NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bill to allow permitless carry clears committee 12 Yes, 5 No.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111021/NEWS07/710219987

CONCORD — New Hampshire residents would no longer have to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons under a bill a key House committee voted for Thursday.

By a vote of 12-5, the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee recommended passage of House Bill 536, which allows anyone but convicted felons and the mentally ill to carry pistols openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, without a permit.

The bill continues the current permitting system so gun owners can produce a state permit in other states that have agreements in place that recognize them.

(Continues at link)

The antis will now commence the usual "blood will flow in the streets" howling.

[shraby]

1. How are they going to separate out the criminals and the

mentally ill if permits are not necessary?

[GreenStormCloud]

2. It hasn't been a problem in neighboring Vermont.

Vermont has alway had permitless carry.

[ileus]

4. Criminals and MI's aren't weeded out until it's too late now.

Criminals carry until they're caught, one's with mental health issues are ignored until the become criminals...

[Tesha]

5. Why would they want to do that? Surely everyone should have dozens of guns.

(At least that's what the gun manufacturers wish,
and the pro-gun groups are their very willing
mouthpieces.)

Tesha

[PavePusher]

11. Quotes and cites, please, or I shall expect a retraction. n/t

[Tesha]

13. You can "expect" anything you like, but I'm not here to meet your expectations.

Gun manufacturers breed fear so that fearful
people will buy guns, the same way the diamond
cartel breeds expectations so that people will
buy *THEIR* useless product.

Both are selling products that have more to
do with death than any valid need.

Tesha

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[beevul]

18. And who decides what needs are "valid"?

You?

[Starboard Tack]

38. Why not? She does live in NH. Makes her needs quite valid.

[beevul]

41. Allow me to clarify.

And who decides what EVERYONES needs are "valid"?

Seems to me nobody knows better than the individual, what their own needs are.


We stand up and say thats what we believe where abortions are concerned, and a whole host of other things.

Why should guns be any different?

[DrDan]

43. in the case of guns - unlike abortions - everyone is at risk

your need to carry a gun impacts the safety of me and my family.

[rl6214]

52. How? Me carrying a gun will not impact YOU in any way

You will never know I am carrying a gun and I have NO desire to try to SAVE you or interact with you in any way. I doubt that any of the people on this board that carry on a daily basis have a differing view.

[DrDan]

75. I know you meant this as an insult, but it only invokes relief

[rl6214]

97. No insult intended but what many here don't understand is

people that carry concealed aren't doing it to play the hero or be a cop. I carry to protect my family and myself. I am not going to look for trouble or insert myself into conflicts so you are on your own.

[DrDan]

108. of course you meant it as an insult - otherwise why would you add "or interact with you in any way"

[We_Have_A_Problem]

120. You're projecting

I see no insult in that. He is simply stating he has no desire to save you or interact with you.

Frankly, there are very few people I wish to interact with in public.

[Starboard Tack]

119. Unless you use it. You forgot to include that part.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

121. That is correct ...

unless it is used on you. If that happens though, either he has committed a criminal act, or you have. In either case though, merely carrying one does not affect you at all.

If you don't want one used on you, don't give a person a reason to. Criminals are a different group of course, and no law you can create with regards to carrying a firearm is going to affect them - but you knew that already.

[Starboard Tack]

124. The UK would disagree with you on that one.

A negligent number of criminals use them there. The potential cost is too high.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

127. The UK would also disagree on...

...my right to be safe from warrantless searches and my right to free speech. What is your point?

This is not the UK, so the way they structure their government has no bearing upon the US.

Anything else you'd like to add to further clarify you have no clue what you're talking about?

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

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

[We_Have_A_Problem]

153. I really do not appreciate the insinuation

Did i state something which was untrue? Do you have anything to present to educate me and correct my mistake?

No? You're just assuming I watch nothing but a RW news site?

What is incorrect? The UK has none of our protections in the Bill of Rights. That's a simple fact my friend. For pete's sake son, you have to get a permit to buy a TV there. How much more do you need to see?

I don't speak from what I have seen on some news channel or website, but from personal experience and documented fact - from living there, close personal friendships with UK citizens, and information freely available from any number of sources.

What do YOU have to prove me wrong?

[gravity556]

164. Yeah, not sure if you know this or not, but the US stopped giving

a flying fuck what England wanted back in 1776.

[Starboard Tack]

181. You mean some English guys stopped giving a fuck what some other English guys wanted

[rrneck]

185. I'm as much Scots Irish as English and maybe a little Jewish..

You know, melting pot and all that.

[Starboard Tack]

182. Was that the same year you stopped listening to your parents?

[gravity556]

192. ?

Was that the same year you stopped listening to your parents?
Posted by Starboard Tack

1776? Talk about someone who has lost his grip on reality...

[oneshooter]

194. "A negligent number of criminals use them there." I would hope so. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

147. What a crock. Ever heard of colateral damage?

Do you think anyone would be concerned if you were all really "good" guys with impeccable aim? Talk about Hollywood fantasies.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

154. Yes I have

You're welcome to present some actual proof that private citizens have a problem with this.

You know, something like the numerous stories we have of both criminals and cops missing their intended target and shooting an innocent?

I'm sure you can find a few examples if this is actually a problem....


We'll wait...

[Starboard Tack]

159. Are you implying that out of the 100,000+shootings annually, no innocents are shot?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

160. I'm asking you to provide actual proof

Proof that law abiding non-law enforcement individuals who are forced to shoot in self defense or defense of property (in other words, a legal use of a firearm involving actually shooting it) are hitting innocents.

I'm positive you could find at least ONE news story on such a thing if it is as rampant as you've implied.

