Open Carry Law

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
The only way I would be for this is if the requirements for execution were lowered to those that were in effect when the founding fathers first constructed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Trespassing is not a felony by the way. However I promote giving felons their guns back upon release from prison, if we can execute rapists, murderers, and child molesters. [/quote]

I know trespassing is not currently a felony. However, our all knowing government could make it that way if it so desires…that was the point of that scenario.

I don’t trust the government to decide who lives and dies. True rapists, murderers, and child molesters will get what they deserve from the community. Those are all extremely rare crimes(crime=incident involving an actual innocent victim). I don’t think a drug dealer who kills another drug dealer over a civil issue deserves the death penalty. I also don’t think someone who has sex with a drunk girl who sobers up and decides she was raped deserves the death penalty. Somebody who messes with a child is an extremely sick individual, but I’m not in favor of government killing them…especially when abortion is legal.

I’d feel much better about just locking up for life people who are deemed too dangerous to release. That way if any evidence of their innocence ever surfaces, they can be released.

The above is in reference to a government death penalty. If you walk in on a family member or friend being raped, then you should be allowed to kill the offender without facing some silly manslaughter or murder charge.

122

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
The only way I would be for this is if the requirements for execution were lowered to those that were in effect when the founding fathers first constructed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Trespassing is not a felony by the way. However I promote giving felons their guns back upon release from prison, if we can execute rapists, murderers, and child molesters. [/quote]

I know trespassing is not currently a felony. However, our all knowing government could make it that way if it so desires…that was the point of that scenario.

I don’t trust the government to decide who lives and dies. True rapists, murderers, and child molesters will get what they deserve from the community. Those are all extremely rare crimes(crime=incident involving an actual innocent victim). I don’t think a drug dealer who kills another drug dealer over a civil issue deserves the death penalty. I also don’t think someone who has sex with a drunk girl who sobers up and decides she was raped deserves the death penalty. Somebody who messes with a child is an extremely sick individual, but I’m not in favor of government killing them…especially when abortion is legal.

I’d feel much better about just locking up for life people who are deemed to dangerous to release. That way if any evidence of their innocence ever surfaces, they can be released.

The above is in reference to a government death penalty. If you walk in on a family member or friend being raped, then you should be allowed to kill the offender without facing some silly manslaughter or murder charge.[/quote]

The rape in your scenario is not rape and never should even see the inside of a courtroom. I am referring to rape with real evidence and real trauma. The Drug dealer took someone’s life over a business deal and should be put to death without question. Someone that messes with a child should be put to death. Abortion should be illegal in all instances except for extreme danger to mothers life, and anyone found performing abortions outside that context should be executed as well.

There, I just solved all your problems.

123

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
The rape in your scenario is not rape and never should even see the inside of a courtroom. I am referring to rape with real evidence and real trauma. The Drug dealer took someone’s life over a business deal and should be put to death without question. Someone that messes with a child should be put to death. Abortion should be illegal in all instances except for extreme danger to mothers life, and anyone found performing abortions outside that context should be executed as well.

There, I just solved all your problems.[/quote]

No, you didn’t. You didn’t address people who receive the death penalty but are later found to be innocent. Exonerated After Execution: 13 Innocent People

I just think it would be much safer to keep people locked up for life instead of killing them.

Also, I don’t believe in civil matters when it comes to a transfer of property, so I probably used the wrong word there. A person who receives drugs in exchange for a promise of later payment, who does not make the payment, has actually stolen the property of the dealer. I believe some have advocated the death penalty for thieves in this very thread, so why should the dealer be punished for carrying it out himself?

Do you think nobody has ever been convicted of rape in a case like the one I listed?

What’s a child? Should a man who has sex with a 13 year old girl be considered a child molester? Keep in mind that they could legally have married early in this country’s existence.

I agree with you on abortion, except for it being legal when there is a danger to the mother’s life. However, I don’t agree with you on giving the death penalty to those who perform one. Who do you believe should decide when “extreme danger” to the mother’s life exists? Would you support a jury trial for deciding whether the child lives or dies? I assume you would. I’m against the death penalty in all cases, but as long as you believe in a jury trial to decide on whether a danger to the mother necessitates killing the child, then I respect your consistency. *Edit: I have left the above up, but would like to say that I was wrong. If an imminent threat to life exists, then lethal force is justified. On the flip side, I guess it could be argued that the mother put herself in the situation, so she has no right to kill the child.(you can’t put yourself at a tactical disadvantage in order to create a situation in which you can kill someone)

Should only the government have the authority to decide life and death?

