Discussin on open carry advocates

[tshile]

 

IMO, they believe it would be a slippery slope because that is what the NRA tells them, over and over and over.

 

 And they also believe that all the fault lies with the "extreme gun control crowd" rather than with their own paranoia which has been stirred up by the NRA.  

 

Oh, I know. I've seen what they send their members in the mail

 

But there is a real fear of how the government will use information in the future. A lot of gun control people are also very anti-NSA snooping. It's the same argument... what's the government going to do 20 years from now if all gun owners agree to register all their weapons and license themselves putting everything into a government database?

 

The whole situation sucks. I think it's completely reasonable to agree that people have the right to own and carry guns, but that there's a valid reason and there are meaningful options to try to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

 

Then of course you have the 'but the criminals don't follow laws' argument too. For as much as as some go after people who conceal carry, the statistics show them to be overwhelming law abiding people. Last time I looked I think something like .03% of people have had their CCP's revoked in VA and you can have them revoked for any number of reason, not just committing a violent crime (but absolutely for committing a violent crime.)

[tshile]

the extreme gun control crowd has no power, and it never has.

 

Look, 23 children were killed in a school, and we didn't restrict anything.

Nothing happened.

 

There were some quality mental health research/funding items that came out of it.

 

Which, to be honest, I think is more important that banning a gun because it has a folding stock and they think how a gun looks is the root of the problem.

[Bang]

the fear of information...   these same people give every bit of the same information to a hundred other places.

Sounds like my old out of touch mother, who fears using the ATM card / Credit card at a self checkout because she doesn't know where her info goes, but she will hand a minimum wage cashier a check with her name, address, phone and social security number on it.

 

There is one thing the government can find out with any sort of gun info,, and that is 'do you own a gun'/, and the basic registration process already tells them you do.

Any, and i mean ANY other info about you is available from so many other sources it's not even funny.

Half of these clowns probably put more info on facebook than they're scared of giving the gov't.

 

Everyone has a right to fear all of the info gathering,,  but at the same time, the overwhelming fear of governmental clampdown always fails to answer the most simple of questions.

Why?

the government makes more from us working and being free. the country is more productive, and even if they enslave us all, which i assume is the dystopian end-game imagined by the fearful...  they lose. 

 

Enslaving 330 million people is bound to be a logistical nightmare, and starving slaves only work for so long.

we don't feed hungry people now,,,  why would the 'government' want to add the responsibility of feeding everyone?

 

the rest of the world makes a hell of a lot more with us consuming and driving so many economies by being free to do what we want and buy what we want. We create trade partners.

 

There is nothing to be gained by the government in any of these paranoid fantasies. They seemingly just do it..   to do it. This is the fear. "They's gon' know where I is!" They already know where you is, you've got a phone that tells them.
 

Will they do it to keep power?

two parties control the power. They are controlled by the same entities that already rob us blind and get over like bandits.

The rich, who control the government, have it GOOD. The power never changes.

Why would they go changing that?

 

the only vigilance that is needed to keep an eye on our rights is to watch legislature to make sure nothing crazy gets through.
And when was the last piece of national legislation that passed that threatened gun ownership?

 

~Bang

There were some quality mental health research/funding items that came out of it.

 

Which, to be honest, I think is more important that banning a gun because it has a folding stock and they think how a gun looks is the root of the problem.

 

Not really the point.

the gun discussion was, predictably, killed. it never even made it to a vote.
the president asked for a vote in his SOU address, and it never even made it that far.

 

the point is,   the fear of the government coming for your guns is ridiculous, and preys upon small minds with deep pockets. The government won't change it. 

 

If that won't even get to a vote, even though more than 90% of the nation agreed maybe we need to start to look at this,, the congress did not even let it come to light.

 

they straight up aborted it.

They always do, and it's not because one party steadfastly defends the constitution from the other..   it's the second of all amendments.. regardless of how vague, it's pretty obvious the founders thought it important.

 

Nothing will change the second. it's a complete distraction issue meant to keep anger and fear controlling the vote.

 

~Bang

[Redskins3D]

I've seen a few people open carry, not too big down here. I've never had the thought: "I think that guy wants to shoot me"

 

As far as the YT videos, some are very good, most are just ridiculous asshats. My question is why police stroke their egos. If you see a guy open carrying; he probably knows his "rights" and he's banking on being "harassed" so he can upload it; why engage? 

