This guy makes a lot of good more serious videos too. Watch out for Gary the glock.
I don’t know much of the details behind gun laws, but can someone explain to me how my state (South Carolina) can tell me that I’m not allowed to carry a gun?
What the hell is the point of being able to own a gun, if I’m not allowed to ever have it?
Call me naive, but it seemed to me that the 2nd amendment pretty clearly states that I should be allowed to both own and possess a gun, but apparently my state government believes otherwise.
[quote]Chris87 wrote:
I don’t know much of the details behind gun laws, but can someone explain to me how my state (South Carolina) can tell me that I’m not allowed to carry a gun?
What the hell is the point of being able to own a gun, if I’m not allowed to ever have it?
[/quote]
The point of owning is the same regardless if your allowed to have it or not.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Technically push my friend, while you know that I agree with you, what you posted above isn’t necessarily true regarding consistency. All of the rights you listed, even when abused, are not capable of killing another person. You cannot physically harm another person by publishing a blog or speakign critically of the government. You cannot harm another person by requesting trial by jury or warranted search. Etc., etc. Even if abused, the right to free speech only insults and degrades; it does not kill or maim. Neither does worshipping as you choose.
The basic difference between these other inalienable rights and the one under discussion is that none of the others can physically infringe on a person’s body, maim or kill them. This means that you can hold a different opinion, if able to support that opinion, and still be consistent.
[/quote]
All the news stories about kids who have killed themselves due to online bullying must be made up then, right? People seem to be trying to make the case that abuse of free speech CAN physically harm someone. What if someone is able to destroy all evidence of a prior serial killing spree during the time spent obtaining a search warrant for his or her home? That maniac may then go free and continue killing. Giving up freedom for safety is a slippery, slippery slope, so it’s best to stay on the flat ground up top.
A firearm also can not physically infringe on a person’s body, maim, or kill them. When I walk into my bedroom and look at my firearms, they are just laying there totally defenseless. I may be wrong, but I have never heard of a firearm coming to life. The “right” to bear arms can’t physically infringe on person’s body, maim, or kill them. A firearm CAN be employed to do the above. The “right” to vote can be employed to rob, imprison, and kill people; it’s far more dangerous than any firearm could ever be.[/quote]
You know very well what I was getting at. When I use my free speech I cannot physically destroy someone. I can psychologically abuse them yes. but I cannot utter a killing word and have them fall dead at my feet. Likewise the USE of a firearm is what I was talking about, and you know that very well or you have not paid attention to my postings for very long. I was making a very specific point, not a general argument because, as I said, I agree largely with push.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If they can be trusted with firearms strapped to their hips or sling over their shoulders, an adequately-trained citizen can too. [/quote]
I agree with this. But open carry requires no such training. Hell, adequate training and job application doesn’t even do that good of a job weeding out the idiot cops (see story) but we expect people without any training to perform better?
Then you’d have no problem requiring training before exercising your right to worship, speak critically of the government, publish a blog or column, request a jury trial, not self incriminate, demand no search and seizure without a warrant? Would you require training before all those rights could be exercised? If yes, then you are being consistent.[/quote]
Technically push my friend, while you know that I agree with you, what you posted above isn’t necessarily true regarding consistency. All of the rights you listed, even when abused, are not capable of killing another person. You cannot physically harm another person by publishing a blog or speakign critically of the government. You cannot harm another person by requesting trial by jury or warranted search. Etc., etc. Even if abused, the right to free speech only insults and degrades; it does not kill or maim. Neither does worshipping as you choose.
The basic difference between these other inalienable rights and the one under discussion is that none of the others can physically infringe on a person’s body, maim or kill them. This means that you can hold a different opinion, if able to support that opinion, and still be consistent.
[/quote]
I understand the distinction. However, my consistency claim stands.
The authors and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights didn’t say or mean, “Hey, we know this one’s a little different and because of that it’s OK if you don’t take the infringement clause all that seriously.”
In fact, if anything we know the mindset because we can look at the state constitutions and see it reinforced there, over and over again.
.[/quote]
I quite agree with you there
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If they can be trusted with firearms strapped to their hips or sling over their shoulders, an adequately-trained citizen can too. [/quote]
I agree with this. But open carry requires no such training. Hell, adequate training and job application doesn’t even do that good of a job weeding out the idiot cops (see story) but we expect people without any training to perform better?
