• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

GA gun bill

WakeandBake said:
I've never understood this. I worry about this guy an equal amount as the other guy. They are both human beings who do fucked up human things.
Click to expand...

You live in Chicago, a city with probably the most or second most laws restricting gun ownership. How is that working out?

I just think instead of wasting time writing more laws we could probably spend some time enforcing the laws already on the books.
 
I would go as far as to say that the illegal gun owner is less likely to use his weapon because he doesn't want to get busted, whereas the legal gun owner is all ginned up about his legal firearm and how he is Billy Badass and is going to stand his ground and wave his dick around
 
94Deac said:
How many stories do we hear of legal owners shooting others? Florida movie theater. The man sitting in his basement in Minnesota(?). Newtown, CT. And just about any unjustifiable or excessive force case involving police. Ft. Hood.
Click to expand...

In Newtown the guns belonged to his mother.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
You live in Chicago, a city with probably the most or second most laws restricting gun ownership. How is that working out?

I just think instead of wasting time writing more laws we could probably spend some time enforcing the laws already on the books.
Click to expand...

I disagree that the gun laws are what is causing the gun violence. Chicago has much bigger problems causing gun violence that outweigh the effect of the gun restrictions.
 
So RJ, where do you believe that you should legally be allowed to carry a firearm?
 
DeaconCav06 said:
You live in Chicago, a city with probably the most or second most laws restricting gun ownership. How is that working out?

I just think instead of wasting time writing more laws we could probably spend some time enforcing the laws already on the books.
Click to expand...

Since we aren't enforcing all of them, let's get rid of all of them.

It's easier to get a gun in many states than mental health care.
 
well, the fact that access to one of those things is a right guaranteed by the Constitution might come into play, there
 
WFUtoUSC said:
So RJ, where do you believe that you should legally be allowed to carry a firearm?
Click to expand...

Definitely not in bars or malls or airports or churches or government buildings.

I think only patrons should be able to carry guns at racetracks and casinos.

Can you give a good reason why all gun sales and transfers shouldn't require a background check?
 
WakeandBake said:
I disagree that the gun laws are what is causing the gun violence. Chicago has much bigger problems causing gun violence that outweigh the effect of the gun restrictions.
Click to expand...

My point is that it isn't doing anything to prevent it. But people want to make guns a bogey man and then the dumbass NRA sends out it's daily email blast to its members talking about how "liberals in state government" want to steal all of our guns. And then nothing logical can get passed and we are back where we started.
 
RJKarl said:
Definitely not in bars or malls or airports or churches or government buildings.

I think only patrons should be able to carry guns at racetracks and casinos.

Can you give a good reason why all gun sales and transfers shouldn't require a background check?
Click to expand...

I support universal background checks on all gun sales and transfers. But I also support an individual's right to carry a firearm once he or she has cleared that background check wherever he or she chooses, except for goverment buildings and airports as obvious exceptions. As others have already pointed out on this thread, establishments still retain the right to "opt out" of the law if they so choose.

I've answered your question, but what about you answering mine?
 
This isn't an answer?

"Definitely not in bars or malls or airports or churches or government buildings. "

I would agree with the old way NYC gave out concealed carry licenses. You'd have to show you have a specific need to carry. These were usually for security people, famous people and those who carried large amounts of valuables as part of their daily duties.

I absolutely oppose individuals carrying holsters in plain view who aren't law enforcement or have specific and defined needs. Saying it's for general self-protection wouldn't cut it.
 
RJKarl said:
This isn't an answer?

"Definitely not in bars or malls or airports or churches or government buildings. "

I would agree with the old way NYC gave out concealed carry licenses. You'd have to show you have a specific need to carry. These were usually for security people, famous people and those who carried large amounts of valuables as part of their daily duties.

I absolutely oppose individuals carrying holsters in plain view who aren't law enforcement or have specific and defined needs. Saying it's for general self-protection wouldn't cut it.
Click to expand...

