Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumJustice Stevens: Second Amendment is ‘no obstacle’ to banning automatic weapons
Stevens noted that the legal precedent for restricting gun rights — United States vs. Miller — still stands, despite the ruling in the 2005 Heller case that overturned the Washington, D.C., ban on owning handguns, even in one’s own home.
“Miller was generally understood to limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to the uses of arms that were related to military activities,” Stevens said today during a question-and-answer session after a speech today with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s Legal Action Project. “The Court did not overrule Miller (in Heller). Instead it ‘read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns . . . Thus, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations permitting the ownership or the use of the sorts of the automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado, or Arizona in recent years.”
Stevens criticized Congress for failing to pass such laws.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/justice-stevens-second-amendment-is-no-obstacle-to-banning-automatic-weapons/article/2510773#.UIrwjFYkl6k
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Oneka
(653 posts)Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations permitting the ownership or the use of the sorts of the automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado, or Arizona in recent years.”
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...those (semi-) automatic weapons. Semi-autos are just a different kind of automatic weapons. 
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)home run in the World Series where Babe Ruth called his shot before hitting it.
If Stevens in his doddering old age doesn't know that automatic weapons were not used in those shootings, we should give him a break.
He's undoubtedly confused about a few things.
veganlush
(2,049 posts)Is irrelevant , has been for years.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...to slaves. 
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)you are not in the United States, don't understand the word "irrelevant" or are a delusional wishful thinker.
veganlush
(2,049 posts)a "well regulated militia" was misunderstood, the second amendment has been irrelevant. The inclusion by the authors of the "well regulated militia" part explains why there are no "infringements" enumerated. in other words: "..because we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." but they noted that it should be a "well regulated militia" for a reason. The well regulated aspect super-cedes the infringement part. It isn't necessary to list the obviously needed infringements that any society would agree to if you've already stipulated that the purpose of said amendment is to facilitate and make possible a well regulated militia.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I don't think so. While the collective rights theory you espouse was popular during the second half of the previous century, even its proponents reject it in favor of the individual right theory.
veganlush
(2,049 posts)Think about it. What was the purpose of saying "...a well regulated militia..."" did they just have extra ink in the inkwell and didn't want to waste it?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Federal government had an interest in the broader RKBA, not to modify or condition the right. Reference Article I, Section 7 wherein powers are given the government to call up the militia.
As another poster elsewhere put it, 2A is the store where it goes to get emergency "provisions." But there is a lot more in the store.
Francis Marion
(250 posts)What does that mean? The descriptor 'well regulated' brings what exactly to your argument?
Clames
(2,038 posts)After you have thought about it maybe you can define what a militia is now and what it was, in proper context, in the days the 2nd Amendment was written.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Try again.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)misrepresented in this way for decades by people hoping to influence the ignorant. Virtually nobody can unbiasedly read the amendment in the context of the rest of the Constitution or BoR and come to that conclusion. If this was true, why the ambiguity? Why didn't they simply write what they meant? 'A well regulated militia....the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'? Because that isn't the intended meaning of the amendment. SCOTUS agreed, our President agrees that the 2nd is an individual right and that will not change in either of our lifetimes. There is absolutely no historical context to this argument..the individual right position OTOH has a mountain of historical support.
veganlush
(2,049 posts)"well regulated militia" because they meant nothing of the kind. They really meant that everybody and their brother should be able to keep and bear arms, they just threw in that militia thing for embellishment. And when they said "...shall not be infringed.." they meant just the opposite because they already had plenty of infringements in mind and in place.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)at the time meant well equipt and trained. It is but one justification for the inclusion of a right to bear arms...it was never intended as a qualifier for the right. The infringements generally were based on the definition of "arms"... If you haven't already read the findings in Heller, both the majority and the minority agreed on one point, that the 2nd was meant to allow for an individual right to keep and bear arms. The main points of disagreement was to what degree the right can be regulated (as the word is defined today).
Again, if the 2nd was supposed to limit firearms to militia members, why not just write that and forgo the ambiguity?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A well-read electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
merrily
(45,251 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)had they not included the reference, militias would have been legislated out of existence with the establishment of standing armies and the national guard. The founders wanted to insure that the people always had the means to organize and train for armed confrontation of tyrannical government or encroachments of foreign aggressors. In the same way the first amendment isn't monolithic in the enumeration of a single freedom, neither is the second.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Chuckyoufarly
(10 posts)Dangerous?
Just how many people have been killed by fully automatic weapons in the US since the 1968 gun control act or for that matter since the roaring 20's.
I know they look evil and all, but how much of a threat are they when even compared to back yard pools.
I feel that far more people are killed by common guns such as 22 rifles and 12 guage shot guns than fully automatic weapons.
We know they all must go but start with the dangerous ones first.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Are well down on the list.
What do you mean "they all must go?"
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)about two things:
automatic weapons were not used at any of those places.
Second:
Miller said a SBS was not a protected weapon because no evidence was provided that it had a military use. Semi automatic rifles and pistols do have a military use, and they are not unusual.
That is why both sides claim Miller as a victory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
Oh yeah,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
You do know Stevens is a Republican and was nominated by Ford don't you? As Norman Goldman puts it, "judges are politicians in robes" and "the only activist judges are the ones who make decisions you don't like."
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)was that while the lawyers claimed "no evidence was provided that it had a military use", they forgot to ask the military which was using them to great affect in the trenches of WW1.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)“The Court did not overrule Miller (in Heller). Instead it ‘read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns..."
