Gun Controll question.

[shereads]

I presume that a compandre is a co-panderer and I am insulted. In Los Angeles a bunch of criminals [who were not permitted to possess firearms in any case] were able to obtain automatic weapons which they used to rob a bank. The scumbags were basically helpless against said criminals. Thus, the scumbags went into a nearby sporting goods store and obtained high powered rifles to enable them to fight back. [It was not to protect the bank, the fear was that the criminals might raid a nearby doughtnut shop.]

You have not addressed my question. "Are you then a criminal, or just one who supports criminals by advocating restrictions on the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves?" Is this an oversight or is it just your usual tactic of begging the question?


I am going to let you do your own Google search here. However, criminals are now using body armor. Yes, dear heart, the same mental defectives who are trying to bring you gun control never addressed the problem of a criminal using body armor while committing a crime. You will find that "cop-killer" bullets work very well on criminals using the same body armor that the 'cops/scumbags' use. Now, let us assume that a single householder [his wife is upstairs trying to calm the kids] must face a group of home invaders. Shereads [and apparently you don't read your own state laws,] a single homeowner can't really be effective against multiple invaders with a single shot firearm. [No, yelling 'time out!' while he reloads aint gonna' get it done here.] Even a restricted magazine multiple shot weapon is a handicap, since not all homeowner fired bullets necessarily find their mark.

I have never heard of 'non-x-rayable plastic handguns.' If x-rays will not penetrate plastic, then there have been some recent advances in plastic technology. Please do go on. TIA.


Yes, Shereads, I got it. Let me edit your remarks into some sort of meaningful form. You reference, "incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech, in which one or two shooters are able to kill or disable a roomful of people without pausing to reload or switch weapons." What you actually mean is, "incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech, in which one or two shooters are able to kill or disable a roomful of unarmed people without pausing to reload or switch weapons." In said Colombine and Virginia Tech incidents, the shooters were either unable to legally obtain firearms [Columbine] or able to obtain firearms because the 'gun control laws' had loopholes that only a person who is insane or possesses a single digit IQ would allow to exist. [Now that the horse has been stolen, there are extreme efforts to lock the barn door.] However, as has been proven again and again, there is no practical way to prevent would-be shooters from obtaining firearms illegally. There was an incident that started similarly to the Virginia Tech incident in a college not too far from Virginia Tech [Gogle it up yourself you lazy bitch.] However, a couple of students [faculty?] had legal firearms in their vehicles. They got the legal firearms and prevented the shooter from killing more unarmed people.

You don't happen to be planning a campus massacre, do you? You seem to fit the criteria.

You do make an excellent point about the victims being unarmed, however. The problem isn't the crazy people who are armed; it's the crazy people and sane people who are not armed.

 

[rgraham666]

I believe you'll find that most of the time guns don't solve a problem. They just increase the body count.

On eyewitnesses.

I have a book titled Joey The Hitman, although my copy is an original printing with the title Killer.

He describes one of his hits. He walked into a restaurant, a busy restaurant, at lunch and stuck three .38 slugs into his target. then walked out again.

Thirty five people saw him do it.

He read the police report later. Not one of the witnesses gave an accurate description of him.

Carry on.

 

[R. Richard]

You don't happen to be planning a campus massacre, do you? You seem to fit the criteria.

You do make an excellent point about the victims being unarmed, however. The problem isn't the crazy people who are armed; it's the crazy people and sane people who are not armed.

Shereads:
Once again you beg the questions. It is easier than having to think, but begging the question does have its drawbacks.

IIRC, you make your living teaching students who are frogmarched into your classroom by armed scumbags. [If I seem a bit harsh, you shold remember that I was once sucn a student.] You seem to have no problem with forcing unarmed people to do what armed people want. I do.

No, I have no intention of conducting a campus massacre. I donlt believe in using weapons to force my point of view on unarmed people who are not realistically able to defend themselve, a point you seem unable to understand.

