Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: 'Open Carry' Gun Laws Turn the Country Back into the Wild West

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    "Yippie-Ki-Yay, M...........!"



    There are only three states, Florida, Texas, and Illinois, and the District of Columbia that outright prohibit the open carrying of handguns. Only three! Now, contrary to public perception, I have never been against people owning guns for protection, hunting, or sport. But there are days when I read the newspaper or am watching the news and it seems as if our country is back in the Wild West. Brazenly carrying firearms into restaurants and bars and schools and churches creates a situation that is intimidating to families, and poses risks to law enforcement and to the community. Click here to find out more!

    In the summer of 2009, a man stood just outside a venue in New Hampshire with President Obama inside talking about healthcare reform. He had a gun openly strapped to his thigh. Another time while the president was giving a speech at the convention center in Phoenix, a dozen people were openly carrying guns, including one who walked around with an AR-15 assault rifle strapped to his back. In this session of Congress, laws were passed to allow guns on Amtrak trains and in our national parks. Where does it end? When will people realize that we are moving backwards in reducing gun violence? And now it is happening throughout the states.

    For example, Virginia recently passed a bill that will allow people to carry concealed guns in bars and restaurants as long as they do not consume any alcohol. According to a October 2009 Christopher Newport University poll, 68 percent of likely voters in Virginia answered “no” when asked if they thought people with concealed weapons permits should be allowed to bring their guns into restaurants that sell alcohol— 68 percent! What happened to listening to what the voters want? I further agree with the State Association of Chiefs of Police, who sent a letter to Gov. Bob McDonnell asking that he veto the law because the combination of firearms and alcohol is similar to drinking while driving. Shouldn’t we at least listen to those whose job it is to keep us safe: our law enforcement officials?

    When it comes to open carrying of guns, which most states allow, California’s San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, in a Jan. 14, 2010 press release, described the challenge best, stating that, “It’s all well and good in hindsight to say [a] gun carrier was simply ‘exercising their rights’ but the result could be deadly. Simply put, it is not recommended to openly carry firearms.”

    A lot of businesses have banned guns in their stores, which under some open-carry state laws is allowed. But some have not, like Starbucks. Are people going to have a shoot-out at their local coffee shop if their grande latte order is incorrect? If somebody walked into a Starbucks and started pouring and drinking bourbon with their coffee, I am sure families, especially those with children, would be concerned. And I am sure the authorities would be called. I realize that is an extreme, but when open carry has occurred in retail stores, other customers generally become alarmed and the police are called to the scene. This, as noted by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, creates a volatile and potentially dangerous situation. Everyone should be able to sit in a coffee shop or a local diner with their families without being confronted with the threatening presence of openly displayed handguns.

    Once again, I am not against people owning and carrying their guns, nor am I attacking an individual’s Second Amendment rights. But there need to be limits. We need to come together and have a national conversation on guns. If we don’t, we will continue to see guns be a part of all aspects of society, with more dangerous weapons on the streets. We can respect the rights of gun owners while at the same time doing more to keep illegal guns off the streets and reducing gun violence in our nation, such as by closing the gun show loophole, enforcing the laws on the books, and preventing terrorists from being able to buy guns, instead of allowing guns in our cherished parks and on our trains.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Britain, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    "Yippie-Ki-Yay, M...........!"



    There are only three states, Florida, Texas, and Illinois, and the District of Columbia that outright prohibit the open carrying of handguns. Only three! Now, contrary to public perception, I have never been against people owning guns for protection, hunting, or sport. But there are days when I read the newspaper or am watching the news and it seems as if our country is back in the Wild West. Brazenly carrying firearms into restaurants and bars and schools and churches creates a situation that is intimidating to families, and poses risks to law enforcement and to the community. Click here to find out more!

    In the summer of 2009, a man stood just outside a venue in New Hampshire with President Obama inside talking about healthcare reform. He had a gun openly strapped to his thigh. Another time while the president was giving a speech at the convention center in Phoenix, a dozen people were openly carrying guns, including one who walked around with an AR-15 assault rifle strapped to his back. In this session of Congress, laws were passed to allow guns on Amtrak trains and in our national parks. Where does it end? When will people realize that we are moving backwards in reducing gun violence? And now it is happening throughout the states.

