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.
2016/06/14 21:37:26
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
If you have a Mcdonalds that makes a 100 meals, and it gets 2 of them wrong, and across town there is a much larger McDonalds - it makes 1,000 meals, and it gets 4 of them wrong - then obviously the second McDonalds is twice as bad as the first one, because it got twice as many meals wrong.
ta-da!
No because the first has a 2% failure rate and the second a .4% failure rate, which is how the article linked judged. 2% is a higher failure than .4%, correct?
If you think this is how the article judged, then I understand the confusion.
2016/06/14 21:45:58
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
If you have a Mcdonalds that makes a 100 meals, and it gets 2 of them wrong, and across town there is a much larger McDonalds - it makes 1,000 meals, and it gets 4 of them wrong - then obviously the second McDonalds is twice as bad as the first one, because it got twice as many meals wrong.
ta-da!
No because the first has a 2% failure rate and the second a .4% failure rate, which is how the article linked judged. 2% is a higher failure than .4%, correct?
These are bad arguments Jake!
SemperMortis wrote:So your arguing semantics instead of just yielding the incontrovertible point that they have had the MOST cases overturned. Nobody said they had the biggest percentage, just the most.
SemperMortis wrote:I believe that Most has a lot of meaning and since it flies in the face of your opinion and stance you are purposely trying to minimize what it actually means.
The Montreal Canadians have the MOST Stanley Cup wins. That means something. If you want to go by another metric, most cups per year the team has existed then that's another metric, but it does not in any way marginalize or lower the value of the word "Most" in regards to the original statement.
So in other words, your argument is both bad, and invalid.
Stop making this a semantics argument! 4 burgers is twice as many as 2.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/14 21:47:10
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/06/14 22:31:19
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Frazzled and Dreadwinter, you're both toeing a couple of lines. The rest of the thread is as well now and then. If you all can't behave I'm going to take your gun thread away from you.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
2016/06/15 00:54:54
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Just a few thoughts I've been mulling over the past couple days now on the 2nd Amendment, and the state we're in.
Now, I've spent my whole life being in support of 2A, and that hasn't changed.
What has changed though, is that I believe something needs to be done regarding the acquisition of firearms on multiple levels.
I guess that when it gets boiled down, the way I see it is this: we can do something now, like tightening NICS and background checks, OR, we can continue to do nothing until things reach a literal boiling point, and the "only" option is a full repeal of 2A.
I know that many republican politicians love to couch their arguments in "slippery slopes" and that ANY law changes or additions are an "assault on our rights!" etc. etc. etc. but I really do see us reaching a point where there's no slippery slope, there's just a precipitous drop.
2016/06/15 00:59:20
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
I'm trying to imagine what it would be like it 1st Amendment rights were treated by our government in the same way the 2nd is...
Full background check + fingerprinting, $107 in licensing fees, must be renewed with an additional $35 in licensing fees every five years, furthermore you revoke your 4th amendment rights in the process - and after all that, you may finally vote.
Add the state not having to issue the permit to vote if it doesn't want to, and it gets very interesting.
My voting analogy aside and addressing the appeals court's decision directly; Yes it completely violates the constitution. I still find it hard to believe how many of California's gun laws have survived any constitutional court. I hope that the decision can be reversed.
You say Fiery Crash! I say Dynamic Entry!
*Increases Game Point Limit by 100*: Tau get two Crisis Suits and a Firewarrior. Imperial Guard get two infantry companies, artillery support, and APCs.
2016/06/15 01:25:18
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Just a few thoughts I've been mulling over the past couple days now on the 2nd Amendment, and the state we're in.
Now, I've spent my whole life being in support of 2A, and that hasn't changed.
What has changed though, is that I believe something needs to be done regarding the acquisition of firearms on multiple levels.
I guess that when it gets boiled down, the way I see it is this: we can do something now, like tightening NICS and background checks, OR, we can continue to do nothing until things reach a literal boiling point, and the "only" option is a full repeal of 2A.
I know that many republican politicians love to couch their arguments in "slippery slopes" and that ANY law changes or additions are an "assault on our rights!" etc. etc. etc. but I really do see us reaching a point where there's no slippery slope, there's just a precipitous drop.
How would increased/tightened background checks have prevented Orlando or other recent incidents?
Doing SOMETHING! for the sake of doing something, when you don't actually come even close to fixing the perceived problem ought to be fought against.
Lets not forget, regardless of big incidents like this, gun violence is at a low in the US and the trend seems to be continuing. And in localities where it is not low, it is generally not due to lax gun laws.
I say go for full repeal. See how it works out.
The following makes light of the issue, but it does point out how difficult that will be.
Spoiler:
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2016/06/15 01:32:00
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
whembly wrote: Would you care on elaborating what you meant by "tightening NICS and background checks"?