A criminal doing a drive-by and hitting an innocent doesn't count as an example because it is not what you were referring to. Neither does a cop missing the target.

You made the claim - you back it up. Simple as that. This is pretty basic shit ST.

Just because you believe it may be happening does not mean it is. It is beyond stupid to advocate restrictive laws based upon nothing but your imagination.

[Starboard Tack]

162. Knock yourself out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLN6_s66wTg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGNZ1mgdeT4&NR=1

Here's a good link of your fellow toters out of control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW8RLPWKR98

Also for your education on statistics and how they may be skewed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-woods/concealed-handguns-the-st_b_822459.html

[We_Have_A_Problem]

167. YouTube vids are not proof.

Do you have any actual proof? A single news story showing the account of an innocent hit by an errant round fired by a law abiding person defending himself.

Just one story.

Since it apparently happens so often in your belief, certainly you can find ONE story?

[Glassunion]

170. I disagree... You tube is my sole source of proof for everything.

ALL gun owners are careless: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbOSrH6Mcgg
ALL police officers are totin' cowboys just lookin to kill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnpZqIjzAZc
ALL ambulance drivers are evil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve7gEKF9ce4
ALL SUV drivers cut people off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHs8BKQFQXE&NR=1
ALL aliens cannot live in our atmosphere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16Iwgzm0Nw
ALL Mustangs land wheels-down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IINvfTgluwo&feature=fvst
ALL babies are fucking scary!!!!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8GThDoW9yU

[oneshooter]

172. "ALL Mustangs land wheels-down" Well not always.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze2nEipDLR0

[Glassunion]

173. Well that settles that.

ALL "P51" Mustangs are death-traps

[oneshooter]

177. Only if you find them behind you with 6 lights blinking from the wings. n/t

[Glassunion]

178. You are correct.

Thus is proof that all answers can be found on youtube.

[Starboard Tack]

174. I never said it happens often

We've only used nukes twice against humans. That was twice two many. You find a cancer, you cut it out before it kills. Not after.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

175. So in other words....

...you got nothin. Just what I figured. You made the claim expecting everyone else to be as "open minded" as yourself and simply believe it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

176. True Believers like don't need empirical evidence or factual accuracy. They have "emotional truth."

Skeptics like us just harsh the mellow...

[HALO141]

155. Ever heard of self determination?

Do you really think we care? Talk about delusional fantasies.

Are you similarly disturbed by armed police personnel in your presence? If you were then, at least, your protests would seem a little less hypocritical. The police have been known to miss their targets also. In fact, their hit rate is about 30%. That's a MISS rate of..... lets see, here......... carry the 2...... Oh yeah, SEVENTY percent.

I got news for ya, Sparky. The world doesn't revolve around you and outside of your circle of family and very close friends, nobody really cares. IOW, you're on your own. If you want to depend on the availability and promptness of other people who carry guns for your personal safety then you go right ahead.

[mistertrickster]

188. You have a permit. That's the point.

We have no way of knowing if people WITHOUT a permit know what they're doing.

Your carrying poses no threat only because you aren't going to lose your gun, brandish your gun, drop your gun, or get drunk and shoot bottles behind the bar.

People without permits?

We have no idea, do we?

[Simo 1939_1940]

68. I don't imagine that a sane explanation as to how my

firearms put you and family at risk is forthcoming.

As has been pointed out numerous times, it is "arguments" exactly like yours, Dr., that have built the modern NRA and assisted in the decline of public support for gun restrictions.

So allow me to thank you, and congratulate you! No - wait - I haven't gone far enough.........

:hug:

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. Others, just as sincere as you are, will tell us that same-sex marriage is a societal threat.

So why should your view be given any more weight than theirs?- that is to say, none.

[DrDan]

86. guns are more than a societal threat - but you knew that

[beevul]

88. First, all I see there is an unsubstantiated claim.

"your need to carry a gun impacts the safety of me and my family."

The above would be that claim.


Second, I don't carry a gun.

[SteveM]

131. How? I carried a shotfun yesterday -- 5 dove were at risk; 100 more weren't.

[gravity556]

163. Bull puckey.

My carrying of a firearm has NO impact on the safety of you or your family, unless of course you attempt to do violence to me. Then there may be a problem. But I promise to use harsh words, pepper spray and my cane before I open fire.

[Starboard Tack]

62. This is what she said

"Both (gun manufacturers and diamond cartels) are selling products that have more to do with death than any valid need."

Where is she saying anything about deciding everyone's needs being valid?
Where is she saying there could be no valid need?
"more to do with death" does not negate a potential need.

She's just making an astute observation and you don't like it.

It's like telling a smoker that the tobacco companies are more about spreading cancer than providing enjoyment.

[beevul]

89. Do you expect you'll tire us out?

"Where is she saying anything about deciding everyone's needs being valid?"

Making the statement "Both (gun manufacturers and diamond cartels) are selling products that have more to do with death than any valid need" IMPLIES that the validity of "anyones need" has been quantified.

What I asked, is who does that quantifying, and what value that quantifying actually actually come up with.

This is not unreasonable to ask what so ever.

"She's just making an astute observation and you don't like it."

Thats just a simple minded "non-denial denial" of the question I asked.

But you knew that.


Bottom line, is that was an OPINION, that that poster stated, with no basis in fact, based primarily on that posters personal bias - since that is all the evidence we have in hand as to the basis of it.

But you knew that too.

[Starboard Tack]

110. You could probably get a job as a speech writer for Rick Perry with such an agile coherent mind

I think she was quite clear and accurate and her analogy to blood diamonds was excellent.