[tshile]

the fear of information...   these same people give every bit of the same information to a hundred other places.

Sounds like my old out of touch mother, who fears using the ATM card / Credit card at a self checkout because she doesn't know where her info goes, but she will hand a minimum wage cashier a check with her name, address, phone and social security number on it.

...

Not really the point.

the gun discussion was, predictably, killed. it never even made it to a vote.

the president asked for a vote in his SOU address, and it never even made it that far.

So if I go through your posting history I'm not going to find a bunch of anti-patriot act/NSA/NDAA/other general data collection complaints?

 

I'm not going to go through your posting history ( ) you just always struck me as a person who would be against that stuff. I have a very rough time with it myself, for whatever that's worth.

 

And if you think the government has such easy access maybe you should do some reading on the struggles the ATF has with records collection/keeping and the efforts the NRA has put into creating/sustaining those struggles.

 

Your argument is ideologically inconsistent with, what seems to me, majority of pro-gun control people when compared to other government data collection. Your argument about the availability of this data to the government already is inconsistent with complaints I've seen form very outspoken gun control supporters.

 

I get that funding and directives for mental health research doesn't do much to satisfy your desire to score some points against gun ownership, but it's not nothing. It's important. Mental health research, especially as it relates to violent acts and acts of mass violence, is an important item right now.

 

Hell, it might actually help with the current issue many gun control advocates are complaining about... or at least, i thought that's what they were complaining about...

[Bang]

So if I go through your posting history I'm not going to find a bunch of anti-patriot act/NSA/NDAA/other general data collection complaints?

 

I'm not going to go through your posting history ( ) you just always struck me as a person who would be against that stuff. I have a very rough time with it myself, for whatever that's worth.

 

And if you think the government has such easy access maybe you should do some reading on the struggles the ATF has with records collection/keeping and the efforts the NRA has put into creating/sustaining those struggles.

 

Your argument is ideologically inconsistent with, what seems to me, majority of pro-gun control people when compared to other government data collection. Your argument about the availability of this data to the government already is inconsistent with complaints I've seen form very outspoken gun control supporters.

 

I get that funding and directives for mental health research doesn't do much to satisfy your desire to score some points against gun ownership, but it's not nothing. It's important. Mental health research, especially as it relates to violent acts and acts of mass violence, is an important item right now.

 

Hell, it might actually help with the current issue many gun control advocates are complaining about... or at least, i thought that's what they were complaining about...

 

I am against NSA spying, governmental overreach and intrusion..  but at the same time, I realize i can't change it and neither can anyone else.

Once the cat is out, the cat is out. 

 

Probably the reason it seems as if i am ideologically inconsistent with anti-gun, is I'm not anti-gun.

I favor the second, but I also am in favor of stronger background checks... using common sense and, most importantly, following through on the common sense. I'm in favor of severely punishing gun dealers who try and skirt the law.

Police organizations nationwide say unanimously that the gun problems they experience come from legal sources, doing illegal business. Let's face it.. Smith and Wesson doesn't just operate a gift shop on factory premises, and guns do not flow from the manufacturer to the criminal.

So, to stop the proliferation of guns to criminals, police the source and enforce laws already on the books, and it will have an effect.

But there's also laws in place penned by the NRA that do not allow for this sort of thing.

(This is probably where the notion i am for gun control comes from. I am very MUCH anti NRA. Not anti Jim and Shirley at the local chapter, but very much do I hate wayne LaPierre,, i think he is the biggest asshole in America, He's a spreader of lies and propaganda, and causer of more firearm danger than any responsible gun owner in this entire country.

 

I think you're right, we do have a mental health problem, and wayne LaPierre has done his level best to terrify everyone into being afraid of the crazies he is helping to create, and flood a mentally unhealthy nation with guns and a fully scripted paranoid fantasy to go with it.

How does a sane person listen when he says the rhetotic "We don't have a gun problem. we have a mental health problem. so go buy more guns, because the government is coming to get you." ?

 

I think restricting what types of firearms people can own is generally common sense, and has been usually exercised properly.

I also think people are never satisfied, and if you sensibly say "You should not own a 50 cal rifle capable of shooting down an airliner", then the only thing people will want is a 50 cal rifle so they can shoot down an airliner, because that is just how the government will git'cha.

 

I'm not anti-gun.

