BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public

Subject: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 03:36 PM

Sometime last year, there was a demonstration outside an Arizona convention center where Barack Obama was speaking. The demonstrators, about a dozen people, were carrying guns. Since the guns were unloaded, the demonstration was legal - at least, it was legal in Arizona.

But the thought of it scared me to death, to think that such a display of deadly force was legal.

Yesterday, the California State Assembly passed a bill that would make such demonstrations illegal. It barely passed the Assembly, and there's doubt that it will pass the Senate. Governor Schwarzenegger hasn't taken a position on the bill, so there's no guarantee he'll sign it if the
Senate passes it.

The bill, AB 1934, makes "carrying an exposed handgun in a public place or on a public street in a city or in prohibited areas of unincorporated county territory a misdemeanor, punishable by a $1,000 fine and six months in jail. The bill contains exceptions, including display of a firearm by a peace officer, a firearms dealer, a target-shooter at a range, a gun-show participant, and by a licensed hunter while engaged in that sport." (Sacramento Bee, 2 June 2010).

Sam Paredes, director of the Gun Owners of California, says that the bill "urinates on the Second Amendment." It seems that the Supreme Court has made it clear that (at least for the time being), the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to bear arms, so let's not argue that point. Given the climate in the Supreme Court right now, I think that any legislation has to honor that right. But what of my rights as a citizen who's scared to death of guns? If I saw a dozen people carrying guns outside an arena, I'd be scared to go anywhere near that place. Doesn't their bearing of arms interfere with my right to enter a public place without fear? How can I be sure that those people don't have bullets in their guns?

What do you think of all this? How can the rights of gun owners be respected, without causing undue fear for the rest of us?

I've had a gun pointed at me only once in my life. I dealt with it, because it was my job to deal with it; but it was not a wonderful feeling.

-Joe-

---

Since this thread is likely to be controversial, no guest posts will be permitted.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 03:57 PM

But, can a concealed gun be carried? Far more dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 04:00 PM

Concealed weapons are a problem, gnu, but most states have fairly strict controls on concealed firearms - and the Supreme Court has upheld those controls.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 04:03 PM

It was a common occurrence when speakers from the NorthWest Coalition for Human rights or something or other, I can't remember the name, went to places like Montana to speak of human rights. And there was no guarantee they were not loaded, in fact the inference was the opposite. It was an intimidation tactic. That was in the mid to late 90s.

My concern would be those who want to carry openly will just get permits to carry concealed, or do so regardless. I don't know what the answer is, Joe, but I wouldn't be happy about it, either. Makes ya wonder just why they feel the need to have a gun with them. My dad taught us to never, ever point a gun or even take one out unless we meant to use it to kill or target practice. Of course, we weren't supposed to use it to kill except in self-defence or to put an animal down if hit by a car or something. I can tell you he would NOT approve of any yahoos taking them near the President.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 04:21 PM

Joe, as a gun owner and the possessor of a concealed carry permit, I can tell you that I would never carry a firearm openly except on a range (and then only between the firing line and the reload table or to put it away) or hunting, and that would be away from populated areas.

I don't understand the apparent need to show that I'm armed. For one thing, the police (at least here) would ask me all sorts of questions.

Robyn, I've been following that story and need to know more before I can comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: olddude
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 04:26 PM

Common Law across many states Joe ... here in NY state people who are licensed to carry a loaded concealed handgun like myself ... that gun better be concealed for the reasons you spoke about or you may lose your license... that is our law. In PA and other states no not the case ... it comes down to the rights and safety of others also ... It is exactly those types of people who get their "gun rights restricted or taken away" States like Wisconsin you cannot carry a concealed weapon as a citizen ... no license exists ... I suspect the 2nd will eventually be taken away my guess and if it does, it will be people like this that can blame themselves ...

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: John P
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 04:34 PM

Sometime in the last week, a guy in a Lowe's hardware store had a gun hidden in the waistband of his pants. It went off accidentally and removed his testicles. I'm somewhat ashamed to say I applauded, in a Darwin's Law sort of way.

I was also horrified to think that there may be armed people all around me when I'm shopping for nuts and bolts. I know it's legal, but I'm with Joe -- how can anyone assure me that a gun won't go off accidentally and remove MY testicles? And, given the irrational rage I often see acted out by people, how can I be assured that someone isn't going to lose their temper and start firing?

The 2nd Amendment says we can't take away our right to bear arms. I must have missed the part where it says we can't make any rules about it. And then there's that pesky well ordered militia phrase . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 04:40 PM

Well, it seems to me that if you blow your jewels off you're not a very well-ordered person, much less in the militia. I hope the man was arrested as well -- discharging a firearm in a populated area or reckless shooting or at the very least disturbing the peace. He obviously didn't know squat about how to carry safely.

I have to admit that seeing someone openly toting a gun in public bothers me -- I think that they must be inadequate in other ways and are compensating.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 04:49 PM

An automatic pistol (various Colt autos, Berettas, Walthers, Brownings, etc.) can be loaded in a matter of a couple of seconds. Stow the pistol in the holster (say, on the right side) unloaded, with a fully loaded magazine in a left-hand pocket. Draw the gun while removing the magazine from the pocket with the other hand. Slip the magazine into the grip and when it latches in place (less than a second), draw the slide back all the way, which automatically cocks the weapon, and release it. The mainspring snaps the slide forward again, stripping the top round off the magazine and sliding it into the chamber.

All of two seconds and she's ready to fire.

So—even if the gun is being packed unloaded, therefore legally, it's still a damned dangerous thing to allow.

The loosest possible interpretation of the Second Amendment, and an armed mob like that, whether carrying concealed or openly, with permits or not, hardly constitutes a "well-regulated militia."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 04:52 PM

NOt to mention assault with a lethal weapon and attempted suicide!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 04:54 PM

If someone is seen carring a gun in public I assume it's OK for a law officer to ask to prove that they have a permit to carry it. Or is that radical profiling?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 05:03 PM

My way of thinking is this... regulate the people reasonably and strictly and the guns won't be a problem. Now, of course there will be some people who slip through the cracks... crackpots. But that is another issue.

The US laws (some) seem looney tunes to me. You don't need a handgun at Walmart. Even though every time I go to any such shop there is someone who needs the whole fucking aisle for their cart and their fat ass and are in their own little world and don't give a shit about...

On the other hand, here, Canada, you cannot defend your home and family with a gun you legally own from people who break in with any sort of weapon including illegal guns, which is just at looney tunes, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 05:19 PM

"...It might be just the worst thing he could do
But he squeezes off a few
Then makes his call to town."

          --Stan Rogers, "Night Guard"

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 05:37 PM

Here in New Mexico, concealed carry is strictly regulated, requiring a background check, a license and both safety and "how to shoot" training. On the other hand, UNconcealed carry is completely unregulated, except that stores, etc. can post the premises as "no guns allowed". That includes handguns in bars, by the way. It scares the crap out of me. People I know who carry, such as my brother, say that they are protecting me from such folks as convenience store robbers...personally, I'd rather take a chance with the bandit than get in the middle of a crossfire of a couple of would-be Wyatt Earps. It isn't likely to change, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 05:45 PM

Handguns in bars.... you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 05:49 PM

Well, they told me not to mix alcohol and gunpowder, ever. Put the guns away, unloaded and safe, after hunting or target shooting and THEN AND ONLY THEN have an alcoholic drink. It was guns and alcohol that fueled most of the Old West shooting sprees, from the shootout by Fly's Photographic Shop to the waddy raising hell by shooting out the streetlights.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 05:50 PM

By the way, almost all the towns in The Olde Weste prohibited the carrying of firearms in town, openly or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 06:38 PM

Rapaire makes sense, and I'd not worry much if he and those like him were the only ones with weapons.......unfortunately, those states which have a more 'relaxed' idea about the freedom to own & carry & conceal do not seem to have any regulations about 'making sense' when they issue a permit.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 06:51 PM

Exactly Bill... even for machine pistols! What sense is possible with that at all?

A three day waiting period doesn't matter a tad to a "gangstah".

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 07:24 PM

I think the extremists make it very difficult for the pro-gun lobby, because it seems they scare everyone into supporting the extremist position. I think the same thing has happened in both political parties, but especially the Republicans. The extremists have beaten the reasonable people into corners. It's hard for moderates to get hold of things because they see both sides of the issue and seek balance. Explaining a reasonable balance can rarely be done in a sound bite, so the sloganeers on the extremes win out.

Can't say I've ever heard of de-testiclification that John P describes above, but it sounds possible. I used to investigate applicants for the Border Patrol, and I had two applicants who had trouble sitting for a good, long time. They stowed a pistol in their belt, the gun discharged, and they lost a cheek. I wonder if they were hired...

