Wirtz: Guns and the public: Rights vs. responsibility

[jpak]

http://www.ourmidland.com/opinion/article_56817e80-73a6-11e0-b4c1-001cc4c002e0.html

Christine Tudor didn’t realize that an innocent grocery shopping trip to the local Wal-Mart store would be so unsettling to her 11-year-old daughter.

As the Midland pair walked into the store about 2 p.m. Easter Sunday, Tudor’s daughter pulled her mom’s arm and whispered, “That man has a gun.”

<snip>

“It affected my daughter greatly,” Tudor said. “She was afraid that he might start shooting right there in Wal-Mart"

<snip>

I’m a firm believer in the Second Amendment, but I think it is irresponsible for any gun owner to carry weapons in public situations not because you need to, but just because you can. It’s the gun owner such as this who really makes it tougher for more responsible gun owners to argue against more restrictions.

<more>

Oh yeah - open carry sucks

yup

[spin]

1. I carry concealed ...

because it is currently illegal to open carry in Florida.

Even if in the future, open carry becomes legal, I plan to carry concealed. I have no desire to intimate or scare people.

[GKirk]

4. I don't like scaring

people either, but I do like to get intimate with them occaisionally. I'm just not sure how concealed/open carry works into the equation.

[spin]

14. That could be a problem ...

the people I have been intimate with have been aware that I have a concealed carry license. The only advise I can give you is to offer to take them shooting. In my case, I found that while at first hesitant, they loved the experience. DO NOT start them out by shooting a .44 magnum. Only an asshole would do that. A heavy .22 caliber target pistol is the best first weapon for someone who is not used to shooting.

[GKirk]

2. Glad to see your're a fan of concealed carry

like I am.

[Taitertots]

3. Tough shit for Christine Tudor

Her daughters unjustified concerns are irrelevant.

[GKirk]

5. Media coverage has made it so

as unfair as that may be.

[beevul]

6. I disagree.

"Her daughters unjustified concerns are irrelevant."


To the contrary, her daughters unjustified concerned, and the well from which they spring, are right at the heart of the matter.

I wonder if mommy is a "guns bad mkay" batty bunch type.


They are irrelevant outside that though.

[Taitertots]

11. I should have written that they are irrelevant to policy decision making

The well from which they have sprung is certainly something to consider.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. never mind

[GreenStormCloud]

8. She needs to teach her daughter to not be afraid. N/T

[Hoyt]

10. Somebody needs to do the same to all those who can't walk into WMart without a friggin gun.

Those are the ones who are really "afraid" (not to mention, unconcerned about society).

[Taitertots]

13. Why, the only problem they cause is upsetting people who have no reason to be upset

Why does it matter to you if it has no negative effects?

[Hoyt]

16. OP indicates a negative effect. Gun toters laugh it off, because they can't leave their guns home.

I doubt that most toters care. In fact, I bet a lot of open toters do it for the reaction and charge they get. Concealed toters aren't much better, IMO.

[beevul]

18. Don't worry Hoyt...

More and more people can and will get used to it.

And that is why its done.



Because if people like you had their way, gun carry would be taboo.


Aint gonna happen.

[Hoyt]

33. Exactly, it needs to be "taboo" and not glamorized in a civil society, even if it scares you.

[Hoopla Phil]

256. If only that we really did live in a "civil society". Unfortunately we don't

Until we get there I will be prepared do defend myself and my family from the uncivilized that will murder for the latest Rebocks.

[Taitertots]

19. The unjustified fears held by children don't count as a negative effect

"Gun toters" tend to laugh off the unjustified fears of children and cowardly.

[Hoyt]

31. Figures. That's why you tote -- don't care as long as you've got your protection from boogie man.

[Taitertots]

35. I never carry a gun

I don't need to carry to dismiss the unjustified fears held by children.

[Hoopla Phil]

257. Protection against the "boogie man" or against the mugger in the

park that wants your cash, shoes, virtue, or life.

[petronius]

22. You keep using that word "can't", although it's clear you don't know what it means

:shrug:

[Hoyt]

32. I do. Means many carriers are psychologically unprepared to face life without a gun in their pants.

[petronius]

37. Looks like there's a bunch more words you don't understand. For your own good, I strongly

suggest you read more and post less for a while. You'll be a much more effective contributor if your posts relate to reality...

[rl6214]

57. Always with your veiled insults, do they make you feel superior?

"toters"

"gun in their pants"

"gun loving"

"strap guns to their legs"

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. And you base your diagnosis on something other than your own prejudice?

[spin]

96. You appear to have an irrational fear of those who carry ...

and as a defense mechanism you project that fear on those who carry as being irrationally paranoid.

[Hoopla Phil]

259. You know this how? Psychometry or clairvoyance?

A citation, would of course, be preferred.

[Abq_Sarah]

272. Your hostility is noted

The right to keep and bear arms in a constitutionally protected (not granted) right.

Your inability to control the actions of everyone around you probably frustrates you to tears but it's not going to change.

[rl6214]

56. "Gun toters laugh it off, because they can't leave their guns home"

Gun carriers laugh it off, because they won't leave their guns home

Fixed it for you

[Bold Lib]

26. And you know this how? Is it your failed clairvoyance or your bigoted stereotyping?

[Hoyt]

34. Fact. Discriminating against guns is a tolerable form of "bigotry." People, that's different.

And, truthfully, not accepting guns in public is not bigotry, except in the irrational minds of gun carriers who feel persecuted because 97% of the population ain't gotta carry to function in public.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[rrneck]

43. The guns don't care

The people that own them take a pretty dim view of it. But you don't give a shit about them. Which says a lot about you.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

44. Hmmm, I guess my truth stung. n/t

[Bold Lib]

50. You declaring something "fact" does not make it so.

In fact your declaration of an opinion as fact shows a clear disconnect from reality on your part. You clearly are incapable of discussing the issue rationally if you declare opinions as fact.

Discriminating on ANY basis is wrong, period. To say that there is any form of tolerable bigotry goes against every tenet of being a progressive and tolerant person.

Not accepting a person legally excessing their civil rights is not acceptable. Who says a person "gotta carry to function in public"? It appears that only YOU are saying that.

"97%"? From where do you get that percentage? I suspect it is from withing your colon but if you have a citation please post it.

Now again I must ask (as you did not respond to my question but merely attempted to make a case that bigotry was good when it is something you don't like): "And you know this how? Is it your failed clairvoyance or your bigoted stereotyping?"

[Euromutt]

250. "People, that's different," he said, and proceeded to demonstrate

In your opinion, persons who carry a firearm in public have "irrational minds," "feel persecuted" and "gotta carry to function in public." Yes, clearly you're only bigoted against guns, not against people...

[RSillsbee]

71. It's not like this child

is the first person to pee her pants and run screaming at the sight of an openly carried fire arm.

I believe a couple of folks here have done the same thing

[iverglas]

77. you're right, it isn't like she was the first to do that

... since she didn't ...

[RSillsbee]

79. Location joke sir

you had to be there

Edited IAW poster's preferred gender designation

[iverglas]

81. I almost like it better

when the gunslingin strangers here assume I belong to their side of the sex spectrum.

Sweetie.

[RSillsbee]

84. Did not mean to be offensive sir I will alter my post accordingly NT

Edited IAW poster's preferred gender designation

[iverglas]

87. context is everything

That one didn't bother.

I do prefer "sir" though ...

:P

[RSillsbee]

88. My apologies sir

I have always heard you described as female

[iverglas]

89. Apparently you haven't heard me described

as ridiculously funny, and enormously amused by my own jokes. ;)

[Hoopla Phil]

255. I believe that Iverglas is female. And a rape surviver as well.

As she is on my ignore list (the only person on my ignore list) I do not know the back and forth you have exchanged with her but, she IS female.

[ileus]

268. We're the ones concerned about society...if we were afraid we'd carry carbines and shotguns.

not some pissy-assed last ditch compact pistol. Nope we don't carry a gun out of fear, we carry a gun out of responsibility for our safety and concern for our families. If we were afraid we'd just stay home and let the thugs rule the country.

[provis99]

9. gun owners should be responsible? That's communist talk!

Next you'll tell us that gun owners shouldn't shoot their machineguns in the air when they celebrate their weddings.

[Hoyt]

12. LMAO

[gejohnston]

15. you have us confused with the middle east

[provis99]

21. even cops fire their guns in the air for fun in America.

http://www.newjustice.net/blog/2011/01/04/an-officer-fires-weapon-into-the-air-for-new-years-celebration/

[gejohnston]

24. Not America, the south

I'm going back out west.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

38. alert

so tired of the south bashing.

The South is a major portion of America.

[rrneck]

39. Thank you.

I haven't had a slice of country Ham in years. Frigging sprouts and tofu just don't get the job done.

[PavePusher]

42. 50%, last time I looked...

:evilgrin: :toast:

[rl6214]

59. Is Albany Georgia still not part of the US?

Why would you think less of that part of our country?

[beevul]

17. In short...

"Because you have the right, you have a responsibility not to exercise it" (because it might offend the delicate sensibilities of some ignorami or the children they pass their ignorance on to.)


Yup.

Yup.

Yup.

[PavePusher]

20. Perhaps Mr. Wirtz and Ms. Tudor can explain to this little girl that mere peaceful exercise...

of a Civil Right does not equate to "intimidation".


"I’m a firm believer in the Second Amendment, but I think it is irresponsible for any gun owner to carry weapons in public situations not because you need to, but just because you can. It’s the gun owner such as this who really makes it tougher for more responsible gun owners to argue against more restrictions."

I can't help but wonder what other bigotry Mr. Wirtz is a fan of....

[beevul]

23. This IS the new tactic.

Both here in this forum, and outside it.

Divide and conquer. Pretend to be something you aren't, then attempt to split your true opposition into two opposing groups rather than a unified front.


Well, Ok, its not new, but it is the current tatic being used.

Thats not to say that everyone that is pro-gun that disagrees with open carry fits that bill...but make no mistake, there are those hereabouts and elsewhere that do.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. Eventually, they out themselves. Strangely, *their* guns are never a problem...

...if they claim to be (or have been) gun owners- it's always "those peoples' guns" that are problematic.


I've yet to see a one of them claim to have destroyed their guns in order to protect society-

"Whadda ya mean, a gun I once owned was used in a crime? I sold it years ago, it's not my problem..."

[beevul]

29. They can't help it.

And yeah, their guns are never the problem.


Its almost entertaining, seeing them act as if they think nobody knows or sees what they're up to.

[iverglas]

54. or perhaps they can't

because they choose not to lie to their children.

Doing something that intimidates people is intimidation.

The people in question are not, despite the desperate attempts to portray them as such, unbalanced or unhinged or unthinking. They are rational and they have a decent regard for others around them, and a proper concern for their children's emotional well-being.

Promenading around in public festooned in firearms (y'all missed me, didn't you?) is not "the mere peaceful exercise of a civil right". It is promenading around in public festooned in firearms. And that intimidates.

People do things because they have reasons for doing them, however irrational or nasty those reasons might be. They don't do things because they have a right to do them. If that were the case, we'd have jumped ourselves off bridges into extinction long ago.

So people who display firearms on their person when out in public have some reason for doing that. And whatever it is, it is no good one, because there is no good reason for an ordinary member of the public to do that. Full stop.

[rl6214]

60. Just because YOU are afraid of something does NOT make it

intimidation.

Loud cars, oh my god I am intimidated.

Oakland Raiders jerseys, ban em.

Same thing for:

red or blue bandanas
hoodies, must be a gang member
baggy jeans
pants hung down too low
people carrying baseball bats
big pickup trucks
ricer cars
harleys
tattoos

yada yada yada

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Hoopla Phil]

258. Hey hey hey there. Don't you be dissen the Harley's.

Gunzes is one thing, my scooter is another.

(can't find the darn sarcasm thingy)

[rl6214]

61. "(y'all missed me, didn't you?)"

Nah, there are plenty of other idiots spouting off to take your place.

[iverglas]

66. oh, dear

If only I knew who you were.

Or cared.

[rl6214]

106. I'm not the one with the ego asking if I was missed

[iverglas]

113. no ...