 

But driving the fear in order to sell guns based on a premise that is ridiculously unlikely if not practically impossible to not only execute, but to maintain, and only makes sense in the most paranoid of delusions..  yes, i am dead set against that.

Innocents get hurt, responsible gun owners get put on the defensive, and people like Wayne LaPierre can rise to positions in which people will listen to his poison.

 

We have brains.

we just allow ourselves to be convinced we can't use them for fear of losing our rights.

 

It's ridiculous.

 

(And if'n you did want to go check my history, uyou'd find pretty much all of this in the Sandy Hook threads.

So I am consistent in my inconsistency..)

 

~Bang

[The 12th Commandment]

Whenever I see someone with a pistol on their hip in an inappropriate place (in line at Wendy's fi) I think of the trope in a lot old westerns of the hotshot who's talking up a storm about how fast he is, etc.  The one who the protagonist embarrasses in front of his posse in some way or another and sometimes later kills.  The guy with the goofy machine pistol in Joe Kidd comes to mind.  

 

No self respecting man has to show off the way. No good can from it and some bad might.  Concealed carry is a whole other matter.  I don't have a ccl, I can conceal legally in my truck and that's enough for me for the rare occasions where I think it might possibly matter, but if you felt the overriding need to carry that's the way to do it.  Money or not, the classes should be mandatory.  Don't like paying for 'em, lobby your local politicos to have law enforcement do it with tax money.  I wouldn't mind paying some to know you know what you're doing.

[mistertim]

I've seen a few people open carry, not too big down here. I've never had the thought: "I think that guy wants to shoot me"

 

As far as the YT videos, some are very good, most are just ridiculous asshats. My question is why police stroke their egos. If you see a guy open carrying; he probably knows his "rights" and he's banking on being "harassed" so he can upload it; why engage? 

Because its their job. They have to take anything like that seriously. Sure, 99% of the time its probably just someone who wants to do their 2nd amendment thing, but that 1% possibility means that everything has to be investigated. That's the thing that gets me. None of these people seem to understand (or are interested in understanding) that there is a legitimate reason for people to be fearful or worried about a person walking around with an AR15. They act like its the most normal thing in the world.

[Peregrine]

I have a CCL permit, and own a wide range of firearms.  I very firmly believe in the 2nd ammendment and that the government would love to control guns because well, it gives them the ability to control people.  That said, I think when people open carry AR-15s they are idiots that do far more harm than good.

 

Yes, its legal in most places.  Yes, technically you are within your rights.  But in reality all you are doing is changing public perception against normal gun-owners and giving them a bad name.  I almost never open carry, and if I did it would just be a pistol on my hip.  Walking around with a rifle is in 99% of cases just to get a rise out of people, and its stupid and damaging to the rest of us.

[twa]

I have a CCL permit, and own a wide range of firearms.  

 

There is something to be said for keeping it on the down low.

 

peeps are so easily disturbed.

[Slateman]

I think a more interesting question is why aren't all these open carry advocates who confront police being gunned down left and right? I mean, cops are pretty quick to pull the trigger these days. You'd think it would have happened a few times already.

[PokerPacker]

I think a more interesting question is why aren't all these open carry advocates who confront police being gunned down left and right? I mean, cops are pretty quick to pull the trigger these days. You'd think it would have happened a few times already.

They're white.

[Kosher Ham]

Between 2010 and 2014, Ruger stock went from $18 a share to $80 a share. It has since come back down into the 60s, but the fear-mongering was profit driven and it worked like a charm. PT Barnum would be proud.

 

If they sold their stock.

 

Open carrying an AR is dumb and attention whoring.  Pistols - I understand why some do, but the risks outweigh the rewards.

Concealed carry is the best option for me.  And I believe to be the safest for all around.

 

I agree. There are very limited reasons to ever open carry an AR. Pretty obnoxious and embarrassing for the rest of us.

 

You have a constitutional right to travel, but you still need a license to drive a car.   And you have to register your car too.

 

The idea that guns and guns alone are entitled to have absolutely zero restrictions on their ownership, registration or time, place and manner of use is completely absurd, and nevertheless that view is winning, all over the country.   The NRA is incredibly good at its game.

 

I have read a few things about that not being legal as well, the license and registering part.

 

Does not really make a lot of sense to me. As long as you are insured.

[twa]

They're white.