It seems clear to me that armed demonstrators intend to intimidate. There oughta be a law against that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 07:27 PM

Were it up to me, and of course it isn't, the public (bless their unwashed little faces) would be able to purchase only single action, gate-load, handguns (such as this). You could load only one shell at a time, to a maximum of six (five if you're smart), and would have to recock the hammer after each shot. That was good enough for folks like Bill Hickox and Bill Tilghman and it should be enough for anyone. No semi-automatic pistols, rifles or shotguns outside of the military and the cops. You should be a good enough shot that you don't need to do "spray & pray."

Others will disagree, and yes, I own some semi-auto handguns and a rifle. I've just reached the point where I think that the old maxim of "Speed's fine, but accuracy's final" be revised to "Speed's fine, and throwing lots of lead around is fine too, but accuracy is STILL final."

Better yet, try not to go where you might need a gun....

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Janie
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 07:32 PM

What Amos would say is "Who to?"




(Blimey, I blew that one.)

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: olddude
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 08:07 PM

Crap I been trained and trained others in about every friggin weapon on the planet .. and the nutballs that did what Joe said scare the crap outta me and I don't scare easy ... Heck if I could be assured none of them ever touch a weapon again I give up me 2nd adm right.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 08:47 PM

Well, I live in the gun-nut capital of the world: Virginia... This is where all the criminals come to get their heat and there's a reason fir it... Since tobacco use is down Virginia has become the gun supplier of every criminal and wacko out there and guess what??? Thay are so proud of it that they were the 1st state to pass laws were folks could strap on their heat and go wherever they wanted... Resturants, bars, movie theaters, boxing matches, soccer games, church... Yep, says right there in the Constitution that carryin' heat ain't 'sposed to be abridged...

(No, it doesn't, Boberdz...)

Okay, maybe it don't... Details... Says that we have a right to form a militia and that it has a right to pack heat... That is what it says...

(But that's not what the NRA says it says, Bobz...)

Screw the NRA... They are illiterate...

But seriously... Yeah, in Virginbia the owner of a resturant (or manager) has the right to go up to the 10 wimps who couldn't win a fist fight with their sisters who have just strode in John Wayne style with their holsters and pistols like the Long Branch Saloon and ask them to leave... Yeah, right??? Like that ain't gonna happen... So everyone in the rsturant has to sit there and listen to these wash-rag cowboys brag about just how tough they are...

They ain't tough... They are the kids we used to beat up in school... They are washrag wimps... But, hey, they pay their NRA dues on time...

Makes me sick...

And I ain't the only ones... I've seen people, especially young parents with their kids, just get up and leave...

I mean, what ever happened to just doing the honorable thing... You know, like stand on an overpass and expose themselves?? I mean, it the same kinda personality "disorder"...

Screw 'um... They are jerks...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 09:03 PM

Jerks with guns... sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 09:21 PM

Downright scarey, gn-zer...

I mean, I was a social worker for about 15 years and most of my clients were also known to the fine folks at the Department of Mental Health so I know a little about, ahhhhh, people with messed up thinkerators and...

...the kinda folks who have to strap on holsters to go out a friggin' family resturant are psychos... Yep, these are some mentally deranged people... I mean, they are nuts!!!

No wonder people leave when these borish assholes arrive...

Friggin' loonies... with guns???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Janie
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 09:27 PM

Oops. Ignore my post above. Wrong thread. (And I was certain it disappeared into cyberspace when it did not appear where I meant for it to. *blush*)

No comment otherwise. Just reading and pondering.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: ichMael
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 09:28 PM

Almost all mass shootings occur in "gun free" zones. The shooters know they won't receive return fire, so that's where they go to murder. Guns should be allowed virtually everywhere. If someone goes on a rampage around here, he'll have a clip emptied into him in no time. And if the first clip doesn't do the trick, someone else will empty another one into him. And I couldn't feel safer, knowing that.

First thing Schwarzenegger did as governor was ban .50 calibers (guns with the range to reach his sorry ass). He's a nazi, in favor of disarmed slaves, so if he's saying he might not sign the thing, it's just more of his bad acting.

http://www2.moment.net/~michael/ArmYourselves.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 09:31 PM

"Give a small boy a hammer, and everything he sees looks like a nail"

Give a loonie with an attitude and an ego a gun, and small arguments look like the OK corral.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 09:52 PM

"The extremists have beaten the reasonable people into corners."

               And that's the sad part. I find myself wanting to support the pro-gun folks, but going to a public place and having a lot of people walking around with guns would make me very nervous.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 09:59 PM

My exact sentiments, BillD...

And, for tyhe record, they ***are*** loonies... That ain't like Rap... They are sissies who think that gun makes them John Wayne... Very bad combination... I mean, how many friggin' people were gunned down at Dennys last year??? Well, I'll tell ya how many... None, that's how many...

But Mr. Bigshot Gunnut has to strap on his 9mm to go to Dennys to get breakfast... But, no, that ain't the end of the story... He ahs to cvall about a dozen of his sissie buddies to strap on their heat and make it a 9mm-in@Dennys...

Like I said... Screw these sissie cowards... They make me sick...

But the NRA loves 'um...

No wonder Charlton Heston lost his mind... I think I'd loose mine to if I had to come up with justification for these punk's right to turn Dennys into a friggin' armed camp!!!

Beam me up, Scottie...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Janie
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 10:16 PM

Rig, a quick skim didn't reveal to me who you were quoting, but it is an insightful comment. Reasonable consensus is not possible as long as the rhetoric is passionate - be it passionately "anti" or passionate "pro." Emotional thinking and talk of guns do not mix.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 10:47 PM

Gun laws in the United States-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)
Note- Not sure of accuracy of the table shown here.

States where I spent much time- just curious about their handgun laws.
New Mexico- a "shall issue" state for concealed carry, and permits the open carry of loaded firearms. Concealed permit age 21, training course, test every two years.
Texas- No permit required, no registration, no license required. Concealed carry permit required. Open carry prohibited except on one's own property. Open carry of a long gun not specifically prohibited.
Colorado- No permits etc. required, concealed carry permitted with permit, open carry legal except in Denver where signs are posted.
Montana- Open carry OK, concealed carry with permit OK but not permitted where liquor is served, in banks or government buildings.
Hawai'i- pretty restrictive. Concealed permits rarely issued.
Louisiana- Concealed carry with permit, proficiency test, etc. No open carry.
Washington- Open carry OK, concealed with permit, over age 21.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 12:05 AM

9mm. Shhheeeeeeeeet fire, Bobert. That puny little round ain't good for much more than squirrel shooting. IL State Police a while pack shot 28 out of 30 rounds of 9mm into a PCP-ed up biker and he kept comin'. Had to put him down the old fashioned way, with a 12 gauge. Even your +P+ rounds don't have the stopping power of a .357 magnum.

Of course, guns with REAL stopping power also have more recoil, so those that use them tend to be folks who really KNOW firearms.

However, in the long run and dealing with reasonably sane, undrugged, folks a .22 is as good as a 12 gauge: nobody in their right mind wants to the get shot. Besides, shooting someone can simply ruin your day.

Keep yer guns at home boy, don't bring yer guns ta town boy....

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 09:47 AM

The purpose of carrying weapons is to potentially use them. It is also a nazi-like bullying tactic to scare people who don't agree with them. The thugs who are carrying weapons to political rallies are not advancing any political aims by doing this but are turning off people who would have listened at least to what they had to say.

The right to bear arms publicly is not in the Constitution. It's a misreading of the Second Amendment and someone's going to get shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 10:13 AM

The entire idea of the population havingh unfettered access to guns is a misreading of the Constitution, Strings... I find it very interesting that the 2nd ammendment is one sentence but the NRA gun-nuts never mention that... They cherry pick the ammendment... I've never heard one make reference to right to maintain a "militia"...

Yeah, Rap... A .22 is just fine... I've got a little backpacker "Survival" .22/.410 with open sights and that little rifle will take out a deer at 100 yards with no problem...

Now if folks wanted to carry .22s around, hey, I could live with that... It's just these John Wayne want-a-bes we seem to grow alot of here in Virginia that make me sick...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 11:06 AM

Cops should ask questions of those who carry openly and even more of those who are discovered carrying concealed. Out here the cops periodically pick up folks for things like "felon in possession of a firearm" or "carrying concealed without a permit". These are felonies and the courts take a pretty dim view of them. So do the citizens, many of whom out here are gun owners.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Green Man
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 11:50 AM

I wish we could do this in England. It might deter the wassocks who get away with all kinds of mayhem.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 12:11 PM

I think it may have been Katlaughing who, early in this thread, wondered WHY these people even want to carry, concealed or unconcealed.

