Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #4501  
Old 04-09-2015, 11:37 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson View Post
As a licensed Kansas CCW holder, I was and am appalled at this law.
Why? I'm not convinced about constitutional carry but I don't have a problem with it per se. Kansas becomes the 6th state in the union to enact it. Now you can say that more than 10% of the states are constitutional carry.

The battle over shall issue has essentially been won. In every state that it's realisticly possible to pass those laws they have done so and 40+ states are now shall issue or constitutional carry. The new battle will be constitutional carry. I hope in a couple decades we can look back as we now do at the shall issue movement and see that constitutional carry is how it should have been all along.
  #4502  
Old 04-10-2015, 12:09 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,498
What the hell is "constitutional carry"?
  #4503  
Old 04-10-2015, 12:12 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
What the hell is "constitutional carry"?
First hit on google.

Quote:
In the United States, the term constitutional carry is a neologism for the legal carrying of handgun, either openly or concealed, without the requirement of a government permit.[1][2][3] The phrase does not typically refer to the unrestricted carrying of a long gun, a knife, or other weapons. The scope and applicability of such laws or proposed legislation can vary from state to state.
  #4504  
Old 04-10-2015, 01:37 AM
JustinC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Any
Posts: 1,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
What I don't get is why gun-related deaths are considered a holocaust-level crisis now, any more than at any time in the last 150 years. Revolvers date to the Civil War era, semi-automatics to the end of the 19th century. Murders, suicides, lethal accidents, and even massacres committed with firearms have been happening all along. Why weren't people demanding stricter gun control for example after a maniac killed 8 and wounded 32 back in 1915?

The only reason I can see is that back then crimes were considered the evil deeds of individuals who had abdicated moral responsibility, to be addressed by upbringing and retribution. Now they're considered the epidemiological result of social forces, to be addressed by changes in the social environment, including the availability of weapons.
Who has killed more people; Americans or Hitler?

It's not really a question, more a different viewpoint on your reply. The 'back then' response is justified in the Wild West, but totally not with the Holocaust. Rightly so in the latter, but considered 'a part of life' in the former.

Okay, Hitler's killing was racist, bigoted, an extermination of a people - wrong on many levels, evil, nasty, corrupt, inhuman, and we rightly cast a very negative light on all of what happened back then. The news is often about white or black people killing black people, brown people killing brown people and I see (not on here) comments about how ISIS, Saudi, Iran and Syria should be nuked from orbit. Crazy. Like the Third Reich were crazy.

The USA has killed maybe 30 or 40 million people since 1945, not as bad as Mao or Pol Pot and was/is supported by most or all of its allies, but a huge figure. The Right to Bare Arms is a part of American culture - I appreciate that and support you guys. But (you know there was a 'but' coming) going to other countries to exterminate people is different. 'Supporting Our Soldiers (State-Sponsored Murderers)' - come on! What the fuck is that all about?
  #4505  
Old 04-10-2015, 08:05 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
"Gun Nuts'". "trigger happy". Is Salon.com just the teensiest bit scornful of conservative values?
Can you explain, in little words, just why the ability to conceal a personal weapon without informing the guvmint is such a quintessential "conservative value"? Is it just that the guvmint is compiling lists so they can vaccinate gunowners' children with autism? Why in particular, do law-abiding carriers need or want concealed carry anyway? Is it primarly so they can pass for responsible while ready to inflict vengeance?

I hope to get more intelligible answers than when I asked the same question about law-abiding citizens wanting silencers ("Some people want silencers because they want silencers, duh!!") but I'm not holding my breath.

Last edited by septimus; 04-10-2015 at 08:10 AM.
  #4506  
Old 04-10-2015, 08:08 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
What the hell is "constitutional carry"?
You can carry a flintlock musket as long as it's for militia use.
  #4507  
Old 04-10-2015, 08:13 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,663
100 days into 2015 and at least 300 people have been killed by police so far, with January 10 (probably) the only day so far without one:

https://medium.com/matter/january-10...ps-a6d61fcf804
  #4508  
Old 04-10-2015, 08:23 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinC View Post
Who has killed more people; Americans or Hitler?<snip>
WTF did anything I said have to do with American military intervention post-WW2?

