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 4)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2014, 09:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
It should be specifically laid out in civil law that if you get shot while committing a crime, you can't sue the people who shot you. Getting shot, and getting convicted of committing a crime when that happens sort of says "you were in the wrong," don't you think?
Doesn't that open the door to excessive force?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2014, 11:19 AM
 
Yes and no.

I think it's ultimately going to be criminal law which determines whether a particular amount of force is warranted. Altering civil law won't change that metric.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2014, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Doesn't that open the door to excessive force?
My point is not to reduce the civil liability of police organizations and individual officers when on duty, but to protect the average citizen from the threat of civil fines and forfeitures due to the family of Dirtbag Jr. suing because their precious little pice of crap broke into a house and got his butt blown away for it. Excessive force by police is more a matter of official misconduct and almost always pursued from that angle.

On the other hand, what would "excessive force" look like if someone broke into a house to rob it and was shot by the homeowner? With police actions, it's "all five officers joined in to beat the suspect," or "the suspect was shot by all five officers, receiving a total of 45 bullet wounds..." Joe Houserobber goes through a back window and finds out that Mrs. Homeowner has a shotgun... That's different.

Most states have provisions for the use of deadly force when faced with imminent assault. How is an unsuspecting home owner to know that the guy who used a chunk of rebar to break through that window isn't also going to use it to stave in their skull? That's a very hard sell in a criminal court. Unfortunately, being liable for the death of Dirtbag Jr. while he was committing a crime against you isn't too hard in civil court, where the standard of proof is "preponderance of evidence" instead of criminal court's "beyond a reasonable doubt." Apparently it isn't a very hard sell at all. But it SHOULD be. Civil liability for defending one's self is plain wrong. If you are within your rights under criminal law, that should be it.

The only alternative I can envision is a countersuit against whomever is suing for "wrongful death" or whatever, claiming damages and emotional distress because they were party to the scumbag becoming one in the first place. "Mrs. Dirtbag, you have been found liable in civil court for raising a heinous and disgusting person, and for providing him with material support in his criminal enterprises..." That might blunt a few such suits...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2014, 11:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Excessive force by police is more a matter of official misconduct and almost always pursued from that angle.
Or not, as the case may be.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2014, 09:07 AM
 
Whatever the remedy, civil liability should not be an issue in a situation where an individual defends himself or herself against someone committing a criminal act against them and/or their home.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2015, 05:17 PM
 
House OKs panic buttons in wake of open carry confrontation - Houston Chronicle
The Texas House approved rules Wednesday to be able to install panic buttons and eject hostile members of the public from their offices, after a confrontation between lawmakers and open carry advocates visiting the Capitol on the opening day of the 2015 session.

"I think that public servants and members of the public ought to feel safe and secure when they come to the Capitol," said Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, who sponsored an amendment to add the safety measures to the house housekeeping rules.
Walking the walk is difficult for all of us.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2015, 05:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Just saw a sign to that effect on the window of my local cheese shop.

It's no mystery I'm on the "pro-gun" side of things, but I like to think I put in the effort to understand the other side. It's not hard for me to see why people are against the free flow of killing machines. I don't agree with that position, but I can certainly respect it.
I get the distinct impression this makes you a rarity in your country.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, I want to know if I'm out of order thinking that sign is a douchebag move made by a bunch of douchebags.
Sounds like a conditioned response.

Maybe they have their own guns but they want to be the only ones. Easier to protect the cheese that way.

If the weapon is concealed would many people really bother to not go in if they wanted to? Whats the worst that would happen if they got caught? (I guess the owners might shoot them) They'd probably get asked to leave. Its clearly not any kind of actionable crime.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2015, 05:43 AM
 
Also, maybe these people lost a friend or loved one to a gun related accident and they prefer to simply avoid them at all costs. If they get robbed, maybe they prefer to hand over the money without anyone risking trying to defend them. How much cash is a cheese shop likely to have at any point anyway?

I find it very odd that anyone would be so apparently offended by someone doing this. Carrying weapons is a right, not a duty and the same goes for free speech. Plenty of other businesses turn people away for genuinely douchbaggy reasons and the law seems to support them in this along with a section of the public. This is more akin to a nightclub having a dress code. Its not discrimination.
Is it such a violation of your identity to ask you to leave a gun at home or in your car for a few minutes in order to buy a piece of cheese? Its not like they are asking you to pretend to be something you are not.