My take on it is that they get a romantic sort of rush out of it, as if they were proclaiming to the world, "Look at me! I'm manly, I'm virile, I'm DAINN-gerous!"

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: olddude
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 12:36 PM

You cannot own a handgun in NY State without a license to own and the gun being registered. Even with that you cannot open carry it, empty or otherwise to the best of my knowledge unless you have a conceal carry permit like me and then it has to be concealed so you don't scare people. To get that license is a very complex process of screening ... Sadly even with that it hasn't stopped Buffalo from being a gang war zone at time. Every night someone is killed it seems ... Until they start picking people up and locking them up for gun violations here, it won't get better.

If they can get all of them off the street, I will gladly give up the 2nd adm for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 01:23 PM

If we don't work at the root causes of violence, which includes gun violence, we will continue to have these things. Look at the recent incidents in China where at least twice men killed schoolchildren with an ax. Could we have too many people packed too closely together? What role does the media play? How can we stop glorifying violence as the means to an end? Or, looking back at history, is it so deeply part of the human psyche that we should find a way to redirect it (and I don't mean into sports like American football or rugby)?

Consider that the Olympic sports of javelin, shot put, discus, archery, old and new pentathlon, fencing, biathlon, all of the shooting events, riding, Marathon, boxing, judo, tae kwan do and Lord knows how many others their start in violence. Others, such as swimming, hurdles, pole vault, and jumping could go either way. If we add such other sports as tossing the camber and wrestling you can see how deeply related sports are to war and violence.

Perhaps it's the competition, the need to overcome another team, another village, another person that we should concentrate on. Or, as has been noted by scholars, this might be the thing that has allowed the human race to survive.

But I still don't like people openly carrying guns in the supermarket. Makes me nervous.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: kendall
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 01:25 PM

Maine has 1.3 million people. That includes children. There are 10,000 concealed permits here, yet it has one of the lowest crime rates in the country. It is legal to carry openly even in the towns and cities, yet it is no big problem because most people simply don't do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 03:37 PM

That's about the same for Idaho, Kendall.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 04:41 PM

The difference bewteen Maine and Virginia, Capt'n, is in the DNA... Ya'll got intellegent people and we got the rednecks...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 04:52 PM

Maine don't got no rednecks? Shurrrre. None up here in New Brunswick needer. Them there donut peel marks up one the 126 is just fellahs testin their tires on accounta they is safety concious.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 05:02 PM

Interesting that all the posts about what doesn't make sense are not supported by the facts. Like the man says, you are entitled to your opinion, but you ain't entitled to your own facts. I can see how armed people might make you all uncomfortable, but there is an inverse relationship in the rate of violent crime and the ability to carry a legally registered weapon. And it does not support all these reasons you quote.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 05:15 PM

Well, Mick, I look at it this way. If I pack heat in public, having it right out in the open, the bad guys aren't going to bother me. If I carry it concealed, they get a surprise. Since I do have a CCW permit, and folks around here know I do, the baddies can't figure out if I am or if I'm not. Same thing with other guys around here. Now, my preference is to surprise them -- makes them think twice about doing it again. I don't mind if folks go armed; I just feel a little uncomfortable seeing a gun right out in the open amidst the lima beans and lettuce. And I agree with you about the facts.

Of course, the baddies have the initiative anyway -- you can't draw down on 'em until they make the first move and if you're wearing a gun openly in front of God and everybody you know who's gonna get offed first.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 05:28 PM

Indeed, Rap... open carry simply does not make any sense.

Rather than any "carry", I prefer a better educational system, a better health care system, a better taxation and wealth distribution system, a better police system, a better political system... and so on, but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon, so crime will. As said above, until the roots of crime are addressed, people will carry, legally or not. So sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: kendall
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:36 PM

Bottom line is: No one else is responsible for my safety but me.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 08:16 PM

Well, I think it would be very interesting to have an independent organization do the research on whether or not guns make us safer... I mean, both sides seem to have their "white paper" ready to roll out... One side says that guns save lives... The other say they cost lives... Somewhere there is the truth...

Persoanlly??? I don't believe anything the NRA says... I was a member for years until they became an instgrument of the right wing and started sending me stuff supporting right winged issues... Took years for that stuff to quit ending up in my mail box...

But nevermind that... Time for a little sanity and less shoot-from-the-hip (pun intended) studies that prove absolutely nothing excdept that someone has a dog in the race...

Personally, Part2??? As I have stated, or maybe I haven't, I don't wnat to go to a resturant, where there has never been a shooting, and have a half a dozen cowboy-wantabees come in with holsters and guns... Cops??? Yeah... Wimps and rednecks??? No, thanks... That seems an infringement on my right to have a peaceful meal in a public resturant...

BTW, there are alot of these guys her in Virginia who do this just because they can... It's about the same as the kids who have 10 million watt stereos in their cars that you can hear a mile away... One is sound pollution... Guns are sight pollution... Living and let living is just that... If I kndew that I was making someone uncomfortable I wouldn't do what ever it was I was doing... These creeps know they are making people uncomfortable and they eat it up... F'n a-holes!!! Period... No one is safer... Just uncomfortable... Like I said, f'n a-holes... Borish, insensitive f'n a-holes...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 08:18 PM

Bobert!

"If I kndew that I was making someone uncomfortable I wouldn't do what ever it was I was doing... "


Are you sure you want to give me a straight line like this????

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 08:23 PM

"No one else is responsible for my safety but me."

??Really?? It's a nice sounding slogan, Kendall...but in this society, it just don't work like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 08:49 PM

It comes down to personal responsibility. Kendall, Big Mick, me, others, I consider responsible. Even Bobert is responsible; the P-Vine told me he was. None of us are about to take out a school or some jerk in a bar because we've been trained in the use of firearms. Hell, I'd rather walk away -- I've seen enough shootin' and fightin' in my life. But if it came down to my life or the lives of those entrusted to my care I will kill without compunction and without conscience, using any weapon I have, from my bare hands up. Druther talk my way out of it, though....

But as my very own brother once said, "If you need just one bullet you probably shouldn't be there in the first place."

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 09:33 PM

Well, I fully understand why Mick needs heat... Heck, anyone organizing unions is doing a dangerous job 'cause the the union-bustin goons ain't called goons fir nuthin'...

But, Rap, I don't understand yer circumstance... I mean, libraries ain't where people go to shoot up the joint... Might of fact, they are so far down the list that they ain't even on the list... But I'm sure there must be more to the story...

Yeah, people who do dangerous jobs, like cops and repo men and bail bondsmen and pawn shop owners and liquir store clerks, okay, yeah... Have a little heat but keep it under cover...

That ain't the issue... It's jerks who do it to terrorize people... Hey, it is terrorism... No two ways about it.... I was in a NoVa resturant a couple years back and saw a young couple with their baby ask for the check right after being served and not having time to eat after the Bozo Pistol Brigade swaggered it... They were terrorized... I mean, what's the difference betweeen these jerks and the Taliban??? Both want to intimidate other people... And both do...

And all that "open carry laws" do is encourage these kinds of misfits...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 10:02 PM

Since this thread started, I've been wondering about revolvers. Most people don't seem to object to somebody having a shotgun or a bolt action/lever action rifle. When it comes to handguns, would it make sense to draw some distiction between automatic/semi-automatic hand guns, and the less obtrusive possession of an old fashion revolver?
       The revolver would work just fine for folks who are worried about personal protection, but it wouldn't cross into the realm of a really high-powered, fast firing weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 10:08 PM

No, they wouldn't, Rigs... Hand guns are made for one purpose only: killimg people... I'd rather see .50 cal machine guns legal and handgun ownership for only the people who actually need them: cops, etc...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: pdq
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 10:28 PM

I may have posted this before, but here 'tis:


Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia

               --- Crime Rate Plummets

{Posted on 04/17/2007 12:29:03 PM PDT by doug from upland}

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 10:45 PM

This is what real scientists would say is a bogus study, pdq-ster...

Might of fact, the way it is written is dripping with dog-in-the race...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: robomatic
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 10:45 PM

We've already had some open carry in a national park fallout, where a backpacker shot down a bear in Denali National Park with a large revolver which they were carrying to protect them from, well, bears.

But what a lot of us are wondering is did the device provoke intent in any way?

The facts are not in and there will be an investigation. It is, however, the first time it's been recorded in the Park (bear shot by visitor).

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 11:43 PM

If carrying a gun makes you feel eight feet tall and covered with hair you shouldn't be carrying a gun.

I have a fishing license. When I go I'll probably be carrying a .22 pistol -- not because of bears and mountain lions, but because of rattlesnakes.