I believe most gun owners wouldn't mind... but, then again, the devil is in the details.
The Orlando shooter, according to many early reports, had a history of domestic violence/abuse. Obviously no charges were brought up, because he still bought his stuff legally.
The Louisiana movie theater shooter bought his gun in Alabama, and if you recall the early reports indicated that he passed, using his legal name, a background check in LA. IIRC, that pawn shop apparently did not run his actual name, or perhaps didn't run any kind of background check (which, I know is already against the law).
So many of the recent mass shootings, it seems that the media is fairly quickly able to find out that there's a long history of mental issues, or a history of violence or other factors that, if there were reporting criteria for those things in the NICS checks, could have prevented some of these tragedies.
Those dakka users in Washington State will probably be familiar with our recent "background check" law that was recently passed. IMO, it is a terribly written piece of legislation, because the language is a bit too broad. One of the unintended consequences of the new law, was that many military museums in the state are being forced to return firearms to the owners, because a museum isn't a person, and therefore cannot have an NICS run for the "transfer" of firearms. Let's say whembly and I are at a range here in WA. Let's say for this example that one of us has a cool firearm that the other one is interested in buying, but wants to shoot one prior to going out and dropping that kind of cash on one. Under this law, even that "transfer" is illegal.
2016/06/15 01:34:37
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Just a few thoughts I've been mulling over the past couple days now on the 2nd Amendment, and the state we're in.
Now, I've spent my whole life being in support of 2A, and that hasn't changed.
What has changed though, is that I believe something needs to be done regarding the acquisition of firearms on multiple levels.
I guess that when it gets boiled down, the way I see it is this: we can do something now, like tightening NICS and background checks, OR, we can continue to do nothing until things reach a literal boiling point, and the "only" option is a full repeal of 2A.
I know that many republican politicians love to couch their arguments in "slippery slopes" and that ANY law changes or additions are an "assault on our rights!" etc. etc. etc. but I really do see us reaching a point where there's no slippery slope, there's just a precipitous drop.
What would be done that would have prevented any recent tragedy, short of banning firearms entirely? I mean, looking at the Florida case, the guy was a licensed armed security guard, with certified training and background checks/vetting up the wazoo, who had not been convicted of any crime nor was he under suspicion of anything at the time of the shooting. Looking at Sandy Hook, the guy murdered the legal owner of the firearms and stole them to commit a terrible act, not something background checks or anything like that would have covered. Likewise the suspect arrested in LA this weekend, according to the ADA the weapons found were purchased by the dude's father, and so no background check would have found that, and the weapons were already illegal as configured in CA. The Roseburg shooter of last year had learning disabilities, but no criminal record that would have barred him from owning firearms and no mental health issues that would have precluded him from owning any unless we're going to deny people rights based on learning disabilities.
At least as far as I can tell, the people committing newsworthy acts with firearms aren't obtaining these weapons in ways that enhanced screening and background checks would not prevent, at least in the relatively recent cases I looked at.
There's something else going on. When it was legal to mail order machineguns and have them delivered by the USPS straight to your door, when the entire concept of a background check was incomprehensible and the carrying of firearms by children into schools was a daily routine thing, we didn't have these mass shootings. Something fundamentally has changed as a society where people can feel so disconnected and aloof that such acts are not only something that would occur to them to carry out, but that feel justifiable, particularly through the infamy and recognition they achieve. Meanwhile however, murder rates and firearms murders/assaults as a whole are at historic lows and declining every year, you have a smaller chance of being murdered by a firearm now than at just about any point in US history that we have comparable records for. Background checks can only go so far, and I think they've gone as far as they can in terms of effectiveness, they can't stop everything.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2016/06/15 01:37:27
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment shouldn't be infringed upon at all. If I want to buy a howitzer, I should be allowed to. As far as I'm concerned, any regulation upon my right to bear arms is the government trying to take away my rights. The Orlando shooter was attacked a zone where guns weren't allowed. A place he knew was undefended. There's no reason that there shouldn't have been at least a pistol under the bar in the event something like that happens.
"We have lost the element of surprise, and they do not fear us. Perhaps they will appreciate our devotion to the Emperor and our ruthless efficiency."
2016/06/15 01:38:56
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
The first page of result in my search for the Louisiana movie theater shooting all seem to say he bought the gun legally.
"When Houser tried to buy his gun on Feb. 26, 2014, the system only briefly delayed his purchase, according to a federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. The seller was advised the following day that the sale could proceed."
There's something else going on. When it was legal to mail order machineguns and have them delivered by the USPS straight to your door, when the entire concept of a background check was incomprehensible and the carrying of firearms by children into schools was a daily routine thing, we didn't have these mass shootings. Something fundamentally has changed as a society where people can feel so disconnected and aloof that such acts are not only something that would occur to them to carry out, but that feel justifiable, particularly through the infamy and recognition they achieve. Meanwhile however, murder rates and firearms murders/assaults as a whole are at historic lows and declining every year, you have a smaller chance of being murdered by a firearm now than at just about any point in US history that we have comparable records for. Background checks can only go so far, and I think they've gone as far as they can in terms of effectiveness, they can't stop everything.