A problem is the insane possessing weapons, particularly firearms. However, it has been demonstrated time and again that there is no realistic way, in a free society, to prevent the insane from possessing weapons. This last is particularly true since the insane typically run societies. The only practical solution is to allow those who can and are willing to, defend themselves with weapons, particularly firearms. There are drawbacks to allowing citizens to possess weapons, particularly firearms, but the advantages seem to strongly favor the idea. As was just pointed out, you don't really need an automatic weapon to defend your home, until someone like Mugabe sends in goons to steal your property and rape your wife. But that can't happen here in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, we have laws here.

Just to clarify things, I myself was a teacher. I taught students who were not only not coerced into attending my classes, but had to get their employers to pay for the privilege and that only when there was room in my classes. I used my own, proprietary method to teach said classes. Wgeb my students graduated from my classes, they could demonstrate the work skills they had been sent to learn. I had to flunk two students out of some 300, solely because they were not willing to do the work the other students did.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

Shereads:
Once again you beg the questions. It is easier than having to think, but begging the question does have its drawbacks.

IIRC, you make your living teaching students who are frogmarched into your classroom by armed scumbags. [If I seem a bit harsh, you shold remember that I was once sucn a student.] You seem to have no problem with forcing unarmed people to do what armed people want. I do.

No, I have no intention of conducting a campus massacre. I donlt believe in using weapons to force my point of view on unarmed people who are not realistically able to defend themselve, a point you seem unable to understand.

A problem is the insane possessing weapons, particularly firearms. However, it has been demonstrated time and again that there is no realistic way, in a free society, to prevent the insane from possessing weapons. This last is particularly true since the insane typically run societies. The only practical solution is to allow those who can and are willing to, defend themselves with weapons, particularly firearms. There are drawbacks to allowing citizens to possess weapons, particularly firearms, but the advantages seem to strongly favor the idea. As was just pointed out, you don't really need an automatic weapon to defend your home, until someone like Mugabe sends in goons to steal your property and rape your wife. But that can't happen here in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, we have laws here.

Just to clarify things, I myself was a teacher. I taught students who were not only not coerced into attending my classes, but had to get their employers to pay for the privilege and that only when there was room in my classes. I used my own, proprietary method to teach said classes. Wgeb my students graduated from my classes, they could demonstrate the work skills they had been sent to learn. I had to flunk two students out of some 300, solely because they were not willing to do the work the other students did.

We had laws in Rhodesia, but Mugabe didn't give a damn. Nor did his thugs. We had a Constitution, but he certainly didn't respect that.

 

[R. Richard]

We had laws in Rhodesia, but Mugabe didn't give a damn. Nor did his thugs. We had a Constitution, but he certainly didn't respect that.

Dictators never give a damn about a Constitution and/or laws.

An armed citizen is a citizen. An unarmed citizen is a slave.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

Dictators never give a damn about a Constitution and/or laws.

An armed citizen is a citizen. An unarmed citizen is a slave.

I'd say a potential slave. Luckily, most rulers in democracies with unarmed citizens are too sensible to take advantage of the monopoly on weapons.

But Mugabe demonstrates the dangers when a renegade comes to power and doesn't give a bloody damn about Constitutions and laws, as you say.

 

[Weird Harold]

The governor here in texas is trying to make it easier by passing laws for a concealed carry permit-holder to take thier guns more places legally. Which I don't really agree with because you can take your gun most places you would need it already. ... Any business here can simply post a sign saying "no guns allowed" and they should have that right, especially little mom&pop convenience stores and stuff. And of course you can't take a gun into schools or courthouses or even to pick up someone at the airport, common sense stuff.

I think any public venue or private business that wishes to ban guns from their premises should be required to provide secure or supervised storage so people can "check their guns at the door."

The patchwork of places where guns can be carried would seem to essentially require two separate trips and itineraries to accomplish a day's business -- and stricly adhering to the armed itinerary, no impulse shopping for a soft-drink, candy bar, or fresh pack of cigarettes at the inconvenient store with with the big "armed robbers are safe from vigilantes in here" sign on the door.

 

[Liar]

An armed citizen is a citizen. An unarmed citizen is a slave.

