DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Political and Religious Forum (aka the echo chamber) => Topic started by: El Barto on December 06, 2017, 05:46:54 PM

Title: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on December 06, 2017, 05:46:54 PM
So the house passed a so-called reciprocity bill today demonstrating, yet again, that state's rights only matter if you like the right in question. If you don't that's when you get Uncle Sam to compel them otherwise. As everybody knows I'm a gun rights guy, and I've driven across country on several occasions with a weapon on me. Try to figure out what to do when crossing borders into  Colorado, Wyoming, and South Dakota sometime. It's a bitch. One mile you have to keep it concealed and then the next it must  to be in plain sight at all times. Eventually I gave up and kept my gun stashed in the back, and relied upon my being a law abiding white guy driving in republican states as a fallback plan. I fully get the desire from the right for reciprocity, and support it whole-heartedly. That ain't what we got, though.

Reciprocity is when two kids on the playground enter into an agreement whereby "you show me yours and I'll show you mine." What the house passed is effectively one kid whipping it out, waiving it around, and yelling "hah, suck it bitch!" There is no agreement. There's compulsion. Proper reciprocity already existed all over the country. It just wasn't universal because some states want stricter requirements than others. If my state commands that a license holder actually be able to hit the broad side of a barn with their weapon, it'd be willing to accept permits from other states with comparable requirements. And if another state comes along and requires no more than a pulse and one working eye to get a permit, it's probably not going to accept theirs. Sounds pretty damned reasonable to me. Apparently not to our NRA overseers, though.

Which leads to another point, how on Earth could this be constitutional? Properly constitutional, not the Clarence Thomas "sounds good to me" definition. Reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are "presumptively lawful." As the dead justice Scalia put it, we find what the minimum constitutional right is and everything above that is up to the States. Seems to me that the minimum hasn't included the absolute right to carry a weapon in public for upwards of 150 years. There's also 18 USC ß926A (peaceable journey) which has already established federal accommodation for transporting weapons across state lines. It's a royal pain in the ass, but the end result is that you already can travel with weapons, even in New York. You just can't have it sitting your lap like your beloved puppy.

So in summary, fuck the NRA and the scumbag representatives they own. I started a new thread because historically all gun discussion has taken place in threads about kill-crazy rampages, and rather than digging up one of those I decided to just start a proper second amendment thread.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 07, 2017, 08:33:47 AM
I'm a big states rights guy and I don't like when the Federal Government decides that they can just overrule whatever law they want that a state passes. This is no different. However, I will say that having been a conceal carry permit holder for 10 years now I think that there should be some legislation or law, test....something that I can do to validate my competency with my weapon and some sort of test that I can take to prove I'm not bat shit insane that would allow me to carry wherever I want.

My major gripe right now is professional sports arenas. I can't speak for other cities but in St. Louis you are a sitting duck when walking back to your vehicle from either the Cardinals or Blues games. The criminals know it and year after year there are a dozens of robberies and assaults happening to folks walking back to their vehicles.

Same can be said for the last few concerts I've attended in St. Louis. Wanded at the door. I get the need to do that at the arenas and at these venues. I do. But, I think there should be a next level of certification for those of us who would A.) Pay for it and B.) Want it.....available so we aren't denied our right to defend ourselves. Because in my eyes that's exactly what is happening. I'm being told by the Cardinals, Blues and these music venues that I don't have the right to protect myself or my loved ones when I choose to go to their venue.

So, I simply don't go anymore. Haven't been to a Cardinal or Blues game in years since they instituted metal detectors at every entrance and the only two concerts I've seen in St. Louis were HAKEN and Dream Theater but I made the choice to 'risk' it because I really wanted to see them.

But as far as your OP EB......it's like you said their just pandering to the folks who are lining their pockets...cough cough NRA..cough...cough. Peaceable travel is already a law so that negates the need for this to allow across border movement and.....lets be honest.....conceal carry is 'conceal' carry. As long as your an obedient citizen and not walking down the street twirling your gun on your finger.....you can conceal a weapon and go pretty much anywhere you want to. As long as there are no metal detectors.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on December 07, 2017, 08:57:06 AM
I think your problem here is that the odds of you getting mugged and needing your gun to defend yourself are quite a bit lower than the odds of a drunk Cardinals fan with a CCW going off his nut. Brouhahas at sporting events aren't exactly a rarity. Search YT for "drunk sports fan St Louis" and look at some of the results.

This was my favorite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJgwqSGNCLk
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on December 07, 2017, 09:01:57 AM
I'm being told by the Cardinals, Blues and these music venues that I don't have the right to protect myself or my loved ones when I choose to go to their venue.

Not a gun guy, as I said in another thread, and I don't want to be overly judgmental of your thoughts, but are we really at the point in this country where we can't go watch a bunch of Canucks slap a puck around with a stick without fearing for our lives? Is this America or the Middle East?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Chino on December 07, 2017, 09:33:04 AM
I think your problem here is that the odds of you getting mugged and needing your gun to defend yourself are quite a bit lower than the odds of a drunk Cardinals fan with a CCW going off his nut. Brouhahas at sporting events aren't exactly a rarity. Search YT for "drunk sports fan St Louis" and look at some of the results.

This was my favorite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJgwqSGNCLk

This is exactly what I was thinking.

I agree with your sentiment, Gary, but there are too many drunken idiots in sports arenas for me to feel safe with them carrying a loaded gun. I could maybe get behind a program where if you were carrying, you get a bracelet that can only be removed on your way out of the venue that lets vendors know that you are not allowed to drink. For a parking lot mugging, a good can of mace would be just as effective and wouldn't accidentally kill someone in the process if the person being assaulted fucks up.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 07, 2017, 09:36:26 AM
I'm being told by the Cardinals, Blues and these music venues that I don't have the right to protect myself or my loved ones when I choose to go to their venue.

Not a gun guy, as I said in another thread, and I don't want to be overly judgmental of your thoughts, but are we really at the point in this country where we can't go watch a bunch of Canucks slap a puck around with a stick without fearing for our lives? Is this America or the Middle East?

It's certainly not the wild west but given the current state of affairs I'd rather have the option of protecting myself from a disgruntled buss boy who was fired from a restaurant returning to get revenge or whatever/whoever it is deciding they are going to shoot up some place.

Eliminating my chance to defend myself and/or my family simply does not sit well with me.


I think your problem here is that the odds of you getting mugged and needing your gun to defend yourself are quite a bit lower than the odds of a drunk Cardinals fan with a CCW going off his nut. Brouhahas at sporting events aren't exactly a rarity. Search YT for "drunk sports fan St Louis" and look at some of the results.