Well, one thing I know we can all agree on, is media coverage of the "major" events. I recall one of the major cable news networks having a much vaunted psychologist type expert on their show, and he flat out said, "putting up their faces, the number of casualties, etc. directly contribute to copycats." Of course, that cable news network has completely ignored that guy, and continues the practice of gory detailed reports of major shooting events. But, I guess that just comes with the territory of having literally everything for sale, and everything must be profitable. And of course, mass casualty events are very good for the news business.
@CptJake, personally, I don't think that I'm going for a "we must do something for the sake of doing something." Rather, I think, rightly or wrongly, that there's some writing on the wall where we're just gonna reach a stage in which discussing the merits of altering existing laws to function better as technology progresses, or getting rid of out-dated ones, etc.
2016/06/15 02:02:41
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
@CptJake, personally, I don't think that I'm going for a "we must do something for the sake of doing something." Rather, I think, rightly or wrongly, that there's some writing on the wall where we're just gonna reach a stage in which discussing the merits of altering existing laws to function better as technology progresses, or getting rid of out-dated ones, etc.
Nah... I don't think it'll come to that in our lifetime.
This is, quite frankly, one of the only issue in the US where private individual gun ownership is consider a cherished right.
To me, Colorado is essentially a microcosm of the US.... if the recent gun control couldn't stick there... not much chance it'll stick in other states.
Fortunately, guns itself, isn't the issue...
It's the people. Start there.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/06/15 02:03:57
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Aye, media coverage I think is a big part of the problem, but then you run into 1st amendment issues trying to stifle that. It's not an easy questions to solve sadly.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2016/06/15 02:08:49
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
@CptJake, personally, I don't think that I'm going for a "we must do something for the sake of doing something." Rather, I think, rightly or wrongly, that there's some writing on the wall where we're just gonna reach a stage in which discussing the merits of altering existing laws to function better as technology progresses, or getting rid of out-dated ones, etc.
You may not be, but others are. And almost none of the offered solutions would have prevented any of the killings. And if implemented they won't do much to prevent future killings, but they will make life harder for me and those like me. And frankly, I'm against that. I'm a selfish SOB.
I'm for getting rid of outdated laws. I'm not for replacing them with more restrictive laws.
Take Orlando. Guy investigated twice and cleared twice. Not on any watch list at the time (was pulled off the list after one of the investigations did not pan out). And I see several folks wondering how 'Someone investigated twice can buy a gun!" (Including some lady on Fox who interviewed Dr, Carson yesterday). Guess what, LOTS of people are investigated and cleared. That s the way the law and due process work. The LEAs have to gather enough evidence to charge and prosecute or at least enough to justify continued investigations and get the needed warrants. If they don't you can't decide to strip the cleared individual of constitutionally protected rights.
The solutions being offered are bad. They just are. And I refuse to accept Doing Something! to appease the crap bags calling for those types of solutions, and hope there are enough other voting citizens who refuse as well.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2016/06/15 17:10:38
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Fairfax, Va.— The executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:
We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA's position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.
Don't see any issues that...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/06/15 17:52:20
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/06/15 18:06:36
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
Well... to me "good guy with a gun stops..." means defensive stop.
Right?
According to that CDC 2013 study here:
• Estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges “from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”
• “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
• One “body of research” (Kleck and Gertz, 1995) cited by the study found “estimated annual gun use for self-defense” to be “up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.”
• “There is empirical evidence that gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/06/15 18:11:55
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
I thought crappy cops who are minutes away when seconds count, and who have no responsibility to respond to your emergency whatsoever, are the reason we need good guys with guns. Now they are the good guys with guns?
2016/06/15 18:22:23
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
I thought crappy cops who are minutes away when seconds count, and who have no responsibility to respond to your emergency whatsoever, are the reason we need good guys with guns. Now they are the good guys with guns?
yeah well I love it when security salesmen come knocking asking if I want a security system and I tell them you do realize our own police chief said that the police will not be responding to security alarms going off. but on the other hand if you have a shooting the cops will race there.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
2016/06/15 20:03:38
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Fairfax, Va.— The executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:
We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA's position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.
Don't see any issues that...