Again with that soundbite. Pretty as a pony. But no matter how cute it sounds, it doesn't make it so.

 

[kendo1]

I think any public venue or private business that wishes to ban guns from their premises should be required to provide secure or supervised storage so people can "check their guns at the door."

The patchwork of places where guns can be carried would seem to essentially require two separate trips and itineraries to accomplish a day's business -- and stricly adhering to the armed itinerary, no impulse shopping for a soft-drink, candy bar, or fresh pack of cigarettes at the inconvenient store with with the big "armed robbers are safe from vigilantes in here" sign on the door.

Are you guys for real?

Get a life. Save 30000.

 

[Liar]

I think any public venue or private business that wishes to ban guns from their premises should be required to provide secure or supervised storage so people can "check their guns at the door."

The patchwork of places where guns can be carried would seem to essentially require two separate trips and itineraries to accomplish a day's business -- and stricly adhering to the armed itinerary, no impulse shopping for a soft-drink, candy bar, or fresh pack of cigarettes at the inconvenient store with with the big "armed robbers are safe from vigilantes in here" sign on the door.

Are stores considered public space or private property? The definition seems to differ in different places of the world. If they are considered public, I assume that a mandate like that could be possible. If not, you are on kinda thin ice there. If a store can refuse dogs and a reasturant can have a dress code, whithout being forced to have a dog nanny and a free suit ready, I don't see why a "no guns" sign should be any different. It's a free market and you're free to take your business elsewhere. You're not being discriminated against. Guns are. And they are stuff. Stuff don't have civil rights.

 

[R. Richard]

Again with that soundbite. Pretty as a pony. But no matter how cute it sounds, it doesn't make it so.

Then state the true condition.

 

[cloudy]

Are stores considered public space or private property? The definition seems to differ in different places of the world. If they are considered public, I assume that a mandate like that could be possible. If not, you are on kinda thin ice there. If a store can refuse dogs and a reasturant can have a dress code, whithout being forced to have a dog nanny and a free suit ready, I don't see why a "no guns" sign should be any different. It's a free market and you're free to take your business elsewhere. You're not being discriminated against. Guns are. And they are stuff. Stuff don't have civil rights.

Stores are private property here in the states.

 

[R. Richard]

Are stores considered public space or private property? The definition seems to differ in different places of the world. If they are considered public, I assume that a mandate like that could be possible. If not, you are on kinda thin ice there. If a store can refuse dogs and a reasturant can have a dress code, whithout being forced to have a dog nanny and a free suit ready, I don't see why a "no guns" sign should be any different. It's a free market and you're free to take your business elsewhere. You're not being discriminated against. Guns are. And they are stuff. Stuff don't have civil rights.

Back when, in the US South, Negroes were not allowed in many places. They were, of course, theoretically free to take their business elsewhere. The problem was that there was no 'elsewhere' to take their business to. I worked with people who travelled back in the 1960s. In the 1960s hotels/motels in the South would not take reservations over the phone or by mail, unless the phone call came from another hotel/motel in the South. The reason was that the hotels/motels in the South would not rent a room to a Negro. It took fights and even deaths before the US decided that what the hotels/motels in the South were doing was illegal. The decision wasn't limited to hotels/motels, but to any business involved in interstate commerce. As a matter of practicality, almost all business above the roadside fruit stand level is involved in interstate commerce.

In the area where I live in the western US, it is legal to openly carry a load firearm. Some cities prohibit the open carrying of firearms, but the city ordnances conflict with state laws. Normally, one does not carry a loaded firearm into a store, by custom. However it is not unusual to see a citizen pumping gas at a self-serve station with a pistol holstered on his/her hip. [By the way, we don't have a lot of shooting deaths locally. If some ass hole like Cho tried to shoot unarmed people down around here, he would encounter return fire early on.]