[SteveM]

132. Beevul made an "astute observation and you don't like it;" hence the Perry slur. nt

[Starboard Tack]

149. What slur? I call it as I see it.

You think it was astute. Good for you. Obviously your comprehension skills far exceed mine.

[HALO141]

157. Actually, it was a red herring.

You just defend it because you like it.

[hack89]

19. Does Nacy Grace work for a gun manufacturer?

because you say the gun manufacturers breed fear yet whenever I turn around it is people like Grace making their living pimping crime. Can you point exactly how gun manufacturers breed fear - they don't run tv or radio ads so how exactly are people exposed to their efforts to breed fear?

[DrDan]

44. the proof is in the puddding - you can read it on this forum in nearly every thread

the fear here is rampant.

[hack89]

45. But the fear of gun control advocates is irrational

so you haven't addressed my question.

And even if you were right, you haven't shown the gun manufacturers are responsible. What about Nancy Grace and all those other TV shows pimping crime and violence? Don't you think they reach a much bigger audience?

[cleanhippie]

48. It IS rampant. Your post is a great example of that fear.

And it's all IRRATIONAL fear.

[DrDan]

49. that's funny - I am not the one the needs a gun to venture outside

or actually, to stay inside my own house.

[cleanhippie]

55. You seem to be trying to justify your irrational fear by fabricating things about what people "need"

It's called "projection", you know. And you are demonstrating your irrational fear through your projection.

But hey, whatever gets you through your day, right?

[DrDan]

58. as I said - I am not the one who needs a gun to get through the day

[cleanhippie]

65. Are you implying that I, or anyone else DOES?

It would seem that you are. And if you are, my response to you above is even more valid.

Is that what you are implying, Doctor?

[DrDan]

74. that I am, clean

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[cleanhippie]

90. That would mean that you have some PROOF of that, right, Dan?

Otherwise it would mean that you made it up and made a baseless claim against many DU'ers, right, Dan?

[cleanhippie]

98. Dan, you unwillingness to provide proof obviously means that you DID in fact make that up.

You can certainly prove me wrong by providing proof of your assertion, but I think that you, me, and everyone else knows that you made it up.

[SteveM]

134. Well, Dan, only morally close-minded folks make accusations and refuse to back them.

[cleanhippie]

71. Dan, I will take your sudden silence to be an indicator that my assumption was CORRECT about you.

Thank you for the confirmation.

[beevul]

105. So who is?

"the one who needs a gun to get through the day"


Who is that?


Perhaps its the person out feeding the easter bunny...no, maybe its the person helping santas elves wrap presents, or maybe its the person sitting at train station next to an honest gun control pusher...

[Simo 1939_1940]

59. It's not a "need". It's a choice. But you know that.

Twisting the choice into a "need" allows you to push the dishonest "fear" canard.

I buckle up my seatbelt each and every time I drive. Doesn't mean I'm in a constant state of fear or anxiety while driving.

I have fire extinguishers in both my home and my vehicle. Doesn't mean I'm in a constant state of fear or anxiety that my home or car will catch fire.

Etc...........

etc..............

etc...................

[DrDan]

61. it's fear - but you know that

[Simo 1939_1940]

63. Sorry "Dr." -- but you're not qualified to read my mind

or speak of what I feel in my heart.

Or for matter distort what's in the minds or hearts of anyone else on this forum.

[DrDan]

66. actions speak for themselves

[Simo 1939_1940]

70. Logic fail. A single act can be driven by a number

of different motives - and you are not qualified to judge what those motives are.

But thanks for undermining your own "cause" with your public display of presumptuousness! Here........please accept another :hug:

[cleanhippie]

72. Indeed they do, Dan. YOUR actions speak VOLUMES...

[SteveM]

135. Did you see Ken Burns' "Prohibition" on PBS? You should. nt

[HALO141]

158. More projection. It's YOUR fear that isat issue.

You're the one who's afraid to go outside.

[one-eyed fat man]

179. So tell me , Doc

Is getting vaccinated against childhood disease prudent or a hysterical fear response?

Do people only diet and exercise because their doctor has threatened them with facts about diabetes, stroke, and heart attack?

Your blubbering irrational fear is there are people you don't know, walking around with guns you can't see.

Your irrational solution is to pass a law so people who are inclined to obey laws don't carry guns you can't see.

What makes it irrational is that you are perfectly willing to ignore that people who are disinclined to obey laws and most inclined to inflict crime misery and suffering on their fellows will carry anyway.

Which kinda indicates, it ain't much of a solution, either.

[gravity556]

180. Hey! Time out!

Listen here, one-eyed fat man, you can't go bringing logic and facts into a anti-rights screed. Emotion trumps all for the pro-criminal safety crowd. Take a 5 minute time out and then detail strip and reassemble a 1911 as your penance. And I mean DETAIL strip-sear, hammer, disco, trigger bar, mag release, firing pin, pin retainer plate and extractor. I'll let you slide on the ejector, just because they're a bitch to fiddle with, what with that tiny fucking detent pin. ;)

[rl6214]

53. "your need to carry a gun impacts the safety of me and my family."

Sounds like the fear is right here.

[SteveM]

133. Glad to see you are owning up to your "fear" ...

I slept very well last night, and the night before. The people who keep bringing up "fear" are the gun-controller/prohibitionists.

What amazes me is you don't see that.:shrug:

[DrDan]

150. once again - one of us needs a gun to get through the day, and one of us doesn't

pretty obvious where the fear is

[jmg257]

152. Nothing wrong with a bit of fear...keeps people from doing all kinds of stupid stuff.

Stupid shit like driving without seat belts or at excessive speeds, riding bikes without helmuts or using chainsaws without eye protection. Fear also causes society to do smart things like pass laws requiring car seats for infants & smoke detectors in homes; smart laws that provide us administrations to make work safer and that allow for the carry of handguns for personal protection; smart laws that make drunk driven illegal and require fences around pools...the list of good things brought about due to fear is endless.