This is probably true. But, I'd rather have my gun on me and not need it than encounter and instance where my gun could have saved my life or someone I care and love's life but it's locked up in my car 800 yards away because I was restricted in carrying it.

and that video was hiarious  :lol   deep baby laughs like that are awesome also.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on December 07, 2017, 09:37:25 AM
I think your problem here is that the odds of you getting mugged and needing your gun to defend yourself are quite a bit lower than the odds of a drunk Cardinals fan with a CCW going off his nut. Brouhahas at sporting events aren't exactly a rarity. Search YT for "drunk sports fan St Louis" and look at some of the results.

This was my favorite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJgwqSGNCLk

This is exactly what I was thinking.

I agree with your sentiment, Gary, but there are too many drunken idiots in sports arenas for me to feel safe with them carrying a loaded gun. I could maybe get behind a program where if you were carrying, you get a bracelet that can only be removed on your way out of the venue that lets vendors know that you are not allowed to drink. For a parking lot mugging, a good can of mace would be just as effective and wouldn't accidentally kill someone in the process if the person being assaulted fucks up.

I get pretty hammered at sporting events and I don't buy their overpriced, nasty tasting beer. I drink up in the parking lot and possibly take some inside with me.

Also, they're not going to let you take a can of mace inside, either.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on December 07, 2017, 09:38:41 AM
This is probably true. But, I'd rather have my gun on me and not need it than encounter and instance where my gun could have saved my life or someone I care and love's life but it's locked up in my car 800 yards away because I was restricted in carrying it.

and that video was hiarious  :lol   deep baby laughs like that are awesome also.
The issue isn't whether or not you should be allowed to carry. The issue is whether or not the guy in the video should. If you can, he can.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 07, 2017, 09:42:13 AM
I think your problem here is that the odds of you getting mugged and needing your gun to defend yourself are quite a bit lower than the odds of a drunk Cardinals fan with a CCW going off his nut. Brouhahas at sporting events aren't exactly a rarity. Search YT for "drunk sports fan St Louis" and look at some of the results.

This was my favorite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJgwqSGNCLk

This is exactly what I was thinking.

I agree with your sentiment, Gary, but there are too many drunken idiots in sports arenas for me to feel safe with them carrying a loaded gun. I could maybe get behind a program where if you were carrying, you get a bracelet that can only be removed on your way out of the venue that lets vendors know that you are not allowed to drink. For a parking lot mugging, a good can of mace would be just as effective and wouldn't accidentally kill someone in the process if the person being assaulted fucks up.


Like I said....I totally get that. But if you're carrying a gun lawfully then you should not be drinking anyway, period.

This past summer a couple retired military men petitioned for a license to have a mobile gun storage van they could park outside arenas in St. Louis:

http://fox2now.com/2016/06/29/mobile-gun-safe-could-be-up-and-running-by-july/

But they were denied the permit:

http://fox2now.com/2016/07/15/entrepreneur-says-permit-process-shut-down-his-mobile-gun-locker-business-downtown/

I think this would be a good middle ground solution and would immediately remedy mine and others concerns.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Chino on December 07, 2017, 09:42:17 AM
I think your problem here is that the odds of you getting mugged and needing your gun to defend yourself are quite a bit lower than the odds of a drunk Cardinals fan with a CCW going off his nut. Brouhahas at sporting events aren't exactly a rarity. Search YT for "drunk sports fan St Louis" and look at some of the results.

This was my favorite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJgwqSGNCLk

This is exactly what I was thinking.

I agree with your sentiment, Gary, but there are too many drunken idiots in sports arenas for me to feel safe with them carrying a loaded gun. I could maybe get behind a program where if you were carrying, you get a bracelet that can only be removed on your way out of the venue that lets vendors know that you are not allowed to drink. For a parking lot mugging, a good can of mace would be just as effective and wouldn't accidentally kill someone in the process if the person being assaulted fucks up.

I get pretty hammered at sporting events and I don't buy their overpriced, nasty tasting beer. I drink up in the parking lot and possibly take some inside with me.

Also, they're not going to let you take a can of mace inside, either.

Fair points.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 07, 2017, 09:45:19 AM
This is probably true. But, I'd rather have my gun on me and not need it than encounter and instance where my gun could have saved my life or someone I care and love's life but it's locked up in my car 800 yards away because I was restricted in carrying it.

and that video was hiarious  :lol   deep baby laughs like that are awesome also.
The issue isn't whether or not you should be allowed to carry. The issue is whether or not the guy in the video should. If you can, he can.

That just comes down to being responsible. I haven't seen many stories come across where a drunken sports goer's gun accidentally fires or whatever. Most if not all the people I know who CCW when they are drinking either do not carry their gun or keep it locked up. I think the majority of people who CCW think responsibly like that...again, that's just based off the community of people I know.

But again...I understand where you, Brian and Chris ar coming from.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: cramx3 on December 07, 2017, 09:46:36 AM
Sometimes I feel like I live in a different country where people feel the need to have a gun on them at all times.  I just don't understand that mentality at all.  I am for gun rights (so I am not arguing against that), but unless you've unfortunately had some tragic event happen to you, I don't know why you feel so uncomfortable in this country.

As for the law, I don't like it because I have a bit more conservative values with the idea of less government and states rights, something I thought this current government would believe as well, but clearly it's selective. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 07, 2017, 09:48:07 AM
I get pretty hammered at sporting events and I don't buy their overpriced, nasty tasting beer. I drink up in the parking lot and possibly take some inside with me.

That's me.   At UConn games here in CT, it's $12.00 for a 16 oz. Coors Light.  Fuck that noise.   $12.00 gets me a 12-pack of same. 

I'm a gun rights guy as well, but I don't really have a problem with "Time Place and Manner" restrictions, especially since there are more effective means of providing the same protection.   The solver at the St. Louis sporting events is not arming the fanbase, but putting in lights and providing greater security in that hemisphere.   Given the types of terrorist attacks we've seen, that's prudent anyway.

Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on December 07, 2017, 10:04:32 AM
Sometimes I feel like I live in a different country where people feel the need to have a gun on them at all times.  I just don't understand that mentality at all.  I am for gun rights (so I am not arguing against that), but unless you've unfortunately had some tragic event happen to you, I don't know why you feel so uncomfortable in this country.

I don't feel uncomfortable and am not living in fear. I view it no differently than why I pay $109 every month for my wife and I's car insurance. Most likely will never use it...but IF the time comes when I need it I'll have it. That's it. I view it as a responsibility as a Husband and Father. I regularly fire my weapon to make sure I'm as competent as I can be, and if my gun is not on me it's in a safe. all my weapons are safely locked up.

My initial point was I particularly don't like when the option for me to carry my weapon is taken away from me. I'm being denied that chance to protect myself and my family IF something were to happen. And that's a big IF. As EB said, the odds on me personally ever being in a situation where I was forced to draw and use my gun are very slim. But I don't want to not have that choice.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: vtgrad on December 07, 2017, 01:02:19 PM
I'm being told by the Cardinals, Blues and these music venues that I don't have the right to protect myself or my loved ones when I choose to go to their venue.