However, let us directly address the question of firearms inside a store. I formerly lived in New York City, where it is illegal to even OWN a gun without a permit. If you go into any of the little 'bodegas' in the Puerto Rican or Dominican areas, there is a very high chance that the operator has a pistol hidden under the counter. The lifetime of a guy who specializes in robbing bodegas can usually be measured in weeks, maybe days. The owners of the bodegas don't want customers to carry firearms into their shop, but they themselves are armed, although most of them lack permits. Which gets us back to "An armed citizen is a citizen, an unarmed citizen is a slave."

 

[colddiesel]

"An armed citizen is a citizen, an unarmed citizen is a slave."

I don't know why you persist with this silly statement or do you need some sort of firearm as a dick compensator??

In my opinion probably the most powerful citizen of any country in the last century was Mahatma Gandhi. He not only didn't carry any weapon of any description he didn't believe in any sort of physical resistance at all. Yet he led a nation of 900million to freedom. Of course he was a fair bit smarter than either me - or you !!

 

[Liar]

Then state the true condition.

An armed citizen is an individual with a weapon. All else is ideology.

 

[Liar]

Back when, in the US South, Negroes were not allowed in many places. They were, of course, theoretically free to take their business elsewhere. The problem was that there was no 'elsewhere' to take their business to. I worked with people who travelled back in the 1960s. In the 1960s hotels/motels in the South would not take reservations over the phone or by mail, unless the phone call came from another hotel/motel in the South. The reason was that the hotels/motels in the South would not rent a room to a Negro. It took fights and even deaths before the US decided that what the hotels/motels in the South were doing was illegal. The decision wasn't limited to hotels/motels, but to any business involved in interstate commerce. As a matter of practicality, almost all business above the roadside fruit stand level is involved in interstate commerce.

Unless you are of the opinion that said negroes were stuff and not people, I don't see how this is of any relevance to what I said. And not even then, really.

This is not back then. This is now. Human beings have civil rights. Products however, does not. A gun is a product. Owned and equipped by choice. Until I'm forced to adress it as Mr Smith&Wesson, that's what it will remain.

You man have your reasons to stay away from "no guns" stores, however paranoid. Fair enough, they lost a customer.

 

[kendo1]

So what does he do when he goes to another country? (God forbid!)
Do RR or Weird feel naked without a gun? Any less safe in a normal country?

 

[R. Richard]

I don't know why you persist with this silly statement or do you need some sort of firearm as a dick compensator??

In my opinion probably the most powerful citizen of any country in the last century was Mahatma Gandhi. He not only didn't carry any weapon of any description he didn't believe in any sort of physical resistance at all. Yet he led a nation of 900million to freedom. Of course he was a fair bit smarter than either me - or you !!

If you want power, look to Josef Stalin of Russia. He had no constituency at the start and had to build one from scratch. He did so with a very clever scheme and total ruthlessness. Once he had achieved some power after the Russian revolution, he consolidated that power by murdering the people who really led the revolution. He then ruled one of the most powerfull nations on Earth. He was an ass hole, but if you want power, look to Josef Stalin.

One thing that Stalin feared was armed citizens. He kept strict control of firearms and military weapons with his military. The average soviet citizen was never allowed a weapon and was no more than a slave. HOWEVER, once the average soviet citizen got one specific weapon, he became a citizen and the empire of fear that Josef Stalin built crumbled in a few years.

OK, Colddiesel, tell me what weapon and why. TIA.

 

[R. Richard]

So what does he do when he goes to another country? (God forbid!)
Do RR or Weird feel naked without a gun? Any less safe in a normal country?

To first answer your question, yes I feel naked without a gun in many countries. I have been to several countries where I did not feel the need for a gun, at least in some places. I did not feel the need for a gun in Bermuda, or even in the Bahamas. I did not feel the need for a gun in Montreal, as I was with French people there. If I was not with French people and I was in Quebec, I would feel the need for a gun.

But, of course, Kendo1 would not need a gun in a foreign country. Kendo1 why don't you go to friendly, sunny Jamaica and take a little nighttime stroll through Trenchtown. You just might change your mind about the need for a gun. The Rasta dudes in Trenchtown don't like white boys. They tend to get positively militant about it. You won't need a return ticket.