Now, I have a live-and-let-live attitude toward all critters. Last time I encountered one it was 20 feet away; it "tasted" me, decided I wasn't a threat (I'd stopped) and it went on its way. But I could tread on a rattler and be forced to Do Something. I wouldn't like it, but there it is. If I were to go hiking well up into the backcountry I might carry something with a bit more "oomph" (probably a rifle, not a pistol). But in any case it's a lot easier to let the critters know you're coming so they can clear out than to have to kill one, and even a .357 or a .44 mag could just annoy it.

I wonder if the hiker who shot the bear was forced to or did so because he had a gun that could do so...most bears will leave you alone if you leave them and their cubs alone.

As for the National Parks -- I'm waiting for day when the one camper says "Hey, asshole! That was MY campsite!" BANG! And so are the rangers around here....

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Howard Jones
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:11 AM

If I may be permitted to make an observation from across the pond:

What surprises me most about this discussion is how many good, ordinary, peaceable people seem to find it wholly unremarkable that they, and other similar people, should feel the need to carry a gun (concealed or not) for their own protection.

Of course, I can understand the feeling that if the bad guys all have guns then you might want to put yourself on an equal footing. However, here in the UK (where handgun ownership, even for legitimate sporting reasons, is completely banned, and other firearms are very strictly controlled) guns are mostly in the hands of criminals, yet ordinary people don't feel threatened. If my house were to be burgled, it would be very unusual for the burglar to be armed (it would hugely increase his jail sentence, for a start) and I would get into serious trouble for just threatening him with a weapon, let alone using it. Most gun crime here seems to be between criminals, usually drugs gangs.

Even if I were to be mugged by someone with a gun (itself very unlikely), I suspect the mugger would be far less likely to panic and use it since he could be confident that neither I nor a passer-by (even a passing policeman) is likely to haul out a piece and fire back.

An eighteenth century law authorising measures for civil defence may have been entirely appropriate at a time when the US was a young country and its future was still far from certain, and whose expansion relied on the offensive and defensive use of firearms. In a twenty-first century modern society it seems to be to be entirely inappropriate.

I don't know how you could now put the genie back in the bottle, but what really baffles me is that so many reasonable people apparently don't even want to try.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:17 AM

"What surprises me most about this discussion is how many good, ordinary, peaceable people seem to find it wholly unremarkable that they, and other similar people, should feel the need to carry a gun (concealed or not) for their own protection."


             There are still some MSNBC listeners out there, you don't want to be unarmed if you happen to stumble across one.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:40 AM

In the words of Barney Frank, Rigs: "What planet do you spend most of your time on???"

It ain't the MSNBCers... It's the Limbaugh/Beck/FOXers you need to be carefull around... They are the ones at the gun shows and shooting ranges... They're the ones sending in dough to the NRA... And they're the ones who are join their Bozo Buddies and storm resturants to terrorize people...

That reality... To deny it is redicukous...

B~ (MSNBCer)

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:54 AM

Mr. Jones, how do you explain that whacko who just shot down 13 people in the lake district?

Bowerbank Maine passed a law about 10 years ago that required all persons to own a gun. No one has been shot or raped since.

Florida was a war zone until they passed a right to carry law. Since then the crime rate has plummeted.

No amount of belief can create a fact. So, let's stick to the facts.

Bill, I understand your point, but tell me, if you hear a loud crash in the night, would you call the Police or grab a gun? If your Police are like most Police, they could be an hour too late to help you.

Reminds me of that old saying, "If you need a helping hand, check the end of your own arm."

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:54 AM

I've posted in other threads what I would do about the crash in the night, Kendall.

And I've experienced one when our front door was kicked in and my wife's purse taken. Being upstairs in bed I thought the living room ceiling light had fallen. I put on shoes and went downstairs to find the door kicked in and the perp long gone. No, we didn't feel "violated", we were pissed off. We called the cops, they arrived in minutes, and by midnight all of the credit cards had been canceled. We had the door boarded up until it could be fixed ($3,700 for a double round-top door with glass inserts; the insurance nearly choked). The next Saturday I came downstairs and found one of the panes in the kitchen door was broken -- no sweat, because THAT we had backed with 1/4 inch plexiglass when we moved in. Frustrated the baddy and he left; the cops were impressed with the idea.

Best to secure the perimeter, but if they come through the last wire I'll be ready for them -- and it won't be with tea and milk.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:08 AM

I do not recommend you use ANY weapon -- knife, sword, spear, bayonet, club, gun, ray gun, Claymore mine, Abrams tank, ANY weapon -- unless you are thoroughly trained in its strengths, weaknesses, use, care, and legal implications thereof.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Stu
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:11 AM

"Mr. Jones, how do you explain that whacko who just shot down 13 people in the lake district?"

Whacko or no, the idea that had everyone this man shot been carrying a gun he wouldn't have shot them is ridiculous. Did all those people carrying guns in the US stop Timiothy McVeigh in Oklahoma - no. It's a non-argument. Howard's expression of the dismay felt by us non-gun-centric societies here in Europe is totally correct, most gun crime is gan-related.

Two things worth considering here: The US is a nation born of violence and is a society which glorifies depersonalised violence unlike any other in the world; a written constitution can be an albatross around the neck of the societies that created them as times change. However, there is a remarkable (and to outsiders befuddling) consensus of opinion in the US that people should be allowed to carry guns - from farmers etc that might need them, to scared city types fearing some faceless foe and the compounds of heavily armed loonies holed up in mountain retreats waiting for armageddon.

"Bowerbank Maine passed a law about 10 years ago that required all persons to own a gun. No one has been shot or raped since."

This is meaningless - there are plenty of towns the world over in countries where there are strict gun laws and no-one has been shot or raped - fact. A law to make people carry guns? Unbelievable. i'd tell them to sod off and exercise my democratic right to be a civilised human being.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:23 AM

'In the words of Barney Frank, Rigs: "What planet do you spend most of your time on???"'


             Barney Frank formulates words?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:37 AM

"No one else is responsible for my safety but me."

So how would you go about telling the families of Bird's 13 victims that they should have taken more responsibility for their own safety?

My views on right to firearms are informed by one simple question.

Should the right to carry a firearm take precedence over the right of a person not to be murdered by someone carying a firearm? My personal answer is no.

I will reste one question I have asked before:

Why, in the UK where the population is about 25% of that of US the number of firearm deaths in UK are 1% of that of the US? - 200 as opposed to the expected level of 5,000?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:56 AM

Did all those people carrying guns in the US stop Timiothy McVeigh in Oklahoma - no.

Did the armed presence of the British Army stop IRA car bombs? The situations are similar.

There is no comparison possible between someone who sets a bomb and flees (or doesn't) and someone shooting out a car window. How do you know that the van or lorry by the side of the road isn't full of explosives -- unless the bomber is a fool, like the guy in Times Square recently.

I'm not defending or prosecuting here -- I'm pointing out that there is a difference between a car or truck bomb and a single person with a gun. You cannot EVER defend against the danger unless you know it IS a danger. And you CERTAINLY cannot live your life expecting every vehicle to explode or everyone around you to start shooting. This doesn't even happen in Mexico (which has strict guns laws and a terrific murder rate).

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Howard Jones
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:12 PM

The Lake District incident is of course appalling. The man had two legally-held weapons (whether he should have been allowed a licence is now being questioned). However such incidents are extremely rare - there was a school shooting in Dunblane in 1996, and similar incidents to this in Hungerford in 1987 and Monkseaton in 1989. Other than these, I cannot recall any similar occurrences. I was in the Lake District only a couple of weeks ago, and will no doubt return sometime over the next few months - I don't expect to feel threatened, and I certainly don't expect to feel the need to carry a weapon of any kind (even if such a thing were not strictly illegal).

Rather than picking on this isolated tragic incident, of more relevance is the point that in the UK even the majority of criminals don't feel it necessary to carry a gun.

My point is that it appears that a lot of normal, sensible, peaceable Americans, by no means "gun nuts", appear to find nothing surprising about living in a society when they routinely feel the need to arm themselves. Can you not see how weird this is?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:36 PM

No, that ain't weird!

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:37 PM

People openly carrying violate the rights of non-carriers in the restaurant to peaceably assemble.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:56 PM

No, they can peaceably assemble. They just need to keep their backs to the wall and be constantly aware of how many steps they are away from the door.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:02 PM

Terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: John P
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:17 PM

I'm a lot less worried about an armed home invasion than I am about a "normal" citizen losing his temper on the highway or in the grocery store. Last year at the Folklife Festival here in Seattle some schmuck got in an argument and pulled a gun. It "accidentally" went off and a couple of people were shot (not killed). If a bunch of the other folks in the excessively huge crowd been armed, there would have been a blood bath.