Not a gun guy, as I said in another thread, and I don't want to be overly judgmental of your thoughts, but are we really at the point in this country where we can't go watch a bunch of Canucks slap a puck around with a stick without fearing for our lives? Is this America or the Middle East?

Coming back to that, during my time in the Middle East (Israel, Jordan, Egypt), I never once felt unsafe... even during my detainment (in another thread I tell the story; I was profiled because of my looks by the Israeli military).  And looking back on that, two days after I returned to the states, the border crossing that my party used to go from Israel to Egypt was bombed... go figure.

On the other hand, I can think of many, many times here in the states (after concerts, sporting events, etc) that I've felt a little hair raise on the back of my neck walking through certain places (yeah, I'm looking at you Baltimore) and after having been approached by other bystanders in my vicinity with requests and suggestions of where I should and shouldn't be.  I will say that roughly half of those times I've been armed.

It's not necessarily about fearing for your life I don't think, it's about being prepared for the unthinkable.  The 6-P's.

I'll have to read the legislation before I can comment on it.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Dave_Manchester on December 07, 2017, 03:26:35 PM
Surprised to hear you chaps across the pond can still drink in sports stadia. It's been all but outlawed at elite football ('soccer') games over here, due to the sport's inherent tribalism and hooliganism. The result has been fans getting plastered before the games, such as this magnificent human specimen right here at last week's Sunderland-Reading match (my mate was there):

https://deadspin.com/sunderland-fan-explains-that-he-did-not-drunkenly-shit-1821012484

And I want to give a shout-out to the British police here, this is why they're alright. They took to Facebook to back up the kid's defense that he only took a sit-down piss, not a shit. So it was ok:

http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/04/police-back-trouserless-sunderland-fans-claim-he-did-not-defecate-at-his-seat-7130499/
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: cramx3 on December 07, 2017, 03:30:02 PM
Surprised to hear you chaps across the pond can still drink in sports stadiums. It's been all but outlawed at elite football ('soccer') games over here, due to the sport's inherent tribalism and hooliganism. The result has been fans getting plastered before the games, such as this magnificent human specimen right here at last weeks's Sunderland - Reading match (my mate was there):

https://deadspin.com/sunderland-fan-explains-that-he-did-not-drunkenly-shit-1821012484

And I want to give a shout out to the British police here, this is why they're alright. They took to Facebook to back up the kid's defense that he only took a sit-down piss, not a shit. So it was ok:

http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/04/police-back-trouserless-sunderland-fans-claim-he-did-not-defecate-at-his-seat-7130499/

It's interesting the idea of drinking at sporting events.  It's allowed at pretty much all of them except at College games held on college campus's.  And in those cases, people do as you mention, drink excessively before the game and enter completely shit faced.   I've done this myself.  There's been lots of talk about more colleges allowing drinking during the event since not allowing it has lead to lots of alcohol poisoning.  Plus might as well make some money since people are going to booze whether you try to stop it or not.   
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on December 07, 2017, 03:45:15 PM
Drinking at sporting events is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to be outlawed.

And vtgrad, I didn't mean to disparage the Middle East (well, maybe a little). I can't say I've ever felt the slightest bit unsafe anywhere I have ever been in the past 20 years where it remotely crossed my mind to carry a firearm.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on December 07, 2017, 03:56:17 PM
Nobody would go to games if they couldn't' get drunk. Most stadiums have family sections where no beer is served, but you're talking about a couple of small balcony sections seating <5% of the crowd. The only restrictions I know of were instituted by the leagues after the comically violent 10Ę beer night riot in Cleveland. I believe such beer promotions were banned at MLB games shortly thereafter. They still sell a shit-ton of beer, though.

Quote
After the Indians had managed to tie the game, a 19-year-old fan named Terry Yerkic ran onto the field and attempted to steal Texas outfielder Jeff Burroughs' cap. Confronting the fan, Burroughs tripped. Thinking that Burroughs had been attacked, Texas manager Billy Martin charged onto the field with his players right behind, some wielding bats. A large number of intoxicated fans Ė some armed with knives, chains, and portions of stadium seats that they had torn apart Ė surged onto the field, and others hurled bottles from the stands. Hundreds of fans surrounded the outnumbered Rangers.

Realizing that the Rangers' lives might be in danger, Cleveland manager Ken Aspromonte ordered his players to grab bats and help the Rangers, attacking the team's own fans in the process. Rioters began throwing steel folding chairs, and Cleveland relief pitcher Tom Hilgendorf was hit in the head by one of them. Hargrove, after subduing one rioter in a fistfight, had to fight another on his way back to the Texas dugout. The two teams retreated off the field through the dugouts in groups, with players protecting each other

(https://s3media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/618/917/2917618.jpg)

There's also a pretty amusing documentary on YT about Disco Demolition Night. More drunken baseball fans tearing up a stadium.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 08, 2017, 07:52:45 AM
Surprised to hear you chaps across the pond can still drink in sports stadia. It's been all but outlawed at elite football ('soccer') games over here, due to the sport's inherent tribalism and hooliganism. The result has been fans getting plastered before the games, such as this magnificent human specimen right here at last week's Sunderland-Reading match (my mate was there):

https://deadspin.com/sunderland-fan-explains-that-he-did-not-drunkenly-shit-1821012484

And I want to give a shout-out to the British police here, this is why they're alright. They took to Facebook to back up the kid's defense that he only took a sit-down piss, not a shit. So it was ok:

http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/04/police-back-trouserless-sunderland-fans-claim-he-did-not-defecate-at-his-seat-7130499/

For some reason, I found this very funny:

"In a Facebook post this morning he said: ĎIím so regretful but I canít remember any of it at all. That was me itís real Iím so regretful but I canít remember any of it at all and for the record I didnít actually have a shit. ĎI honestly didnít have a shit. The club even released a statement saying there was nothing wrong with the chair.í"

Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: vtgrad on December 08, 2017, 10:55:29 AM
Drinking at sporting events is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to be outlawed.

And vtgrad, I didn't mean to disparage the Middle East (well, maybe a little). I can't say I've ever felt the slightest bit unsafe anywhere I have ever been in the past 20 years where it remotely crossed my mind to carry a firearm.

I didn't take it as you disparaging the Middle East at all (honestly, wouldn't matter if I did  :biggrin:)... it's a valid opinion that part of the world is violent, because it is violent.  I guess my point was more about how well prepared the citizenry is in the Mid East for random violence on a large scale and how ill-prepared we (the US citizenry) are by comparison.