 

which means they are mass murderers.....check the cellars

[s0crates]

I'm a believer that the second ammendment says what it says; and it should remain the law of the land until two-thirds feel otherwise.

I feel that way about the rest of the Constitution too. I fear a lot of people on both sides of the aisle don't take the Bill of Rights seriously enough.

[The 12th Commandment]

I'm a believer that the second ammendment says what it says; and it should remain the law of the land until two-thirds feel otherwise.

I feel that way about the rest of the Constitution too. I fear a lot of people on both sides of the aisle don't take the Bill of Rights seriously enough.

Question, as a philosopher extraordinaire (seriously you guys' discussion on God was probably the most high brow thing I've ever enjoyed reading) wouldn't you agree that some of the wording of the second is subject to interpretation?

[tshile]

I'm not anti-gun.

 

I choose pro-gun control for a reason

 

I'm pro-gun control, to a certain extent. I just want it done wisely. Most of what I see is nonsense. Magazine capacity, scary looking gun ban, and other items that appear to be thought up by someone who's never actually used a firearm.

 

I'm also aware that, like the republicans with abortion, pro-gun control democrats are not immune to playing the ever-increasing-restrictions game. Because of that I completely understand why we have people that refuse to budge on the issue. I don't blame them. It's a common tactics.

 

You and others can declare the gun control debate dead, but it's not. It'll never be dead. The people seriously invested on either side are going to always look for ways to pull the pendulum back their way.

 

Though I do admire the tactic of "It's dead, you win, just do these few little things for us." I do not think it will work

[s0crates]

Question, as a philosopher extraordinaire (seriously you guys' discussion on God was probably the most high brow thing I've ever enjoyed reading) wouldn't you agree that some of the wording of the second is subject to interpretation?

Thanks for that. I always enjoy God talk.

As to your question, here's the text: "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."

I think the "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. People who say otherwise (who do exist of course) overlook the commas.

[The 12th Commandment]

Thanks for that. I always enjoy God talk.

As to your question, here's the text: "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."

I think the "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. People who say otherwise (who do exist of course) overlook the commas.

Fair enough, I won't reiterate the same old points of contention, I just wanted to get your take on it.

[Taylor703]

They're white.

Every single one of them are white?

[PokerPacker]

Every single one of them are white?

The post was only half serious and half in jest. I'm sure the issue is a wee bit more complicated.

[The 12th Commandment]

nevermind

[Taylor703]

The post was only half serious and half in jest. I'm sure the issue is a wee bit more complicated.

I figured as much Poke lol

[Slateman]

They're white.

Yea, no. Plenty of black people open carrying and not getting killed by police

[Bang]

I choose pro-gun control for a reason

 

I'm pro-gun control, to a certain extent. I just want it done wisely. Most of what I see is nonsense. Magazine capacity, scary looking gun ban, and other items that appear to be thought up by someone who's never actually used a firearm.

 

I'm also aware that, like the republicans with abortion, pro-gun control democrats are not immune to playing the ever-increasing-restrictions game. Because of that I completely understand why we have people that refuse to budge on the issue. I don't blame them. It's a common tactics.

 

You and others can declare the gun control debate dead, but it's not. It'll never be dead. The people seriously invested on either side are going to always look for ways to pull the pendulum back their way.

 

Though I do admire the tactic of "It's dead, you win, just do these few little things for us." I do not think it will work

 

Well, i don't think it's dead,,it's like bubonic plague..  it's completely under control..   occasionally an outbreak happens and is immediately controlled. (I think there's a n animal found with it in Idaho right now, in fact.), but overall, it exists, but does not.

 

Things like this never die..  but really, there's not much effort required to keeping them still. Certainly not the necessity to walk around scaring everyone or creating potentially hazardous situations with police.

People get stupid, and there's plenty of folks content to keep them stupid and exploit it for their own gain.

A while back mboyd (sorry man, i can't recall the new name just yet) showed the profits of one gun manufacturer over the last few years and it's skyrockets. And no action by the government, none.

We've been doing fine. It's one right our collective legislatures have done pretty well in maintaining.

And there's no reason to be afraid they won't continue to do so.

it is practically unanimous. the occasional voice (often named Feinstein)  will yell, but never gets near enough support to do anything.

 

No need for the fear. The gov't isn't coming for anyone's guns.

 

~Bang