HA! California open carriers will now switch to unloaded rifles and shotguns

[friendly_iconoclast]

From the Department of Be Careful What You Hope For, Because You Might Just Get It:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-brown-guns-20111011,0,5655548.story

.......The new law exempts peace officers, hunters and people attending gun shows or going to shooting ranges from its penalties of up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine. It does not prohibit the public carrying of unloaded long-barrel weapons such as rifles — a silence that open-carry advocates say they will exploit.

Yih-Chau Chang, an open-carry practitioner in the Bay Area, said he was disappointed but not surprised by Brown's action. He also said it would not stop him and others from publicly demonstrating their rights.

"Come Jan. 1," he said, "you will see us out there carrying unloaded rifles and shotguns."

You lot were so busy congratulating yourselves about the ban on open carry of unloaded handguns you forgot to notice that
the new law exempted long arms. Fortunately, the OC activists noticed, and they plan on taking full advantage of it. And
they should be treated just like the OWS protesters- If they don't break the law, there are no grounds for their arrest.

And as has been seen before with them, if some overzealous cop decides to arrest them anyway, said cop and their LE agency
will soon be facing a lawsuit or lawsuits.

[SoCalNative]

1. They will be the ones surprised

when they get their asses arrested or worse.

[krispos42]

3. Nice how one's point of view changes depending on the right being exercised.

I bet you don't say the same thing when OWS protesters get busted.

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. Oh, I *know* they don't say the same thing when OWS protesters get busted.

For prohibitionists (of any stripe), some animals are more equal than others. "Civil rights for me, but not for thee..."

[krispos42]

7. I console myself with knowing...

...that liberals are much less "buffet civil rights" than conservatives are. But "much less" is not "not".

[Oneka]

19. Amazing

Also , how prohibitionists advocate, guns as a solution to guns, when
it suits thier agenda, but deride the same when it involves armed
citizens defending themselves.

[Oneka]

14. At this point

doesn't carrying a rifle or shotgun as a political symbol,become a 1A and a 2A protected right?
If carrying a political sign, burning an effigy, or burning a flag, is 1A protected political speech, than why is carrying a rifle or shotgun, as a political symbol, not?

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. That's a nice "Vote No On Prop 8." bumper sticker as your .sig

I take it your hypocrisy has utterly escaped you?

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. Carrying unloaded long arms around in California is not illegal, and it is also political speech...

(NOTE: edited and links added)

...hence protected by the First Amendment. In fact, if someone carrying around an unloaded rifle or shotgun was busted for
same, they'd have even more standing to sue the underwear off whatever agency emplyed the arresting officers than this guy
did:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

<sigh> Once again, I need to remind the restrictionistas: Even people you wouldn't have over for dinner enjoy the same Constitutional protections that you do, and there is no 'niceness' clause.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=181522#182329

[Callisto32]

117. Neither are you...

no matter how much you may try to prove otherwise on these fora.

[Iktomiwicasa]

8. arrested for what?

[PavePusher]

10. If the "arrested or worse" occurs, the arresters and worsers will have their asses sued off....

along with their departments and municipalities.

And rightfully so, as they would be violating the Civil Rights of those they arrest or worse to.

Why do you want to celebrate police violence against lawful Citizens?

[DrDan]

13. let's hope

[PavePusher]

17. Are you seriously advocating that people be arrested for legal, peaceful exercise of a Civil Right?

WTF?

[Oneka]

20. So let me get this straight.

You would like to project your hope, including, arrest, and possibly death, onto
citizens, for doing an activity that ,while legal, you don't like.
You would like to project this hope through the use of government uniformed
men/women with Guns?

Does that pretty much cover it?


Huh...... Amazing what you can say about your own hopes
in just two words.

[SteveM]

32. Are you hoping for their arrest, or are you hoping for "...or worse?"

[friendly_iconoclast]

168. Perhaps he's hoping the cops will gin up something like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5025450

It's amazing how close to the surface the authoritarian streak runs in prohibitionists. Sometimes, it surfaces.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

21. Arrested for what?

Obeying the law?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. For what? They will be acting lawfully

Are you advocating police harassment of lawful behavior?

[SteveM]

33. You know the gun-controllers; Peace, love, hatred of punishment, paranoia-free.....

[SteveM]

31. "...or worse." What'd you have in mind?

[krispos42]

2. And California is facing a $700 million budget shortfall.

I wonder how many foster parents they'll fire or school lunches they'll cut to pay off the lawsuits?

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. They'll follow Illinois' example, I'm sure- forced kicking and screaming to go to shall-issue.

Let's just hope that too many taxpayers megabucks are not spent in a rear-guard action trying to put off the inevitable.

[Iktomiwicasa]

9. I have to wonder...

...if signing this bill is a back door way towards getting CA to go Shall Issue. He seems smart enough to know that lawsuits are eventually inevitable, and that the State is gonna lose.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. let's hope

;)

otherwise x(

[ProgressiveProfessor]

46. Brown may have figured that out, but the law's originators are indeed that stupid

[PuffedMica]

11. Open carry of rifles is not new, Hunter Thompson wrote about it in his 1966 book Hells Angles

Hell's Angels
A Strange and Terrible Saga
by Hunter S. Thompson

Copyright © 1966, 1967 by Hunter S. Thompson
Copyright renewed 1994, 1995 by Hunter S. Thompson

One afternoon at the height of the tension Barger and five others rode their bikes out to a target range in Alameda. They carried their rifles strapped over their backs and took a route through the middle of Oakland. The police telephone hummed with reports of a heavily armed Hell's Angel patrol moving south through the center of town. But there was nothing the cops could do. The outlaws had their unloaded guns in plain sight and were observing the speed limit. They felt they needed some target practice. . . and if their appearance had a bad effect on the public, well, that was the public's problem, not theirs.

http://standingwave.kicks-ass.net:9090/books/Hunter%20S.%20Thompson/Hell%27s%20Angels_%20a%20strange%20and%20terrible%20saga%20%28487%29/Hell%27s%20Angels_%20a%20strange%20and%20terrible%20saga%20-%20Hunter%20S.%20Thompson.pdf

[Callisto32]

118. Sounds like carrying a long arm on any kind of small vehicle to me.

Guys on dirtbikes, motorcycles, quad-bikes...very common to carry the weapon slung over the shoulder.

[jpak]

201. Hell's Douchebags

yup

[Hoyt]

12. "If I can't carry a pistol, I'll carry a rifle." What a bunch of dumbasses.

[DrDan]

15. paints a pretty clear picture of this crowd, imo

[PavePusher]

18. What picture is that? n/t

[SteveM]

36. Are you still "hoping" for their arrest "...or worse?"

[Callisto32]

119. OO OOO PICK ME!!!

...they own long guns?

A much clearer and detestable picture is painted by people who spend their time advocating for the control of the peaceful activity of others. The violence suggested in the administration of that control is especially disconcerting.

[ileus]

22. I'd almost agree with you on this one...however.com

considering they shitcanned the safest form of carrying a compact safety device they may feel this is the only option.


I just wouldn't do it, too much bulk and weight.

[Hoyt]

23. Too much bulk and weight . . . . . .and risk is so dang small, folks will look stupid.

I'm just amazed at the people who can't walk down the street without a gun.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. It is about poking the repressors in the eye...not about risk

The cops will respond Code 3 and then behave badly. There will be stings caught on camera. The cites will pay punitive damages. Repeat as needed.

[Hoyt]

27. Well police should respond if some idiot is walking down the street with a rifle, sword, grenade.

[PavePusher]

28. If their weapon is legal and carried in a legal manner...

the police have no right, duty or power to legally confront the carrier.

"Observe and report" is the order of the day.

[Hoyt]

54. Is your permit tattooed on your head for them to see or something?

Since guns are not a skin growth or something else natural, they need to check and make sure you have the proper permits?

If you don't like it, then don't carry. I know, there is little chance you guys would venture out without your gun(s).