    For example, Virginia recently passed a bill that will allow people to carry concealed guns in bars and restaurants as long as they do not consume any alcohol. According to a October 2009 Christopher Newport University poll, 68 percent of likely voters in Virginia answered “no” when asked if they thought people with concealed weapons permits should be allowed to bring their guns into restaurants that sell alcohol— 68 percent! What happened to listening to what the voters want? I further agree with the State Association of Chiefs of Police, who sent a letter to Gov. Bob McDonnell asking that he veto the law because the combination of firearms and alcohol is similar to drinking while driving. Shouldn’t we at least listen to those whose job it is to keep us safe: our law enforcement officials?

    When it comes to open carrying of guns, which most states allow, California’s San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, in a Jan. 14, 2010 press release, described the challenge best, stating that, “It’s all well and good in hindsight to say [a] gun carrier was simply ‘exercising their rights’ but the result could be deadly. Simply put, it is not recommended to openly carry firearms.”

    A lot of businesses have banned guns in their stores, which under some open-carry state laws is allowed. But some have not, like Starbucks. Are people going to have a shoot-out at their local coffee shop if their grande latte order is incorrect? If somebody walked into a Starbucks and started pouring and drinking bourbon with their coffee, I am sure families, especially those with children, would be concerned. And I am sure the authorities would be called. I realize that is an extreme, but when open carry has occurred in retail stores, other customers generally become alarmed and the police are called to the scene. This, as noted by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, creates a volatile and potentially dangerous situation. Everyone should be able to sit in a coffee shop or a local diner with their families without being confronted with the threatening presence of openly displayed handguns.

    Once again, I am not against people owning and carrying their guns, nor am I attacking an individual’s Second Amendment rights. But there need to be limits. We need to come together and have a national conversation on guns. If we don’t, we will continue to see guns be a part of all aspects of society, with more dangerous weapons on the streets. We can respect the rights of gun owners while at the same time doing more to keep illegal guns off the streets and reducing gun violence in our nation, such as by closing the gun show loophole, enforcing the laws on the books, and preventing terrorists from being able to buy guns, instead of allowing guns in our cherished parks and on our trains.
    What a bunch of horses***!!



  3. #3
    Regular Member Johnny Stiletto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Rome, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    According to a October 2009 Christopher Newport University poll, 68 percent of likely voters in Virginia answered “no” when asked if they thought people with concealed weapons permits should be allowed to bring their guns into restaurants that sell alcohol— 68 percent! What happened to listening to what the voters want?
    Uh...'rule of law' ... 'constitution' ...? What needs explaining here?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Damn It Repeater!!!

    You should have posted a warning. I lost my appetite. Now what do I do with this burrito?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Johnny Stiletto wrote:
    Repeater wrote:
    According to a October 2009 Christopher Newport University poll, 68 percent of likely voters in Virginia answered “no” when asked if they thought people with concealed weapons permits should be allowed to bring their guns into restaurants that sell alcohol— 68 percent! What happened to listening to what the voters want?
    Uh...'rule of law' ... 'constitution' ...? What needs explaining here?
    Here is the reply to her stat that I posted:

    Ms. McCarthy,

    What do you think the percent of yes answers would be if the question were, "Do you think that law-abiding citizens who are already permitted to carry a gun for personal protection should be allowed to carry it in a restaurant as long as they don't consume alcohol, even if it is served?"

    A well-asked question will give you a far clearer understanding of what the American people want than the poorly asked question that you cited


  6. #6
    Regular Member PaxMentis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grants Pass, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    53

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    asking that he veto the law because the combination of firearms and alcohol is similar to drinking while driving.
    Based on this so-called "logic", shouldn't they be pursuing a law against people driving to and from the liquor store...or, at least, against transporting alcohol in a car?



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Co., ,
    Posts
    138

    Post imported post

    My comment to her article goes like this................

