WA Ceasefire to seek Evergreen State open carry ban

[jpak]

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/exclusive-wa-ceasefire-to-seek-evergreen-state-open-carry-ban

Washington Ceasefire has announced that it will ask the Washington State Legislature to ban open carry of firearms in the Evergreen State, a move that comes just months after California’s lawmakers did the same thing.

This 5,000-member gun prohibition organization has been looking around for a new cause du jour, and open carry appears to be it.

<more>

:thumbsup:

[gejohnston]

1. couriosity

does this apply anywhere in the state or only in populated areas? I can see banning OC in downtown Seattle or Tacoma, but backpacking or horseback riding in Eastern Washington's wilderness is silly. It is more evidence that the movement is about guns and little or nothing to do with violence.
How big of an issue is it?
I know in Florida open carry is allowed only in hunting areas during hunting season. It's ban had nothing to do with public safety or gun violence and everything to do with some white people freaking out about armed African American migrant workers in the late 19th century.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Mmmm.

:popcorn:

[krispos42]

3. Since Washington is a shall-issue state

I have no problem with it. It's stupid and reactionary and petty, but if they feel it gives them some sort of "victory" then fine.

[PavePusher]

6. No. Hell No.

No part of Civil Rights should ever be ceded to assholes just to placate them.

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

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

Note the portion "...but later continued for other purposes."

Fuck. That.

[krispos42]

8. The issue with states like California and New York...

...is that they prohibit open carry without offering an alternative. If we're going to base the argument for making the judicial branch force those states to make shall-issue policies mandatory in lieu of allowing open carry, then we can't complain when states that have shall-issue CCW permits terminate open carry.

The argument was that, in order to bear arms, you had to be able to either open-carry or concealed-carry, not necessarily both.

:shrug:

I don't like it; I would prefer that Washington keep both options. But as long as anybody that qualifies according to non-arbitrary legal standards can get a permit, and thus bear arms in public, then the 2nd is satisfied.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Open carry is highly useful where I live.

I haven't had to shoot a cougar or a bear yet, but I have seen plenty of both, and if you can see them, they saw you 5 minutes ago.

[krispos42]

18. There are probably exceptions to the no-open-carry rule.

I would imagine, for example, people hunting or engaged in related activity.

:shrug:

Like I said, I would rather have the option of both.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Not gonna happen.

I doubt it makes it out of committee even.

[TheWraith]

4. 5,000 members out of 6.6 million people in Washington...

Yeah, that's a populist movement.

[rl6214]

38. 5,000 is more than the Brady's have

[ileus]

5. Wonder if any of the WCer's have ever seen a OCer except on the innerwebs?

I bet not...

[Union Scribe]

37. One did...hair turned white, life ruined. nt

[iverglas]

53. ah, the civility of the discourse

just overwhelms.

How did they manage not to wet their pants, I wonder.

[SteveM]

7. Noted that prohibitionist Ceasefire joined with GOP-founded, GOP-led...

Brady Center:

"Open carry is not everyone’s cup of tea, though it certainly appeared to be a lot of people’s “cup of coffee” early last year when the Brady Campaign was joined locally by Ceasefire extremists who declared war on Starbucks because it serves customers who openly carry."

We know how that turned out. BTW, Washington has in its state constitution a RKBA. It will be one way or the other, prohis.

[iverglas]

13. how long is this falsehood going to be allowed to be posted here?

The Republic Party had NOTHING to do with the founding of the organization and has NOTHING to do with the present leadership of the organization.

NOTHING.

So here's notice.

Next time that falsehood is posted here, I'll be reporting it. And the next time. And the time after that.

There are Democrats associated with that organization, and the false claim that it was founded by or is led by the Republican Party is a disgusting smear directed at the Democrats who are involved with it and who support it.

[gejohnston]

19. no one said the Republican Party

just that they tend to be led and staffed by Republicans and conservatives. The rank and file (few as they are) are of often Dems, although not always (Mr. Stallone is a conservative.) At the same time, there are some good Democrats that are on our side. Howard Dean and Brian Schweitzer are the best examples off the top of my head.

