Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > No Guns Allowed

No Guns Allowed (Page 2)
Thread Tools
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2014, 07:05 AM
 
I honestly try not to be jerk in these sorts of discussions, so I apologize if this is annoying.

It's cliche, but isn't the problem neighbors who deserve to get shot (i.e. criminals) rather than guns?


Unsurprisingly, I agree drug prohibition is the major problem. We haven't always been blowing the shit out of each other left and right. Despite what some may think, we have a gun culture, but not a murder culture.

We do have a money culture, so it's no surprise the prohibition economy is a strong lure, but make no mistake, it's the money acting as a lure. The Glocks are window dressing.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2014, 09:30 AM
 
For those who think that fear is, generally, the primary motivator in a person's decision to carry, do you believe that also holds true for cops and soldiers?

Sig P224 DAK (.357SIG) in an ankle holster for me, when just out and about.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2014, 08:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
For those who think that fear is, generally, the primary motivator in a person's decision to carry, do you believe that also holds true for cops and soldiers?
Do you think that 12 year olds should be allowed to drive cars?

I'm not saying that cops and soldiers are 12 year olds, nor am I saying that gun carriers are primarily at the maturity level of 12 year olds, but it only takes a number of carriers driven by fear and/or possessing the capacity of a 12 year old to create significant problems.

Again, I'm not proposing that removing guns is a solution necessarily, but I am saying that the number of guns out there in dubious hands is a part of the problem, and that some motivations to carry/own guns should perhaps be questioned.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2014, 10:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I carry in my front pocket. I usually carry either a Kahr CM9 or a Ruger LCP, both of which I have a pocket holster for.
Pocket holster... seems so obvious when you say it. I'll have to look up these guns when I'm not at work.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Sig P224 DAK (.357SIG) in an ankle holster for me, when just out and about.
I take it you're not the kind of guy who wears shorts...

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
For those who think that fear is, generally, the primary motivator in a person's decision to carry, do you believe that also holds true for cops and soldiers?
I don't think 'fear' is the motivator, but I would point out that the difference between a civilian and a police officer is the statistical likelihood they would need to brandish the firearm.

---

While we're all guessing as to why a store owner would ban guns, I feel like this would have to factor into some of this requests:

A gun is accidentally discharged inside a Chipotle in Sandy; gun owner not cited - 4Utah.com

Sandy Police say the man removed his backpack to pay for his meal and accidentally dropped it.

When the bag hit the floor, the handgun he had inside accidentally discharged.

...

Sandy Police Sgt. Jon Arnold said, "The individual is a conceal carry permit holder. He had the gun legally and lawfully."
...ad no, I don't think this anything but a rare occurrence.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2014, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Do you think that 12 year olds should be allowed to drive cars?
Depends on the 12 y/o. I drove my grandfather's pickup around their farm at that age, but generally not.

I'm not saying that cops and soldiers are 12 year olds, nor am I saying that gun carriers are primarily at the maturity level of 12 year olds, but it only takes a number of carriers driven by fear and/or possessing the capacity of a 12 year old to create significant problems.

Again, I'm not proposing that removing guns is a solution necessarily, but I am saying that the number of guns out there in dubious hands is a part of the problem, and that some motivations to carry/own guns should perhaps be questioned.
There are a lot of cops and soldiers who shouldn't be armed, they shouldn't be in those careers at all, and some civilians who should be. More accurate background checks and a more vigilant citizenry is the key. "Dubious hands" can easily get firearms, the black market is saturated, in fact it's less expensive and easier to buy a "dirty" Glock than a new one, in most US cities. Limiting legitimate, legal sales doesn't hamper a criminal or sociopath in any way.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2014, 05:09 PM
 
Re: Utah gun.

I want details of what kind of gun he had but I'm having a very hard time not considering it negligence. A backpack is just a shitty place for a gun in general.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2014, 08:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Depends on the 12 y/o. I drove my grandfather's pickup around their farm at that age, but generally not.



There are a lot of cops and soldiers who shouldn't be armed, they shouldn't be in those careers at all, and some civilians who should be. More accurate background checks and a more vigilant citizenry is the key. "Dubious hands" can easily get firearms, the black market is saturated, in fact it's less expensive and easier to buy a "dirty" Glock than a new one, in most US cities. Limiting legitimate, legal sales doesn't hamper a criminal or sociopath in any way.
Are you in favor of strict background checks?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2014, 10:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Depends on the 12 y/o. I drove my grandfather's pickup around their farm at that age, but generally not.