Maybe they don't want to have to deal with the possibility of a two-year-old reaching into its mothers purse and shooting her dead while she shops. however remote the chance might be. Maybe they figure that anyone who is enough of a douchebag to refuse to enter their shop just because they can't bring a gun is not someone they want anywhere near them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2015, 06:32 AM
 
The people who will adhere to the request to not bring in a gun aren't the people to be worried about.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2015, 07:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Also, maybe these people lost a friend or loved one to a gun related accident and they prefer to simply avoid them at all costs. If they get robbed, maybe they prefer to hand over the money without anyone risking trying to defend them. How much cash is a cheese shop likely to have at any point anyway?

I find it very odd that anyone would be so apparently offended by someone doing this. Carrying weapons is a right, not a duty and the same goes for free speech. Plenty of other businesses turn people away for genuinely douchbaggy reasons and the law seems to support them in this along with a section of the public. This is more akin to a nightclub having a dress code. Its not discrimination.
Is it such a violation of your identity to ask you to leave a gun at home or in your car for a few minutes in order to buy a piece of cheese? Its not like they are asking you to pretend to be something you are not.

Maybe they don't want to have to deal with the possibility of a two-year-old reaching into its mothers purse and shooting her dead while she shops. however remote the chance might be. Maybe they figure that anyone who is enough of a douchebag to refuse to enter their shop just because they can't bring a gun is not someone they want anywhere near them.
I started this thread for two reasons.

The first was to point out what CT just said. This sign only affects law-abiding citizens. The public safety issue with guns doesn't come from law abiding citizens except in the rarest of circumstances.

The second was to imply the significant number of anti-gun people around here were going to take advantage of this clause in the CC law in an attempt to make it difficult for people to conduct business while carrying.

These signs have multiplied to the point where they're on 50-story office buildings, and public train stations (among the people who are in that anti-gun group I mentioned is City Hall). I feel even if this cheese shop has a legit reason, my premise has been proven. This is to **** with law-abiding citizens, each with two gun licenses. As I said, they're not the problem, and unlike whether you can patronize a cheese shop, whether you can take the train is going to have an impact.

To be clear... I don't own a gun.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2015, 11:40 AM
 
I think it's important to note that there are many valid reasons for individuals to not "like" guns, and to avoid them. There are ZERO valid reasons to disarm law abiding citizens. None. I'll point out the term "law abiding" here; if you are even a little "not" law abiding, then you've stepped outside that group. If you "accidentally" carry at a prohibited place (schools, say), you're either not aware enough of your responsibilities to be safe with a gun, or you're intentionally violating the law...

It looks very much like Texas will enact Open Carry soon - possibly as soon as the next semiannual session of our Legislature. If that happens, we will have a very strong example of how knowing who is armed impacts criminals' behavior. Of course, Open Carry doesn't eliminate Concealed Carry, so there's still some mystery....

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2015, 11:43 AM
 
And here, those prohibited places are up to and including public transportation.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2015, 12:37 PM
 
As I've stated before I'm pretty ambivalent towards gun control legislation. Probably more center-right actually. There are more firearms than people in the US so the cat's already out of the bag anyway you slice it. I do think it's wise to put a sensible limit on the magazine capacity for semi-automatic firearms. When some nut job decides to shoot up a school or a movie theater it's pretty hard to argue that he should be able to fire 30+ shots without having to reload. That fool that shot Rep. Gabby Giffords was tackled and disarmed while reloading so sooner is better than later IMO. That being said, if one is on the more liberal side of the issue with respect to "Open Carry" for instance ... then the best way to get that shut down is to get groups of minorities to exercise such "rights". History teaches us that that the last time the country was faced with images like this the legislative bodies involved started to rethink all of that real quick. Just saying ...



OAW
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2015, 01:58 PM
 
The guy with the fro is awesome.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2015, 02:13 PM
 
I used to rock one like that back in the day myself.

OAW
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 06:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I started this thread for two reasons.

The first was to point out what CT just said. This sign only affects law-abiding citizens. The public safety issue with guns doesn't come from law abiding citizens except in the rarest of circumstances.
Let me adjust that for you:

This sign only offends/annoys/inconveniences law-abiding citizens.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The second was to imply the significant number of anti-gun people around here were going to take advantage of this clause in the CC law in an attempt to make it difficult for people to conduct business while carrying.
Carrying a gun makes some people feel safer, other people carrying guns makes some people feel less safe. These two positions are clearly at odds with each other.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
These signs have multiplied to the point where they're on 50-story office buildings, and public train stations (among the people who are in that anti-gun group I mentioned is City Hall). I feel even if this cheese shop has a legit reason, my premise has been proven. This is to **** with law-abiding citizens, each with two gun licenses. As I said, they're not the problem, and unlike whether you can patronize a cheese shop, whether you can take the train is going to have an impact.