My parents were robbed at gunpoint on the street a couple of years ago. My dad said that if he had had a gun, the thief would just have had it along with his wallet, since they guy came up behind them and put the gun in his back.

When only criminals have guns it will be easier to tell who they are.

How about this? Make all handguns illegal. Anyone caught with a handgun gets executed, no appeals. Make the law so stringent that people would cross the street to avoid walking near a handgun laying on the sidewalk.

One of the things that bothers me the most is that I have never heard of a parent being charged with a crime when their children find the gun and shoot someone. What kind of idiot leaves a gun and ammo where there is any chance their children can get it? Why isn't it wildly illegal? Those parents should be in prison.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:55 PM

I quite agree. Anyone who leaves weapons where children or irresponsible adults can get to them should be guilty of, at the least, reckless endangerment. Some States, Florida and California that I know of off hand, have such a law on the books.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:59 PM

Riginslinger -

Gimmie three steps mister, gimmie three steps toward the door.
Gimmie three steps mister, gimmie three steps, you'll never see me no more.

Lynard Skynard.

Ditto for

... ain't good for nothin, but put a man in a hole. (38 Special)

As far as home defense, our gun laws in Canada more or less prohibit the use of guns. I diasagree with it. As far as kids... little old folks that don't have any kids should be allowed - as under English common law - to use guns against intruders to make it a fair fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:23 PM

When only criminals have guns it will be easier to tell who they are.

Excellent, excellent. I will remember this when I get that other line from the gunheads.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:53 PM

"...use guns against intruders to make it a fair fight..."


                Another good way to control illegal immigration

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:56 PM

Side comment. A friend of mine, who owned a few guns, moved to Canada for a few years. Since it was not a permanent move, he left his guns with a friend for safekeeping.

He mentioned, however, that at least as far as home invasion was concerned, he was not exactly helpless and unarmed. I asked him how come?

He said, "bullwhip."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:18 PM

Yeah... What we need is a national guns-for-bullwhips exchance program... Seriously... I think yer on to somethin' here, Don...

The problem we have here is that nothin', under our current system ot corrupt lobbiest run goevernment, really can be done... The NRA rakes in millions from gun manufacturers and gun shop owners and people who think that the government wants to take away their guns... No, that probabaly more like billions of dollars... So a bunch of folk singers can have all the proper arguments for some sane gun control and guess what??? It's just a discussion amoung a bunch of folk singers... Like really has the NRA shakin' in their cowboy boots...

But realistically speaking, the NRA should be on the forefront of gun safety but they oppose every little thing that folks think up to make guns safer... I'd be willing to bet that if Congress tried to pass a law making it a felony to have unlocked up gins in houses where children under 6 reside the NRA would oppose that, too...Heck, they would oppose a law that fobids people from putting loaded guns in their babbies crib... I mean, there is no compromise in the NRA... They want their guns and that's it... No discussion just shut the fuck up or we'll put a cap in yer ass...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:21 PM

In December of 1994, I was assigned to do a month's work on security clearances in Alaska, mostly for the National Park Service. One applicant was a historian who was going to be a law enforcement officer, so I had to interview a number of National Park Service historians who had worked with her. The head of the history department was a very petite woman with a PhD in History. She was very proud that she was certified as an expert marksman with the shotgun. All of the historians had to be shotgun-certified because they did a lot of field work and might encounter troubles with bears.
Sometimes, there are good reasons to carry firearms, even in national parks.
But the only weapon   I   ever carried in a national park was a black, government-issued ballpoint pen. Very effective weapon....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: artbrooks
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:32 PM

The most recent child firearms death in Albuquerque happened six weeks ago. A four-year-old got his father's loaded weapon from his nightstand and killed himself with it. The police said that "the family and the baby sitter did nothing wrong". There are no controls at all over weapons at home in this state.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:09 PM

"... tell me, if you hear a loud crash in the night, would you call the Police or grab a gun?"

Rapaire answered that much as I would. Most people, including many of those most likely to BE broken in on, are not trained, ready and trustworthy with weapons. And I would assume that whoever made the loud crash also had a weapon and was ready to use it.

I have read 5-10 stories about citizens & storekeepers injured or killed by intruders as they TRIED to resist for every story about some heroic old person getting the drop on a robber.

It really sounds nice to assert your "right to self-defense", but unless you want to spend your days expecting attacks and rehearsing, I'd think twice about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:47 PM

Thread drift addressed...

If thugs know elderly people or ANYBODY who follows our laws CANNOT legally defend themselves in their homes, the thugs have free access. Home invasions are increasing and it is tragic.

I knew one elderly man who had his head cut off and his wife was slashed to pieces... another eldery lad who had his head mashed with a maul until he was unreconizable. I really don't give two fucks from Sunday about the safety of children whose parents haven't any brains. If those parents are that stunned, the kids are in peril to start with. It's a piss poor arguement.

Now, here is one more point since we are on thread drift... if the politicians and their police cannot keep thugs from invading homes, how are they justified in making laws that literally punish someone from defending themselves IN THEIR HOME? Anyone who says people do not have the right to defend themselves by whatever means in their own home is a fool. Yes... a fool.

But that is not what this thread is about...... we (me) now return to regular programming.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:09 PM

My point is not that should not 'have the right to', but that most people should not try to use a gun to do so....unless they are trained & competent. Those who truly feel able...go ahead and make plans--carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:22 PM

Most folks would be better off using a can of wasp & hornet killer -- the kind you can spray up to 20 feet away. Aim for the face. That way there are no holes in the walls or furniture and if you're like me, you'd want to replace the carpet and perhaps even repaint where the blood splattered. WARNING: Do not test this on someone first -- it's a nasty, nasty thing to do, worse than Mace or pepper spray.

And that's my last word here.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,Kendall
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:31 PM

Bill D you are right and I agree 100%. Most people are not qualified to use such weapons and too often they end up being killed with their own gun because at the critical moment they hesitated.
My lifelong career was law enforcement. I graduated from the US Treasury Dept. school of law enforcement and criminal investigation. My score on the combat range was just under expert, so I believe I am qualified to own and use guns.
Sometime back I heard a loud crash in my kitchen. I grabbed my .45 and went to investigate. It turned out to be a Raccoon that pulled the window box off its supports and it landed on the metal bulkhead doors. It made an unearthly racket. Although I was fully prepared to shoot an intruder I was greatly relieved to see that it was just a hungry animal.
Carrying a gun is a heavy responsibility and its mis use can have tragic consequences. If you are not absolutely certain that you can handle both the gun and the responsibility then by all means don't use one.

When I said I am responsible for my own security I simply meant I am on the scene and the cops are miles away. Sure I'll call them unless I am in immediate danger; then, they can come and pick up the big pieces.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: John P
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 11:01 AM

I am opposed to the general public being allowed to own guns. That said, I have no problem with people like Rapaire or Kendall owning guns. The problem, for me, is the "general public" part. If I could be convinced that every gun owner knew how to use their guns, and, more importantly, WHEN to use them, I would be happy. Given the general stupidity and irrationality of the American public, however, I think our gun laws are an active detriment to public safety.

Unlimited gun ownership - even individual gun ownership - is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution, and anyone who says so is revealing their inability to read.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 12:19 PM

John P... "...and anyone who says so is revealing their inability to read."

December 15, 1791, Amendment II... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Are you inferring "the people" means "ONLY the people in the Militia"?

If you are, then the Amendment makes no sense at all as it's very writing would be rendered a useless exercise and a waste of time. Was it just a "government work project"?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 12:40 PM

Amos quoted this on the Thomas Jefferson thread...

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."

Thomas Jefferson

Again on my train of thought... I "read" that Amendment II ensures "the people" are not subjugated by the state and I "read" that each and every citizen shall have the rights stated within.

Ya wanna change it, change it. But ya can't interpret the existing clause in your way ONLY... that's against the law of common sense.

Ya wanna regulate, regulate.

But don't tell other people you are "right" and they are idiots when you can't prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: John P
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:08 PM

I am saying that "the people" refers to all of us as a group. We, as an aggregate, are guaranteed the right to form an armed militia.

Everywhere that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights discusses an individual, the individual is referred to as a "person". Everywhere that it discusses all of us as a group, we are referred to as "the people".

Examples:

Article 1, Section 2:
"the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of several States"

"No Person shall be a Representative . . ."

Article 1, Section 6:
"no person holding any Office under the United States . . ."

Article 1, Secion 7:
"But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill . . ."

Article I, Section 9:
"The Migration or Importation of Such Persons as any of the States now existing think proper to admit . . ."

"no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present . . ."