There are a lot of cops and soldiers who shouldn't be armed, they shouldn't be in those careers at all, and some civilians who should be. More accurate background checks and a more vigilant citizenry is the key. "Dubious hands" can easily get firearms, the black market is saturated, in fact it's less expensive and easier to buy a "dirty" Glock than a new one, in most US cities. Limiting legitimate, legal sales doesn't hamper a criminal or sociopath in any way.
+1. The fact that criminals don't obey the laws is something that the anti-gun crowd just doesn't want to get. They've been duped into believing that if guns are taken away from honest people, they will magically disappear. They also support their beliefs because they function off emotion and not facts. They see sensational news articles and take those to fit their preconceived narrative that crime is rampant, when in fact it is declining, and has done so for decades.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2014, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Are you in favor of strict background checks?
I'm in favor of more accurate checks.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2014, 03:58 PM
 
I find background checks on longarms to be mostly a waste of time and resources.

Most crimes get committed with concealable weapons (for pretty obvious reasons), so I put concealable weapons and the license to carry them concealed in a different category.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2014, 10:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I find background checks on longarms to be mostly a waste of time and resources.

Most crimes get committed with concealable weapons (for pretty obvious reasons), so I put concealable weapons and the license to carry them concealed in a different category.
Yeah, I was talking about handguns, not rifles or shotguns.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2014, 11:50 AM
 
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2014, 08:31 AM
 
Yes, but I think it is illogical to refute the notion that if there were fewer guns out there, there wouldn't also be fewer gun deaths of various sorts. It is also illogical to buy into the argument that some NRA supporters make that we'd have fewer Sandy Hooks if everybody just gunned up.

I have no problems with people that won't be shooting me having whatever guns they want, it's just a matter of finding the best balance between keeping those that want various guns happy, while keeping them away from the nutters.

Unfortunately, it seems like the usual refrain applies here: finding balance is nearly impossible in this climate the way these debates take place.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2014, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Yes, but I think it is illogical to refute the notion that if there were fewer guns out there, there wouldn't also be fewer gun deaths of various sorts. It is also illogical to buy into the argument that some NRA supporters make that we'd have fewer Sandy Hooks if everybody just gunned up.

I have no problems with people that won't be shooting me having whatever guns they want, it's just a matter of finding the best balance between keeping those that want various guns happy, while keeping them away from the nutters.

Unfortunately, it seems like the usual refrain applies here: finding balance is nearly impossible in this climate the way these debates take place.
This is a hard line to take, but the amount of deaths are inconsequential, it's the MO and actions involved. The "Sandy Hooks" are a very tiny number of the murders perpetrated in this world, even miniscule compared to just the USA. I know the families of the victims don't see them that way, and I hurt for them, but largely these cases are "blow-ups" to get more eyeballs on the news (ratings and money) and to further a certain agenda (gun control). Violent crime is still going down, the system is still improving, and it's a process that will take more time to work out.

However, banning guns, in any way, is a very bad idea... on the scale of bad ideas it's up there with bareback weekend sex tours in South Africa. We have a president who is power-crazed, obsessed with control, and issues EOs like royal decrees, with the same expectation of obedience. What's the chance he'd try to seize control? Relatively small, but that does not mean that, given the opportunity, like in the event of another 9/11-type attack, he wouldn't take advantage of the moment and suspend the democratic process, which would essentially make him a dictator. Given his previous actions against civil rights, I don't doubt for a moment he believes that the end justifies the means. Would an armed citizenry make all the difference? Hell no. But it would make it a much more complicated matter and paint a permanent target on his back, if he were to try.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2014, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Yes, but I think it is illogical to refute the notion that if there were fewer guns out there, there wouldn't also be fewer gun deaths of various sorts. It is also illogical to buy into the argument that some NRA supporters make that we'd have fewer Sandy Hooks if everybody just gunned up.

I have no problems with people that won't be shooting me having whatever guns they want, it's just a matter of finding the best balance between keeping those that want various guns happy, while keeping them away from the nutters.