There is a huge glaring issue in that statemnt. Terror watchlists and No Fly Lists shouldn't even exist, they violate the foundation of our legal system, the presumption of innocence, as well as deprive people of due process. The govt should never, ever be allowed to place citizens on arbitrary lists without their knowledge or due process and then use being on that arbitrary secret list as a reason to revoke citizens' rights. If the govt has evidence that somebody is a danger or a terrorist then they should act on that evidence and file charges. If the govt doesn't have enough evidence to file charges then the govt should leave that citizen alone. Secret lists that nobody knows about but are used to oppress people and take their liberty away are an inexcusable evil and should not be tolerated.The NRA knows better, they've always opposed a national firearms registry with good reason and they should stand on principle with consistency and oppose watch lists and no fly lists too.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/06/15 20:18:10
Subject: Re:9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Fairfax, Va.— The executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:
We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA's position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.
Don't see any issues that...
There is a huge glaring issue in that statemnt. Terror watchlists and No Fly Lists shouldn't even exist, they violate the foundation of our legal system, the presumption of innocence, as well as deprive people of due process. The govt should never, ever be allowed to place citizens on arbitrary lists without their knowledge or due process and then use being on that arbitrary secret list as a reason to revoke citizens' rights. If the govt has evidence that somebody is a danger or a terrorist then they should act on that evidence and file charges. If the govt doesn't have enough evidence to file charges then the govt should leave that citizen alone. Secret lists that nobody knows about but are used to oppress people and take their liberty away are an inexcusable evil and should not be tolerated.The NRA knows better, they've always opposed a national firearms registry with good reason and they should stand on principle with consistency and oppose watch lists and no fly lists too.
If there's rigid & nimble due process, it techically shouldn't be a problem.
However, every iteration of gun control plans from Congress I've seen is really lacking any 'Due Process' provision.
Also, Howard Stern offers this daily dose of truth:
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/06/15 23:35:04
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
I thought crappy cops who are minutes away when seconds count, and who have no responsibility to respond to your emergency whatsoever, are the reason we need good guys with guns. Now they are the good guys with guns?
Well, we need "Good Guys with Guns" to help the "Good Guys with Guns." Clearly, we just need more "Good Guys with Guns" everywhere checking to make sure there are enough "Good Guys with Guns" in the area to protect the innocent!
2016/06/15 23:41:16
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, we need "Good Guys with Guns" to help the "Good Guys with Guns." Clearly, we just need more "Good Guys with Guns" everywhere checking to make sure there are enough "Good Guys with Guns" in the area to protect the innocent!
The problem for your side of the debate is that the above is still a more realistic proposal than, "Ban black rifles, and suddenly more than 300 million guns in America won't be a problem!"
2016/06/16 00:12:19
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, we need "Good Guys with Guns" to help the "Good Guys with Guns." Clearly, we just need more "Good Guys with Guns" everywhere checking to make sure there are enough "Good Guys with Guns" in the area to protect the innocent!
The problem for your side of the debate is that the above is still a more realistic proposal than, "Ban black rifles, and suddenly more than 300 million guns in America won't be a problem!"
My side? When did I say "ban black rifles" or anything of the sort?
2016/06/16 00:33:00
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Dreadwinter wrote: My side? When did I say "ban black rifles" or anything of the sort?
How did you forget that time you got elected King of the Liberals? You swore on a copy of the Communist Manifesto that you would defend every belief held by any member of the left, foreign or domestic, or may you be cursed to forever more drink only non-fair-trade coffee, forevermore
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/06/16 00:40:04
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
I thought crappy cops who are minutes away when seconds count, and who have no responsibility to respond to your emergency whatsoever, are the reason we need good guys with guns. Now they are the good guys with guns?
Well, we need "Good Guys with Guns" to help the "Good Guys with Guns." Clearly, we just need more "Good Guys with Guns" everywhere checking to make sure there are enough "Good Guys with Guns" in the area to protect the innocent!
There is nothing wrong with having good guys with guns anywhere. They're good guys so they're not a threat and it makes no difference if they're armed or what they're carrying. Why would anyone be afraid of good people?
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/06/16 01:00:53
Subject: 9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Dreadwinter wrote: My side? When did I say "ban black rifles" or anything of the sort?
How did you forget that time you got elected King of the Liberals? You swore on a copy of the Communist Manifesto that you would defend every belief held by any member of the left, foreign or domestic, or may you be cursed to forever more drink only non-fair-trade coffee, forevermore
Oh gak, I didn't know! Should I be more, uh, stately or something?
Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?
There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.
Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.
I thought crappy cops who are minutes away when seconds count, and who have no responsibility to respond to your emergency whatsoever, are the reason we need good guys with guns. Now they are the good guys with guns?
Well, we need "Good Guys with Guns" to help the "Good Guys with Guns." Clearly, we just need more "Good Guys with Guns" everywhere checking to make sure there are enough "Good Guys with Guns" in the area to protect the innocent!
There is nothing wrong with having good guys with guns anywhere. They're good guys so they're not a threat and it makes no difference if they're armed or what they're carrying. Why would anyone be afraid of good people?
