Guns for everyone. Guns for all.

[Zeb_Carter]

You're the one who claims the material is there, so it's really up to you to evidence it unless you're just making it up. It's YOUR homework that was questioned.

Just had to poke that big fat nose of yours in there, huh? STFU.

 

[rjordan]

You're seeing things, I didn't identify anything, except the second amendment.

Yes, I'm seeing things. I'm seeing words on a piece of paper:

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.

Are you a member of a well regulated militia of any kind?

But again, it's moot. SCOTUS already made it law that any yahoo with a pulse can own a gun, and Texas said he can carry it for all to see.

rj

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Yes, I'm seeing things. I'm seeing words on a piece of paper:

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.

Are you a member of a well regulated militia of any kind?

But again, it's moot. SCOTUS already made it law that any yahoo with a pulse can own a gun, and Texas said he can carry it for all to see.

rj

No dumbfuck, you said I identified some rifle someone was holding...quote where I did that.

 

[rjordan]

Do your own homework, I'm not your google bitch.

No harm. I already knew you couldn't follow through. It's always the same response when gun fondlers are pressed to back up their silly anecdotes.

rj

 

[Zeb_Carter]

No harm. I already knew you couldn't follow through. It's always the same response when gun fondlers are pressed to back up their silly anecdotes.

rj

And I knew you would take the time, just in case your wrong, to do the homework. Figures.

 

[sr71plt]

And I knew you would take the time, just in case your wrong, to do the homework. Figures.

Presume you meant a negative on the "would," but what part of this was your claim to back up or admit you made it up don't you understand?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Presume you meant a negative on the "would," but what part of this was your claim to back up or admit you made it up don't you understand?

Asshat.

 

[sr71plt]

Just had to poke that big fat nose of yours in there, huh? STFU.

Oh, I don't mind pointing it out when you're being a dumb, reactionary fuck. And I'm not poking my nose into this thread any more than you are--and certainly not as often or as inanely.

 

[rjordan]

No dumbfuck, you said I identified some rifle someone was holding...quote where I did that.

"They wrote it so that militia members could own and carrying flintlocks like the one you identified. It wasn't the Founding Fathers who gave you nearly unrestricted access to advanced military weapons. It was the right-leaning SCOTUS, and only recently.

Ah, OK, you're right. I did say that. But what I said is the same with or without the bold face. And you didn't respond to the rest.

Guns are sex toys that some people like to play with in public. I can understand that.

rj

 

[Zeb_Carter]

"They wrote it so that militia members could own and carrying flintlocks like the one you identified. It wasn't the Founding Fathers who gave you nearly unrestricted access to advanced military weapons. It was the right-leaning SCOTUS, and only recently.

Ah, OK, you're right. I did say that. But what I said is the same with or without the bold face. And you didn't respond to the rest.

Guns are sex toys that some people like to play with in public. I can understand that.

rj

To you they may be sex toys, but to me they are serious business. Guns are used to save lives, on the battlefield, in the streets, and in the home. Sure guns take lives, so do knives, baseball bats, pipes, bricks, fists and rolling pins. Almost anything, in the right hands, is a deadly weapon. My thumb is a deadly weapon.

But ownership of deadly weapons comes with responsibility. If your stupid enough to not lockup your firearms, you probably deserve to have it stolen.

And even though Texas will have open carrier, you still have to get a carry permit/license and go through training. And if you're stopped by police for a license check and you don't have one, you not only go to jail, but they confiscate you firearm.

I am all for clearing the streets of irresponsible gun owners. What I'm not for is clear responsible gun owners.

Until the 2nd amendment is changed or repealed, I will defend the peoples right to own guns and leave the states to decide how that will happen and what they can do with them.

I also believe in the 1st amendment and your freedom to state your opinion.

Of course it doesn't mean you're right.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Oh, I don't mind pointing it out when you're being a dumb, reactionary fuck. And I'm not poking my nose into this thread any more than you are--and certainly not as often or as inanely.

Says the man with 3 times the number of posts than me. Yeah you don't stick your fat ass where it don't belong, too often.