Unfortunately, it seems like the usual refrain applies here: finding balance is nearly impossible in this climate the way these debates take place.
The people who are going to shoot you are trying to get money for crack.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2014, 08:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
This is a hard line to take, but the amount of deaths are inconsequential, it's the MO and actions involved. The "Sandy Hooks" are a very tiny number of the murders perpetrated in this world, even miniscule compared to just the USA. I know the families of the victims don't see them that way, and I hurt for them, but largely these cases are "blow-ups" to get more eyeballs on the news (ratings and money) and to further a certain agenda (gun control). Violent crime is still going down, the system is still improving, and it's a process that will take more time to work out.
Exactly. The anti-gun crowd, especially it's leaders, like to work on emotion, which is a very effective hook for those looking for low hanging fruit to "support" their preconceived narrative. The facts are that, despite more guns than ever, the rate and number of homicides have declined almost 50% in the last several decades. More people can carry (up from 1 million in 1980 to eight million today). All states now allow their citizens to carry in some manner (up from a dozen or so thirty years ago). Last year was a record for gun sales. Yet crime, including homicide, continues to decline.

However, banning guns, in any way, is a very bad idea... on the scale of bad ideas it's up there with bareback weekend sex tours in South Africa. We have a president who is power-crazed, obsessed with control, and issues EOs like royal decrees, with the same expectation of obedience.
Actually, he's issued far less EO's than the vast majority of his predecessor (see what I said above about facts versus emotion).

What's the chance he'd try to seize control? Relatively small, but that does not mean that, given the opportunity, like in the event of another 9/11-type attack, he wouldn't take advantage of the moment and suspend the democratic process, which would essentially make him a dictator. Given his previous actions against civil rights, I don't doubt for a moment he believes that the end justifies the means. Would an armed citizenry make all the difference? Hell no. But it would make it a much more complicated matter and paint a permanent target on his back, if he were to try.
IMO, Obama would like nothing more than to take away all Americans' arms. He's also pragmatic enough, however, to realize he can't do that. He knows there are somewhere between 50 and 80 million American gun owners (the anti-gun crowd loves to point at the NRA as the scourge of America, but once again those pesky facts show that the NRA is but a fraction of the gun owning crowd), and he realizes that he's almost powerless to accomplish that goal.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2014, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Actually, he's issued far less EO's than the vast majority of his predecessor (see what I said above about facts versus emotion).
I wasn't really talking about the number of them, but about what they're for and how it's done. Having a tough time getting a bill passed? Screw it, just issue an EO/royal decree. Want to change an existing law? Amend it with an EO, that's the way it should have been written in the first place, right?

IMO, Obama would like nothing more than to take away all Americans' arms. He's also pragmatic enough, however, to realize he can't do that. He knows there are somewhere between 50 and 80 million American gun owners (the anti-gun crowd loves to point at the NRA as the scourge of America, but once again those pesky facts show that the NRA is but a fraction of the gun owning crowd), and he realizes that he's almost powerless to accomplish that goal.
I belong to the NRA, not because I agree with all they say, but because they're a thorn in the Progressives' ass. It's the same reason we donate to WWF and WNO, not because we feel they're right on everything, but because they apply pressure in areas that need it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2014, 04:30 PM
 
I'm curious why (both of) you think Obama wants to take away all the guns.

I'm not disagreeing, or asking you to justify your claim, but assuming the claim is correct, explain what you think his thought process is.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2014, 05:39 PM
 
It would be a limitation in our ability to fight tyranny, and that's exactly how many would see further measures to "do things for our own good". As my grandpa said, "If you declaw a cat, you're a lot less likely to get hurt when you piss it off".
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2014, 05:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It would be a limitation in our ability to fight tyranny, and that's exactly how many would see further measures to "do things for our own good". As my grandpa said, "If you declaw a cat, you're a lot less likely to get hurt when you piss it off".

This tyranny thing is incredibly far-fetched.

As long as we are a society that conforms to laws, this means that there is a non-violent process for changing them that we are adherent to. If we don't respect our laws, we don't have a need for law makers, and are therefore an anarchy.

The prospects of the US falling into anarchy are ridiculously low. With all due respect, when people say this it mostly sounds like they are afraid of something.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2014, 07:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This tyranny thing is incredibly far-fetched.

As long as we are a society that conforms to laws, this means that there is a non-violent process for changing them that we are adherent to. If we don't respect our laws, we don't have a need for law makers, and are therefore an anarchy.

The prospects of the US falling into anarchy are ridiculously low. With all due respect, when people say this it mostly sounds like they are afraid of something.
There are people in the highest offices actively working to make us do "what's good for us". Daily they flout the rule of law, pushing special interests fueled by lobbyist money and their own agendas, working towards goals that don't have the best interests of the nation at heart. Again and again the government has overstepped its authority regarding our civil rights, our privacy, and our property, no matter whom we elect to office, while the police are acting like gang members, regularly gunning down private citizens in their own homes. Ironically, though society is becoming less violent, the government is becoming more corrupt, and preying on those who are too timid and weak to protect themselves.

