Author Topic: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"  (Read 24680 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jd29

  • Posts: 108
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #50 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 01:26:40 »
From Federalist 46:

"a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. "

Apparently there were 3.6 million people in the states in 1788, so a seventh of the population. Today one in three own a gun. A trained and organized seventh is surely far more dangerous to the federal government than a haphazard third, so the people are currently at a ginormous disadvantage vs the feds compared to the system outlined by Madison here. Food for thought. I don't care to research any more this late in the night. Maybe tomorrow. Also, maybe tomorrow I'll realize none of what I've written here makes any sense.

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #51 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 01:48:02 »
I think the core problem is that what makes sense in the middle of nowhere in rural Wyoming or whatever doesn’t make any sense in the middle of Washington, D.C. or another big city with a gang violence problem, and vice versa, but people are too caught up in their own experience to consider what the different set of problems is.

I have no problem with some dude on a ranch somewhere 50 miles from anyone shooting whatever he wants to on his own property (though for the sake of his children I hope it’s locked up most of the time), as long as his gun stays there, and doesn’t get waved around in public places.

In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?
« Last Edit: Wed, 06 January 2016, 01:51:57 by jacobolus »

Offline sth

  • 2 girls 1 cuprubber
  • Posts: 3438
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #52 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 01:50:11 »
Plz demik explain how I'm the only stupid one here lmao

Plz demik explain how I'm the only stupid one here lmao

Plz demik explain how I'm the only stupid one here lmao
11:48 -!- SmallFry [~SmallFry@unaffiliated/smallfry] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] ... rest in peace

Offline Melvang

  • Exquisite Lord of Bumfluff
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4398
  • Location: Waterloo, IA
  • Melvang's Desktop Customs
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #53 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 01:59:27 »

In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?

Good, have you noticed how many of the mass murders that have taken place occurred in "Gun Free Zones".  All of them.

123028-0
OG Kishsaver, Razer Orbweaver clears and reds with blue LEDs, and Razer Naga Epic.   "Great minds crawl in the same sewer"  Uncle Rich

Offline baldgye

  • Will Smith Disciple
  • Posts: 4780
  • Location: UK
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #54 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 02:11:56 »

In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?

Good, have you noticed how many of the mass murders that have taken place occurred in "Gun Free Zones".  All of them.

(Attachment Link)

#1 greatest argument ever

Offline fanpeople

  • Posts: 970
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #55 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 02:51:59 »

In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?

Good, have you noticed how many of the mass murders that have taken place occurred in "Gun Free Zones".  All of them.

Except the 2011 Tucson shooting, didn't that occur in a non gun free zone? But I think this is the exception and all the rest did occur in gun free zones.


Offline Connly33

  • Posts: 221
  • Location: Medford OR, US
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #56 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 03:00:18 »

In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?

Good, have you noticed how many of the mass murders that have taken place occurred in "Gun Free Zones".  All of them.

Except the 2011 Tucson shooting, didn't that occur in a non gun free zone? But I think this is the exception and all the rest did occur in gun free zones.

I think the acctual number is something like 92% of all mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones.

Custom 60% with Cherry MX Clear

Offline fanpeople

  • Posts: 970
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #57 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 03:08:54 »

In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?

Good, have you noticed how many of the mass murders that have taken place occurred in "Gun Free Zones".  All of them.

Except the 2011 Tucson shooting, didn't that occur in a non gun free zone? But I think this is the exception and all the rest did occur in gun free zones.

I think the acctual number is something like 92% of all mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones.

Would that be between 2009 and 2014?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/11/report-92-percent-of-mass-shootings-since-2009-occured-in-gun-free-zones/

Offline FreeCopy

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 667
  • Location: AZ, US
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #58 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 04:17:07 »

In Texas they allow concealed carry of guns in the middle of urban university campuses and inside the state capitol building. WTF?

Good, have you noticed how many of the mass murders that have taken place occurred in "Gun Free Zones".  All of them.

Except the 2011 Tucson shooting, didn't that occur in a non gun free zone? But I think this is the exception and all the rest did occur in gun free zones.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

This happened in front of a grocery store up the street from my old place. That whole thing was so damn annoying and that date is coming up again which is already annoying the hell out of me.

I've been exposed to guns in both positive and very negative ways and I still feel no need to support any new laws restricting, regulating, or banning.
Keyboards
More
Poker II | Leopold fc500r | Bolt Modded M 1391401 x2 08NOV90 - 19NOV90 | FK-2001 White Alps Clones | Filco MJ2 104Bolt Modded SSK 1391472 27JUL87 | Winkeyless B.87 TKL | MiniVan GateReds 62g

Offline madhias

  • Posts: 1192
  • Location: Wien, Austria
  • BS TORPE
    • Madhias' Flickr
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #59 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 05:22:12 »
I remember being in the US some years ago, and I wanted to buy some camping equipment in a shop. Behind the desk there were big weapons on the wall, and I had to wait because a guy in front of me wanted to buy an assault rifle. It took quite a while, but it was funny to watch. For an European an interesting experience!
... ...

Offline Photekq

  • wheat flour zone
  • Posts: 4794
  • Location: North Wales, UK
  • sorry if i was ever an ******* to you
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #60 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 05:59:52 »
#1 greatest argument ever
It is actually a very valid argument.

Also, please don't just start insulting people when you run out of things to say this time. For your own sake.
https://kbdarchive.org/
github
discord: hi mum#5710

Offline baldgye

  • Will Smith Disciple
  • Posts: 4780
  • Location: UK
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #61 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 06:10:38 »
#1 greatest argument ever
It is actually a very valid argument.