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Can you explain, in little words, just why the ability to conceal a personal weapon without informing the guvmint is such a quintessential "conservative value"?
That's the tone the Salon article took: snarkily lumping Constitutional Carry in with tax cuts, anti-abortion laws and repealing LGBT protections. Take it up with Luke Brinker, Salon's politics editor.
  #4509  
Old 04-10-2015, 08:50 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
That's the tone the Salon article took: snarkily lumping Constitutional Carry in with tax cuts, anti-abortion laws and repealing LGBT protections. Take it up with Luke Brinker, Salon's politics editor.

I'm sure there are lots and lots of intelligent responsible progressive-thinking Americans who own guns and favor gun rights.

BUT, although the correlation coefficient isn't unity, there is HUGE correlation between gun-toters and homophobes, racists, tax ignoramuses and all the other 'ists and 'amuses that have reduced today's American politics to a sick joke.

Do you deny that?
  #4510  
Old 04-10-2015, 09:44 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post

I'm sure there are lots and lots of intelligent responsible progressive-thinking Americans who own guns and favor gun rights.

BUT, although the correlation coefficient isn't unity, there is HUGE correlation between gun-toters and homophobes, racists, tax ignoramuses and all the other 'ists and 'amuses that have reduced today's American politics to a sick joke.

Do you deny that?
No, and I think I misunderstood your previous question. Why is there a correlation between firearms and other reactionary conservative positions? I think mainly it boils down to "Who the fuck are you to tell me what to do?" (With banning abortion the major exception).
  #4511  
Old 04-10-2015, 10:05 AM
Una Persson's Avatar
Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Why? I'm not convinced about constitutional carry but I don't have a problem with it per se. Kansas becomes the 6th state in the union to enact it. Now you can say that more than 10% of the states are constitutional carry.

The battle over shall issue has essentially been won. In every state that it's realisticly possible to pass those laws they have done so and 40+ states are now shall issue or constitutional carry. The new battle will be constitutional carry. I hope in a couple decades we can look back as we now do at the shall issue movement and see that constitutional carry is how it should have been all along.
I do not believe anyone should carry a gun on a regular basis, concealed or not, without training or proof of training. IMO "constitutional carry" will lead to some carrying daily and being careless with their gun. By eliminating the training requirement I believe there is a significant probability of greater accidents and incidents.

I base this purely upon my observation of human behavior, and how utterly careless and stupid the average person can be. The bar to get a CCW permit in Kansas was not trivial, but it was low enough that any responsible person could do so.
  #4512  
Old 04-10-2015, 10:55 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson View Post
I do not believe anyone should carry a gun on a regular basis, concealed or not, without training or proof of training. IMO "constitutional carry" will lead to some carrying daily and being careless with their gun. By eliminating the training requirement I believe there is a significant probability of greater accidents and incidents.

I base this purely upon my observation of human behavior, and how utterly careless and stupid the average person can be. The bar to get a CCW permit in Kansas was not trivial, but it was low enough that any responsible person could do so.
Perhaps the relationship of carrying and training should be inverted: instead of saying you can't carry unless you've gotten training, maybe a state could say that you must get training if you carry. It could be legally considered the modern equivalent of the militia muster requirement, a citizenship duty like jury duty. Technically it wouldn't infringe on anyone's right to carry but scofflaws could face misdemeanor penalties for not doing the mandated drill.

Last edited by Lumpy; 04-10-2015 at 10:57 AM. Reason: wording
  #4513  
Old 04-10-2015, 11:34 AM
JustinC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Any
Posts: 1,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
WTF did anything I said have to do with American military intervention post-WW2?.
Okay, but it raises the point; how many civil gun crimes are committed/caused by ex-servicemen with serious PTSD? Or the children of them? Or their nearest and dearest? Or the children or friends (or gang) of those killed?

And the fetishism of War - America being called a 'War Machine' - along with shoot 'em up games and hip hop sensationalizing gun culture, a whole genre of Hollywood movies sensationalizing war - note the dates when Pearl Harbor, Black Hawk Down and others came out.