[iverglas]

22. read the subject line of the post I replied to

and do think carefully before associating yourself with that falsehood.

I'd leave it to the author of it to try to weasel out of it if they so choose.

"GOP" does not mean "Republicans and conservatives". It means the Republican Party.

If someone wants to badmouth bipartisan efforts to achieve decent social policies, they can feel free.

They will just want to be doing it, at this site, by presenting facts, not falsehoods.

[gejohnston]

27. and what falsehoods are those?

you made the charge, you prove it. Your "decent social policies" are someone elses' authoritarians gone wild. GOP does not always mean "Republican Party" Often it does mean and is used as I descrived. It is a nuance thing.

[iverglas]

29. for the love of fucking fuck

Why is everything so difficult?

I replied to a post that said:

GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Center

That is a falsehood.

The Brady Centre was NOT founded by the Republican Party, and is NOT led by the Republican Party.

What in the name of god did you think we were talking about?????????????

I "made the charge" and I don't actually need to prove it. The person who alleges that the Brady Center was founded and is led by the Republican Party needs to prove it.

Your "decent social policies" are someone elses' authoritarians gone wild.

And I don't give a flying fuck.

GOP does not always mean "Republican Party" Often it does mean and is used as I descrived. It is a nuance thing.

No it isn't. It's a bullshit thing.

[PavePusher]

35. Tut, tut....

"civil discourse", m'dear...

[iverglas]

43. you still have no clue what civil discourse is, do you?

I try to educate, to no avail.

[Marengo]

89. You consistently betray the spirit of civil discourse...

Please stop presenting yourself as some kind of model.

[PavePusher]

91. Ah, but you do....

Everyone needs a negative example, after all.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. I think you made a mistake.

GOP is one element of conservatives: rank and file Republican Party. You used it like you are describing of course, so this is a non-issue, if a clarification can be issued.

[iverglas]

32. good god almighty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

GOP = Grand Old Party = Republican Party

Do you all really need a foreigner to explain these things to you???????

The "P" in "GOP" stands for "Party".

The Brady Center has NO political affiliation, and Sarah Brady herself, who there is no evidence has been a member of any party in a very long time, has been a generous donor to various Democratic Party electoral efforts, including the campaigns of Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy, as I am recalling without doing the search all over again for the umpteenth time.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. That's what I just fucking said.

"rank and file Republican Party"

He used the term 'GOP' apparently intending to use it like one might use the term 'Conservatives', which I think is at least partially justifiable in this case. At least some of their upper echelon leadership is, in fact, conservative.

[gejohnston]

39. thank you for the clarification

In this case, I did read it as synonymous with conservative. I have seen it in that context before.

[iverglas]

44. GOP does not mean "rank and file" ANYTHING

It is the name of the PARTY.

And the Brady Center was not founded by any party, is not led by any party, and is not affiliated with any party.

And the falsehood that it is "GOP-FOUNDED" and "GOP-LED" is a smear directed against all the Democrats who are affiliated with it, and in particular all the Democrats AT THIS SITE who support it and what it does.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Ugh.

Really? Are we really disagreeing when we said the same damn thing?

There's big R republicans, and little r republicans. GOP is RANK AND FILE members of the party. There's lots of people who vote republican or consider themselves republicans even though they are not members of the Republican Party(TM)

I generally agree with what you said otherwise. The Brady Bunch = GOP is a dry hole. We should discuss policy, not tenuous links to who knows what.

[rl6214]

41. "including the campaigns of Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy"

Both hard core anti-gun zealots. She would donate to a martian if they were as anti-gun.

[iverglas]

42. BOTH DEMOCRATS

Unlike ...

[beevul]

47. Paul Helmke?

Now, answer one simple qwestion:

Were donations made to the two named, because they were Democrats, OR was it because of a certain position they hold on the gun issue, eh?

[iverglas]

50. what about Paul Helmke?