Ahh fear - embrace it, deal with it, and do what you need to overcome it. Only fools fear nothing...and they tend not to stay in 1 piece too long.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. More faith-promoting rumor in order to reinforce an "emotional truth".

No empirical evidence is necessary...

[Atypical Liberal]

116. They have plenty of a valid need.

Both are selling products that have more to
do with death than any valid need.

Tesha

Horseshit. I own a variety of black-powder weapons for competitive shooting in different categories. Revolver, Rifle, Carbine, Smoothbore. All of these weapons are for target shooting.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

117. That is your opinion...

...and you are of course welcome to it.

However, there are two things with which I must take issue.

1) Your opinion of "valid need" is not the same as anyone else's. People can and should form their own opinions on what they need. In my case, seeing as how I am not Superman, I choose to use effective tools to mitigate my personal risk, and one of those tools is a firearm.

2) Even if their sole purpose was to cause death, death is not always a BAD thing. If it is a choice between the life of an innocent at the hands of a criminal, or the life of the criminal at the hands of the innocent (in self defense), most people consider the death of the criminal a good thing.

You may now return to your fantasy land of rainbows and lollipops.

[SteveM]

129. Prohis regularly fail most folks' "expectations." nt

[DrDan]

42. exactly - and without regulation!!!

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

128. Actually, conservative New Hampshire is jealous of liberal Vermont...

you know, got way ahead of 'em.

BTW, I don't know of anyone saying "everyone should have dozens of guns," least of all the manufacturers and the "pro-gun groups."

But I have seen that straw man erected and burned by gun prohibitionists here on many occasions.

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. No need to.

Nothing can go wrong. It's bulletproof.

[hack89]

20. Criminals are carrying without permits right now. nt

[Katya Mullethov]

24. Signs ..enormous signs

Put some up !

[Starboard Tack]

37. Easy. Wait till they kill someone, then take away the permit they never needed in the first place

At least there's no real discrimination. Also, hardly any people. Maybe we should do the same in NYC, LA and Chicago. Party time.
Let the good times roll!

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Disingenuous as usual.

Quelle surprise.

[SteveM]

136. Oh, he's just going to get funny on us again; last resort stuff, you know? nt

[beevul]

106. Thats actually been tried...sort of...

"Wait till they kill someone, then..."


Thats been tried. Only it was tracking guns to Mexico via the "Wait till they kill someone, then..." method.

It was called "fast and furious" or something like that...

[AtheistCrusader]

67. When they check your ID, they can see if you are a felon, or ajudicated mentally ill.

And therefore ineligible.

No difference from the license, really. If they have a reason to stop you, they check you. Just as if they have a reason to stop you in a state that requires a license, they check your license.

[Straw Man]

73. Federally-mandated NICS check at the point of purchase.

It's already the law of the land. Look it up. We could even have it for private sales if the powers that be would allow universal access to the NICS system.

Problem solved. Next?

[YllwFvr]

101. i imagine by the background check when you buy a pistol

Here in pa the check for buying the gun is pretty much the same one done for the pistol

[Atypical Liberal]

115. Those people don't get permits anyway.

How are they going to separate out the criminals and the mentally ill if permits are not necessary?

Aside from the fact that criminals and the mentally ill can't legally by firearms anyway, the fact is, criminals and mentally ill people don't seek out government permission before carrying firearms.

I have no doubt we are going to see more laws like this. Why? Because the states that require permits are finding out that the people who get permits hardly ever break the law. Not just firearm-related laws, but any laws. It's a waste of taxpayer money to track such people.

[Tesha]

3. Actually, we'll just remind you that this, like most pro-gun legislation, is...

a Republican initiative.

Tesha

[SteveM]

137. And "gun control" was never in the Demo Platform til after the Zombies charted.

Gun-controllers MADE the modern NRA. I'll let you be the judge of how effective that organization has been regarding Democratic success.

Congratulations.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[DonP]

16. This must be part of that backlash thing you keep talking about, right?

I guess there are no Dems in office in all of NH according to you, just like there are none in Wisconsin either. Tell us more about your fantasy world, where no Dems ever vote for pro 2nd amendment laws?

[Tesha]

22. In 2008, Democrats controlled all branches of NH State Government. In 2010, Republicans...

...gained *VETO PROOF MAJORITIES* in our House
and Senate and *ALL FIVE SEATS* on our Executive
Council (essentially, Lt. Governors).

The only office still held by a "Democrat" is
the Governor's chair and he's not really a Democrat
as most of us understand the term.

Yes, the NH government that is passing this
legislation is essentially entirely Republican
(with major leavening of Tea Party nutcases and
Free State Project Libertarians).

Gun agendas are advanced by Republicans.

Tesha

[Hoopla Phil]

28. I agree. Democrats need to stand up more for the 2A and get rid

of reinstatement of the so called "assault weapons ban" OUT of the party platform. It is way past time we took this issue off the table.

[Tesha]

29. That wasn't the problem in 2010 and most people understand that. (NT)

[gejohnston]

32. 2010 had more to do with

a historical trend of party in executive branch losing seats in off year elections (one exception)and maybe complacency on our side. That is a problem we have to fix. I think we need more Bernie Sanders types, and lose the absurd AWB. The reason more Bernies, is if you look at Vermont, the areas where large percentages voted for Republican president, also voted for Bernie with equal or more majorities. 100+ years ago, the Socialist party had its best successes in North Dakota, Wisconsin, and (to a lesser degree) Kansas. That tells me if we take the culture war stuff away from the GOP, and make it more 99%vs1% instead "right" vs "left" we will trounce the plutocrats.