Also, please don't just start insulting people when you run out of things to say this time. For your own sake.

How is it a valid argument? (I guess to expand on that, how many murders or gun related deaths occur in non gun free zones? And if these mass shootings only or mostly occur in Gun Free Zones, doesn't that mean that you have a totally ineffectual police service to enforce the laws of a Gun Free Zone? Rather than the concept being unworkable?)

And fine I wont insult people, long as they don't suggest asylum seekers go to Saudi Arabia lmao
« Last Edit: Wed, 06 January 2016, 06:14:50 by baldgye »

Offline Melvang

  • Exquisite Lord of Bumfluff
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4398
  • Location: Waterloo, IA
  • Melvang's Desktop Customs
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #62 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 09:20:59 »
#1 greatest argument ever
It is actually a very valid argument.

Also, please don't just start insulting people when you run out of things to say this time. For your own sake.

How is it a valid argument? (I guess to expand on that, how many murders or gun related deaths occur in non gun free zones? And if these mass shootings only or mostly occur in Gun Free Zones, doesn't that mean that you have a totally ineffectual police service to enforce the laws of a Gun Free Zone? Rather than the concept being unworkable?)

And fine I wont insult people, long as they don't suggest asylum seekers go to Saudi Arabia lmao

It is a valid argument because it shows the difference between an idealistic and a realistic point of view.  Realistically, one could pass as many gun control measures as felt necessary, but that will not stop gun violence.  The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is either, their own stupidity, or a good guy with a gun.

Also, the fact that mass murders happen in GFZs means nothing about the quality of our peace officers, all it means is that mass murders don't give one **** about GFZs or gun laws.
OG Kishsaver, Razer Orbweaver clears and reds with blue LEDs, and Razer Naga Epic.   "Great minds crawl in the same sewer"  Uncle Rich

Offline sth

  • 2 girls 1 cuprubber
  • Posts: 3438
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #63 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 09:34:41 »
#1 greatest argument ever
It is actually a very valid argument.

Also, please don't just start insulting people when you run out of things to say this time. For your own sake.

How is it a valid argument? (I guess to expand on that, how many murders or gun related deaths occur in non gun free zones? And if these mass shootings only or mostly occur in Gun Free Zones, doesn't that mean that you have a totally ineffectual police service to enforce the laws of a Gun Free Zone? Rather than the concept being unworkable?)

And fine I wont insult people, long as they don't suggest asylum seekers go to Saudi Arabia lmao
  The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is either, their own stupidity, or a good guy with a gun.


what about a net?
11:48 -!- SmallFry [~SmallFry@unaffiliated/smallfry] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] ... rest in peace

Offline jdcarpe

  • * Curator
  • Posts: 8852
  • Location: Odessa, TX
  • Live long, and prosper.
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #64 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 09:42:58 »
KMAC :: LZ-GH :: WASD CODE :: WASD v2 :: GH60 :: Alps64 :: JD45 :: IBM Model M :: IBM 4704 "Pingmaster"

http://jd40.info :: http://jd45.info


in memoriam

"When I was a kid, I used to take things apart and never put them back together."

Offline fohat.digs

  • * Elevated Elder
  • Posts: 6473
  • Location: 35°55'N, 83°53'W
  • weird funny old guy
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #65 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 09:48:25 »
Partitioning off areas is pretty silly.

Rules rarely work unless they are consistent and unequivocal. That is why we are at loggerheads here, like so many other areas in our society: there are people who advocate "carry everywhere" (like here in Georgia) and people who want no guns in public, period, concealed or otherwise.

Personally, I primarily object to the complete ignoring of the "well regulated militia" portion of the principle, as it had been consistently interpreted until about the Reagan era.
Citizens United violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president.
So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over.”
- Jimmy Carter 2015

Offline baldgye

  • Will Smith Disciple
  • Posts: 4780
  • Location: UK
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #66 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 10:01:44 »
#1 greatest argument ever
It is actually a very valid argument.

Also, please don't just start insulting people when you run out of things to say this time. For your own sake.

How is it a valid argument? (I guess to expand on that, how many murders or gun related deaths occur in non gun free zones? And if these mass shootings only or mostly occur in Gun Free Zones, doesn't that mean that you have a totally ineffectual police service to enforce the laws of a Gun Free Zone? Rather than the concept being unworkable?)

And fine I wont insult people, long as they don't suggest asylum seekers go to Saudi Arabia lmao

It is a valid argument because it shows the difference between an idealistic and a realistic point of view.  Realistically, one could pass as many gun control measures as felt necessary, but that will not stop gun violence.  The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is either, their own stupidity, or a good guy with a gun.

Also, the fact that mass murders happen in GFZs means nothing about the quality of our peace officers, all it means is that mass murders don't give one **** about GFZs or gun laws.

Don't you stop gun violence, by having no guns?
What statistics prove that America is safer than any European country that has strict gun control? From an outsiders POV simply increasing the places allowing guns (like schools/churches/cinemas) on the basis of required protection only makes a seemingly paranoid society, more paranoid and how can that be healthy?
By seemingly wanting to make guns required for personal safety, what do holiday makers do? Are they not allowed to defend themselves, or are they allowed knifes?

Offline jdcarpe

  • * Curator
  • Posts: 8852
  • Location: Odessa, TX
  • Live long, and prosper.
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #67 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 10:05:19 »
Personally, I primarily object to the complete ignoring of the "well regulated militia" portion of the principle, as it had been consistently interpreted until about the Reagan era.