Regarding drinking at collegiate events: I don't ever remember being explicitly told that we could not bring drinks into Lane Stadium while I was a student... and everyone around me had drinks.  Hell, I never got out of there without getting some sort of alcohol spilled on me.  Those restrictions (and there are printed restrictions and I assume there always have been) are likely much, much more heavily enforced now then they were when I was there (98-03).  When I drank, I was only a casual drinker and even I always had an airline bottle of Jack with me in the stadium, though not in plain sight.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on December 08, 2017, 11:10:38 AM
Drinking at sporting events is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to be outlawed.

And vtgrad, I didn't mean to disparage the Middle East (well, maybe a little). I can't say I've ever felt the slightest bit unsafe anywhere I have ever been in the past 20 years where it remotely crossed my mind to carry a firearm.

I didn't take it as you disparaging the Middle East at all (honestly, wouldn't matter if I did  :biggrin:)... it's a valid opinion that part of the world is violent, because it is violent.  I guess my point was more about how well prepared the citizenry is in the Mid East for random violence on a large scale and how ill-prepared we (the US citizenry) are by comparison.

Yeah, not sure why I would think the ME is a violent place.  :laugh:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/middleeast/jerusalem-trump-friday-prayers-protests-intl/index.html

vtgrad, I was at UVa in 94-96. Couldn't handle the pretentiousness, humidity, and most importantly the course load so dropped out before I could flunk out.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on December 08, 2017, 11:14:06 AM
Having lived in Israel for several years, at no point did I feel unsafe.


Though I knew when to avoid certain places because of increased violence, and I wasn't allowed to go to The West Bank or any other occupied territories besides Jerusalem.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on December 08, 2017, 11:18:24 AM
Sounds like Paradise  :)  Kidding aside, I know you are Jewish (at least I think you are) but do not know anything about your beliefs beyond that, so please do not feel I am disparaging your culture in any way.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on December 08, 2017, 11:19:45 AM
Sounds like Paradise  :)  Kidding aside, I know you are Jewish (at least I think you are) but do not know anything about your beliefs beyond that, so please do not feel I am disparaging your culture in any way.

Too late. Expect Mossad to be taking you within the hour.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on December 08, 2017, 11:40:51 AM
Can you at least send Ziva from NCIS?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on December 08, 2017, 11:42:06 AM
Ah yes, Cote de Pablo. The most Israeli person ever.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on December 08, 2017, 11:47:28 AM
 :rollin
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 08, 2017, 01:09:48 PM
Ah yes, Cote de Pablo. The most Israeli person ever.

It passed muster with me, but then again, I have low standards. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 08, 2017, 01:10:32 PM
Having lived in Israel for several years, at no point did I feel unsafe.


Though I knew when to avoid certain places because of increased violence, and I wasn't allowed to go to The West Bank or any other occupied territories besides Jerusalem.

Why weren't you "allowed"?  Passport?  Nationality?  Prudence on the part of whoever brought you there?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on December 08, 2017, 01:12:31 PM
Having lived in Israel for several years, at no point did I feel unsafe.


Though I knew when to avoid certain places because of increased violence, and I wasn't allowed to go to The West Bank or any other occupied territories besides Jerusalem.

Why weren't you "allowed"?  Passport?  Nationality?  Prudence on the part of whoever brought you there?

Israel doesn't allow citizens into those areas unless they're settlements. I refuse to go to settlements on moral grounds.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on December 08, 2017, 01:16:08 PM
Ah yes, Cote de Pablo. The most Israeli person ever.

It passed muster with me, but then again, I have low standards.

I mean, it'd be like saying inspector Clouseau did a good enough American impression.

Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on December 08, 2017, 01:23:06 PM
Ah yes, Cote de Pablo. The most Israeli person ever.

It passed muster with me, but then again, I have low standards.

I mean, it'd be like saying inspector Clouseau did a good enough American impression.
I don't know who this Cote de Pablo is, but Peter Sellers did probably the best American impression I've ever heard. When I first realized he was Merkin Muffly I was astonished.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on December 08, 2017, 01:25:11 PM
Ah yes, Cote de Pablo. The most Israeli person ever.

It passed muster with me, but then again, I have low standards.

I mean, it'd be like saying inspector Clouseau did a good enough American impression.
I don't know who this Cote de Pablo is, but Peter Sellers did probably the best American impression I've ever heard. When I first realized he was Merkin Muffly I was astonished.

Peter Sellers, not Clouseau.  :P
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on December 08, 2017, 01:29:02 PM
When I first realized he was Merkin Muffly I was astonished.

Boy if you Google image search Merkin Muffly, you get quite the results!
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 08, 2017, 01:54:50 PM
Having lived in Israel for several years, at no point did I feel unsafe.


Though I knew when to avoid certain places because of increased violence, and I wasn't allowed to go to The West Bank or any other occupied territories besides Jerusalem.

Why weren't you "allowed"?  Passport?  Nationality?  Prudence on the part of whoever brought you there?

Israel doesn't allow citizens into those areas unless they're settlements. I refuse to go to settlements on moral grounds.

Assuming I had the will and no moral compunction (which I'm not saying I do or don't) would I, as an American citizen, be allowed?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 08, 2017, 01:55:59 PM
Ah yes, Cote de Pablo. The most Israeli person ever.

It passed muster with me, but then again, I have low standards.

I mean, it'd be like saying inspector Clouseau did a good enough American impression.

I can't defend my position and not turn myself into a hypocrite in the other threads here.  :)
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on December 08, 2017, 01:57:16 PM
Having lived in Israel for several years, at no point did I feel unsafe.


Though I knew when to avoid certain places because of increased violence, and I wasn't allowed to go to The West Bank or any other occupied territories besides Jerusalem.

Why weren't you "allowed"?  Passport?  Nationality?  Prudence on the part of whoever brought you there?

Israel doesn't allow citizens into those areas unless they're settlements. I refuse to go to settlements on moral grounds.

Assuming I had the will and no moral compunction (which I'm not saying I do or don't) would I, as an American citizen, be allowed?

Yup! Americans are allowed anywhere but Gaza. Just Israelis aren't.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Dave_Manchester on December 08, 2017, 02:32:54 PM
My own West Bank story, which I've told already at MP's place but I'll tell it briefly here.

In the summer of 2013 I fulfilled an ambition and went to Jerusalem. One day I decided to take the bus to Bethlehem, which - being an utter dunce about this whole region and its politics and history - I didn't realise was in the Palestinian Territories. When we got to the border there was a big red sign warning Israeli citizens to turn back now because it was dangerous for their lives to proceed. The bus stopped and gun toting police got on to check our passports (making sure we weren't Israelis). I'm used to frightening situations because I was going to east Ukraine almost every month during the height of the war, but I wasn't prepared for that. It's a different kind of threat and danger, one I'm not familiar with. It was very scary, and also very depressing.