You're just the one with no sense of humour, apparently!

Now, speaking of missed -- where's Fireplug Dave???

[RSillsbee]

119. Unfourtunately he has gone into the great beyond of Pizzaland NT

[iverglas]

137. oh

Huh.

Thanks.

[Hoopla Phil]

262. Not really, there is only one person on my ignore list.

And I REALLY don't miss her, or her vulgarity.

[RSillsbee]

68. festooned in firearms

fes·toon (f-stn)
n.
1. A string or garland, as of leaves or flowers, suspended in a loop or curve between two points.
2. A representation of such a string or garland, as in painting or sculpture.
tr.v. fes·tooned, fes·toon·ing, fes·toons
1. To decorate with or as if with festoons; hang festoons on.
2. To form or make into festoons.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/festooned

I don't think carrying one firearm, unobtrusively qualifies. I live in Colorado. Open carry here isn't uncommon. it's not an everyday occurence but it's not uncommon. Most of the people I see are not parading it. I OC when it's too hot for a cover garment or when I'm in the back country.

Given it's May second and it's snowing here today I'm guessing I won't be OCing for a while

[iverglas]

72. ha! snow!

Up here in the frozen northern wastelands, it's raining heavily. Which we're hoping it will stop doing soon as we'd prefer not to walk the three blocks to vote in the rain. (Don't forget to check google news around 11 -- or watch online at cbc.ca -- to see whether the neighbours are going to be afflicted by yet another right-wing government with the support of 1/3 of the voting public, or, and it's unlikely, have our very first national social democratic government.)


But no, others have tried, but I am not going to start saying "discreetly decorated with a derringer".

[RSillsbee]

80. Others have tried what?

I don't live in the frozen wastelands but I can see them from my house. (Now where have I heard that before? )

[iverglas]

82. what? what?

To persuade me they don't festoon themselves in firearms. ;)

[RSillsbee]

85. My firearm (singular) isn't a decoration

I have a legitimate reason to carry. My wife and I have both recieved death threats from my drug dealing excon hopefully soon to be reincarcerated former SIL.

Having said that I totally recognize the right of my fellow citizens to make that decision for themselves and carry a firearm if they choose to.

[Hoopla Phil]

263. "Now where have I heard that before?"

Maybe from Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live? Just a guess.

[beevul]

94. Another nasty yet eloquent demonstration of that word...

"The people in question are not, despite the desperate attempts to portray them as such, unbalanced or unhinged or unthinking. They are rational and they have a decent regard for others around them, and a proper concern for their children's emotional well-being."

Posted as if it were fact, with NO evidence supporting it...


And then just a few posts later, you have the gall to say this to someone else:

"You need to return your brainwave-reading device for a refund. It got seriously scrambled there."



Another nasty yet eloquent demonstration of that word...

HYPOCRITE.

[PavePusher]

97. More hyperbole, accusation, insinuation and assertion from you...

and to think I thought you might change.

And no, some of us didn't miss you... at all.

[petronius]

105. I would not call that a useful definition of intimidation - where do we draw the line?

I would say that a person has engaged in intimidation when they've performed an overt act with the intention of causing another to feel intimidated. Absent that, it's possible for a person to be intimidated, without the intimidator being guilty of intimidation.

Stupid example: if a big muscle-bound dude shaves his head and stops smiling, people may be intimidated. I would not, however, say that the dude engaged in intimidation (unless that was actually his purpose)...

[Bold Lib]

25. Sounds like mom screwed up a great "teachable moment" to me.

[ManiacJoe]

28. Exactly.

[beevul]

30. That all depends.

Based on the childs reaction, one might speculate it was used to teach.


Just not anything good or right or decent.

[Hoopla Phil]

260. You did make a point there. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

36. +1

[Katya Mullethov]

52. "IF YOU DONT BEHAVE ....."

"That policeman is going to (arrest , shoot , get) you . "


People who believe this admonishment to be an effective way to scare a screaming brat into submission are a major peeve with the fuzz .

[Hoopla Phil]

261. As a former dog trainer I certainly understand from were you are coming.

Negative re-enforcement is a dangerous thing. It almost always has unintended consequences.

[iverglas]

55. absolutely

Sweetie, there are major assholes in this world, and usually the best thing to do is ignore them.

[rl6214]

62. Sweetie, that man may be a detective, they don't wear uniforms

[iverglas]

63. oh, give me a great big break

Yeah, plainclothes / undercover cop with a gun shoved in his pants or dangling from his torso or swinging from his watch fob or whatever the fuck this bozo was doing with his.

Way to be unobtrusive, I'm sure.

Snork.

[RSillsbee]

69. Plain Clothes doesn't always mean undercover

The plain clothes cops here OC all the time

[Hoopla Phil]

253. That is correct. In Victoria TX there is a WalMart super store

right next to a DPS center. You see LOTS of well dressed (plain clothed) officers OCing in the Walmart. They do have their badge clipped onto their belt right next to toe handgun though.

[X_Digger]

70. Who said anything about undercover?

My next-next-next-door neighbor is a dallas police investigator. Most mornings that I see him leaving for work, he's in jeans or slacks and a cotton shirt, sometimes a blazer, with a handgun on his right side.

:shrug:

[iverglas]

73. aaaaargh

"plainclothes / undercover cop"

Does no one know what a "/" means??

What I was replying to was "detective". Detectives go undercover, no? So I didn't know what the intended specifics were. So I said "plainclothes OR undercover". That's what the "/" means. Aaargh.

[Straw Man]

102. Urrgh.

What I was replying to was "detective". Detectives go undercover, no?

Rarely. Mostly they investigate. They wear plainclothes because they can; they are the white-collar police. They don't conceal their weapons because they don't have to. They're cops.

So I said "plainclothes OR undercover".

Why would you say that if you knew the difference? One clearly needs to conceal and the other doesn't. One supports your point and the other doesn't.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. Here in warm weather areas, many plain clothes officer and open carry civilians look the same

[rl6214]

107. Not a clue, do you

[Name removed]

252. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

269. moms scared of guns also...she another grabber, raising a future grabber.

[jeepnstein]

40. Responsibility?

Darn right I have responsibilities. My first and foremost is to know dead sure where I'm sending that bullet. I own that bullet and will be held accountable for whatever it hits. That's a foreign concept to many in this country who aren't accountable for anything. They want to wander around in a warm fuzzy blanket of nice feelings with no regard for anything other than their own selfish needs.

Open carry isn't a big deal. I have tactical concerns with it but that is just me. When I open carry in uniform weapon retention is always a huge issue. The whole tempest in a teapot over open carry is the anti-gun movement looking for traction. They found a few wahoos in the Tea Party who obliged them by packing at a few political rallies and now they're off to the races.

[-..__...]

46. "Look, Mommy... that man is kissing another man"!!!

"It affected my daughter greatly,” Tudor said. “She was afraid that they might start having anal sex right there in Wal-Mart".

"I’m a firm believer in gay rights, but I think it is irresponsible for any homosexuals to display their affection for one another in public situations not because they need to, but just because they can. It’s the gay couple such as this that really makes it tougher for more responsible homosexuals to argue against more restrictions".

Yep... let's push for restrictions on rights and personal choices simply because the close minded among us have unwarranted and irrational fears.

[Hoyt]

48. Last I heard, guns weren't included in "race, sexual orientation, gender, age, etc."

But thanks for another laugh from those who feel discriminated against because of their love of guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. Why am I not surprised you are unfamilar with Heller vs. District of Columbia?

I daresay I would not be wrong in assuming you have not read the decision and dissents?

Kindly leave willful ignorance to birthers and creationists.

[Hoyt]

51. Heller has to do with guns in HOME. Besides we aren't talking about law.

Legally, one can do a lot of things.

Question is -- should you. IMO, No.

Finally, birthers and creationists (and worse) are usually associated with gun carrying and TBag Party.

[PavePusher]

98. Please cite where Heller restricted guns only to homes.

Good luck with that.

[Hoyt]

99. Read the dang decision. It has absolutely nothing to do with packing in public, except in your mind.

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. Even you could type in the relevant part restricting that right to residences....

...if it existed.

Since it does not, your inability to provide links becomes quite convenient.

[X_Digger]

139. Here's a link for you..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x331739

[friendly_iconoclast]

149. Thank you. Class, here's an example of what *honest* people do in an argument.

They provide links to primary sources, or links to where they might be found.

[iverglas]

153. fascinating

Are you seriously suggesting that someone in this forum needed a link in order to find Heller?

Meanwhile ... Hoyt has essentially been badgered to prove a negative. You might frame it as a demand to show that Heller applies only to, etc., but it amounts to a demand to prove that it doesn't apply to.

In that case, I say the onus is on the one asserting that it does apply to.

And I'm seeing a pretty weak case for that assertion at that link.

You're familiar with that ejusdem generis thing? How when legislation gives a non-exhaustive list of something, it can't be interpreted to include something completely different?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Someone may well want to argue that wandering the streets with a firearm falls within the genus of "a firearm unconnected with service in a militia ... for traditionally lawful purposes". Have at it.

But do not act as if this is some sort of foregone conclusion and demand that your interlocutor prove otherwise, I say.

I'd wonder why, with two opportunities, your SC didn't just speak the words relating to toting firearms around the street, if that was what it meant to say.

[friendly_iconoclast]

156. "Self-defense within a home" was given as an *example* of a lawful purpose

It was claimed that Heller restricted the right to possess a firearm to only that purpose, when clearly it stated

the right extends to possession and use for "traditionally lawful purposes". Since the Constitution is essentially a brake upon

government, the default position must be the least restrictive interpretation of what is enumerated.


Granted, Heller did not address public carriage of firearms- but it certainly did not restrict the right to possess and

use firearms to the home exclusively, as has been claimed by Hoyt and others (I'm looking at you, VPC!)


You, at least, were honest enough to, y'know, actually quote from Heller. Interpreting SC decisions is essentially

textual exegesis, and anyone who can't be arsed to quote from what they purport to interpret should be given a rough time,

IMO.

[iverglas]

166. did you just not read my post?

If you didn't understand it, did you try googling "ejusdem generis"?

Generally, anybody who makes an assertion that X is the case needs to substantiate that assertion, not demand that someone else prove that X is not the case. So anyone asserting that Heller covers public carrying of firearms is the one who needs to speak up.

All the person saying the opposite could do is reproduce the entire text of the judgment and say: see? nothing about public carrying of firearms there. Which is pretty much what Hoyt did by suggesting that someone read the judgment.

[Hoopla Phil]

266. Ah, thank you for the link and the original topic.

Many "scholars" are attempting to mis-quote the Heller decision into saying something that it does not say.

[Hoopla Phil]

265. You may want to re-read the Heller decision. You've mistakenly applied

the ideology of "only" to the exact quote of "such as" in the Heller decision. It also cites the M-16 (real full auto assault rifle) as being particularly suited to militia duty.

[iverglas]

58. well ...

The grounds on which discrimination is historically prohibited are generally characteristics considered to be inherent in the human being: race, ethnicity, sex ... with the exceptional category of religion, just because an overwhelming majority of people had one and so much harm had been done by religious bigotry. The categories widen as our understanding does: sexual orientation and disability status are examples.

Our choice to prohibit discrimination (or unequal treatment in legislation) stems from our belief in the inherent worth and dignity of the individual and we as a society accept the obligation to protect individuals from suffering negative consequences of characteristics beyond their control.

So ... what can we say about people who claim that differential treatment based on the fact that they insist on toting a firearm around on their persons in public is "bigotry"?

That they are way too invested in their status as gun owners, to the extent that it defines their identity ... but we don't have to pander to their little quirk?

That their attachment to their guns is beyond their control and we should maybe recognize this ... like, as a disorder?

Or maybe just that they're self-centred assholes attempting to exploit other people's genuine misery for their own anti-social ends.

I guess the jury's still out.

[Hoyt]

65. Great Post and Humor.

[iverglas]

67. tsk

That's humoUr.