    I have openly carried a sidearm for close to 30 years now and have never had a single incident where a law enforcement officer has given me a hard time. Most people who do speak to me about it are more curious than anything, and actually have a positive outlook toward the practice after I have educated them to the legal nature of doing so. Also, those of us who practice open carry are very aware of the fact that by default, we are taking on the responsibility to defend those citizens within our general vicinity who choose not to defend themselves because of some irrational fear of an inanimate object. I have never heard of a single incident in which a person who is openly carrying a firearm randomly opening fire on innocent bystanders. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, IRRATIONAL AND UNSTABLE PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE! One other thing, I have heard the anti-gun folks say that openly carrying a firearm makes the one carrying a "first target" for the criminally minded, and thus creating a "dangerous" situation for all of the "innocent" people around them. To this I say, most people (including the criminally minded) have an innate sense of self- preservation and, will indeed think hard about intimidating or violently "acting out" if there is an armed citizen present.
    G.A. Cox of CO


  8. #8
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    I figured you guys had all the 'facts' and stuff covered, so I just tore apart her argument by pointing out some of the logical fallacies she used.

    -Kyle
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Kyle, I am having trouble finding your comment. Could you paste it here? Thanks.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222

    Post imported post

    Are people going to have a shoot-out at their local coffee shop if their grande latte order is incorrect?
    OK. Common sense time. For every Open Carrier, there are hundreds (thousands?) of people who have permits to conceal carry and who do so daily. Those guns are hidden from view but are there nontheless. Now, if there was a problem with gun owners starting shootouts in coffee shops over such stuff as incorrect orders don't you think you would have seen it by now from the Concealed Carry crowd? The fact is, these same resturants have had customers with guns in them for years. The only difference is that recently more of those same gun owners have become aware of their rights to carry openly instead of concealed and are choosing that mode of carry. They weren't starting shotouts before and they aren't now. Then there are those who still conceal carry. They are still carrying guns into those same stores and neither are they going on shootouts. All is calm and well in the world. The woman is looking for problems where there aren't any.
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  11. #11
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Kyle, I am having trouble finding your comment. Could you paste it here? Thanks.
    Sure thing. Be nice, now. I'm still new at this. :P

    "There are only three states, Florida, Texas, and Illinois, and the District of Columbia that outright prohibit the open carrying of handguns." First of all, this is false. As has been pointed out already, seven states (including your own New York) prohibit open carry. Secondly, this is commonly known as an Appeal to Law. The argument that something is bad simply because it is illegal, or good simply because it is legal, is a fallacy. Actions are legal/illegal based on their own merits, not the other way around. I will admit that we are sometimes guilty of this as well. The carry of firearms is a good thing because of several reasons I will not go into here, not simply because 'we have a right'.

    "Another time while the president was giving a speech at the convention center in Phoenix, a dozen people were openly carrying guns, including one who walked around with an AR-15 assault rifle strapped to his back." Although you do not go so far as to lie and say that crimes were committed by any of these men, your argument certainly would fall apart without the strong implication that they "could have". This what is known as an Appeal to Probability. Just because it is 'possible' that an open carrier could commit a violent crime, does not prove that it has ever happened, nor does it mean that it is likely to.

    "Are people going to have a shoot-out at their local coffee shop if their grande latte order is incorrect?" This is a Package Deal fallacy. Just because popular culture equates open carry with the 'Wild West' and the 'Wild West' with shootouts, does not make it likely that there will be movie style shootouts in every Starbucks. In fact, the very idea that the 'Wild West' had higher crime, violent shootouts between law abiding citizens, and a general air of fear and worry amongst the populace are Base Rate fallacies. There is no empirical proof that these assertions are true, and thus any statement about probability based on them cannot be proven.

    I could go on, but the fact is that the whole gun-control movement is based on the theory that if there were no guns, there would be no gun violence. This is an obvious Nirvana fallacy. Just because having an armed citizenry doesn't get rid of guns, doesn't mean disarming the law abiding citizens of this country would put an end to gun violence.
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    Moon Bat. Barrel shroud hater. Sheeple. And.....UGLY to boot.:shock:

    Four strikes.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Thanks Kyle.

    There is nothing like a point-by-point rational dismantling of an emotional argument.

    Well done!

  14. #14
    Newbie crisisweasel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pima County, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    266

    Post imported post

    I would like to play shuffleboard and perhaps have a cup of tea with Ms. McCarthy.

    We would speak of art, and perhaps the art of cooking, and it would be a fine, fine time.