In the first place, the "short-barreled shotguns" were termed by the Court in Miller as those not used in the military, when in fact they were. Often known as "trench guns," they were employed by soldiers to "clear" the enemy who occupied trenches, and were preferable to the long, bayonet-equipped and slow-actioned bolt rifles which were typical infantry weapons. Since the shotguns (most often pump-action) were faster cycling, easier to use and didn't not require precise aiming, they were sometimes selected in close fighting situations. Many think the Court was in error in classifying "sawed off" weapons as non-military.
Secondly, if what Stevens said is quoted accurately, then the Supremes (in accordance with Miller) would probably find that the "sorts of...automatic (sic) weapons used in the tragic multiple killings" were not sufficient for "military activities," and may regulate those, but NOT weapons sufficient FOR "military activities." In other words true full-auto assault rifles and machine guns WOULD become protected for individuals!! Is this what Stevens thinks the Roberts Court wants?
Stevens presents a conundrum of his own making when he mis-identifies weapons (a common occurrence in gun-control circles). The kinds of weapons used in some of the killings he cited were SEMI-AUTO only. These category of weaponry is not considered by standing armies all over the world as sufficient for "military activities." Thus, these arms would not be sufficient for citizens who might bear them in a militia.
Finally, the types of weapons I THINK he means ARE in fact "...typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes..." and have been for years: Semi-automatic rifles/carbines. The only real difference is in appearance and updated actions.
This whole statement by Stevens might be interpreted to tell the American citizens: "Your present ownership of firearms can be limited due to their non-military applications. The exception is for FULL-AUTO rifles. It would behoove the citizens to acquire ASAP FULL-AUTO rifles to meet their obligations."
I prefer to look at this "dog's breakfast" and marvel in dismay.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I took it to mean that a Cricket .22 is not a protected weapon, but an M-16 is.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)pop a couple of Geritols
merrily
(45,251 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)in Virginia, Colorado or Arizona in recent years?
Even former Supreme Court Justices can be morons.
Clames
(2,038 posts)...could serve on the SCOTUS. Seems like the anti-gunners have found a new champion to rally around that's as clueless as they are...
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)According to you, we are stupid and ignorant. Guess that's all you have: your imagination.
Clames
(2,038 posts)That's at least a start. 
But yes, anyone who harps on about a class of weapons that have been regulated at the federal level by a law more than SEVEN DECADES OLD is indeed stupid and ignorant. Not imagination, just plain fact which is vastly more than anything you've come up with in this group.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Did you miss the part about ACCORDING TO YOU? The fact is that's all you have.
Clames
(2,038 posts)...is because people like you are on their side? No? Well you should...
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Keep telling yourself that!!!!
Clames
(2,038 posts)How many laws has your side gotten passed this year? Last 10 years? The expired AWB you all keep clinging to and hoping will be resurrected? Laughable. All one has to do is look at the map of states that have passed CCW permitting laws. 49/50 now and that last one is just a matter of time. Yes indeed, ya'll are losing...
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)What 'side' is that? LOL.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Whatever you think of his opinion, he is not ignorant about laws.
Clames
(2,038 posts)And yes, he is extremely ignorant about particular laws pertaining to this subject since he obviously didn't know that automatic weapons are heavily regulated by laws that are decades old. You should research the topic yourself all things considered.
ileus
(15,396 posts)what a dumbass...
merrily
(45,251 posts)Stevens dead will be smarter than that.
jbgood1977
(91 posts)The M-16 is a true assault rifle being able to shoot semi or full auto.
I guess there is a reason that Stevens is retired.
derby378
(30,262 posts)I can see it now - but can I get mine in 6.8SPC for that extra "reach out and touch someone" factor? 
jbgood1977
(91 posts)I believe that an argument could be made that the Federal Government SHOULD provide a military rifle and ammo to every member of the un-organized militia.
I'm sure you know the 2A but how about this segment from Article 1, Section 8 that reads:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
I've read some that dismiss that section as being the modern National Guard. The problem with that though is the National Guard is only a "part" of the Militia. Specifically the National Guard would be the "such Part of them ("them" being the Militia whole) as may be employed in the Service of the United States". But, the Constitution clearly says to "arm" the whole Militia; not to just arm the part of the Militia that is being paid by the Government.
Anyhow, It's is an interesting mental exercise to consider.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)You'll scare the paranoid.
Sadly, I'm not really joking, even if it is funny...
derby378
(30,262 posts)They want to give me a full-auto, post-1986 Lewis Machine & Tool M4 chambered in 5.56mm at taxpayer expense? Where's the nearest Civilian Marksmanship Corps so I can get properly trained on this bad boy?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Yes, there was a good reason Stevens retired. He's over 90.
Pretty damned remarkable.
When you know as much about law as he does, you will have a right to imply he is stupid for not knowing as much about guns as you do.
First, since you are obviously uneducated to the text of Heller, I'd suggest you try reading it before posting and showing your lack of education on Heller. I'm reminded of an old axiom about remaining silent least removing all doubt, LOL. But, in the spirit of helping educate those that need it. . .
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.
Do you need a link to the above quote?
Now this is just gold: "When you know as much about law as he does, you will have a right to imply he is stupid for not knowing as much about guns as you do."
So much fail, where to begin? Well, out of the box, my knowledge "about law" (or lack there of) neither confers, nor strips any right what so ever. Rights are simply not earned, I believe that is a rethug line of thinking, not a progressive one. Weather or not you inferred from my post that "he is stupid" is really moot; as I clearly did not imply such.
Of course it was He, Steven's The Exalted, (that bastion of Constitutional Law) that helped destroy private property rights. (You're not going to ask for another quote or link are you? LMAO)
Oh, and by the by, I believe I do know a great deal more about firearms that Stevens.
Post Script: I notice a pattern to your posts in this thread. Are you in any way related to the retired (thank the Goddess) Justice Stevens?
-..__...