[We_Have_A_Problem]

56. One does not need...

...a permit to carry openly in places where open carry is allowed.

Stopping someone for openly carrying a firearm is no different than stopping someone for openly carrying a Koran.

[Hoyt]

60. Oh, it's very different. The fact gunners don't see or admit that is reason enough to question

their fitness to carry a deadly weapon in public.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

65. No, it is NO different.

A right is a right is a right is a right is a right.

Yes, someone may carry a gun with criminal intent. This does not in anyway justify treating everyone else like a criminal just in case.

What's that old saying...better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent suffer?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

71. Does that apply to rude toters?

I thought that gun owners and toters were simply hidden criminals which should not be allowed such rights

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. Is your Drivers License inked on yours?

A permit is not required for unloaded open carry today, and even after this law takes effect, long guns.

[PavePusher]

129. "permit"?

Your ignorance is glaring.

May I see your First Amendment Permit, please?

[gravity556]

What permit?

Even in California you don't need a permit to carry a long arm. And while I'm sure that before the hullaballoo on OC in CA, open carry of pistols was fairly rare, but not done to make a point, I am nearly completely certain that open carriers of long arms will be out in droves specifically to make a point. And they will be in the right, the cops won't be able to legally do anything about it, and the anti-rights crowd will shit purple kittens, bitch and moan and generally wish ill upon anyone who dares exercise a right that they disagree with.

I can already imagine confrontations on the street, nevermind that the anti-rights/pro-criminal safety yahoos claim that gun owners open carriers are all just itching for a reason to shoot someone, but this will fall from their conciousness as they engage someone open carrying a long gun in an argument. And I don't mean a discussion, I mean a finger in the face, name calling, spittle flying screed. All of this with an individual who is visibly armed and presumably (presumed by the finger in the face, anti-rights idiot) bloodthirsty. Think about that scene for a moment. Some anti-rights idiot screaming in the face of an armed open carrier, calling them all of the charming names we get called by the anti-rights folks. Kind of renders the whole "You're just out looking for a reason to shoot someone, blah blah blah, compensating with a gun or two, blah blah blah" argument moot. Particularly when the idiots who hold those views will eventually essentially try like crazy to pick a fight with a man or woman carrying a gun.

I've had it happen to me once. I just smiled and nodded, and the more polite I was, the more agitated the anti-rights idiot got. I let his tirade go on for about 5 minutes and then quietly and calmly said "Sir, you seem to think that I am just itching to shoot someone for any reason, but if you genuinely thought I was dangerous, why in the world would you stomp over here and insult me, call me names and get in my face, particularly in light of the pistol I am OBVIOUSLY carrying?" then turned and walked out (holding the door for a lady coming in trying to wrangle a bunch of kids).

[We_Have_A_Problem]

38. Why?

If he is carrying it legally, they have no legitimate reason to approach him. Its like stopping someone for walking across the street in a crosswalk with the light. Sure, its unusual, but it is 100% legal and there is no legitimate reason to detain the person for even a nanosecond.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. Actually they will over respond based on prior recent experience, followed by lawsuits

Already happens with open carry in CA.

[Hoyt]

50. A policeman who doesn't stop someone toting on public streets is not doing their job.

We'd be a lot better off if police had stopped Loughner, the Columbine fools, Koresh, McVeigh, and other gun toters.

If you are going to carry a gun in society, the police should stop you every 50 feet -- for all I care -- to make sure you are toting legally.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

51. A policeman who...

...stops you for legally carrying in the open is most assuredly not doing his job and opening his department and municipality to a LOT of lawsuits.

You also seem to not understand squat about some of the names you mentioned. Yes, Loughner was carrying, but legally or not, it isn't as if there was even an opportunity to stop him.

Columbine? Mere possession was illegal by them as they were under 18, and further, in their case, guns were Plan B in case the explosives didn't work.

Koresh? All his stuff stayed on his own property and he was posthumously exonerated of any wrongdoing.

McVeigh didn't use a gun.

Do yourself a favor and actually learn some facts would you? You're making a fool of yourself.

[Hoyt]

53. How do they know you are legally toting without stopping you?

Koresh was exonerated -- for raping teenagers, shooting 4 government officials and refusing to surrender afterwards for 51 days, etcetera?

Again, how do you know a toter is legal without stopping them? In California, you'd have to check their gun (not sure how the policeman keeps from laughing in the silly fool's face for parading around with an empty gun, but that's another issue).

In any event, I expect police to check anyone carrying a gun in public and not just conclude -- as you naively imply -- that they must be legal or they would not be walking around with a gun.

Besides, if I can't carry a sword in public. . . . . . .

[PavePusher]

55. You advocate a police state. Why are you here?

And you can carry a sword in lots of places. Like a long-gun, they are heavy and clumsy and a PITA for daily carry.

I also doubt you know anything about combat with a sword.

[Hoyt]

61. You advocate an armed state where citizens prepare to shoot each other.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

67. Who is advocating that?

Do you have actual proof of your claim? Just one link to one post supporting your accusation will be fine.

[PavePusher]

84. No, where Citizens are prepared to defend themselves...

if they so chose.

The distinction is pretty apparent.

Why do you continue to insist on your fantasy that all gun owners want to shoot people for no reason?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

58. Nobody was convicted over Waco

and whatever the allegations were, unless someone is actually convicted of it, the accusations do not matter.

As far as how you know someone is legal, if it is legal to carry without a permit, the cops are obligated to assume a legal action IS legal.

You're saying that legal behavior should be subject to police harassment, effectively chilling the exercise of a right. That, my friend, is wrong.

As far as carrying a sword in public, I don't see why not, if it was carried properly. I don't have a problem with it myself. I think a sword is a cumbersome choice for a self defense weapon, but if that is what you prefer, so be it.

[Hoyt]

62. We don't normally try people killed after a 51 day standoff after shooting 4 agents and

raping minors.

As far as swords. Check most state laws -- you can't carry them. I had to retire my machete. You should retire your guns as well.

BTW, Why do so many gunners here see Koresh as a hero or something?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

66. Oh for fucks sake...

There were many people still alive after Waco. Not a single one was found guilty of ANY of the allegations. Further, the claims of child abuse were laughable and the agents started the fight - so if they got shot, tough shit.

If you cannot carry a blade and you want to carry one openly, I'll happily lend my support to your cause. I support knife rights too. Arms are arms - just because you prefer to carry one which I consider antiquated does not mean you haven't the right.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

96. the ATF would have saved a lot of lives

if they arrested him while he walking around.
Weaver still would, since he was never convicted of any crime.

They would have in any country including Italy, so what's your point?

[ileus]

77. Your state may allow concealed swords under at CWP..check and find out...

Here in Va we have CHP concealed handgun permit....however.com in WV it's a CWP, any weapon you want to conceal is fine.


If you really desire to carry a sword check into your state regulations.

If you want to "open carry" a sword that may be legal also, if not you need to work to get enough people to get laws passed and individuals that agree it should be allowed since there's no amendment guaranteeing it as a right.

[Callisto32]

120. Sure there is.

"...to keep and bare arms..."

Swords are fine arms.

[Oneka]

78. so you want to impose

your will on an open carrier , via the police?

In any event, I expect police to check anyone carrying a gun in public and not just conclude -- as you naively imply -- that they must be legal or they would not be walking around with a gun.

Then petition the state legislature of whatever state you would like to see this in. Tell them you want laws enacted to reflect your views on
guns. Instead of expecting police to break the law and by checking the legality of any citizen they see walking down the street, every 50 feet.

Perhaps after you have done this in a few states, you and Paul Helmke could share notes, and see how well you both are doing.

In the meantime,you may learn that what you expect police to do, and what they have the authority to do legally, are two different things.

[beevul]

110. How do they know you are legally driving without stopping you?

2 ton bullet capable of travelling across the entire nation and all...