    I would explain to her that the reason everyone's lugging guns around everywhere is in large part due to people like her.

    Would there be endless gun rights rallies if the question wasn't (as it shouldn't be) on the table?

    I bet she's a killer shuffleboard player, however. Even if she doesn't understand this.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    There are only three states, Florida, Texas, and Illinois, and the District of Columbia that outright prohibit the open carrying of handguns. Only three! Now, contrary to public perception, I have never been against people owning guns for protection, hunting, or sport. But there are days when I read the newspaper or am watching the news and it seems as if our country is back in the Wild West. Brazenly carrying firearms into restaurants and bars and schools and churches creates a situation that is intimidating to families, and poses risks to law enforcement and to the community. Click here to find out more!

    In the summer of 2009, a man stood just outside a venue in New Hampshire with President Obama inside talking about healthcare reform. He had a gun openly strapped to his thigh. Another time while the president was giving a speech at the convention center in Phoenix, a dozen people were openly carrying guns, including one who walked around with an AR-15 assault rifle strapped to his back. In this session of Congress, laws were passed to allow guns on Amtrak trains and in our national parks. Where does it end? When will people realize that we are moving backwards in reducing gun violence? And now it is happening throughout the states.

    For example, Virginia recently passed a bill that will allow people to carry concealed guns in bars and restaurants as long as they do not consume any alcohol. According to a October 2009 Christopher Newport University poll, 68 percent of likely voters in Virginia answered “no” when asked if they thought people with concealed weapons permits should be allowed to bring their guns into restaurants that sell alcohol— 68 percent! What happened to listening to what the voters want? I further agree with the State Association of Chiefs of Police, who sent a letter to Gov. Bob McDonnell asking that he veto the law because the combination of firearms and alcohol is similar to drinking while driving. Shouldn’t we at least listen to those whose job it is to keep us safe: our law enforcement officials?

    When it comes to open carrying of guns, which most states allow, California’s San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, in a Jan. 14, 2010 press release, described the challenge best, stating that, “It’s all well and good in hindsight to say [a] gun carrier was simply ‘exercising their rights’ but the result could be deadly. Simply put, it is not recommended to openly carry firearms.”

    A lot of businesses have banned guns in their stores, which under some open-carry state laws is allowed. But some have not, like Starbucks. Are people going to have a shoot-out at their local coffee shop if their grande latte order is incorrect? If somebody walked into a Starbucks and started pouring and drinking bourbon with their coffee, I am sure families, especially those with children, would be concerned. And I am sure the authorities would be called. I realize that is an extreme, but when open carry has occurred in retail stores, other customers generally become alarmed and the police are called to the scene. This, as noted by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, creates a volatile and potentially dangerous situation. Everyone should be able to sit in a coffee shop or a local diner with their families without being confronted with the threatening presence of openly displayed handguns.

    Once again, I am not against people owning and carrying their guns, nor am I attacking an individual’s Second Amendment rights. But there need to be limits. We need to come together and have a national conversation on guns. If we don’t, we will continue to see guns be a part of all aspects of society, with more dangerous weapons on the streets. We can respect the rights of gun owners while at the same time doing more to keep illegal guns off the streets and reducing gun violence in our nation, such as by closing the gun show loophole, enforcing the laws on the books, and preventing terrorists from being able to buy guns, instead of allowing guns in our cherished parks and on our trains.
    No thanks. The way this lady describes it as "brazen" clearly tells where her alliances lay. She greatly prefers it when criminals, emboldened by the lack of an armed populace, brazenly rob store-owners, banks, and the public at large because they know there's no honest, law-abiding citizens around who might stop them.

    As for her ridiculously laughable claims, please allow me to counter:

    Fact 1: I have been carrying either concealed or openly since 1991.

    Fact 2: I have either owned or have had ready access to firearms sinceI was nine years old.

    Fact 3: I have had considerable experience encompassing both training as well as hands-on use of firearms ranging from BB guns to nuclear weapons.

    Fact 4: I am an honest, law-abiding citizen who has never been denied a concealed weapons permit or a background check intended for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.

    Now back to this lady's claims:

    Claim 1: "When will people realize that we are moving backwards in reducing gun violence? And now it is happening throughout the states."

