Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hordini wrote:
Do you really want to give up more of your own rights?

Of course I would. I would love to give up my right to own guns even if I have a history of mental illness and violent impulses, just like I would love to give up my right to parade around in public with an AR15. These aren't rights that should exist, and I don't worship the ideal of freedom at all costs.

Even if you don't like those two, which is fine, how are either of them bigots?

“Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that. I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way.”
- Rick Perry

Yeah, nothing wrong with that at all...

Edit: and let's not forget poor Mr. Nugent: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/21/here-are-13-other-repugnant-comments-ted-nugent/198174

You can give your rights away. Just don't expect the rest of us to so freely acquiesce.

 cincydooley wrote:
You can give your rights away. Just don't expect the rest of us to so freely acquiesce.

So you think that someone who has a history of violent impulses and anger management issues, to the point that they're getting diagnosed with a mental illness by professionals, should be allowed to own guns without limits? Do you think that people should be allowed to parade around in public with AR15s just to show off their right to do so?

 Peregrine wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
You can give your rights away. Just don't expect the rest of us to so freely acquiesce.

So you think that someone who has a history of violent impulses and anger management issues, to the point that they're getting diagnosed with a mental illness by professionals, should be allowed to own guns without limits? Do you think that people should be allowed to parade around in public with AR15s just to show off their right to do so?

Guess what bro? They can't get them already if they've been diagnosed. That's one of the countermeasures in place.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

And sure, why not? If the state deems it legal to open carry, then who cares. I personally think it's stupid, but I don't see a problem with it.

As a side note, because I'm just WAITING for someone to bring up the "well regulated militia" line, and it was mentioned in some liberal politician's quote somewhere on page 2, I have a knowledge bomb straight from the United States Code on the militia. I have no idea why the well-regulated militia part is still something people try to debate; it CLEARLY STATES in 10 USC 311 (that would be the United States Code, ladies and gentlemen), that the militia consists of every able-bodied male between 17 and 45 that is a citizen or has declared intent to become a citizen, and that the classes of militia are Organized (National Guard and Naval Militia), and Unorganized (Everyone else).

That's it. It's very cut and dry and defined in our national law. If you aren't a member of the uniformed services, you are automatically a part of the unorganized militia. Therefore, any able-bodied male between 17 and 45 who does not practice with firearms regularly with the intent of preparing for the defense of the nation is actually remiss in their responsibilities as a citizen of the United States. That is, per U.S. law, the well regulated militia. Everyone with a pulse. This of course doesn't affect the right to keep and bear arms, because that's an individual right as affirmed by multiple supreme and federal court cases.

The real irony here, is that by failing to maintain and practice with a weapon, these anti-gun snobs are *actually* the ones preventing the "well-regulated" militia from existing, i.e., "being in proper working order".

So really all I see here as a problem is that Title 10, Section 311 United States Code needs to have the age range pushed out to 55 at least (we're living longer, stand to!) and be made non-gender discriminatory, just like registering for selective service should be if we're going to keep the draft around.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title10-section311&num=0&saved=%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGUxMC1jaGFwdGVyMTMtZnJvbnQ%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim

 cincydooley wrote:
Guess what bro? They can't get them already if they've been diagnosed. That's one of the countermeasures in place.

Except, because the system does a poor job of tracking those people (especially from state to state), this isn't a very effective law. Reforming it and making the system work properly should be something completely uncontroversial, but it's "more gun control" and we can't have that.

If the state deems it legal to open carry, then who cares. I personally think it's stupid, but I don't see a problem with it.

The point is that it has absolutely no practical value, and is being used as deliberate intimidation. The people walking around with AR15s in public aren't doing it because it's a reasonable thing to do for self defense, they're doing it to make sure everyone around them knows that they have a gun and will not allow any attempt to take it from them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I have no idea why the well-regulated militia part is still something people try to debate; it CLEARLY STATES in 10 USC 311 (that would be the United States Code, ladies and gentlemen), that the militia consists of every able-bodied male between 17 and 45 that is a citizen or has declared intent to become a citizen, and that the classes of militia are Organized (National Guard and Naval Militia), and Unorganized (Everyone else).

It's up for debate because that's just a federal law, not part of the constitution. Congress could change that law at any time and define the militia as something else, so if you're basing your right to own a gun on that law you're not building yourself a very strong foundation.

