A Tragicomedy

[Glimmerjim]

Shit. Once the tards in Sacramento hear about this it won't be long until we end up in the same boat.

I haven't bought a handgun in a long while, cd, but I don't think we're that far from it now.

[clampdaddy]

Shit. Once the tards in Sacramento hear about this it won't be long until we end up in the same boat.

I haven't bought a handgun in a long while, cd, but I don't think we're that far from it now.

Sooooo......we can count on you to not vote democrat on the gubernatorial election?

[AKPirate]

I saw this but have no idea if it is true?

The United States is 3rd in murders throughout the world. But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., and New Orleans, The United States is 4th from the bottom for murders. Believe it or not . these 4 cities have the toughest gun control laws in the United States.

[assateague]

I have said a million times, and will keep saying:


I'm all for whatever gun control you want . AS LONG AS IT APPLIES THE SAME TO VOTING. Just imagine if they passed a law here requiring people to pay a minimum $100, get fingerprinted, and get investigated to get a voter ID card. Just imagine the outrage. And I'd tell them all to shut the fuck up. A right is a right

I just quoted myself, GJ, instead of typing it again. It's the double standard that gets me, not the actual regs.

[Glimmerjim]

I have said a million times, and will keep saying:


I'm all for whatever gun control you want . AS LONG AS IT APPLIES THE SAME TO VOTING. Just imagine if they passed a law here requiring people to pay a minimum $100, get fingerprinted, and get investigated to get a voter ID card. Just imagine the outrage. And I'd tell them all to shut the fuck up. A right is a right

I just quoted myself, GJ, instead of typing it again. It's the double standard that gets me, not the actual regs.

[Glimmerjim]

I saw this but have no idea if it is true?

The United States is 3rd in murders throughout the world. But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., and New Orleans, The United States is 4th from the bottom for murders. Believe it or not . these 4 cities have the toughest gun control laws in the United States.

That very well may be true, AK, but I think you have to look at which came first...the chicken or the egg.
Do these cities have strict gun control that led to a higher crime rate? Or do these cities have a higher crime rate that led to stricter gun control?

[Glimmerjim]

Shit. Once the tards in Sacramento hear about this it won't be long until we end up in the same boat.

I haven't bought a handgun in a long while, cd, but I don't think we're that far from it now.

Sooooo......we can count on you to not vote democrat on the gubernatorial election?

You know as well as I, cd, that a vote for a Rep governor in CA is a waste of time. Especially if Brown runs again. He may, just may, have his sights set higher, however. As does Elizabeth Warren. Unfortunately politics is seldom one issue. I would always vote Rep if gun rights were the only issue.

[DeadEye_Dan]

I saw this but have no idea if it is true?

The United States is 3rd in murders throughout the world. But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., and New Orleans, The United States is 4th from the bottom for murders. Believe it or not . these 4 cities have the toughest gun control laws in the United States.

That very well may be true, AK, but I think you have to look at which came first...the chicken or the egg.
Do these cities have strict gun control that led to a higher crime rate? Or do these cities have a higher crime rate that led to stricter gun control?

Please.
Chicago has had ridiculous gun control laws for YEARS - and how many people were shot/killed over July 4th weekend 15/16 with another 60+ wounded??? Sounds like their laws work well.


And then you have the Detroit Police Chief (a CA transplant) saying this...

http://youtu.be/bAYte69z-6k

[3legged_lab]

I saw this but have no idea if it is true?

The United States is 3rd in murders throughout the world. But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., and New Orleans, The United States is 4th from the bottom for murders. Believe it or not . these 4 cities have the toughest gun control laws in the United States.

That very well may be true, AK, but I think you have to look at which came first...the chicken or the egg.
Do these cities have strict gun control that led to a higher crime rate? Or do these cities have a higher crime rate that led to stricter gun control?

Doesnt matter which came first, its not working.

[clampdaddy]

Shit. Once the tards in Sacramento hear about this it won't be long until we end up in the same boat.

I haven't bought a handgun in a long while, cd, but I don't think we're that far from it now.

Sooooo......we can count on you to not vote democrat on the gubernatorial election?

You know as well as I, cd, that a vote for a Rep governor in CA is a waste of time. Especially if Brown runs again. He may, just may, have his sights set higher, however. As does Elizabeth Warren. Unfortunately politics is seldom one issue. I would always vote Rep if gun rights were the only issue.

I don't think that its a waste of time, Jim. We have pretty even pattern of dem and rep governors. When the state votes as a whole its a pretty even split. Things like congressional district boundaries can (and I believe are) set up to get a specific outcome. All that stuff aside, while it may be a somewhat shallow political outlook, gun rights come first and foremost for me because if we loose the right to defend ourselves there is no way to keep from loosing the rest of them.

