And that bark has a nice patina.
You would have to look at those laws closer. They don’t all mean the same. New Jersey has concealed carry. But in reality it is nearly impossible to get a concealed carry permit.
Dodge City had very strict gun control laws. No weapons allowed within city limits.
Sorry, but this:
[Quote=Starving Artist]
Carrying guns to the gunsmith isn’t the same as carrying them to protest gun laws, and it’s only the latter which has been prohibited, correct?
[/quote]
…is not a “spot on” conclusion. It is in fact dead wrong, as anyone can tell by engaging their brain and reading the facts. Even if you only read the opening paragraphs, rational thinking does not allow one to draw the conclusion you drew. And even if that were a reasonable conclusion from the opening paragraphs, “well I didn’t read the whole thing” is a pretty goddamn pathetic excuse. You are a stupid person. I am sorry to be the first to bring this to your attention.
Oh, I forgot to add:
LOL
But it turned out that all the people we looked up to like Mao were a bunch of fucking dicks. East Germany had it’s guns pointed in to shoot people trying to escape, but somehow we made excuses. Cuba had no free speech but we thought it was OK for some reason. China ended up killing millions of people with one hare brained economic scheme after another. Meanwhile, the countries that us horrible, imperialists took over after the war like West Germany and Japan went on to be economically successful and had one hell of a lot more political freedom than people did in the Workers Paradises that we thought were so cool. I shudder when I look back and realize what an apologist I was for such horrible ideas.
People without guns like Gandhi and MLK made lasting changes for the good.
Since you’re apparently the type who can go on like this all night, I’ll simply post the following and then go on to a more profitable use of my time:
a.) “Well, I didn’t read the whole thing” is not what I said. Nor is the phrasing accurate as it implies an excuse I never made. This is just more evidence of your dishonest nature which you seem to think people are too stupid to see.
b.) There is in no way, shape or form any reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the statement “Second Amendment advocates can no longer carry rifles and shotguns in public to protest gun control laws” other than that Second Amendment advocates can no longer carry rifles and shotguns to protest gun control laws." There is not so much as the whisper of a hint in that statement to indicate the prohibition of open carry in any form by anyone. None whatsoever.
Still, since you disagree so vehemently, and since you find your disagreement to be so well-founded that anyone who sees things differently must be some kind of dumbass, perhaps you’d be kind enough to point to the exact phrasing which substantiates your view, including an explanation of your thinking in arriving at the conclusion you’ve drawn based upon the specific words or phrases which support that view. Since you’re so adamant about the obviousness of your interpretation this shouldn’t be too difficult.
Indeed. Though if restaurant owners are to exercise this prerogative, it would have to be for open carriers. They don’t know who’s got the concealed weapons.
But there are people walking around with guns all the time. Not everywhere at every time, of course, but it’s pretty likely that you pass by and interact with people carrying guns nearly every day. You just don’t know it, when they’re concealed. Unless they’re exceptional morons, of course, per your example.
The statement “Second Amendment advocates can no longer carry rifles and shotguns in public to protest gun control laws” very clearly indicates that there are new prohibitions on open carry which cover, at a minimum, Second Amendment advocates carrying rifles and shotguns to protest gun control laws. You concluded that because that situation was specifically called out, that was all that was prohibited. You were wrong because you jumped to a conclusion before reading the whole article.
A reasonable person looks at that statement and knows instantly that it would be questionable, legally speaking, to make the restriction only on carrying for reasons of protest. To make an analogy, had the article started out by mentioning that Tea Partiers aren’t going to be allowed to carry guns at their rallies anymore, nobody with any sense would conclude that the law is specifically targeted at members of the Tea Party movement. Use your brain.
Nope, it does no such thing. It indicates there is a (singular) new prohibition which prevents people from openly carrying rifles and shotguns as a political protest against gun laws.
With regard to that specific law you are at last correct.
Well, shit, now you’re back to being wrong again. I jumped to no conclusion at all. Instead I correctly interpreted the meaning of the words as they were written.
Why would a reasonable person conclude that? Any number of laws exist whose purpose is to outlaw specific acts. Further, if you’ll recall the poster who linked to the article stated in his post that the law was specifically created as a response to people carrying rifles and shotguns to protest gun laws. In that context the appearance of the law having been created specifically to prevent such a form of protest is even more compelling…to a reasonable person.
And nobody with any sense would conclude that carrying rifles and shotguns to protest laws other than gun laws would be exempt. Just as your Tea Partier analogy obviously covers restrictions on certain types of protest whether committed by a Tea Partier or not, the logical assumption would be that the law prohibiting rifles and shotguns as a form of protest against gun laws also extends to other types of protest as well. There is absolutely nothing however in the paragraph explaining the existence of the new law to suggest that it also prohibits open carry of any kind for any reason.
No u. 
Now, are you going to answer my challenge or not? I want you to point specifically to the exact words which lead you to believe that any reasonable and intelligent person would assume that the law very likely covers other forms of open carry as well, and to then explain your reasoning in drawing that conclusion from the words you quote. If you can’t or won’t, and you intend merely to keep making the same baseless assertions over and over, then I’m done with you. N’est pas? Hersey’s?
