Open Carry? yay or nay?

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby The Outsider » Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:11 pm

The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus by Al Franken


http://m.imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp

[Img]http://i.imgur.com/7f6hFvY.jpg[/img

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Nano » Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:33 pm

That went on waaay longer then it should have.
User avatar
Nano
 
Posts: 7181
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:30 pm
Location: Somewhere above Tampa
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 249 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:21 pm

I like to think of Jesus in a tuxedo t-shirt...
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Corsair » Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:48 pm

Dear eight pound, six ounce, newborn baby jesus...
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby The Outsider » Sat Jan 16, 2016 11:29 pm

I like to think of Jesus like with giant eagles wings, and singin' lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd with like an angel band and I'm in the front row and I'm hammered drunk!
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Go_Bucs! » Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:31 am

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/25/cr ... cants.html


Critics are blasting a Massachusetts city’s new law that they claim requires residents applying for a license to carry handguns to write “an essay” and pay upwards of $1,100 for training.
Go_Bucs!
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:24 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby acaton » Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:47 pm

Now we're talking, make it possible for the Gov to make some cash and develop a program where they can educate the poor regarding on how to write, or write for them as a benefit, the Progressives will scramble all over themselves to make sure everybody that wants a gun has a shot at getting one. Not actually getting one mind you just a chance to get one.
Image

Short, fat and slow often does the trick...45ACP
User avatar
acaton
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:11 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby RedLeader » Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:39 am

That cartoon is hilarious. Way to juxtapose the narrative to fit the agenda, eh?

I don't think anyone is against compassion and giving, but can you imagine Jesus just taking the fish from other fisherman after a long day on the water and simply redistributing it amongst the masses at the mount?

if you think about it, the government of God is minimal... Just, here are 10 commandments... It was man that later added the bureaucracy, the pageantry... That said, He sure as heck isn't in the business of FORCING anyone to be "giving". It's all free will, baby.

And that's the miss... That's the part the demmies and the like never seem to grasp.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:58 am

RedLeader wrote:That cartoon is hilarious. Way to juxtapose the narrative to fit the agenda, eh?

I don't think anyone is against compassion and giving, but can you imagine Jesus just taking the fish from other fisherman after a long day on the water and simply redistributing it amongst the masses at the mount?

if you think about it, the government of God is minimal... Just, here are 10 commandments... It was man that later added the bureaucracy, the pageantry... That said, He sure as heck isn't in the business of FORCING anyone to be "giving". It's all free will, baby.

And that's the miss... That's the part the demmies and the like never seem to grasp.


Can you imagine if Jesus SOLD the fish instead of giving them away? I mean...why should some beggar benefit from Jesus's fish for free? What did he do to earn his fish?

Jesus is out there making **** happen while this taker is just eating all the fish or bread that Jesus made. **** that guy. Right Jesus?

Jesus?

Matthew 5:3
Matthew 6:24
Matthew 7:9-12


...oh, right.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby HamBone » Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:51 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
RedLeader wrote:That cartoon is hilarious. Way to juxtapose the narrative to fit the agenda, eh?

I don't think anyone is against compassion and giving, but can you imagine Jesus just taking the fish from other fisherman after a long day on the water and simply redistributing it amongst the masses at the mount?

if you think about it, the government of God is minimal... Just, here are 10 commandments... It was man that later added the bureaucracy, the pageantry... That said, He sure as heck isn't in the business of FORCING anyone to be "giving". It's all free will, baby.

And that's the miss... That's the part the demmies and the like never seem to grasp.


Can you imagine if Jesus SOLD the fish instead of giving them away? I mean...why should some beggar benefit from Jesus's fish for free? What did he do to earn his fish?

Jesus is out there making **** happen while this taker is just eating all the fish or bread that Jesus made. **** that guy. Right Jesus?

Jesus?

Matthew 5:3
Matthew 6:24
Matthew 7:9-12


...oh, right.


If I understand the message Jesus was putting out it was that charity is a good thing.

The government taking something from one group and giving it to another group is not charity...
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:52 am

The bible tells you to pay your taxes.

Matthew 22:17-21
Romans 13:7-8

And a few other places. So yeah, God is totally cool with government taking tax money and giving it to the poor.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Wooden Indian » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:59 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:The bible tells you to pay your taxes.