No, we don't have a proper government "for the people", they're for themselves, and the average citizen is on their own. Now, more than any other time in this country's history, do people need to be armed and prepared to stand for their rights. If not in direct conflict, then in a show of unity and strength. This nation deserves no less.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2014, 08:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
There are people in the highest offices actively working to make us do "what's good for us". Daily they flout the rule of law, pushing special interests fueled by lobbyist money and their own agendas, working towards goals that don't have the best interests of the nation at heart. Again and again the government has overstepped its authority regarding our civil rights, our privacy, and our property, no matter whom we elect to office, while the police are acting like gang members, regularly gunning down private citizens in their own homes. Ironically, though society is becoming less violent, the government is becoming more corrupt, and preying on those who are too timid and weak to protect themselves.

No, we don't have a proper government "for the people", they're for themselves, and the average citizen is on their own. Now, more than any other time in this country's history, do people need to be armed and prepared to stand for their rights. If not in direct conflict, then in a show of unity and strength. This nation deserves no less.
I agree, but there is a HUGE HUGE HUGE gap between a government we don't like, and tyranny.

Between what we have now and a tyranny where people think about violent overturn are many steps, including people actually voting, more political turmoil, mass protest, supporting new political candidates, etc.

Your militia and fear of tyranny seem pretty paranoid (assuming your militia involves some of these concerns), at least right now. If your return argument will be that we shouldn't be complacent and that bad things could happen, I'd agree with that, and you know that I agree with you on many of the issues you've listed here, but the best way to address these issues is by taking focused actions taking a sober look at exactly where we're at now, not trying to mobilize people with hyperbolic rhetoric. Fear is a powerful motivator, as is sharing passion, but we all know the story of the boy that cried wolf. I think the Republican party is experiencing some of the blowback from some of their Chicken Little fear mongering.

Addressing everybody here, maybe some of this passion (many of which would be shared across all parties) should be best invested into more actionable measures with realistic outcomes?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2014, 08:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I agree, but there is a HUGE HUGE HUGE gap between a government we don't like, and tyranny.
It bears repeating; the time to act against governmental tyranny is not AFTER it has been fully realized. At that point, obviously, it's way too late.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2014, 08:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It bears repeating; the time to act against governmental tyranny is not AFTER it has been fully realized. At that point, obviously, it's way too late.
I addressed that in my response to Shaddim.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2014, 02:22 PM
 
It's true, you don't go looking to arm yourself after a government becomes tyrannical. Currently there are more than enough signs showing that such an event can occur in the US, whether it does is entirely up to the citizens. An armed country is nearly impossible to overthrow, as history has shown us time and again, which is why one of the first things a budding dictatorship does is attempt to take them away. Don't make me go Penn Jillette all up in here.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2014, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Yes, but I think it is illogical to refute the notion that if there were fewer guns out there, there wouldn't also be fewer gun deaths of various sorts.
Fewer guns, or fewer illegal guns?

The majority of gun-crimes are perpetrated with illegal guns. Making more guns illegal will not zap existing illegal guns out of existence, and if anything will just boost the black market for such illegal arms considering there would be a helluva lot more illegal guns out there.

Not to mention such a general statement is asinine at best.

If there were fewer people out there, there'd be less deaths of any kind right?

If there were fewer cars, there's be less car deaths. Right?

If there were more killer-bees out there, there'd be more killer bee deaths. Right?

If more hard drugs were illegal, there'd be less drug-related deaths right? How's that one working out for us?

How do you reconcile your statement with the overall decrease in crime which is correlated with a higher rate of gun ownership?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2014, 05:46 PM
 
Snow-i: you're right, apparently most gun crimes are conducted with illegal guns:

Fact Sheet: Illegal gun trafficking arms criminals & youth « Gun Victims Action Council