Article II, Section 1:
"No person except a natural born Citizen . . shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Article III, Section 3:
"No person shall be convicted of Treason . . ."

Article IV, Section 2:
"A Person charged in any State . . ."

Amendment I:
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

Amendment II:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people . . ."

Amendment IV:
"the right of the people to be secure in their persons . . ."

amendment V:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime"

"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy"

Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

In addition, the Militia is mentioned several times in the Constitution, and the context makes it clear that what is being referred to is what we now call the Army and the National Guard.

Finally, even if you don't buy the obvious difference between "a person" and "the people", what do YOU think the militia clause in the 2nd amendment means?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:21 PM

Just a historical sidelight, which may give a little wider meaning to that Constitutional provision:

The United States after the Revolution, either under the Articles of Confederation or under the new Constitution, neither had nor expected to have a standing army, or at least a standing army of any significant size at all. Just as with the old collection of 13 colonies/states, there was much too much rivalry and independence. The outlook of many was that the central government was to be more or less a weak coordinator to the thirteen colonies/states, rather than a central government to the entire country. It was to be to the United States more or less what the UN is to the world today--underfunded, nearly powerless, and ineffectual.

The Continentals had a lot of experience in colonial times with militias, and they had proved very helpful by themselves against the British, and then as sources of military manpower when the Congress formed an actual army. When a central army was raised, it was intended to be for temporary existence and for use only in a specific emergency which needed to be addressed.

So, given the experience of militias in then-living memory, although there were significant problems with that system, it was felt necessary to provide militias for the functions now served by the Army, the Army Reserve, and the National Guard. For that purpose it was necessary to form informal, local units which might provide cadres of at least partially trained soldiers against a time of sudden need.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:37 PM

John P... "I am saying that "the people" refers to all of us as a group. We, as an aggregate, are guaranteed the right to form an armed militia."

Huh? That is not what is wriiten.

Again, by your interpretation, Amendment II makes no sense. I maintain your arguement infers it has no basis for being written. Why was it written? For a militia that already existed? I believe your basic premise is based upon your interpretation and not on logical examination and consideration of the intent of the clause.

The people have the right to keep and bear arms. Simple to me. And I am sure it was simple to the people taht wrote and signed it. Again, if you want to change it, "clarify" it, regulate it, whatever... do so. If it's really a fuck up and really that obvious, why can't it be corrected?

Hitler got the gun control job done in jig time way back in the 30s. Why can't the good old USA? (Yes, I do have an answer for that... it's got to do with history repeating itself. Ask a war vet if he would give up his guns.)

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:57 PM

Dave... certainly a proper arguement. Thank you.

Moving forward in the thread drift and I am glad to see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:20 PM

The commas scattered at random in the 2nd Amendment basically make it meaningless - or at least almost impossible to parse. Was that intentional? We shall never know.

BTW, Hitler only changed the gun laws in Germany very slightly from those in effect during the Weimar Republic - he liberalized them. Also BTW - I am a war vet, own no guns, and have no interest in owning any.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:26 PM

Thank you Art. I must be incorrect when I thought there was a roundup of guns from the general population of Germany under their gun laws in the 30s.

My mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: John P
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:57 PM

Uh, Gnu, you didn't actually address the fact that the Constitution always refers all of us as a group as "the people" and always refers to individuals as "a person". It is, in fact, what's written. Go read the whole Constitution and pay attention to the use of "people" and "person". Are you saying that the 2nd Amendment is the only place in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights where that doesn't hold true?

Why are you assuming it refers to a militia that already existed, or rather that I think that?

You also didn't say what YOU think the militia clause means.

As to my interpretation not making sense, if you take "the people" to mean all of us as a group, it makes perfect sense:

"Since the existence of a militia (Army, National Guard, generalized fighting force, whatever you want to call it) is necessary to the security of the United States, the federal government shall not take away our right, as a group, to form and arm said militia."

This is the only reading I can think of that incorporates the militia clause and still makes sense. You will note that it also doesn't define a militia -- we get to define it however we want. I choose define it as the Army and the National Guard. Even if you wanted the militia to be more local, it could as easily mean that each town raises, trains, and arms a local militia. There is nothing that says all the weapons can't be stored in the local armory between training sessions or battles. It only says that we have the right to raise and arm a militia.

And even if we were to agree that it guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, it doesn't say that we don't get to make any rules about when, where, and what type of arms we can carry. "Infringed" clearly refers to the basic right, nothing more. Saying that it refers to anyone's right to go anywhere they want with any type of weapon they want is reading things into it that aren't there.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 03:18 PM

BANG - 100

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 03:57 PM

John P... "And even if we were to agree that it guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, it doesn't say that we don't get to make any rules about when, where, and what type of arms we can carry. "Infringed" clearly refers to the basic right, nothing more. Saying that it refers to anyone's right to go anywhere they want with any type of weapon they want is reading things into it that aren't there. "

Now yer catchin on. Except for that whole paragraph... I never said any of that. Quite the opposite.

Anyway, I hope understand why I took umbridge to your comment about not being able to read... if you didn't, no harm done. Until attitudes change on both sides, and the real issues of poverty and such are addressed, there will be violence within, by gun or knife or tooth... even under law and legislation... a battle which has not been fruitful to date.

If you wanna change it for the better, do it. Debating the text doesn't seem to be working.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 04:27 PM

Trigger Happy by Wierd Al.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: John P
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 05:27 PM

Well, debating the text is the only way to start changing the usual interpretation. I agree with you about the roots of violence. I'd still rather have someone coming after me with a knife than standing 100 feet away and shooting at me.

Isn't Weird Al great? Apparently endlessly witty.

I've been asking the any-gun-anywhere-anytime crowd for years what they make of the militia clause, and I still haven't heard an answer that means anything . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 05:34 PM

The "facts" on this issue are subject to interpretation. Gun violence is cited by the Center of Disease Control as one of the leading "diseases".

My complaint is that carrying guns to a political rally is bullying. It attempts to force
ideas down someone's throat. If not, then why carry?

The people that feel the need to carry suffer from paranoia. If they got into a gun battle with a professional criminal they would lose.

It doesn't deter professional criminals. That is just an opinion, not a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 07:34 PM

First of all, thank you John P fir your well documented usage of "the people" as found in the Constitution... I have read thru it several times over the years and never picked up on those nuances... But I see is plainly now that it has been explained...

As for the 2nd ammendment, there is no clear answer that will make everyone happy... The gun-control side wants everyone to view the intend in terms of "militia" and the gun side wants to limit the discussion to the last half of the ammendment...

The decider, unfortunately, is the NRA which is the most powerful lobby in the country, bar none... So rather than have intellegent discussions about the problems of an overly armed society we just, ahhhh, buy more guns... I have progressive friends who in recent years have become so scared of the radical right that they are buying guns...

It's a scarey cycle we are in with a very polorized and ever increasingly armed nation... But as long as the NRA has those big checks coming in everyday we will never have a long overdue discsssion until it comes down to near chaos and civil war... I mean, we are getting closer when a right winged nut can camp outside where the presdient is speaking with a serious tgun strppped to his leg and a sign that reads, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with blood of patriots and tyrants..."

I mean, come on folks... Where is the sanity here??? What??? Are we going to let the NRA who represent less than 10% of the people dictate to the other 90%??? Is that what Tom Jefferson had in mind in terms of democracy??? Minority rule???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,Kendall
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 09:24 AM

John P, I have been hammering gun nuts with the WELL REGULATED MILITIA for years and to no avail. Ok, it was settled a while back by the Supreme Court. We do have the right to keep and bear arms.
When that clause was written, the main defense of the colonists was their militia. They were ordinary citizens who were called "Minute Men"because they could be called to arms on a moments notice. Not like a standing army that was ready all the time.

When they tangled with the Redcoats they soon learned that they were no match and a standing army was the result.

In other words, the militia IS the people, so an unarmed people is a joke.

I have a problem with the fact that just anybody can buy a gun at a gun show or from unscrupulous gun dealers, but how do you separate the nuts from the "Normal" people?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 09:37 AM

Now the "Minute Men" are just another band of rednecks who hate Jews, Cathlics and Black folks... Used to be a big sign in Richmond on the road to Varina... In the middle were crosshairs of a rifle scope... Under that the words "Niggers, Jews and Communists Beware" and under that the words "Minute Men"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: olddude
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 10:59 AM

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

Where does it lead us, so the carry was not just for the well maintained militia but for personal reasons. Now does that prevent laws to determine a responsible citizen only ... no it does not ... If you read Jefferson you will see he does not mean criminals

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: olddude
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 11:48 AM

Now given the founding fathers view on absolute rights for every individual, and given they adapted as needed ... case in point .. immigration, first it was wide open, then there was concern for the large in flux of German settlers.