Matthew 22:17-21
Romans 13:7-8

And a few other places. So yeah, God is totally cool with government taking tax money and giving it to the poor.


Not so much. You might have missed the context and stuff, yo.
Image
User avatar
Wooden Indian
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:07 am
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:28 am

I think some of you need to reread the Bible
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby RedLeader » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:03 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:The bible tells you to pay your taxes.

Matthew 22:17-21
Romans 13:7-8

And a few other places. So yeah, God is totally cool with government taking tax money and giving it to the poor.


LOL.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby RedLeader » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:02 am

I wonder how long Jesus goes to the mountain top to hand out fish before he says, "Good grief, people! The water is RIGHT THERE! "




'Tis better to teach a man to fish, I always say...
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Buc2 » Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:15 pm

Just like statistics, people can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 10414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:46 pm

Buc2 wrote:Just like statistics, people can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say.



as an empiricist, i should take offense to your quip about statisticians. but the underlying stats tell me not to.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Buc2 » Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:20 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Just like statistics, people can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say.



as an empiricist, i should take offense to your quip about statisticians. but the underlying stats tell me not to.


My quip really wasn't about statisticians per se, though I guess it could be. The manipulation of empirical data should have no bearing on your empirical views of the data. You, personally, can still be empirical and use statistical data in its purest form, without manipulation, and employ a straightforward analysis of that data. But it won't stop someone else from coming along behind you and drawing their own conclusions from that same empirical data while all but ignoring your analysis. Like a Biblical verse taken without context can be manipulated to suit the user of said verse, so too can statistical data without context be manipulated to suit the user of said data.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 10414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby HamBone » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:13 am

"The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable."

That article was brilliant!! Lol
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby The Outsider » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:22 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:I think some of you need to reread the Bible



The funny thing about literature, especially fiction, is that it is left to the reader to interpret the meaning.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby mdb1958 » Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:08 am

I would love to hear your twist on Cor. 6: 9-11
mdb1958
 
Posts: 9084
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Jun 17, 2016 7:29 am

mdb1958 wrote:I would love to hear your twist on Cor. 6: 9-11

Paul always talked a lot of ****. He wrote Romans too.

If Jesus Christ was similar in disposition to Bill Belechick, Tony Dungy, or George Halas, Then Paul was more like Jim Harbaugh or Jon Gruden....or this guy.

Image
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12580
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Corsair » Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:35 pm

Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings (D) stood next to Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) and dropped an extremely uncomfortable reality check: Open Carry, the movement pushed with near-fanatical obsession by Texas Republicans, not only did nothing to help stop the mass shooting of police officers in Dallas, but it actually made the situation far worse. Open Carry had an opportunity to justify its existence – and it failed on every conceivable level.

For Rawlings, examining the aftermath of the shooting made it clear that having dozens of scared civilians clinging to assault-style weapons during a mass shooting was a recipe for disaster. The “good guys with guns” didn’t suddenly become action heroes bravely stopping a heavily-armed lunatic. They acted like any of us would: When the shooting started, they scattered in every direction in terror. Only unlike others, these fleeing victims were strapped with weapons that sowed confusion. Any of them could have been a shooter attempting to blend in. At a moment when cops were being targeted by a sniper, officers had to track down these “innocent” gunmen just to make sure they weren’t one of the bad guys.

As Rawlings explained:

"It’s logical to say that in a shooting situation, open carry can be detrimental to the safety of individuals."

Here’s how bad the situation became in Dallas during the shooting:

Rawlings said Dallas police Chief David Brown told him that people running through the shooting scene with rifles and body armor required officers to track them down and bring them to the police department. Whether that was time that could have been spent trying to find and stop the shooter is something police will have to comment on, Rawlings said.

In other words, the exact reason gun rights activists often give to justify “guns everywhere” bills is false. They don’t keep people safe, they put people’s lives at risk by causing chaos.

A major in the Dallas police department was equally furious about the danger Open Carriers put the rest of the population in. Maj. Max Geron pointed out that the police scanner was filled with chatter of confused officers desperately trying to figure out who was a bad guy and who was an Open Carry supporter while calls of “officer down” continued to ring out.

"There was also the challenge of sorting out witnesses from potential suspects. Texas is an open carry state, and there were a number of armed demonstrators taking part. There was confusion on the radio about the description of the suspects and whether or not one or more was in custody."