Saying, "definitely not in [places]" eliminates those places listed, but it doesn't speak to your opinion on places not listed.

Piecing the rest of that together:

No one can carry a firearm in plain view unless they are a member of law enforcement or demonstrate a specific and denied need greater than personal protection. No one can carry a concealed firearm unless they've shown a specific and denied need greater than personal protection.

At that point, why not just repeal the 2nd Amendment altogether?
 
What a BS, knee jerk response!

It's only in the past twenty years that any American thought about routinely a gun into a mall or into a bar or on their hip in public in a city. It's only since the internet that this craziness has been expanded. The irony is crime had been going down dramatically without the expanded carry laws.
 
I synthesized your opinion into two sentences. Then I remarked that if your opinion were the law of the land, it would be tantamount to repealing the 2nd Amendment. I fail to see how that is a BS, knee jerk response.
 
WFUtoUSC said:
I synthesized your opinion into two sentences. Then I remarked that if your opinion were the law of the land, it would be tantamount to repealing the 2nd Amendment. I fail to see how that is a BS, knee jerk response.
Click to expand...

Because it's total, unadulterated, brainwashed, lazy ass BS. What percentage of gun owners do you think carry their weapons into non-gun stores? I'd guess 70-80% of the US population cannot carry a gun into a bar due to state law. I'd guess most states won't allow you to carry guns into malls or school or on the street with a reason.

You act like we live in 19th century Tombstone.

In no way does what I posted do anything like being "tantamount to to repealing the 2nd Amendment". In no way does what I post do anything to probably 95+% of gun owners who don't conceal carry or strap on a holster to go to the supermarket or have any desire to do so. Nothing I posted impacts having guns in your or taking them with you to go hunting or shooting.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
You live in Chicago, a city with probably the most or second most laws restricting gun ownership. How is that working out?

I just think instead of wasting time writing more laws we could probably spend some time enforcing the laws already on the books.
Click to expand...

This isn't a great example. Gun prohibition did wonders for NY, when integrated with smarter policing. So did buyback programs in NJ.

I agree with your second sentence though. Smarter enforcement of the law is so key.
 
RJKarl said:
Because it's total, unadulterated, brainwashed, lazy ass BS. What percentage of gun owners do you think carry their weapons into non-gun stores? I'd guess 70-80% of the US population cannot carry a gun into a bar due to state law. I'd guess most states won't allow you to carry guns into malls or school or on the street with a reason.

You act like we live in 19th century Tombstone.

In no way does what I posted do anything like being "tantamount to to repealing the 2nd Amendment". In no way does what I post do anything to probably 95+% of gun owners who don't conceal carry or strap on a holster to go to the supermarket or have any desire to do so. Nothing I posted impacts having guns in your or taking them with you to go hunting or shooting.
Click to expand...

See, now we're getting somewhere. "RJ's Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment" now looks like this:

No one can carry a firearm in plain view unless they are a member of law enforcement or demonstrate a specific and denied need greater than personal protection.
No one can carry a concealed firearm unless they've shown a specific and denied need greater than personal protection.
Once a universal background check has been cleared, a person can have a gun in their home.
Once a universal background check has been cleared, a person can go hunting and/or shooting.

Please refrain from name-calling. It's unbecoming and detracts from the substantive dialogue we're having. I've never advocated one position or another about gun control, on the boards or otherwise, except to answer your question about universal background checks on all gun sales and transfers.
 
I have no problem with that as long as you don't misrepresent what I say. If you do I can call it lazy, brainwashed BS, because you are extrapolated things I never said.

If you refrain from misrepresenting what I said (which is an inherently dishonest thing to do), I will stop calling you out on it. At no point have I ever posted anything that is "tantamount to to repealing the 2nd Amendment".

Stop misrepresenting what I say or acting in a snarky, condescending way and I will treat you with respect. If you don't, you have no place to complain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top