 

[R. Richard]

They wrote it so that militia members could own and carrying flintlocks like the one you identified. It wasn't the Founding Fathers who gave you nearly unrestricted access to advanced military weapons. It was the right-leaning SCOTUS, and only recently.

But it is the law of the land now.

rj

The flintlocks that you reference were advanced military weapons of their time. The rifles that the American colonists used were much better weapons than the muskets that the UK soldiers or Hessian mercenaries used. An American colonist could kill a deer at 100 paces. The UK army didn't want their soldiers to be able to kill an officer at 100 paces.

 

[R. Richard]

Many of us can't figure it out either.

But in fairness, I've traveled extensively all over the country, often related to work, in some of the worst neighborhoods in Los Angeles. I have never ever been in a situation where I thought a gun would improve things. Not even in Texas. Even in the "bad" neighborhoods, a little street smarts normally is all that is required to be safe.

I spent my younger years in South Central Los Angeles, as Whi' Boy. I had to defend at least five street fights a week. If it was one or two attackers, mostly I could handle matters with my hands or Bowie. If it got to be more than one or two, I used my .357 magnum. I used 'street smarts' to go from Whi' Boy, to SIR! to Willie Green. Willie Green might go a week or two, before some larger stud wanted to find out if I was really Willie Green. (Folks say that Willie Green be the baddest motherfucker the world has ever seen.)
Hey. maybe you went to South Central in the daytime. Night was a whole different story.

 

[R. Richard]

Sorry. This sounds like the wild stories most gun fondlers dream about until they think it actually happened.

rj

Alright, how dies a 100 pound woman defend herself against a possibly armed 200 pound home invader, except by use of a firearm? No wild left wing stories, just solid analysis.

 

[SusanJillParker]

Alright, how dies a 100 pound woman defend herself against a possibly armed 200 pound home invader, except by use of a firearm? No wild left wing stories, just solid analysis.

Duh? That's easy. She detonates her bomb vest.

"In the name of Allah Almighty, take that you bastard!"

Gees, some people you have to explain everything.

I'm hoping the NRA will soon peddle bomb vest so that all of the right wing will blow themselves to bits.

"Hey," said Hillary. "Why are there no Republicans running for President?"

"Bomb vests."

"You know, now that I think of it, with Fathers' Day in a couple of weeks, I should buy one of those for Bill so that I can be with my girlfriend."

 

[oggbashan]

... An American colonist could kill a deer at 100 paces. The UK army didn't want their soldiers to be able to kill an officer at 100 paces.

The UK army had been fighting a long war against France. They couldn't afford better weapons except in small quantities e.g. the Ferguson Rifle. Their muskets were adequate for European wars, but not so useful in the American campaign.

The muskets used in America were successful in the campaigns against Napoleon but by then the British had rifle brigades with marksmen trained to use the rifle at long distances. They had learned from their defeat in America. As usual, the War Office was reluctant to update soldiers' long arms because they had so many to replace.

During the 20th Century the British Army was often equipped with obsolete long arms. The SMLE was a good rifle for WW1, less so for WW2, and was still being used in the late 1950s, and even 1960s for reserve forces. There were several less than successful replacements. Even in the Falklands War British snipers were using the SMLE.

 

[Katiecat]

Sure guns take lives, so do knives, baseball bats, pipes, bricks, fists and rolling pins. Almost anything, in the right hands, is a deadly weapon. My thumb is a deadly weapon.

While your thumb might possibly be used as a deadly weapon, everyone walks around with thumbs attached, and they are used for non-deadly purposes the vast majority of the time. I don't imagine that very many people are killed with thumbs each year, at least not intentionally.

Here's the thing: if I was in a restaurant or a store, and someone walked in holding a baseball bat or a knife, unless they were in a baseball uniform or wearing a chef's hat, I would assume they intended to commit a violent crime. I would exit the building if at all possible, and call 911. So how would you expect people to react if someone comes into a restaurant or a store showing off a gun -- and that's exactly what "open carry" is: you are showing off that you have a firearm. It's the opposite of "concealed carry", where you do have to have a license, a permit, and prove that you know how to use a gun responsibly, but it's concealed so you don't get to show off your weapon and enjoy causing other to be uncomfortable, intimidated, and afraid. Let's be honest and call it what it is.