[SteveM]

139. And socialist Eugene Debs was a staunch supporter of the Second. nt

[SteveM]

138. Oh, no, no, no. Let's take another look...

After Obama took office, both A. G. Holder and House Speaker Pelosi advocated re-instatement of the so-called assault weapons ban. If you go right now to the Democratic Party Platform, you will see the advocacy of yet ANOTHER and STRENGTHENED assault weapons ban.

The problem here is when you advocate a position of gun-control, esp. as in the pages within an atmosphere of fear and animosity toward gun-owners, you WILL be noted by the GOP. You should read "The Great American Gun Debate" by Kates and Kleck (two liberal researchers) in which they note that the NRA actually pays royalties to newspaper editorial cartoonists whenever they run an anti-gun-user piece -- then re-prints them in house magazines and newsletters!

Kind of sobers even the most die-hard prohibitionist up when it comes to seeing how "effective" his/her position is.

[Starboard Tack]

39. This is what Democrats need as a wake up call to get 2A repealed

and replace it with something more conducive to living in the 21st century. Keep this shit up and the pendulum will eventually swing.

[rl6214]

57. "This is what Democrats need as a wake up call to get 2A repealed"

Aaaaahahahahahahahahaha:rofl:

You continually say you are not anti-gun, that you think guns in homes and for hunting or home defense are fine, just not in public. You say you are still learning and evolving and forming you opinion on guns, then you post something like this. You are an anti-gun zealot, pure and simple.

[Starboard Tack]

64. Not at all. I think 2A , as it stands, is obsolete.

Needs to be rewritten in clear language that reflects the needs and desires of modern society.
I am as not a zealot of any kind, not even about toting. I just think it is extremely foolish. Maybe you view all those who disagree with you to be zealots. What does that make you?

[PavePusher]

83. What, specifically, would you replace it with? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

87. Excellent question.

The right of self defense already exists in common law.
"Self-defence is part of private defence, the doctrine in English law that one can act to prevent injury to oneself or others or to prevent crime more generally – one has the same right to act to protect others as to protect oneself."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

So it really doesn't warrant replacing. It was originally intended to guarantee militia readiness. Now redundant.

Self-defense is a justification for one's actions, not an excuse.

I have already stated many times how I would restrict firearms. - Long guns are OK with limited capacities.

[oneshooter]

92. "Long guns are OK with limited capacities." As long as they are not based on military designs, right

[gejohnston]

94. In other words

the right of private self defense exists in theory. Reality is another question. For example an 80 year old man being attacked by a twenty something would not have the ability to effectively defend himself because any effective device to do so is illegal. That does not only apply to pistols but also to less than lethal weapons such as pepper spray.
UK has reached the point of absurdity where a pen knife will get you a couple of years.

[Starboard Tack]

96. How many 80 year olds do you think are toting handguns?

The impression I get from this forum is that most toters are middle aged fat guys. Not too many female supporters around here, are there? Because females have more sense. I'd love to hear their opinion.

[GreenStormCloud]

99. My wife has a CHL and carries concealed.

She doesn't post here because she has little interest in this type of forum. But she is a very firm believer in 2A. She has used here gun twice to defend herself, no shots fired, bad guy ran away. She is 65.

[Starboard Tack]

111. Thanks. That's one female so far.

I do know they exist. I've seen pictures of them.

[oneshooter]

100. My 74yr old mother carried untill She had a stroke recently.

And mt Loving Wife has been carrying for over 10 years, and she still does. She is 50yrs old, but don't tell her I told you.

[Starboard Tack]

112. That's 2 for Texas. 3 including your mother.

Keep them coming.

[gejohnston]

102. same difference

As I said, self defense in UK exists only in theory, even then you are subject to arrest for disturbing the peace.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[gejohnston]

114. stereotype and over generalize much?

It really does not matter. Besides, they are more diverse than you imagine. How about this:
The typical prohibitionist or "gun control advocate" is either a middle aged or older white rich authoritarian or a drug user that rationalizes their financing most of gun and gang violence by scapegoating "toters" or the NRA.
Mine is probably more accurate.

[Starboard Tack]

118. LOL No, not at all. I'm quoting how they have described themselves.

You are the one stereotyping. Isn't it fascinating how two intelligent people can have such opposite views on the same issue?

[gejohnston]

123. Yes I know

I was stereotyping. I said I was.

[oneshooter]

156. Proove it or retract the insult. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

122. I'm not middle-aged, I'm an old geezer. N/T

[SteveM]

141. I'm with you whether I like it or not! nt

[gravity556]

165. My great grandfather carried a pistol every day of his life

as did his father. Law enforcement in the Arizona Territory, dontcha know. And my 110 pound wife carries pepper spray, a knife and a pistol everywhere she goes. Not because she's "scared", but because she knows that she isn't physically capable of fighting off a large attacker. I carry the same, not because I am "scared", but because I know that the world isn't populated by folks who believe in flying unicorns that shit skittles and good cheer. I carry a fire extinguisher in my truck as well. Not because I'm "scared", but because bad shit happens no matter how careful you are. Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, weren't you ever a boy scout? "Be Prepared".

[one-eyed fat man]

183. Born in 1942

I am past middle aged. But my great aunt left me her revolver. She carried it until she died at age 83. But she was a farmer's wife from the wilds of Ohio. Pretty shrewd about her butter and egg money too. A hen that wasn't worth her feed soon found itself headless, plucked naked and sitting on hot cast iron.