You might try...I dunno...actually thinking...before you post.


Hell, you could even make a habit out of it, if you tried REALLY hard.

[PavePusher]

116. (snort) I have my doubts... n/t

[Starboard Tack]

37. Oh no! Not Code 3. No, no Red Rider. Apocalypse now!!!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. There have been examples of that already here in CA

Police chiefs justifying over the top action over legal behavior. Suits are already in the pipeline. When it is done legally but provocatively, it means the cops are being trolled. Unfortunately, most cops and cop shops are dumb enough to fall for it. Since the cops do not personally pay judgments, they have no reason to follow the law.

[Starboard Tack]

49. Jesus! I thought you were in AZ or NM . Are you following me around?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

63. Nope, always CA

[PavePusher]

30. You just don't understand about Rights and harrasment, do you?

I'm just amazed at people who can't walk down the street without interfering with Constitutional Rights.

[SteveM]

35. Regardless of you assessment of their intelligence, should they be arrested?

[Hoyt]

59. Hey, you choose to carry in public, they gotta check your permit, whether gun is loaded, etc.

If it bothers or delays you, the rational solution is to leave em at home. You can get em out when you return and do whatever you like.

[SteveM]

70. No, the question is just how much you want to punish them. Right?

BTW, what/which "permit" are you referring to?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

72. Substitute driving for carrying and see if it still sounds good to you?

Every cop could stop you for no reason other than to check your paperwork, title, insurance etc and many did. Would that work for you? Note that driving on public roads requires a license, unloaded open carry does not.

[Oneka]

80. they gotta check your permit

No they really don't,, in fact , unless they witness you doing something unlawful, or they have RAS that you are about to commit a crime, they have no real authority to interact with you at all in an official capacity.

[Hoyt]

90. You better check laws. Refuse to show them your permit or unloaded gun and see what happens.

[Oneka]

91. what permit

was that again? http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/california.pdf

[Hoyt]

94. That's why I said "unloaded gun." Don't really check state laws as I can walk in public w/o gun(s).

[PavePusher]

109. So, advocating and expounding from a position of ignorance....

again?!

When will you tire of this?

If you are at all representative, it's no wonder we don't get good movies or TV anymore.

[Callisto32]

122. HAHA

"Everything I know about guns I learned from writing movies/tv."

Given the piss-poor firearms handling and knowledge we generally see in "entertainment" these days, are we really surprised that an alleged screenwriter ALSO has piss-poor knowledge?

[Hoyt]

167. Why do you guys think I'm a "screenwriter?" You been checking up on me or something?

Hell, come on over if you like. You guys really are sick.

[PavePusher]

180. Ummm, farking seriously?

Have you ever googled your own name?

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=8&gs_id=u&xhr=t&q=Hoyt+Hilsman&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Hoyt+Hil&aq=0&aqi=g3g-v1&aql=f&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=bc10a23150ae866b&biw=1280&bih=869

http://www.hoythilsman.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyt_Hilsman

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hoyt-hilsman

https://www.facebook.com/people/Hoyt-Hilsman/743571876

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0385206/

http://www.amazon.com/Hoyt-Hilsman/e/B001HQ0R6I


And that's only the highlights of the first page....

If you are trying to keep a low profile, you are doing it wrong.

:eyes:

[friendly_iconoclast]

192. I don't think he's really Hoyt Hilsman, unless he normally does *this* when he posts here:

http://www.estatevaults.com/bol/%20%20merlot%20and%20email%20don't%20mix.jpg


Hoyt Hilsman may be mistaken on guns, but he can certainly put together a more comprehensible sentence- which leads to an
obvious question:

Hoyt, does your Dad know you're pretending to be him online?

[PavePusher]

194. His early phrasing and wording here matched his Huff'n'Puff article...

and when called on it he admitted to it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

82. Just to be clear....

You're saying the police should misuse their authority to question someone engaged in a legal and constitutionally protected activity to confirm that their actions are as legal as they appear?

You go further to say that if one does not like the inconvenience, one should simply stop exercising his rights.

Is this correct? I want to make sure I am not misunderstanding you, because what you're saying sounds very much like you're advocating the restriction of a right under color of law.

[Hoyt]

95. They check driver's licenses, tag numbers, business licenses, etc. Why not gun permits?

You think because you carry a gun, you should get special treatment or the police should consider you a law enforcement officer? Get real.

If I walk down the street with my machete in one hand and a spear gun in the other, I expect someone to say something or do something to have me checked out. The last time I did that, four squad cars were on me before I got 3 blocks.

[Oneka]

97. Special treatment?

No, and i think i can speak for many on this board when i say that most don't want special treatment.


That being said, being left alone while going about my business, and not breaking the law, is NOT SPECIAL TREATMENT.

[Hoyt]

103. Breaking the public peace is a "crime," if not indictable.

[PavePusher]

108. Studiously following the law is not "Breaking the public peace".

Can you even cite to this law in your own state, let alone someone elses'?

[oneshooter]

111. No he can't/won't ya see " He don't need no steekin facts." n/t

[PavePusher]

115. jpak's brother-by-another-mother. n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

131. It is legally impossible to break the peace...

...while engaging in a legal act.

[gejohnston]

101. for one thing

they only do with probable cause. Also, none of those things are what Brown described as a civil right. Jerry did say that owning a gun is a civil right.

[Hoyt]

104. As long as Jerry keeps vetoing stupidly lax gun laws, I don't care what he says to appease you guys.

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. There's no permit needed to own a long gun in California, hence there is nothing to check.

So you've been advocating deprivation of civil rights under color of law. How very pseudo-progressive of you...

[Hoyt]

105. Go carry your long gun. Put "don't tread on me" embossing on your shirt and underwear.

Who cares?

[Callisto32]

123. See, this is the problem.

"Don't tread on me" is a legitimate request. It is asking you to not harm me, and I will not harm you. The rattlesnake is a perfect example for this idea. See, I live with a couple of different species of rattler, and they all have one thing in common. They are pretty chill snakes. They aren't looking for trouble, and in fact actively warn you off, if they think you are bringing trouble to them. If you keep bringing trouble, they will lay you out like a fat man recovering from a 4 day pie bender.

Rattlesnakes are respected more than feared, around here.

Your position is more akin to the copperhead, another of our fang-ed friends. Copperheads are more...twitchy. They will sometimes actively pursue you, even if your "provocation" of them was very slight, or even just perceived. Asking me to disarm based on your perceptions, and threatening to do it by force if I choose not to do so is much more copperhead-y.

Copperheads? Those fuckers are scary. They don't care.


Interestingly, I carry a gun in large part for protection from copperheads, as well as to have a proper tool to quickly, safely and humanely put down the wounded animals that are so common around here.

[Hoyt]

166. Don't care. Symbol has been hijacked by right wing, bigoted TBaggers.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

130. Among other things...

...because a permit is not required to carry openly. Comparing it to your other examples, I don't know of ANY municipality which checks everyone's drivers license, tag number or business license on anything like a regular basis.

[oneshooter]

100. It is NOT illegal to "open carry" a rifle or shotgun. Loaded or empty. n/t

[Hoyt]

106. There's something we need to work on since those who can't carry their pistol will turn to rifles

so they can leave home and walk down the street.

[friendly_iconoclast]

113. What "we"? You live in Georgia, not California.

Good luck with that! <chortles>

Every time I read a thread that you get involved in, I have to say to myself: "There he goes again, bless his heart..."

[friendly_iconoclast]

139. You'd think Anthony Crispino has a DU account, given the marked inaccuracy of certain posts.

Google the name for some semi-amusing videos.

[Callisto32]

121. The rational response to trained government monkeys wanting to put their paws down your pants...

is to just stay home. You can travel any other way you like.

[Atypical Liberal]

16. This will simply cause more public alarm.

At least when you see people in public with a pistol, it is usually carried in a holster at the hip, and you can tell that the person carrying it is not using it, it's just along for the ride.