I went to Marseille. Charming old city on the South French coast. I had to go and deal with the Union Corse on a business matter. You can't just fly into Europe with a pistol. I first obtained a 'baby Beretta' [a fucking .32 auto that might stop a 12-year-old child, properly aimed.] With the leverage of the little Beretta, I managed to them obtain a 9mm unit with a 10 shot magazine. My need for the gun was only a matter of life and death, my life and my death. [To end the suspense, I survived the trip.] You might try a trip to Marseille, without a gun. Hell, the French scumbags claim there is no Union Corse. However, try it for yourself, just go to Marseille and tell them you are looking for the [non-existent] Union Corse. You won't need a return ticket.

In the US you might not need a gun for self protection. That assumes that you don't have your home broken into or that you don't have to travel through the more dangerous areas of a big city alone at night. Wait until daylight and you should be avble to walk in safety. In Mexico, citizens are not generally permitted to own a gun. In the border towns, the scumbags live in terror of the drug gangs. When the President of Mexico wants to deal with the situation, he sends in Mexican Army troops. BUt the citizens of Mexico don't need guns. [Just keep your head down, gabacho, and don't go anywhere but the tourist areas.]

 

[cloudy]

R.Richard, I'm truly worried about you, man.

Oh, and please settle down. See, I'm not nearly as fanatic as you about anything but you're American, and I'm American, and you're really making the rest of us look bad. I stopped reading your posts after about the second one in this thread because they ramble with no point whatsoever, and I'm tempted to go back and count just how many times you've used the term "scumbag," except that I'm pretty sure it would take me the rest of this evening, and well into tomorrow to get it done.

Please.

Stop.

 

[Liar]

But, of course, Kendo1 would not need a gun in a foreign country. Kendo1 why don't you go to friendly, sunny Jamaica and take a little nighttime stroll through Trenchtown.

Now why would he do a dumbass thing like that? If I'm armed with the brain of an idiot, no gun in the world will save me.

Been to Marsielles without a gun. Been to Quebec without a gun, in company of nothing but a Visa card and a 5"3 Dane named Jens. Lovely places. Been to Athens, Sarajevo, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Nice, Budapest, Dublin, Jerusalem, Krakow and god damn Greenland without ever feeling the need to wave a shooter around.

Because I have brains enough to read up a little on the places I go to and not run headfirst and deliberately into the worst trouble it has to offer.

It must be a chore, living in such a constant state of fear. I feel sorry for you. Kind of.

 

[Weird Harold]

Do[es] ... Weird feel naked without a gun? Any less safe in a normal country?

I've been in several countries where I definitely felt naked without a gun when off-base. I've beenin one country where I could not go off-base without a gun or an armed escort.

However, you assume that like RR, I personally carry a gun whereever I go, and you know what happens when you ASS-U-ME.

To be a little less indirect, I own four guns, but, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, only one of my four guns has been out of my closet in the last ten years or so, and the pistol only made it as far as the front door (to convince a, large, beligerent, drunk that he was in the wrong apartment.)

My guns leave my closet when I have a definite need for them -- i.e. I'm going hunting or I'm going target shooting to prepare for hunting season, or I'm going hiking away from the tourist trails, into cougar, bear, coyote, and wild dog territories (generally as a scouting trip to prepare for hunting season.)

However, the patchwork of "no gun zones" and various city and county ordinances can make a simple hunting expedition an adventure in inadvertant criminality and put my guns at a higher risk of being stolen because I can't keep them with me while eating dinner or buying last minute snacks for the hunting camp.

If a store can refuse dogs and a reasturant can have a dress code, whithout being forced to have a dog nanny and a free suit ready, I don't see why a "no guns" sign should be any different. It's a free market and you're free to take your business elsewhere.

I can't speak for anywhere but the places I've lived, but in North Las Vegas, NV, USA, stores and restaurants MUST refuse entry to dogs, (except for "service animals like Seeing Eye dogs, and MUST require a shirt and shoes as a prerequisite to providing service. Yet Stores and Restaurants are still considered private property here.

You're not being discriminated against. Guns are. And they are stuff. Stuff don't have civil rights.