And even though Texas will have open carrier, you still have to get a carry permit/license and go through training. And if you're stopped by police for a license check and you don't have one, you not only go to jail, but they confiscate you firearm.

I am all for clearing the streets of irresponsible gun owners. What I'm not for is clear responsible gun owners.

Realistically, how often do you think the police in Texas will be checking to see if people open-carrying have a permit and license? If they spot check too often, how long would it be until someone files a lawsuit that their rights are being violated and their freedom is being infringed upon?

They won't be bothered if they look like this:

And not like this:

How exactly am I supposed to look at someone walking around in a drugstore or restaurant with a gun slung over their shoulder, and know if they are :

A. a responsible gun owner exercising their right to carry a gun in public (for some bizarre, unexplained reason), or

B. they are an irresponsible idiot with no permit or training, or

C. God forbid, they are there to commit armed robbery, and are going to start shooting randomly and taking hostages?

I'm not being facetious; I'm asking you an honest question here.

I also believe in the 1st amendment and your freedom to state your opinion.

Of course it doesn't mean you're right.

I agree with this statement 100%.

 

[Katiecat]

Alright, how dies a 100 pound woman defend herself against a possibly armed 200 pound home invader, except by use of a firearm? No wild left wing stories, just solid analysis.

My weapons of choice: a hickory ax handle and a 127 lb Great Pyrenees.

If a gun is locked in a gun safe, as it is supposed to be, I'm not sure how someone could get to it in time to use it against an intruder.

The dog sleeps on my living room floor, and the ax handle is between my bed and the nightstand.

 

[rjordan]

The flintlocks that you reference were advanced military weapons of their time. The rifles that the American colonists used were much better weapons than the muskets that the UK soldiers or Hessian mercenaries used. An American colonist could kill a deer at 100 paces. The UK army didn't want their soldiers to be able to kill an officer at 100 paces.

Yes, it was a different time, but the human race hasn't changed that much. So basically we have the same people, but now armed with 21st Century military weaponry because...why, exactly? Because it's their hobby?

The idea that all these weapons are needed for "personal protection" is insane. The idea was marketed by the NRA on behalf of gun manufacturers.

rj

 

[rjordan]

Alright, how dies a 100 pound woman defend herself against a possibly armed 200 pound home invader, except by use of a firearm? No wild left wing stories, just solid analysis.

OK, let's talk compromise, the way all serious negotiations go. How about let her (or anyone) own ONE handgun or shotgun for home defense.

It is to be kept secure so that her kids don't have access.

She can't take it out of the house unless it is disassembled for transport.

The weapon must be registered and renewed annually like her car.

She must be licensed to operate it, and renew annually. The license will be required to buy ammunition.

She must carry insurance to cover accidental discharges.

She must find her own way to prevent suicide by firearm, the largest category of gun deaths in the U.S. 'Course without guns, people would just use baseball bats, or knives or hammers to commit suicide, right?

None of those limit Second Amendment rights for anyone. She complies with all of these provisions in her daily routines now. Her car use is regulated. Her alcohol use is regulated. Her drug use is regulated. People bitch about it, but mostly take it in stride.

Again, everything I have said is moot because an ultra right wing SCOTUS has affirmed the NRA's bizarre interpretation of the Second Amendment. And it isn't likely to change in the near future.

rj

 

[rjordan]

I spent my younger years in South Central Los Angeles, as Whi' Boy. I had to defend at least five street fights a week. If it was one or two attackers, mostly I could handle matters with my hands or Bowie. If it got to be more than one or two, I used my .357 magnum. I used 'street smarts' to go from Whi' Boy, to SIR! to Willie Green. Willie Green might go a week or two, before some larger stud wanted to find out if I was really Willie Green. (Folks say that Willie Green be the baddest motherfucker the world has ever seen.)
Hey. maybe you went to South Central in the daytime. Night was a whole different story.

You have quite the imagination. Every thought about writing fiction?

rj

 

[rjordan]

"Hey," said Hillary. "Why are there no Republicans running for President?"

I didn't know there were any.