To be clear... I don't own a gun.
You're looking at the whole thing from a singular perspective. Firstly comparing a family-run cheese shop to a train station, city hall or even an office block is comparing apples to oranges. For one thing, these places vary in their position on the list of places likely to be attacked by terrorists or criminals. They vary in size enormously too.
While I understand that the majority of your law enforcers are in favour of people being able to protect themselves with guns, is it true that they prefer the public to do the protecting/shooting when police are on the scene? I'm inclined to think not. This is very often going to be the case in train stations and city hall buildings. Office blocks are also likely to have their own security if they are valuable targets. Did it occur to you this might in some cases be an insurance issue? While the right/left, rep/dem, gun/no-gun crowds will all throw stats at you to back their own opinions, you can bet your ass if anyone knows the truth of the statistics, its the insurance companies.
If the stats say more guns = more payout, signs go up.

The family cheese shop can probably afford not to worry about terror attacks or insurance against armed customers, but this is a very personal business and in many ways is like a home. Its easy to assume that in the event its required, having extra help from your guests is a welcome thing, but on the other hand maybe I'd feel that if you are in my home then its my duty to protect you, and bringing a gun says you don't trust that I can. Or will. Some might take offence at that. You get invited to dinner you don't bring your own meal. Maybe wine or dessert, so perhaps you could just bring some extra ammo?

You might like guns, or you might not mind them nut some people for whatever reason might not want to be around them any more than they have to be but in a place that allows CC they can only control their own environment to a limited extent and this is all they are doing. Some people ask you to take your shoes off in their house. Is that a blight on law abiding citizens? Suck it up and revel in the freedom of choice and expression that you and your fellow citizens enjoy. If it weren't for the industry driven politicised nature of the issue, you wouldn't even care about these signs.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 10:44 AM
 
I'll prove to you how reasonable I am by conceding almost every one of your points. The insurance is an excellent one, and one I hadn't originally thought of.

Now it's your term to show how reasonable you are and acknowledge most of these arguments fall down when the limitation being discussed is "no guns on public transportation".

I mean, of all the reasons one would bring a gun into a train station, you set up and shoot (ha!) down the notion of protecting yourself in the train station... as opposed to, oh I don't know, needing the gun where the train takes you to.



To clarify my City Hall comment, I'm not taking issue with guns being banned at City Hall, I'm sure there are numerous people who would fill the Mayor with lead if given the chance. My point is the people at City Hall are anti-gun, so are happy to do things like deny city services to law abiding citizens.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 12:08 PM
 
Talked with another Brit recently about guns, they seemed to think that having insurance made gun ownership unnecessary. "Just let them have your stuff, it isn't worth shooting someone over." I replied, "If it was only a matter of material possessions, you may be right, but crooks here will likely shoot you and your family if you're at home at the time of the burglary, to get rid of witnesses." Then that led to a 30 minute discussion about taking guns from all criminals, as if that were a plausible scenario. The end result is what I expected, and have almost always encountered with people from countries that have long restricted gun ownership, she believes that simply passing laws will stop people (especially criminals) from having guns. I believe she said, "Just pass the necessary laws and take their guns". Wow.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 12:14 PM
 
If you want to reduce the amount of guns in the US, you have to reduce the amount we produce, along with cracking down on them. And this isn't something you can do overnight. It'll have to be phased in gradually, and the goal will take decades.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 12:50 PM
 
Only 30% of guns sold in the USA are made here.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 01:03 PM
 
The legal sales aren't the problematic ones.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 02:08 PM
 
If we had a magic wand and erased most of the guns, the best we could hope for is an "average Western European" homicide rate.

With our current population, that's about 3,200 deaths per year by homicide.

Right now, we have about 15,000 deaths per year by homicide.

I posit you legalize drugs, this drops in half almost overnight. So, 7,500 deaths per year by homicide.

We can't do anything about the first 3,200, which leaves us 4,300 extra deaths per year by homicide. That's the trade-off. We keep the system of loose gun regulation we have, it's going to kill 4,300 more people per year than with our magic wand scenario.