And who the fuck cares why the donations were made? As I recall, and feel free to look it up for yourself, Sarah Brady also donated to the DNC or whatever it is central campaign thing. She has also made regular donations to Michael Castle, a Republican who I think may be her local guy and who is a strong firearms control advocate.

The allegation (that nobody is coming straight out and making, which is a good thing for them because it is false) is that she IS A REPUBLICAN. Donating more money to the Democratic Party and its candidates is strange evidence of that.

Is the organization critical of Republican candidates, elected representatives, governments and policies?

If so, what exactly is the allegation being made here?

Seriously. What IS the allegation being made here?

Eh?

[beevul]

57. It cuts right to the heart of the matter...

"And who the fuck cares why the donations were made?"

It cuts right to the heart of the matter, gibroni.

The difference is whether she donates to Democrats because they're willing tools who agree with her on THAT issue, or if she does it simply because they're Democrats.

And yes, ginny, there IS a difference between those two things - willing tools used by gun gontrol pushers - and Democrats.


"Is the organization critical of Republican candidates, elected representatives, governments and policies?"

You could ask the same question, and get the same answer about the nra.

[iverglas]

60. oh, that big stinking false dichotomy

The difference is whether she donates to Democrats because they're willing tools who agree with her on THAT issue, or if she does it simply because they're Democrats.

You're seriously stating that Democrats are tools of Sarah Brady.

And you don't realize what a tool you have made yourself look.


"Is the organization critical of Republican candidates, elected representatives, governments and policies?
You could ask the same question, and get the same answer about the nra.

Hahaha. Yes, there's no difference at all between the NRA-ILA criticising Republicans because they are not right-wing enough and the Brady Centre criticising Republicans because they are too right-wing.

Hahahaha snork. You're a card.

[beevul]

61. Kindly take your words out of my mouth, thanks.

"You're seriously stating that Democrats are tools of Sarah Brady."

No, I'm stating that Democrats like Schumer and Feinstein, and republicans like castle, for examples of tools of the brady bunch, and are thus donated to it BECAUSE of it.

Gee, have you seen the brady bunch donating to Harry Reid or Bill Richardson, or Brian Schweitzer or Howard Dean?

Yeah, I thought not.


"Hahaha. Yes, there's no difference at all between the NRA-ILA criticising Republicans because they are not right-wing enough and the Brady Centre criticising Republicans because they are too right-wing."

"oh, that big stinking false dichotomy"

As usual, first you claim it exists, then you create it.

The nra criticises for firearm related issues, whether it be Democrat or republican.

But then you knew that.

Firearm related issues, pro or anti, are neither left nor right wing.

Just because you assert or imply otherwise does not make it so.

[rl6214]

70. Sarah brady?

[rl6214]

40. Splitting hairs again as usual because she has no other

arguement.

Should have said the Brady center to prevent handgun violence was founded by Republicans Sara Brady, husband Jim Brady, former press secretary for Ronald Reagan.

[beevul]

48. Don't forget that they chose 3 term republican mayor helmke to lead it too. N/T

[iverglas]

51. So what?

Has he run the organization as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party?

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?

Why will you not come out and say whatever it is?


Remember Michael Barnes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Barnes

President of the Brady Campaign 2000-2006. Democrat. Not of the dog variety, I'd say.


How about his predecessor 1992-1996, Richard Aborn?

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

Democrat.


Two decades of Democrats at the helm. Anything to say?

[beevul]

58. Sure. Lots.

I'll expect EXACTLY the same reasoning to be used by YOU next time someone makes the same argument about the nra - specifically:

"Has he run the organization as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party?"

You don't get to have it both ways.

[iverglas]

59. what reasoning is that then?

The Brady Centre is NOT operated as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.

The NRA IS operated as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party ... okay, well, maybe it's more the organ grinder than the monkey ...

I'm happy to apply that "reasoning", although it actually just looks like "facts" to me.

I've never claimed that there is some card-carrying Republican at the head of the NRA making the NRA do Republican things.