Don't get me wrong; I love firing a weapon in a range. A very secure, safe place, and I drive safely but needed training and testing before being able to operate a potentially lethal weapon.

That is all a gun is! A weapon, at least a car's primary and sole reason d'etre is not to kill or injury people.
  #4514  
Old 04-10-2015, 12:06 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson View Post
I do not believe anyone should carry a gun on a regular basis, concealed or not, without training or proof of training. IMO "constitutional carry" will lead to some carrying daily and being careless with their gun. By eliminating the training requirement I believe there is a significant probability of greater accidents and incidents.

I base this purely upon my observation of human behavior, and how utterly careless and stupid the average person can be. The bar to get a CCW permit in Kansas was not trivial, but it was low enough that any responsible person could do so.
This is a similar concern that was raised during the shall issue movement. None of these widespread negative impacts have been realized. There are of course isolated incidents of great levels of stupidity and malice but on balance the predictions of detractors have not come to pass. Before Kansas, 5 other states have been constitutional carry and it has worked fine. Check out this animated gif that shows how things have progressed over time from 1986 to now. I'd like to see the whole thing green.
  #4515  
Old 04-10-2015, 12:22 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
"Gun Nuts'". "trigger happy". Is Salon.com just the teensiest bit scornful of conservative values?
Of course it is, it has the same general politics and editorial slant as The Nation, Mother Jones, In These Times and AlterNet.
  #4516  
Old 04-10-2015, 04:45 PM
Una Persson's Avatar
Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
This is a similar concern that was raised during the shall issue movement. None of these widespread negative impacts have been realized. There are of course isolated incidents of great levels of stupidity and malice but on balance the predictions of detractors have not come to pass. Before Kansas, 5 other states have been constitutional carry and it has worked fine. Check out this animated gif that shows how things have progressed over time from 1986 to now. I'd like to see the whole thing green.
I don't assert that it *has* been a problem. I opine that the responsibility of carrying a firearm implies a due diligence to understand its safe operation, storage, handling, and use. Perhaps it's being an engineer, but I'm fairly used to training requirements for using machines or tools. A gun is simply a machine - it's not magical, it's not evil, it's a machine. When misused, it can cause injury or death. No banning, no registration, just training in the general safe life around guns.
  #4517  
Old 04-10-2015, 06:09 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Una Persson View Post
I don't assert that it *has* been a problem. I opine that the responsibility of carrying a firearm implies a due diligence to understand its safe operation, storage, handling, and use. Perhaps it's being an engineer, but I'm fairly used to training requirements for using machines or tools. A gun is simply a machine - it's not magical, it's not evil, it's a machine. When misused, it can cause injury or death. No banning, no registration, just training in the general safe life around guns.
Una, my sense is that up until just a few years ago, your position used to be the prevailing view of gun advocates. One of healthy respect and responsibility. The idea of unfettered access was kind of fringe. Now the prevailing view seems much different.

Am I mistaken in that?
  #4518  
Old 04-11-2015, 01:25 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Wayne LaPierre:

Quote:
National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice president Wayne LaPierre railed against the possibility of Hillary Clinton becoming president during his remarks at the group’s annual leadership forum in Nashville on Friday, Right Wing Watch reported.

“She will not bring a new dawn of promise and new opportunity,” LaPierre argued. “Hillary Rodham Clinton will bring a permanent darkness of deceit and despair, forced upon the American people to endure.”
Y'know, the NRA is not essentially a politically conservative or RW organization. A Communist can be just as good a member as any other. Does none of the membership object that LaPierre is going way, way beyond gun-rights politics here?
  #4519  
Old 04-11-2015, 01:29 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Una, my sense is that up until just a few years ago, your position used to be the prevailing view of gun advocates. One of healthy respect and responsibility.
That was what the NRA was all about, once upon a time. It even used to endorse gun-control legislation.
  #4520  
Old 04-11-2015, 02:14 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Wayne LaPierre:

Y'know, the NRA is not essentially a politically conservative or RW organization. A Communist can be just as good a member as any other. Does none of the membership object that LaPierre is going way, way beyond gun-rights politics here?
]I don't know what else LaPierre has said about Clinton, but if he's commenting on her gun control stance that's fair game.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
That was what the NRA was all about, once upon a time. It even used to endorse gun-control legislation.
I.E., once upon a time the NRA were Fudds. Or to fairer, they were once supportive of gun control when they were confident that it wasn't a precedent to the flat-out abolition of private gun ownership.
  #4521  
Old 04-11-2015, 02:57 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I don't know what else LaPierre has said about Clinton, but if he's commenting on her gun control stance that's fair game.
From what I read, that did not come up at all. He's not talking like a gun-rights activist, he's talking like a Republican or Tea Party activist.

Quote:
“‘Whitewater-gate,’ ‘Cattle-gate,’ ‘Jenifer Flowers-gate,’ ‘Nanny-gate,’ ‘Lincoln bedroom-gate,’ ‘Travel-gate,’ ‘Trooper-gate,’ ‘File-gate,’ ‘Paula Jones-gate,’ ‘Vince Foster-gate’, ‘Helicopter-gate,’ ‘White House Coffee-gate,’ ‘Web Hubbell Hush Money-gate,’ ‘Pardon-gate,’ ‘Illegal Gift-Gate,’ ‘Monica-gate,’ ‘Benghazi-gate,’ ‘Email-gate,’ ‘Wiped Server-gate,’” he said. “Hillary Clinton has more ‘gates’ than a South Texas cattle ranch, and Americans know it.”

LaPierre also played up the fact that the NRA event had drawn several possible Republican contenders, saying the upcoming primary season would ensure that the GOP would field its best candidate.

“I vow on this day the NRA will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and good, honest decent Americans and we will stand and fight with everything we’ve got,” he argued. “And in 2016, by God, we will elect the next great president of the United States of America and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I.E., once upon a time the NRA were Fudds. Or to fairer, they were once supportive of gun control when they were confident that it wasn't a precedent to the flat-out abolition of private gun ownership.
Then they were more sensible back then. There has never been a time in American history when flat-out abolition of private gun ownership would have been politically possible beyond a municipal level.
  #4522  
Old 04-11-2015, 02:59 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Una, my sense is that up until just a few years ago, your position used to be the prevailing view of gun advocates. One of healthy respect and responsibility. The idea of unfettered access was kind of fringe. Now the prevailing view seems much different.

Am I mistaken in that?
IANA Una but my take is a running gag from Archer, "A little column A, a little column B." The views shifted some but your perception is also less than thoroughly on point.

A coalition formed between the respect and responsibility crowd with those that were more fringe with respect to some issues like shall issue carry. Till the shall issue movement in a lot of places the permitting process to carry for self defense was much closer to shall deny. That coalition still spoke with the voices of the most passionate,aka the fringe, but not all in it agreed with the most extreme comments. The middle ground got lost in the fringes from both sides screaming loudly and more often. They looked more like one of the fringes because they agreed with them on some of the issues at hand. That happens with a lot of issues in the US nowadays.

Once that coalition formed more of the moderates were more politically active and focused on the issues. So now they're spending time talking to those that also like guns but are more fringe. They also started getting the message that any carry was irresponsible by those that would label them as closet vigilantes with the hidden desire to murder someone. Strong messages from both sides' fringe did prompt some movement in opinions of those I've known. Mostly that movement has been towards the lower regulation side.

So there's some mistake and some shrinking of that group. The pro-gun with reasonable controls middle ground is still there, strong, and substantial IME, but they don't get the airtime. IME there's also been movement from those in the middle ground towards less gun control positions.

Last edited by DinoR; 04-11-2015 at 03:00 PM.
  #4523  
Old 04-11-2015, 03:27 PM
Una Persson's Avatar
Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Una, my sense is that up until just a few years ago, your position used to be the prevailing view of gun advocates. One of healthy respect and responsibility. The idea of unfettered access was kind of fringe. Now the prevailing view seems much different.

