everyone carrying two six shooters on their belt, shooting it out in the streets and the saloons and wherever - why not, let's rob banks and rob trains, let's get really into the spirit of it.

this country has gone frigging nutz

is teh phale.

They are not documentaries. The tame east was anything but civilized.
Oh yeah, Texas banned open carry and required pistol licences in the 19th century. Wyoming adopted "may issue" conceal carry of any weapon (including sword canes and sling shots) in 1887. Neither had anything to do with being civilized or public safety.

More horsepower.

the supporters of the death merchants and their industry are working hand in hand (maybe unknowingly) with the religious extremists to turn our country into Afghanistan. Between the two groups , they will not be happy until every man and boy has an AK47 and all the women are illiterate and wearing burqas.

I always leaned towards the Styer AUG and all of the women very literate and wearing.......

So I could just as easily say that your side won't be happy until the US is like, pick any country with a higher murder rate than us.

...an afternoon in 'old' North Philly. Except there's not much point in robbing trains any more.

permits ensure proper use of a lethal weapon.

Unless you believe that some rights are less valuble than others.

Truely DUzy worthy!

the SCOTUS admits that the 2nd is not a open ticket for anything gun related. So drop that!

A requirement for a license is not a bad thing.

A requirement for a voter ID is not a bad thing.

said the 2nd is not unlimited. So I think he would agree states can regulate the CCW rules.

No one is hurting the 2nd by requiring some damn basic gun training on state laws and when to shoot and not to shoot!

other than mere Citizenship and lack of criminal record.

No, thank you.

While I heartily approve of, and endorse, training, I am adamantly opposed to making it a requirement... unless you do the same for all other Constitutional Rights. All are equal.

And for the record, I hope to get my trainer certification this year. So I don't think I'm being hypocritical about this.

But it probably will be. How soon is anyone's guess. I'm not aware of any current challenges of training requirements.

We already have too many guns, too many shootings, and too many dying. Enough, already!!

guns mean more gun escalation.

there should be a deescalation - as has been happening in the arms race.

In other words, "Please show your work".

i think it would be nice to walk down the street and not feel that i have to be armed to defend myself - like in most industrialized countries in the world.

UK, not so much.

How about an individual that used a knife or one that outmassed you in muscle and agility by 100 pounds? How about a nasty guard dog that got lose?

I've even seen single women brutalized by single women and groups of women.

The problem is not firearms but in distinguishing between criminal behavior and non criminals. I fear criminal behavior, I go not fear non criminals who legally own firearms. PS: Legal ownership does not require a permit or concealment.

swimming pools and cars cause more deaths than guns.

When will you support outlawing them?

Do you really not see how ridiculous that sounds to any rational person?

Headline: Man kills his whole family by drowning them in concealed pool!

Headline: Concealed cars being used as number one murder weapon!

more people are killed with cars than with guns. That is before you get to the health hazards and sickness caused by emissions, being down wind from refineries, etc.

Has absolutely no relevance. This group is about Gun Control & RKBA, guns, gun deaths and gun injuries, not swimming pools and cars. Not suicide rates in Japan. Not drug wars. Not rape prevention. GUNS.

but the comparison helps put things in perspective.
You don't like guns, I don't like cars (I really hate wave runners and drunks driving ATVs).
So what does repealing a CCW law have to do with hold ups?

And I don't dislike guns, I dislike irresponsible use of guns, which includes indiscriminate carry. I also dislike people driving cars irresponsibly. Cars themselves, I'm not fond of, but they are useful at times. Wave runners and jet skis, I detest with a passion, also snowmobiles, unless being used by first responders. He didn't repeal a law, he vetoed a bill. Brave man for a Republican.

Since neither one of us know anyone's situation, it is not our place to judge if carrying is "indiscriminate" or not. No he did not repeal a CCW law, but it still had nothing to do accidents or hold ups.
Brave for a Republican? Probably not. I'm betting it is non-issue to most people there.
Outside of the few cities, South Dakota is kind of like Vermont and Wyoming. You are either in the woods (where one can open carry without freaking anyone out) or Mayberry (almost pointless to carry, its not like you are in Newark, where it is more probable you would actually need it.)