 Peregrine wrote:


So you think that someone who has a history of violent impulses and anger management issues, to the point that they're getting diagnosed with a mental illness by professionals, should be allowed to own guns without limits?

No, and the law already prohibits people who have been involuntarily committed from owning firearms.

 Peregrine wrote:

Do you think that people should be allowed to parade around in public with AR15s just to show off their right to do so?

Yes, AR15s are legal to own, and there's nothing wrong with carrying around something that is legal to own. Do I think those people are neckbeards? Absolutely. And they make people uncomfortable, just as a guy walking into a Starbucks carrying a chainsaw would make people uncomfortable. I wouldn't do it, but I also would not support legislation making carrying a rifle in public illegal. Once you do that, you open people up for arrest simply for loading or unloading their vehicles.

A store can ask patrons to leave. Failing to heed that makes those people guilty of trespassing if they refuse to leave. Then they can be arrested.


The law has ways of dealing with these situations...I fail to see how more legislation would help anything. At the end of the day, murder and crack are both illegal, but that didn't stop Tupac from writing several albums.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Do you really want to give up more of your own rights?

Of course I would. I would love to give up my right to own guns even if I have a history of mental illness and violent impulses, just like I would love to give up my right to parade around in public with an AR15. These aren't rights that should exist, and I don't worship the ideal of freedom at all costs.

Even if you don't like those two, which is fine, how are either of them bigots?

“Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that. I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way.”
- Rick Perry

Yeah, nothing wrong with that at all...

Edit: and let's not forget poor Mr. Nugent: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/21/here-are-13-other-repugnant-comments-ted-nugent/198174

Okay, I wasn't familiar with all those Nugent quotes. He's definitely pushing it with some of them, even though a lot of the time I think he's purposely just trying to be inflammatory. The Rick Perry quote though, I don't think is that bad. It's a stupid opinion and I disagree with him, but I don't think that necessarily makes someone a bigot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I wouldn't do it, but I also would not support legislation making carrying a rifle in public illegal. Once you do that, you open people up for arrest simply for loading or unloading their vehicles.

A store can ask patrons to leave. Failing to heed that makes those people guilty of trespassing if they refuse to leave. Then they can be arrested.

Exactly. I don't want laws in place that would allow people to be arrested for unloading their vehicles, or transporting their legally-owned rifles or any other firearm from one place to another. There are plenty of instances in which open carry of a rifle is practical.

 whembly wrote:
You're new here... ain't ya?

How Ironic.. Your avatar says it all .. Well played

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
No, and the law already prohibits people who have been involuntarily committed from owning firearms.

Involuntary commitment isn't a very good standard because it's very difficult to get someone involuntarily committed. It can be pretty clear that someone shouldn't be trusted with a gun even when they don't reach the threshold required to commit them.

Yes, AR15s are legal to own, and there's nothing wrong with carrying around something that is legal to own.

Of course there is, when it's being done for intimidation. This isn't someone carrying an AR15 across the parking lot from their car to the gun range without bothering to put it in a case, it's walking around in public with a gun where the only purpose is to make sure everyone around you is aware that you are capable of killing someone.

Once you do that, you open people up for arrest simply for loading or unloading their vehicles.

Only if you make a stupid law. A sensible law would include exemptions for transporting a gun to or from a place where you can legally use it, accidentally letting someone get a brief glimpse of your gun as you put it into the case, etc. And even when the law doesn't cover these situations the police still have the option to decline to arrest someone for an obviously harmless mistake, and the government has the option to decline to prosecute it.

A store can ask patrons to leave. Failing to heed that makes those people guilty of trespassing if they refuse to leave. Then they can be arrested.

And that's what happened. The result was the gun nuts calling for boycotts on those stores. So not only do they think they're entitled to laws that allow it, they think they're entitled to have everyone else agree with them.

ATXMILEY wrote:
But the bill of rights should be up to interpretation. Just as there are laws regarding the usage of the 1st Amendment, there should be laws regarding all of the other amendments as well.

Incorrect. Your Interpretation of the law is your interpretation. Who are you to decide for me? What rights do you have that trump my rights. This is the problem with most political decisions today. You want me to validate your interpretation cause I what? I can't think for myself, too stupid to know what’s right and wrong. The framers saw the government as a necessary evil. Limited and held in check by the people. The right to bare arms, Freedom of the press.. you start to put limits and it's easy to add a little more at time till you have none.