Whether this is acceptable hinges on how much stock you put in the belief an armed populace acts as a check against the government. I put a lot of stock in it.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 02:25 PM
 
Its NOT the regulations but the people. Lets get a handle on the idiots who acquire guns who should NEVER have guns. We've already agreed that laws don't stop the bad guys, so adding more laws won't do any good. I say bring back work farms for those who are fit/young enough to endure it. Make using a gun in a violent act a 15 year mandatory penalty then add in the years for what other offenses were involved.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 02:42 PM
 
Work camps score pretty low for me on the rehabilitation quotient.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 02:47 PM
 
The work aspect is what I like. No sitting around and having issues with other prisoners seems a place to start. I don't mean busting rocks but tending gardens, washing clothes, picking up trash, painting, etc.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'll prove to you how reasonable I am by conceding almost every one of your points. The insurance is an excellent one, and one I hadn't originally thought of.

Now it's your term to show how reasonable you are and acknowledge most of these arguments fall down when the limitation being discussed is "no guns on public transportation".


I mean, of all the reasons one would bring a gun into a train station, you set up and shoot (ha!) down the notion of protecting yourself in the train station... as opposed to, oh I don't know, needing the gun where the train takes you to.
Yes this does seem rather at odds to having a legal CC policy. Perhaps they figure if you can afford to buy guns, you can afford to buy a car first?
Its probably just a case of having two laws with different reasons behind them that are at odds with each other because no-one considered the second laws implications for the first. A bit like the rule in the UK that says you can have sex at 16 but you aren't allowed to watch it in a movie until you're 18. Are teenagers meant to do it blindfolded?


Most of the arguments I can come up with for banning guns on trains and buses are fairly weak tbh. It might also be an insurance issue. I don't know if the stats support it, but it strikes me that people might be more likely to argue or fight on a train or bus than elsewhere. I have a life policy I was given as a freebie years ago. It doesn't pay much, but the payout is tripled if I die on public transport. No idea why. I'm just spitballing. It probably is purely to keep guns out of the main stations where LEOs are normally found close by. Or perhaps to prevent people shooting into a crowd? But if thats the plan, you are going to heed a sign so maybe not. Personally I don't see that one or two guns are much more dangerous in a subway than on a street. As long as you keep the bombs away you should be ok. Can you derail a train easily by firing a gun? Doesn't sound likely.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
To clarify my City Hall comment, I'm not taking issue with guns being banned at City Hall, I'm sure there are numerous people who would fill the Mayor with lead if given the chance. My point is the people at City Hall are anti-gun, so are happy to do things like deny city services to law abiding citizens.
I think we can all understand why politicians are an obvious target.

I know I often play devils advocate here on the gun issue, but I really am very reasonable about it. The remoteness of some residences is a very good justification for your gun laws being different to ours.

Sometimes it seems like the right to ownership gets more respect than the act of ownership. I do get the argument of being familiar and scared of guns, but familiarity can breed complacency. Over here there is a certain amount of ceremony involved whenever you take a gun out and I feel like its more likely to keep you aware and focused around them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 04:12 PM
 
A very reasonable post.

I think the heart of the matter still lies in whether you think an armed populace acts as an effective deterrent to tyranny, and your point about politicians being targets is one of the reasons I think it does.

If it does (and perhaps accept it does momentarily, just for the sake of argument), the price we pay for the casual attitude is worth it.

Our country does horribly shitty things, and we at least nominally attempt to be the "good guys". How many people get killed every year because we have loose regulation? About 12,000. How many people would get killed every year if we became assholes?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2015, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The work aspect is what I like. No sitting around and having issues with other prisoners seems a place to start. I don't mean busting rocks but tending gardens, washing clothes, picking up trash, painting, etc.

You would think given the rise of private prisons, they would be keen to find profitable ways to put them to work. I'm all for it. What better way to rehabilitate than to give them a routine of getting up and working a full day like the rest of us have to. Ideally they would cover their own costs of incarceration.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 08:06 AM
 
To me, having insurance only protects stuff, not people. Thieves may only want your stuff, and in such cases insurance is fine. But they may not only want stuff - they may be so stoked on overpowering you that they go farther and hurt you. Insurance isn't a good "defense" against that.

And having been burglarized TWICE, both times while away from the house, I can tell you personally that being burglarized does "hurt." It takes away one's sense of security in one's home in a very fundamental way. No insurance can help with that.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2015, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
To me, having insurance only protects stuff, not people. Thieves may only want your stuff, and in such cases insurance is fine. But they may not only want stuff - they may be so stoked on overpowering you that they go farther and hurt you. Insurance isn't a good "defense" against that.