[rl6214]

130. "Long guns are OK with limited capacities."

Anti-gun zealot

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[TheWraith]

104. So in other words, you think the Constitution is "just a damn piece of paper."

And that in order to keep Americans safe, you should be able to cherry pick the parts of the Bill of Rights you feel are "okay," even though a massively overwhelming majority of the public would disagree.

Remind you of anyone? It's funny how many Democrats suddenly flip around and are happy to justify trashing the BOR when it gets in the way of something THEY think is righteous and morally necessary.

[beevul]

107. You just don't get it.

"Needs to be rewritten in clear language that reflects the needs and desires of modern society."

The second amendment, along with the rest of the bill of rights, was written to be very difficult to change, DELIBERATELY.

To the point that it takes a super majority to change it. Your "needs and desires of modern society" don't meet that criteria.

And even if they did, you would turn that which was intended to prevent tyranny of the majority, into tyranny of the majority, codified.

[SteveM]

140. Buy a loud alarm clock. Everyone left the Hotel California.

[pipoman]

186. Funny how even DU GD completely disagrees with you..you are in the

minority even here as you claim any good dem would agree with you..

[beevul]

17. Are you saying the GOP is trying to make gun laws similar to liberal Vermont?

And you have a problem with this...why?

:rofl:

[Tesha]

23. Vermont isn't simply "liberal".

It is roughly split between very conservative elements
(mostly in the rural areas) and very liberal elements
(in the college towns and Brattleboro).

Also, Vermont is rural; guns are tools there. They
aren't really needed to blow away home invaders.

Tesha

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. There aren't many home invaders in vermont compared to NH?

If not many, why not?
Both NH and VT are ranked towards the middle of state population denisties (20th & 30th, respectively).

My guess would be that the criminals simply choose to drive 1-2 hours east to a more disarmed populace.
Safer work environment and out-of-state law enforcement investigations having to work from across state lines.

[Tesha]

30. There aren't many home invaders here in NH either.

Generally, Northern New England is a more-civilized
place than a lot of the rest of America.

Tesha

[gejohnston]

35. By that definiton

Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are just as civilized. It seems our urban areas are less so.

[PavePusher]

85. More civilised? Regional bigotry, seriously?

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

Two kids from a Vermont school my father used to teach at, killed college professors two miles from my grandmothers New Hampshire home.

Of course, you could always try to get this post deleted too....

P.S. Notice that the first intended victim protected himself and his son with a gun, in Vermont.

[Lurks Often]

109. Explain Massachusetts then

"Generally, Northern New England is a more-civilized place than a lot of the rest of America."

Massachusetts has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, while at the same time being one of the most politically liberal states, yet the Massachusetts crime rate is much higher then Vermont or New Hampshire.

Here's the 2010 data:
Massachusetts 210 Murders and non negligent manslaughters, 3.2 per 100,000 people
New Hampshire 13 Murders and non negligent manslaughters, 1.0 per 100,000 people
Vermont 7 Murders and non negligent manslaughters, 1.1 per 100,000 people

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl05.xls

[friendly_iconoclast]

125. They seldom talk about MA, and for good reason-it refutes the narrative

Look at the violent crime rates here, compared to Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

(from your source, the FBI's Crime in the United States 2010)

Violent Crime, rate per 100,000 inhabitants

Massachusetts 466.6
New Hampshire 167.0
Vermont 130.2
Maine 122.0


You can get the figures for individual cities here:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-6

It's illuminating to compare Manchester, NH and Portland, ME to similarly sized cities in Massachusetts.

As a Masshole of many years' standing, it is incredibly irritating to listen to blowhard politicians repeatedly
tell us that our gun control laws are helping to keep me safe. That logical dissonance has driven me to my current
position.

[gejohnston]

27. So is Wyoming

It is roughly split between very conservative elements
(mostly in the rural areas) and very liberal elements
(in the college towns and Brattleboro).
True, but has little to do with having the laxest gun laws in the US. There are historical reasons. 100 years ago, the south had stricter gun laws than most places to keep African Americans and poor whites in their "place". Look up why Florida banned open carry in 1893 (Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516,. 4 So. 2d 700 (1941). Vermont is also safer than Japan.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3857/talking_about_guns_fighting_about_race/
In case you never heard of "In these Times," it makes Mother Jones look like the "Weekly Standard".
In the west it had more to do with labor (and immigration and race.) Wyoming's 1887-2011 concealed carry law is the example of all three. From 1887-1995 it was a very strict "may issue". You also needed a CCW to carry "any knife, sword cane, sling shot". Vermont had none of these issues, so they never passed any of these laws.

Also, Vermont is rural; guns are tools there. They
aren't really needed to blow away home invaders.
Yes they are tools. The last sentence intrigues me. Are you saying people in Chicago have a greater need for guns than Vermonters, esp. concealed carry (given Vermont's low crime rate)? Or are you saying that "civilized" people do not defend themselves? Based on some "anti" posts in the past, I would say that is true. BTW, that is hardly a progressive idea, but a very reactionary pre enlightenment concept like NYC's law. You know the city where an average person with a clean record must endure month of hassle only be turned down for no reason but racist, admitted coke and alcohol addict (but wealthy) Don Imus gets same day service for a CCW.

Edit to add link about the riot in my hometown, which helped inspire the law.

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

[Tesha]

31. What I was implying was that most "I need a gun for home defense!" arguments...

...strike me as nothing but paranoia, fed by the
advertisements and lobbyists of the gun manufacturers.