(7,776 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Justices Stevens, Kennedy and Souter were all in the majority and all appointed by Republican Presidents. Sadly, Justices Gubsburg, known as a liberal, and Breyer, known as a corporatist, did join them, though.
As you also know, one Justice does not decide any case.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)of the fact of those cases, and the definition of "automatic weapon", and ignorant of the extreme numbers (tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions) of "semi-automatic" firearms exactly like the weapons used, typically "possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes".
The Miller nonsense is also nuttery. If we could find an example of a championship game scheduled, where one of the teams perished in a plane crash, the remaining team claiming victory by default, and continuing to tout the victory 80 years later.. No. Body. Showed. Up. To. Argue. Miller's. Side...Miller. Was. DEAD. When. Argument (singular). Was. Heard. The Miller decision was a default decision...nobody was there to prove that short barreled shotguns were in fact used commonly at the time for lawful purposes...they were very commonly used by woodland hunters and for home defense. By Miller's standard, “Miller was generally understood to limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to the uses of arms that were related to military activities,” , this would be a realistic argument against the 1934 NFA..and would make not only semi-automatic weapons but also automatic weapons completely protected by the 2nd.
Curious how much Brady's benefactor (singular) paid Stevens for this engagement.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)as it is "well regulated", as full autos are under todays law?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... remove all restrictions on law-abiding citizens.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Lawlessness? No. They tried that in the American west and it didn't work. Logic and civilized society prevailed. And of course Stevens was NOT saying what you implied.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... men and women turned wilderness in to a prosperous land. Something my people know something about.
And how do you go from firearms for law-abiding citizens to lawlesness? Are you unfamiliar with the term "law-abiding"? Or, do you also subscribe to the notion that all citizens with legal firearms are "hidden criminals"?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)I subscribe to the Democratic Party Platforms Position on guns. Look it up.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... which is nothing but overt pandering to a fringe element of the party ... could very well end up costing us this election.
But, perhaps that's OK with you.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)but it could very well cost us some House and Senate seats. We'll find out on Nov. 7th.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...neither claim is true. I WISH gun control was an issue in this campaign, but as you have pointed out, it is not. You can't have it both ways.
JonLP24
(29,929 posts)back in the old American west.
The whole thing at the OK Corral went down because of a city ordnance which prohibited anyone from carrying a gun and those coming into town had to check their guns in at the saloon. Even the day before the shootout, Earp pistol whipped Tom McLaury for concealed carry.
The other famous old west towns also prohibited firearm carry in their towns.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)The right to bear arms is protected under the 2nd. The government has a duty to regulate individual ownership of lethal arms to insure public safety.
All weapons can be considered "legal", as long as the threshold is met for individual ownership. The threshold can range from a simple background check to a high level of government clearance for the most lethal weapons.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Powers to regulate individual ownership to ensure public safety?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Do you mean like, with, State Farm?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)I.e., semi-automatic weapons?
Or does he mean machine guns?
If he's talking in reference to the Colorado massacres (Colombine and Aurora) then he wants to ban semi-automatic long and hand guns. I position that I can respect if not agree with, for it is far more logical than trying to ban "assault weapons".
If the latter, then he thinks the Aurora massacre was done with a machine gun, a fully-automatically-firing gun, and thus is grossly misinformed. And if his opinion is grossly misinformed, then it has no meaning and no weight.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)He means exactly what he said:
Bravo!!!!!!
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)so that makes him like an idiot.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)....the extended mags, which I'm told are prone to jamming, as was the case in CO and the extended mags, which I'm told are prone to jamming, as was the case in AZ?
Yet no calls for action there......because so many gun owners can simply, with a straight face, say I have no civic or moral responsibility to do anything about that.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)I'd rather they stay legal so idiots like Holmes and Loughner will use them and have their guns jam. Wouldn't that be better?
I myself would never use any of those extended mags., and my AR-15, I would never use anything beyond a 30 round mag.
Banning extended mags won't accomplish anything at all, it would just be another feel good law that some politician could say "Look, I'm doing something on gun violence", when we all know that all that's happening is pandering to the gun control crowd.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...it would have saved lives.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)if Loughner's gun hadn't jammed, then the citizens who subdued him might not have had the chance to do so, and if Holmes
AR-15 hadn't jammed because of the 100 rnd mag after just a few shots, the carnage would have been much worse.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...to bring about more deaths than the other two incidents combined?
You not only fail at obscurantism, the moralizing kinda fell flat as well...
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)That's your strategy?
Body count?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)As Virginia Tech showed, they can become murderously good at it
More security theater, promulgated by the cynical to be swallowed by the overly credulous...
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...because practicing reloading never saves lives when you have an assault weapon.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but if that was the only weapon Holmes had, trying to clear a jam would have saved a lot of lives. Most of the carnage was with the shotgun.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Because he said nothing.
Automatic weapons were not used in Aurora, ergo what he wants to ban is non-existent. I assume the 2nd Amendment, or the rest of the Constitution for that matter, does not present an obstacle to banning catagories of things that don't exist.
I expect Congress to outlaw invisibility cloaks and time travel without constitutional challenge.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)As was pointed out in post 111
In AZ, it was a semi auto hand gun and once again, it jammed because of the extended mag, which they are prone to do, in VA, Cho used a semi auto hand gun with several 10 rnd mags, he didn't have any hi cap mags.
So I'm presuming that even if what you say is true.....you are calling for a ban of a ban of extended mags, which as this poster pointed out are prone to jamming?
Clames
(2,038 posts)Most sensible thing you've stated here yet. Ban people from enacting stupid bans is a good way to go. But no, he is not calling for a ban on anything. Deliberately misrepresenting what other people state shows you are not interested in actual discussion of this topic.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Do you like the sound of your own voice? Bet it makes good conversation.....for you! LOL.