This changes my thinking on this...
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2014, 08:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I addressed that in my response to Shaddim.
Apparently not to my liking as that is the very post I took issue with. With so many acts of tyranny being committed by leadership of all stripes abroad including those whom were democratically-elected, notwithstanding our knowledge of US history itself, we have a very clear template of the human conditions leading up to abuses including the following;
  • Make enemies of those you disagree with in creating a we vs they environment. Homophobe, climate change denier, tea-baggers, "Republicans want dirty water and dead people", "pushing granny over a cliff", racists, bigots and the "attack on women" etc...
  • Do harm to them; EPA targets them and gets away with it. IRS targets them and stonewalls the investigation through downright lawlessness and getting away with it. NSA tapping targets conservative journalist and family and gets away with it. Defines certain conditions whereby a particular ideology can be targeted for domestic terrorism and criminal investigation such as those with Ron Paul bumper stickers or members of organizations with "Patriot" in their name.
  • Stand up or Standby; in the US Holocaust Memorial Museum; "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me." or "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke & Leo Tolstoy. These are clever little isms that have no solid foundation in history right? This is all just fear-mongering and silliness.
  • Disarm; in our own country's history, we see this as an immediate move to facilitate chattel slavery. You couldn't have all those people you're mistreating have arms, that would be counterproductive. There are more guns than at any other time in this country's history and yet crime and homicides are at an all-time low. Data doesn't matter when there's an agenda at play. Demonize the guns and those who support our right to bear arms. While in reality we're seeing that more guns apparently ≠ more crime, we're being told it does to fear-monger us into giving up a fundamental right that has always stood as one of the last checks against tyranny.
While you see HUGE gaps between what we have today and a tyranny, I see an environment ripe for what is in reality, merely a natural disaster or global turmoil away from becoming an overnight reality and at that point, there's nothing you can do about it. I see no good reason to bury ones head in the sand unless they're simply interested in other things and can't be bothered with reality.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2014, 08:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's true, you don't go looking to arm yourself after a government becomes tyrannical. Currently there are more than enough signs showing that such an event can occur in the US, whether it does is entirely up to the citizens. An armed country is nearly impossible to overthrow, as history has shown us time and again, which is why one of the first things a budding dictatorship does is attempt to take them away. Don't make me go Penn Jillette all up in here.
That's what kills me about this "head in the sand" phenomena. "When" the US government becomes tyrannical? It has already shown this human proclivity -- from chattel slavery to internment camps... given the right circumstances, tyranny can occur essentially overnight.
ebuddy
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2014, 08:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This tyranny thing is incredibly far-fetched.

As long as we are a society that conforms to laws, this means that there is a non-violent process for changing them that we are adherent to. If we don't respect our laws, we don't have a need for law makers, and are therefore an anarchy.

The prospects of the US falling into anarchy are ridiculously low. With all due respect, when people say this it mostly sounds like they are afraid of something.
No, it isn't as far fetched as you'd like to think. Tyranny can come in many forms, and one of those forms is corporate control of our government, which is happening. Groups like ALEC are very influential in directly writing legislation that can easily remove rights from citizens.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2014, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I agree, but there is a HUGE HUGE HUGE gap between a government we don't like, and tyranny.

Between what we have now and a tyranny where people think about violent overturn are many steps, including people actually voting, more political turmoil, mass protest, supporting new political candidates, etc.

Your militia and fear of tyranny seem pretty paranoid (assuming your militia involves some of these concerns), at least right now. If your return argument will be that we shouldn't be complacent and that bad things could happen, I'd agree with that, and you know that I agree with you on many of the issues you've listed here, but the best way to address these issues is by taking focused actions taking a sober look at exactly where we're at now, not trying to mobilize people with hyperbolic rhetoric. Fear is a powerful motivator, as is sharing passion, but we all know the story of the boy that cried wolf. I think the Republican party is experiencing some of the blowback from some of their Chicken Little fear mongering.

Addressing everybody here, maybe some of this passion (many of which would be shared across all parties) should be best invested into more actionable measures with realistic outcomes?
You argue we don't need to be armed as protection from the government because scenario X is unlikely.

I agree scenario X is unlikely, but what about other scenarios?

A terrorist touches off a nuke or three. Look at our overreaction to 9/11. Don't you think an attack several orders of magnitude worse would prompt an overreaction several orders of magnitude worse?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2014, 08:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You argue we don't need to be armed as protection from the government because scenario X is unlikely.

I agree scenario X is unlikely, but what about other scenarios?

A terrorist touches off a nuke or three. Look at our overreaction to 9/11. Don't you think an attack several orders of magnitude worse would prompt an overreaction several orders of magnitude worse?

Our overreaction to 9/11 is a good example here, which brings me to another question: at what cost does our overreaction bare?

To me, our society (and I say "our society" rather than you guys specifically) gunning up to ward of potential tyranny is an overreaction, with a consequence.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2014, 09:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
No, it isn't as far fetched as you'd like to think. Tyranny can come in many forms, and one of those forms is corporate control of our government, which is happening. Groups like ALEC, the Progressive States Network, ALICE (American Legislative and Issue Campaign Exchange), and the NCEL (National Caucus of Environmental Legislators) are very influential in directly writing legislation that can easily remove rights from citizens.
So true.
ebuddy
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2014, 10:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Translation of the sign, as read by passing burgler: "This shop is gun-free. Hold me up any time."