:toast:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

91. Unreasoned fear is unreasoned fear and her parents need to help the child deal with them

[Hoyt]

100. Maybe you need to deal with it on other than a child's -- I can't go in WMart w/out my gun -- level.

[GreenStormCloud]

173. What's so special about WM? I carry everywhere...

...unless they have a 30.06 sign.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

175. If the child is reacting unreasonably to objects, why is it the responsibility of others to act?

It could just as well have been an LEO.

[Euromutt]

249. The analogy doesn't pertain to personal characteristics, but to public behavior

If you take the position that people have a putative right to out in public without being exposed to behavior on the part of others that disturbs them, even if that behavior is perfectly legal and does not present any immediate threat to their physical and material well-being, but rather, because they find it offensive or "tacky," then it follows that it must apply equally to public displays of affection (be they between same-sex couples, interracial couples, fat or ugly couples) as it does to open carry of firearms.

Not to mention the various other examples that rl6214 listed in post #54...

[Hoopla Phil]

264. WOW!!! Did THAT put things into perspective. Congratulations! n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Does she freak out when she sees a police officer?

Actually, I think that could be justified...

[rl6214]

53. And does she whine and cry when she sees a cop?

[Logical]

75. You don't see the difference? Uniform? n-t

[rl6214]

108. Not always

I have seen MANY detectives, don't wear uniforms yet still have a gun that is often in the open.

[Logical]

138. Most detectives go concealed. n-t

[rl6214]

163. Not here in west Texas

It's just too hot many months of the year.

[gejohnston]

170. Not in Florida

[iverglas]

74. since two of you have asked now, someone should answer

Does the 11-yr-old girl freak out / whine when she sees a police officer / cop?

Well, maybe if her negligent parents have never in all those 11 years explained the functions of cops to her, like how if you're in trouble, you call one.

At 11, I strongly suspect she'd recognize a cop if she saw one and understand what s/he was and did.

I figure she would also be able to tell that someone not in a cop uniform and carrying a firearm was not a cop -- that's how it would be where I'm at, you see. Cops not in uniform don't parade around with firearms on display. I wonder why cops not in uniform would do that anywhere? Beats me all to hell.

I also wonder why two people would refer to what this girl actually said/did as freaking out and whining and crying. But then, that kind of portrayal of people of the female persuasion is what one does come to expect from certain quarters.

(And yes, I should recognize that AC was likely just setting up for his punch line.)

[RSillsbee]

78. wonder why cops not in uniform would do that anywhere?

I am going to assume that you've never had to wear a uniform? It gets old real quick. My scrubs go in the basket as soon as I walk in the door.

[iverglas]

83. urgh

What I wonder is why a cop who is not wearing a cop uniform would display a firearm on his/her person where it is visible (and let's not forget accessible) to the public at large?

Detectives where I'm at wear jackets.

[RSillsbee]

86. In the frozen wastelands

I would assume dectectives wear parkas. As for being accessible to the general public have you ever tried to get a firearm out of a good retention holster?

To answer your question though it's just a gun it's not like it gives off kryptonite death rays just sitting there in a holster

[rl6214]

110. Here in the south it gets to be over 100 most of the summer

not like canada so it is not at all unusual to see detectives without a jacket on.

[rl6214]

109. I would imagine you whining and crying when seeing a gun

it has nothing at all to do with gender as you have suggested.

"But then, that kind of portrayal of people of the female persuasion is what one does come to expect from certain quarters."

[RSillsbee]

120. To be fair

I don't see Iverglas as the "whining ,crying" type. I could see her bitch slapping the person carrying the gun ( or trying to) while screaming ARRRGH!!! at the top of her lungs but not whining or crying over it.

[beevul]

267. Lol.

"Well, maybe if her negligent parents have never in all those 11 years explained the functions of cops to her, like how if you're in trouble, you call one."

It sounds more like her negligent parents have never in all those 11 years explained that what she saw that person doing was legal, to these eyes.

[Logical]

76. Not a fan of open carry myself. CC is good enough and not many issues with it. n-t

[ileus]

93. OC a lot? how do you know it sucks if you don't

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Hoyt]

101. Hopefully day will come when more people say something. "Scared" is having to have a gun

strapped to one's leg to find the courage to walk into WMart, "NRA4ever."

[friendly_iconoclast]

104. Advocating harrasment of those doing something you find morally wrong?

You share the mindset of those toting pictures of aborted fetuses outside abortion providers.

Sad to see it on proud display at DU....

[Hoyt]

117. LOL Parading around with guns reminds me of the guy down the street that flies a confederate flag.

Pretty chitty display of a supposed "Constitutional right."

[PavePusher]

144. So now you conflate firearms with implied bigotry....

Keepin' it classy I see.

Written anything new for Huff'n'Puff lately?

[iverglas]

154. you're not even conflating; you're just flat-out misrepresenting

What you are responding to:

LOL Parading around with guns reminds me of the guy down the street that flies a confederate flag.

What you say:

So now you conflate firearms with implied bigotry....

Is there a log in your eye that prevents you from seeing the pixels on your monitor and substitutes something else for them instead?

Are you really and truly and honestly unable to see the difference between

(a) parading around with guns

and

(b) firearms

?

I wouldn't insult you by saying you're too dim to see that distinction, myself.

And that leaves me with few options to explain your behaviour, doesn't it?


And all that is quite apart from your pretense (I hope!!) not to understand reasoning by analogy.

If "parading around with firearms" were actually equal to "flying a Confederate flag", it wouldn't be an analogy, would it now?

You do understand how an analogy involves different things that are similar in some respects?

And you understand how it is not honest to accuse someone of asserting that they are similar in ways that the context made plain it was not the intention to assert?

I really hope you do. This is, like, really basic thinking skill stuff.

Your purported interpretation of the analogy doesn't even make a stitch of sense, does it? C'mon, does it? Don't you feel kinda foolish, saying things in public that just make no sense? Firearms are like bigotry? Who could make sense of that??

If I make it really simple for you, will you admit that you get it?

One form of antisocial behaviour that is not prohibited by law is like another form of antisocial behaviour that is not prohibited by law ... because they are both forms of antisocial behaviour that are not prohibited by law.

I quite liked Hoyt's analogy, and I may steal it from time to time. I've always had a hard time coming up with one, since so many forms of antisocial behaviour are prohibited by law. ;) I considered spitting on the street (an anti-social behaviour that drives me to make loud expressions of disgust when people do it) -- but, at least where I'm at, it is indeed illegal. This Confederate flag one is a little location-specific for me, but I may be able to adapt it ...

[beevul]

160. Who decided whats antisocial...

"I quite liked Hoyt's analogy, and I may steal it from time to time. I've always had a hard time coming up with one, since so many forms of antisocial behaviour are prohibited by law. I considered spitting on the street (an anti-social behaviour that drives me to make loud expressions of disgust when people do it) -- but, at least where I'm at, it is indeed illegal. This Confederate flag one is a little location-specific for me, but I may be able to adapt it ..."

Who decided whats antisocial in America?

[iverglas]

168. nobody

Who decided whats antisocial in America?

Just like nobody decided that Obama is a better president than Bush.

All a matter of opinion, eh?

Opinion being exactly what Hoyt expressed.

You feel free to express yours, now!

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[Hoyt]

116. You don't need to "exercise" all Constitutional rights.

But thanks for the BS about "displaying your weapons."

[rrneck]

121. By what right do you

claim authority to decide when one may exercise a right?

[Hoyt]

126. I'm exercising my right to call a fool a fool.

[RSillsbee]

128. You have every right to your opinion

What you don't have is a right to impose it on me.

[rrneck]

147. So they are a fool

if they exercise a right you think they shouldn't have.

That's pretty foolish.

[rl6214]

111. Found this on a gun sight forum today from this event

This is the gun carriers story of what happened.


"Went to walmart, and since the weather was nice, I left my jacket in the truck. So, on my hip was a Firestorm 1911, and in the small of my back was my snubby Smith 357. I didn't really think anything of it, and went shopping with the wife. After maybe half an hour, I see a cop in uniform walking around in the store. I thought it was kind of odd to go shopping while on the clock, but didn't really think anything of it. So I waved and kept doing what I was doing.

He comes up to me, and says they had received a "complaint" about me carrying "a" gun. I corrected him, telling him, "No, Sir, I am carrying two, and open carry is legal in this state."

He said that, yes, open carry is legal, and that he didn't want to be out on a bullshit call, for somebody excercising their rights. He said that the store was not the complaintant, that it sounded like some little old lady could not comprehend that not only are guns legal, so is carrying them. But, since there WAS a complaint, he had to follow procedure.

He asked if I would mind keeping my hands on the cart, I told him that I did not mind at all. He asked where my ID was, and when I told him it was in my back pocket, he asked my wife, very politely, I might add, if she would mind getting it out for us. She didn't mind at all, and got out my Drivers License, and my CPL.

After he asked for my ID, just to "go through the motions" in his words, his partner called it in, and we bullshitted while it was run. He said he really like the SW 340 pd I was carrying, and was looking at buying one. I joked with him, and got a laugh from him when I insulted his Glock 17. He also saw my pager, and asked what fire department I was on.

As soon as he got the call back from dispatch that no, I'm not a troublesome individual, he thanked me, apologized for wasting my time, and shook my hand and left. His partner apologized to my wife, as well.

All in all, it went QUITE well, and my wife and I were laughing for quite a while. The Store Manager came over to us, as he had been hovering in the background. I would imagine when the police showed up, they checked in with him, or something along those lines. He came up, and let us know that the store FULLY supported gun rights, and had recently brought back the gun display in sporting goods. He also complimented me on my choice of a 1911, as he carried one as well. We joked for a little while, and he told me to keep shopping, as he had no problem whatsoever with open carry. "

[iverglas]

114. snork snork snork

So, on my hip was a Firestorm 1911, and in the small of my back was my snubby Smith 357.

And they tell me "festooned" is not the right word ...

:rofl:

[RSillsbee]

123. If you were at all familiar w/ Firestorm arms

you'd know why he was carrying two guns

[iverglas]

131. ah, so ...

that's the one he should have had "in the small of my back" ... in the hope that someone would steal it as he bent over the cabbages.

[RSillsbee]

133. Close but no

That's the one he should have never frakking bought because it's a hunk of junk. If you're going to carry a 1911 at least carry a Rock Island Armory.

[Hoyt]

134. Admittedly, that's funny. Probably bought it for the name-- ain't that a TBag supremacist Web site?

[GreenStormCloud]

146. Nope, you are thinking of St******nt. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

145. It isn't unusual to carry two guns.

One is the primary piece and the second is a backup gun. There are various solid tactical reasons for doing so. Now carrying four guns might be consider festooned, as well as somewhat heavy.

[Hoyt]

148. "Solid tactical reasons" -- in a friggin Wal Mart. Somebody needs some serious help.

[WatsonT]

151. Because mass murderers always announce where they intend to commit murder?

[Hoyt]

152. Oh, I'm glad to have you guys watching out for us- NOT. Keep em at home where they belong.

I don't really think some fool with two guns in a WMart is going to save us from a massacre. If you carry for that reason -- it's irrational.

[X_Digger]

157. When are you going to get it? It's not about saving YOUR ass..

It's about possibly saving mine.

[Hoyt]

158. When are you going to get it. Don't care, if you have to use gun in crowd to save your arse- DON'T.

You ain't trained well enough to do that in a crowd.

[X_Digger]

159. Not your decision to make, thankfully.

You can piss and moan til the cows come home, concealed carry is here to stay.

[PavePusher]

165. Surely you can point to dozens of incidents that played out as you insinuate, yes?

Or maybe... not.

[rl6214]

164. Not watching out for you, I'm watching out for myself and my family

You are on you own.

[Hoyt]

169. Would rather take care of myself in these situations. Are you a two gun toter too?

[WatsonT]

172. Be sure to always wear a shirt indicating your thoughts on guns

so when the shooting starts the CHL holders and cops can respect your wishes and not use guns to protect you.

I assume that you will volunteer to be a human shield in any event, which is only fair given that you would leave everyone helpless in such a situation.

[GreenStormCloud]

171. Crime can happen anywhere.

Also, if one is going to carry one should carry the same configuration all the time. That way, if something happens you don't have to remember what you are carrying today as you carry the same thing all the time.

