Name one. Or, here’s your cup.
Seconded. And thanks for spending the time to voice my humble opinion for me. The “Assault Rifles are harmless” knee-jerks are one of the most predictable things about the SDMB.
And that same nutjob sentiment is precisely why the guy brought the damn thing to the rally in the first place. So that he and Sean could yap for an hour (or a week) about how much their machine guns (just for you AT) love America, and those evil liberals just want to destroy it by mis-naming weapons. Well, that and a really small dick.
What is this, a self-pitting?
First off, he didn’t say anything about suddenly. Let’s look very carefully at his post:
Getting a CCW license in my State shows that the FBI, the State Police, the State Attorney General’s Office, the County Sherrif, and the Chief of Police of my city have checked my records in one form or another and found that I’m not a criminal, not insane nor with a record of insanity, not a domestic abuser, not a convicted drug user, and not under indictment for any felony or DV misdemeanor. Even several diversion programs disqualify one from having a license. Add to this that my CCW instructor has determined and attested in writing to the State Attorney General’s Office that in a live-fire demonstration I handle my weapon and use it adhering to safe practices and showing due diligence. (those requirements (which all are available from the Kansas Attorney General’s website, q.v.)
If that’s not considered evidence of greater maturity, then I’m afraid we’re going to have to start seeing the citations refuting that point.
Does the possession of a driver’s license suggest that you don’t break the traffic laws?
That is not the point at hand which I am specifically addressing. Do you deny that satisfaction of the requirements for a CCW permit in my State is at least evidence of superior decision making skills and emotional control in one’s life?
I will admit that it’s evidence that you aren’t a criminal (a fact which brings me great joy, I might add ;)).
[Monty Python]And there was much rejoicing…[/MP]
Prolly something to do w/karma.
We wouldn’t understand.
Note that the ‘superior…’ bit was a line from Eleanor’s post. What tends to be actually cited is that they commit fewer crimes than the rest of the population. Anyone got that set of statistics somewhere?
Have you sought professional help for this?
Now, to be honest, that gun-peg-leg in Grindhouse bothered me, too. Mostly because I kept visualizing the barrel getting clogged.
And the majority also authorized itself to amend the constitution, which they then did, to specifically exclude same-sex marriage from the list of civil rights protected by the constitution.
So wrong again back at you. If you say the California Constitution protected the right to same-sex marriage because the California Supreme Court said so, you must also acknowledge the California Supreme Court said that Prop 8 was validly enacted and enforceable.
This is a lost argument. Either the will of the majority is a valid watermark,or it’s not. You can’t extoll it when you agree with it and dismiss it when you don’t.
I’m sorry, but I’m having trouble following this exchange. It seemed to start with posts 276/281. May I suggest that there might be a bit of talking past each other?
I read/reacted to elucidator’s post (which was “Offered without comment beyond “Oh, goody!””, so therein could be a source of confusion) as focused on:
The parsing of “majority *with a vote *” is vague. However, it’s clarified in this interview:
Bricker’s response, post 281, appeared to focus on the general umbrage against majority rule, offers Prop 8 as an example of people being unhappy with the majority’s decision, and seems to call shenanigans on the left decrying the right’s claim of tyranny of the majority.
I think this is where things went astray. Unless I’m mistaken, I don’t recall Prop 8 protesters making similar hints at violent resistance. Not that it couldn’t have happened, and of course not that the left never does (I’m looking at you WTO protesters), but Bricker, I don’t think that’s what you were insinuating by bringing it up as an example.
From there it seems to go on a back-and-forth as to … OK, this is where I get confused. As to whether or not there can be a tyranny of the majority? As to whether Prop 8 counted as one? (Part of my confusion is that I don’t understand post 294.) I suspect a source of the trouble is that Bricker is on the right, so therefore must be disagreed with (not that that doesn’t happen right>left too). But his point seems to be fairly truistic–sometimes the majority overrules the rights of the minority (oh shoot, what’s that famous footnote that notes this? Carolina Minorities? Something like that…), and sometimes the minority is rightly pissed. Or was his point that it’s silly to claim that the gun-toter should suck it up and accept that the will of the majority is groovy while decrying the will of the majority when you don’t like it?
Anyway, there’s still the beginning of it all that I think go overlooked. Bricker, would you agree that it’s also fairly truistic that shouting, decrying, whining, pouting, and protesting against a majority-enacted bit is all within the confines of democracy, but threatening violence against the majority for actions you don’t like slides into a wholly different form of government? Forget trying to pin a name on it, and assume for the moment that the gun-toter’s claim of “there will be resistance” was a tacit threat. Feel free to reserve either question.