However, that exact claim is made here every hour of every day about the Brady Centre.

It's false. That is all.

There's nothing at all I'd like to have "both ways", thank you very much.

All I'd like for Christmas is for someone in this forum to very occasionally make a stitch of sense in a minimally coherent post that actually responds to something said ...

[beevul]

63. Could you make it any easier?

"The NRA IS operated as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party"

Good grief honey, do I need to drag that list of nra endorsed Democrats out again?

Schweitzer, Richardson, Dean...amongst hundreds of others...

"However, that exact claim is made here every hour of every day about the Brady Centre."

Well, that claim - the one thats actually made, rather than the straw claim of yours - is factually true - or was until very recently.

The batty bunch WAS founded by republicans. Up intil recently it WAS led by a republican.

"All I'd like for Christmas is for someone in this forum to very occasionally make a stitch of sense in a minimally coherent post that actually responds to something said ..."

Just a clue, because you so desperately seem to need it:

You are not the ultimate arbiter of all thinks that make sense.

Not everything that makes sense, is going to make sense to YOU.

Some humility in that regard, and in general, would go a long way toward that "civility" you always speak of.

[iverglas]

64. in the midst of that lecture

you were still playing tricks ... or genuinely failing to grasp a point; one can never tell, can one?


However, that exact claim is made here every hour of every day about the Brady Centre.
Well, that claim - the one thats actually made, rather than the straw claim of yours - is factually true - or was until very recently.
The batty bunch WAS founded by republicans. Up intil recently it WAS led by a republican.

Move those shells really quick like and maybe nobody will notice.

THE CLAIM in question is that it is operated as a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.

I don't give a flying fuck whom it was LED by. Your claim is false in any event, since from 1992 to 2006 it was led by Democrats. Jeezus.

There is not an iota of fact to support a claim that the Brady Centre is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. In fact, I think you would be more than hard pressed to find a kind word it has said in the last decade about the Republican Party.

http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=2721

Duh. That took a 0.24-second google and it was second in the results list.

Got anything comparable for me from the NRA-ILA? Find me a kind word about Democrats on its front page today. Ever.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=475717&mesg_id=476144

I've never said the NRA-ILA does not donate to Democratic candidates and back Democratic candidates; I've never said the NRA-ILA can't tell which side its bread is butered on, or that the right wing is not represented in the Democratic Party (with occasional slippage in the other direction as well).

What I've said about the NRA-ILA is that it is right-wing.

Because it is.

[gejohnston]

77. not so sure about Aborn

in 2001 Aborn served as the senior law enforcement advisor to the Democratic mayoral nominee. During that campaign he developed criminal justice policies for New York City including the establishment of a “311” program which Mayor Michael Bloomberg implemented.<6>
In 2009 Aborn made an unsuccessful bid for the District Attorney of Manhattan, losing the election to Cy Vance.

Cy Vance, like is father that served in Jimmy Carter's administration, is a Democrat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cy_Vance_Jr

[iverglas]

86. then get sure before speaking

Pretty damned easy.

I had to go to google's cache to read this; also easy.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QhoOjCJp2VYJ:www.talkleft.com/story/2009/8/9/192156/1144+2009+richard+aborn+vance+progressive&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&lr=lang_fr%7Clang_en (with my emphasis)

Richard Aborn: A Progressive Running for Manhattan District Attorney
By Jeralyn, Section Elections
Posted on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 08:21:00 AM EST

For the first time in 34 years, Manhattan will elect a new District Attorney. For decades, the office has been run by District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who at 90, is stepping down. There are three Democrats competing to replace him in a primary that will be held September 15. With no Republicans running, the winner of the primary will get the job. The candidates are: Richard Aborn, Cyrus Vance and Leslie Crocker Snyder, each of whom worked as prosecutors in Morgenthau’s office for varying periods of time.

... The issues section of Aborn’s website states his position on everything from juvenile justice reform, wrongful convictions, drug law reform and LGBT rights, to violent crime, gun control, white collar crime, terrorism and the death penalty. As to concrete plans, here are his position papers on wrongful convictions and juvenile justice reform. ...