[vincentpa]

If AT goes to AZ to buy a handgun, I'm ratting him out to the poe lice. He scares the shit out of me.

Like I told AT the last time, I was pissed the last time I bought a gun and they had to do a background check, it took almost 15 minutes instead of 5. WTF! That was a complete waste of 10 minutes of my time!

[Glimmerjim]

I don't think that its a waste of time, Jim. We have pretty even pattern of dem and rep governors. When the state votes as a whole its a pretty even split. Things like congressional district boundaries can (and I believe are) set up to get a specific outcome. All that stuff aside, while it may be a somewhat shallow political outlook, gun rights come first and foremost for me because if we loose the right to defend ourselves there is no way to keep from loosing the rest of them.

I understand exactly what you're saying, Matt, but I don't think we'll ever get to a point that we have to be armed to protect ourselves from our govt. I fully realize that history proves this naivete wrong, but it's just not in my belief system. Nor do I believe that Democrats want to take our guns, especially in a plot to gain control. They are simply trying to reduce gun violence. Whether they are misguided in these attempts is debatable.
I agree 100% that gerrymandering screws up things completely.

[Glimmerjim]

I saw this but have no idea if it is true?

The United States is 3rd in murders throughout the world. But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., and New Orleans, The United States is 4th from the bottom for murders. Believe it or not . these 4 cities have the toughest gun control laws in the United States.

That very well may be true, AK, but I think you have to look at which came first...the chicken or the egg.
Do these cities have strict gun control that led to a higher crime rate? Or do these cities have a higher crime rate that led to stricter gun control?

Doesnt matter which came first, its not working.

I agree completely, 3legged. I was just addressing the implied contention that stricter gun control leads to higher violent crime rates, as opposed to the opposite.

[assateague]

Yes, but in areas which have RELAXED gun control/CCW permitting, crime has decreased. This has been demonstrated over and over again.

So while the gun control- chicken or the egg debate may be up in the air, empirical data shows that maintaining those laws is actually counterproductive. Fortunately for the gun grabbers, they don't let facts get in the way of their agenda

[Glimmerjim]

Yes, but in areas which have RELAXED gun control/CCW permitting, crime has decreased. This has been demonstrated over and over again.

So while the gun control- chicken or the egg debate may be up in the air, empirical data shows that maintaining those laws is actually counterproductive. Fortunately for the gun grabbers, they don't let facts get in the way of their agenda

I agree that's interesting, at, but were they in high crime areas to start with? What I'm thinking but having a hard time saying is if you are in a small town in Kansas, and gun laws are loosened up, all of a sudden the small time crooks that had the power with guns are put on notice that Ms Kelley or farmer Roy may be packing a 38. You get into an area like Detroit, those guys know all their foes are packing, they just rely on who's most callous.
I'm honestly not disagreeing with you at, I just wonder. If we take it simply and instantly nationwide.....everyone that wants to, with the exception of violent felons and those with mental issues, can carry a gun. I honestly don't know if we'll be facing the wild west or an improvement in civility. I wish I did know, or even have a staunch opinion.

[assateague]

I know you're not disagreeing with me. Matter of fact, you seem to be making my point for me

[Glimmerjim]

I know you're not disagreeing with me. Matter of fact, you seem to be making my point for me

Yet I still wonder, Jim. Would we become the wild west with the fastest draw and the least inhibitions running the town?
I agree that gun control laws really only affect the law abiding.......but where does the "biggest firearm/most power" contest end?
I see your point, I think, that the criminals already have this perspective, and that gun control laws just stifle the responsible....but do we need an anarchy, a civil war essentially, to solve societal problems? Would it be effective? Would the criminals that care not a whit for laws or life change their perspective due to responsible citizens being armed? Or, alternatively, would armed responsible citizens gain the upper hand by being capable of returning fire?

[3legged_lab]

If you were a bully, would you be less likely to bully people that you know are going to put up a fight? I know thats a weak analogy but you get what i mean.

[Duckdog]

I know you're not disagreeing with me. Matter of fact, you seem to be making my point for me

Yet I still wonder, Jim. Would we become the wild west with the fastest draw and the least inhibitions running the town?
I agree that gun control laws really only affect the law abiding.......but where does the "biggest firearm/most power" contest end?
I see your point, I think, that the criminals already have this perspective, and that gun control laws just stifle the responsible....but do we need an anarchy, a civil war essentially, to solve societal problems? Would it be effective? Would the criminals that care not a whit for laws or life change their perspective due to responsible citizens being armed? Or, alternatively, would armed responsible citizens gain the upper hand by being capable of returning fire?

Uhhhhhhhh,...YEA! Haven't you seen Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome?
2 men enter,...one man leaves.
Watch a movie for crying out loud...