They'll probably remove the sign after their first hold-up. Someone will get away with all their dough ... er, cheese. Might have to wait awhile for that magic first holdup.
Or they can put a sign up saying hey we are armed so a robber will just shot first steal second leaving a couple more dead corpses.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2014, 10:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Or they can put a sign up saying hey we are armed so a robber will just shot first steal second leaving a couple more dead corpses.
Most data around this phenomena indicates would-be criminals aren't into confrontation including property with dogs, people around, or the possibility of guns. They'd much rather the easier pickin' of an establishment unarmed.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 12:42 AM
 
Okay. The hipster coffee shop has one now.

I want to keep an open mind here, but I'm having trouble seeing this as anything other than an ignorant lashing out.

This isn't about how and to what extent guns should be restricted. Reasonable people can disagree about that.

The question is what benefit does the coffee shop get by not allowing people who are licensed to carry a gun, do so. Are these people really the problem?

I know pro-gun people bring out the "it's criminals who are the problem" argument a lot. Look past that as a general argument, and focus on the context we're dealing with here. Whatever you think the problem is, do you think the problem is perpetrated by licensed carriers... in cafés?

I'm suffering a lack of imagination here. Help me out. They have good croissants, so I'd rather not have them on my shit list.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 01:03 AM
 
Maybe they just want to keep out gun nuts? Some of them that we hear about on TV are portrayed as rather extreme and out there....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 01:15 AM
 
What percentage of CCL holders would you imagine fall into this category?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 01:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What percentage of CCL holders would you imagine fall into this category?
It doesn't matter, what matters is public perception. It's just a theory, not something I live my life by personally.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 01:34 AM
 
It's just a marker that shows the owners are idiots. That's okay, I just ignore any postings at private establishments now, they can't see my holster anyway.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 01:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's just a marker that shows the owners are idiots. That's okay, I just ignore any postings at private establishments now, they can't see my holster anyway.

I thought you were most enthusiastic about guns because of government tyranny?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 01:54 AM
 
Wat?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 01:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It doesn't matter, what matters is public perception. It's just a theory, not something I live my life by personally.
So, my assessment of "ignorant" for these people is apt?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 02:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's just a marker that shows the owners are idiots. That's okay, I just ignore any postings at private establishments now, they can't see my holster anyway.
You know, this is a good point. Not only that, if you have to legit use it, I'd be surprised if you couldn't get the violation thrown out.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 02:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You know, this is a good point. Not only that, if you have to legit use it, I'd be surprised if you couldn't get the violation thrown out.
We don't arrest or prosecute for the "offense", at worst if the owner finds out they ask you to leave, or if the cops are called they escort you out and you go on your way. The police, at least here, believe it's ridiculous as well.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I thought you were most enthusiastic about guns because of government tyranny?
I don't know what that means. Since I have a CWP and live in a Right To Carry state (soon to be "unrestricted"), if feel I should carry, I will. Generally, when I'm in public, I'm armed. It's either that or hire a security team to follow me around, but that's kind of excessive and draws a lot of attention.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 02:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, my assessment of "ignorant" for these people is apt?
I wouldn't use that word. Maybe apt to embrace stereotypes or profile? Maybe shallow?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 02:52 AM
 
Being apt to embrace stereotypes seems pretty darn ignorant to me.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 04:34 AM
 
Maybe I wouldn't use that word "darn".

Maybe I would, but wouldn't want to.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 04:00 PM
 
I pay attention to the signs businesses post. It's kind of important. I have never, EVER seen the required legal signage at a Starbucks, or for that matter, at a Whole Foods Market. There are a number of "substitutes" that places post, but they are not sufficient legally. Having the legally stipulated signage at every entrance makes it a Class A misdemeanor for a CHL holder to carry at such establishments. That's important because a Class A misdemeanor violation can get one's CHL pulled. But the required signs are (perhaps intentionally) burdensome: here's what they look like:

The sign has to be posted at every entrance, be of contrasting colors, and with letters at least one inch high. I think the wishful thinkers expect people who went through an expensive class to have forgotten the details or something...

Oh, and if they do post those signs, and I don't have to do business with them, I really think hard about doing so.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2014, 06:18 PM
 
This is a city ordinance.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:38 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,