There are 20 some odd wannabes, but even Bernie Sanders is polling higher than every Republican "candidate" according to the latest Quinnipiac poll!

rj

 

[rjordan]

How exactly am I supposed to look at someone walking around in a drugstore or restaurant with a gun slung over their shoulder, and know if they are :

A. a responsible gun owner exercising their right to carry a gun in public (for some bizarre, unexplained reason), or

B. they are an irresponsible idiot with no permit or training, or

C. God forbid, they are there to commit armed robbery, and are going to start shooting randomly and taking hostages?

I'm not being facetious; I'm asking you an honest question here.

The safest and most logical interpretation of someone carrying a firearm into a drugstore or restaurant is they are someone with serious personal issues that should be avoided.

And if you look like anyone in your second picture, knowing they are law enforcement shouldn't change your interpretation.



rj

 

[R. Richard]

My weapons of choice: a hickory ax handle and a 127 lb Great Pyrenees.

If a gun is locked in a gun safe, as it is supposed to be, I'm not sure how someone could get to it in time to use it against an intruder.

The dog sleeps on my living room floor, and the ax handle is between my bed and the nightstand.

An intruder beaks into your house and kills doggy woggy with a Saturday night special. I do know how to use an ax, not just an ax handle. I wouldn't like to try to use just an ax against an armed opponent, even an opponent armed with a Satuday night special.
A handgun should be locked away, when not ready for use. Mine is kept on a night stand, as the only item stored on that nightstand.
I lived in Reno, NV. There are very few residential break ins, in Reno. If a householder finds an intruder, the householder normally just shoots the intruder. In the other hand, there are a it of car break ins,since a thief can see that the car is empty.
The real cure for night time residential break ins is to allow the victim to force the criminal's family to work the streets, as whores. Unfortunately, this would interfere with the scumbags pimpin' for they mama.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

While your thumb might possibly be used as a deadly weapon, everyone walks around with thumbs attached, and they are used for non-deadly purposes the vast majority of the time. I don't imagine that very many people are killed with thumbs each year, at least not intentionally.

Here's what I heard here: blah, blah, blah...I didn't understand.

Here's the thing: if I was in a restaurant or a store, and someone walked in holding a baseball bat or a knife, unless they were in a baseball uniform or wearing a chef's hat, I would assume they intended to commit a violent crime. I would exit the building if at all possible, and call 911. So how would you expect people to react if someone comes into a restaurant or a store showing off a gun -- and that's exactly what "open carry" is: you are showing off that you have a firearm. It's the opposite of "concealed carry", where you do have to have a license, a permit, and prove that you know how to use a gun responsibly, but it's concealed so you don't get to show off your weapon and enjoy causing other to be uncomfortable, intimidated, and afraid. Let's be honest and call it what it is.

And if you could leave without being detected, while your outside safe and sound calling 911 and then waiting for the police to show up, the people inside are being robbed and battered, if not killed.

A man points a gun at you, you have seconds to respond, what do you do?

Too late your dead.

Realistically, how often do you think the police in Texas will be checking to see if people open-carrying have a permit and license? If they spot check too often, how long would it be until someone files a lawsuit that their rights are being violated and their freedom is being infringed upon?

As often as necessary. Any why do you assume they will carrying a rifle? I haven't read the entire law yet, but I believe it just applies to people that can carry concealed weapons, so I would believe that would be handguns, not rifles.

How exactly am I supposed to look at someone walking around in a drugstore or restaurant with a gun slung over their shoulder, and know if they are :

A. a responsible gun owner exercising their right to carry a gun in public (for some bizarre, unexplained reason), or

B. they are an irresponsible idiot with no permit or training, or

C. God forbid, they are there to commit armed robbery, and are going to start shooting randomly and taking hostages?

I'm not being facetious; I'm asking you an honest question here.

All of the above. Even as a Police officer you have to assume the worst and work you way down the list. Although, if it is slung over their shoulder with a sling, then I would skip #1. If they are holding it in their hand, start with #1, it's a sure bet.

I actually will not be excising my right to carry openly. I will continue to carry concealed. Let them gamble if I'm armed or not.