His Overall Philosophy:

We have to change from a reactive to a preventive model of criminal justice. We need to get people out of jail. Alternatives to prison for non-violent offenders, including drug and mental health treatment and vocational training, will reduce recidivism and increase public safety.“First and second-time non-violent offenders deserve an opportunity to rebuild their lives.” These offenders need to be identified early, at the original interaction with a district attorney. There needs to be targeted intervention, tailored to the individual offender, not “one size fits all” justice.

... Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct: ...

... Drug Law Reform: ...

... Will Richard Aborn's progressive-minded changes to the DA’s office result in positive and concrete reforms which will reverberate throughout the criminal justice system in Manhattan? The answer is yes.

<reader comment> The problem with Ahorn is not in his positions. As TL notes, his positions indicate that anywhere other than NYC he would be either running for State Assembly or to head the public defender's office b/c he is entirely too liberal to bea prosecutor elsewhere.

So I guess you're sure now.

[gejohnston]

87. nice of you to make the effort

but there is a reason I did not. This is the guns forum. That means his views on any other issue and his party affiliation is irrelevant to this forum.

[iverglas]

88. then have a word with your little friends

every time one of them posts the lie that the Brady Campaign is "GOP-founded", "GOP-led".

It isn't just a lie, it's IRRELEVANT TO THIS FORUM.

If you happen to miss any instances of the lie being posted, I'll be happy to draw them to your attention so you can give them your proper attentions.

[gejohnston]

90. are you sure?

The GOP could be playing both sides against the middle. Creating wedge issues is a right wing tactic. Just a thought.
Irrelevant until evidence of the above show up. That said, it is used largely in response to some on your side implying or stating that we are closet right wingers or trolls. That is as despicable as it is untrue and will be reported as such.
"little friends" is demeaning language, which is against the rules of DU and civil discourse.

[SteveM]

69. Here it this time. "And the next time. And the time after that..."

"Open carry is not everyone’s cup of tea, though it certainly appeared to be a lot of people’s “cup of coffee” early last year when the Brady Campaign was joined locally by Ceasefire extremists who declared war on Starbucks because it serves customers who openly carry."

From the OP's link.

[iverglas]

75. wow, you really didn't follow the dotted lines at all, did you?

[SteveM]

85. So, report me. nt

[iverglas]

14. by the way, it is customary and civil to cite your source

Here's yours:

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/exclusive-wa-ceasefire-to-seek-evergreen-state-open-carry-ban

A source that refers to its subject as "extremists" is not exactly a news source.

Opinion. And worthless, at best, by which I mean: right-wing extremist.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/dave-workman

"Dave Workman is an author, senior editor of Gun Week, communications director for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, award-winning outdoor writer, former member of the NRA Board of Directors."

Never met anybody left of Mussolini he doesn't hate, that one. Putrid.

[gejohnston]

31. Never met anybody left of Mussolini he doesn't hate, that one. Putrid.

prove it.

[iverglas]

45. res ipsa loquitur

And that thing very definitely does.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/11/seattle_gun_ban_challenge_move.php

Even Nickels reportedly might help lobby for it in the state legislature starting in January. That's where the fight moves now, as the court says it should. Among others, Washington Ceasefire is campaigning against open-carry of guns statewide. As the gun-control group says of its plans:

Our legislative priority for the 2012 state legislative session is to prohibit the unconcealed, open carrying of loaded weapons. It is legal in this state to carry a loaded weapon in full view without a permit, even in government buildings such as the state Capitol - and into legislative hearing rooms during a public hearing. Open carrying of loaded guns was prohibited in Dodge City during the days of the Wild West and is currently prohibited in such gun-friendly states as Texas, Oklahoma and Florida.

"Like that's going to happen <here> in an election year," sneers Workman. "Lawmakers are not about to appease the far Left mayor of the state's largest political Twilight Zone against the interests of more than 345,000 legally-licensed armed citizen voters who may not need one more excuse to vote Republican in November 2012."

Guess what party Nickels and McGinn, that "far Left <sic> mayor", represent.

Workman seems to think it's the Left party. Nope.

He's a Democrat. Therefore he is bad.

[beevul]

49. *POP*

(that was the sound of your premise exploding.)

"He's a Democrat. Therefore he is bad." - iverglas

"Montana lawmakers have it right with new statute on self-defense"

I'm sorry, did he just say someone got something right, there?

"He's a Democrat. Therefore he is bad."- iverglas

"Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer this week signed into law a new self-defense statute that will “steal the thunder” from gun prohibitionists who invariably whine that armed citizens might “take the law into their own hands.”"

Oh look, he was referring to a Democrat when he used the word "lawmakers".

"He's a Democrat. Therefore he is bad."- iverglas

So which is it?

You were simply wrong and casting mindless aspersions...

or

Democrat Gov. Brian Schweitzer is not to the left of Mussolini




http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/montana-lawmakers-have-it-right-with-new-statute-on-self-defense



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[iverglas]

52. oh, forgive me

I do sometimes neglect to add the footnote, don't I?

Yeah, there are pandering (and also right-wing) Democrats. No doubt about that one. Hell, we have New Democrats of that variety here.

I wonder whom the author supported in the election, and will support next time ...

You will note that he didn't actually say anything favourable about Schweitzer, and I still haven't seen him say anything favourable about any "liberal". That bit was simply a report of an event.



Democrat Gov. Brian Schweitzer is not to the left of Mussolini

I'll spare you the line of rolling guffawers on that one.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Hoyt]

9. I Need to learn more about Ceasefire before too much praise, but I like stuff on their Web site.

The 96+% of population that sees no need to carry a gun in public needs to understand what is walking around in our parks, restaurants, campuses, and much worse.

I think Ceasefire is right here: " . . . . . . we serve as a COMMUNICATION counterweight to the propaganda of the gun rights crowd. Guns do kill people, but it's generally not "bad guys" with criminal records committing the act -- it's the mentally ill, or the distressed and emotionally distraught. Under the pressure of the moment, if a gun is present, an impulse can quickly escalate to a fatality."

[PavePusher]

10. Birds of a feather....

Color me unsuprised.

Hint: You should stop equating the lawful with the criminal. They aren't the same. Difficult concept for a script-hack, I suppose.

[Hoyt]

11. Sometimes the supposedly lawful enable the criminals. I still think Ceasefire is right.

[gejohnston]

12. please

expand on this thought. I don't think Ceasefire is right. They have no empirical evidence to support anything they said.

[Hoyt]

20. This is a political forum. Hence, it's about the future and impact of bad behavior on society.

There's not always empirical evidence. Besides, no one in their right mind can argue that a bunch of citizens packing guns can be good for society. Good for you maybe, but not society.

There is no empirical evidence that drastically changing our current health care system will improve things. But, most Democrats believe that it would. No proof cutting military budget will improve things -- but most believe it will. Global warming, pro-choice, civil rights (real, not some guy wanting to stuff a gun down his pants before going outside), etc. -- all the same.

There wasn't empirical evidence that the earth was not flat either.

Finally, every study that doesn't make you gunners feel like your guns are perfectly safe is tainted -- not because of what the study concludes, but because it could cause some rational folks to reason that it might be time to close the pipeline a bit.

Kiss your guns goodnight.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. "no one in their right mind can argue that a bunch of citizens packing guns can be good for society"

Pretty sure armchair diagnosing the mental health of other members of DU is against the rules.

[iverglas]

23. oh, that's just hilarious

Disingenuous as all hell, but hilarious.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Call it rules gaming if you like

but his post was pretty much the same old 'have you stopped beating your dog yet' bullshit.

[iverglas]

26. no, I called it disingenuous

That's what it always is, any time anyone purports to take a figure of speech literally.

Of course, you went beyond that and claimed that the figure of speech was directed at someone here and thus a rules violation. Which is itself a rules violation ...