The church itself (the Church of the Nativity, said to be where Jesus was born) was of course fascinating once you're inside (on the way to it there's a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet which rather disturbs the ambience). But it was one of the least 'spiritual' experiences of my life. Everywhere is suspicion and nervousness and tension and a pervading sense of close danger.

By contrast, the single most 'spiritual' experience of my life was the following evening, when I took a short walk out into the fringe of the desert behind the Mount of Olives (my hotel was on top of the Mount of Olives, a stone's throw from the Garden of Gethsamane; in fact my window looked onto the spot where Christ's Passion and arrest is said to have taken place). A very eerie experience, especially when you look back and see the city in the darkness. You're in near total silence and you see this benighted city with all its bloody and unhappy history. It's easy to understand why the desert gave birth to the religions, it takes you very close to your own 'soul' and makes you afraid and small to the point of almost nothing.

Sorry to hijack your thread a bit Barto, just wanted to share that story.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: KevShmev on December 09, 2017, 08:18:41 AM
I find most gun discussions nowadays pretty frustrating.

I take the middle of the road approach that there should absolutely be stronger restrictions on who should be able to legally purchase a firearm, but I don't yell and scream about guns 3 minutes every time there are mass killings done with guns.

The people on one side dig their heels in about how no one should be able to take their guns away and get all defiant when anyone suggest putting any restrictions on their ability to buy more guns, and the people on the other side kick and scream about guns being the cause of all the suffering in the world when some nutjob kills 33 people with one. 

It's maddening.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: sylvan on December 09, 2017, 10:50:35 AM
My friend's dad just died, and he had 14 guns. Now my buddy is dealing with them because he's the only one with gun experience (former Army). But he recently got rid of his gun, and doesn't want more, so he has to go through the process of selling them off. Well, his uncle said he wanted the scoped hunting rifle. My buddy is gonna have to ask around with other family members to see if the guy can be "trusted", and even then he thinks he might just not go down that road anyways. I'm glad he's trying to do the responsible thing.

I had another friend years ago sell his pistol to a neighbor kid, who was arrested within the week for armed robbery...
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 11, 2017, 08:34:20 AM
My friend's dad just died, and he had 14 guns. Now my buddy is dealing with them because he's the only one with gun experience (former Army). But he recently got rid of his gun, and doesn't want more, so he has to go through the process of selling them off. Well, his uncle said he wanted the scoped hunting rifle. My buddy is gonna have to ask around with other family members to see if the guy can be "trusted", and even then he thinks he might just not go down that road anyways. I'm glad he's trying to do the responsible thing.

I had another friend years ago sell his pistol to a neighbor kid, who was arrested within the week for armed robbery...

I guess I would ask why that's "unusual".  Wouldn't you do that with anything that has the potential to be misused?  A car, for example?  I'd like to think I would.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: sylvan on December 11, 2017, 10:01:32 AM
My friend's dad just died, and he had 14 guns. Now my buddy is dealing with them because he's the only one with gun experience (former Army). But he recently got rid of his gun, and doesn't want more, so he has to go through the process of selling them off. Well, his uncle said he wanted the scoped hunting rifle. My buddy is gonna have to ask around with other family members to see if the guy can be "trusted", and even then he thinks he might just not go down that road anyways. I'm glad he's trying to do the responsible thing.

I had another friend years ago sell his pistol to a neighbor kid, who was arrested within the week for armed robbery...

I guess I would ask why that's "unusual".  Wouldn't you do that with anything that has the potential to be misused?  A car, for example?  I'd like to think I would.

I wasn't really implying it was unusual, although the second example might not be unusual either. More so, some people are actually interested in "the greater good" if you will.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on December 11, 2017, 10:43:44 AM
My friend's dad just died, and he had 14 guns. Now my buddy is dealing with them because he's the only one with gun experience (former Army). But he recently got rid of his gun, and doesn't want more, so he has to go through the process of selling them off. Well, his uncle said he wanted the scoped hunting rifle. My buddy is gonna have to ask around with other family members to see if the guy can be "trusted", and even then he thinks he might just not go down that road anyways. I'm glad he's trying to do the responsible thing.

I had another friend years ago sell his pistol to a neighbor kid, who was arrested within the week for armed robbery...

I guess I would ask why that's "unusual".  Wouldn't you do that with anything that has the potential to be misused?  A car, for example?  I'd like to think I would.

I wasn't really implying it was unusual, although the second example might not be unusual either. More so, some people are actually interested in "the greater good" if you will.

No, I'm less coming back at you, than I am pointing out to others that this should be the norm. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: portnoy311 on January 09, 2018, 10:09:14 PM
My friend's dad just died, and he had 14 guns. Now my buddy is dealing with them because he's the only one with gun experience (former Army). But he recently got rid of his gun, and doesn't want more, so he has to go through the process of selling them off. Well, his uncle said he wanted the scoped hunting rifle. My buddy is gonna have to ask around with other family members to see if the guy can be "trusted", and even then he thinks he might just not go down that road anyways. I'm glad he's trying to do the responsible thing.

I had another friend years ago sell his pistol to a neighbor kid, who was arrested within the week for armed robbery...

I guess I would ask why that's "unusual".  Wouldn't you do that with anything that has the potential to be misused?  A car, for example?  I'd like to think I would.

A valid Driver's License shows that your state has run a background check on you, knows your entire driving history as well as pertinent medicals (you're not blind, or at risk for various health events while driving), and is a clear 'go ahead.' That does not exist for private gun ownership. I would say it is a very different scenario.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on January 10, 2018, 10:41:40 AM
My friend's dad just died, and he had 14 guns. Now my buddy is dealing with them because he's the only one with gun experience (former Army). But he recently got rid of his gun, and doesn't want more, so he has to go through the process of selling them off. Well, his uncle said he wanted the scoped hunting rifle. My buddy is gonna have to ask around with other family members to see if the guy can be "trusted", and even then he thinks he might just not go down that road anyways. I'm glad he's trying to do the responsible thing.

I had another friend years ago sell his pistol to a neighbor kid, who was arrested within the week for armed robbery...

I guess I would ask why that's "unusual".  Wouldn't you do that with anything that has the potential to be misused?  A car, for example?  I'd like to think I would.

A valid Driver's License shows that your state has run a background check on you, knows your entire driving history as well as pertinent medicals (you're not blind, or at risk for various health events while driving), and is a clear 'go ahead.' That does not exist for private gun ownership. I would say it is a very different scenario.

Unfortunately, you can't compare "gun ownership" with "driving license" as much as we want to.  If you want to compare the license given for an abortion, or the license granted entitling you to speak freely, then we're on to something.   
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on January 10, 2018, 11:59:04 AM
My friend's dad just died, and he had 14 guns. Now my buddy is dealing with them because he's the only one with gun experience (former Army). But he recently got rid of his gun, and doesn't want more, so he has to go through the process of selling them off. Well, his uncle said he wanted the scoped hunting rifle. My buddy is gonna have to ask around with other family members to see if the guy can be "trusted", and even then he thinks he might just not go down that road anyways. I'm glad he's trying to do the responsible thing.