With long arms, it's a lot harder to carry them in a posture that does not denote readiness to use. Even a sling is a lot more casual than a holster.

This is going to have more people calling the police in response to someone with a gun.

But I don't really believe you'll be getting that many people dedicated enough to carry rifles around with them for very long.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

26. It is very easy to carry a long arm in a non-threatening way

Slung on your back, cross body, muzzle down, makes it very clear that it is not ready for use. A long arm with a detachable magazine even more so as the missing magazine is pretty clear. Even slung over one shoulder, muzzle up is pretty clearly not ready for use.

The people can call the po-po all they want. Eventually the police will either fuck up so bad it cannot be ignored, or they will tire of responding to "man acting legally" calls.

[PavePusher]

29. Slung across the back, muzzle down, no magazine, is just as unthreatening...

and, if anything, slower, than a holstered pistol.

[Starboard Tack]

34. What's the big deal? Rifles and shotguns are not the problem.

This is good. Now, where's the lawsuit that's going to bankrupt California?
BTW, I'll be keeping my eyes open for all these guys toting rifles and shotguns to TJ's

[We_Have_A_Problem]

39. It does take a few days to file the paperwork.

It is coming though - believe that.

[Starboard Tack]

40. I think I hear the hoofbeats. Time to lock, load and circle the wagons

[We_Have_A_Problem]

42. The funny thing is....

...the more you ridicule it, the worse it makes you look.

You deride people for supporting and exercising their rights, and yet you somehow consider yourself liberal and progressive....


Bottom line ST, if you do not want to carry a gun, don't. If you don't want to own one, don't. If you don't want to be around people who are carrying them in a public place, leave. Once you start to force your desires to have everyone live as you do upon others, then you are the one who is violating rights.

[Starboard Tack]

68. Then you should be happy. Rejoice in my looking bad, even though you can't see me. Enjoy.

Bottom line is, I choose to live in places where people don't carry guns around on a "just in case" basis. I don't know where you get the "force your desires to have everyone live as you do upon others" idea from. It has nothing to do with forcing others to do anything. On the contrary, it is about not allowing people to do outrageous things that do not fit in with a civil code of conduct. Things like not shitting on the sidewalk or rutting in the street or threatening others with violence or carrying loaded weapons in public places.
The really tragic thing is that you don't understand those simple rules of conduct. You blow them out of proportion with your grandiose statements about civil rights and the Constitution. And that is just blowing smoke.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

69. I don't see carrying a gun as uncivil.

Perhaps you do since you are the type who would misuse one.

My carrying a weapon causes you no harm.

What is truly tragic is you believe my statements about the exercise of my constitutionally protected rights are nothing but grandiose smoke-blowing.

[Starboard Tack]

73. "My carrying a weapon causes you no harm." Why should it cause me harm?

What harm would you suffer if I took a dump in the street in front of your dining room window?
There are toters in this forum who have stated they would blow people away for breaking their windows or running away with stolen goods. That is what is truly tragic.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

74. Because if it causes you no harm....

...you really cant say jack about it.

Taking a dump in the street is inherently unsanitary and does cause harm - not just create a stink.

Yes - you break my window while I'm home, and you're getting some lead your way at high speed. What is REALLY tragic is you seem to think defense of the home is a BAD thing.

[Starboard Tack]

76. Please show me where I ever said defense of the home is a bad thing

I hope you don't live anywhere near a golf course, or children. Talking about grandiosity! Wow!
It's folk with your kind of attitude that make people like me give a shit about something I'd hardly ever thought about before. Keep up the good work, because if "so called" liberal democrats are becoming routine toters, then it's time for some major changes.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

79. Right here:

Here are your exact words:

"There are toters in this forum who have stated they would blow people away for breaking their windows or running away with stolen goods. That is what is truly tragic."

Now, pray tell, what part of that did not indicate that you believed it was tragic that people would shoot someone for breaking a window?

Obviously a golf ball coming through my window during the day is different than someone breaking into my home with ill intent. If I lived near a golf course, and it was a window facing the course itself, yes, I'd check for a golf ball on the floor if it happened during the day. However, I do not live near a golf course, and if a window breaks in my home, it is being done intentionally. Yes - I'm going to shoot the SOB who broke the window. Simple as that. No, I do not worry in the slightest that it will be my wife or daughter as they have other means to enter the home. I also do not worry about it being a drunken friend needing a place to stay as I have no friends who would enter my home in such a manner. Besides the fact that all my friends know that is a good way to get shot, they also have respect for me and my property.

So, all your bullshit hyperbole aside, most people see breaking a window as an aggressive criminal act.

[Starboard Tack]

140. I think it would be tragic shooting someone for breaking a window.

Now, if you want to create Hollywood scenarios I can think of lots of times when it may be justified. But you said "Yes - you break my window while I'm home, and you're getting some lead your way at high speed" - very macho.

You remind me of a guy I once knew. The father of an old girlfriend. We were visiting her parents at their country house in upstate NY. The mother asked me if I could do her a favor and replace a medicine cabinet in her bathroom, because there had been an accident. On inspecting it, I found a bullet hole in the center of the mirror. I asked her how it had happened and she said to ask her husband, which I did. Apparently, he was in his bedroom, adjacent to the bathroom, when he heard a suspicious noise inside the house. It seemed to be coming from the bathroom. So he pulled out his AR-15 and fired one shot. It passed through his bedroom wall, the medicine cabinet, the shower, tiled wall on the opposite side of the bathroom, the living room and finally came to rest in the far outside wall of the house. I asked him "What if the noise had been your wife?" (Needless to say, she would have been history, had she been standing in front of the mirror or taking a shower.)
He replied quite calmly "Oh, I knew it couldn't have been her. She doesn't have a key."

That was the last time I visited them, but I did replace the cabinet for the poor woman.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

143. I think it is tragic

that you have a problem with someone defending their home.

I'm nothing like that guy you mentioned. He simply fired indiscriminately according to your story.

[Starboard Tack]

145. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

If you can't sustain an argument without making shit up, don't engage.
You're exactly like that guy. He thought he was being safe and protecting his family. You'll be firing at brick throwers and bad golfers.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

147. I'm not putting words in your mouth

Or making a thing up. You specifically said you believed it was tragic to shoot someone for breaking a window.

The only reason someone would have to break a window is to attempt to enter the home without permission - either that or to intimidate or cause criminal mischief. At the very least, he is choosing to damage my property. None of these things are trivial crimes.

[Starboard Tack]

154. How many times do you redefine in one sentence?

First, you are assuming he/she had a reason to break your window. Your response. Bang!
Second, if they have a reason, it must be "to attempt to enter the home without permission - either that or to intimidate or cause criminal mischief". What a crock. Maybe they just like breaking windows. Period. Trust me, these people exist.
You need some serious help.

Broken windows syndrome
William D. Eggers and John O'Leary
Policy Review
Fall 1995, Number 74

Excerpt:

'In a 1982 Atlantic Monthly article titled "Broken Windows," James Q. Wilson and George Kelling argued that disorder in a community, if left uncorrected, undercuts residents' own efforts to maintain their homes and neighborhoods and control unruly behavior. "If a window in a building is broken and left unrepaired," they wrote, "all the rest of the windows will soon be broken. . . . One unrepaired window is a signal that no one cares, so breaking more windows costs nothing. . . . Untended property becomes fair game for people out for fun or plunder."

'If disorder goes unchecked, a vicious cycle begins. First, it kindles a fear of crime among residents, who respond by staying behind locked doors. Their involvement in the neighborhood declines; people begin to ignore rowdy and threatening behavior in public. They cease to exercise social regulation over little things like litter on the street, loitering strangers, or truant schoolchildren. When law-abiding eyes stop watching the streets, the social order breaks down and criminals move in.