[Glimmerjim]

I know you're not disagreeing with me. Matter of fact, you seem to be making my point for me

Yet I still wonder, Jim. Would we become the wild west with the fastest draw and the least inhibitions running the town?
I agree that gun control laws really only affect the law abiding.......but where does the "biggest firearm/most power" contest end?
I see your point, I think, that the criminals already have this perspective, and that gun control laws just stifle the responsible....but do we need an anarchy, a civil war essentially, to solve societal problems? Would it be effective? Would the criminals that care not a whit for laws or life change their perspective due to responsible citizens being armed? Or, alternatively, would armed responsible citizens gain the upper hand by being capable of returning fire?

Uhhhhhhhh,...YEA! Haven't you seen Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome?
2 men enter,...one man leaves.
Watch a movie for crying out loud...

Solved my dilemma!

[Glimmerjim]

If you were a bully, would you be less likely to bully people that you know are going to put up a fight? I know thats a weak analogy but you get what i mean.

That's not a weak analogy at all, 3legged. I think that's the gist of the issue. My point that differs a bit from that is that the highest crime areas seem to me to be criminals vs criminals vying for control of an area. The innocent are ususally collateral damage.

[3legged_lab]

the highest crime areas seem to me to be criminals vs criminals vying for control of an area. The innocent are ususally collateral damage.

I imagine there's a whole lotta truth to this, i just want the opportunity to (legally) try not to be collateral damage.

[Glimmerjim]

the highest crime areas seem to me to be criminals vs criminals vying for control of an area. The innocent are usually collateral damage.

I imagine there's a whole lotta truth to this, i just want the opportunity to (legally) try not to be collateral damage.

Yep. There's a lot to be said for that POV, 3legged!

[DeadEye_Dan]

The proper solution to violent crime is a dead criminal.

I don't care how bad a man you think you are, no one wants to get killed snagging grandmas purse.

[Glimmerjim]

The proper solution to violent crime is a dead criminal.

I don't care how bad a man you think you are, no one wants to get killed snagging grandmas purse.

That's a valid point, Dan, but what concerns me is the ability of those firing shots at the purse snatcher. How about they hit your kid accidentally?

[3legged_lab]

The proper solution to violent crime is a dead criminal.

I don't care how bad a man you think you are, no one wants to get killed snagging grandmas purse.

If it takes reducing criminals to reduce crime, I'm ok with that.

[DeadEye_Dan]

The proper solution to violent crime is a dead criminal.

I don't care how bad a man you think you are, no one wants to get killed snagging grandmas purse.

That's a valid point, Dan, but what concerns me is the ability of those firing shots at the purse snatcher. How about they hit your kid accidentally?

I'd not trade the ability and right to defend myself because something bad may happen as a result.
By doing nothing you are guaranteeing that you end up on the shitty end of the deal every time.

[Glimmerjim]

The proper solution to violent crime is a dead criminal.

I don't care how bad a man you think you are, no one wants to get killed snagging grandmas purse.

That's a valid point, Dan, but what concerns me is the ability of those firing shots at the purse snatcher. How about they hit your kid accidentally?

I'd not trade the ability and right to defend myself because something bad may happen as a result.
By doing nothing you are guaranteeing that you end up on the shitty end of the deal every time.

I honestly have to think about that one, Dan. When you say "the ability and the right", the connotation is slightly different from saying there would be an expectation of action. That means a lot I think.

[assateague]

Here's the way I see it:


I have to ask permission to protect myself. In many places, the answer is "no, you may not protect yourself". It really does boil down to something that simple. And that's fucked up.


Why may I not protect myself? Because "maybe something bad will happen". Well, again, that's bullshit. Many, many people are being told "no, you may NOT protect yourself", based purely on some hypothetical, possible "damage". But yet this "hypothetical" is generally based on the actions of those idiots who commit crimes, and we all must pay the price, in being made more of a victim than we should be. Because of the actions of others, I may not protect myself or my family. I know you're not much into the Bible, but this really sums it up nicely:

Proverbs 18:5

"It is not good to show partiality to the guilty by perverting the justice due the innocent. "

[AKPirate]

Here's the way I see it:


I have to ask permission to protect myself. In many places, the answer is "no, you may not protect yourself". It really does boil down to something that simple. And that's fucked up.


Why may I not protect myself? Because "maybe something bad will happen". Well, again, that's bullshit. Many, many people are being told "no, you may NOT protect yourself", based purely on some hypothetical, possible "damage". But yet this "hypothetical" is generally based on the actions of those idiots who commit crimes, and we all must pay the price, in being made more of a victim than we should be. Because of the actions of others, I may not protect myself or my family. I know you're not much into the Bible, but this really sums it up nicely:

Proverbs 18:5

"It is not good to show partiality to the guilty by perverting the justice due the innocent. "

Amen