I had another friend years ago sell his pistol to a neighbor kid, who was arrested within the week for armed robbery...

I guess I would ask why that's "unusual".  Wouldn't you do that with anything that has the potential to be misused?  A car, for example?  I'd like to think I would.

A valid Driver's License shows that your state has run a background check on you, knows your entire driving history as well as pertinent medicals (you're not blind, or at risk for various health events while driving), and is a clear 'go ahead.' That does not exist for private gun ownership. I would say it is a very different scenario.

Unfortunately, you can't compare "gun ownership" with "driving license" as much as we want to.  If you want to compare the license given for an abortion, or the license granted entitling you to speak freely, then we're on to something.
Which if you think about it is fairly insane.

I get your point, one is a constitutional right and the other is not a right and is regulated by the states. In practice they're about the same, though. You have the right to speak, get an abortion, or own a gun. You do not get to make threatening remarks, abort a foetus afflicted with a condition that republicans like, or own a gun if you're a convicted felon, just like you can't hold a license after a DUI conviction. As far as I know the only prohibition on driving that isn't behavioral is poor eyesight. Laughingly, I doubt that's a prohibition to gun ownership anywhere. Different in theory. The same in practice.

And the solution to P311's problem, or any other conscientious gun owner's, is to tell the uncle to go get a CCL before he can buy the gun. When The Man certifies that you're competent to own a firearm you can buy mine.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on January 11, 2018, 08:59:15 AM
Well, you're right, and I'm not arguing the practicalities as much as I'm highlighting that the procedure is different.  You can most assuredly put a limitation - reasonable, least restrictive, and with a compelling interest of the state - on a right, but the process is different (and should be).   I think what I'm asking for is some caution.  We're on a gun kick now, so it seems so "common sense" (you know how much I hate that phrase) to put all these restrictions in, but when and if that same restriction is put on abortion, a whole sector of our society goes bat shit crazy like you're trying to sterilize half the population.   I'm all for thoughtful consideration on all these points, but it's not an unreasonable request to ask for some continuity and consistency, and some acknowledgement that even if you (not you personally, but collectively) don't like that it is a "right", you recognize that it is, and deal with it accordingly.

As much as I rail against the idiocy* of gun control, I have no issue with clear, concise, and reasonable controls over the ownership (including purchase and sale) of firearms.  I will lay claim, though, unpopular as they may be, to having similar thoughts about things like abortion and speech. 

*Idiocy = shorthand for lack of analytical reasoning, and in direct defiance of the statistics that we now know show that many of the proposed "solutions" actually make the situation on the ground worse, while serving as a panacea and a "feel-good" to those who feel they have to "do something!". 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2018, 09:26:53 AM
They've been putting ridiculous restrictions on abortion for years now. Targeted restrictions that serve no purpose other than to close down clinics. Yet if we try to institute a system where gun buyers have to submit to a background check people lose their fucking minds. Has there been any significant gun regulation in the last 10 years? Kansas will set a minimum number of mourners for the legally mandated funeral of some indistinguishable clump of tissue, but suggest that maybe we should make sure you're not meshuga before you buy a mini-14 and it's utter fascism.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on January 11, 2018, 09:30:29 AM
We've had such onerous restrictions in California for so long that I forget and am shocked when reminded that many states do NOT have background checks.  I really don't know what there is to lose one's mind about over a background check. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2018, 09:35:10 AM
We've had such onerous restrictions in California for so long that I forget and am shocked when reminded that many states do NOT have background checks.  I really don't know what there is to lose one's mind about over a background check.
If you sell one of your guns on Craigslist would you have to require a background check? I don't think people object to the check itself, other than the nutjobs who view any restriction at all as a trampling of their rights, but the extent to which they're required.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on January 11, 2018, 09:38:40 AM
We've had such onerous restrictions in California for so long that I forget and am shocked when reminded that many states do NOT have background checks.  I really don't know what there is to lose one's mind about over a background check.
If you sell one of your guns on Craigslist would you have to require a background check? I don't think people object to the check itself, other than the nutjobs who view any restriction at all as a trampling of their rights, but the extent to which they're required.
As a practical matter, you CAN'T sell a gun on Craigslist here.  You can only sell or gift a firearm in California through a registered, authorized dealer.  So, for example, if you wanted to sell Herr Sig to me, you would have to contact the local gun shop and conduct the transaction through them.  They would conduct the requisite background checks and make sure all the other steps are followed. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2018, 09:47:54 AM
We've had such onerous restrictions in California for so long that I forget and am shocked when reminded that many states do NOT have background checks.  I really don't know what there is to lose one's mind about over a background check.
If you sell one of your guns on Craigslist would you have to require a background check? I don't think people object to the check itself, other than the nutjobs who view any restriction at all as a trampling of their rights, but the extent to which they're required.
As a practical matter, you CAN'T sell a gun on Craigslist here.  You can only sell or gift a firearm in California through a registered, authorized dealer.  So, for example, if you wanted to sell Herr Sig to me, you would have to contact the local gun shop and conduct the transaction through them.  They would conduct the requisite background checks and make sure all the other steps are followed.
I'll be damned. I believe that down here FFLs are only required for new gun purchases. Used gun purchases or sales from non-retail shops are mono-a-mono. The seller's only obligation is to make sure the person is in-state.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on January 11, 2018, 10:40:13 AM
They've been putting ridiculous restrictions on abortion for years now. Targeted restrictions that serve no purpose other than to close down clinics. Yet if we try to institute a system where gun buyers have to submit to a background check people lose their fucking minds. Has there been any significant gun regulation in the last 10 years? Kansas will set a minimum number of mourners for the legally mandated funeral of some indistinguishable clump of tissue, but suggest that maybe we should make sure you're not meshuga before you buy a mini-14 and it's utter fascism.

HAHA, that's a good one.   Seriously.

We may be talking geography here, though; remember, I live in Connecticut, home state to the anti-gun crusader and professional crier, Chris Murphy.   It's really the opposite here. 

Look, I understand your point, and maybe the debate isn't between you and me, as much as it is with the anti-abortionist and the gun-nuts.   Whether we do across the nation or not, I think philosophically (if not practically) we SHOULD be handling abortion and guns the same, because the underlying premise for them is the same.   If we just allow a woman to walk in and abort, no names, no restrictions, that GENERAL premise ought to be extended to guns, and we shouldn't be asking for a finger and a sperm sample to buy a gun.  If you're advocating for - as you said - a minimum number of mourners, and for abortion to only be available between 12:00 noon and 2:00 pm on the 32nd of each month, then you ought not to have too much discontent with a stricter gun ownership policy. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Cool Chris on January 11, 2018, 11:07:22 AM
we SHOULD be handling abortion and guns the same, because the underlying premise for them is the same.