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Have you been following Hoyt's posting long?

Figure of speech indeed.

[Union Scribe]

34. Lol, too true. nt

[PavePusher]

36. Defending one of your favorite tactics?

Hardly unexpected of you...

[gejohnston]

24. I get that

but I was always was taught that the important tenets of liberalism is that restrictions should only be in place if there is a demonstrated state interest. So far, there is not evidence of it being bad for society (as in noon time duels etc.) Therefore, regulations (or nationalizing the Fed, which I also support.) is a demonstrated need. like Recent repeal or liberalizing carry laws have not shown to be harmful.When you introduce vague concepts "for the good of society". When you do that, you are simply changing authoritarians. Ultimately, there is no difference between a right wing authoritarian and a left wing one.
We know from history what happens when you have a deregulated fractional banking system.
I think there is empirical evidence about the health care. Just look at how well the VA, TriCare, and Medicare works and is very popular. (VA is socialized, Medicare is single payer, and Tri-care is kind of a hybrid) compared to the for profit system.
Actually there was, and most educated people know it during Columbus' time. The easiest was watching the ships come over the horizon and seeing the top of the mast first.
All studies are tainted. The antis even more so for a number of reasons. Partly because of grants wanting a specific outcome and ER doctors and economists playing amateur criminologists. While it may seem rational(logical fallacy, poisoning the well) but the funding and methods make them questionable. Those "rational" people are often operating on false premises.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. There was empirical evidence that the was not flat hundreds of years BCE.

That wasn't a recent discovery of only a few hundred years ago. Eratosthenes of Cyrene (275 BCE to 95 BCE) calculated the size of the earth and the tilt of the earth on its axis.

[oneshooter]

56. When will you turn your in ? Are you such a hypocrite that you would

have others do what you apparently will not.

Get rid of them Hoyt, lead by example.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[We_Have_A_Problem]

62. Oh good freaking lord Hoyt...

There is much empirical evidence to address virtually everything you stated, and quite specifically, there was (and is) a lot of empirical evidence that the Earth is most assuredly not flat.

You really ought to learn a few things Hoyt. You're not even funny anymore - just downright sad...

[Hoyt]

66. "Sad" is trying to rationalize carrying a gun in our society. You have no empirical evidence it is

good for society -- just a bunch of right wing BS that only a fool would actually believe.

[oneshooter]

67. And You have no empirical evidence it is bad for society.

If you did you would have shown it by now.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

68. Don't need "empirical evidence" to know it's bad. That's my opinion and what I support politically.

Even when you guys are presented with evidence that guns don't provide protection -- you claim they do, or you claim it's your right to strap as many guns on as you need to feel safe in public, or you spout some other off-the-wall BS.

More guns will not forge a better society in our country. I'm totally convinced of that, and you have no "empirical evidence" that an armed society is a better society for anyone but those who need a gun or two strapped to their bodies to feel good.

[oneshooter]

71. Never said I did. My apologies for hurting your "feelings" over the matter.

Now then, when are you going to get rid of the firearms that you keep unsecured in your home.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[jmg257]

72. How much evidence would have to be provided to show guns do provide

protection? There is apparently evidence somewhere showing guns do not provide protection (can you post some?), is there no evidence showing they do?

In the mean time, knowing there IS evidence guns can provide protection, how do you justify trying to tell someone who is totally convinced they do, that they don't?

How do you justify telling someone who claims they have the right to carry concealed, and does so quite legally, that they don't? Do they legally have the right or not? Is carrying a privilege? Are places where carry is not allowed representative of reasonable restrictions? Restrictions of what?

[Hoyt]

73. People have the right to do lots of things that aren't good for society -- banks, health insurers,

polluters, and the like. But, we try to get the laws changed to restrict them. Same with those who pollute society with guns.

You have no evidence that guns help protect society from crime. But, you keep claiming that you do.