    Intelligent people will never realize that we are moving backwards in reducing gun violence, for the simple reason that statistics clearly demonstrate that the last two decades of relaxing gun ownership and carry laws have indeed reduced, not increased, violence. DC was one of the most restrictive areas, but with one of the highest rates of violent crime. Yet with the handgun ban law was cut down by the Surpreme Court, rates of violent crime dropped commensurately.

    Claim 2: "According to a October 2009 Christopher Newport University poll..."

    Polls conducted by Universities are inherently biases by the anti-gun mentality inherent throughout academia. Sadly, they live in academia, not the real world.

    Claim 3: "When it comes to open carrying of guns, which most states allow, California’s San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, in a Jan. 14, 2010 press release, described the challenge best, stating that, “It’s all well and good in hindsight to say [a] gun carrier was simply ‘exercising their rights’ but the result could be deadly. Simply put, it is not recommended to openly carry firearms."

    Is this the same San Mateo, CA Sheriff who's made it his personal vendetta against all gun owners by directing his deputies to conduct themselves in an illegal manner contrary to the laws of both the State of California and our Country?

    I'm curious as to why anyone would cite an LEO as a reference when that LEO is knows to be a law-defying individual? Who's next on your list of "qualified experts?" Billy The Kid?

    Claim 4: "A lot of businesses have banned guns in their stores, which under some open-carry state laws is allowed. But some have not."

    The lady is apparently very ignorant here. A more accurate statement would have been, "The vast majority of businesses have not banned guns in their stores, which under most open-carry state laws is allowed. But some have." (corrections in red)

    Claim 5: "I realize that is an extreme, but when open carry has occurred in retail stores, other customers generally become alarmed..."

    The only "extreme" thing about this is how extreme this lady's distortion of the truth is with respect to the general public's reaction to open carry. It's been my experience of open carry that half the people never notice, and of those who do, the vast majority simple don't care. Having open carried in many restaurants, grocery stores, and indeed stores of all kinds, my experience is that kids, mothers, fathers...

    ...go about their business as if I'm simply a law-abiding citizen engaging in a lawful activity. Which is precisely what's actually happening.

    In fact, this lady's claims make me wonder if she's not being fed her information from a certain sheriff in San Mateo county...

    Claim 6: "...and the police are called to the scene. This, as noted by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office..."

    Ah. So...

    Claim 7: "...creates a volatile and potentially dangerous situation."

    What our friendly sheriff apparently failed to inform the writer is that a volatile and potentially dangerous situation is created when the San Mateo sheriff and his deputies treat honest, law-abiding citizens as criminals.

    What our writer is apparently falling hook, line, and sinker for is a load of bull from one of the very few LEO agencies in this country who're vehemently opposed to both their State and our Federal Constitution.

    Claim 8: "Everyone should be able to sit in a coffee shop or a local diner with their families without being confronted with the threatening presence of openly displayed handguns."

    A properly holstered firearm is not an "openly displayed handgun." The latter is properly termed "brandishing," while the former is properly termed "lawful carry of a firearm."

    Claim 9: "Once again, I am not against people owning and carrying their guns, nor am I attacking an individual’s Second Amendment rights."

    BS

    Claim 10: "But there need to be limits."

    There are limits. Have you considered reviewing the law? Do you even know where to find out what the law in all 50 states says about what those limits might be? Were you ever aware, at any time while writing your article, that serious and highly effective limits already exist throughout all 50 states?

    Didn't think so.

    Claim 11: "We need to come together and have a national conversation on guns."

    We have been doing just that through the appropriate legislative, executive, and judicial venues for approximately 234 years. Weren't you paying attention? How could you have missed it? Where you do think all the guns laws came from, anyway? Why do you think many of them have been modified in recent years to more appropriately comply with both our national and state Constitutions?

    Claim 12: "If we don’t, we will continue to see guns be a part of all aspects of society, with more dangerous weapons on the streets."

    First, since they were first invented, guns have always been a part of all aspects of society. As for dangerous weapons on the streets, the criminal's possession thereof IS PRECISELY WHY THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    Please, lady - get a clue.