This article explains it pretty well, in regard to the Framers' original intent of the Amendment: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
KMAC :: LZ-GH :: WASD CODE :: WASD v2 :: GH60 :: Alps64 :: JD45 :: IBM Model M :: IBM 4704 "Pingmaster"

http://jd40.info :: http://jd45.info


in memoriam

"When I was a kid, I used to take things apart and never put them back together."

Offline jbondeson

  • Posts: 470
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #68 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 10:15:44 »
Don't you stop gun violence, by having no guns?

This goes into my hate for the Second Amendment. It's starts the debate at "everyone should be allowed access to a gun." Which leads to the positive feedback cycle of "bad guy has gun, so I need a gun," which increases the demand, which decreases the cost, which (you guessed it) makes them more accessible.

It's good 'ole gambler's logic: "I'll just keep doubling down until I win my way out of debt."

Offline jdcarpe

  • * Curator
  • Posts: 8852
  • Location: Odessa, TX
  • Live long, and prosper.
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #69 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 10:29:15 »
Don't you stop gun violence, by having no guns?

This goes into my hate for the Second Amendment. It's starts the debate at "everyone should be allowed access to a gun." Which leads to the positive feedback cycle of "bad guy has gun, so I need a gun," which increases the demand, which decreases the cost, which (you guessed it) makes them more accessible.

It's good 'ole gambler's logic: "I'll just keep doubling down until I win my way out of debt."

I don't understand two things that you've said recently. Maybe you can help me out.

1. Why does it make you afraid to have armed citizens in your midst? Are you afraid you will get shot? Most of them only want to protect themselves from violence, if that scenario should arise, and incidentally protect others around them. Which would mean you. If you live in a jurisdiction where concealed carry is permitted, you probably have armed license holders in your midst all the time, and don't even know it. Presumably, they have been trained, and have taken a short course in the laws regarding use of lethal force, and background checks have been accomplished.

2. How can a person hate an Amendment to the Constitution? Especially one from the first ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights. That would be like me saying I hate the Sixth Amendment, for some reason. You love the First Amendment but hate the Second? They are all important, to me.

KMAC :: LZ-GH :: WASD CODE :: WASD v2 :: GH60 :: Alps64 :: JD45 :: IBM Model M :: IBM 4704 "Pingmaster"

http://jd40.info :: http://jd45.info


in memoriam

"When I was a kid, I used to take things apart and never put them back together."

Offline Blackehart

  • Posts: 316
  • Location: Southern California, USA
  • Booty Aficionado Extraordinaire
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #70 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 10:50:34 »
Lives in California.
Owns guns.
Doesn't see what the big commotion is.

*cackles maniacally*

Offline Melvang

  • Exquisite Lord of Bumfluff
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4398
  • Location: Waterloo, IA
  • Melvang's Desktop Customs
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #71 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 10:52:34 »
#1 greatest argument ever
It is actually a very valid argument.

Also, please don't just start insulting people when you run out of things to say this time. For your own sake.

How is it a valid argument? (I guess to expand on that, how many murders or gun related deaths occur in non gun free zones? And if these mass shootings only or mostly occur in Gun Free Zones, doesn't that mean that you have a totally ineffectual police service to enforce the laws of a Gun Free Zone? Rather than the concept being unworkable?)

And fine I wont insult people, long as they don't suggest asylum seekers go to Saudi Arabia lmao

It is a valid argument because it shows the difference between an idealistic and a realistic point of view.  Realistically, one could pass as many gun control measures as felt necessary, but that will not stop gun violence.  The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is either, their own stupidity, or a good guy with a gun.

Also, the fact that mass murders happen in GFZs means nothing about the quality of our peace officers, all it means is that mass murders don't give one **** about GFZs or gun laws.

Don't you stop gun violence, by having no guns?
What statistics prove that America is safer than any European country that has strict gun control? From an outsiders POV simply increasing the places allowing guns (like schools/churches/cinemas) on the basis of required protection only makes a seemingly paranoid society, more paranoid and how can that be healthy?
By seemingly wanting to make guns required for personal safety, what do holiday makers do? Are they not allowed to defend themselves, or are they allowed knifes?

What other countries do or have done for gun control is irrelevant because we are a completely different population and mindset. 

On the stastics, I don't have the bandwidth right now, but I will say this.  Hondorus has some of the strictest gun control in the world and has the highest per capita murder rate.  By contrast Switzerland essentially requires every household to own a gun.  They have the lowest per capita murder rate.
OG Kishsaver, Razer Orbweaver clears and reds with blue LEDs, and Razer Naga Epic.   "Great minds crawl in the same sewer"  Uncle Rich

Offline jbondeson

  • Posts: 470
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #72 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 10:55:38 »
I don't understand two things that you've said recently. Maybe you can help me out.

1. Why does it make you afraid to have armed citizens in your midst? Are you afraid you will get shot? Most of them only want to protect themselves from violence, if that scenario should arise, and incidentally protect others around them. Which would mean you. If you live in a jurisdiction where concealed carry is permitted, you probably have armed license holders in your midst all the time, and don't even know it. Presumably, they have been trained, and have taken a short course in the laws regarding use of lethal force, and background checks have been accomplished.

