don't have any idea what you are talking about, I don't think we can have a productive conversation. I'll leave it at this; the world doesn't work the way you think it works. This is an area you have proved yourself time and time again to be willfully ignorant about, and unwilling to learn.
Do they have monolithic opinions on the subject that I am somehow unaware of? I have three close friends that are metro police officers or sheriff's deputies, and one that is a former EMT. Unsurprisingly they all carry, both on and off duty. In every instance they carried before they became police officers/emergency personnel.Ask police, sheriffs, ambulance drivers, EMS personnel, and hospital Emergency Room personnel for their perspective.
And I'll say the same to you: you can't use the 2nd Amendment to explain away logical gun safety regulations, or decide what conversations are "productive".
Anyone who's been victimized by gun violence uses police, EMS, hospitals, and judicial/legislative processes.
In the interest of clarity, I just want to briefly explain why I'm comfortable unilaterally deciding we can't have a productive discussion. First, there's your posting history, where you have refused to acknowledge even the most basic facts regarding firearms, their ownership, or their operation, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. These weren't differences of opinion, they were matters of fact. Second, there's the question you posed, which is fundamentally flawed for two reasons. First is the premise is wrong - I've legally purchased many firearms, all of which required background checks to be run. While it's true that a private sale doesn't require a background check, it's also true that requiring one is simply security theater. People who are looking to skirt the law would simply sell guns and then claim they were stolen, or perform straw sales using individuals who could legally purchase firearms. The second is what you were responding to had nothing to do with firearm ownership, and was instead referencing concealed carry, which in all states that I'm aware of, (with the exception of Alaska - there may be others) require some combination of background checks, fingerprinting, class and practical training, and identification/permit to be carried about the person in order to qualify as legally carrying a concealed firearm.
Again, this is not the first time this has come up, and I'm under no illusions that this will somehow end up being an opportunity for you to prove teachable, so consider it more a primer for other forum members who might have a passing interest in the subject.
This will be my last response to you in this thread. The floor is yours.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 06-12-2014 at 12:17 AM.
It's convenient to give me the floor (as a single poster).....while ignoring the general consensus regarding gun regulations, in the midst of several gun-related deaths at public schools.
Try explaining your utopian ideology to the growing victims of gun violence, using the 2nd Amendment. Guns everywhere, by anyone, doesn't have constitutional protections. Maybe you should examine what a "well regulated militia" means.
Yes, of course. We must ban guns in bars. And in industrial port warehouses. Think of the children!
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Let's try to recall from history why gun control laws were enacted in the first place. Business owners and prominent citizens didn't enjoy being robbed dodging stray bullets and watching people being killed in the streets. Sometimes even normally law abiding people normal people get pushed to their limit or have one to many. Such faith in the restraint of the public at large is, I'm afraid, misplaced. I'm not saying that there will be constant gun battles and murders in the streets, but the potential for tragedy has just been greatly increased in Georgia. For what? People afraid that the govt. will take away their guns? Or maybe they believe that if every one is asked then we'll all be safer. Yeah, and if all nations had nuclear weapons we'd all be super safer.
The worst job in the world is better than being broke and homeless
Then why not look at instances where similar laws have passed and look at their resulting impact on crime. There's a marked difference between feeling safer and actually being safer.
It's interesting that you begin your argument by appealing to the wisdom of the people, and then in the very next breath say those same people should not be trusted.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 06-12-2014 at 02:03 AM.