Am I mistaken in that?
I don't know if the change has been on a general scale, but mainly within a group of sportspeople, self-defense advocates, and others. But I do not know of any polls I can point to quickly.
  #4524  
Old 04-11-2015, 04:44 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Then they were more sensible back then. There has never been a time in American history when flat-out abolition of private gun ownership would have been politically possible beyond a municipal level.
That's like saying there's never been a time in American history when overturning the First Amendment was politically possible; not that comforting, since by the time it would be possible it would already be too late. What began alarming gun owners in the later 1980's was just how far down the slippery slope we'd already gone.
  #4525  
Old 04-11-2015, 06:38 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
]I don't know what else LaPierre has said about Clinton, but if he's commenting on her gun control stance that's fair game.
Well, now that you know that (thanks to post #4521) he commented on everything but her stance on gun control, what's your opinion? Still fair game?
  #4526  
Old 04-11-2015, 08:40 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Well, now that you know that (thanks to post #4521) he commented on everything but her stance on gun control, what's your opinion? Still fair game?
Can you point me to a text of his full speech? I don't want to sit through a 19-minute video. Thanks.
  #4527  
Old 04-12-2015, 06:02 AM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,898
I'm not willing to sit through 19 minutes of that guy, but I can't imagine a context that makes it okay to name Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones as "gates" that should reflect on Hilary Clinton.

Ridiculous.
  #4528  
Old 04-12-2015, 09:19 AM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
And what was "Whitewater-gate"? Ken Starr spent years investigating that nonscandal, and at the end, Monica Lewinsky's blowjob was all he could come up with, and had nothing to do with it.
  #4529  
Old 04-12-2015, 06:45 PM
PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,732
While usually it is four year olds who make this thread for killing someone, here we have a three year old:
Quote:
A 3-year-old boy picked up a firearm inside an East Side home Sunday afternoon and the gun went off, hitting a 1-year-old boy in the head, Cleveland Police Chief Calvin Williams said.

The boy was taken to a nearby hospital and was later pronounced dead, according to police.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index...ear-old_c.html

Does anyone remember anyone younger?
  #4530  
Old 04-12-2015, 08:09 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
That's like saying there's never been a time in American history when overturning the First Amendment was politically possible; not that comforting, since by the time it would be possible it would already be too late. What began alarming gun owners in the later 1980's was just how far down the slippery slope we'd already gone.
Let me put it another way: You don't need the Second Amendment. If it had never been added to the Constitution, if gun control were simply an ordinary legislative issue with no constitutional protections, then your guns would be safe anywhere in America with the possible exception of a few major cities. It's a cultural thing.
  #4531  
Old 04-13-2015, 07:38 PM
Fear Itself is online now
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,980
Man Shoots Armadillo, Bullet Hits Mother-In-Law
Quote:
Sheriff's deputies in Lee County, Georgia, said McElroy, 54, accidentally shot his mother-in-law with a 9mm pistol when he was trying to shoot an armadillo, WALB.com reports.

The armadillo died from the shot, but the bullet ricocheted off the animal, hit a fence and went into the back door of his mother-in-law's mobile home -- a distance of about 100 yards.

Then it went through the recliner where the 74-year-old woman was sitting and into her back, according to WFSB.com.
http://huff.to/1NyYEaS
__________________
“If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let 'em go, because man, they're gone.” ~~Jack Handey

Last edited by Fear Itself; 04-13-2015 at 07:41 PM.
  #4532  
Old 04-13-2015, 09:34 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Let me put it another way: You don't need the Second Amendment. If it had never been added to the Constitution, if gun control were simply an ordinary legislative issue with no constitutional protections, then your guns would be safe anywhere in America with the possible exception of a few major cities. It's a cultural thing.
As a practical matter? Perhaps. But would you feel the same way about the First Amendment? Would you feel confident that as a "cultural thing" legislatures would almost always uphold freedom of religion, speech, the press and public assembly? The First Amendment was added because the Framers knew, by historical example, that such freedoms are always going to be tempting targets for rulers who want just a little more control, for the "best of reasons"; and that banning such freedoms is both the means and the end of tyranny.