[jmg257]

74. Ahhh...you were only talking about protecting society, not individuals.

I asked about evidence because you stated:

"Even when you guys are presented with evidence that guns don't provide protection -- you claim they do".

I see from posts above that you meant that as "guns don't provide protection...for society from crime".
Since it is society your were speaking of, and not individual having protection, then I agree there is no convincing evidence either way.

At any rate, claiming that 'guns protect society from crime' is not something I have done, would do, or would keep doing (other then maybe if pressed re: guns in the hands of LE?).

[Hoyt]

76. A study was posted recently that concluded guns seldom do a toter any good when assaulted.

Those who can't walk out of their houses without a gun or two, suddenly became statisticians and peer reviewers attempting to refute the study's conclusions. It was laughable, as is any suggestion that guns in public make our society better.

[jmg257]

78. Is that the study where the test subjects were from the inner city

of Philidelphia? The one where the study groups were 87% black & 7% hispanic, where 53% had prior arrests, and where "control participants were significantly
more unemployed than the general population", where "case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in 'high-risk occupations', & had a greater frequency of prior arrest, where "case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs...and were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking"?

Is this the study that mentioned how assault risks were increased because "many of these events were 2-sided situations in which both parties were ready and mutually willing to fight on the basis of a prior argument"?

Is THAT the study you mean? :rofl:

Hey, that is great evidence to present to typical law-abiding toters as to why they might not want to carry...tell ya what - if I run into a 95% minority group of drug dealing alocohlics that are unemployed but with high-risk drug dealing hobbies of which more then 1/2 have prior arrests and prior grudges against each other at the next rod and gun meeting I'll pass it along!

Now I admit I'm no statistician, but that study sure seems - well just about useless, for many typical lawful gun owners like myself.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[jmg257]

80. Wait - you consider right wing gun carriers as best being described as

"87% black & 7% hispanic, where 53% had prior arrests, and where "control participants were significantly
more unemployed than the general population", where "case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in 'high-risk occupations', & had a greater frequency of prior arrest, where "case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs...and were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking"?

Is that how all those teabagger gatherings appeared to you? What universe do you live in??

Those study groups would not be what I would initially consider right-wing (though I don't know - politics wasn't discussed in your study), nor would I consider drug-dealers your typical lawful gun owners...maybe I am missing something?

Seems you don't 'have a good feel' about much of anything.

[Hoyt]

81. No, your attitude is what I referred to. Seemed obvious to me.

[jmg257]

82. My attitude?? My attitude was ALL about what you considered

to be a good study about the risks of toting, where you thought 'attempting to refute the study's conclusions' as laughable'.

What's very laughable is that you would think that is a good study for your typical lawful gun toter to learn about the risks of carry.

Did you really think that was a good representative study? A bit silly I think, but Ok then, I'll be real sure not to mix toting with dealing drugs, becoming an alcoholic, developing a criminal history and/or resolving grudges. :thumbsup:


The conclusion didn't need to be refuted, as the study itself is near worthless for so many here...I admit I am a male and I do own guns, other then that there wasn't much similarity at all between this toter and those 'gun possessors' described in your study. I think you would find that quite often is the case, as we have been consistently talking about lawful gun owners, not drug-dealing ex-cons.

[Hoyt]

83. Guns won't help your hatred for inner city, poor people.

Nothing further to post to you.

[jmg257]

84. Clearly no hatred here, so as long as you will make ugly unfounded accusations, that would be best.

I would also recommend your not posting at all if you cannot take part in civil discourse without resorting to making up vile bullshit about fellow posters.

And maybe educating yourself a bit more about what is being discussed, and what you think you know and feel about others when you obviously have no clue.

Expressing opinions are fine, but being ignorant, a liar, and scornful is no way to go through life, or to represent yourself on public forums. Please clean up your act.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Yeah, they can go and get fucked too.

And the horse they rode in on.

[rrneck]

65. Jeez crimimy.

A big long thread fighting about who the real Democrats and Republicans are all over a piece of silly legislation to regulate how people look in public.

My God it's like herding cats with a fucking Polo pony.