It seems that in you world a person goes from home to wherever and back again with no other stops. That is very wasteful on gas. I combine trips. So a trip to WM will also include some other stops. Crime can happen anywhere.

[iverglas]

115. always nice to know what happened

it sounded like some little old lady could not comprehend

I know that if I lived wherever that is, I'd definitely want to know that at least one cop whose salary I paid harboured, and publicly expressed, that kind of misogyny.

Part and parcel, hand in hand it all goes, as usual.



I keep wondering how any member of the public, or any cop, is supposed to know whether an individual who is promenading around in a public space with firearms affixed to their person is in fact legally entitled to do so.

For the safety and convenience of those who choose to do so, perhaps they should consider having a black "G" tattooed on their forehead or some such ...

[RSillsbee]

122. Or maybe a yellow Star of David affixed to their clothing?

I keep wondering how any member of the public, or any cop, is supposed to know whether an individual who is promenading around in a public space with firearms affixed to their person is in fact legally entitled to do so.

I seem to remember someone saying you were a lawyer? If so, surely you know we presume innocence.

I think it depends on where you're at, in Colorado he wouldn't have got a second look. Then look at his behavior if he isn't acting weird ( I am aware that some would say just carrying the gun is "acting weird" ) or belligerent what's the problem? He's engaged in a completely lawful activity. Nothing to see folks move along.

[iverglas]

135. I speak only in the interests of the gun toters!

They don't like getting hassled because nobody else in the world can tell by looking at them whether they are legally entitled to be toting that pistol. They wander the internet boo-hooing about people expressing concern to the police when they see them toting their pistols at the mall.

So in their own interests, surely they'd prefer that the public (and police) have some way of immediately identifying them as one o' them "law-abiding gun owners". No??

Do all criminals act weird or belligerent?

Since there's no way at all of knowing who might suddenly get weird or belligerent (so we could tattoo them instead with a big purple W/B), I'd say it's wisest to tag the ones who aren't.

Oh, well, of course, we still have no way of knowing whether they might suddently get weird or belligerent ...


He's engaged in a completely lawful activity. Nothing to see folks move along.

But there is something to see. It's called "a gun". In the case at hand, two guns.

Admittedly, it might seem odd for a criminal to be wandering around with guns affixed front and back. But think about it.

If nobody has any way of knowing whether one is legally toting those guns, isn't hiding in plain sight maybe the best approach?

Nobody knows whether a person doing that is engaged in a completely lawful activity. And a whole lot of gun toters don't think they should have to prove to anybody that they are, by the way.

If you try to buy booze or cigarettes and refuse to show your ID to prove your age, do you think that saying "I'm engaged in a completely lawful activity; give me that bottle" will get you very far -- even if you're 45?

I don't know whether the person in the car next to me has a valid driver's licence. I do know that the chances of that person suddenly deciding to ram my car with theirs are really slim. The chances are undoubtedly also very slim that the person toting the firearms at WalMart will do anything untoward with them. But risk assessment doesn't just consider the chance of something happens; it considers the seriousness of the harm that would result if it did.

People do start shooting in public places, as in fact we are often told about by advocates of gun-carrying. And when it happens, there is a very high risk of very serious harm.

[RSillsbee]

141. Since you haven't denied being a lawyer

I am going to assume you are familiar w/ a "Terry Stop". A cop has to have reasonable suspicion based clearly articulable facts.(IOW he has to beable to state specifically what I did that made him suspicious)that a crime is being or is about to be committed before he can detain me.

He can stop me on the street and engage me in any conversation he wishes to but he can't detain me unless he has RAS.

Colorado State Constitution Article II, Section 13:

Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

According to that if all I'm doing is walking around w/ a gun on my hip he doesn't.

For the record I've never been MWAG'd in Colorado (Sure as HELL never happened when I was in Arizona either)If I was the first word's out of my mouth would be "Officer, am I free to go?" If he says yes I'm off like a prom dress. If he says no it's 'Officer I have nothing to say w/out consulting my attorney" Then I hand them your card and shut up.

[iverglas]

142. I haven't denied being an astronaut, either

I used to be a lawyer.
I was never an astronaut.
And I have never been a USAmerican.

So I really don't know (or, forgive me, care) what a "Terry Stop" is. If it hasn't been on Law&Order or in this forum, I haven't investigated it.


According to that if all I'm doing is walking around w/ a gun on my hip he doesn't (have reasonable grounds to detain).

(I don't think you need to quote a constitution to show that; all you have to do is show that there's nothing to indicate a crime is or is about to be or has been committed.)

Yes. This would have been my point, you see.

There is no mechanism available by which a peace officer can determine that Gun Toter "X" is legally toting.

The flip side is that there is no mechanism available by which a peace officer can determine that Gun Toter "Y" is ILlegally toting.

If I'm behind the wheel of a car, a cop may ask that I produce my licence etc.

If I'm wandering around WalMart with a pistol in my pants, no cop may ask that I produce anything, or even answer a question.

Now think about that. I, me, could show up at your local WalMart with a pistol in my pants, a totally illegal act (I'll assume, since I'm not a resident of your state, but we could say for the sake of argument that I'm a paroled ax murderer), and nobody would be entitled to get the information needed to deal with me.

Surely you don't want that happening.

[RSillsbee]

143. If you showed up in my state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." (392 U.S. 1, at 30.)

If I'm wandering around WalMart with a pistol in my pants, no cop may ask that I produce anything, or even answer a question.

If you are carrying a concealed pistol he can because carrying concealed is illegal in Colorado unless you have a permit. If you are carrying openly you are w/in the law and he has no cause to trifle w/ you and (IMO) that is as it should be I am willing to take the (very slight) risk that you aren't an ax murderer to preserve my civil liberties. (TYPO)

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -
-- Thomas Jefferson

Now think about that. I, me, could show up at your local WalMart with a pistol in my pants, a totally illegal act (I'll assume, since I'm not a resident of your state, but we could say for the sake of argument that I'm a paroled ax murderer), and nobody would be entitled to get the information needed to deal with me.

In Colorado you don't need to be a resident to openly carry a firearm, you need to be a resident to own it. So if you showed up in Colorado I could invite you to the range (and I would) and it would be perfectly legal for you to strap up and walk through Walmart to buy ammunition (assuming I was too cheap to provide it)


Surely you don't want that happening.

See the above Jefferson quote

[iverglas]

150. nope

If you are carrying a concealed pistol he can because carrying concealed is illegal in Colorado unless you have a permit. If you are carrying openly you are w/in the law and he has no cause to trifle w/ you ...

But if I am an ax murderer (a Canadian is okay?), I am NOT within the law if I wander abroad in Colorado with a pistol visible on my person. (Come on, a mere tourist is entitled to do that in Colorado? I'll take your word for it I guess. Shudder.)

This was my very point.

A person ILLEGALLY carrying a visible firearm cannot be distinguished, by the naked eye, from a person LEGALLY carrying a visible firearm.

And there is no other permissible way of making the distinction. It just seems to me like it's a good distinction to be able to make.

... and (IMO) that is as it should be I am willing to take the (very slight) risk that you aren't an ax murderer to preserve my civil liberties.

If I shoot you dead with my illegally carried firearm, your civil liberties die with you. Others might not be so sanguine about the possibility as you.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -
-- Thomas Jefferson

Good for old Thomas Jefferson. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about what rich powerful white guys in the 18th century in the US had to say about much of anything, myself. It just isn't necessarily very relevant, or at all relevant, to anything I and my society have to deal with. And Tom and the boys relaly didn't have a lot of personal security concerns, what with all that money and property and the lower classes knowing their place and all.

Do you suppose he ever had anything to say about women voting, let alone, oh, same-sex marriage? If only we'd been there to ask him ...

People really are entitled to decide, collectively, what balance to strike between liberty and security, among other things, in their own time and place, based on considerations relevant to that time and place that Thomas Jefferson and friends would never even have imagined. Quite apart from the fact that what they said that did get recorded for posterity isn't any authority for anything other than what they said. You can certainly approve of what they said; others can equally well disapprove of it.

One of my own domestic favourites comes from the pen of my greatx5 grandparents' great-grandson, Viscount Sankey (a Labour peer who was on the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in 1929 and wrote the decision that the word "persons" in our 1867 constitution, laying out the qualifications for appointment to the Senate, included women). It's the foundation on which the modern Supreme Court held that prohibiting same-sex marriages was unconstitutional, in 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re:_Same-Sex_Marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Canada_%28Attorney_General%29

The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. The object of the Act was to grant a Constitution to Canada. Like all written constitutions it has been subject to development through usage and convention.

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

The “frozen concepts” reasoning runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation: that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.

The right wing in the US hates us for our living tree. They prefer to tell time by a stopped watch. ;)

http://www.mclendon.net/active/NORML_2005.htm
(there used to be a good one on the Republican Party website but it's gone, so we're left with loonytarians)

[RSillsbee]

155. Colorado law

(Come on, a mere tourist is entitled to do that in Colorado? I'll take your word for it I guess. Shudder.)

Colorado law does not require you to be a Colorado resident to carry a firearm in our state. Colorado recognizes the concealed handgun permits of about 30 states so if you have a CHP from any of those states you're also good. You are only required to be a resident to buy a handgun in the state and take delivery of it there. You could buy the gun and have it shipped to an FFL holder in your home state (not Canada) and take delivery there.

So Colorado has some fairly liberal gun laws yet we don't have a lot of violent crime. Possibly the fact that more people live in Denver than in the rest of the state combined but it seems to be working here.

If I shoot you dead with my illegally carried firearm, your civil liberties die with you. Others might not be so sanguine about the possibility as you.

You have a better chance of winning the lotto than I do of being gunned down by an open carrying parolee

[beevul]

161. Finally...I'm so relieved.

No thread is complete in the guns forum without references to "promenading" and "festoonery" and of course..."powerful rich old dead white guys".

On edit:

"Pantload" is extra credit.

[iverglas]

167. oooh, "festoonery"!

I'll be stealing that one.

Just one small correction. There was no "dead" in my reference to powerful rich white guys. (I don't think there was an "old" either, but you can check that.)

They weren't dead at the time in question, which is what I was referring to.

Are you disputing that they were powerful, rich and white?

Or maybe you just think that being powerful, rich and white in that era (or hey, this one) was of absolutely no relevance to their lives.

[gejohnston]

273. A cop stopping you. The difference is that

a cop has to have probable cause, which (so I am told by some Canadian friends) cops in Canada don't need.

[Hoyt]

118. Two friggin guns -- what's this guy afraid of. Is laughing your arse off at someone illegal.

That just cracks me up.

[RSillsbee]

124. Of course it isn't illegal , It might be stupid but not illegal

Neither is peeing your pants and running screaming like a little girl from the store. Although that might be stupid too

[Hoyt]

125. Don' t "pee my pants or run like a little girl"- nor am I so afraid of WMart that I carry even 1 gun

If the police had been smart, they would have said: "legally you can tote two guns and look like a terrorist or silly fool, but maybe next time you should show some judgement and concern for other patrons before parading around with two guns sticking out of your pants."

[RSillsbee]

127. I never stated that any one person might pee their pant or run like a little girl

I merely pointed out that it would be a legal (if foolish) response.

If the police had been smart, they would have said: "legally you can tote two guns and look like a terrorist or silly fool, but maybe next time you should show some judgement and concern for other patrons before parading around with two guns sticking out of your pants."

Last time I checked the police were law enforcement officers not opinion enforcement officers. I am not interested in the opinion of a police officer, if you have no legal grounds to detain me, good day.

[Hoyt]

130. Maybe one should listen to those who have investigate a fool's poor choice of parading around with 2

guns in a public place. I'll bet this fool has run into this before and gets a big charge out of being noticed. Kind of prickish, don't you think?

[RSillsbee]

136. You are asking me to speculate

Maybe one should listen to those who have investigate a fool's poor choice
I don't do consensual stops. If you don't have a legal reason to detain me I'm off like a prom dress.

I'll bet this fool has run into this before

Possibly, but he didn't mention it in his story so I doubt it. I know for a fact that I never have

and gets a big charge out of being noticed.