The Second Amendment isn't just about possession of pieces of metal; more broadly, it's the question of whether citizens can privately possess the means of, and when appropriate use, deadly force. The Framers knew from the tumultuous history of 17th century England that calls to ban weapons in the name of stopping "lawlessness", "insurrection", "treason" always seemed to lead to a government expanding without limit the scope of those terms. In every society and civilization they had record of, whenever the common people were forbidden to possess weapons and their carry and use reserved to an elite, the result inevitably was a class of overlords telling the peasants to shut up and do what they were told.

The Tenth Amendment not withstanding, we've reached the point where effectively the government can do damn near anything it isn't explicitly forbidden to. In terms of the First Amendment, look at the Alien and Sedition Acts; or more recently, the laws passed in the early 20th century that made virtually any public opposition to WW1 a crime. We have not only a federal Bill of Rights but also state constitutions with rights provisions, because the most cursory look at some of the things that duly elected legislatures have passed or tried to pass is enough to make your hair stand on end. Allowing citizens to possess weapons will always be an orphan issue politically, because no government is going to have a natural tendency to reduce its power. If you take the stance the Framers did that guns=freedom, you might almost come to the conclusion that the right to own and carry weapons has a greater need of explicit protection than freedom of speech.
  #4533  
Old 04-21-2015, 06:34 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Texas man "playing" with AR-15 shoots 3-year-old daughter to death.
  #4534  
Old 04-21-2015, 06:37 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
As a practical matter? Perhaps. But would you feel the same way about the First Amendment? Would you feel confident that as a "cultural thing" legislatures would almost always uphold freedom of religion, speech, the press and public assembly?
Going by the UK's track record, yes. They have no written constitution, there's not much the House of Commons can't constitutionally do, but they're a pretty free country, entirely for reasons of political culture.
  #4535  
Old 04-21-2015, 07:13 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Going by the UK's track record, yes. They have no written constitution, there's not much the House of Commons can't constitutionally do, but they're a pretty free country, entirely for reasons of political culture.
Put it this way: if we abolished the First Amendment and relied solely on our "political culture" to preserve democratic freedoms, do you think we'd do as well as the UK? I strongly suspect not.
  #4536  
Old 04-21-2015, 07:19 PM
Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 12,570
Dad: " Oh god honey, I murdered our daughter with the AR-15 today !! "
Mom: " They didn't take our gun away, did they? Did they??? No? Whew. "

After all, she can always breed again. But just look at how difficult it is to get ahold of an AR-15 these days. Please.

These murders just pile up and pile up. Day after day, week after week. And because the N.R.A. owns the US Congress, not a damned thing will ever be done about this.

Kind of very sad, I think.
  #4537  
Old 04-21-2015, 07:40 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,663
Was that just hyperbole or do you literally believe that the NRA is a cabal with near-total political power, able to dictate anything it wants?

Also, would you feel better if he'd accidentally killed his daughter by putting a beer keg in a camp fire? Idiots are idiots.
  #4538  
Old 04-22-2015, 09:38 AM
Fear Itself is online now
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,980
Colorado man cited by police after shooting his computer:
Quote:
A Colorado man's frustration with his computer boiled over Monday night, resulting in him shooting the machine eight times and receiving a citation from police.

Lucas Hinch, 37, of Colorado Springs, accepted his citation with good humor, police told the Colorado Springs Gazette. According to the paper, Hinch told officers that he hadn't realized that he was breaking the law when he brought the computer into an alley and blasted away.
  #4539  
Old 04-22-2015, 09:56 AM
Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 12,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Was that just hyperbole or do you literally believe that the NRA is a cabal with near-total political power, able to dictate anything it wants?
Yes. This was not a serious question, right? You are aware of how things work here, right?