Then you’d have no problem requiring training before exercising your right to worship, speak critically of the government, publish a blog or column, request a jury trial, not self incriminate, demand no search and seizure without a warrant? Would you require training before all those rights could be exercised? If yes, then you are being consistent.[/quote]
Technically push my friend, while you know that I agree with you, what you posted above isn’t necessarily true regarding consistency. All of the rights you listed, even when abused, are not capable of killing another person. You cannot physically harm another person by publishing a blog or speakign critically of the government. You cannot harm another person by requesting trial by jury or warranted search. Etc., etc. Even if abused, the right to free speech only insults and degrades; it does not kill or maim. Neither does worshipping as you choose.
The basic difference between these other inalienable rights and the one under discussion is that none of the others can physically infringe on a person’s body, maim or kill them. This means that you can hold a different opinion, if able to support that opinion, and still be consistent.
[/quote]
By the way, are you really claiming that the written or spoken word carries relatively little impact because it can’t physically injure or kill someone?
If I were arguing from the other side I could make an equally compelling case that training before public speech would be highly desirable.
We don’t infringe on speech until the speaker has crossed certain boundaries, e.g., libel, slander, treason. We need not infringe on keeping and bearing arms until keeper/bearer injures and kills.
But “Noooooooooo,” some will say. We can’t wait that long. And when that is accepted we sacrifice liberty for safety.
Choose your priority. Will it be safety or liberty?
If one analyzes it statistically we’ll see that prior to 1934, and even recently with more freedom in regards to CCW permitting and USSC decisions relaxing choking gun control laws, increased gun crime does not correlate with increased gun freedom. It’s pretty much always the other way around. Who knows though…maybe in Mississippi and Alabama everything will get turned on its head?[/quote]
my priority has always been liberty. And no, I am not claiming any such thing. I am claiming the type of damage is different. I would hope you realize by now that I would never claim something as foolish as to say words have little power or little potential to damage. But they damage in a different way.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
All the news stories about kids who have killed themselves due to online bullying must be made up then, right? People seem to be trying to make the case that abuse of free speech CAN physically harm someone. What if someone is able to destroy all evidence of a prior serial killing spree during the time spent obtaining a search warrant for his or her home? That maniac may then go free and continue killing. Giving up freedom for safety is a slippery, slippery slope, so it’s best to stay on the flat ground up top.
A firearm also can not physically infringe on a person’s body, maim, or kill them. When I walk into my bedroom and look at my firearms, they are just laying there totally defenseless. I may be wrong, but I have never heard of a firearm coming to life. The “right” to bear arms can’t physically infringe on person’s body, maim, or kill them. A firearm CAN be employed to do the above. The “right” to vote can be employed to rob, imprison, and kill people; it’s far more dangerous than any firearm could ever be.[/quote]
You know very well what I was getting at. When I use my free speech I cannot physically destroy someone. I can psychologically abuse them yes. but I cannot utter a killing word and have them fall dead at my feet. Likewise the USE of a firearm is what I was talking about, and you know that very well or you have not paid attention to my postings for very long. I was making a very specific point, not a general argument because, as I said, I agree largely with push.[/quote]
If you were talking about the USE of firearms, then I apologize. Obviously laws should exist to punish those who misuse firearms(injure, murder, etc.). When you use your right to keep(own) and bear(carry) arms, you can’t physically harm anyone. No right allows one to use a firearm any which way one wants. Once you pull the trigger you are either not obeying the law or exercising a different right.
I’m glad you largely agree, but don’t let yourself fall for the silly arguments offered by the other side.
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I am not an anti-gun guy. I own several pistols/shotguns/rifles and in no way do I want the government to disarm us. That said, Alabama’s new gun law went into effect yesterday. Basically, among other things, you can now open carry a holstered pistol anywhere you want to, except places covered by Federal law like schools, banks, etc., and other State and local government buildings.
You can also openly cary around a shotgun or a rifle. This applies to public AND private property. The new law also moves us from a “may” issue State to a “shall” issue state on concealed carry permits. The local Sheriff has almost no discretion in issuing pistol permits now. This disaster waiting to happen was pushed through by the same jackass Alabama House member who has fostered other asinine legislation like our immigration law which is now under Federal Court scrutiny.
Just wonder what everybody else thinks about it and what kind of law you have in your state. Al.com has several articles about it if you want to check it out.