'"Stable neighborhoods can change in a few months to jungles," declare Wilson and Kelling. Disorder also can have dire economic consequences. Shoppers will shun an area they perceive as being "out of control." One study analyzing crime in 30 different areas found that the level of disorder of a neighborhood -- more than such factors as income level, resident turnover, or racial makeup -- was the best indicator of an area's lack of safety.'

[We_Have_A_Problem]

169. If they like breaking windows...

...they should be prepared to be shot. Intentionally breaking a window in a home is an act which any reasonable person considers agressive and the law considers a crime.

Jeffery Dahmer liked fucking and killing little boys. Should we have just ignored those actions because he enjoyed it?

[Starboard Tack]

170. So, you equate breaking windows with "fucking and killing little boys"?

Shoot 'em all! Murderers, window breakers, parking violators! Shoot the fucking lot of them! Is that your world Mr. We Have A Problem.
Lemme tell you what the problem We The People have and that's guys like you who want to shoot everyone who looks at them the wrong way. Go live in a West Bank settlement and you can shoot little boys throwing stones all day.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

171. I never said

I wanted to shoot someone who looks at me the wrong way. I have been crystal clear. It is you who is attempting to obfuscate.

Threaten me or my family, or attempt to enter my home while I'm in it, and I will do my level best to ensure you cease to be a threat. If you die in the process, that is your problem.

Why should I have to check and see if the guy breaking my window is doing it just for the hell of it or to forcibly enter? Legally, morally and ethically, I have every right and duty to assume his actions are to harm me and take proper action to prevent it.

And no - there was no equation beyond pointing out the absurdity of ignoring a crime simply because the perpetrator likes to do it.

[Starboard Tack]

173. Where's the obfuscation?

"Why should I have to check and see if the guy breaking my window is doing it just for the hell of it or to forcibly enter?" Why should you check before shooting? How do you know it isn't a neighborhood kid playing with a baseball or a bird? Doesn't matter to you. Let's hunker down and start blasting. Your family must feel very safe with you protecting them.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

179. If you're seriously asking that question...

...either you need to re-read what you have posted, or you need to look up the definition of obfuscate.

[oneshooter]

161. " If you can't sustain an argument without making shit up" Pot calling the kettle black. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

182. Which are you, the pot or the kettle?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

183. Doesn't really matter does it? n/t

[rrneck]

81. So

self defense is fine in the home but not on the street?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

83. Apparently it isnt OK at home either...

...after all, he did say that it is tragic to know that people here would shoot someone who was forcibly entering their home...

[rrneck]

89. It's all based on

some code of conduct that only he understands. It's sort of an oracle thing. You have to ask him how he feels about it so he won't get upset and scold you.

[Starboard Tack]

141. Self defense is fine anywhere. We've had this conversation before.

You know where I stand.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

144. Yes we do...

apparently you stand firmly upon a constantly shifting line defined only by you and changeable at a moments notice.

[Starboard Tack]

146. Now you're butting in and that's rude. I was talking to Rneck

[We_Have_A_Problem]

148. Now you're being silly

This is an open forum and a post to one person invites a response by all. Get a grip.

[Starboard Tack]

155. Oh, alright then. Hope that answered your original question

I'm flexible. I'm a sailor. We rarely "stay the course". We tack.

[rrneck]

149. You don't appear to have learned anything.

And you still don't have any answers.

[Starboard Tack]

184. Never claimed to have answers.

Can't solve problems without diagnosing first. The learning process continues. Thanks for following my progress. It's always reassuring to know you're out there. If I were Batman, you could be my Robin.

[rrneck]

185. Um

When you dodge a direct question that requires you to think about what you're saying it means you aren't looking for answers. That makes you little more than the joker.

[Starboard Tack]

186. And what would that direct question be that I supposedly dodged?

[rrneck]

187. Follow the dotted lines

It's the post that started the entire sub thread. Post #81.

[Starboard Tack]

188. Jesus, man. I'm a forward thinker. Can't go back there.

If it was the one about proving some silly statement I came up with, feel free to score it against me. I can't be expected to win them all. If it was something else, ignore the above.

[rrneck]

190. Another dodge.

You clearly aren't here to discuss, only to vent.

[Starboard Tack]

191. Sounds more like you with your one liners

I've discussed enough with you for a while. I know where you stand. You know where I stand. Gets stale after a while. I'm dancing with the toters right now, not the would be toters. Bye.

[rrneck]

195. Your position

is incoherent and you know it. You're only dancing with your emotions, which are your only interest.

[Starboard Tack]

196. My position is totally coherent. I have no emotional investment

That sounds like you. Sorry, but I am not your mirror. Find someone else to fill your dance card.

[rrneck]

197. Then

why is it OK to use a firearm to defend yourself in your home but not outside the home?

[Starboard Tack]

198. I never said it wasn't OK outside the home.

My issue is with routine carry outside the home. I don't care about the legality of it, just the stupidity. I think the practice is symptomatic of antisocial personality disorder.

[rrneck]

199. So

a firearm should only be carried when someone knows they're going to need it.

Assuming precognition = incoherent.

[Starboard Tack]

203. Did I say that? I think not

It's called reality testing, not precognition. Obviously, one would be justified in carrying if one had been receiving credible threats, or one had no choice in frequenting known "war zones". However, going out to dinner with the family or meeting friends for a drink in the neighborhood bar or attending church services is more than a tad over the top.
Reasonable, rational people tend to behave rationally. Strapping on a firearm as routinely as wearing shoes, when venturing forth is neither reasonable, nor rational. You appear to be a rational gun owner, who does not practice this behavior for the very reasons I mention above. You seem to enjoy arguing for argument's sake. Either you take the side of the nutters for the sport of it, or, as you have previously stated, your motives are purely political, in that you think honest debate about this issue may be detrimental to our Party's election chances, which I don't buy, as you well know.

[rrneck]

204. So

all the people who got assaulted outside their homes while going about their business but had not been threatened beforehand don't matter.

Muggers don't make appointments. Or are you able to design a bureaucracy that can respond to the moment to moment vagaries of people's lives?

[Starboard Tack]

206. All what people? Do you have stats to back that up?

My question to you is "Why don't you tote your gun on a daily basis?" and "Do you ever tote it? If so, when and why?"

Please, spare me the rambling about designing bureaucracies etc.to deal with the vagaries of our daily lives. Few among us want the supernanny state, as few among us want to resolve problems with guns.

[rrneck]

207. So

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

1,246,248 violent crimes in 2010. And do you think they all happened to people on their own property or were carrying firearms?

I don't carry because I don't have to. I, unlike you, am unwilling to force an a priori ideology on others. Don't you ever get tired of trying to turn a personal preference into a moral imperative?

[Starboard Tack]

213. "I don't carry because I don't have to."

Thank you. How come you don't have to? Do you have a Superman cape, private bodyguards or are you just clairvoyant?
"I, unlike you, am unwilling to force an a priori ideology on others" WTF are you talking about. How do I force an ideology on someone? By speaking my mind? By voicing an opinion?
Pointing out foolish behavior and discussing it is hardly a moral imperative. There are those in this forum who condone shooting the mentally challenged. There are those who condone shooting window breakers. There are those who condone shooting people in the back as they flee with stolen swag. These are very disturbed individuals and if their participation in this kind of forum can help shed some light on what ails them, then perhaps, the more rational members can help guide them towards a healthier view of life. We all have a responsibility toward each other.

[rrneck]

214. I dont carry because I'm lucky

enough to live in a low crime area.

I am not one of those others to which you would (mis)direct my attention. Shooting people in the back or as reprisal for breaking windows are not the subject of our exchange.

There are a lot of unanswered questions pending. Do you care to discuss them or will you continue to avoid them?

[Starboard Tack]

215. " There are a lot of unanswered questions pending." Fire away. One at a time please.

Does a low crime area mean a no crime area? Would you suggest that a regular toter cease toting if he were to move into your neighborhood? Would you feel better if he continue to tote in your "low crime area"? Or would you feel better if he followed your lead, as a fellow gun owner and just left his "self-defense tool" at home?