I’m glad he didn’t because a piece of paper doesn’t change your decision making process when faced with imminent danger. I used “suddenly” sarcastically to say just this.
Really? Then please show me where not being diagnosed insane, a domestic abuser(how would they know if it was never reported?), a convicted drug user or indicted for a felony or misdemeanor PROVES that you can keep your temper or that you have that split second decision making capability when faced with danger. Please show me–I wasn’t aware that basically not having a record and being essentially law abiding (I like the “convicted” caveat) automatically equals superior maturity.
I realize that anecdotes aren’t evidence, but I can name several men I know who have anger management issues but who have never had so much as a ticket–but I wouldn’t want any of them to have a gun around me or a gun, period. And of course, you have completely left out the other common detail in this mix: alcohol. I know that pro-gun folks would like us all to believe that every hunter out there is Joe Boy Scout and any accident is just a unique personal tragedy, but many hunters drink and hunt. Guns + Alcohol=Increased Risk of Death to me. YMMV.
Lastly, this didn’t involve guns, but to use your example of having to get licensed by having to jump through various hoops etc, somehow proves maturity etc–the 9/11 hijackers all went to flight school and (IMS) did well. Being law abiding doesn’t make you anything but law abiding so far.
I think it’s great that you have to provide a demonstration that you know how to physically handle the weapon*-- but like I said before, classes and education are a start, but there is no class, no amount of training that will guarantee that YOU will always make appropriate and safe decisions regarding the discharge of your weapon. We all know of people who were or are law abiding and well thought of etc who go off the rails and end up headlining the night’s news. You can say that there are no guarantees in life and I would agree with you, but* a gun changes every dynamic in which it appears–and not necessarily for the greater good*. I don’t trust people who carry guns around (I mean civilians). I don’t feel safer and I don’t feel reassured. Again, YMMV.
Hold up, there, E Sabbath. I said
You came back with this “correction”:
Which I take to mean 2 things: First, that it’s ONLY concealed carry license folk who (apparently) have “superior decision making skills and emotional control”, not general gun owners, which frankly scares the hell even more out of me; and second, that I did not posit that such a thing was true to begin with. It is an implication throughout most gun threads here–that liberal/lefties are “unreasonable” about gun ownership and that we “lie” and “exaggerate” gun dangers etc. and that gun owners are wonderful human beings and great humanitarians. It’s a mischaracterization of one side by the other (and it does indeed go both ways).
But I don’t buy even the original premise: I don’t buy that all gun owners are somehow reasonable, mature people who would never, ever misuse their weapons. I am saying (or I was saying; we seem to have wandered a bit) *that both sides need to stop with the BS and let’s have the pro-gun side admit that guns are dangerous and deadly and that some control or restriction of them is probably warranted; and let’s have the anti-gun side admit that many, many people get pleasure and (let’s face it, food and profit) from shooting and that we will never live in a gun free society and probably wouldn’t want to, so let’s find some middle ground where there is some sanity. *
But perhaps that’s too reasonable for this (or any) gun thread.
And one last thought: has it ever occurred to any of those that get to carry concealed weapons that one reason you do tend to treat it so responsibly (if this is true; I’m assuming so for the sake of this point), is because it was so damned hard to get? Just a thought.
*and I’d like it to be this way for every kind of gun out there-even BB ones. Just MO.
Nor should you. You’re absolutely right.
If this were what every gun thread were about we might have a reasonable discussion on occasion.
Just so.
The people that opt to get permits are self-selecting, they tend to understand that any misstep on their part will result in revocation, often for long periods of time, and they have no desire to lose that right. Determining causation in this case is a chicken-egg problem.
And although we disagree, I respect your opinion.
Well, I agreed with your larger point, and I rather think that your last thought is quite probably true: only someone with a serious interest in weapons will get a concealed carry license, which means they probably won’t treat it frivolously.
Hey, hey, hey! No reasoned dispassionate discourse on guns allowed! Especially in the Pit!
Oddly enough, I was cleaning out my PM inbox just yesterday and came across an exchange with Zeriel from December 2008 wherein we commiserated on the folly of attempting to find some sensible common ground in a GD gun thread then raging, and compared tire tracks from getting run over in both directions. As Zeriel noted:
I’ve come to the reluctant conclusion that it’s easier to achieve a meeting of the minds on cat declawing than on guns.
What about Nerf guns? You could put an eye out, you know. 
I see a compromise here - declaw the cats, but give them little kitty pistols for self-defense. Take that, dog!
And I’d subscribe to eleanorigby’s gun thread.