Compromise is what we do for family and friends, We have too many principles that we have compromised already over and that is the problem. Read the Constitution and the bill of rights just once! Be responsible and I’ll be responsible and maybe we can get on with living our lives.

Oh and I don't own a gun. I would never infringe your right to do so.

Back to painting! Yep!

 Peregrine wrote:
Do you think that people should be allowed to parade around in public with AR15s just to show off their right to do so?

Yes.

 Solar_lion wrote:
What rights do you have that trump my rights.

The right to have a functioning society? Seriously, everyone but the libertarian party understands this. Rights can't be unlimited if you want society to work properly. For example, the right to free speech can not be completely unrestricted unless you want people shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater and then avoiding any consequences for their actions because they had a right to say it. The right to own a gun can not be completely unrestricted unless you want convicted murderers getting out of prison and going straight to the gun shop to rearm.

(Not that the second scenario could ever happen in a "rights are unlimited" world, since the convicted murderer would have to be allowed to keep their guns while in prison.)

The framers saw the government as a necessary evil. Limited and held in check by the people.

The framers also thought slavery was a pretty good idea. Let's not start with the founding fathers worship, ok?

Be responsible and I’ll be responsible and maybe we can get on with living our lives.

This only works in a magical fantasy world where everyone is responsible. I think it should be obvious why we should make our laws based on the world that actually exists, not the one that we wish existed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Solar_lion wrote:
What rights do you have that trump my rights.

The right to have a functioning society? Seriously, everyone but the libertarian party understands this. Rights can't be unlimited if you want society to work properly. For example, the right to free speech can not be completely unrestricted unless you want people shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater and then avoiding any consequences for their actions because they had a right to say it. The right to own a gun can not be completely unrestricted unless you want convicted murderers getting out of prison and going straight to the gun shop to rearm.

What about the right to carry a firearm openly prevents us from having a functioning society?

 Peregrine wrote:


The framers also thought slavery was a pretty good idea. Let's not start with the founding fathers worship, ok?

Why not? It worked out well here

 Peregrine wrote:


Not that the second scenario could ever happen in a "rights are unlimited" world, since the convicted murderer would have to be allowed to keep their guns while in prison.

I actually think this is a great idea. Drop a box filled with guns and ammo in the middle the cafeteria and then lock the doors and come back in three days.

 Hordini wrote:
What about the right to carry a firearm openly prevents us from having a functioning society?

The fact that the only reason to openly carry an AR15 in public to make sure that everyone around you knows that you have a gun and can kill people, which is a blatant attempt to intimidate people into giving you what you want (no gun control, in this case). If you're worried about self defense carry a concealed handgun.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
What about the right to carry a firearm openly prevents us from having a functioning society?

The fact that the only reason to openly carry an AR15 in public to make sure that everyone around you knows that you have a gun and can kill people, which is a blatant attempt to intimidate people into giving you what you want (no gun control, in this case). If you're worried about self defense carry a concealed handgun.

Why am I limited to a concealed hangun? Why can't I carry my handgun openly?

 cincydooley wrote:
Why am I limited to a concealed hangun? Why can't I carry my handgun openly?

Because the only reason (in everyday life*) to display your gun openly is to threaten other people? I don't support arresting people for "carrying openly" when someone got a brief glimpse of their gun, but I really don't see how expecting you to keep it in your pocket or whatever is an unreasonable demand.

*Yes, there are situations like hiking in the wilderness where carrying a gun is justified but concealing it is difficult. Let's not pretend that these situations are common events.

 Peregrine wrote:


Because the only reason (in everyday life*) to display your gun openly is to threaten other people? I don't support arresting people for "carrying openly" when someone got a brief glimpse of their gun, but I really don't see how expecting you to keep it in your pocket or whatever is an unreasonable demand..

This is all opinion, and nonsense. There's nothing threatening about openly wearing a holstered firearm.

I assume you're opposed to the open carrying of knives as well, then? Because scary?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, most of your arguments basically seem to be reduced to:

I never did really comment on the overall question. I just left a snarky joke somewhere in the middle of the discourse.