I'm not "afraid" in the sense of physically being worried on a daily basis, I'm much more worried about, say, drunk drivers than I am about people with guns. My argument is actually pretty simple, and that is that the "training" that people are required to take in nearly all states is wholly insufficient. Utah has one of the more accepted programs for concealed carry that is recognized in many states, they require: $50, background check, 10-card + photo, and a "Weapon Familiarity Certification." Somehow that means that they're "trained" to carry a concealed weapon in public.

All I have to do is look at police officers and how wrong they get the use of lethal force (and they get quite a bit more training) to prove to me that Joe Six-Pack with a hero complex and a 9mm strapped to his side isn't really making me safer.

2. How can a person hate an Amendment to the Constitution? Especially one from the first ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights. That would be like me saying I hate the Sixth Amendment, for some reason. You love the First Amendment but hate the Second? They are all important, to me.

I don't view the Constitution as an all or nothing thing. It's a document that was written hundreds of years ago by people with much different lives than we have now. These people owned slaves and thought that was a totally swell arrangement! To think that they had some kind of unerring insight into the future seems pretty crazy to me.

There are certainly some swell ideas in the Constitution and its Amendments, but lest we all forget about the whole 18th and 21st Amendment, things can and do change...
« Last Edit: Wed, 06 January 2016, 10:57:29 by jbondeson »

Offline baldgye

  • Will Smith Disciple
  • Posts: 4780
  • Location: UK
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #73 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 11:01:32 »
#1 greatest argument ever
It is actually a very valid argument.

Also, please don't just start insulting people when you run out of things to say this time. For your own sake.

How is it a valid argument? (I guess to expand on that, how many murders or gun related deaths occur in non gun free zones? And if these mass shootings only or mostly occur in Gun Free Zones, doesn't that mean that you have a totally ineffectual police service to enforce the laws of a Gun Free Zone? Rather than the concept being unworkable?)

And fine I wont insult people, long as they don't suggest asylum seekers go to Saudi Arabia lmao

It is a valid argument because it shows the difference between an idealistic and a realistic point of view.  Realistically, one could pass as many gun control measures as felt necessary, but that will not stop gun violence.  The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is either, their own stupidity, or a good guy with a gun.

Also, the fact that mass murders happen in GFZs means nothing about the quality of our peace officers, all it means is that mass murders don't give one **** about GFZs or gun laws.

Don't you stop gun violence, by having no guns?
What statistics prove that America is safer than any European country that has strict gun control? From an outsiders POV simply increasing the places allowing guns (like schools/churches/cinemas) on the basis of required protection only makes a seemingly paranoid society, more paranoid and how can that be healthy?
By seemingly wanting to make guns required for personal safety, what do holiday makers do? Are they not allowed to defend themselves, or are they allowed knifes?

What other countries do or have done for gun control is irrelevant because we are a completely different population and mindset. 

On the stastics, I don't have the bandwidth right now, but I will say this.  Hondorus has some of the strictest gun control in the world and has the highest per capita murder rate.  By contrast Switzerland essentially requires every household to own a gun.  They have the lowest per capita murder rate.

Well according to your first sentence your second paragraph is meaningless, but neither the less....

Quote from: wikipedia
In 2005 over 10% of households contained handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that contained handguns. In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the US.

And Honduras is in Central/South America... and they don't have particularly strict gun laws by the looks of things...

Offline jdcarpe

  • * Curator
  • Posts: 8852
  • Location: Odessa, TX
  • Live long, and prosper.
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #74 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 11:13:25 »
I don't understand two things that you've said recently. Maybe you can help me out.

1. Why does it make you afraid to have armed citizens in your midst? Are you afraid you will get shot? Most of them only want to protect themselves from violence, if that scenario should arise, and incidentally protect others around them. Which would mean you. If you live in a jurisdiction where concealed carry is permitted, you probably have armed license holders in your midst all the time, and don't even know it. Presumably, they have been trained, and have taken a short course in the laws regarding use of lethal force, and background checks have been accomplished.

I'm not "afraid" in the sense of physically being worried on a daily basis, I'm much more worried about, say, drunk drivers than I am about people with guns. My argument is actually pretty simple, and that is that the "training" that people are required to take in nearly all states is wholly insufficient. Utah has one of the more accepted programs for concealed carry that is recognized in many states, they require: $50, background check, 10-card + photo, and a "Weapon Familiarity Certification." Somehow that means that they're "trained" to carry a concealed weapon in public.

All I have to do is look at police officers and how wrong they get the use of lethal force (and they get quite a bit more training) to prove to me that Joe Six-Pack with a hero complex and a 9mm strapped to his side isn't really making me safer.

2. How can a person hate an Amendment to the Constitution? Especially one from the first ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights. That would be like me saying I hate the Sixth Amendment, for some reason. You love the First Amendment but hate the Second? They are all important, to me.

I don't view the Constitution as an all or nothing thing. It's a document that was written hundreds of years ago by people with much different lives than we have now. These people owned slaves and thought that was a totally swell arrangement! To think that they had some kind of unerring insight into the future seems pretty crazy to me.

There are certainly some swell ideas in the Constitution and its Amendments, but lest we all forget about the whole 18th and 21st Amendment, things can and do change...

Thanks for your explanation!
KMAC :: LZ-GH :: WASD CODE :: WASD v2 :: GH60 :: Alps64 :: JD45 :: IBM Model M :: IBM 4704 "Pingmaster"

http://jd40.info :: http://jd45.info


in memoriam

"When I was a kid, I used to take things apart and never put them back together."

Offline Waateva

  • * Esteemed Elder
  • Posts: 1782
  • Location: Michigan, USA
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #75 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 11:51:36 »
The thought of a random person carrying a gun in a hostile situation scares the **** out of me.  Why?  Because very, very few people who carry have been trained to deal with situations like that appropriately.  With the exception of military and police members, who have the appropriate training drilled into them over and over to the point that their reactions are almost involuntary, the majority of civilians would not react properly in a situation with a shooter and IMO would probably cause more harm than good. 

The chance of additional harm increases in the event of multiple people having firearms in a shooter situation, because they most likely have very limited knowledge of what is going on and could very possibly engage and take down another civilian who might be trying to stop the shooter(s) themselves.  I know a lot of gun owners like to think that they would be able to handle the situation properly and I applaud their tenacity in that regard, but I doubt the vast majority of those people have been in a high adrenaline situation before so I am much more skeptical of their abilities.

I do want to point out that I personally have no problems with guns or people owning guns, as I was raised around them and own one myself.  My issue is that a lot of gun owners seem to think that because they go to the range a couple times a year, shoot skeet with their buddies, and go hunting during deer season that they now are able to take down a shooter in a hostile and/or hostage situation, which is incorrect.
Duck Blackbird - Gaterstotles /// O'Mira - V Blacks /// LZ GH v2 - V Clears /// Leopold FC980C /// TGR Jane CE v2 (unbuilt) /// Lin Dolphin 2021 (unbuilt)

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #76 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 14:15:32 »
1. Why does it make you afraid to have armed citizens in your midst? Are you afraid you will get shot?
Yes. I am afraid of people with easy means to kill, either accidentally or on a whim.

People’s mental stability hangs on a thread, and even apparently well adjusted people can go off the deep end in a flash. I saw a woman try to tackle a guy in a grocery store who was helping her child who had fallen down and scraped a knee. I’ve heard plenty of men screaming at each-other in the street and being held back from brawling by their buddies. I saw a drunk guy get sucker punched by another drunk guy he was walking next to for no apparent reason... turned out they had been insulting each-other’s mothers and the first guy thought it went too far.  I once dated a girl for a few weeks who seemed completely normal most of the time, but when she started feeling anxious would turn completely nuts in a flash. She would make threats, swing punches, start throwing things, ... needless to say I didn’t stick around for more.

I have absolutely no faith in people’s ability to restrain their emotions just because they happen to be carrying a reliable instant murder machine.

Look at the case of the kid with the toy gun shot dead by a Cleveland cop a year ago November. If supposedly highly trained cops will make this kind of tragic mistake, why do you think barely-trained citizens would be able to “protect” us all.

http://youtu.be/MCI4bUk4vuM

« Last Edit: Wed, 06 January 2016, 14:18:59 by jacobolus »

Offline jdcarpe

  • * Curator
  • Posts: 8852
  • Location: Odessa, TX
  • Live long, and prosper.
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #77 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 14:29:37 »
1. Why does it make you afraid to have armed citizens in your midst? Are you afraid you will get shot?
Yes. I am afraid of people with easy means to kill, either accidentally or on a whim.

I have absolutely no faith in people’s ability to restrain their emotions just because they happen to be carrying a reliable instant murder machine.

I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
KMAC :: LZ-GH :: WASD CODE :: WASD v2 :: GH60 :: Alps64 :: JD45 :: IBM Model M :: IBM 4704 "Pingmaster"

http://jd40.info :: http://jd45.info


in memoriam

"When I was a kid, I used to take things apart and never put them back together."

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #78 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 14:48:29 »
Hondorus has some of the strictest gun control in the world and has the highest per capita murder rate.
Honduras is in the middle of a huge drug traffic route, was basically a slave society of indigenous peasants ruled by a small minority of Spaniards starting in ~1500, and then by American banana companies in the 20th century, was governed by various military juntas and fought in bloody wars with its neighbors (wars supported by the US) as well as in various guerrilla civil wars up through the early 1980s, during which time American arms companies flooded the place with handguns, is on its 12th constitution dating from 1982 which was amended a further 26 times in the 25 years after that, and most recently was taken over again by a military coup. The country was completely wrecked by a hurricane in 1998 and then again by massive flooding in 2008, and has a basically broken economy. Something like half the population is below the poverty line, and the unemployment rate is 30%.

As for gun control, according to Wikipedia, “Until June 2007, openly carrying a firearm in public as well carrying a concealed weapon was permitted but increased attention to deaths by firearm in the country led to further restrictions on the possession of firearms. Current law still makes the purchase, ownership, and possession of firearms legal and it describes the type of firearms permitted for civilian ownership.”

I’m really not sure why you think this is at all relevant to a conversation about the US, unless you’re trying to argue about how terrible US foreign policy toward Latin America was for the past 200 years, especially during the 1950s–1980s.

Quote
By contrast Switzerland essentially requires every household to own a gun.  They have the lowest per capita murder rate.
By contrast, if you exclude little city-states, Switzerland is the third richest country by per capita income in the world, after Norway and UAE, which are both oil states, and the wealthiest in per capita assets. The unemployment rate and poverty rate are both extremely low. It has been basically independent and politically stable and relatively untouched by violence in the post-Napoleonic era.

It hands out guns to people during its compulsory military service, which includes something like a half year of strict training. Members of the military keep their guns at home, but don’t keep ammunition there. Acquiring ammunition in Switzerland requires ID, current gun license, address, and criminal history, and ammunition purchases are registered with the government. Swiss are only allowed to carry weapons in public if they have a permit, which generally requires working in a security-related job. Transporting a gun from place to place without such a permit requires that it be unloaded and carried without ammunition, and requires a valid purpose.