Ok, fine. Completely snark-free, Starving Artist. The exact words were this statement: “Second Amendment advocates can no longer carry rifles and shotguns in public to protest gun control laws.” My reasoning went something like this: “Really? Are they actually saying that the law specifically only targets people who are carrying for reason of protest? That would never fly in a million years, so there must be more to it. I shall read on. Ah yes, the law covers more situations than just this one mentioned, and that opening paragraph is still a true statement, even though it’s strangely narrow. They are probably just calling out that specific scenario because it is something people have been in the news for lately.”
Bolding mine. Replace that bolded word “protest” with “carrying” and you have replicated my reasoning exactly. Do you really think that it would make sense for legislators to enact a prohibition on doing something for reasons of protest if that action is otherwise legal? To me, that is so ludicrous that any statement which would appear to imply it causes me to go looking for clarification.
Hell, even in 1870’s Dodge, you were required to check your gun before going into town.
(I used to work at Boot Hill - it wasn’t not nearly as nefarious a place as Gunsmoke would have you believe)
Might as well post this here. AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio recently announced that he was dispatching armed men to protect schools. Which he did without a) telling the schools they were coming; or b) do any background checks of the men:
The obvious answer is more gunmen to protect the kids from the first batch of gunmen. Everybody wins.
Oh, now I comprehend!
What I said before, PLUS
IF the fucking A-Team showed up, and IF they started shooting at these guys, and IF they returned fire, and IF they were closer to the school, and IF kids were outside, and IF they were down range, and IF one or more of them were injured, that would be a bad thing. I absolutely agree with that.
Sorry, I tend to ignore ridiculous strawmen, even gianormous strawmen with a lot of moving parts. “The Filter of Your Own Stupidity” has a nice ring to it. I’ll call it that.
Didn’t we have a thread a short while ago about people posing as posters from the other side of a debate just to destroy that side’s credibility? Completely independent of the general Second Amendment position you support, you’re inane posts are an embarrassment. If it’s not deliberate sabotage, do yourself and those who agree with you a favour and reconsider contributing to the thread. Really. You’re an idiot.
You know, if you hurt my feelings I might start crying. I might walk to the bathroom to get a Kleenex and with my tears obscuring my vision I could trip over the bath mat and try to catch myself on the hot water knob and hit my head on the tub and lose consciousness and slowly drown while the water level rises and I’m unable to get out because I’m unconscious.
You’re just as bad as the two men with rifles! You just tried to kill me!
Okay then, here’s my snark-free answer:
Why wouldn’t it fly? There are tons of laws that target one specific behavior. For example many states have laws prohibiting driving with an open liquor bottle in the car. I’d be really surprised, though, if mention of this would cause most people to go scurrying off to see if the law mentions other things you can’t do with an open liquor bottle.
I didn’t find it strangely narrow at all, especially in light of SN’s introduction which directly attributed the law to being the result of people openly carrying firearms to protest gun laws.
Naturally if you change a noun pertaining to one thing to a verb pertaining to something else it’s going to change the meaning of the original comment. You may have chosen to make such an extrapolation, and you have every right to do so even though it may not make sense to anyone else, but I think you should draw the line at accusing other people of stupidity for taking words literally rather than making the same odd distortions to the phrasing of a statement that you’ve chosen to make.
Of course. To get back to the liquor analogy, it’s perfectly legal for an adult to drink alcohol in most jurisdictions but there’s a prohibition to drinking it while driving an automobile. Therefore a prohibition has been enacted to prevent a person from doing something under one condition that is perfectly legal under another.
You may find it ludicrous but that doesn’t mean anyone else should, for as I just explained it’s not that uncommon for a law to prohibit behavior under one set of circumstances that is perfectly legal under another.
What a complete fucktard you are.
Let’s not forget Tombstone and the OK Corral - the gun ban of 1881 led directly to the shoot out when the Clancy Outlaws refused to check their guns when coming into town. As southern Democrats, they resented the gun laws passed by the town fathers and enforced by the Republican Earp brothers…
I’m not suggesting that you do, and I didn’t mean to imply that you did by being needlessly vague.
My statements were meant to be broadly applied. I wonder what type of people might have an objection to a prohibition to openly carrying guns with a caveat that you can transport it into your local gun shop (or target range, or hunting grounds, etc.) while it is enclosed within a case.
Pro-Gun nutters I expect.
Please forgive me for so egregiously wasting your time. Your brilliant response leaves me with absolutely no angle for rebuttal and I must now humbly bow out. I can only hope my fucktardism hasn’t distracted you from investigating new situations which could possibly spiral out of control in an incredibly unlikely way and potentially cause some harm to someone somewhere.
Here’s a good lead for you to follow up on: those planes in the sky? They fly right over neighborhoods, with schools and children and busses. If only 8 or 9 things went wrong they could easily fall out of the sky and cause a massacre!