And having been burglarized TWICE, both times while away from the house, I can tell you personally that being burglarized does "hurt." It takes away one's sense of security in one's home in a very fundamental way. No insurance can help with that.
I was referring to the idea that an insurance company may require a ban on firearms in order to keep the costs of the policy down. I didn't say it was wise or fair, just that it might not be the fault of the proprietors that they put up a sign banning guns on their premises.
If the statistics say that there are more injuries and more lawsuits with bigger payouts when there are more guns on site, an insurance company will either ban them or charge someone extra.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 04:52 AM
 
Complaining about inconveniencing "law abiding citizens" is a worthless activity. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime and the second they do they are exempted from the burden of following the rules because laws don't stop criminals being criminals right?

By this logic we could equally refer to all licensed gun owners as "potential killers" instead of law abiding citizens. I'm sure you lot would love that.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 08:25 AM
 
I didn't see the context of the insurance issue before. That is a logical, if (I think) misguided point of view.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
By this logic we could equally refer to all licensed gun owners as "potential killers" instead of law abiding citizens. I'm sure you lot would love that.
and now I no longer care what people from other countries think about gun ownership, again. I'm glad you brought me back to focus on this.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Complaining about inconveniencing "law abiding citizens" is a worthless activity. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime and the second they do they are exempted from the burden of following the rules because laws don't stop criminals being criminals right?

By this logic we could equally refer to all licensed gun owners as "potential killers" instead of law abiding citizens. I'm sure you lot would love that.
"Law abiding citizen" is shorthand for the part where the sign only applies to people who have registered with the police... multiple times for the Illinois law.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
"Law abiding citizen" is shorthand for the part where the sign only applies to people who have registered with the police... multiple times for the Illinois law.
It might stun to you learn that I have no issues whatsoever when the guns/owners are registered. Thats basically the system we have.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
and now I no longer care what people from other countries think about gun ownership, again. I'm glad you brought me back to focus on this.
Its immensely frustrating that you are focussing on the opposite of my point and basically taking something that I wasn't saying as the key part of my post. You've proven my point, that you guys wouldn't like it if I said this. You have failed to even try to address my main point, that the law abiding citizen is a misleading soundbite that seems to have you fooled.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
It might stun to you learn that I have no issues whatsoever when the guns/owners are registered. Thats basically the system we have.
Not at all. I didn't presume you'd have a problem with that.

My point is the sign is aimed at, and only affects people who have registered with the police... twice.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Its immensely frustrating that you are focussing on the opposite of my point and basically taking something that I wasn't saying as the key part of my post. You've proven my point, that you guys wouldn't like it if I said this. You have failed to even try to address my main point, that the law abiding citizen is a misleading soundbite that seems to have you fooled.
What's frustrating is you think it's simply an "inconvenience" to be told that I can't exercise my Constitutional right to be armed. My protected right to be armed is more important than the store owner's feeling of discomfort over a licensed gun owner carrying a concealed weapon. Your ignorant statement:

By this logic we could equally refer to all licensed gun owners as "potential killers" instead of law abiding citizens. I'm sure you lot would love that
is beside the point, yet neatly characterizes the differences between our societies.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 06:33 PM
 
You don't have a right to concealed carry, Constitutional or otherwise.

At least, sure as hell not in Illinois.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 06:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
What's frustrating is you think it's simply an "inconvenience" to be told that I can't exercise my Constitutional right to be armed. My protected right to be armed is more important than the store owner's feeling of discomfort over a licensed gun owner carrying a concealed weapon.
Your right is not more important than another's property rights Property rights makes the store owner's "discomfort" as important as he'd like it to be while on his property.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You don't have a right to concealed carry, Constitutional or otherwise.

At least, sure as hell not in Illinois.
I would say that you do, the ignorance of the Illinois legislature not withstanding.

The whole point of rights is that you get to choose how to exercise them whether it's speech, religion or bearing arms. If the government can tell you how to carry, then carrying is not a right at all in any form. The minute they are allowed to decide what form of carry is appropriate the whole notion of a right is obliterated. Saying that a person can have a right carry a gun as long as they carry how the government wants, is kind of like saying that you have a right to free speech as long as you say what the government likes.

I would argue that the training requirements, permitting, registration and other hoops to jump through are also a violation, but SCOTUS doesn't agree apparently.

I personally prefer the Indiana method over even the so-called "constitutional carry" states. You apply for a License to Carry Handgun, they do a background check and if you pass you can carry however you want. The law is silent on CC vs OC. We even have lifetime licenses. I forget what I payed for mine, like $125 I think.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You don't have a right to concealed carry, Constitutional or otherwise.