Again, nothing at all like the US. Overall, I’d feel much more comfortable if we had something similar to Swiss gun culture in the US. It seems dramatically saner.

If anyone tried to convert the US to Swiss gun laws, the NRA would throw a fit.
« Last Edit: Wed, 06 January 2016, 15:27:27 by jacobolus »

Offline Fire Brand

  • Keeper of Rainbows
  • * Esteemed Elder
  • Posts: 2439
  • Location: West Yorkshire, United Kingdom
  • BISCUITS!
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #79 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 15:18:10 »
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.
My Youtube Channel ~
More
Keyboards owned
More
Poker II - MX Black, Poker II ISO - MX Blue :c QFR ISO - MX Black, HHKB Pro 2 Black, VA68M - Gat Blacks w/68g Gold springs
My classified thread :3
More

Offline smknjoe

  • Posts: 862
  • Location: Tejas
  • I like tactile, clicky, switches.
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #80 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 15:20:13 »
Oh...the old "Gun Violence" argument again...as long as it's not done with a gun it doesn't count as violence...

There is no such thing as "gun violence"; just violence. That's the real problem that no one wants to address because it's an extremely complex and difficult to deal with. And since politicians like to be "perceived" as effectual rather than actually being effectual they like to pass laws. It's much easier than dealing with reality.
SSKs for everyone!

Offline jdcarpe

  • * Curator
  • Posts: 8852
  • Location: Odessa, TX
  • Live long, and prosper.
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #81 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 15:29:57 »
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.

I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)

Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.
KMAC :: LZ-GH :: WASD CODE :: WASD v2 :: GH60 :: Alps64 :: JD45 :: IBM Model M :: IBM 4704 "Pingmaster"

http://jd40.info :: http://jd45.info


in memoriam

"When I was a kid, I used to take things apart and never put them back together."

Offline baldgye

  • Will Smith Disciple
  • Posts: 4780
  • Location: UK
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #82 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 15:31:51 »
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.

I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)

Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.

Srs if the only way to protect yourself from harsh language is a gun, then you got srs ****ing problems... holy ****

Offline jdcarpe

  • * Curator
  • Posts: 8852
  • Location: Odessa, TX
  • Live long, and prosper.
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #83 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 15:33:50 »
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.

I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)

Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.

Srs if the only way to protect yourself from harsh language is a gun, then you got srs ****ing problems... holy ****

Do you even read?
KMAC :: LZ-GH :: WASD CODE :: WASD v2 :: GH60 :: Alps64 :: JD45 :: IBM Model M :: IBM 4704 "Pingmaster"

http://jd40.info :: http://jd45.info


in memoriam

"When I was a kid, I used to take things apart and never put them back together."

Offline smknjoe

  • Posts: 862
  • Location: Tejas
  • I like tactile, clicky, switches.
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #84 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 15:36:39 »
Also, as a TX CHL holder, you go through an extensive FBI and State background check, you have to know the law regarding CHL, and you are told that you can only use your weapon if you fear for your life (or someone else's.) If it's clear that you were not in mortal danger you will be prosecuted just as any other murder suspect.

It's not easy to get a gun in TX unless you are a law abiding citizen. They still do an FBI and State background check on all guns sold by stores...including gun shows. The only way a person can buy a gun in the US without going through a background check is if they buy from an individual.
SSKs for everyone!

Offline whmeltonjr

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 1119
  • Location: TX
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #85 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 15:38:08 »
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.

I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)

Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.

Srs if the only way to protect yourself from harsh language is a gun, then you got srs ****ing problems... holy ****

Do you even read?

Clearly not. I've been in situations where I was glad I was carrying, despite never drawing my weapon, and I totally understand where you're coming from.

Offline baldgye

  • Will Smith Disciple
  • Posts: 4780
  • Location: UK
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #86 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 15:41:01 »
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.

I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)

Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.

Srs if the only way to protect yourself from harsh language is a gun, then you got srs ****ing problems... holy ****

Do you even read?

Yeah I read it and it was terrifying lmao

Clearly not. I've been in situations where I was glad I was carrying, despite never drawing my weapon, and I totally understand where you're coming from.

ohh I see, disagree = not reading

:D

Offline jdcarpe

  • * Curator
  • Posts: 8852
  • Location: Odessa, TX
  • Live long, and prosper.
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #87 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 15:46:27 »
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.

I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)

Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.

Srs if the only way to protect yourself from harsh language is a gun, then you got srs ****ing problems... holy ****

Do you even read?

Yeah I read it and it was terrifying lmao

KMAC :: LZ-GH :: WASD CODE :: WASD v2 :: GH60 :: Alps64 :: JD45 :: IBM Model M :: IBM 4704 "Pingmaster"

http://jd40.info :: http://jd45.info


in memoriam

"When I was a kid, I used to take things apart and never put them back together."

Offline whmeltonjr

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 1119
  • Location: TX
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #88 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 15:47:00 »
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.

I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)

Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.

Srs if the only way to protect yourself from harsh language is a gun, then you got srs ****ing problems... holy ****

Do you even read?

Yeah I read it and it was terrifying lmao

Clearly not. I've been in situations where I was glad I was carrying, despite never drawing my weapon, and I totally understand where you're coming from.

ohh I see, disagree = not reading

:D

I think you're entitled to disagree, but you took what he said out of context, which is where the not reading comment came from. This entire debate is silly, just like pro choice/pro life, etc. Nobody is going to change their mind.

Offline Waateva

  • * Esteemed Elder
  • Posts: 1782
  • Location: Michigan, USA
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #89 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 16:02:22 »
I personally find it has the opposite effect. When I am carrying, I tend to be in a more relaxed mood, and don't get angered easily. Knowing you have that power within easy reach, but not wanting to resort to using it, is quite comforting.
JD I say this in utmost seriousness, right now I feel you need to get a rain check because you sound like a ****ing nut, being pleased and relaxed you have the ability to end someone's life as you put it, is not something that should relax any person trained or otherwise all I'm saying is I want you to think about what you just said as you come off to someone who does not know you personally as a crazy.

I'm not crazy. My mom had me tested. ;)

Think about it, though. If you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person, do you really feel threatened by inflammatory language, etc.? You're walking down the street and accidentally bump into someone. They turn and yell, "Hey you stupid mother****er, your mother sucks donkey cock." Do you engage them, or smile and walk away, secure in the knowledge that the other person won't be able harm you? For me, I would choose the latter, knowing that if I were to engage this person, it could lead to violence. In Texas, we have the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat. There is also a continuum for application of force against a threat, in which you can legally defend yourself using only the amount of force required to stop the threat. You cannot respond to a mere verbal threat with immediate use of deadly force. So, if words escalate to physical application of force, there might be a chance that the other person could gain the advantage and overpower me. If they were to do this, they might gain control of my weapon, and use it against me. That is the last thing I would want to happen, so I would avoid the confrontation from the beginning. See? Calm.

The problem with this is that while a lot of level-headed people are going to feel that way, not everyone would.  I have hung out with my (redneck) family on a couple occasions where the booze is flowing, someone starts an argument, and the argument escalates to the point of people pulling handguns out to "prove" how right their argument is.  No shots were ever fired which is great, but that doesn't mean its not going to happen, and with people carrying anywhere they want (including bars) the chances of people getting hot-headed and resorting to their firearm to win the argument increases exponentially.
Duck Blackbird - Gaterstotles /// O'Mira - V Blacks /// LZ GH v2 - V Clears /// Leopold FC980C /// TGR Jane CE v2 (unbuilt) /// Lin Dolphin 2021 (unbuilt)

Offline FreeCopy

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 667
  • Location: AZ, US
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #90 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 16:04:01 »
This is a serious question and I'm genuinely curious but why do some of you commenting from outside of the US give even half a **** about our laws on guns?
Keyboards
More
Poker II | Leopold fc500r | Bolt Modded M 1391401 x2 08NOV90 - 19NOV90 | FK-2001 White Alps Clones | Filco MJ2 104Bolt Modded SSK 1391472 27JUL87 | Winkeyless B.87 TKL | MiniVan GateReds 62g

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #91 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 16:04:17 »
I think you're entitled to disagree, but you took what he said out of context, which is where the not reading comment came from. This entire debate is silly, just like pro choice/pro life, etc. Nobody is going to change their mind.
Oh don’t worry, they’ll change their mind once they see what kind of heat I’m packing. When there’s a gun pointed at your face, the other guy is always right.

Offline jdcarpe

  • * Curator
  • Posts: 8852
  • Location: Odessa, TX
  • Live long, and prosper.
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #92 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 16:04:54 »
The problem with this is that while a lot of level-headed people are going to feel that way, not everyone would.  I have hung out with my (redneck) family on a couple occasions where the booze is flowing, someone starts an argument, and the argument escalates to the point of people pulling handguns out to "prove" how right their argument is.  No shots were ever fired which is great, but that doesn't mean its not going to happen, and with people carrying anywhere they want (including bars) the chances of people getting hot-headed and resorting to their firearm to win the argument increases exponentially.

In Texas at least, being intoxicated while carrying a firearm is against the law. As is carrying a firearm into a bar (defined as any establishment which gets 51% or more of its business from alcohol sales).
KMAC :: LZ-GH :: WASD CODE :: WASD v2 :: GH60 :: Alps64 :: JD45 :: IBM Model M :: IBM 4704 "Pingmaster"

http://jd40.info :: http://jd45.info


in memoriam

"When I was a kid, I used to take things apart and never put them back together."

Offline jdcarpe

  • * Curator
  • Posts: 8852
  • Location: Odessa, TX
  • Live long, and prosper.
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #93 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 16:08:32 »
I think you're entitled to disagree, but you took what he said out of context, which is where the not reading comment came from. This entire debate is silly, just like pro choice/pro life, etc. Nobody is going to change their mind.
Oh don’t worry, they’ll change their mind once they see what kind of heat I’m packing. When there’s a gun pointed at your face, the other guy is always right.

You just stated the argument FOR having an armed populace. Tyrants always disarm the populace first.
KMAC :: LZ-GH :: WASD CODE :: WASD v2 :: GH60 :: Alps64 :: JD45 :: IBM Model M :: IBM 4704 "Pingmaster"

http://jd40.info :: http://jd45.info


in memoriam

"When I was a kid, I used to take things apart and never put them back together."

Offline whmeltonjr

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 1119
  • Location: TX
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #94 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 16:09:47 »
I think you're entitled to disagree, but you took what he said out of context, which is where the not reading comment came from. This entire debate is silly, just like pro choice/pro life, etc. Nobody is going to change their mind.
Oh don’t worry, they’ll change their mind once they see what kind of heat I’m packing. When there’s a gun pointed at your face, the other guy is always right.