    Claim 13: "We can respect the rights of gun owners while at the same time doing more to keep illegal guns off the streets and reducing gun violence in our nation, such as by closing the gun show loophole, enforcing the laws on the books, and preventing terrorists from being able to buy guns..."

    I'm with you so far...

    Claim 14: "...instead of allowing guns in our cherished parks and on our trains."

    Well, you lost me there, as neither criminals nor terrorists care one twit about whether or not some law exists that "forbids" them from carrying a gun in a park or on a train.

    Neither criminals and terrorists obey the law. Pulling the teeth of law-abiding citizens as you suggest will only encourage criminals and terrorists to use our cherished parks and our trains as targets of opportunity - as well as everywhere else you ban law-abiding citizens from carrying.

    I'm sorry - did I say "get a clue?" I meant "grow a brain."

    - since9


    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Post imported post

    By the way, Repeater, that's a stellar piece of work you found - thanks for posting it here so we could clearly highlight it's gross and utterly unfounded illogic.

    As Bob Mugele once said: "Writing is nature's way of letting you know how sloppy your thinking is," and this lady's writing is clearly letting others know how sloppy her thinking is.

    I'm inclined to think she should find another profession more suited to whatever talents she does possess, rather than to talents such as clear and logical thinking, which she clearly does not possess.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    since9 wrote:
    I'm inclined to think she should find another profession more suited to whatever talents she does possess, rather than to talents such as clear and logical thinking, which she clearly does not possess.
    But she's already a politician. :P
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Madison County, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Below numbers are 2004, because it's the most recent year I could find accurate numbers for both:

    29,569 = Number of people in US killed by firearm (includes: homicide, suicide and negligence/accident)

    38,444 = Number of people killed in traffic accidents.:shock:

    Clearly the problem in this country is not our guns, it's our driving.

    So, using the gun-control logic, I say before we take guns away, we take all the cars away first:celebrate

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Co., ,
    Posts
    138

    Post imported post

    Doctors vs Gunowners


    Doctors
    (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
    (B)Accidental deathscaused by Physicians per year are]120,000.
    (C) Accidental deaths per physician]is0.171.

    Statisticscourtesy of U.S. Dept of
    Health andHuman Services.
    Now think about this:

    Gun Owners
    (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is80,000,000.
    (Yes, that's 80 million)
    (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is1,500
    (C) The number ofaccidental deaths per gun owner is .000188
    Statistics courtesy ofFBI

    So,statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
    Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctorsdo..



    FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT

    ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR

    :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    184

    Post imported post

    Turn the country back to the wild west? If only we could be so lucky.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    The Myth of the "Wild West" is becoming a popular topic among scholars these days...

    http://www.guncite.com/wild_west_myth.html

    http://www.sdstate.edu/news/articles...n-violence.cfm
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggressionand this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  22. #22
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    Actually, it's a shame to waste so much time and effort on rational arguments against this ignorant and phobic ranter.

    My response to Ms. McCarthy,

    So, since you think the mere presence of a gun will turn people into mad killers, I suppose you are at least potentially a prostitute... You've got the basic equipment. Why one and not the other?

    Or... even better maybe:

    If a poll showed that 51% of the voters didn't think you should be allowed to breathe... would you voluntarily stop breathing? I mean... the will of the majority and all that?
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    184

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    The Myth of the "Wild West" is becoming a popular topic among scholars these days...

    http://www.guncite.com/wild_west_myth.html

    http://www.sdstate.edu/news/articles...n-violence.cfm
    Well, that's clearly because of the thousands of old west documentaries everyone has watched throughout the years. :quirky Hell, even back in the old west, the wildest thing around, more often than not, was in fact Buffalo Bill's Wild West traveling show.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    A return to the spirit of the "old Wild West" would be a massive improvement, over todays society.

    Imagine.... a society that totally takes personal responsibility seriously, is self reliant, completely independant, and resourceful. A society that expects it's government to provide for the defense of the nation against enemies, foriegn and domestic....and nothing more.

    Now tell me, how could that be a bad thing?



  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    I have no problem with returning to the Wild West; it was the most civilized and peaceful time/place in all of recorded human history.

    Which is, of course, why it is colored as the opposite.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •