0
peacefuljeffrey

Democrats bite their own noses to spite their faces

Recommended Posts

Quote

This whole gun in a mall tanget is irrelevant. Malls, churches, the other places you mention where you could have a gun and not do harm are private places. If the owner of the mall says you cannot have a gun, you must leave the gun or leave the mall. I was undert he impression that the only places that the law restricted gun carrying (in the private realm) was bars. I may be mistaken.



The places that are restricted depends upon how the state law is written, and those vary from state to state.

In Texas, bars are restricted, if they earn more than 50% of their income from alcohol sales. But not from a restaurant that also serves alcohol, for example. Of course, a gun owner can't demand to see the businesses financial records to analyze whether or not they meet the 50% test. So the state just requires the business to post a sign in a specific format, forbidding gun carry.

When the CHL law was first passed, lots of businesses put up "no guns" signs. That's their right as private businessmen. It's also the right of gun owners to choose to spend their money in places where they are appreciated, rather than outcast. Within months of passage of the law, the signs started coming down as they lost business, and realized that there wasn't anything to fear from licensed gun carriers. Now you hardly ever see any such signs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

[...

Which just goes to show that some anti-gun folks are so stuck in the rut of their own misbeliefs, that even smacking them in the face with facts won't make them see the light.



Just like I am sure you don't like being called a "gun-nut" I don't like being called "anti-gun." I am the closest thing to a friend ya'll have on the liberal side of the fence. I don't think guns in general should be outlawed. I do think they should be registered and heavily regulated. Owners should be required to go threw extensive training before a purchase of any kind and not just for a concealed carry license. Why? Because so many of them are used for illegal and dangerous purposes.

My opinion of the assault weapon ban has changed based on what I have learned here. I don't think it went far enough. Quite possibly removeable magazines in rifles should be banned all together and there should be minimum size and weight requirements that make them to big and clumsy to be easily used in crime. And while I have pointed out more than once that this thread is about rifles and not handguns don't even get me started there. To many people are killed intentionally or accidently by people they know with handguns.

You are right guns are used all over the place in safe, legal and fun ways but their intent is to be used to kill. Kill might be game for dinner or to defend my home and country but the purpose of a gun is to kill.



You have a hell of a lot of nerve saying, in the same post, that you're "the closest thing to a friend" of gun owners, and then this asinine stuff about the assault weapons ban not going far enough.

Removable magazines should be banned? Guns should be "to (sic) big and clumsy to be easily used in crime? Noooo, YOU'RE not "anti-gun"! Give me a fuckin' break!

Quote

"And while I have pointed out more than once that this thread is about rifles and not handguns don't even get me started there. To many people are killed intentionally or accidently by people they know with handguns."



This is not something you know, this is some bullshit you are parroting from a "study" by Dr. Arthur Kellerman that you probably have not even read a synopsis of, which through lies and cherry-picked data and mischaracterizations and deceptions he "proved" that having a gun in the home meant that you were more likely to be killed with that gun, or have a loved one killed with it, than you were to kill an intruder. It is a bullshit study, thoroughly debunked by many.

So guns should be made so clumsy and big that they are useless in crime? Just how big would that be, exactly? Are you not aware that criminals do sometimes bring big rifles to commit crimes? Should they be nine feet long and weigh 85 pounds?

Just whatever you do, don't try to convince us that you're NOT anti-gun, or that you take umbrage at being called anti-gun, when EVERY FUCKING THING YOU'VE SAID IS CLEARLY ANTI-GUN. I'm calling you on your bullshit.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't think guns in general should be outlawed. I do think they should be registered and heavily regulated. Owners should be required to go threw extensive training before a purchase of any kind and not just for a concealed carry license. Why? Because so many of them are used for illegal and dangerous purposes.



The reason we oppose the registration and heavy regulation of gun ownership is NOT because those things would not accomplish some good. The reason is that we have seen, historically, the FACT that such regulation and registration DO INEVITABLY ENABLE CONFISCATION OF GUNS WHEN AN ADMINISTRATION COMES TO POWER THAT WANTS THE POPULATION DISARMED.

If you think I'm full of shit, I cite England, Australia, Nazi Germany, New York City, Washington D.C., California, and there are others. In all of these places, the supposedly benign policy of forced gun registration later enabled the government to know exactly who had exactly which guns, and when the law came down that said you couldn't have guns anymore, they knew exactly who to take them from.

From our perspective, a gun that is never registered is a gun the government can't come and take from us when it seeks to have us defenseless.

And I would like you to quote SOMETHING as proof of your claim that "To many people are killed intentionally or accidently by people they know with handguns," and that "so many of them are used for illegal and dangerous purposes."

Are you aware that the portion of the population that has licenses to carry concealed handguns is significantly more law-abiding than the rest of the population as a whole? That means gun-carrying people actually commit fewer crimes than the non-gun-carrying people! You should check out some statistics before talking out your butt about how many guns are used dangerously or illegally. There are 250,000,000 guns in the U.S. privately owned, by 80,000,000 gun owners. Even if every single one of the 30,000 gun-related deaths each year were committed with a separate gun AND deemed to be an illegal murder, that would be TWELVE THOUSANDTHS OF ONE PERCENT OF THE GUNS that are privately owned being involved in a crime. Yeah, real epidemic we're talking about.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>- If we license and register the guns, can we then take them with us
> anywhere we're legally allowed to be? We do take our cars to school
>and banks, and airports. Presumably it's safe because they're
>licensed, but would be unsafe if they were not, right?

No. You are not allowed to drive your car on a school playground or in an airport terminal, because such operation would be dangerous to the people in the terminal. Same thing with a gun. You can carry it in approved areas (i.e. as cars can be operated on roads) only.



Could you please tell me how a gun that is in a holster, concealed, and is not going off is "dangerous" on a school playground in the same way that a moving car would be?

You are comparing two obviously different dangers. A car cannot, in general, be safely maneuvered between all the kids milling about on a playground. A gun, carried by someone who has passed the background checks for a license to carry, and is carried concealed on the person in a holster, is not unsafe and can easily be harmlessly carried on a playground.

Look, I'm simply trying to get you to see that the cars/guns analogy that anti-gunners offer as a way to regard gun regulation is silly and inapplicable. The fact that you say "NO" to many of the things I ask you whether we could do if guns were treated like cars proves the fact that anti-gunners would NOT truly wish to let us have all the accompanying privileges with our guns that would come our way if they were treated like cars. I think you argue the point disingenuously. I also think it is pretty damned silly that you AGREED that we could modify the ammo capacity and rate of fire, but then said that a BAYONET ATTACHMENT was "too dangerous"! That's laughable!! The bullets don't matter, huh, but the 10 inch bayonet -- whoooo, look out! Danger!!
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Now this doesn't exactly advocate violence but I'd definitely say you show maybe just teensy weensie bit of hostility here. Correct me if I'm wrong, really.



Well, Benny, "you're wrong, really."
In a post that I presume was intended to point out how dangerously unstable and given to violent tendencies I am, you sure did say things like, "Now this doesn't exactly advocate violence" a good few times.

In fact, I dare say you failed to make your case.

And in fact, also, I agree that I DO have "hostility" toward those who pledge themselves to take away my freedom, treat me as a criminal through prior restraint, seek to leave me defenseless against an armed criminal populace as well as some future tyrannical government, and lie in order to achieve an agenda of wholesale civilian disarmament with no demonstrable social benefit. To such people I say, "Fuck you, come and get them!" If that's hostility, then I'm hostile. Hostility is not of and by itself a bad thing. Depends on what you're hostile toward, now doesn't it? If you were hostile toward two punks who were advancing to beat and rob you, and rape your wife, that'd be some damn righteous hostility, now wouldn't it? Well I feel my hostility toward the premise of anti-gunnism is justified as well. The policy is bereft of any rationality, and the anti-gun position is factually and intellectually bankrupt. This has been demonstrated ad nauseum, and still the anti-gunners think that simply denying the truth of what we say is enough to prove they're right.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Second, you can't drive a car into a shopping mall or movie theater
> because they are not built to handle it. A car would cause
>destruction driving though a mall. A handgun can travel anywhere I
> can unobtrusively and not cause a bit of damage.

I see cars on display in malls all the time. They can be IN malls, they just can't be parked, transported, or driven through them unless the mall is deserted (which is when they get the car in there.) Similarly, guns can be displayed in malls, no problem. They just can't be transported through them since operation of a gun in a mall is unsafe to the people there.



Billvon, how can you not see the problem with what you're saying, here? You, in one sentence, equate transporting a gun through a mall with operating a gun in a mall! Are you really unable to see the difference?

The point of the car/gun thing here is to talk about analogous transport of a car/gun in public places. We have to limit the discussion to where it is reasonable to safely bring each item, not to compare the EXACT places where you could bring each. Therefore, if I can bring a CAR to the CAR-APPROPRIATE parts of a school (the parking lot, access roads, etc.) then I should be able to bring a GUN to the GUN-APPROPRIATE parts of a school -- which would be anywhere I could feasibly bring my BODY without encountering situations where the gun could and would do inadvertent and unpreventable harm.

The point of having the gun in the mall is not to use it indiscriminately as you walk through it, but to have it in the case of such an emergency that using it would save lives! No one is saying "go using the gun wildly in the mall" the way you'd be acting if you were driving a car down the promenades of the mall! You're allowing your misapplication of the analogy to get awful silly.

Quote

>(A) This is another opportunity for gun controllers to price gun owners out of existence.

No more so than they price SUV's (which are pretty hated in some places) out of existence.



Are you saying that it is a GOOD thing when a government decides what it wants people to be free to have, and on the one hand it lets them legally have those things but on the other it prevents them in a practical sense from being ABLE to have them by making them exorbitantly expensive? You support the idea of a government acting in this way? What if there was a 50,000% tax levied against any alcoholic beverage, just because the government didn't want you drinking?

Quote

>Are you going to require insurance on buckets?

If you claim they should be just like cars (which is silly) then yes, you'd have to require insurance on them too. But buckets, like guns, are different from cars.



DON'T YOU REMEMBER, it has been ANTI-GUNNERS who have bemoaned that we should "treat guns like cars." All we've been doing here is discussing why that's a fallacy, from the standpoint of what anti-gunners wish to accomplish, because if we truly had the privileges with guns that we have with cars -- even with registration -- we'd be able to take our guns to MORE places than we currently can do legally, and our purchase and ownership would be LESS restricted. It was an ANTI-GUN idea -- a pathetically underthought one -- that initially suggested guns should be regulated "just like cars." So don't fault US for the fallacies.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This whole gun in a mall tanget is irrelevant. Malls, churches, the other places you mention where you could have a gun and not do harm are private places. If the owner of the mall says you cannot have a gun, you must leave the gun or leave the mall. I was undert he impression that the only places that the law restricted gun carrying (in the private realm) was bars. I may be mistaken.



Business rules like "No guns allowed" do not carry the force of law.
In order to run afoul of the law and be prosecutable, you would first have to be discovered to be in possession of a gun on the premises, and be told to leave, and have a police officer witness you refusing to leave when asked. If you are in a place of public accomodation (not a members-only club, but something like a Blockbuster Video, etc.) you cannot be said to be trespassing until you have been told to leave and have refused to do so.

Again, it would be nice if you had more than a paltry familiarity of the subject you seek regulation of before you go seeking further regulation. For example, you appear to not know that gun carrying is (in most jurisdictions I've ever read about) prohibited in places where the primary business is the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, schools, courts, police precincts, professional sporting events, school sporting events. I may have missed a few.

edit: P.S. It's not "irrelevant," because most businesses, even in states with concealed carry laws, do NOT post signs prohibiting legal carry of firearms, even though they very well could. The reasoning is two-fold. First, they'd be hurting their business. Licensed gun owners/carriers take umbrage at the insinuation that their coming into a store legally armed for protection (as opposed to robbery) is dangerous to innocent people. Second, while they would be chasing away business, they would still really have no way of knowing who was coming in armed despite the prohibition -- after all, the guns would be concealed per the law! And anyway, who the hell would be obeying the rule in the first place, but people who did NOT want to come in and use their gun to commit a crime?! Anyone who DID want to come in and shoot up the place would -- DUH -- disobey the posted rule!

It makes bad business sense to bar licensed gun carriers from your establishment, especially when you can't enforce the ban anyway.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Guns can go anywhere I can and not cause a bit of damage.

Guns can not be operated anywhere you go and not cause a bit of damage.



God DAMN you seem to be one thick sonofabitch!

Why don't you see the difference between what HE wrote:
"GUNS CAN [B]GO[/B] ANYWHERE I CAN AND NOT CAUSE A BIT OF DAMAGE"
and what YOU wrote:
"GUNS CANNOT BE [B]OPERATED[/B] ANYWHERE YOU GO AND NOT CAUSE A BIT OF DAMAGE.

I have begun to believe that you are engaging in deliberate obfuscation just to piss off and/or annoy those of us who would discuss this in good faith and with rational understanding.
I hope it's been rewarding for you.

Quote

Each local and state government (and each private area) can decide for themselves where they want to prohibit the carrying of guns, depending on their own unique circumstances. A school in Montana where there has never been a shooting? Sure, allow students to carry rifles to the school rifle range. A school in Mississippi where there have been three fatal shootings? The town may decide to outlaw guns in that school. A restauraunt you own? You get to decide what people can or can't take into it.



Do I have this right? You are implying that a school shooting is not likely to occur in a school just because one has never occurred there before?

That's powerful logic, that is.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"God DAMN you seem to be one thick sonofabitch!"

You need to chill a little Jeffrey, this is all getting a bit close to "personal attacks". And winding up moderators probably isn't going to do you any favours.
--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"God DAMN you seem to be one thick sonofabitch!"

You need to chill a little Jeffrey, this is all getting a bit close to "personal attacks". And winding up moderators probably isn't going to do you any favours.



Well, I'm not the one calling everybody "you fools"! :P

I think it's fair to say someone is acting "thick" when he stubbornly refuses to discuss the issue in a rational way, even when that rational way is obvious. Didn't YOU see how he tried to pull a switcheroo between "carry a gun" and "operate a gun"? That IS being thick, or being deliberately obtuse. I don't think that I'm out of line to call him on that. It's been explained a number of times and still he persists in deliberately misrepresenting the terms being debated.

And "sonofabitch" is a term of art, in general meaning "person." You've never heard someone call another a "lucky sonofabitch" before? Did you think they were casting an insult?
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In fact, I dare say you failed to make your case.



I'm sure Martha felt the same way about her prosecutors. Once again, tome of voice is difficult here. Maybe you're really saying things in a calm voice, like a loving mother to her infant , "I'm so PISSED." "I wish could face off with them..." yada yada yada... I dunno. Once again you say I failed to prove that you're hostile and yet you admit to being hostile a couple of paragraphs later. Maybe you're just confused. Maybe it's just easier for you to shout people down, call them idiots, question their moral character than it is to read their arguments, tell them that you simply disagree, and specifically why. You do this sometimes, and that's good. You also state alot of things as fact without ever referencing it. Even when you do present a logical argument about something you seem to add a whole bunch of unnecessary emotion and yes, hostility to it. That's all I'm saying, chill a bit man, nobody's gun pry your guns from your cold dead hands anytime soon as long as you keep the ole temper in check. It's all groovy baby.B|

Never go to a DZ strip show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"God DAMN you seem to be one thick sonofabitch!"

You need to chill a little Jeffrey, this is all getting a bit close to "personal attacks". And winding up moderators probably isn't going to do you any favours.



Isn't that between him and the moderators?



never pull low......unless you are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know this thread started out about protection for gun manufactures from lawsuits.

The funniest thing I've heard all week is that a bill just passed the house to protect fast food business from being sued for causing obeseity.

Looks like guns just aren't dangerous enough to warrant protecting the manufacture.:D

blues

jerry




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know this thread started out about protection for gun manufactures from lawsuits.

The funniest thing I've heard all week is that a bill just passed the house to protect fast food business from being sued for causing obeseity.

Looks like guns just aren't dangerous enough to warrant protecting the manufacture.:D

blues

jerry



Isn't it sad when laws have to be passed to protect the stupid from themselves? Only thing worse is when laws have to be passed to protect honest businesspeople from the stupid.[:/]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

God DAMN you seem to be one thick sonofabitch!



Regardless of how you meant it, it comes across as a personal attack.

You've been warned in other threads.

Enough already. Think before you post. If there's any possibility that anyone could think what you are saying is attacking someone don't post it!!

This thread is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0