[rrneck]

216. 'One at a time..."

You're still stalling. First you balk, then you disseminate, then you flatter, then you answer with questions, then you ask for one question at a time while asking a series of questions.

My risk assesmend does not indicate the need to carry. What others carry is none of my business as long as its legal and they don't hurt anyone.

Get busy. You've got some work to do. See posts 81, 197, 204, 207. Do what you say you want to do. Discuss.

Christ, its like asking the only kid in the house how the vase got broken.

:rofl:

[Starboard Tack]

224. I answered.

Let me know when you have a coherent thought

[rrneck]

226. No you didn't.

You reframed the question.

If it is OK for a private citizen who has not received any discernible threat to defend themselves at home with a firearm, why is it not OK for them to do so outside the home?

I'm dying to see what your next dodge will be.

[Starboard Tack]

227. As I said. I totally support self-defense anywhere.

What does that have to do with routinely toting a handgun? Like you, threat assessment should determine that choice. Are you clairvoyant? No, you just use common sense, like most other people. Do you enjoy pandering to armed paranoiacs, or do you just like to argue against your own better judgment?

[rrneck]

228. Another bullshit dodge.

People shouldn't routinely carry a gun but if they suspect they might be assaulted they are free to proceed to the assault. Of course according to you the only reason someone would carry assumes either precognition or willful intent to shoot someone in a confrontation.

According to you anyone who carries a gun is either paranoid or bloodthirsty. Logically incoherent but emotionally consistant.

You don't like people carrying guns and you establish impossible criteria while claiming to be reasonable. Just like open carry is confrontational but concealed carry is dishonest.

You're just trying to fit the round peg of the reality of people's lives into the square peg of your idiology. And you know it. That's why you have to be chased around like this.

[Starboard Tack]

229. " According to you anyone who carries a gun is either paranoid or bloodthirsty"

Where did you get that? I carry a gun when I go hunting. I am neither paranoid nor bloodthirsty. I think those who routinely carry a handgun, for no apparent reason, are foolish and run a higher risk of injuring or being injured.
I neither like nor dislike the practice. I just find it irrational.
And I find your comments pompous and condescending. So, try to be a little more thoughtful.

[rrneck]

230. Can you produce

evidence to support your claim that those who carry are a higher risk to themselves or the public?

What gives you or an agency acting on your behalf the right to establish a valid risk assessment?

If so, what remedy do you offer if your assessment is wrong?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

231. Where did he get that?

Do you not even remember what you post?

[Starboard Tack]

232. He knows what I mean

Mr Neck and I have danced this dance before. He likes to provoke, but he doesn't like to tote. Bit of an agent provocateur. We still dance from time to time, but mostly I ignore his drive by posts.

[rrneck]

234. Kitchen still too hot eh?

:rofl:

[rrneck]

222. Kitchen get too hot for you? nt

[PavePusher]

209. So, have criminals started making appointments? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

219. Probably more often than lightning, tsunamis and earthquakes.

Criminals often make appointments. It's the victim who should avoid keeping those appointments.

[PavePusher]

221. Please tell us where you got your precognition....

mine seems to be as defective as hell.

[Name removed]

223. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

202. So you're a psychologist as well as a detective? Cool!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x468323#469027

You see, I read a lot of mysteries and consider myself to be somewhat of a Sherlock Holmes, having been a detective in a past life.

That brings up a question: Were you Sigmund Freud or Carl Jung?

[Starboard Tack]

205. Yes, actually, among other things.

Do you have a problem with that? They are quite compatible fields, both involving problem solving through serious analysis. This is why I find this forum so often interesting. Stories like this one, tragic as it is, challenges one's deductive powers as to what really went down and why. But, on another level, the comments made by some members can be so revealing. There was a time when I found many posts to be quite disturbing, and there is still the occasional one, but I've come to realize that most of it is bluster and harmless bullshit mixed with testosterone laden back slapping. So, the fun part is trying to sift through all that to find people who actually seek an intelligent conversation.

[beevul]

208. Hogwash.

"... the comments made by some members can be so revealing"

Case in point:

" Stories like this one, tragic as it is, challenges one's deductive powers as to what really went down and why."

Somehow your "deductive powers" deduced that the guy was unarmed when he was shot, when absolutely NO evidence has been put forward that the guy ever put down the weapons he was holding.

None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nadda.

And yet you accuse others of making assumptions that the guy was still armed, out of the other side of your mouth...

But then, like you say, "comments made by some members can be so revealing".

What you describe as your application of "deductive powers as to what really went down and why" have been nothing but thinly veiled agenda/position driven hogwash.

Nothing more.

Whats really revealing, is that you seem to think nobody here sees or knows it.

[Starboard Tack]

212. There is no mention of him being armed outside the house.

I'm not saying he was or wasn't, but until I see something referring to that, I can only assume that he was unarmed. It would be awkward to remove all your clothes and keep hold of a bow, especially in any threatening way. Think about it. All reports say he was naked in the street and coherent enough to tell the EMTs that he had taken cocaine. Sounds more like angel dust to me, but who knows. The reporting on this is way too scant so far.

[Oneka]

217. Hey Sherlock

were you a detective in another life, or just in another thread.

Here's a clue for ya.. no charge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x468323


This may be the thread you are looking for.

[Starboard Tack]

218. Good Lord, Watson. There are mysteries to solve here. No time for distractions.

[friendly_iconoclast]

220. Delusions of grandeur are not unknown here in the Guns Forum.

We have had (and still have) posters that have, for some reason, appointed themselves Inquisitor/Zampolit Of The Guns Forum and
who consequently spend much time and energy pronouncing other posters anathema for not being 'progressive'.

For another example, we've a certain poster here who is neither USAmerican nor of African descent, yet presumed to express the "African-American position" on gun control- until disabused by a few real African-Americans.

So no, you're not unique. Or the first.

[Starboard Tack]

225. Well it's nice to know you're checking everyone's credentials

We wouldn't want anyone talking to us who wasn't "real", would we?

[PavePusher]

87. Some of us are capable of sorting hyperbole from reality....

and making fine distinctions of nuance.

You, apparently, are not. I hope you own nothing more lethal than a mattress...

[Starboard Tack]

142. How many would some be? A few? Two? Three?

I love it when you use fancy words. "fine distinctions of nuance" Nice redundancy.
And I don't own a mattress, BTW. But I have lots of things that could be deadly, like my bicycle. I have a hammer and a few knives, a crowbar and, of course, my Hawaiian Sling (the only thing designed to kill. But I'm a good improviser.
I had been thinking of getting a mattress but it would be too obvious, very hard to conceal. What kind of mattress do you carry?

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

112. Put your money where your mouth is.

"Things like not shitting on the sidewalk or rutting in the street..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047168/Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters-make-love-class-war-sex-drugs-tap.html


"...or threatening others with violence..."

Do you define carrying concealed or openly as such?


"...or carrying loaded weapons in public places."

Public places are EXACTLY the places the government is supposed to to be forbidden from infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms...in the same way as they're supposed to be forbidden from 1st amendment interference.

"The really tragic thing is that you don't understand those simple rules of conduct."

Is there a sign posted somewhere, or are you pulling these "simple rules" out of the nearest convenient dark orifice?

"You blow them out of proportion with your grandiose statements about civil rights and the Constitution."

You on the other hand, don't seem to understand what civil rights are, nor do you appear in the context of the things you say, to understand how they work.



Lets see, civil rights being quantifiable, being codified, and being real...versus your "simple rules" which as far as anyone can tell, were contrived from the murk of your own imagination...

Who is it that is "just blowing smoke" again?

[iverglas]

134. check this one out

You may view porn and curse 'n swear and engage in any sexual act you like in your own home.

If you choose to show porn flicks on a giant screen in your shop window, or stand in front of someone else's shop cursing 'n swearing at the top of your lungs, or engage in a sexual act on the sidewalk, you're going to find yourself in a spot of bother.