I have no way of knowing the answer to that question. I am sure some people do get a kick out of being noticed and that some people carry a gun for that reason. If you want to address that specific behavior that's fine but don't violate my civil liberties ( The Colorado State Constitution is very clear on my RKBA in this state) because another person abused his. Although , having said that i don't see that carrying a gun because "you want to be noticed" violates any law

Kind of prickish, don't you think?

Not in the slightest

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[Hoyt]

132. Disagree, NRA4Ever.

It does matter, as indicated by people being upset and police having to investigate the prickish behavior.

I'd expect the same if I were walking around with an armed spear gun or my machete.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[beevul]

162. Your disagreement is noted.

And irrelevant.

And inconsequential.

[WatsonT]

174. Prickish behavior that upsets people is a criminal offense now?

Good thing no one would ever use that logic against protestors, or unions, or homosexuals, or muslims, or . . . .

[Hoyt]

176. We are not talking about any of those groups. We're talking about people who carry guns into public

If you can't see the difference, I'd suggest leaving your guns at home because I doubt you could properly assess a situation (unlikely as it is to arise).

[WatsonT]

177. Ah yes, the key difference is that *you* dislike this one group

and as Hoyt runs our laws and government that will be the standard, subjective as it is.

Good thing we weren't asking people this question in the 1950s or it'd be: Look out son, the negro in our store looks dangerous! I'm calling the cops.

[Hoyt]

180. There you go again - demeaning civil right movement - comparing your desire for guns to human rights

You folks are sick.

Besides, growing up in the south, I remember the white racists and every friggin one of them had a gun on their hip along with that awful hate stare.

[WatsonT]

182. I remember that white racists were big fans of gun control

can't have "those folks" being armed, and the cops were on their side so . . .

Also there's this thing, called the constitution, that defines our rights. You should read it some time, it isn't terribly long and for a legal document it is remarkably easy to read.

Oh well, you may continue to wet yourself at the sight of "different" people, and even call the cops on them when folks that don't belong in your neighborhood show up, maybe even date one of your kids.

And they will all do what we are doing: laugh at you and then get back to living our lives.

[Hoyt]

185. Way to solve that is not allow anyone to carry in public. Don't care if 3% that pack laugh at me.

Keep demeaning those who fought -- mostly without guns -- for real civil rights. Yea, I know, one of you will post about MLK applying for a permit. Do you blame him?

[WatsonT]

187. How are you still not getting this?

You, like other like minded folk in the past, *do*not*get*to*determine*what*rights*the*rest*of*us*are*allowed*to*have*.

It's not up to you. Fortunately people like you are in the minority and likely always will be. The rest of us prefer freedom to shiny jackboots.

How do they fit by the way? Comfy?

[Hoyt]

189. 300+ Million don't have desire for a permit to carry in public. They are rational.

[WatsonT]

190. [citation needed]

If that were the case then I suspect our laws would be a bit different don't you?

Because that would literally be the entire population of the US.

[rrneck]

194. Including teabag Republicans that dont carry? nt

[Hoyt]

195. Yea, the one or two.

[rrneck]

197. Busted again.

:rofl:

Will you ever learn?

[beevul]

203. 300+ Million also don't seem to have a real huge problem with it.

"300+ Million don't have desire for a permit to carry in public."



300+ Million also don't seem to have a real huge problem with it.

Other than a tiny loudmouth minority.

[Euromutt]

251. No, they don't HAVE a permit; that's not the same as not desiring one

Because that number includes persons under 21, residents of no-issue states (Illinois and Wisconsin), most residents of restrictive "may issue" states (such as California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York), and estimated 6.5% of the population who have been convicted of a felony. These people can't get a permit, so the fact that they don't have one doesn't necessarily mean they don't want one. I've pointed this out before: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=403556&mesg_id=405411

[Atypical Liberal]

193. In spite of the fact that those 3% are hyper law-abiding?

Way to solve that is not allow anyone to carry in public. Don't care if 3% that pack laugh at me.

But why? Those 3% are hardly every involved in crime. We know that in Texas people with CCW permits represent about .025% of convictions from everything from Public Lewdness to Homicide. They are hardly ever involved in crime - far less likely than people without CCW permits, in fact.

So why is it a big deal of those 3% carry firearms in public?

Yea, I know, one of you will post about MLK applying for a permit. Do you blame him?

I sure don't. If I were in his position I would have wanted to be armed, too. Unfortunately he lived in a place where at the time it was up to the local sheriff to decide whether or not you were worthy enough to get a permit. Being a black person rattling the establishment it's not surprising he wasn't deemed worthy enough by the (probably white) sheriff.

[Hoyt]

196. Hyper law abiding? How about those who qualify for a permit, but don't carry?

I suspect they are just as law abiding (if not more so). Certainly more concerned with society, our future, and the example we set.

The guys I've known who carried, might not have any felony convictions (that's questionable) -- but they were con men, true bigots, Tbaggers, itching for an opportunity to flash their you know what, and often worse.

[Atypical Liberal]

198. We are talking about those who carry.

Hyper law abiding? How about those who qualify for a permit, but don't carry?

I suspect they are just as law abiding (if not more so). Certainly more concerned with society, our future, and the example we set.

There is no doubt that most Americans are law abiding.

But we are talking about people who carry firearms in public, which usually requires a permit.

We know that these people are far less likely to be involved in crime - any kind of crime - than people without those permits.

In short, there is no reason to be upset about those 3% of firearm carriers you were talking about.

The guys I've known who carried, might not have any felony convictions (that's questionable) -- but they were con men, true bigots, Tbaggers, itching for an opportunity to flash their you know what, and often worse.

That may be, but your anecdotes don't trump good statistical data:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=374332

For the states that I have seen this data provided, the picture is irrefutably clear: People who go to the trouble of the background checks, the trips to the sheriff's office, the training classes, the tests, the fingerprinting, and the fees that most places require in order to carry a concealed weapon have a very clear intent to follow the law to the letter. It should be no surprise that that these people tend to be law-abiding in general.

[iverglas]

204. "That may be, but your anecdotes don't trump good statistical data"

That may be, but you have no good statistical data.

Try starting here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=240402&mesg_id=240455

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=240402&mesg_id=241210

I'll be generous and reproduce it.

iverglas
Thu Jul-23-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #61

66. if the data aren't there

then the repeated assertions allegedly based on those data have to stop.

The population of holders of permits to carry concealed firearms IS NOT COMPARABLE to the "general population".

(And that's so even if we leave aside the question of offenders who have never been caught, who undoubtedly exist in both populations.)

The "general population" includes huge numbers of CONVICTED OFFENDERS and others with characteristics that would disqualify them from holding permits to carry concealed firearms.

Comparing the crime rate among individuals who are INELIGIBLE to hold permits, in a majority of cases because of CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, and individuals who are ELIGIBLE to hold permits is a waste of time, and anyone who bases an argument on such a comparison is being deceitful at best.

If someone wants to do the work -- determine what percentage of homicides, e.g., are committed by persons with previous criminal convictions, and EXCLUDE those homicides, and then determine what percentage of the population has criminal convictions, and EXCLUDE that segment -- they could come up with some reasonably comparable populations and sets of offences. Then we could talk.


How can we possibly differentiate, beyond felons/non-felons? I'd love to meet halfway on this one, but the data just can't be sliced in the requisite manner.

I don't know, not my problem, but the above is perhaps a starting point.

The fact is that until someone does come up with a way of doing it, all of this crap about how permit holders are more law-abiding than non-permit holders is, yes, crap, of the unpleasant deceitful variety.

And an example of the kind of exchange that ensues, starting here, from 2008:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=195551&mesg_id=195867

[Atypical Liberal]

207. Yes, we do have good statistical data.

As we can see here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=374332

The population of holders of permits to carry concealed firearms IS NOT COMPARABLE to the "general population".

It certainly is if you are trying to make the case that people with CCW permits are somehow dangerous and should not be allowed to carry firearms.

The fact is, they are less dangerous than people without such permits. If you aren't upset with everyone else in society that surrounds you, then there is no reason to be upset about CCW permit holders.

[iverglas]

211. I'm afraid I get off the bus here

You are either too uncomprehending or too disingenuous to ride with. I never try to guess which it is.


typo fixed

[Atypical Liberal]

212. Neither one.

You are either too uncomprehending or too disingenuous to ride with.

Neither one of your assertions is correct.

Many people say that we should not allow concealed carry. They say that allowing such will result in "blood in the streets", or a "return to the wild west". The implication is that people who carry concealed weapons are dangerous.

But the statistics do not bear this out.

What the statistics show, for the states that provide them, like Texas, Florida, and others, is that people with CCW permits are hardly ever convicted of crimes. Any kind of crime. From Public Lewdness to Homicide, people with CCW permits are hardly ever convicted of crimes. In fact, they are less likely to be convicted of crimes than people without CCW permits.

Therefore, any fear that CCW permit holders are more dangerous to be around than the general public that already surrounds them is irrational. You would be safer walking down the street surrounded entirely by CCW permit holders than you would be surrounded by the general population.

Enjoy your walk, though.

[iverglas]

202. just for future ref

The answer to the stupid "statistics" about crimes by permit holders is:

To be a permit-holder you have to be certified a non-criminal. Duh.

I've asked a lot for comparisons between permit holders and a comparable population: not the very young, no criminal record, whatever other characteristics are relatively common to permit holders (I would expect: more employed and more white than the general population, for starters).

But sadly, I get no answers.

They may not be able to produce such comparisons, understandably.

That doesn't mean (in civil discourse) that they get to keep posting specious comparisons that they know to be specious and pretending they are meaningful.

[Atypical Liberal]

213. Because that is not the case being made.

The answer to the stupid "statistics" about crimes by permit holders is:

To be a permit-holder you have to be certified a non-criminal. Duh.

This is not exactly true. No one can certify that you are not ever going to be a criminal, they can only certify that you have no previous disqualifying criminal record. So yes, permit holders, by definition, have no criminal record.

But it is also true that permit holders are extremely unlikely to ever have a criminal record. Not only did they not have a record at the time of issuance, but statistics show that the rate of conviction for them after issuance is extremely low. For example, in Texas, over the last decade, CCW permit holders only account for about .25% of convictions of everything from Public Lewdness to Homicide.

I've asked a lot for comparisons between permit holders and a comparable population: not the very young, no criminal record, whatever other characteristics are relatively common to permit holders (I would expect: more employed and more white than the general population, for starters).

But sadly, I get no answers.

Well for one thing, the question has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

The contention usually made by anti-firearm people is that allowing people to carry concealed weapons is dangerous. IF there were no CCW permit holders, as they wished, the alternative would not be a world populated by any "comparable population", the alternative would be a world populated by everyone else.

So it is logical to compare CCW permit holders to the people who they would be surrounded with if there were no CCW permit holders. And when we do this we see that CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in crime, and they are far less likely to be involved in crime than everyone else in the population.

Therefore if you are not already afraid of the entire rest of the population committing crimes, there is no reason to be afraid of CCW permit holders who commit crimes much less frequently.

They may not be able to produce such comparisons, understandably.

We can compare CCW permit holders to anyone you can provide conviction data for. But it wouldn't be very relevant to the anti-firearm point of view. Their argument is that the general population would be safer without CCW permit holders. So the only valid comparison is CCW permit holders vs. the rest of the general population.

[iverglas]

216. whoever "they" are

The contention usually made by anti-firearm people is that allowing people to carry concealed weapons is dangerous.
Their argument is that the general population would be safer without CCW permit holders.

It's been said often before, but referring to people who disagree with you by nonsense (and inaccurate) terms like "anti-firearm" just doesn't help you.

My argument is that I don't wish to live in a society where people wander around with firearms everywhere I might be. Period. It's antisocial, and it's the sign of a very sick society, and I don't want to live in a society like that. Fortunately, I don't. There is not the slightest snowball's chance that this would ever become permissible in Canada. None. I'm proud and happy about that.

I'm not "afraid" of anyone or anything in particular.

However, I can cite you cases of people with permits to possess restricted weapons (semi-automatic rifle, handgun) in Canada, which they are definitely not allowed to wander around with, doing just that and killing people.

You know perfectly well that there are permit holders in the US who have committed crimes with the firearms they were legally carrying.