I'm sure you 'think' that a 'ban of a ban' (whatever that is) is not 'deliberately misrepresenting what other people state.'
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)who brought up "ban of a ban". What was your point, again?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Ban of a Ban? And I brought up something I have NO idea what you attribute to me!
Do tell me what that is again? No wonder you have no idea what my point is.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)"So I'm presuming that even if what you say is true.....you are calling for a ban of a ban of extended mags, which as this poster pointed out are prone to jamming?"
What was your point?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)THEY ARE NOT.
Someone else made that post not me! I specifically stated in my response to that poster...'ban of a ban (what ever that is)'
Clames
(2,038 posts)So I'm presuming that even if what you say is true.....you are calling for a ban of a ban of extended mags, which as this poster pointed out are prone to jamming?
Those words in bold are yours.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Here is what you wrote:
Here is what I wrote in the post you responded to:
Be sure to look at the bold text!
Clames
(2,038 posts)...even when it is quoted back to youyou word for word. No wonder you have such a difficult time keeping up with these discussions with such a huge disconnect from reality.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)I ...now here is the hard part......QUOTED ......someone.......else.......using those word......and QUESTIONED ......what they meant. Do you understand that? So you see the quotation marks around those words? Do you see the words right after them where I question what the f@ck they mean?
Clames
(2,038 posts)You did not directly quote anyone. If you, for some unfathomable reason, think you did then you need someone to teach you the difference between quoting and blatant misrepresentation. "ban of a ban" is what YOU said and nobody else. Very simple, please keep up.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Do you not recall first using that phrase? Let me remind you AGAIN
Here is what you wrote:
I highlight the words you FIRST used to help you.
Now, here is what I wrote in the post you responded to:
Be sure to look at the bold text! NOW....here is the test. It's a hard one:
Who used the words ban of a ban first. Was it you or me?
HINT: THE ANSWER IS YOU
.
Clames
(2,038 posts)...you seem to have problems with not only simple written words but also temporal relationships. Laughable....
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...you seem to have problems with not only simple written words but also temporal relationships. Laughable....
Straw Man
(6,947 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=82276
This was the first mention of a "a ban of a ban" on this thread. You were not quoting anyone. That came later, when you quoted someone who was using your own words and asking you what you meant by them.
Most sensible thing you've stated here yet. Ban people from enacting stupid bans is a good way to go. But no, he is not calling for a ban on anything. Deliberately misrepresenting what other people state shows you are not interested in actual discussion of this topic. --Sat Oct 27, 2012, 07:31 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=82383
Please note the time stamp. You are mistaken. If you can't acknowledge that, then one can only conclude that you are engaging in deliberate deceit.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)You do know that when I say 'you are calling for a ban of a ban,' the YOU means I am referring to someone else.
AND no, this was NOT the first mention....the poster who said that said it first.
So, let's spend another dozen posts for a few more nights bantering back and forth about how stupid each is rather than talking about guns. Grow up....or to be specific....YOU grow up.
Straw Man
(6,947 posts)Please link to the person who "said it first." I contend that you are either mistaken or lying. Here's your chance to prove me wrong.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)YOU......go back and look again. There must be dozens of posts for YOU to search. I've already done that and you simply blew me off. Not going through that again. You didn't apologize then and I'm not doing it again just because you have called me mistaken or a liar.
'I contend that you are either mistaken or lying. Here's your chance to prove me wrong.'
Oh, Nevermind....I could care less what you think.
Straw Man
(6,947 posts)I did go back and look, and I reported what I found. The first reference to "a ban of a ban" was yours, and I provided a link to the post. I didn't "blow you off" -- I proved you wrong. There's a difference. I have nothing to apologize for.
It's not what I think; it's what the evidence proves. The time stamps don't lie; you do.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts).
Straw Man
(6,947 posts)Dismissed.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Go Stevens: Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for Congress to tighten gun laws in the wake of shootings such as the one that took place in Aurora, Colorado.
Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #31)
jbgood1977 This message was self-deleted by its author.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)Very fuckin pathetic.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Excuse me for laughing but that is exactly the reason, in my opinion, gun owners have guns. Fear of personal harm, fear of others, fear of the government, fear of enemies, fear of theft and crime. Some of that may be reasonable and appropriate but please don't .....how did you say it....fuckin say gun control is based on fear and ignorance without putting a mirror to your face.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...a basis for public policy.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Yours!
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)You act surprisingly ignorant of the fact that pro-RKBA folks have explicitly own those reasons for keeping and possessing firearms, and that pro-gun control crowd often attempts to belittle gun owners for their reasons. Oh yes, we've heard all about our fears.
As it turns out, it is my post that is your mirror, fightthegoodfightnow, and I can see from your response that you had a Dorian Gray epiphany.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)I wrote
You write:
I was talking about me. Who the f$ck were you talking about? Belittle??? Go back and start again.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)Its not all about fightthegoodfightnow.
Keep up.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...and not me....clueless one.
Clames
(2,038 posts)...blatant misrepresentation of the statements of others, general trolling of this group....
Looks like Iverglas has established her alter.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...guns rather than me......trolling indeed. Talk about misrepresenting the statements of others. Kettle....Black.
Clames
(2,038 posts)A position against idiotic legislation aimed at so called "assault weapons", expanded shall-issue CCW permitting, and othes that you seem to have a personal problem with. Basically what you and every other anti-gunner don't advocate for
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)You like the word idiotic....don't you?
I support the AWB. Do you have an 'idiotic' ....'personal problem' with that or just your dislike of me? Oh, nevermind....it 's both and both are your problem....not mine.
Clames
(2,038 posts)That is just one of their problems...
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Let's take it back to the top
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=81983
Go Justice Stevens!!!!
Clames
(2,038 posts)Snork...
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I don't know any gun owners who actually 'fear' anything. I believe that the 'fear' you suggest is simply part of a justification used by gun owners. My father had many guns in our home when I was a child. I simply thought he was a gun collector and hunter. As I grew up, I understood that he was just a fan of guns in general. He bought them at householed auctions and farm auctions. He liked guns. He was a hunter and he took his sons hunting at a young age. Two of my brothers became police officers. At no point have any of us possessed guns out of fear of any kind. What is you response?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Doesn't need a response from me. It's yours to own and I respect that.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)that most gun owners own guns out of fear?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)In fact, I said some fears of gun owners are reasonable. See original start of this thread and my initial response.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)"Such is the ENTIRE Argument for Your Position
According to you, we are stupid and ignorant. Guess that's all you have: your imagination."
Where did you indicate that some fears of gun owners are reasonable?
By the way, your thought/point really needs work. It seems to me you actually meant to say 'some fears BY gun owners are reasonable'.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Read and Learn:
Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=82294
Ready to apologize?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)from the gun control crowd. You are AFRAID of guns. Every anti-gun person I know is afraid of guns.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)I'm not silly enough to think a gun keeps you safe. That's not fear. That's just reality.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you think those who advocate for gun control are more fearful than those who are afraid to go to a church without their guns? I've never encountered a gun control advocate who is so afraid that they feel the need to carry. Maybe the difference is that those who want fewer guns in the public arena are actually afraid for society, while those who carry are just afraid for themselves.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)I have never met a someone who said they wouldn't go to church because they couldn't carry a firearm. Have you? I have only known people who claim it should be up to the churches to decide if carry is appropriate on their property.
You say you have never met a gun control advocate who is so afraid that they feel the need to carry. I don't know what SafeinOhio's motives are (fear or otherwise), but he carries a firemarm and he advocates for more restrictive gun control.
You say that maybe the difference is that those who want fewer guns in the public arena are actually afraid for society, while those who carry are just afraid for themselves. What a strange things to say.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Let's highlight what you wrote and give it consideration
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)while sponsoring various bills that became the Gun Control Act, (he was also active in banning LSD) himself illegally carried a .25 ACP pistol because he was afraid of the hippies that hung out in Georgetown. True or urban legend? Don't know either way.
Some of the gun control advocates around here seem fearful of living in places with laxer gun laws, even though those places are statistically safer.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Let's even assume it's true. What would that prove about the Second Amendment? Or anything else, for that matter?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)People are afraid of what they are taught to fear.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and a few neighborhoods in those cities. Outside of those, it isn't that much different than Europe. Since the murder rates were just as low before the laws were passed, there is a logical fallacy for that. That said, you are still safer in El Paso than Toronto.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)In fact, I'd rather be just about anywhere where, especially if it's on the water. BTW, there are plenty big cities in Europe, all with bad neighborhoods and lots of crime, but none compare to the US in terms of handgun killings.
This blog page sums up my position, or lack thereof. http://willblogforfood.typepad.com/will_blog_for_food/2011/01/gun-non-gun-homicides-in-us-and-europe.html
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)not to mention the historical and cultural influences. I doubt they have as many knife killings either. Like it or not, history matters and as much as conservatives bitch about "that was then, those days are over" they miss the point. While they do have a point, those days are mostly over, but the after effects remain. Rather than waste time with theater and blaming the deer hunter in Montana, it is better to do the hard work and spend the serious money to fix it.
If I were to pick a Canadian coastal city, I would pick Victoria, BC. Reality is, I would be more at home in the more rural interior.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)United States, or have you just lived in a boat along the western coast of the United States? For that matter, are you a citizen of the United States?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Some of us have dual citizenship, not that it is any of your business and has no relevance to the discussion, or participation on DU. You are starting to sound like a stalker. If you want a conversation, I advise you to stay on subject and cease prying into others' personal lives.
Clames
(2,038 posts)You also have very little room to accuse anyone else of stalking...
ileus
(15,396 posts)Fear is the enemy of the good shot, if someone is truly afraid they're better off cowering in fear and not carrying.
People who carry self defense safety devices (all types) are working to make society a better place because of their selflessness. They carry because they care.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)That's why it's called SELF defense and not SOCIETY defense.
Your statement couldn't be more bass akwards.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Maybe if people did a better job of taking care of and looking out for themselves then society as a whole would benefit. My neighbors benefit because I look out for mySELF by preparing for bad weather like buying a generator, investing in a good chainsaw and various tools and repair items. My neighbor lost power and had them toss their extension cables over the fence to hook up to my generator so they could at least keep their fridge and freezer running.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Heaven knows what that has to do with carrying a fucking gun around.
Clames
(2,038 posts)...and especially those that conceal carry. Astounding level of ignorance you continue to display on this topic.
hack89
(39,181 posts)how else do you determine what "society" does or requires?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The values of society are constantly changing, as can be seen by the acceptance of same sex marriage in recent years. My pointing out the selfishness of carrying a gun around does not mean you have to conform to the values of the majority. In fact you don't have to do anything. My hope is that those who engage in such behavior might take a moment out to contemplate and rethink. That's all.
Who knows, maybe in a few years everyone will be carrying guns around and people like me won't find it so outlandish anymore. Maybe we'll all be happy living in a constant state of paranoia.
hack89
(39,181 posts)In 25 years I have never hurt or even scared anyone. Society as whole has been completely oblivious.
Besides, society would not blink an eye if a violent criminal was to attack and kill me. The police would hopefully arrest and incarcerated my killer but society as a whole would be oblivious. So it is not selfish to assume some responsibility to protect myself and my family - no one else will do it.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It's the same as the guy who says he's been having an affair for 25 years, but his wife is oblivious, so no harm done. If that's the kind of life you're comfortable living, then good luck to you. It isn't the kind of marriage, nor the kind of society I would want to be part of. One based on deception. Not that I am opposed to deception, which is called for at times, in everyone's life, but adopting it as a lifestyle doesn't seem very healthy, IMHO.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I think honesty is a value we should strive for, as a society. When we go along with dishonest policies, we help poison that society.
hack89
(39,181 posts)especially since there is no intent to deceive. What deception is there? That I am a law abiding citizen out in public? With or without a gun, it is still the truth.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I guess that's why we're debating it, 
. If you present yourself as an unarmed person, when in fact you are armed, isn't there an element of dishonesty and deception? I'm not ascribing blame here, just wondering about the ethics of carrying concealed weapons. I understand that the law in your state does not permit OC, so, in a sense, you are being forced into concealing your weapon if you feel you must carry. That seems to be really screwed up IMO.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)In one, you are promising her and God that you will only be intimate to her, not society at large. It is also only her business and not society's. In the other, there is no promise to society or anyone else. While it is the State's business depending on the local law, it is not the business of an any individual as long as all laws are followed.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)However, I'm not making that equivalence. I'm talking about deception and how we justify it, or how we justify a disregard for others by placing our own safety before the safety of the group. No society can exist without a social contract. If that contract has deceptive rules written into it, then it loses cohesion, which inevitably puts it on the slippery slope toward anarchy.
It is not hard to imagine that some members of society feel so insecure and fearful, that they really believe that they will be safer if they are armed at all times.
We all have different experiences in life and we live in diverse environments. What I find fascinating about those few who carry loaded weapons in public is that they appear to be almost exclusively men. Yes, we have the occasional anecdote about wives and daughters being armed, but they are a rarity. Here in the gungeon I can only recall two or three females with concealed carry permits, yet there are probably twenty or thirty guys.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the guys are older were brought up during a time and place, south and California, that guns and hunting were for "men folk". Women who buy to conceal carry are less likely to be in to it as a hobby or sport. That is why the Ryan tweet was a big SO?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I see it as the act of a person determined to shoot another, if and when they deem it necessary, for whatever reason they feel justifies it. Women, in general, tend to have more trouble with that mindset.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)As for your remark about women, it may be sexist. Human nature and military history says otherwise.
It reminds me of when I was in Saudi Arabia, a Saudi noticed an young USAF female manning an M-60 while French Air Force dog handlers searched his car. (our base was mixed Brit RAF, French and USAF enforcing the southern no fly zone.) He made a similar sexist comment. I pointed to the Saudi MODA guard sleeping at his post, using his MG as a pillow, and pointed out that blonde teenager would take out an attacking vehicle before her male counter part woke up.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It was also meant as a compliment toward women. I am fully aware of women excelling in all areas traditionally dominated by men. I admire those women. They are the kind of women I gravitate toward. I think women, again in general, are smarter than men in many areas, including conflict resolution.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)defending yourself from an attacker. One can be argued as being mutual combat, if talks fail, the other is not, it is simply an attack by a predator.
Women in combat dates back to pre Roman Europe, the Pitcs come to mind as well as other British tribes that stood up against the empire. Women, for whatever reason, tend to be better shots and are excel at snipers. The only woman to go though US Army sniper school was a USAF security police (while the RAF has RAF regiment and RAF Police as separate trades and units, USAF does not.) female they sent to become a counter sniper. She graduated top of the class.
http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-AIRPAPER-318930.php
Counter snipers are defensive and not in "direct combat" they are legal. That is why the Air Force trains women snipers and the Army and Marines do not.
hack89
(39,181 posts)I am merely maintaining my privacy as I go about my business. I represent no threat to anyone so there no need for anyone to know whether I am carrying or not.
You are trying real hard here to stretch the meaning of dishonest to smear the ethics of gun owners - I must say it is one of your weaker efforts.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I have owned guns and probably will again. I'm not trying to smear anyone, just having a conversation about honesty and how it relates to carrying guns in public.
You say you represent no threat. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. It's not for you to decide who trusts you or not. You think others should just take your word for it?
hack89
(39,181 posts)you can understand by reluctance to give up a civil liberty just to make some people feel better.
When you can show that CCW as a whole has resulted in more shootings and more deaths then we can talk. Unfortunately you can't.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And what "mistrust" are you talking about? Do you think the public should blindly trust everyone who carries a concealed weapon, just because they are carrying legally? Any lack of trust they may have does not stem from your carrying, because they don't know you are carrying. It comes from the bullshit laws that allow you to behave in such a manner. Laws that were passed by bought and paid for politicians. That mistrust is based on fact, not emotions or ignorance.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)were also written by bought and paid for politicians.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)you don't like it - we get it. Too bad you are one the wrong side of history.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And where did I say I don't like it? Do you think using common sense means giving up your civil rights? It is also within your rights to smoke tobacco. Does that mean you feel compelled to always have a cigarette in your mouth?
The first amendment gives you freedom of speech. Doesn't mean you are compelled to verbally insult everyone you don't like.
And who the hell is the "we" you refer to? And wrong side of history?
hack89
(39,181 posts)when you can demonstrate such a link then you might have a case. All you have is your personal biases and fears. That is not good enough for anyone to surrender a civil liberty.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)As you said yourself, CCW is less than honest. Do you think being less than honest about carrying lethal weapons is good for public safety? Do you think legislation that encourages people to be less than honest about firearms is good for public safety?