Would they allow weapons carry to be used to scare other Americans ...
do some research and see what you can determine, would restrictions take place? Or would it be wide open. A good question

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: 3refs
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 12:17 PM

All I read before posting this was the initial thread. I thought(feared) some other views may put a slant on how I put my reply!

I'm a legal firearms owner in Canada(bit of a cowboy though)!
All my firearms are registered(including long guns)! I own tools that are registered, so why not my firearms? I do have issues with the P.A.L., but that's another story!

I see no reason to carry a firearm "without purpose"!

Firearms, to their owners, are a lot like dogs to some people; You own one or more. You use it(them)properly. You maybe have a favourite. You treat them all with tender loving care and respect. You provide for their safety and security. You would only turn it loose on a person if you had no other choice.

But, you don't need to take them out for a walk!

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 01:17 PM

3refs, Why would anyone carry a gun without a purpose?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: John P
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 01:28 PM

It's interesting that "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" appear in the same convoluted sentence. That's part of why I think the Amendment indicates that "shall not be infringed" means that the basic right shouldn't go away, not that everyone can have any gun they want any time and take them anywhere they want to. None of that is "well regulated."

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 01:56 PM

For me it comes down to: "Do you trust all the yahoos out there? You know, the folks who AREN'T YOU!"

I think it's a fine line, but so far all I can say is if the yahoos can vote, they can own weapons.

On the other hand, is was no less a man than Kent Brockman who said "I've said it before and I'll say it again, 'Democracy just doesn't work!'"

As for me, I wasn't brought up around weapons, and small arms give me the heebie jeebies.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 02:20 PM

In Canuckistan, Possession Only License (can't purchase). Possession and Aquisition License may be for long guns only or for restriceted weapons also (pistols, automatics).

POLs and PALs may only be obtained by persons who over a certain age or by persons under that age who have successfully passed the Canada Firearms Safety Course.

Weapons must be registered... but this "changes" between Liberal and Conservative governments. Conservative governments "belay" the requirement.

No carry at all. You may transport a long gun to and from it's venue of use by the SHORTEST possible route and it must be HIDDEN (even if that is simply a bedsheet well tied). Restricted weapons must be transported in a locked manner.

All weapons in a residence must be locked and ammo must be in separate locked storage.

That is a snippet.

It does not stop the criminals. Especially in the case of home invasion, which has become far more frequent since the laws were put in place at a cost of some $1.6B... but, if it has saved lives and WILL CONTINUE to do so, I guess it's a good thing overall.

Having said all that, I have once again contributed to thread drift, but I guess it's a good thing overall.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,Kendall
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 03:21 PM

To expect a criminal to register his gun before he uses it on you, or to keep it locked and the bullets in another place is stupid.

Fear will always win out over reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: olddude
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 05:48 PM

I have to admit, my arsenal is getting quite depleted and I like it that way.. Sold a lot to registered owners who I trusted, gave rifles and shotguns away to people I trusted that hunted with their sons. Having a grand baby puts me back in the disassemble and lockup mode for everything. I find now that I am older, not having is a good option also ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 05:52 PM

I agree Kendall, for the most part. Like I said, home invasions rose dramatically here after the gun laws were enacted, mostly against the elderly. That is my only real problem with the gun laws here... they essentially legislate that you can't defend yourself in your own home.

The defense of the laws is twofold. Stop children from gaining access to weapons and thwart criminals from stealing legal guns. As for criminals stealing guns, the gun laws give criminals easier access. And, another problem I have is, if a criminal steals one of my guns after breaking into my house, I am possibly subject to a penalty of two years in prison or five years in prison if a crime is committed with my (stolen) gun. Fact is, I could be jailed by the very people I pay to keep the criminals OUT OF MY HOME!

I can sympathize with those who support the NRA based on such issues. I think they may see the "bad" sides of some gun laws and take the position of "give than an inch...". I understand that viewpoint in light of some of the inane crap that the gun laws in other jurisdictions such as Canada have caused. But that doesn't mean that progress cannot be made... it means both sides have to work out the problems in a logical and reasonable manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: 3refs
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 06:10 PM

Can't get a P.O.L. anymore. If you have one and it's about to expire, you'll have to get a P.A.L.(one of the things that pisses me off, as I mentioned earlier).

What purpose was served by those firearms owners, exercising their "Constitutional Right", showing up at a political rally with guns and no bullets? Other than the "just because we can factor", what use did they have for their firearms? Were they there to protect Obama? Had they been trained how to use them properly as a club?
I think I know why they did it, but it just pisses off the people who want all our guns taken away. We/they are giving our ammunition to the wrong people!

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 10:55 PM

The more nutcases pull stunts like open carrying to presidential speeches with signs calling for murder, open carry en masse into Denny's, and so on, the more "people who want all our guns taken away" there will be. Perhaps one day they will reach some kind of critical mass and form a lobby that has even more money than the NRA. The mouth-foaming gun nuts can't say they didn't deserve it. The ordinary Joe Hunter or Joe Collector will pay -- perhaps unfairly -- for association with the nuts.

An ex-friend on Facebook (my ex-friending him had nothing to do with this topic) was crying because he had purchased a bunch of guns and ammo after Obama was elected but before he took office, in the fear that he was going to take everybody's guns away. And now he's stuck with all these guns and all this ammo he doesn't want, and they're worth less than what he paid for them because the panic has subsided and even the lunkheads who do such things realize Obama's not about to create gun-confiscation roadblocks any time soon. It was hard not to laugh at his stupidity, and gullibility to believe all the Obama-haters said.

I lie. I did laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 11:09 PM

Thew problem with gun registration and criminals is one thing.... The reality is that most crimes committed with handguns are committed by folks who know the person they are shooting... This ain't like some robber who shoot a clerk in the Mini-Mart...

That's where some regulations and some gun safety course would come in handy before letting pissed off Bubba, who has just had an altercation with his neighbor over a barking dog, buy a Glock...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,Kendall
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 06:47 AM

"Lunkhead" now there's a word you don't hear every day!

The guy who bought all those guns in fear of Obama should study the foundations of our system of government. Obama is president, not GOD! The 2nd amendment to the constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms. That right was upheld by the Supreme Court and it can only be taken away by 2/3 majority vote of Congress. When was the last time congress agreed to that extent on anything? They know that the 2nd amendment and Social security are the third rail in politics. Touch them and die.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Stu
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 12:03 PM

"They know that the 2nd amendment and Social security are the third rail in politics. Touch them and die."

One of the most concise arguments ever against a written constitution ever posted on this site. In a true democracy, there are no third rails.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 12:32 PM

But there are figures of speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 12:34 PM

A true democracy existed in the City-State of Athens, Greece, about 2500 years ago.

It lasted about 100 years.

Our Constitution has lasted twice that long and it is still the most copied document of its type in the world.

People who don't like some parts of the Constitution can change them. It is not easy, but it shouldn't be.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 12:46 PM

The guy who bought all those guns in fear of Obama should study the foundations of our system of government.

No point in that- he's obviously a moron & wouldn't learn anything. And unfortunetely there's lots more like him.

The more nutcases pull stunts like open carrying to presidential speeches ... the more "people who want all our guns taken away" there will be.

Precisely. And the NRA-fueled gun nuts just don't get it. All most folks are asking for now is some rationality in the sale & possession of firearms. It will NOT always be so; the gun nuts are their own worst enemies.


GregF.- responsible gun owner & hunter.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,Pete
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 01:24 PM

God you Americans are scarey

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 01:43 PM

The "militia" is not a disorganized local bunch of gun nuts but is tied to the government.
It is an outdated idea since a small militia has no meaning even if there were foreign
invaders. The "militia" of the early 2nd Amendment in the Constitution didn't account for the use of hand grenades, bombs, AK47's, automatic weapons or machine guns.

In talking about any political system, they all break down somewhere. There is no pure democracy even in ancient Greece which had slavery.

The point is that there are parts of any political system that work well. There are democratic principles that can be applied to government, capitalist economic principles and socialist principles.

They all work not in a totality but parts and sections. The trend toward democracy is a good idea whereby the people have a voice in government. Some capitalism has to work if you don't want the government making your clothes. Some socialistic ideas worked very well under FDR. There never has been an absolute system of democracy, capitalism, socialism or any other. Absolutes in systems tend to lead to tyranny which then defeats the purpose of the "absolute".

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 01:57 PM

"The "militia" of the early 2nd Amendment in the Constitution didn't account for the use of hand grenades, bombs, AK47's, automatic weapons or machine guns.
"


NONE of which are allowed for private ownership ( without a government permit to allow for museums and police).