Quote:
Also, would you feel better if he'd accidentally killed his daughter by putting a beer keg in a camp fire? Idiots are idiots.
Find me the thread on stupid campfire accidents, please.
  #4540  
Old 04-22-2015, 10:24 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post

Also, would you feel better if he'd accidentally killed his daughter by putting a beer keg in a camp fire? Idiots are idiots.
I save my outrage for parents who thoughtlessly throw swimming pools at their children.
  #4541  
Old 04-22-2015, 01:52 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartooniverse View Post
Find me the thread on stupid campfire accidents, please.
Here you go: Kegger Blast
  #4542  
Old 04-23-2015, 07:07 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,498
Somebody can point to where this incident was discussed earlier in the thread, since the actual event was two years ago, but for some reason it has bubble to the surface (probably a lawsuit). Teacher surprised by school-shooter drill, as a gun with blanks is fired at her face in the crime-ridden metropolis of Halfway Oregon. She is now dealing with PTSD (no!) and trying to get compensation for the incident.
  #4543  
Old 04-27-2015, 12:55 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,498
On the school theme, teacher tackles student after he fires a shot in the air, no injuries – stupid as in why are kids bringing guns to school (Lacey is a pretty suburban town)?
  #4544  
Old 04-28-2015, 08:37 AM
Folacin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: North of the River
Posts: 3,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Somebody can point to where this incident was discussed earlier in the thread, since the actual event was two years ago, but for some reason it has bubble to the surface (probably a lawsuit). Teacher surprised by school-shooter drill, as a gun with blanks is fired at her face in the crime-ridden metropolis of Halfway Oregon. She is now dealing with PTSD (no!) and trying to get compensation for the incident.
I like the bit where the idiots running the drill checked with the Sheriff's office to make sure they didn't terrorize anyone with a CCW permit, so they didn't get their ass shot as someone defended themselves and/or the school.

Wonder if they'd try that stunt in a state (like my idiot neighbor KS) where one no longer needs a permit?
  #4545  
Old 04-28-2015, 01:23 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
What began alarming gun owners in the later 1980's was just how far down the slippery slope we'd already gone.
Could you elaborate on the restrictions of gun rights imposed between, say, the mid-1970s and the late 1980s? Gotta say I missed it at the time.
  #4546  
Old 05-01-2015, 01:02 PM
Truman Burbank is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: California
Posts: 2,618

Boy, this here's a beaut!


From Wonkette, the tale of misplaced handguns by the security details of our nations politicians, (most recently one of Boehner's) in a bathroom stall where it was discovered by a young boy:

http://wonkette.com/584404/dcs-capit...over-town-oops

Maybe with additional training?

Last edited by Truman Burbank; 05-01-2015 at 01:04 PM.
  #4547  
Old 05-05-2015, 03:59 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truman Burbank View Post
From Wonkette, the tale of misplaced handguns by the security details of our nations politicians, (most recently one of Boehner's) in a bathroom stall where it was discovered by a young boy:

http://wonkette.com/584404/dcs-capit...over-town-oops

Maybe with additional training?
This was an issue that was discussed fairly early in this thread as it seemed to happen frequently.

And it's understandable if you consider the basic logistics of it - if you've got a belt holster you don't want to just drop it on the floor with your trousers, so you take the gun out and put it somewhere safe [sic]. And people being people, occasionally things get left behind.

That said, gun training really ought to include a section on "what to do with your gun while you're crapping" since this is a common problem.
  #4548  
Old 05-05-2015, 01:28 PM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,672
The best advice I've heard for that situation is to put the weapon in your pants between your feet. Bad jokes aside, it's probably what I would do.
  #4549  
Old 05-05-2015, 10:23 PM
Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 2,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Projammer View Post
The best advice I've heard for that situation is to put the weapon in your pants between your feet. Bad jokes aside, it's probably what I would do.
1) Drop pants to mid-thigh, keep legs spread to keep pants from falling down. Use one hand to stabilize if it helps.
2) Pull down underwear, wrap elastic band over top of holstered firearm.
3) Lower pants as needed to conduct business. The underwear elastic will keep the holster from inverting.
4) Reverse procedure to pull pants back up.

Works for me. Also helps not to have a cheap-ass holster that doesn't grip the firearm. You spend hundreds on the weapon. Spend money to get quality gear.
  #4550  
Old 05-06-2015, 11:26 AM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Oregon passes a measure closing loopholes in required background checks for gun sales. The GOP and NRA lose their minds.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017