What percentage of crime they account for doesn't really interest me. They committed crimes that there is no reason to believe they would have committed if they had not had permits to carry concealed weapons, because, being the law-abiding types they are, they would not have been carrying the firearm without the permit.

Therefore if you are not already afraid of the entire rest of the population committing crimes, there is no reason to be afraid of CCW permit holders who commit crimes much less frequently.

Leaving aside your vaguely insulting references to being "afraid", of course people are concerned about the entire rest of the population committing crimes. Isn't that why you people haul your firearms around with you? You're afraid of someone committing a crime, obviously, and presumably someone other than a person with a permit to carry a firearm. So why wouldn't anyone else feel the same?

If people are concerned about crime in general, and firearm crime in particular, which people obviously and reasonably are, why would they want more people wandering around with guns, especially knowing that some of them have committed and will commit crimes with the guns they have been given permits to carry around??

[Atypical Liberal]

221. Semantics.

It's been said often before, but referring to people who disagree with you by nonsense (and inaccurate) terms like "anti-firearm" just doesn't help you.

I'm open to alternative labels if you would care to offer one.

To me, anyone who is against the concealed carrying of firearms by people with no criminal or mental illness background are "anti-firearm". I might also call them "anti-gun", or "anti-second-amendment". My experience is that most people who are against concealed carry are also against firearms in general, hence the use of the term "anti-firearm".

My argument is that I don't wish to live in a society where people wander around with firearms everywhere I might be. Period. It's antisocial, and it's the sign of a very sick society, and I don't want to live in a society like that. Fortunately, I don't. There is not the slightest snowball's chance that this would ever become permissible in Canada. None. I'm proud and happy about that.

I'm not "afraid" of anyone or anything in particular.

This is nice, but has no bearing on the subject at hand.

However, I can cite you cases of people with permits to possess restricted weapons (semi-automatic rifle, handgun) in Canada, which they are definitely not allowed to wander around with, doing just that and killing people.

Yes, there is no doubt that people with permits sometimes commit crimes. In the United States, this happens very rarely. In the United States, people with CCW permits are less likely to commit crimes than the general population.

What percentage of crime they account for doesn't really interest me. They committed crimes that there is no reason to believe they would have committed if they had not had permits to carry concealed weapons, because, being the law-abiding types they are, they would not have been carrying the firearm without the permit.

Again, there is no doubt that people with permits to carry weapons do commit crimes with weapons. And there is no doubt that if they had no weapon, they would not have committed a crime with a weapon.

This does not change the fact that people with CCW permits are less likely to commit any kind of crime than the general population at large, and are even less likely to be involved in firearm crime.

Put another way, you are far more likely to be a victim of firearm crime by someone without a permit than you are someone with a permit.

Leaving aside your vaguely insulting references to being "afraid", of course people are concerned about the entire rest of the population committing crimes. Isn't that why you people haul your firearms around with you? You're afraid of someone committing a crime, obviously, and presumably someone other than a person with a permit to carry a firearm. So why wouldn't anyone else feel the same?

Again with the semantics. You may substitute "concern" or "apprehension" or whatever else you like for "afraid".

Whatever your choice of words, yes, they very well might be afraid of CCW-permit holders carrying firearms. The difference is one, it is irrational to fear CCW permit holders given how unlikely they are to be involved in crime, and two, CCW permit holders are not trying to use their fears as an excuse to alter the behavior of other people.

If people are concerned about crime in general, and firearm crime in particular, which people obviously and reasonably are, why would they want more people wandering around with guns, especially knowing that some of them have committed and will commit crimes with the guns they have been given permits to carry around??

Because we know from the data that while some CCW permit holders do indeed commit crimes with firearms, it is a very rare occurrence, and in fact a non-CCW permit holder in the general public is far more likely to be involved in firearm crime than the permit holder.

The bottom line is that while it is obvious and reasonable to be concerned with firearm crime, it is obviously unreasonable to fear CCW permit holders as committing any kind of crime in any significant numbers.

[iverglas]

223. demagoguery

I'm open to alternative labels if you would care to offer one.

Not my job.

This is nice, but has no bearing on the subject at hand.

The subject at hand was your less than candid portrayal of people who disagree with you. I rebutted it.

Put another way, you are far more likely to be a victim of firearm crime by someone without a permit than you are someone with a permit.

No, that's just putting the same crap the same way, actually.

I'm far more likely to fall down stairs than to be hit by lightning. That doesn't mean I'm going to go stand in a field during a thunderstorm.

And that is exactly what giving people, and ever more people, permits to carry firearms in public (to which we must add the rising numbers of people carrying firearms in public who do not need permits to do so) is comparable to. Increasing the risk.

The difference is one, it is irrational to fear CCW permit holders given how unlikely they are to be involved in crime, and two, CCW permit holders are not trying to use their fears as an excuse to alter the behavior of other people.

Well hey, you just keep using your little demagogue's labels here.

It is by no means irrational to be concerned about something when there is a real risk of it happening, and when, no matter how low those odds, the harm that would result if it did is extreme.

Risk analysis involves both factors. Read up on it if you like.

Risk analysis is not fear. But hey, you keep up the demagoguery. I always say I'd be disappointed to see otherwise.

in fact a non-CCW permit holder in the general public is far more likely to be involved in firearm crime than the permit holder.

Let me know when you are planning to go stand in a field during a thunderstorm.

The bottom line is that while it is obvious and reasonable to be concerned with firearm crime, it is obviously unreasonable to fear CCW permit holders as committing any kind of crime in any significant numbers.

The significant number here is "one". One death, one robbery, one act of intimidation; too many.



html fixed

[Atypical Liberal]

225. Some points.

Not my job.

If you are going to complain about terminology but not offer any suggestions to improve it, why bother complaining? Just to make yourself feel better?

The subject at hand was your less than candid portrayal of people who disagree with you. I rebutted it.

Again, your anecdote about life in Canada had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Also, it has not been my intent to be anything less than candid about anything I have said.

No, that's just putting the same crap the same way, actually.

But it's true! You are (in the United States, of course) far more likely to be a victim of firearm crime by someone without a permit than you are someone with a permit.

I'm far more likely to fall down stairs than to be hit by lightning. That doesn't mean I'm going to go stand in a field during a thunderstorm.

And that is exactly what giving people, and ever more people, permits to carry firearms in public (to which we must add the rising numbers of people carrying firearms in public who do not need permits to do so) is comparable to. Increasing the risk.

The increase in risk from CCW permit holders is minuscule. If you are a victim of firearm crime, you are vastly more likely to be a victim of such crime from someone without a CCW permit.

Most of our country agrees, as right now only two states do not allow CCW carry, and Wisconsin will likely soon allow it. In fact, CCW permit holders are so unlikely to be involved in crime that some states are giving up requiring permits at all, because tracking such people is just a waste of resources.

Well hey, you just keep using your little demagogue's labels here.

I'm sorry, which labels hurt your feelings this time?

It is by no means irrational to be concerned about something when there is a real risk of it happening, and when, no matter how low those odds, the harm that would result if it did is extreme.

Which is precisely the argument for why people want to be able to carry firearms. Thank you.

Risk analysis is not fear. But hey, you keep up the demagoguery. I always say I'd be disappointed to see otherwise.

Very well. I will now use "risk analysis" in place of "fear" if it salves your feelings. It's more cumbersome to type, but as you wish.

Let me know when you are planning to go stand in a field during a thunderstorm.

The difference is, standing in a field during a thunderstorm significantly increases your risk of being struck by lightning. Allowing CCW permit holders to carry firearms does not significantly increase your odds of being a victim of firearm crime.

The significant number here is "one". One death, one robbery, one act of intimidation; too many.

So you concede, then, that the number of CCW permit holders who commit crimes is, in fact, very low, right?

[iverglas]

228. snork

www.sirc.ca/.../Lightning-relatedinjuriesandfatalitiesinCanada_FINAL-TECHNICAL_1

Striking Back: An Assessment of Lightning-
related Fatality and Injury Risk in Canada

... A total of 999 lightning fatalities were identified in the official vital statistics dataset between
1921 and 2003. ...

I don't think your odds get much lower than that. What possible harm could there be in upping them a little?? I say we just arrange for a few random people to go stand in a field during every thunderstorm. Odds are really really high that none of them will get killed.

[Atypical Liberal]

231. Then feel free to stand in open fields during storms.

I don't think your odds get much lower than that. What possible harm could there be in upping them a little?? I say we just arrange for a few random people to go stand in a field during every thunderstorm. Odds are really really high that none of them will get killed.

If you have data that indicates that standing in fields during thunderstorms does not significantly increase one's risk for being struck by lightning, then by all means you should pursue public policy changes to educate people to this current myth. Of course, we know that this is not true.

The fact is that we do have data that shows that CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in crime, and are less likely to be involved in crime than people without CCW permits. So it follows that CCW permit holders carrying firearms does not significantly increase your odds of being a victim of firearm crime.

[iverglas]

235. but but but

If you have data that indicates that standing in fields during thunderstorms does not significantly increase one's risk for being struck by lightning, then by all means you should pursue public policy changes to educate people to this current myth. Of course, we know that this is not true.

The odds of getting struck by ligtning while standing a field in a thunderstorm are in fact minuscule. In all of Canada, in 80 years, 1,000 people were killed by lightning, and certainly not all of them were standing in fields. (My brother's friend was killed bicycling over a bridge.) Obviously multiple multiples of that number have stood in fields during thunderstorms. Canada was a largely agrarian society for part of that time. There were gazillions of people standing in fields, and we have quite frequent thunderstorms.

So you could double or quadruple those odds, and they would still be mini-minuscule.

So why not just go and do it??

The odds of being harmed by someone legally carrying a firearm in public are very low.

If you don't want to multiply the very low odds of being hit by lightning, why do you want to multiply the odds of being harmed by someone legally carrying a firearm in public?

[Atypical Liberal]

240. Again...

The odds of getting struck by ligtning while standing a field in a thunderstorm are in fact minuscule. In all of Canada, in 80 years, 1,000 people were killed by lightning, and certainly not all of them were standing in fields. (My brother's friend was killed bicycling over a bridge.) Obviously multiple multiples of that number have stood in fields during thunderstorms. Canada was a largely agrarian society for part of that time. There were gazillions of people standing in fields, and we have quite frequent thunderstorms.

So you could double or quadruple those odds, and they would still be mini-minuscule.

So why not just go and do it??

First of all, you have not presented any data that shows how much increase in odds there are of being struck by lightning by standing in the open during a thunderstorm.

I cannot find any data, but given the repetitive nature of the warning not to be out in the open it may very well be that you increase your odds of being struck by hundreds or even thousands of times.

If the odds were as low as you suggest, then there would be no reason to avoid standing in the open during thunderstorms.

But the fact of the matter is, there is no compelling reason to stand in fields during thunderstorms, so there is usually no down-side to just go inside to be on the safe side.

The odds of being harmed by someone legally carrying a firearm in public are very low.

Thank you for conceding that point.

If you don't want to multiply the very low odds of being hit by lightning, why do you want to multiply the odds of being harmed by someone legally carrying a firearm in public?

Because there is no benefit to standing around in a field during a thunderstorm, but there is a benefit in being armed. Namely, it allows such people to resist violent criminals.

And since, as you agree, the odds of being harmed by someone legally carrying a firearm in public are very low, there is no reason to restrict it.

[iverglas]

243. nope

If the odds were as low as you suggest, then there would be no reason to avoid standing in the open during thunderstorms.

Yes there very much would be.

Would you play Russian roulette with a one-in-six chance of you ending with a bullet in your head?

I'll assume no, unless there were some horrible consequence for refusing.

How about if there were a one-in-1,000 chance? One-in-1,000,000 chance?

I'll assume no, still.

So why would you go stand in a field in a thunderstorm even if the odds of being struck by lightning were only one in 1,000,000?


Because there is no benefit to standing around in a field during a thunderstorm, but there is a benefit in being armed. Namely, it allows such people to resist violent criminals.

Wrong p.o.v.

You're the one who might be hurt if you went and stood in a field in a a thunderstorm. We haven't been worried about what might happen to the lightning if it struck you.