Vermonters have uses for guns (particularly long
guns and shotguns) as tools; Chicagoans don't really
have any use for guns except to kill people and
generally, I'm opposed to the killing of people.

Tesha

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

33. I'm opposed to the killing of people as well...

myself and family most of all.
I just don't let my oppositions get in the way of my self-preservation.

[gejohnston]

34. maybe but wrong culprit

While it is true that violent crime is going down, the culprit is not lobbyists and gun manufactures. It is "it bleeds it leads", true crime TV etc. that gives the impression that crime is worse that it really is. Take the school shooting "epidemic" in the late 1990s. There were twice as many in 1965. That creates the demand. Manufactures provides the supply. Before all of that, there were few US made pocket pistols (semi-automatic). The few were mostly OK to junk. The quality ones were European, esp Beretta and Walther. Why? There was little demand in the US outside of police (who carried small revolvers). There was a greater market for them in Europe than the US for those guns. That may seem ironic, but as I implied in another post, it was easier to get a CCW in Germany than Wyoming (yes open carry was and is legal and non controversial, but only saw once. A hunter on a motorcycle getting gas. That is why the idea of suburbanites going to Starbucks, it kind of reminds of people who buy Jeeps and Land Rovers, but think "roughing it" is a Holiday Inn with basic cable. But I digress).

Perfect analogy

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

Generally I'm opposed to killing people too. I am against the death penalty, for dismantling the empire and have a military system more like Switzerland, etc. That said, if you are a credible immediate threat to me or my family's safety or lives, other moral obligations and evolutionary instinct kick in.

[Simo 1939_1940]

56. Sounds like a thinly veiled (and quite repugnant)

strawman here.

Chicagoans don't really have any use for guns except to kill people and generally, I'm opposed to the killing of people.

The implication being that firearm owners who live in urban areas are comfortable with the killing of people? As the member above me (and countless others) have noted, I would hardly enjoy being forced to kill an intruder who violated the social contract by breaking into my home and failing to retreat when given the opportunity.

[rl6214]

60. Please post some examples of this...

" ...strike me as nothing but paranoia, fed by the
advertisements and lobbyists of the gun manufacturers."

I have never seen any advertisements by gun manufacturers except in gun magazines which are directed specifically to gun owners and even those have absolutely nothing about crime or criminals or home defense or anything that would indicate fear or paranioa.

And what does this law have to do with guns in Chicago? We are talking about the carrying of guns in NH aren't we?

[SteveM]

142. We hear the argument about "paranoia" over and over...

and it is proferred over and over by gun-controller/prohibitionists, just as they say we support "arming everyone," which "we" don't (I mean, who wants to arm a thug?).

Certainly, Vermonters (as well as residents of North Florida and the Texas Hill Country) use "guns as tools," but you miss the point about the Second Amendment: It does not argue in favor of hunting or varmint-control, it argues that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed." No mention of why is cited except for the Federal government's right to call up a militia, which in turn is organized by the various states.

I am not in favor of killing people, but I am in favor of defending myself. There are many things in life we do not "generally" support, but they do not warrant legislation which has no effect, even upon the opposition you express. Gandhi and M.L.K. both saw the necessity of defending one's self, family and home, and strove to delineate that necessity from the overall goal of non-violent social change. To not do so is to engage in vulgar pacifism.

"Taking life may be a duty…. Suppose a man runs amok and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares capture him alive. Anyone who dispatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man." -- M. Gandhi, "The Hindu," 1926.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

144. You must be seeing some advertisments I am not

I have never seen any ads for a gun outside of a gun magazine, and I expect to see them there. Not exactly something someone not already interested in firearms is going to read....

Perhaps you could show us some of these ads?

Further, why would you think someone in Chicago would not have the same use for a gun as someone in Vermont? Do you have actual proof that Chicagoans don't have any need for a firearm as a tool?

[Marengo]

184. Self defense is not a legitimate use of a firearm? N/T

[PavePusher]

84. No-one engages in self-defense in Vermont?

Huh. :shrug:

P.S. ...post #85...

[gejohnston]

126. perhaps he meant

Vermonters are less likely to need to, because of their lower crime rate? Just a guess.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[jmg257]

8. What some here refer to as "More Winning..." 'You can almost see the writing on the wall'. nt

[ileus]

9. Freedom is on the march...let's hope it becomes law.

[gravity556]

10. Welcome to the club, NH!

Sincerely, AZ, AK and VT.

[PavePusher]

12. Ahem...

You forgot one:

"and Wyoming."

[gravity556]

15. My bad.

I knew there was one other state with its head out of its ass, but couldn't for the life of me remember.

[gejohnston]

21. you would happen to forget

the best one of them all. :-)

[gravity556]

46. I'd much rather shovel sunshine than snow

so I'm gonna have say AZ is the best of the bunch. My desert blood is too thin for colder climes.

[gejohnston]

95. same with the wife which is

why I am stuck in Florida.

[gravity556]

166. We've got room in Arizona.

No hurricanes, low humidity, and perfect weather 8 months out of the year-granted, the other 4 are a bit like living on the surface of the sun, but shorts and flip flops and Thanksgiving dinner by the pool are worth the slight discomfort...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

25. Must be more of that G'damned Backlash.... when are we going to learn!

:crazy:

[rl6214]

50. Oh no, the backlash, what happened?

Those damn GOP/NRA/gun militant/baser instinct gunners

[Old and In the Way]

76. The government should issue each person a pistol and automatic weapon and 500 rounds of ammunition.

Seriously, free guns for everyone...no one should be at a security disadvantage because only rich people and criminals can can afford them. Arm everyone in this country and do away with police forces. We'll be a happier, more relaxed society if everyone carries a gun. I look forward to the United States of Somalia!