What??
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Adami on January 11, 2018, 11:08:24 AM
we SHOULD be handling abortion and guns the same, because the underlying premise for them is the same.

What??


Yea. Why?
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2018, 11:41:59 AM
Both are constitutionally protected rights, and while restrictions are permissible they're required to meet specific criteria. I don't think he was equating the two, but suggesting that they should both be afforded the same status when imposing new restrictions.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on January 11, 2018, 12:22:24 PM
Both are constitutionally protected rights, and while restrictions are permissible they're required to meet specific criteria. I don't think he was equating the two, but suggesting that they should both be afforded the same status when imposing new restrictions.

Exactly.   The fact remains that LEGALLY we can't just "license" whatever we want when we want, and how we want.    ANY restrictions to a constitutional right fall under a separate scheme for evaluation, called the "rational basis test".   Then there are a select number of rights called "fundamental rights" which are held to a higher evaluation standard, called the "strict scrutiny" test.  Under this test, there must be a compelling state interest (real, not imagined, and vital, not "preferred"), the law must be narrowly tailored to further that specific state interest, and it has to be the least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal (close to, but not the same thing as, narrowly tailored). 

Right to a grand jury trial is part of the Constitution; it is not, however,  fundamental right, and would be evaluated under the rational basis test.   The right to free speech is a fundamental right, and would be evaluated under the strict scrutiny test.   The right to bear arms is considered a fundamental right (the Supreme Court said so, I believe in 2010), so any restrictions on that right would be evaluated under the strict scrutiny test. The right to an abortion is generally considered to be a fundamental right (though not as crystal clear as some would like following a case called Planned Parenthood v Casey, which muddied the waters somewhat), so any restrictions on that right would also be evaluated under the strict scrutiny test. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 20, 2018, 09:19:17 AM
Question for Bosk: I was unaware until now that this is a thing.

Quote
In 2011, California enacted a law that said the money could also be used for the stateís Armed Prohibited Persons System. That program targets an estimated 18,000 people who acquired their weapons legally but then became ineligible to own a gun because of a criminal conviction, domestic-violence order, or mental-health condition.

Does it work? Honestly, this is something I've thought should happen everywhere. In fact it's quite insane not to have such a mechanism in place. There's not a chance in hell we could do it nationwide, but it actually does seem to be something that could actually make a difference.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on February 20, 2018, 09:51:58 AM
It's a great idea.  But as to whether or not it actually works in practice, I have no idea.  I mean, banning people in those categories from purchasing in the first place is a no-brainer.  That OBVIOUSLY works.  If you fall into one of those categories, you go into the database.  And when they check the database at Cabella's when you are trying to finalize that new purchase, you get a big, fat exploding "nope" card dropped on you (100 points to anyone who gets the reference).  But as far as confiscating for those who become ineligible after the fact, I have no idea.  I would hope it works, but I haven't seen any data on it, and I have no experience to draw from in that area.  It seems really dumb and shortsighted that we can't do some of this stuff nation-wide.  Although I do think CA's gun laws are TOO strict, a lot of what we do actually does make a lot of sense, and it is kind of shocking that some other states are so lax.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 20, 2018, 10:05:22 AM
Okey-doke. Figured you might have read something pro or con on it. Like I said, I had no idea it was even a thing.

As for the rest of us, neither Uncle Sam nor Governor Cripple has any idea I even own a gun, so if I did something to get flagged on the NICS who would know? If my gun were to turn up at a homicide they'd no doubt trace it back to the original retailer somewhere in Carolina, and possibly to the local shop that did the FFL. They might even have a record of who purchased it, but whatever happened to it in the intervening years is unknown.

Presumably Cali requires guns to be registered, and that's the sort of thing that'll never fly to the nation at large. I don't suppose there's anything constitutionally prohibited in requiring gun registration, but it'd be rejected outright on general principle. Sort of like a federal ID card.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on February 20, 2018, 10:20:54 AM
Yeah, I don't get the rationale for rejecting something like that.  While I don't like the government unduly prying into the private lives of its citizens, I don't know how you don't require registration of something so inherently dangerous that can readily be bought and sold. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on February 20, 2018, 10:35:46 AM
Yeah. A government that has no qualms whatsoever about tracking how much cold medicine I purchase in a six month period.  :lol
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: kingshmegland on February 20, 2018, 12:28:20 PM
Yeah. A government that has no qualms whatsoever about tracking how much cold medicine I purchase in a six month period.  :lol

Show your license and have it scanned to buy Sudafed in case you are making meth.   I'll tell you what El Barto, my wife has worked at a Pharmacy for 20 years and it is amazing how many people are hook on drugs and the things they will try to do to get their perception early.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on February 20, 2018, 12:50:32 PM
I'll tell you what El Barto, my wife has worked at a Pharmacy for 20 years and it is amazing how many people are hook on drugs and the things they will try to do to get their perception early.

I think your "perception" is wearing off.  You should go and pop a few more.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: kingshmegland on February 20, 2018, 12:56:54 PM
I'll tell you what El Barto, my wife has worked at a Pharmacy for 20 years and it is amazing how many people are hook on drugs and the things they will try to do to get their perception early.

I think your "perception" is wearing off.  You should go and pop a few more.

Perscription....perception, seems poetic.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on February 20, 2018, 01:04:34 PM
Oh, it is.  It is.  You should write a haiku.  :lol
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: kingshmegland on February 20, 2018, 01:11:02 PM
 :lol
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Chino on February 20, 2018, 01:17:28 PM
Seventeen are dead
Again? Please, no. Not again.
Still too soon to talk
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: bosk1 on February 21, 2018, 08:46:36 AM
Heard a good discussion on the radio this morning where they were talking about two things: Trump's memo directing the ban on bump stocks and the renewed discussion on the "assault weapon ban." 

Regarding the former:  Good move on Trump's part, even if it is really only a token gesture.  It at least breaks the ice in terms of a "Republican administration" taking SOME steps at reasonable controls.  Maybe that at least gets the ball rolling, even if it does roll painfully slowly.