At least, sure as hell not in Illinois.
Well, like you said, that's Illinois.

Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Your right is not more important than another's property rights Property rights makes the store owner's "discomfort" as important as he'd like it to be while on his property.
Being an establishment that's open to the public (I'm most certainly not talking about private property) means they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against a person just because they're a firearm carrier, no more than they can discriminate against someone due to sexual orientation or race. There's a bill affirming this coming down the pipe in my state and I'm happy to see it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 07:16 PM
 
Constitutional Rights have limits. Including the 2nd Amendment. To paraphrase the proverbial saying ... "You have the right to freedom of speech but that doesn't mean you can falsely shout 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater."

OAW
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Being an establishment that's open to the public (I'm most certainly not talking about private property) means they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against a person just because they're a firearm carrier, no more than they can discriminate against someone due to sexual orientation or race. There's a bill affirming this coming down the pipe in my state and I'm happy to see it.
Oh really, So a business isn't private property? Who owns it? The government? Society at large?
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 10:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Constitutional Rights have limits. Including the 2nd Amendment. To paraphrase the proverbial saying ... "You have the right to freedom of speech but that doesn't mean you can falsely shout 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater."

OAW
For one, outlawing the use of speech intended to violate someone else's rights (which is what shouting "fire in a theater would be) is not a "limitation" on speech, it is the protection of rights. Properly, the ONLY so-called "limitations" on a person's rights are those that impose a harm upon others. Not a potential harm, not a hypothetical harm, a real actual harm in the real actual world.

Two, I would remind you that your quote came from a SCOTUS decision which basically upheld that one cannot engage in anti-war speech during a war. In other words, it is an equivocation and a shit decision which was eventually overturned.

Now, explain to me how concealed carry qua concealed carry harms anyone.

P.S. On a more personal note I'm pretty disgusted how this "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has become a cliché that has been repeated rehashed as a justification for infringing upon people's rights. People like you just repeat this bullshit over and over until no one cares to even question it anymore.
( Last edited by smacintush; Jan 23, 2015 at 10:31 PM. )
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 11:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
and now I no longer care what people from other countries think about gun ownership, again. I'm glad you brought me back to focus on this.
Why is it that many Americans are quick to offer opinions and judgement of affairs in other countries, but often don't take well to people providing critical commentary on their affairs?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 11:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Oh really, So a business isn't private property? Who owns it? The government? Society at large?
If a business is required to serve people due to race, orientation, or other factors that are protected, then the right to bear arms should be protected as well.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2015, 11:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why is it that many Americans are quick to offer opinions and judgement of affairs in other countries, but often don't take well to people providing critical commentary on their affairs?
Hrmm, can't say I have. In fact, I'm damned sure I've said (on numerous occasions) that other countries have their own laws that should be respected. I don't care if other countries want to have guns, like a host of other matters, that's their concern.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2015, 03:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
I would say that you do, the ignorance of the Illinois legislature not withstanding.

The whole point of rights is that you get to choose how to exercise them whether it's speech, religion or bearing arms. If the government can tell you how to carry, then carrying is not a right at all in any form. The minute they are allowed to decide what form of carry is appropriate the whole notion of a right is obliterated. Saying that a person can have a right carry a gun as long as they carry how the government wants, is kind of like saying that you have a right to free speech as long as you say what the government likes.

I would argue that the training requirements, permitting, registration and other hoops to jump through are also a violation, but SCOTUS doesn't agree apparently.

I personally prefer the Indiana method over even the so-called "constitutional carry" states. You apply for a License to Carry Handgun, they do a background check and if you pass you can carry however you want. The law is silent on CC vs OC. We even have lifetime licenses. I forget what I payed for mine, like $125 I think.
I'm confused here. You give a solid argument against licensing, and then it looks like you praise a licensing system.

I'm not trying to be combative, I honestly think there's something I'm misunderstanding.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2015, 10:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
If a business is required to serve people due to race, orientation, or other factors that are protected, then the right to bear arms should be protected as well.
You never answered the question, is it private property or not?

Do you really not understand that your choice to carry a gun is not the same as someone's race?

Also, for the record I do not support laws that force business owners to serve anyone they don't want to for whatever reason. The very idea that since someone chose to let people on their property to voluntary trade for some goods or services, he has to by law serve people who belong to certain groups is absurd. If we had a proper view of private property in our legal system this gun argument wouldn't be an argument, but the issue has been obfuscated by bad philosophy and improper laws.
     
 
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 06:30 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.,