[jmg257]

78. Founders knew better then have the govt arm the people...they could more easily disarm them.

Better to have the people keep supplying their own, with enough manufacturer competition to drive the prices down.
Make it mandatory, just as intended in the constitution, and save all that money on a large standing army.

[gejohnston]

103. Actually

not everyone in Somalia carries a gun or has a gun. In fact the place does not even make the top ten of private gun ownership. Government does exist, kind of. Defacto governments of local warlords, who filled the vacuum after a central government fell, have their own fiefdoms. These vacuums are always filled either by thugs or corporations (like the East India Company that ruled parts of India.) That is why true libertarianism (either left wing or right wing) does not exist and never will. The people you see in the back of of pick up trucks are members of some war lord's army. Like any other feudal society, the local lord does not like the serfs being armed.

http://www.allcountries.org/gun_ownership_rates.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

Like most if not all "anti" talking points, it is based on unfounded assumptions and logical fallacies.

[SteveM]

143. WOOOOM! went the elephant in teh cave. nt

[Devin M]

77. Insane

:(

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. Oh noes, they'll be just like Vermont. And then where'll we be? n/t

[PavePusher]

91. How/why? n/t

[SteveM]

145. Well, if you were a RW-type, wouldn't you feel antsy about liberal Vermont...

right next door.;-)

[Tesha]

146. It's okay; the crazies prob'ly have the Route 9 bridge mined...

...just in case any of them armed-and-dangerous
Brattleboro hippies ever decide to invade.

The 2nd Vermont Republic probably has it mined
too, just in case the Feds try to invade across
that bridge.



Tesha

[one-eyed fat man]

151. Guess you have never been to Switzerland?

All strategically important bridges, tunnels, railway lines, highways and roads (deep into the country, not at the border) are equipped with the wires and fuses to blow them up -the explosives can be quickly fitted if needed in absolutely no time at all. Apart from that, there are thousands of kilometers of different tank traps and hundreds -if not thousands- of fixed mortars and anti-tank guns built (and hidden) into hills, woods and mountains. The first fortifications were built before WW2 and have been constantly renewed and improved since.

The "Toblerone Trail" doesn't have a damn thing to do with chocolate. Every town has tank traps built into the roads. Every bridge has a chamber for explosives. Every tunnel is wired for demolition. Look out of the window of the tour bus at the hillsides, if you have a sharp eye, you will see the Swiss already have a bunker or a pillbox controlling natural choke points.



Every home in Switzerland is required by law to have a "bunker." Most apartment buildings I know of there have underground storage areas with 6" thick concrete walls and big huge thick metal doors like a bank vault. Most people use them to store their skis, bikes, wine, etc. The Swiss government actually encourages those with private bunkers to use them for alternative purposes. The way they see it, a bunker used is a bunker maintained.

The only requirement is that it must be able to be cleaned up and returned to emergency condition within 24 hours – beds in place, bare walls, no oxygen depleting carpet, and to contain the necessary food, water and medicine. The country still has over 270,000 bunkers capable of accommodating the entire Swiss population of 7.8 million. Some places even have the luxury of choice for those who don’t get along.

[Glassunion]

161. I blame video games...

I blew the dust off of my play station this past weekend because I could not leave the house(resting an injured leg).

I was playing Grand Theft Auto. There was a point when I was standing outside of a diner and needed some cash. So I did what anyone else would do in that situation. I hailed a cab. When the cab stopped, I shot the driver and took his money.

This is when things got ugly... Some cowboy toter came running up the sidewalk exclaiming "I have a gun and a permit to use it. I am defending myself!" or something to that effect. I cannot remember verbatim as I was laughing my ass off. As he was making his exclamation, he opened fire. People were running and screaming as this gun totin' cowboy was shooting anything that moved on the street. I hid my character behind the cab I just robbed. Captain rude, managed to kill about 5 people while trying to shoot me.

The cool thing was that the police showed up and just killed him as I had empty hands when they showed up. The police ignored me, so I just got into the cab I robbed and drove away.

Some may perceive this as an accurate reflection of reality and not the theater that it is.

[oneshooter]

168. So THAT is where Hoyt gets his ideas about life!!!! From a video game! n/t

[ileus]

169. It's true...I watch my son pickup full autos and pistols out on the street all the time.

sometimes he'll even make a backroom deal or beat someone up to get his hands on a gun to use illegally.

[Glassunion]

171. Hey... You gotta start somewhere.

We are not all born with enough money to buy what we want.

[mistertrickster]

187. That is NOT a good idea.

We don't give DL's to people without asking them to take a test first.

[friendly_iconoclast]

189. Why not? Look at two states that border NH- Vermont and Massachusetts

Vermont has had permitless carry since the 18th Century. It also has very low violent crime and murder rates
Massachusetts makes it difficult (if not impossible in some places) to get a carry permit- and we have violent crime and murder
rates several times that of both Vermont and New Hampshire.

As the great Leo Durocher used to say, "You could look it up!":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=471413&mesg_id=472044

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=471413&mesg_id=472170

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-6

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl05.xls

[mistertrickster]

190. Vermont is rural . . . Mass is urban.

Mass pop is 6.5 million

Vermont is ONE-TENTH of that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

191. So it's not the gun laws (or lack thereof), but population density that drives crime rates?

Is that what you're saying?

[mistertrickster]

193. Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. But it stands to reason that

people who are trained in gun safety will treat guns more safely than those who aren't.

[PavePusher]

195. May I see your First, Fourth and Thirteenth Amendment Permits, please?

Also proof of training, and your test scores?