After Texas Republicans rammed Guns Everywhere policies into law against the wishes of many in law enforcement and over the objection of many officials at the local level, it could be said that this situation was bound to happen. Research has repeatedly shown that more guns in more places don’t keep people safe, but often times do increase the chances of innocent people getting shot. Texas went gun crazy and this was the result.

Like clockwork, the conservatives who up until yesterday were all about “Blue Lives Matter” turned on police because of these comments. According to the president of Open Carry Texas C.J. Grisham, officers should be fired for complaining about his right to carry an AR-15 in public.

"If you can’t identify a threat, you shouldn’t be wearing a uniform. It’s not that difficult to tell the difference between a bad actor and a good actor."

Spoken like a true coward. To which the entire country, still mourning the deaths of five officers who were killed in Dallas, can for once join together and in one voice tell C.J. Grisham: “Go to hell.”
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby HamBone » Thu Sep 01, 2016 4:52 pm

9th Circuit Says Medical Marijuana Cardholders Have No Second Amendment Rights
Citing "a strong link between drug use and violence," the appeals court says it's reasonable to stop patients from buying guns.

Yesterday a federal appeals court ruled that banning gun sales to people who hold medical marijuana cards, whether or not they actually use marijuana, does not violate their Second Amendment rights. In reaching that conclusion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit relied on antiquated, scientifically unsupportable assumptions about the violent tendencies of cannabis consumers.

The case, Wilson v. Lynch, involves a Nevada woman, Rowan Wilson, who in 2011 tried to buy a firearm from a gun shop in Mound House, a tiny town in Lyon County, but was turned away because the owner, Frederick Hauser, knew she had recently obtained a medical marijuana registry card from the state Department of Health and Human Services. Hauser had just received a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) that said anyone who uses marijuana as a medicine, "regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes," qualifies as an "unlawful user of a controlled substance" and is therefore forbidden to buy or possess guns under 18 USC 922. The ATF added that "if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of
marijuana under State law, then you have 'reasonable cause to believe' that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance," meaning "you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person." Since violating that edict is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, Hauser was understandably reluctant to sell Wilson a gun.

Two weeks later, Wilson filed a federal lawsuit arguing (among other things) that the ban on gun sales to illegal drug users in 18 USC 922(d)(3), as interpreted by the ATF, violates her constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In 2014 a federal judge rejected that claim, noting that the 9th Circuit had upheld the federal ban on gun ownership by illegal drug users in the 2011 case United States v. Dugan. In yesterday's ruling, the 9th Circuit said Dugan did not dispose of the matter, since Wilson "alleges that, although she obtained a registry card, she chose not to use medical marijuana for various reasons, such as the difficulties of acquiring medical marijuana in Nevada, as well as a desire to make a political statement." The question posed by Wilson's appeal, then, was whether it is constitutional to block gun sales to someone who is not an unlawful user of a controlled substance but is suspected of being one because she has a medical marijuana card. The appeals court decided that rule is constitutional, based on the same silly pharmacological prejudices reflected in Dugan.




The 9th Circuit concedes that the ATF's reading of 18 USC 922(d)(3) "directly burden[s Wilson's] core Second Amendment right to possess a firearm" but says the burden "is not severe," since she could have bought a gun before registering as a medical marijuana patient and could regain her right to buy a gun by "surrendering her registry card." The court therefore applies "intermediate scrutiny," which requires "(1) the government's stated objective to be significant, substantial, or important; and (2) a reasonable fit between the challenged regulation and the asserted objective." Since Wilson concedes that the government's interest in preventing gun violence is substantial, the only question is whether a rule preventing people like her from buying guns is a reasonable way of accomplishing that goal.

"The Government argues that empirical data and legislative determinations support a strong link between drug use and violence," the 9th Circuit notes. The government did not actually present any of that evidence, but that's OK, because "studies and surveys relied on in similar cases suggest a significant link between drug use, including marijuana use, and violence." In case you doubt that marijuana makes people violent, the court adds a few other rationales. "It is beyond dispute," it says, "that illegal drug users, including marijuana users, are likely as a consequence of that use to experience altered or impaired mental states that affect their judgment and that can lead to irrational or unpredictable behavior." Plus "they are also more likely to have negative interactions with law enforcement officers because they engage in criminal activity," and "they frequently make their purchases through black market sources who themselves frequently resort to violence."