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 02:06 PM

Ahhhh... WTF Bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 02:13 PM

Gnu,


"The "militia" of the early 2nd Amendment in the Constitution didn't account for the use of hand grenades, bombs, AK47's, automatic weapons or machine guns."


The present laws controlling guns in the US ( 1933 and 1968, primarily) do not allow the items listed for private ownership except under special circumstances. Thus the 2nd amendment does NOT protect the ownership of those specific items, as determined by the US courts.

Therefore, Stringsinger cannot use them is talking about the 2nd amendment rights issue- unless he means to say that we SHOULD have ownership of them!

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 02:44 PM

"On May 8, 1792, Congress passed 'an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States' requiring:

'Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

{It is quite clear that individual US citizens were allowed, even expected, to own firearms and keep them secure in their private homes.}

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 02:57 PM

There is a slight problem with two commas, which appears in the "official" copy of the Bill of Rights, but was not there in the copied ratified by the States.

The official version passed by the Congress reads:

       "A well regulated Militia , being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed."
        
The version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, reads:
   
       "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 03:11 PM

Bruce... you can't buy an auto in the US "without a government permit to allow for museums and police"?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 03:22 PM

The possesion of a fully automatic weapon of any caliber is a felony without a Class III government permit. And it takes a real good reason ( museum, police department,) or extensive backgorund check, and large fee, with required controls on the weapon.

Efectively, private ownership of fully automatic weapons is prohibited.

Since 1933.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 03:45 PM

The National Firearms Act, aka NFA, was passed by Congress on 26 JUN 1934, not 1933.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 03:49 PM

I stand corrected. I don't keep a copy in my pocket.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:11 PM

So.... why are there so many machine pistols around? Or is that just what I see on the TV on shows like 60 Minutes or similar?

And what about the peeps I see on US TV that own AA guns and tanks? Is that all smoke and mirrors?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:12 PM

A string of comments was begun by Stringsinger:

"The "militia" of the early 2nd Amendment in the Constitution didn't account for the use of hand grenades, bombs, AK47's, automatic weapons or machine guns."

and was answered:

The present laws controlling guns in the US ( 1933 and 1968, primarily) do not allow the items listed for private ownership except under special circumstances. Thus the 2nd amendment does NOT protect the ownership of those specific items, as determined by the US courts.

Therefore, Stringsinger cannot use them is talking about the 2nd amendment rights issue- unless he means to say that we SHOULD have ownership of them!

I believe that Stringsinger's point was that the colonial style militia would be irrelevant in today's world, where an invader or externally supported revolutionary force surely would have hand grenades, bombs, AK47s, and machine guns--not to mention tanks and air support, at least in the case of invaders. The defense of the United States against those sorts of forces must be by the Army, National Guard, Air Force, and Navy, properly equipped and trained, rather than a local "scratch" volunteer organization like the militias referred to in the 2nd Amendment, who would just get slaughtered.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:17 PM

They either have permits, or are criminals. I know one person with tanks- he has permits, they are accounted for, and he runs a museum park- which he pays for, and is required to open to the public at times) to keep his park standing.

Large caliber ( not sure of lower limit, but 20MM is included) are restricted as destructive devices. There are a number of 3" guns at AL halls, but ALL have been de-militerized and made incapable of use ( weilded recievers, filled barrals, etc.

I can get a machine gun- de-militerized- that means it has been rended incapable of being meade operable.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:24 PM

Well, actually the militia could have had hand grenades, as they were in use in the 18th Century (that's what the "British Grenadiers" threw). They were unlike the "Mills Bomb" model or the stick grenade, being hollow iron balls filled with powder and a fuse which had to be lit by hand ("modern" grenades have automated that part).

Possessing them, however, is another story. It would be equivalent to possessing a pipe bomb and the BATF, the FBI, and other police agencies take a VERY dim view of unauthorized possession of explosives.

To possess an AK-47 is not against any Federal law UNLESS it includes the fully automatic capability. THEN you'd better have a Class III Federal license. This is true for ANY weapons with full auto capability: BARS, Tommy guns, P90s, HKs, AK-74s, M-14s, M-2s, M1919A6, Lewis guns, Maxim guns, MG42s, M-60s, etc.

Nor can you own a Stryker or Street Sweeper type of shotgun with a permit. Sawed-off shotguns and rifles with barrels under 18 inches long are also prohibited with said permit.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:26 PM

Gnu asked:

And what about the peeps I see on US TV that own AA guns and tanks? Is that all smoke and mirrors?

The AA guns and tanks require permits, and must be "neutered", so to speak. That is, the guns can't fire. Privately owned machine guns are possible too, but have to be essentially destroyed as an actual weapon, or at least for automatic fire.

That's the official position, anyway. However, there are a number of ways to disable the firing mechanism of a machine gun to make it legal. A "collector" may own more than one such "disabled" weapon, disabled in different ways, so that anyone competent can remove the defective/destroyed part(s) from one machine gun and replace it/them with good parts from another weapon which had been disabled in a different way. That change operation wouldn't take the competent gun mechanic more than two or three minutes to accomplish, at most.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:31 PM

Yes... just file the bent properly.

I have learned more in a few posts than I ever learned on the TV.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:32 PM

" That change operation wouldn't take the competent gun mechanic more than two or three minutes to accomplish, at most.

At which point it would be illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: olddude
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:44 PM

Won't give up me Glock 23 though, I can tack nails in a target with that one ...   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:56 PM

See how instructional the Mudcat Cafe can be?

Actually you CAN own a tank and people do, in both the US and the UK. You might even be able to leave the cannon serviceable (in the US). Possessing the ammunition, since it would include explosives, would be another story. The machine gun(s) would have to be rendered unusable, generally by welding the breech and/or plugging the barrel and welding it in place. Cannons on display, whether on tanks or otherwise, almost always have the breeches welded shut for liability reasons -- imagine the lawsuit is a child playing on a howitzer had the breech closed on their hand!

On the other hand, you CAN legally possess a cannon in the US and I know some (including my own brother) who do. These would be muzzle-loaders, such as might have been used in the US Civil War (or the British one, for that matter). There are regular cannon shooting competitions held by some of the Civil War groups, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 05:01 PM

Running around with cannons and tanks would definitely fall under "open carry". It's hard to conceal even a little cannon or tank.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: kendall
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 05:07 PM

Maybe it's my naturally suspicious nature but I'm wondering if some of these nuts who show up packing at a political rally might be gun haters? Shills? Hoping to stir up support for doing away with guns?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 05:27 PM

Okay, I understand the laws better now.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: olddude
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 06:41 PM

Captain makes a point I never considered ... well done

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 06:50 PM

"" That change operation wouldn't take the competent gun mechanic more than two or three minutes to accomplish, at most.

At which point it would be illegal.

Exactly my point. Terrorists, or sectarian militias, or revolutionaries--you name it--can do it if they want to badly enough.

And the old "colonial-style militias", with LEGAL guns and no real military training, would be in tough shape.

The Alcohol and Firearms Bureau (or whatever the right name is these days) has their work cut out for them.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: kendall
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 07:13 PM

I don't understand this near worship of noise.(The video)

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 07:51 PM

Considering the price of bullets (about USD 10.00 per round for .50 caliber machine gun) it has to be a rich man's thing. I'm not in that league, financially or otherwise.

And I agree with Kendall about the noise. Besides -- I've given up on spray & pray.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 08:16 PM

I'm wondering if some of these nuts who show up packing at a political rally might be gun haters? Shills? Hoping to stir up support for doing away with guns?

Possible, I suppose, but not likely- unless you're an NRA-fed conspiracy theorist.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: olddude
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 11:54 PM

Rap,
get rid of that old 6 shooter and get yerself a Glock 23 ... wooo is that easy to carry and accurate ...

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 11:56 PM

"Considering the price of bullets... it has to be a rich man's thing."

               It's amazing how much the price of ammunition has gone up since the 2008 election.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 05:59 AM

Rap... "Besides -- I've given up on spray & pray."

My old man used to say, "Fill the air fulla lead." when referring to cover fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Stu
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 06:36 AM

"Large caliber ( not sure of lower limit, but 20MM is included) are restricted as destructive devices."

LOL! Thank fuck for that. Everything under 20MM only blows people's faces off, guts out and arms and legs off. Jesus, who said the American's don't do irony?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 09:05 AM

t's amazing how much the price of ammunition has gone up since the 2008 election.

Its not surprising at all- ita basic economics. The supply has contracted since most manufacturing capacity has been directed to supplying the idiocy in Iraq & Afghanistan. Hence the price increase.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: kendall
Date: 08 Jun 10 - 09:49 AM

Fear is good for the arms industry.