This is the fallacy of your whole position. Guns don't go anywhere without some excercising their second ammendment right to "...Keep and Bear arms..." and it is the person bearing arms that is being "discriminated against" by businesses banning guns on a business by business basis.

The Constitutional basis for outlawing discrimination based on race, creed, religion or gender is a great deal less clear than the argument that I have (theoretically) a right to carry a gun anywhere a person without a gun is freely permitted to go. (A right I choose NOT to excercise on any sort of routine basis.)

After all, there is absolutely nothing in the Bill of Rights or the unammended Constitution that addresses the issue of discrimination, which is why the Constitution had to be amended -- TWICE -- to enable the Federal government to require businesses that engage in interstate trade and/or provide a public service to stop discriminating against blacks, jews, and Catholics. (The Constitutional Amendment to explicitly outlaw discrimination against women has failed to pass twice now.)

Other countries aren't restricted as to what limits they can put on guns, so as a rule, they are at least consistent on a national basis as to gun ownership and gun possession.

The US is severely restricted by the Constitution, so "gun control" here is a patchwork of peripheral restrictions by jurisdictions as small as the School District and the Library District that exploit the fact that the Constitution technically only restricts the Federal Government (with some precedent that it also restricts the individual State governments)

As long as the Second Amendment remains unchanged, I will continue to argue that any law or regulation that prevents me (or any other law-abiding person) from Keeping any "arm" or Bearing that "arm" any place that an unarmed person is free to go is a violation of the rights guaranteed by the second ammendment.

 

[Pure]

note to WH.

there are hardly any SC decisions about the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

it's sufficiently fuzzy that a 'clarification' could be applied. it would take fewer gymanstics than was evident in the 'partial birth' decision; or even the 'privacy' decision.

"a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

i would gloss this to mean: "if a person is in a public [not private] militia, he may, pursuant to being prepared for militia call up, keep, in his residence, those firearms he might be called upon to bear."

the swiss law, i think is even stronger: if you're in the militia you MUST keep a working firearm [rifle] handy to grab and 'bear' if you're called.

==
further, the language of the BR is often absolute, but isn't interpreted that way, e.g. in the first and fourth amendments. in the first amendment, forbidding 'abridgement' of free speech, MANY exceptions have been made, notably for 'obscenity,' for national security, etc. by MANY courts over the years.

the Canadian Charter is superior, in my opinion, is having a general 'escape clause.' something like " subject to such reasonable exceptions as may be demonstratbly justified in a free and democratic society."

NOTE: Canada has been draconian on occasion, and there is no evidence that the Canadian exception leads to the government's having its 'hands tied.' or, that the phrase leaves the Canadian government less able to deal with extraordinary situations.

 

[R. Richard]

Now why would he do a dumbass thing like that? If I'm armed with the brain of an idiot, no gun in the world will save me.

It must be a chore, living in such a constant state of fear. I feel sorry for you. Kind of.

Why would someone who doesn't have to live in Trenchtown go there? MONEY! When the Man wants somebody out of Trenchtown, he pays enough money to make the job worthwhile.

Liar, if you went where I go [actually, mainly used to go,] you would live in a constant state of fear or you would be dead. Fear is a useful tool, properly used.

 

[Liar]

Why would someone who doesn't have to live in Trenchtown go there? MONEY! When the Man wants somebody out of Trenchtown, he pays enough money to make the job worthwhile.

Apples and oranges. Or apples and...I dunno...corkscrews. If it was my job to go into dangerous places, I'll make sure I'm properly equipped and trained for the job. That's not the issue here. Cops, soldiers, and whatnot should of course be armed when the job requires it. I have another job, thankyouverymuch, so I have no reason to visit Trenchtown in the near future. Your outlandish scenarios are irrelevant to 99, 9% of Regular People, and 100% irrelevant to the debate. If you don't see that, I fear for your sanity.

Liar, if you went where I go [actually, mainly used to go,] you would live in a constant state of fear or you would be dead. Fear is a useful tool, properly used.

What is this, trying to score Man points?