So why are we suddenly talking about the benefit to people carrying guns around in public? They're not the ones who would be hurt if they used their guns for evil effect.


Namely, it allows such people to resist violent criminals.

Maybe. Maybe not. No guarantees.

It does enable them to harm other people in ways they would not be able to do if not carrying a firearm.


And since, as you agree, the odds of being harmed by someone legally carrying a firearm in public are very low, there is no reason to restrict it.

Just as there is no reason for you not to go stand in a field in a thunderstorm.

If the odds of bad stuff happening are the criteria for whether to do something, that's what you'll be doing.

[Atypical Liberal]

254. On guarantees.

Yes there very much would be.

Would you play Russian roulette with a one-in-six chance of you ending with a bullet in your head?

I'll assume no, unless there were some horrible consequence for refusing.

How about if there were a one-in-1,000 chance? One-in-1,000,000 chance?

I'll assume no, still.

So why would you go stand in a field in a thunderstorm even if the odds of being struck by lightning were only one in 1,000,000?

It depends on what the reward was. If I was offered a million dollars with a one-in-1,000,000 chance of dying, I might just go for it.

See, there is no up-side to risking being out in the open in a thunderstorm. Aside from the fact that being the highest elevated object appears to drastically increase your chances of being struck by lightning, there is nothing worth taking the risk for. So your lightning analogy fails.

There is a definite up-side to allowing people to carry firearms, and very little risk for doing so. Since you agree the risk of firearm crime from CCW permit holders is very small, why meddle with a Constitutional right?

Wrong p.o.v.

You're the one who might be hurt if you went and stood in a field in a a thunderstorm. We haven't been worried about what might happen to the lightning if it struck you.

So why are we suddenly talking about the benefit to people carrying guns around in public? They're not the ones who would be hurt if they used their guns for evil effect.

Of course, you are also ignoring the benefits that people in public enjoy by having armed, hyper-law-abiding citizens in their midst. Of course I have no data to support this supposition, but it would not surprise me in the least to discover that any increase of risk from the few CCW permit holders who might commit crimes with their firearms is easily offset by the protection that the rest of the permit holders provide to those around them.

But the bottom line is that I am not going to allow the criminal actions of a very, very few people to be used as an excuse for taking away my right to defend myself using a firearm.

Maybe. Maybe not. No guarantees.

It does enable them to harm other people in ways they would not be able to do if not carrying a firearm.

Having the means to resist an aggressor is no guarantee of successfully resisting. However, without firearms, every single victim of a violent crime is left with three options:: Flee if you are fast enough, submit if you can survive submission, or engage in a physical contest of strength against your attacker. Without firearms, the weak are always at the mercy of the strong. The firearm does not guarantee victory, but it beats the alternative of a physical contest of strength against someone who very well may be stronger than you.

Yes, people having access to firearms means that some bad people will do bad things with them. But the alternative - to disarm everyone in the futile attempt to stop firearm violence - is to forevermore condemn the weak to be at the mercy of the strong. This is simply not acceptable to me, nor to most Americans. We are certainly not going to disarm the people that have been statistically shown to hardly ever been involved in any crime, let alone firearm-related crime.

Just as there is no reason for you not to go stand in a field in a thunderstorm.

If the odds of bad stuff happening are the criteria for whether to do something, that's what you'll be doing.

Every choice in life is a cost-benefit analysis. We weight the potential risks against the potential gains, and we make our choices.

Well, most of our country, soon to be 49 of the 50 states, seem to agree that there is something worthwhile in carrying concealed firearms, and that the risk of such people doing so is minuscule. The people of this nation overwhelmingly agree that people ought to have the choice to use a firearm to defend themselves if they want to, and people no doubt have seen the data that shows that people who already have that ability are hardly ever involved in crime.

The bottom line is that if gun-control advocates (or whatever euphemism is most comfortable for you) want to prevent people from being able to carry concealed weapons, they have an extraordinarily long row to hoe. The data clearly shows that such people are hardly ever involved in crime, and consequently most people don't worry about them carrying firearms. The vast majority of firearm homicides are committed by people with extensive prior criminal histories, including, on average, four felonies. The people we need to worry about committing firearm crime are the people who could never obtain a CCW permit.

As I said before, some states have figured this out so well that they are dropping the requirement of CCW permits altogether. They know that the people who will obtain them are not the people that will be causing problems with firearms, and the people causing problems with firearms will never bother with the permits anyway.

[PavePusher]

232. "It's antisocial, and it's the sign of a very sick society..."

A person being prepared to defend themselves in extreme situations is "the sign of a very sick society"?

Remarkable. Wrong, but remarkable.

[iverglas]

236. I don't know, do I?

Go ask someone who said that.

[Atypical Liberal]

241. Good.

"A person being prepared to defend themselves in extreme situations is "the sign of a very sick society"?"

Go ask someone who said that.

I'm glad we agree that people being prepared to defend themselves in extreme situations is not the sign of a very sick society.

Now, what would you say was the best way to prepare to defend yourself in an extreme situation?

[PavePusher]

242. You did say that.

Just as disingenuous and obfuscatory as always, aren't you?

[iverglas]

244. it's truly sad

when people cannot defend their own position without making 100% false statements about someone else's. I think Jesus must be crying.

[PavePusher]

246. I believe I quoted you quite faithfully.

Here, I'll expand it and cite it for additional clarity:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=409654&mesg_id=411122

"My argument is that I don't wish to live in a society where people wander around with firearms everywhere I might be. Period. It's antisocial, and it's the sign of a very sick society, and I don't want to live in a society like that."



Or is this another case of you not actually saying what you said? Cry, Jesus, cry.

[iverglas]

247. do you own a dictionary?

There are loads of free ones on line.

What I said, that you have NOW quoted:

"My argument is that I don't wish to live in a society where people wander around with firearms everywhere I might be. Period. It's antisocial, and it's the sign of a very sick society, and I don't want to live in a society like that."

What you said I had said:

"A person being prepared to defend themselves in extreme situations is 'the sign of a very sick society'?"

See how the two don't even rhyme?

Here's what a site I keep open says for the definition of "quote":

"repeat or copy out (a passage from a text or speech by another)."

See how you neither repeated nor copied out what I said?

I know you do.

Too late to save yourself now. It's all over your face, and it's nasty.


Or is this another case of you not actually saying what you said?

Nope, but it certainly is about the 9,476th case of somebody falsely representing what I said and persisting in that false representation despite how unspeakably deceitful and/or totally dunderheaded it makes them look, isn't it?

[PavePusher]

248. Yes, everyone takes your words out of context. Or something.

Quit playing the victim, you don't do it well at all.

You very much implied that people carrying a firearm for self-defense was a sign of a sick society. If you don't want to own your insinuations, I will no longer play your games. Good night to you, madam.

[RSillsbee]

230. To be a permit-holder you have to be certified a non-criminal. Duh.

So, why is it a problem to let a certified non criminal carry a gun?

[iverglas]

179. analogies are incomprehensible to them

until they feel like making one up to serve their own ends.

Then gun militants are analogous to persecuted groups throughout history. The offensive arrogance of likening a gun militant in the US in the 21st century to an African-American in the US in the 1950s is just beyond comment.

The analogies we get consist of utterly specious similarities masking profound substantive dissimilarities.

The response to reasonable analogies offered by others is to lob specious distinctions while averting the eyes from genuine likeness.

"Can't see the difference"? There's none so blind ...

[Hoyt]

181. Should have read your post -- a better way to put it -- before responding to their sick analogy.

[WatsonT]

183. Here's a historical reference for ya:

the move to restrict gun ownership in this country was rooted in racism and a desire to keep those scary dark people in their place.

What a proud legacy you have.

[Hoyt]

186. This is very different movement - ban all guns in public. Hope you enjoy demeaning real civil rights

to promote your need to carry guns in public.

[WatsonT]

188. Promoting rights for everyone, is in, your mind, demeaning civil rights

You must hate the ACLU.

I have to ask, what terrifies you so much about this? Clearly not the facts, as they are against you and you would be far more terrified to drive or skip your morning jog if you cared about statistics.

So what is it that you are afraid of? Or does the thought of other people having rights just piss you off?

[PavePusher]

238. "...keep and bear arms..." is a "real Civil Right"....

no matter how many times you metaphorically stamp your footsies and say it isn't.

[iverglas]

245. interesting you should say that

Civil rights are rights granted by government.

Huh.

[iverglas]

191. here's a blatant assertion devoid of truth for you

Oh wait ... you already have one.

Here's a true statement though: the modern "gun rights" movement in the U.S. arose out of the racist reaction to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. True, beyond dispute, and ugly as all hell.

[WatsonT]

205. "Here's a true statement though"

It's weird because what you said after that was clearly not true.

Do you know what the word means?

[iverglas]

206. why does nobody here ever cite George P. Mahoney??

I'm quoting me, there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=233474&mesg_id=234330

iverglas
Mon Jun-29-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #1

31. why does nobody here ever cite George Mahoney??


He was a "pro-gun" Democrat!

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/gene...

In 1961, when a new county executive dropped him from the zoning board, Agnew protested vigorously and in so doing built his name recognition in the county. The following year he ran for county executive. A bitter split in the Democratic party helped make him the first Republican elected Baltimore County executive in the twentieth century. In office he established a relatively progressive record, and in 1966, when nominated as the Republican candidate for governor of Maryland, Agnew positioned himself to the left of his Democratic challenger, George Mahoney. An arch segregationist, Mahoney adopted the campaign slogan, "Your Home Is Your Castle—Protect It," which only drove liberal Democrats into Agnew's camp. Charging Mahoney with racial bigotry, Agnew captured the liberal suburbs around Washington and was elected governor.

(Bigotry was the basis of "your home is your castle", a rallying cry against housing integration.)

http://thetentacle.com/ShowArticle.cfm?mydocid=1127

Mr. Agnew's victory in the general election was really decided in the bitterly disastrous 1966 Democratic primary. Baltimore contractor George Mahoney, a perennial candidate who had lost six previous governor and Senate campaigns, ran on an unmistakably pro-gun, anti-open-housing platform with the slogan, "Your home is your castle - protect it:" transparent code words against fair-housing laws. Riding a white backlash, Mr. Mahoney eked out a narrow win against seven more liberal hopefuls.

I have often wished I had saved this fine article, which has now disappeared from the net (the link is dead; I have taken these excerpts from previous posts of mine at DU):

http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.guns.htm

Two readers sent in more background on the relationship between Second Amendment absolutism and fear of black Americans. Reader P.M. reports on the 1966 Maryland gubenatorial race: that year, the Democratic primary was won by a Dixiecrat, George P. Mahoney, when the liberal vote was split between two different candidates. Mahoney ran on an unmistakably racist, pro-gun, anti-open-housing (pro-racial-discrimination) platform: "your home is your castle, protect it!" Sen. Tydings of Maryland was at that time an important gun-control advocate, and this was one of the first important signs of the future power (and racist roots) of the pro-gun movement, which before this time had not been a major factor in politics.

... In the South, compared to the North, vigilante killing is still considered to be a legitimate way of dealing with certain kinds of problems. A friend of mine who moved to Texas around 1985 was startled to find that almost no Texan would say anything about a murder case without first deciding whether the victim "needed killin'". ...

For most of us, the South's tolerance of vigilante murder and crimes of honor is one of the reasons why we suspect that the South is still not quite civilized. The white Southern population, insistent as it is on its right to armed self-defense, is also the most likely to use violence as a way of settling personal disputes, and it is also the most enthusiastic for the death penalty. Altogether, the South sounds like a fairly murderous sort of place.

I don't like all this very much. I know that this is a big country we live in, and that we all have to learn to get along, and so on and so forth. But it still rankles many of us low-crime Yankees*** to be forced to listen to high-crime Southerners lecturing us about guns, crime, and capital punishment. Especially nowadays, when the South has taken over all three branches of government.

The racist roots are there all right. It's just that what actually grew out of them is the "pro-gun movement".

And it's quite fascinating how none of these dissembling "racist roots of gun control" dweebs ever wants to acknowledge that history didn't actually end in the 1950s.