[/quote]
Crime rate went down in Arizona once we got open carry.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I am not an anti-gun guy. I own several pistols/shotguns/rifles and in no way do I want the government to disarm us. That said, Alabama’s new gun law went into effect yesterday. Basically, among other things, you can now open carry a holstered pistol anywhere you want to, except places covered by Federal law like schools, banks, etc., and other State and local government buildings.
You can also openly cary around a shotgun or a rifle. This applies to public AND private property. The new law also moves us from a “may” issue State to a “shall” issue state on concealed carry permits. The local Sheriff has almost no discretion in issuing pistol permits now. This disaster waiting to happen was pushed through by the same jackass Alabama House member who has fostered other asinine legislation like our immigration law which is now under Federal Court scrutiny.
Just wonder what everybody else thinks about it and what kind of law you have in your state. Al.com has several articles about it if you want to check it out.
[/quote]
Mississippi is in the process of doing the same thing. I know that a lot of our law enforcement is dreading it. Actually we already had some language on the books that essentially made us an open carry state but they felt the need to re-word it and make it clearer they said. A court has put a halt to it right now and the state has ended up spending a fortune for a nothing really. I have seen many legislators say that they regret it. [/quote]
From my understanding it was an injunction by a small circuit court judge basically trying to feel important. The supreme court refused to hear it and sent it back down. Now, the injunction has passed.[/quote]
This very well may be. I haven’t actually kept up with in the past week or two.
I know that it is already afforded us by the 2nd, however through the publicizing of it with this legislation, some of the people that I know personally that are running out to buy holsters are not people that I would want having a gun in a stressful situation. I dunno but I just cant help but feel that people should have to exhibit some level of competency with their weapon and also have a decent understanding of basic defense protocol in order to strap it on their side and walk around the city streets with it.
Now, how you go about assuring that without restraining the 2nd and giving the more liberal among us tools to choke the life out of law abiding citizens ability to carry is beyond me, and realistically I don’t think it can be done.[/quote]
The more responsible gun carriers that are carrying the less stressful situations that happen.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Then again, maybe the citizens of Mississippi and Alabama can’t be trusted like those in say…Arizona and North Carolina.
What is “wrong” with Mississippians and Alabamians compared to Arizonans and North Carolinians? How have these states avoided gun violence “disasters?”[/quote]
…African-Americans…just going to be my guess. DixieCrats aren’t fans of armed opposition. Kind of hard to burn dem dare crosses in black folks yards when they be shootin’ at your backside while runnin’ round in white robes and lil’ eye holes to see through.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In AZ we are allowed to conceal carry, I like it that way . I don’t carry but if I felt compelled I would conceal and carry even if it were illegal [/quote]
My head just exploded…we both like something about our state.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
For the record, I’m not chewing anyone out. Trying to make you think.
[/quote]
If he was chewing you out he would talk about “MENSA cards” and something about a “Belly Flop.”[/quote]
I am looking at this from more of the unintended future consequences angle than anything really.[/quote]
Then point out the unintended problems that surely must exist in the other OC states.
Please.[/quote]
Because of open carry, when I walked into a gas station to buy a log of copenhagen and a tank of gas my gun was visible and a would-be-thief got to go home without handcuffs because he decided it was prudent not to rob the gas station with the guy with a .40 on his waist.
Interesting enough the gas station owner didn’t allow guns behind the counter…they get robbed three times a week.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Then again, maybe the citizens of Mississippi and Alabama can’t be trusted like those in say…Arizona and North Carolina.
What is “wrong” with Mississippians and Alabamians compared to Arizonans and North Carolinians? How have these states avoided gun violence “disasters?”[/quote]
…African-Americans…just going to be my guess. DixieCrats aren’t fans of armed opposition. Kind of hard to burn dem dare crosses in black folks yards when they be shootin’ at your backside while runnin’ round in white robes and lil’ eye holes to see through.[/quote]
And there in a nutshell is the reason for every weapon control measure ever put on the books. Can’t have those uppity […] (fill in the blank with your choice of second-class citizen: blacks, Jews, dissidents, Catholics, Armenians, rebels, Sioux, Carthaginians…) having weapons. Makes them ever so much harder to tyrranize.
And now I’m thinking of the scene in Django Unchained where Don Johnson and his gang of proto-klansmen are getting picked off at a distance by Jamie Foxx and Christoph Waltz with a buffalo gun.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In AZ we are allowed to conceal carry, I like it that way . I don’t carry but if I felt compelled I would conceal and carry even if it were illegal [/quote]
My head just exploded…we both like something about our state.[/quote]
Go figure 