The first two rationales—a link to violence and the possibility of impairment—apply with equal or greater force to alcohol. Would the 9th Circuit think it reasonable to strip all drinkers of their Second Amendment rights? Probably not. The third and fourth rationales—an enhanced risk of "negative interactions" with cops and a need to buy marijuana from possibly violent black-market dealers—are byproducts of prohibition and do not really apply to state-authorized medical marijuana patients, especially those who, like Wilson, never actually use marijuana. Still, the 9th Circuit says, "individuals who firearms dealers have reasonable cause to believe are illegal drug users are more likely actually to be illegal drug users (who, in turn, are more likely to be involved with violent crimes)." Hence a ban on gun sales to medical marijuana cardholders is perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment.

That conclusion extends the logic of Dugan, which held that if felons and people who have undergone forcible psychiatric treatment can constitutionally be deprived of their right to arms, so can illegal drug users. "We see the same amount of danger in allowing habitual drug users to traffic in firearms as we see in allowing felons and mentally ill people to do so," the 9th Circuit said in that case. "Habitual drug users, like career criminals and the mentally ill, more likely will have difficulty exercising self-control, particularly when they are under the influence of controlled substances."

The truth is that all of these disqualifying criteria are unfair and unreasonable, especially since they do not necessarily tell us anything about a would-be gun buyer's violent tendencies. One advantage that illegal drug users have over "felons and mentally ill people" is that the federal government usually has no way of knowing which intoxicants they prefer. In Wilson's case, the gun dealer happened to know she was a medical marijuana patient. That will not be the case for the vast majority of medical marijuana users, even in the states that require registration. Recreational users are even less visible. So although they are notionally barred from buying or possessing firearms, they generally can do so in practice, either by lying on ATF Form 4473, which asks about illegal drug use, or by obtaining a gun from someone who is not a federally licensed dealer and is therefore not required to use the form.

Still, dodging the government's arbitrary restrictions on Second Amendment rights is legally perilous. A prohibited person commits a felony by owning a gun, buying a gun, or lying on Form 4473. So does anyone who sells or lends him a gun if he has reason to know the recipient is not allowed to have one. The likelihood that your average pot smoker will be arrested for committing these felonies is currently remote, since there is no central database of illegal drug users and it is impossible to monitor transactions that don't go through licensed dealers. But if politicians like Hillary Clinton have their way, the database of people who are legally disqualified from owning guns will be "improved" (e.g., by adding the names of federal employees or job applicants who fail drug tests), and every transaction will require a form and a background check. So even though Clinton says pot smokers don't belong in prison, that is where she wants to send them if they dare to exercise their constitutional rights.
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Sep 02, 2016 9:44 am

sadly i don't find that the least bit surprising
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:21 am

Close as I can find to a gun control thread...so I'll dump this here.


Read a fascinating article on how more and more little "communities", on-line and otherwise, are forming around the idea of using 3D printers to manufacture guns. It appears that stuff that is out there right now isn't too sophisticated in terms of a 100% 3D printed gun (single shot guns, etc), but hybrids are popping up that use some traditional gun components.

A couple major issues:

1.) 3D printed guns (and hybrids) can be manufactured without serial numbers making them much more untraceable than a traditional firearm bought through a vendor

2.) While printing is still in its infancy, its not hard to imagine capability of making firearms that do not follow current regulations and laws.


Obviously this has always been the case to a degree...anyone with access to a machine shop can make their own firearm, but 3D printing seems like it is going to bring it more within the realm of capability of lots more people.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Open Carry? yay or nay?

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:53 am

3D printing relies primarily on either PLA or ABS plastics. Neither of these are suitable for a firing chamber and would explode in your hand after the first few shots making it a risky option. There's hybrid options, but again the plastics involved will melt over time rendering the gun useless. There is metal 3D printing, but the equipment size and cost of making a 3D printed gun (it needs a damn furnace to melt the metal) makes that a pointless venture as well.

You could always make a one-off gun in a metal shop, but the precision required to reliably fire specific ammo makes it a bit of a hit-or-miss project and accuracy would likely be and issue. Or, you could just go buy a gun in a shop or show and save yourself the trouble since a gun trace is unlikely to be what leads the cops to you in the first place.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Previous

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PrimeMinister and 9 guests