The gun militants organized after the events the dissemblers want everybody to think were the end of history. Let's shed a little light on that history occasionally, shall we?





Oh, and George P. Mahoney was the person who brought you Spiro T. Agnew.

"Pro-gun Democrats" have a lot to be thanked for!

I do hope I've helped you understand that "truth" business.

[WatsonT]

208. So one guy

must be one hell of a guy if he's behind the entire gun rights movement that has been around, unbroken, since the 1700s.

Also that was said about the same time that your racist precursors were working to take guns away from uppity Negroes all over the south.

For some reason though I'm not allowed to reference the thousands who tried to restrict guns, but you can reference the one who tried to increase their numbers.

Care to explain the discrepancy?

[iverglas]

210. yes, that's what I said all right

I said one guy dunnit. I did, I said that, anybody reading my post can see that I said that, right?

And you said the usual shit.


Also that was said about the same time that your racist precursors were working to take guns away from uppity Negroes all over the south.

Excuse me, this has what to do with me?

Firearms control in Canada and the rest of the world has nothing to do with race and never has. For one thing, we never had an economy based on the enslavement of people of any race.

Up here, firearms legislation actually makes accommodations for First Nations firearms owners. Howzat?


For some reason though I'm not allowed to reference the thousands who tried to restrict guns, but you can reference the one who tried to increase their numbers.
Care to explain the discrepancy?

If you'd care to name the thousands, sure.

Meanwhile, you do seem to be forgetting the hundreds of thousands who voted for Mr. Mahoney. Tsk.

[oneshooter]

270. "Is laughing your arse off at someone illegal"

No it is not. Otherwise you would be alone. We have been "laughing our arse off" at you for quite a while now.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[guardian]

178. Maybe the solution is

for more people to open carry. Then this girl won't be startled by the sight of a handgun. Someone that is going to "shoot up the Wal-Mart" isn't going to be doing open carry in a holster. The weapon will be in their hand or under their coat.

As usual, the anti-gun hype has needlessly frightened this girl by having her focus on the inanimate object instead of the individual.


YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

YUP

[virginia mountainman]

184. I read this one time, it seems to fit perfectly..:

"We all know that most racists begin their bigoted, ignorant statements by reminding everyone within earshot about how many friends they have who are minorities. Usually, the assurance of having friends who are minorities is a tip-off that a truly racist and indefensible statement is imminent."

"Anti-gun politicians, people, and publications do the same thing when they are about to equate gun owners with gun-wielding crack addicts, or profess support for an especially egregious gun control scheme. 'I support the Second Amendment, but...'"

[iverglas]

192. just not hard to find the source, is it?

got google?

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7770
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7595
etc.

You choose your own bedfellows.

[Atypical Liberal]

199. If Satan said it it would still be true. n/t

[iverglas]

200. if it were true

the Buckeye boys wouldn't be saying it.

[Atypical Liberal]

209. Sure sounded true to me.

Of course anecdotes don't make data, but the saying sure matched my experiences.

[iverglas]

201. the multicultural Buckeye Firearms Association

:rofl:

http://www.google.ca/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=612&q=buckeye+firearms&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Find me an image of somebody that isn't white as white in connection with this outfit, 'k?


I found this one a little odd. I link to this only because it's necessary:

http://returnoftheconservatives.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.html

Senator Voinovich claims Ohioans can't relate to pro-gun Republicans from the South
Posted by DarthDilbert at 8/07/2009 10:39:00 PM

Hey Cryin' George...



<link to> Buckeye Firearms Association: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6805

Bit of a headscratcher, but it is what it is.

[Atypical Liberal]

214. If you can't discredit the message...

...discredit the messenger.

Like I said, Satan could say it and it would be true.

Many times I've heard people say, "I've got a lot of black friends, but..." and you can be sure they are going to spout some racist drivel.

The analog to people and institutions who say, "I support the second amendment, but..." is likewise a pretty good indicator they are about to spout some anti-firearm drivel.

You could get Jefferson Davis to say it and it would be true.

[iverglas]

217. when the message is directly contradicted by the messenger

Yeah.

Listening to a bunch of whiteys exploit the very real problems of racism for their own ends ... no, I wouldn't be bothering, myself.

The messengers in question don't even have a lot of black friends, obviously.

:rofl:

[Atypical Liberal]

219. I note that you have not debated the accracy of the statement at all.

Wise move.

[iverglas]

220. the accuracy of WHAT statement???

This is what was posted:


"We all know that most racists begin their bigoted, ignorant statements by reminding everyone within earshot about how many friends they have who are minorities. Usually, the assurance of having friends who are minorities is a tip-off that a truly racist and indefensible statement is imminent."

"Anti-gun politicians, people, and publications do the same thing when they are about to equate gun owners with gun-wielding crack addicts, or profess support for an especially egregious gun control scheme. 'I support the Second Amendment, but...'"


It's a load of steaming demagoguery. There are no facts there. There is nothing to debate there. There is a load of steaming demagoguery there.

I couldn't care less what anybody says about your second amendment. Why would I want to "debate" what some cretinous gun militant says about what somebody else says about it??

The entire little screed is just another in the long and broad line of attempts in recent years by the racist, misogynist right wing, in its gun militant form, to appropriate the issues and voices of people they don't give a flying fuck about, to serve their own right-wing, self-interested ends.

Debate that crap? Spit on it, maybe.

[Atypical Liberal]

222. The very one you said was not true.

the accuracy of WHAT statement???

The very one you quoted, of course:

"We all know that most racists begin their bigoted, ignorant statements by reminding everyone within earshot about how many friends they have who are minorities. Usually, the assurance of having friends who are minorities is a tip-off that a truly racist and indefensible statement is imminent."

"Anti-gun politicians, people, and publications do the same thing when they are about to equate gun owners with gun-wielding crack addicts, or profess support for an especially egregious gun control scheme. 'I support the Second Amendment, but...'"

It's a load of steaming demagoguery. There are no facts there. There is nothing to debate there. There is a load of steaming demagoguery there.

Regardless of what you wish to label it, you claimed it was not true. My experience has been that it is true. Every single time I've heard someone say, "But I have lots of black friends", it has always been an excuse for racist behavior. So much so that this is pretty much now a meme.

Likewise, any time I've heard a politician or other person or group say, "I support the second amendment, but...", it's almost always followed by a statement that a person who did not support the second amendment would say.

The entire little screed is just another in the long and broad line of attempts in recent years by the racist, misogynist right wing, in its gun militant form, to appropriate the issues and voices of people they don't give a flying fuck about, to serve their own right-wing, self-interested ends.

Debate that crap? Spit on it, maybe.

And still you cannot or will not refute the statement. Dance all around it, but not address it, 'cause it's beneath you.

[iverglas]

224. you could demagogue for England, couldn't you?

It was said to me that the steaming pile of nonsense would be true if Satan said it.

I said that if the Buckeye boys said it, it wasn't true.

You pretend to have the kind of literal mind that thinks that has some deep meaning.


Obviously, I wouldn't dignify the steaming pile of crap by even addressing it. I don't care. Period. I don't care what people say next when they say something about your second amendment.

My job is just to point out that YET ANOTHER CRAPPY RIGHT-WING GUN MILITANT OUTFIT has been quoted at this site as if it were something other than a crappy right-wing gun militant outfit, and for some reason everybody should pay attention to its words.

It's a crappy right-wing gun militant outfit, and nobody posting at this site should give the least shit what it says about anything, ever.

Just like all the other crappy right-wing legislators and legislatures and websites and individuals that are constantly quoted in this forum with approval.

The day when someone comes up with a source that is egalitarian, progressive, feminist, anti-racist and tolerant (a genuine such source, you know) and quotes it with approval here will be the day I get struck by lightning.

[Atypical Liberal]

226. On truth.

I said that if the Buckeye boys said it, it wasn't true.

Which, since the Buckey boys did say it, implies that the statement was not true.

Obviously, I wouldn't dignify the steaming pile of crap by even addressing it. I don't care. Period. I don't care what people say next when they say something about your second amendment.

That's fine, you don't have to address it. In fact, I'd prefer if you kept silent. This does not change the fact that the steaming pile of crap is true.

My job is just to point out that YET ANOTHER CRAPPY RIGHT-WING GUN MILITANT OUTFIT has been quoted at this site as if it were something other than a crappy right-wing gun militant outfit, and for some reason everybody should pay attention to its words.

And my job is just to point out that no matter who said it, if it's true it doesn't matter who said it.

The day when someone comes up with a source that is egalitarian, progressive, feminist, anti-racist and tolerant (a genuine such source, you know) and quotes it with approval here will be the day I get struck by lightning.

Well, you can always feel free to quote me. Try to be indoors first, though.

[iverglas]

227. oh, go on then,

Prove it's true.

That was the initial assertion.

Burden on the asserter.

[Atypical Liberal]

229. I can't prove it's true.

All I can say is that it's been true in my experience.

Surely you don't dispute the truth of this part:

"We all know that most racists begin their bigoted, ignorant statements by reminding everyone within earshot about how many friends they have who are minorities. Usually, the assurance of having friends who are minorities is a tip-off that a truly racist and indefensible statement is imminent."

I mean this has actually become a joke around the internet for a long time now. It has become a meme. If you do dispute this, well, all I can say is you are pretty out of touch with popular culture. I suggest Googling "I have lots of black friends" and you will find tons of stuff like this:

http://gawker.com/#!5219823/meghan-mccain-i-have-lots-of-gay-friends

That clearly show what a meme this has become.

As for the rest, all I can say is if you've been participating in the debate over the second amendment for any length of time, it should be obvious that any time someone says "I support the second amendment, but...", the next words out of their mouth usually don't support the second amendment.

So I can't prove it's true. I can only tell you that it is true in my experience, which, at 40 years of age, while not vast, isn't chump change, either.

[iverglas]

233. my own favourite

http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/
http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/letters02.html

this is some funny stuff. I don't know how people could offended by it. I don't even see how they could get anything serious out of it either, it's just a funny page.
-Sean
a black man at Penn State
ps- are you Canadian

It still has nothing to do with the second amendment crap, about which I know and care nothing. When the Buckeye boys prefaced the attack on people who say things that the Buckeye boys don't agree with by citing racists who deny being racists, all they were doing was exploiting the victims of racism for their own end. It isn't accidental, what gun militants do, but it's hardly subtle either.

Fer fook's sake, obviously people who say "I ___ but" in relation to anything are going to be interpreted by someone as having contradicted themselves, where the "but" limits something they think should not be limited.

"I like cats, but nobody should have 10 cats in an apartment." I think that's a reasonable restriction, somebody else doesn't. So?

So the Buckeye boys think that whatever restriction someone proposes on some exercise of whatever right is guaranteed by your second amendment is unacceptable. That's a matter of opinion.

So there's nothing true or false anywhere. The Buckeye boys asserted an analogy. In the first instance, the person claiming to have African-American friends may well be a racist. In the second, the person proposing a limit on the exercise of a right may be proposing a limit that 99% of the world would consider justified and the Buckeye boys don't. Who cares what they think?

It's your opinion that "the next words out of their mouth usually don't support the second amendment". That isn't a fact, it's an opinion. It is neither true nor false. So it is certainly not true.

[Atypical Liberal]

234. Again...

Again, I assume you don't disagree with this part:

"We all know that most racists begin their bigoted, ignorant statements by reminding everyone within earshot about how many friends they have who are minorities. Usually, the assurance of having friends who are minorities is a tip-off that a truly racist and indefensible statement is imminent."

Correct?

[iverglas]

237. enough

I'm very bored, and ring-around-the-rosie makes me nauseous.

[Atypical Liberal]

239. Sorry I wasn't entertaining enough for you.

If we can't agree on current social memes then there is no point in continuing.

[virginia mountainman]

215. Your very amusing..

Even a clock that don't work, is correct twice a day...

[iverglas]

218. yeah, but these clocks

are always wrong about everything else and right about this one exact same thing.

Gun militants: breaking the laws of probability.

When actual clocks stop, they don't actually all stop with their hands in the same place.

[ileus]

271. You have the right and responsibility to OC or CC your choice. I support you...