There's a peculiar opinion held by some number of people in this country that technically, because something is a "right", no amount of flagrantly demonstrating that right is in bad taste. Likewise, there's also a segment of the population that feels that the hope you will wind up any better than whatever the bare minimum required to live (and sometimes not even that) leaves you "entitled" to things.

You could draw a venn diagram of those people who would intersect very significantly. Oddly enough, these are also usually the people who strongly believe in the "American Dream".

Personally, I like guns. They're fun to fire. I think people should be able to own them. After all, guns don't hurt people. We are all immune to bullets, and it's nothing short of a miracle.

I don't have a problem with someone carrying their handgun. I know people who do. I don't even really have a problem with people slinging their AK-47s or AR-15s over their shoulders to go to Wal-Mart beyond the fact that I think they're being profoundly utter jackasses that are hurting their cause more than they're helping them. I don't expect them to understand how, though.

I'm not even mad at them though, just disappointed.

 cincydooley wrote:
There's nothing threatening about openly wearing a holstered firearm.

Of course there is. Why are you wearing it openly instead of concealing it? Because you want everyone around you to know that you're carrying a deadly weapon and can kill them if they mess with you.

I assume you're opposed to the open carrying of knives as well, then? Because scary?

Depends on what kind of knife. If it's the kind that's clearly intended to be used as a weapon then yes, I'm opposed to that. If we're talking about carrying a kitchen knife in a context where a person could reasonably expect to be using a kitchen knife then no.

I mean, most of your arguments basically seem to be reduced to:

Only if you want to reduce "carrying guns for the purpose of intimidating people shouldn't be legal" to "BUT FEEELINGS!!!". There's a reason why pointing a gun at someone is a crime, even if it's unloaded and completely harmless (or even just a very convincing replica gun).

I'd rather take my chances with hanging out with the hippie chick. She might smell bad, but I bet she knows how to have more fun. Just sayin'.

 cincydooley wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, most of your arguments basically seem to be reduced to:

This image can be applied to the opposite spectrum aswell

 Peregrine wrote:


Of course there is. Why are you wearing it openly instead of concealing it? Because you want everyone around you to know that you're carrying a deadly weapon and can kill them if they mess with you.

Or because open carry is often more comfortable and easier to draw from?

Depends on what kind of knife. If it's the kind that's clearly intended to be used as a weapon then yes, I'm opposed to that. If we're talking about carrying a kitchen knife in a context where a person could reasonably expect to be using a kitchen knife then no.

"Clearly intended to be used as a weapon? I assume you're the arbiter of this as well?

Only if you want to reduce "carrying guns for the purpose of intimidating people shouldn't be legal" to "BUT FEEELINGS!!!". There's a reason why pointing a gun at someone is a crime, even if it's unloaded and completely harmless (or even just a very convincing replica gun).

And simply open carrying certainly isn't that, now is it? Guess what? When it's brandished at someone, it's, as you said, a crime. But until then it's just a piece of metal and plastic. Contrary to popular belief, they can't hurt you on their own.

 cincydooley wrote:
But until then it's just a piece of metal and plastic. Contrary to popular belief, they can't hurt you on their own.

You must have never stepped on a lego

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
But until then it's just a piece of metal and plastic. Contrary to popular belief, they can't hurt you on their own.

You must have never stepped on a lego

Can you believe I actually cut myself on a lego once? Couldn't believe it.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
But until then it's just a piece of metal and plastic. Contrary to popular belief, they can't hurt you on their own.

You must have never stepped on a lego

Can you believe I actually cut myself on a lego once? Couldn't believe it.

I base my personal Castle Doctrine on Home Alone.

The path to hell is paved with 2x4 and 2x2 pieces of lego, that are not stuck together and are just scattered upon the ground.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Solar_lion wrote:
What rights do you have that trump my rights.

The right to have a functioning society? Seriously, everyone but the libertarian party understands this. Rights can't be unlimited if you want society to work properly.

Your statement is laughable. The ultimate end of that is dictatorship, which the Second Amendment was created for, to stop in its tracks.

Pick up that can, Citizen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:


I'd rather take my chances with hanging out with the hippie chick. She might smell bad, but I bet she knows how to have more fun. Just sayin'.

Yea but pretty soon the smell begins to grate. When she gets older she'll tell you how to live your life. Better fine country woman who lives life and doesn't tell you how to live it.