And even if for some reason you didn't, you would incur the opprobrium of ordinary people -- people who have no desire to stop you from doing those things in the privacy of your home, or anywhere else they might be welcomed, and agree completely that you have a right to do them, but find it repugnant that you would behave that way in public.

Now you might have an idea of how many people view others' insistence on insinuating firearms into public spaces.

We regard it much the same way as we regard a variety of other unpleasant, antisocial, self-centred behaviours.

We prefer to live in communities where people have sufficient respect for the people they share the public spaces with that they don't foul them up with behaviours that others find it repugnant to engage in publicly.

[PavePusher]

135. I can carry porn through the streets in a suitable container (plastic bag) all day long.

Very much like a pistol in a holster.

[iverglas]

137. and you can invent specious distinctions to your heart's content

to prove that any analogy under the sun is not an identity.

All my congratulations.

[Oneka]

138. Care to Name a few of these behaviors?

"We regard it much the same way as we regard a variety of other unpleasant, antisocial, self-centred behaviours."

[iverglas]

151. care to read my post?

Yeesh.

[Oneka]

160. thought maybe you would like

to throw up a few, constitutionally protected, behaviors, to compare with my insinuating my individual rights into public spaces.

[iverglas]

164. care to read my post?

Apparently not.

[gravity556]

150. So guns are equivalent to displaying porn in a shop windown?

Your analogy is rather a large heaping steaming pile of bovine excreta. If CA respected the rights of its citizens, they wouldn't have to openly lug around a rifle or shotgun with which to defend themselves (and now, just to piss off the anti-rights assholes), they would be able to file an application, have a background check done and be issued a concealed carry permit. And then you'd never have to see one of those icky guns (except on your TV, from whence you gained your "expertise" in firearms) out in public.

In a state that does respect its citizen's rights (AZ, AK, VT will do for starters) you'd be hard pressed to point out who is carrying a gun. Unless, of course, you chose to try and rob someone and chose poorly. Then you may get a very close look and possibly an ammunition demonstration. But since you purport to be a law abiding citizen, your chances of seeing a firearm even here in AZ are pretty much zero. Even though you'll quite probably be surrounded by folks going about their business who are armed.

Since you can't see my gun, nor can you tell that I am carrying it (operative word is CONCEALED), just how, exactly, are you being infringed upon? Because someone is doing something that you don't approve of? Awww, I'm sure that somewhere there's a Ministry of Hurt Feelings that would happily take your statement and give you some cookies and milk. So tell us, iverglas, how exactly is the public display of pornography equal to the concealed carrying of a firearm?

And again, I really want to know what magical law it is that will completely ensure that criminals will cease criminal activities? Blanket death penalty for all crimes? Hell, even the actual death penalty doesn't dissuade people from doing horrible things to other people.

[iverglas]

152. who said that?

You need to find somebody who did and go yammer at them.

Meanwhile, you need to do some self-educating to the point that you can distinguish between "equivalent" and "analogous", and just generally get a grip on the concept of "analogy".


And again, I really want to know what magical law it is that will completely ensure that criminals will cease criminal activities?

And I want a pony. You promised me one.

[gravity556]

172. Wow, senility sets in early up in the cooler climes, eh?

If you choose to show porn flicks on a giant screen in your shop window,

I do believe those are your words. Seems to be equating openly carrying firearms to publicly displaying porn. If that isn't what you meant, I'm sure that everyone would love to find out what you did mean and why you're suddenly yammering about public displays of pubic displays in the context of banning open carrying.

So please, if I am mistaken in my interpretation and you meant something else when you compared open carry of firearms to "showing porn flicks on a giant screen in your shop window", I'd love to hear your clarification. Pretty pretty please, with sugar on top.

[Starboard Tack]

193. California does respect the rights of it's citizens

When it stops doing that we'll be happy to let our politicians know. We don't want to see your gun, but if you must carry one, because you're too scared to leave home without it, then we do want to see it and don't think about loading it. OK.
Otherwise, there's lots of wide open spaces in AZ.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

165. such silly tricks

I guess you rely on other readers believing your distortions.

Me:
Now you might have an idea of how many people view others' insistence on insinuating firearms into public spaces.
We regard it much the same way as we regard a variety of other unpleasant, antisocial, self-centred behaviours.

You:

Who we white man? Speak for yourself and let others speak for themselves. Nobody aopointed you spokesperson for...about anything as far as I can tell.

Doesn't work quite so well when the referrent for the pronoun "we" is not redacted out, does it?


Me:
We prefer to live in communities where people have sufficient respect for the people they share the public spaces with that they don't foul them up with behaviours that others find it repugnant to engage in publicly.

You:
I'm sure those against ...Oh, I dunno...same sex couples kissing in public...would embrace that sentiment whole heartedly yes siree bob.

And I'm sure I don't give a shit. You saw nothing in what I wrote, and you will never see anything in anything I write, that suggests that anyone's desire to violate equality rights has anything to do with anything. Equality rights rule.

If it's repugnant for opposite-sex couples to have sex on the sidewalk, it's repugnant for same-sex couples to do it. If a community decides that it isn't repugnant for opposite-sex couples to have kiss in public, it doesn't get to decide that it's repugnant for same-sex couples to do it. If a community decides it's repugnant for white people to display pornography in their shop windows, it doesn't get to decide that it's not repugnant for black people to do it. See how that works?

There are no equality rights at stake in the carrying-firearms scenario. Bzzt. Gay men don't get to carry firearms in public, black Christians don't get to do it, Uruguayans in wheelchairs don't get to do it.

That SHOULD tell you something about the...uh...propriety of such sentiments. Unless of course, it only applies to actions YOU disagree with.

Equality rights have nothing to do with me. They're entrenched in my constitution, and they even get some lip service where you're at.

Does it? No need to mince words or write a doctrine, just plainly state it if thats the case. Of course, that H word that describes certain posters hereabouts would definitely apply, in that case, which wouldnt be terribly shocking.

God damn, that doesn't even make sense, does it? Some imaginary someone's imaginary fear of firearms ... what?

Beyond that, call me old fashioned, but respect is EARNED. Yeah, thats right, EARNED. Not GIVEN, or ASSUMED. EARNED.

In your Puritan, devil-take-the-hindmost, God loves a winner world, I have no doubt.

In the real world of the human community, all individuals are deserving of respect by virtue of their status as human beings.

That's why we say that gay men and lesbians have a right to marry the partner of their choice. No matter how nasty and rude, or even homicidally criminal any particular gay man or lesbian might be. Nasty, rude, criminal heterosexuals have marriage rights.

Finally, if you want a society where your "respect" is more important than the literally harmless exercise of a constutionally protected right...(note: harm is defined as something more than "I don't LIKE it", or "I find it repugnant".)

For harm, check those homicide figures of yours. Rates at least four times higher than any comparable society. A society awash in guns, and particularly handguns. Where there are gazillions of handguns, there will be handguns in the streets, in the malls, in the institutional buildings, in the workplaces of the community. There's your problem.

You'r welcome to it.

Thank you. We guard our constitutionally guaranteed rights up here very jealously. And we take the safety and security of our communities and their members very seriously. It's a pretty good life.

I'm not having any.

Obviously. All the figures -- not just homicide, but life expectancy, income disparity, etc. etc. -- show pretty clearly that the plural you don't have nearly as much as you deserve.

[beevul]

181. You can always be counted on to accuse others of it, right before you engage in it yourself.

You:

"Now you might have an idea of how many people view others' insistence on insinuating firearms into public spaces.
We regard it much the same way as we regard a variety of other unpleasant, antisocial, self-centred behaviours."

How many exactly is it? You DO have some Idea right? I mean if you don't, what basis do you have for such a statement?

So go ahead, elaborate on just how many it is, and be specific. That or admit you are talking out your ass.