Regarding the latter:  They mentioned how students were shocked that the measure didn't pass and angered that the "Republicans" could do such a thing, but were blissfully unaware that in 2013, when the Dems were in power, THEY were the ones who let the existing ban expire in the first place.  Of course, if you want to play partisan finger-pointing rather than try to solve problems, it's convenient to bury that fact.  But that said, I think that is one of the dumber, more useless restrictions anyway.  "Assault weapons" is great as a soundbite.  But the definition is too arbitrary and doesn't really mean anything, other than, as has been discussed here in the past, ban things that are "scary looking" while allowing guns that are equally or more powerful and destructive (but less "scary looking") to be perfectly legal.  To me, this was just another Band-Aid that made people feel better, but didn't accomplish what it set out to accomplish and was destructive to having open debates about what actually TO do. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: kingshmegland on February 21, 2018, 03:30:54 PM
Isn't it time to stop pointing fingers at one another and have true reform.  I'm not saying taking guns away but lets make it harder for those who might have mental issues and bad background to purchase guns.  Also, lets have true healthcare reform (I'm looking at you Dems & Reps) and lets get something done.

Also people need to speak up when they know a certain person is not quite right.  A lot of kids said they knew something was wrong but never spoke up.  It's time to teach our children to see something, say something.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: cramx3 on February 21, 2018, 03:34:37 PM
Isn't it time to stop pointing fingers at one another and have true reform.  I'm not saying taking guns away but lets make it harder for those who might have mental issues and bad background to purchase guns.  Also, lets have true healthcare reform (I'm looking at you Dems & Reps) and lets get something done.

Also people need to speak up when they know a certain person is not quite right.  A lot of kids said they knew something was wrong but never spoke up.  It's time to teach our children to see something, say something.

As for the first paragraph, we will keep dreaming.  I agree, but I have no realistic hope on our congress working together for the better good of the people.  As for the bottom part, I agree, but in this latest one, it seems people were reporting about this guy left and right and yet no one intervened.  It must be really deflating to make the report and it didn't get the attention it deserved.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: kingshmegland on February 21, 2018, 04:33:14 PM
Ok I just read that.  There needs some accountability for not getting this kid help. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on May 12, 2018, 01:54:19 PM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/12/oklahoma-governor-vetoes-bill-aimed-allowing-adults-carry-gun-without-license/604716002/

So does anybody who isn't a lobbyist for the gun manufactures think constitutional carry is a good idea? Most states will already allow some sort of carry option, providing you pass a security check and demonstrate one or two other aspects of not-crazy. Now the background checks are bad? The NRA is now looking forward to the ouster of the governor of one of the most bat-shit conservative states in the union because she listened to the law enforcement agencies of her state who told her this would be dangerous. I just can't imagine that even the rank and file members are actually in line with this. It amazes me that normal people support these ass-hats.

I'll also point out that the NRA's raison d'etre is to keep the government from encroaching on the 2A. Not an unreasonable goal, IMO. However, that would be a defensive stance. Their rationale for opposing things like universal background checks, which even its own membership supports, is ostensibly on the basis that if you give The Man an inch he'll take a mile. Bad logic, but somewhat correct. What we're seeing from them now is specifically offensive, though. They're not defending gun owners against state intrusion. They're actively seeking to expand gun ownership at many levels, as one would expect from the lobbying branch of the gun industry. This really is a very bad group of people.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: KevShmev on May 12, 2018, 02:17:36 PM
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-charged-in-ballpark-village-killing-but-he-s-still/article_7af63e0c-8ec2-5659-b8c2-abaedf1651c6.html

Just awful.  And I was actually at the Cardinals game on 5/1 where they had a moment of silence for the man who was killed.  Such senseless violence.   :( :(
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 12, 2018, 05:25:37 PM
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-charged-in-ballpark-village-killing-but-he-s-still/article_7af63e0c-8ec2-5659-b8c2-abaedf1651c6.html

Just awful.  And I was actually at the Cardinals game on 5/1 where they had a moment of silence for the man who was killed.  Such senseless violence.   :( :(

Yeah. I saw that. All this means is there will now be metal detectors installed which will guarantee thatís yet another venue downtown I wonít support.

Not a fan of having my Missouri Constittutuonal (and National) right to defend myself taken away by these businesses.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: Stadler on May 14, 2018, 08:08:32 AM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/12/oklahoma-governor-vetoes-bill-aimed-allowing-adults-carry-gun-without-license/604716002/

So does anybody who isn't a lobbyist for the gun manufactures think constitutional carry is a good idea? Most states will already allow some sort of carry option, providing you pass a security check and demonstrate one or two other aspects of not-crazy. Now the background checks are bad? The NRA is now looking forward to the ouster of the governor of one of the most bat-shit conservative states in the union because she listened to the law enforcement agencies of her state who told her this would be dangerous. I just can't imagine that even the rank and file members are actually in line with this. It amazes me that normal people support these ass-hats.

I'll also point out that the NRA's raison d'etre is to keep the government from encroaching on the 2A. Not an unreasonable goal, IMO. However, that would be a defensive stance. Their rationale for opposing things like universal background checks, which even its own membership supports, is ostensibly on the basis that if you give The Man an inch he'll take a mile. Bad logic, but somewhat correct. What we're seeing from them now is specifically offensive, though. They're not defending gun owners against state intrusion. They're actively seeking to expand gun ownership at many levels, as one would expect from the lobbying branch of the gun industry. This really is a very bad group of people.

I'm with you on this.  I am adamant about following the data - which in my estimation does NOT support "removing guns themselves as a solution to the increasing tendency for people to use public violence as an outlet" - but I do support background checks and administrative controls on gun ownership and usage.    I can't really fathom the NRA strategy here, though.   If "give an inch, he'll take a mile" is the premise, why would you expect the other side to give YOU that inch?   Being on the offensive here doesn't help them.  This isn't the political version of two boxers in a stalemate and pushing each other away in order to engage again.  This is just... I don't know what this is.   Even I - a relative constitutional zealot - don't really buy into this scheme. 
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: El Barto on May 14, 2018, 08:45:16 AM
Yeah, it goes right in line with their bizarre understanding of what reciprocity is. As much as they say otherwise, their goal is very clearly to make sure as many guns as possible are on the streets at any time.
Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: gmillerdrake on May 14, 2018, 09:30:52 AM
Missouri has constitutional carry now and I hate it. Anyone over age (19) without a record can just conceal a firearm....no class....nothing. Just hide the weapon.

Funny enough....I was pulled over on Friday night and as I mentioned my weapon being near my wallet the officer and I got to talking about how I no longer needed a CCW license and that I could just carry. Fast forward five full minutes and we were still talking guns...training etc. He ended up giving me a written warning and just told me to slow down (54 in a 40)

I am all about conceal carry....think that I should be able to take my gun anywhere at anytime. But I also think that with that responsibility there should be mandatory classes, extended background checks and mandatory scheduled training to achieve that type of CCW privilege. I'd do whatever it took to guarantee  me that I could surpass metal detectors or whatever security screening there was.

Title: Re: Guns are Icky
Post by: XeRocks81 on May 14, 2018, 09:55:36 AM
for some reason I'm suddenly reminded of this Dave Chappelle bit... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ3dk6KAvQM