Not so good about Newark. Last thing any place like Newark needs is more guns on the street. Sheer madness.

will increase crime? That seems to be what you are implying.

I'm saying that adding more guns to any urban environment increases the probability of someone getting shot. That's my logic. I understand the opposing viewpoint that adding more "legit" guns to the mix will hopefully act as a deterrent. We both think that the other is engaging in wishful thinking. I see it as adding more fuel to the fire and you see it as mutual assured destruction (deterrent), which, of course I see as MAD. Now MAD can work, for a while, as we witnessed during the last 40 years of the USSR. Now, unfortunately, the world is even less safe. Nobody cares much about weapons in times of peace, or places of peace. Introduce them into volatile sociopolitical environments and bloodshed becomes inevitable.
I understand the temptation to be armed in preparation for some kind of anarchy, but we are nowhere near that point in this country and hopefully never will be. However, this RW libertarian movement, promoting the carrying of handguns everywhere, is leading us in the wrong direction.

that we agree.

and some proof of eyesight, not drinking and driving, obeying of traffic rules, fines.

but not to own. Permitless CCW work fine in some places, but not others. Vermont was always "green" and has always had the laxest gun laws in the US. It is also the safest to be in. I think it works in places like Vermont, Wyoming, and some parts of Arizona (not so much the cities, but not for the same reason you think.) The reason it works is 1)many if not most people grow up around guns and learn about them at an early age. 2)You are either in the woods or Mayberry, like I explained before.

The reason I think it is a bad idea in New Jersey, NY, some parts of the sun belt like Florida and urban Arizona is because of people who did not grow up with guns, or know anything about them deciding to get a CCW. Florida and urban Arizona has a lot transplants from other places (New Jersey native Sherriff Joe and California native Jan Brewer for example) who don't know shit or care about the history of the place. The part of Florida, most people grew up in New York, Ohio, Mass, Michigan, or New Jersey. Mostly New York. Citrus County seems like Long Island/Queens South. I'm the only one I have found from the mountain west (I'm only here because my wife wanted to be closer to her family. She is from here.)
I took a CCW class a couple of years ago. Other than myself and a couple of rednecks, most of the class were former New Yorkers (mostly Long Island). During the live fire part of the class, half of them did not know how to load the .38 revolvers provided. The guy next to me thought the cylinder release was the safety.
The urban parts of Arizona like Tucsan, Sun City etc. likely has the similar demographics.

but i bet it's happened somewhere - maybe in a movie.

Lots of media hype on it too, but no call by the media for bans.

If you think something sounds ridiculous you have to ask yourself, have I been conditioned to think this way?

What are the legal guidelines that define a rational person?

We have been conditioned to think that 30,000 gun deaths a year is statistically insignificant, yet 3,000 deaths on 9/11 was significant enough to invade 2 countries and put the whole fucking globe into a tailspin. What are the legal guidelines that define a rational person? Go figure. Or erugif og!

which it was not. That was the excuse given to us because the real reasons, oil and a pipeline, would never sell.

The usual reason for any crazy behavior is fear of something, be it running out of oil or the bogeyman who's going to mug and rape you.

a constitutional right.
We did invade Iraq for oil, we invaded Afghanistan for a pipeline. The Taliban offered to hand bin Ladin over to a third country for trial in the world court. Bush turned them down.
So your point about 911 vs gun violence, is false.

the point of a gun is to shoot it, hit something, and destroy it.

Sometimes, there is an immediate, urgent need to shoot, hit and destroy something. That's why the possession of arms is specifically protected by the Constitution, ahead of many other things.

they have a right to be safe from the flying projectiles launched by the gun owner.

in fact that is violation of the right to 'Life, Liberty, and Justice'.

Last edited Sat Mar 17, 2012, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Although I have no desire to smoke, but that's my choise.

Then both issues should be my choise, it's what you do with your choises that matters.