"There are no equality rights at stake in the carrying-firearms scenario."

Nope, Just constitutional rights. We ARE talking about America here, not the great white north, my dear. Constitutionally protected rights don't just cease to exist because you find them repugnant. In fact, they dont cease to exist until a SUPER majority abolishes them. If you or anyone else find the peaceful harmless exercise of them to be repugnant, well...TOO FUCKING BAD.

"For harm, check those homicide figures of yours. Rates at least four times higher than any comparable society. A society awash in guns, and particularly handguns. Where there are gazillions of handguns, there will be handguns in the streets, in the malls, in the institutional buildings, in the workplaces of the community. There's your problem."

And you accse ME of being silly? When I said "harmless exercise of a constutionally protected right" I was referring to the peacable carry of a firearm. Go ahead, tell us all, how many people were killed by the peacable carry of a firearm? How many holstered handguns killed people eh?

Your problem, is that you are either unwilling or unable to differentiate between lawful peaceable exercercise of a right, and whats not.

Personally, I don't think you care to.

"We guard our constitutionally guaranteed rights up here very jealously."

And yet you are nothing but snide derisive and demeaning to some of us down here who do the same thing.

What was that "h" word again? Hypocrite.

[Katya Mullethov]

189. Hmmmmmm.......Harridan ?

I love puzzles !

[frylock]

41. this will get old real fast..

it's one thing to walk into the starbucks thinking you're a badass because you have a .45 strapped to your thigh. walking around the grocery store toting an 870 express just isn't going to be convenient after a while.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. Political action always has that aspect to it. Participating in OWS is not convenient either

The cops will get a clue after they get set up enough times.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

47. they make rifle slings. problem solved

[slackmaster]

52. It all depends on how one is dressed

If you look like a hunter, carrying a long gun looks perfectly normal.



If you are dressed as a priest, maybe not so normal.

[Iktomiwicasa]

75. I don't think...

...anyone's gonna walk into that fellers church and raise hell, LOL.

[Callisto32]

125. Any shepherd worth his salt carries a weapon

[PavePusher]

57. While it's not as comfortable as a handgun, it's pretty doable with the right gear.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://kliphs-underground.blogspot.com/2009/08/black-man-with-ar15.html&h=250&w=400&sz=30&tbnid=r-_9MbxeepKVEM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=139&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dman%2Bwith%2Bar15,%2Bpicture%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=man+with+ar15,+picture&docid=jX0kGFNFASL6AM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MaqUTszoLK38iQLRlI3eBA&ved=0CC0Q9QEwBQ

[Katya Mullethov]

85. Hey..... cool

They got his head stuck back on !

[PavePusher]

88. I was really disappointed....

He was gonna be so much fun on Halloween...!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

114. ?

404 not found

:shrug:

[PavePusher]

127. Huh, works for me... Try this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lbs04g60y2o/So4hXXwkdKI/AAAAAAAAAUU/7SSEvCND8Zk/s400/Gun+at+protest+black+man.JPG

[Tuesday Afternoon]

128. ok. got it now. thanks.

:hi:

[iverglas]

92. "an open-carry practitioner"

Gosh, you'd almost think this open-carry stuff was some kind of religion ...

[PavePusher]

98. I'm quite sure there are "practitioners" of lots of non-religious things....

well, outside of Canada anyway....

Nice false conflation though.

[iverglas]

99. yeah, I'm a "shoe-wearing practitioner"

Of course, I and other normal people would say "I wear shoes" ...

[Callisto32]

126. Ah, so now "iverglas" is the metric for normality.

Guess what...

You aren't special.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

132. special?

Nah - not going there...let your mind come up with the images on your own...

[iverglas]

133. okay, that didn't make any sense at all, did it?

Ah, so now "iverglas" is the metric for normality.
Posted by Callisto32
Guess what...
You aren't special.

Completely unintelligible, that, eh?

Normal people don't say things like "I'm an open-carry practitioner". Displaying a firearm on one's body as one wanders about town is not an art or a science or a skill or a profession or a religion; it isn't something one "practises" any more than wearing shoes is.

One practises law, or the marshall arts, or Hinduism.

One carries a gun around openly in public, if that is one's wont.

Calling someone "an open-carry practitioner" really does make it sound like there's an agenda there though, doesn't it just?

[PavePusher]

136. Except that the definition of the word is not as limited as you imply.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practitioner

http://definitions.dictionary.net/practitioner

[iverglas]

153. nobody's talking "definition"

I'm talking "how normal people talk".

[PavePusher]

158. And we go back to #126.... n/t

[eallen]

156. As long time shooter, I don't get it. But, open carry never has been legal in Texas.

I guess this is some kind of gun-hating state??

:hippie:

[PavePusher]

157. Nah, just a little odd in it's laws.

If you do some research, you'll probably be able to trace Texas' gun carry restrictions to residual racism post-Civil War.

[eallen]

159. I doubt it. We didn't have the same kind of post-war tension as the deep south.

Gun ownership isn't restricted. Never has been, that I know.

Open carry laws are more about norms of public behavior. Sort of like wearing pants when you leave your house.

In Texas, both restrictions apply to public behavior. On your ranch, you can run about wearing only a broad sword and cross-bow on your back, and a pair of pistols strapped to your thighs. But you come into town, a different kind of behavior is expected.

:hippie:

[PavePusher]

162. Perhaps I was too vague.

I did not mean the ownership laws, I meant the carry laws. Almost every state that requires a permit to carry enacted those laws to regulate who could carry on a racist basis.

When I carry, my sidearm is in a holster. That is its "pants". Is there a social rulebook that delineates what "behavior is expected" when peacefully attending to ones business while legally armed?

[chrisa]

174. Why would you want to open-carry a rifle in a city?

Honestly, I wouldn't even have a problem with rifle slings (or whatever you call having a rifle strapped to your back), but what's the point? Why openly display a rifle like that? Is it about intimidation? Do they want to feel like a bada** or something like that?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

175. To make a point.

That's all anyone would be doing. Yes, it is silly. Yes, it is more cumbersome than a handgun. Yes, it is far more visible than a handgun.


Why would a black man go out of his way to sit at a lunch counter plainly marked "Whites Only"? Intimidation? Arrogance? You tell me...

[chrisa]

176. To make a point? That's just silly. What point would they be trying to make?

Like I said, it's not a problem if it's over their back, unloaded, muzzle down, and even in a container. However, I have a problem with people using guns as a macho-status thing, or for intimidation. There's a clear difference between the two (especially with the way the gun is held or stored). I personally think rifles are fine to carry as long as they're in a container of some kind, and are not openly flashed in front of everybody. A rifle on the back really isn't as good for self-defense as a handgun anyways.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

178. I don't think it is silly at all.

The state of CA has decided that it does not want the general public to carry handguns, either concealed or openly, loaded or unloaded. Hence the only solution for those who wish to carry a firearm is to carry an unloaded long arm.

By openly carrying a long arm, those people will be even MORE visible, raising the visibility of the issue itself.

[PavePusher]

210. Your last sentence may be correct....

but it is all the commoners have been left with. You can send your thanks to the lege and the gov.

[gejohnston]

177. other than

carrying to school (on days we had rifle club)I never thought of it.

[krispos42]

233. How else do you change the law?

Despite experiments in liberalizing gun laws in other states and supreme court rulings, the politicians in Sacramento are still wedded to some outdated, race-based idealology.

[jpak]

200. CA Dems will close that loophole - and make the GOP/NRA cry louder

yup

[spin]

211. Yup. In a couple of years California will pass "shall issue" concealed carry ...

and then licensed individuals will be able to carry a LOADED concealed weapon in all non restricted areas inside the state just like I can in Florida.

That will end all the controversy as out of sight is out of mind.

Be aware that California already has "may issue" concealed carry so "shall issue" is not a BIG step. According to this map many areas of California are already effectively "shall issue".


source:http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/counties/countiesmap.html