I ask you to surrender nothing. Do you want me to repeat that? NOTHING. All I ask is that you think more about what you are doing and maybe reconsider your actions in a somewhat more altruistic light.
Your resorting to RW standby rhetoric like " All you have is your personal biases and fears." is pointless. If I were afraid of guns, I wouldn't shoot them. I am biased against stupidity. I grew up around guns and learned very early on, don't carry a loaded gun unless you are prepared to use it.
hack89
(39,181 posts)not the sensibilities of peoples offended by CCW. Hurt feelings is not a public harm.
I have nothing to reconsider - me carrying a gun represents no danger to you.
Can you show that CCW has resulted in more shootings and deaths?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Here are a few http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE476331FE120B45D
Of course, you probably consider most, if not all, to be righteous shootings. Let us know if you identify with any of them.
BTW, do you support the death penalty? Just curious.
hack89
(39,181 posts)no surprise - the FBI came to the same conclusion.
I use to.support the death penalty but changed my position 10 year ago. The present system results into too many innocent people being sent to death row.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You don't support the DP because too many innocents are sentenced, not because it is immoral. Would you support it if you were sure 100% of guilt?
My argument is not about statistics regarding CCW deaths. It is about behavior of individuals in relation to public health and safety. My thoughts are not centered around guns or self defense, but on what kind of society we live in and how it evolves.
hack89
(39,181 posts)it appears that public safety is perfectly compatible with CCW and gun ownership.
Moral panic such as yours is not grounds to restrict civil liberties.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you make this shit up as you go along? Moral panic? Restrict civil liberties?
I guess we're done here if you insist on making shit up and refuse to address what I ask you.
hack89
(39,181 posts)that CCW presents a demonstrable threat to public safety. You refuse because you know that the real facts undermine your argument.
Evade all you want but until you and other grabbers have more than personal fears and opinion CCW will continue to grow.
And yes, it is a civil liberty. "Keep and BEAR arms".
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)RKBA is a constitutional right. Says nothing about concealed guns.
Guns kill 30,000 people a year, 10,000 are homicides. Some of those are committed by people carrying in public. I don't know how many have permits, nor do I care. Arizona doesn't even require a permit. This is not a court of law where innocence or guilt needs to be proven. It is a discussion board, where ideas are exchanged.
You want to deal with facts? OK. Let's look at some facts.
1. Guns are dangerous tools which are often used to kill people.
2. Gunshot injuries and deaths cost this country 100+ billion dollars every year.
3. You have carried for 25 years without needing to.
4. I have never carried for close to 70 years and never needed to.
5. For 25 years, your carrying a loaded gun around has been a potential danger to others.
And you think I'm the one with "personal fears". Talk about convoluted logic. Is that what you say to yourself every time you tuck your gun in it's holster? "I'm not doing this out of fear, but because I'm allowed to."
Tell me, if the law changed tomorrow to allow defecating in public, would you start shitting in the street?
hack89
(39,181 posts)levels that continue to steadily decline. All of this at a time of historically high levels of gun ownership and expanded CCW.
You have never been safer and will be even safer in the future. Relax and stop worrying.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The odds of me encountering violence are beyond negligible. I am not a worrier either. I have never been concerned about crime or violence on a personal level. I have a large family and extended family, living on four continents. To my knowledge, none have ever been either victims or perpetrators of violent crime. Several are gun owners, mostly hunters. None live in such fear that they feel the need to carry their guns in public.
There is zero evidence that the practice of carrying guns in public is directly related to the slightly lower levels of gun violence.
hack89
(39,181 posts)I am not suggesting that more guns and increased CCW produced the lower rates of gun violence. I am merely pointing that they did not increase the rate of gun violence. A significant and inconvenient (for you) point you continue to avoid addressing.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You seem to be obsessed with the numbers rather than the behavior. Reminds me of the secondhand smoke crowd. But, if numbers and stats are so important to you, let me ask you this - if the numbers showed it were demonstrably bad and CCW increased gun violence, would you stop carrying? Hmm! I thought not.
So why don't we leave it there. No hard feelings. We just have different opinions. Not a big deal.
hack89
(39,181 posts)actual facts about the impact of CCW are irrelevant - it is a behavior that offends your sensibilities and therefore must be banned.
First honest statement you have made.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)As I have said many times, it is sometimes called for. If ever I feel the need to carry, I will not hesitate.
If I conceal the gun, I will be doing so for a damned good reason too and it won't be to make me feel good or safe.
I don't know why you feel the need to insult me. All my statements have been honest. Honesty is very important to me. I thought I'd made that quite clear. We're done here. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
hack89
(39,181 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)is there a single case that was obviously a "righteous" shooting, that you agreed with US or the system? I can honestly think of one, which was a home invasion.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)my connection is a tad slow for streaming right now. But I could see what they were about.
Home invasion was righteous? OK, I'm good with that. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but defending one's home is a basic human right, since we lived in caves.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)"The only thing that matters is people shot, hurt or killed." - Really, is that all that matters to you?
" Hurt feelings is not a public harm." - So, millions of people walking through shopping malls in America, should just dismiss from their minds the fact that maybe one in ten fellow shoppers is carrying. They should accept the numbers, yet have no idea as to which of the ten poses a potential danger to them and/or their children, should that person suddenly decide it is time to use that weapon, for whatever reason. You, apparently, have been that guy for 25 years, so it is highly unlikely that you would pose a danger to anyone. Currently, because of NRA and gun lobby tactics, the numbers of your ranks are increasing exponentially. You do the numbers and see how many CHP holders there are today compared to 5 years ago. It may still seem like a good idea to you, but I think the day will come, unfortunately, when you may regret what you wished for. Consequently, all gun owners will suffer for the "sins of the few".