You just stated the argument FOR having an armed populace. Tyrants always disarm the populace first.

Was just about to say this.

Offline Melvang

  • Exquisite Lord of Bumfluff
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4398
  • Location: Waterloo, IA
  • Melvang's Desktop Customs
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #95 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 16:15:25 »
The problem with this is that while a lot of level-headed people are going to feel that way, not everyone would.  I have hung out with my (redneck) family on a couple occasions where the booze is flowing, someone starts an argument, and the argument escalates to the point of people pulling handguns out to "prove" how right their argument is.  No shots were ever fired which is great, but that doesn't mean its not going to happen, and with people carrying anywhere they want (including bars) the chances of people getting hot-headed and resorting to their firearm to win the argument increases exponentially.

In Texas at least, being intoxicated while carrying a firearm is against the law. As is carrying a firearm into a bar (defined as any establishment which gets 51% or more of its business from alcohol sales).

That isn't a gun problem, that is an attitude and anger problem.
OG Kishsaver, Razer Orbweaver clears and reds with blue LEDs, and Razer Naga Epic.   "Great minds crawl in the same sewer"  Uncle Rich

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3661
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #96 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 16:18:12 »
So Melvang: any response to the Honduras/Switzerland thing? Or are you going to concede that I completely destroyed your argument and made you look silly?

Offline Fire Brand

  • Keeper of Rainbows
  • * Esteemed Elder
  • Posts: 2439
  • Location: West Yorkshire, United Kingdom
  • BISCUITS!
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #97 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 16:22:32 »
This is a serious question and I'm genuinely curious but why do some of you commenting from outside of the US give even half a **** about our laws on guns?
Because I feel the need to stop you from hurting your selves, but serious time also then why will you not just change the Amendment its been done before what makes your right to bare arms so meaningful, in all honesty if what it was originally intended to do happened in this day and age you wouldn't stand a chance against taking out the government it just seems silly to everyone outside.

@JD
Firstly I want to see the Doctors note.

Secondly why could you not just walk away without having the gun on you at all, if I read correctly it implies the gun pacify your anger as you know you could kill someone with it, surely a sane person could just smile nod and walk away from something such as what you described.

Secondly your Texan "Law"? confuses me why would your governing body want people, civilians, becoming vigilantes when faced with a threat to their own person rather than letting people trained and paid to do so, I understand the part you need to be armed because they are also armed, but that whole part goes away if nether party is armed at worth you have a nut with a knife or a punchout, again I'm basing this on a heated exchange in the street not a home invasion but it seems very backwards to me, which neatly brings me to my final point what happens when a armed person enters your home with a loaded weapon, do you dash to get your own firearm? which is locked safely away in storage as should be or do you carry that around the home too? because lets face it if someone brakes into your home you are not going for the gun before getting shot first.

My Youtube Channel ~
More
Keyboards owned
More
Poker II - MX Black, Poker II ISO - MX Blue :c QFR ISO - MX Black, HHKB Pro 2 Black, VA68M - Gat Blacks w/68g Gold springs
My classified thread :3
More

Offline smknjoe

  • Posts: 862
  • Location: Tejas
  • I like tactile, clicky, switches.
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #98 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 16:23:43 »

The problem with this is that while a lot of level-headed people are going to feel that way, not everyone would.  I have hung out with my (redneck) family on a couple occasions where the booze is flowing, someone starts an argument, and the argument escalates to the point of people pulling handguns out to "prove" how right their argument is.  No shots were ever fired which is great, but that doesn't mean its not going to happen, and with people carrying anywhere they want (including bars) the chances of people getting hot-headed and resorting to their firearm to win the argument increases exponentially.

I'm calling BS on that story. People don't routinely pull guns on each other to "symbolically" prove a point. That sounds like some bad anti-gun propaganda.
SSKs for everyone!

Offline jdcarpe

  • * Curator
  • Posts: 8852
  • Location: Odessa, TX
  • Live long, and prosper.
Re: Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"
« Reply #99 on: Wed, 06 January 2016, 16:31:29 »
Secondly why could you not just walk away without having the gun on you at all, if I read correctly it implies the gun pacify your anger as you know you could kill someone with it, surely a sane person could just smile nod and walk away from something such as what you described.

This is basically me 90% of the time, since I can't carry in my job. But I do get angry at people and their stupidity at times. I just find I get angry less often when armed.


Secondly your Texan "Law"? confuses me why would your governing body want people, civilians, becoming vigilantes when faced with a threat to their own person rather than letting people trained and paid to do so, I understand the part you need to be armed because they are also armed, but that whole part goes away if nether party is armed at worth you have a nut with a knife or a punchout, again I'm basing this on a heated exchange in the street not a home invasion but it seems very backwards to me, which neatly brings me to my final point what happens when a armed person enters your home with a loaded weapon, do you dash to get your own firearm? which is locked safely away in storage as should be or do you carry that around the home too? because lets face it if someone brakes into your home you are not going for the gun before getting shot first.

Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

For home defense, I have a loaded shotgun in the closet (out of reach of my kid). The sound of a 12-gauge pump action being racked is usually enough to give any bad guy second thoughts about his life choices.
KMAC :: LZ-GH :: WASD CODE :: WASD v2 :: GH60 :: Alps64 :: JD45 :: IBM Model M :: IBM 4704 "Pingmaster"

http://jd40.info :: http://jd45.info


in memoriam

"When I was a kid, I used to take things apart and never put them back together."