I really don't want to sound insulting, but unless you live in some crime ridden shithole, or frequent the same, or have some other good reason, I can't see why you feel the need to carry. I'm not trying to tell you you can't, or shouldn't. I just don't understand why?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Logical conclusion is you agree CC is less honest. Has nothing to do with being law abiding. The law that requires CC is dishonest.
The only way to carry a concealed weapon honestly is to announce the fact. Think about it.
hack89
(39,181 posts)less honest does not mean dishonest.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You said you choose the less honest course. What am I twisting?
Let's look at the word HONESTY
Which of these do you think you have less of?
Synonyms: integrity, probity, truthfulness, veracity, verity
Consequently, which of the following do you have more of?
Antonyms: deceit, deceitfulness, dishonesty, lying, mendaciousness, mendacity, untruthfulness
hack89
(39,181 posts)or is this merely your way to stigmatize CCW by smearing the ethics of.those that support it?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)As long as it is legal for people to carry a gun in public, it should be done openly. CC permits should be issued to those with a demonstrable need. I have no interest in stigmatizing any group. Like most people, when I walk down the street, I prefer to know what I'm dealing with, so I can make my own risk assessment and make decisions based on what I see rather than what I cannot see.
You may have noticed that Oklahoma has just legalized open carry, which is good. Unfortunately, Oklahoma has not restricted CC, which means you can carry a gun there honestly or as you would say "less honestly".
I don't know what you mean by "smearing the ethics of those that support it". As I have said, I support CCW permits for those with a demonstrable need. That, my friend, is common sense. Hopefully, the legislators in Oklahoma will make that correction, but I won't be holding my breath. Nor will I be spending much time in Oklahoma, nor any other state that supports the "less honest" practice. Fortunately, this is a large country and we all have plenty choices as to where we live.
hack89
(39,181 posts)that I have to justify a "need" exercise a civil right. Your fears, biases and prejudices are not grounds to deny me my civil rights. Get back to me when you can demonstrate a real harm. Actual stats and numbers demonstrating that CCW has resulted in more shootings and death would be a good starting point.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Secondly, there is nothing progressive about it. Au contraire.
Thirdly, I have no fears, biases or prejudices regarding civil rights.
Fourthly, do you really need stats to understand how foolish it is to carry a loaded gun around in public? Most of us learned that in grade school. Because something may be legal does not make it wise.
You remind me of a man who has been walking through the desert for 25 years. He wears a poncho and carries a pistol. When asked why he carries these items in a desert where it doesn't rain and there are no other people, he responds "Well, what if it rains? How else would I keep my gun dry?"
Do you ever wonder how the rest of us manage to survive in this stormy sea? 
hack89
(39,181 posts)to control other people that represent no threat to you.
When you can show that CCW has resulted in more shootings and deaths then we can talk. Right now all you have is your personal fears and biases. You can demonstrate an actual harm can't you?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)which are two different things.
Statistically, how is it foolish? Only to the same degree as a fire extinguisher. Simply because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is unwise.
Who said he carried a pistol because of other people? I carried one in the desert, where it snows, to eat small game and scare off coyotes. BTW, when you said poncho and desert, I thought of an Aztec poncho, which are handy in the desert. It gets cold at night, even in July.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)is that is vague and gives arbitrary power to the police or some other executive branch functionary. Places like NYC, where average people have obvious demonstrable need, will not get one. Some rich asshole with no need whatsoever, like Sean Hannity, Don Trump, and Howard Stern, had no problem getting one. Bill Cosby had one too, but I liked him. Joan Rivers had one.
Then there is Orange County, CA, issued to campaign donors or (IIRC) possible racial discrimination in LA County may issue.
MLK had an obvious demonstrable need when he applied for one in 1956. No, he didn't get one. Alabama is still "may issue". If you have some homophobic sheriff, do you seriously think a Pink Pistols member would get one regardless of need?
Any restrictions beyond what the shall issue states already have should be specifically spelled out in the statute. IMHO, anything less violates the 14th Amendment.
hack89
(39,181 posts)unless you really think that everything in my life has to be an open book for all to see.
I carry sometimes carry a gun in public. It represents no danger to public safety. That should be the end of discussion.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)these 'gun control advocates' in Manchester, UK or in the United States?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)It has been my experience that those with CCW permits who carry, carry their guns wherever they go, including to Sunday morning church, simply because they CAN carry, that is, they are allowed by law to carry a concealed weapon, not that they think they are going to need their weapon at church, or where ever it is that you think they should not be carrying a concealed weapon.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)IIRC Nancy Pelosi had a carry permit, Bloomberg employs a team of armed guards, I can find many more examples if you wish...these are just the 2 that come to mind. A good share of outspoken gun controllers are in fact hypocrites.
merrily
(45,251 posts)someone please remind me that it's a very bad idea.
thanks.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and maybe actually learn something.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)to your questions? Finding that long held beliefs are baseless? Could it be that logic would change your mind? Many people are afraid of change.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)which, on this subject, is demonstratably untrue.
Would you care to actually address the topic at hand, or merely continue to denigrate those who strongly disagree with him on technical, historic, and precedental standing, with the evidence to back it up?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Where the majority of posters oppose our party's position on guns, while parroting the sound bites of the GOP.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Ted Strickland would tell you the same thing. BTW, did you have a problem with Strickland speaking at the DNC, since the NRA and Ohio gun rights organizations supported him over Kochsach?
jbgood1977
(91 posts)stay around and defend your statements.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)jbgood1977
(91 posts)Mob rule and all that.
jbgood1977
(91 posts)of part of the Constitution. Specifically Article 1, Section 8 that reads:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Post the whole sentence, please.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)freedomboogie
(14 posts)Period. End of discussion.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)than a Supreme Court Justice