124

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
The rape in your scenario is not rape and never should even see the inside of a courtroom. I am referring to rape with real evidence and real trauma. The Drug dealer took someone’s life over a business deal and should be put to death without question. Someone that messes with a child should be put to death. Abortion should be illegal in all instances except for extreme danger to mothers life, and anyone found performing abortions outside that context should be executed as well.

There, I just solved all your problems.[/quote]

No, you didn’t. You didn’t address people who receive the death penalty but are later found to be innocent. Exonerated After Execution: 13 Innocent People

I just think it would be much safer to keep people locked up for life instead of killing them.

Also, I don’t believe in civil matters when it comes to a transfer of property, so I probably used the wrong word there. A person who receives drugs in exchange for a promise of later payment, who does not make the payment, has actually stolen the property of the dealer. I believe some have advocated the death penalty for thieves in this very thread, so why should the dealer be punished for carrying it out himself?

Do you think nobody has ever been convicted of rape in a case like the one I listed?

What’s a child? Should a man who has sex with a 13 year old girl be considered a child molester? Keep in mind that they could legally have married early in this country’s existence.

I agree with you on abortion, except for it being legal when there is a danger to the mother’s life. However, I don’t agree with you on giving the death penalty to those who perform one. Who do you believe should decide when “extreme danger” to the mother’s life exists? Would you support a jury trial for deciding whether the child lives or dies? I assume you would. I’m against the death penalty in all cases, but as long as you believe in a jury trial to decide on whether a danger to the mother necessitates killing the child, then I respect your consistency. *Edit: I have left the above up, but would like to say that I was wrong. If an imminent threat to life exists, then lethal force is justified. On the flip side, I guess it could be argued that the mother put herself in the situation, so she has no right to kill the child.(you can’t put yourself at a tactical disadvantage in order to create a situation in which you can kill someone)

Should only the government have the authority to decide life and death?[/quote]

Na, death penalty sentencing should be by a jury of your peers. I would be fine with a medical ethics board That would have their decisions reviewed later (this is how life and death medical ethics dilemmas are handled now) deciding at the hospital whether or not imminent danger existed because of time constraints. I would liken this situation to the owner of a home(mother) inviting a guest in to stay for a while. If that guest attempts to kill me I have the right to defend myself. This is my only real justification for why abortion should be legal. It essentially is a matter of self defense.

And to the drug dealer thing. The person taking the drugs without payment is not guilty of theft because no theft was ever reported (I presume the dealer wouldn’t be that stupid), I never advocated the execution of thieves and disagree with that. The drug dealer commited the act of murder while commiting extortion. They are some of lowest of the low on the Earth and I see absolutely no reason to show sympathy to someone because “that guy stole my drugs”.

125

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Na, death penalty sentencing should be by a jury of your peers. I would be fine with a medical ethics board That would have their decisions reviewed later (this is how life and death medical ethics dilemmas are handled now) deciding at the hospital whether or not imminent danger existed because of time constraints. I would liken this situation to the owner of a home(mother) inviting a guest in to stay for a while. If that guest attempts to kill me I have the right to defend myself. This is my only real justification for why abortion should be legal. It essentially is a matter of self defense.

And to the drug dealer thing. The person taking the drugs without payment is not guilty of theft because no theft was ever reported (I presume the dealer wouldn’t be that stupid), I never advocated the execution of thieves and disagree with that. The drug dealer commited the act of murder while commiting extortion. They are some of lowest of the low on the Earth and I see absolutely no reason to show sympathy to someone because “that guy stole my drugs”.[/quote]

I guess we wouldn’t need a review of any sort before the abortion. The local police would probably then review the case, and the U.S. DOJ may then review it if the local government doesn’t make the desired decision about the incident. I would prefer not equate the baby with a houseguest because a homeowner can kick out a houseguest for any reason at any time(meaning all abortions should be legal). The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident would probably be a better example(Zimmerman probably did some things that put him in harm’s way, but once Martin began assaulting him and put him in fear for his life, Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin).

If someone steals a bicycle, but the bicycle owner never reports it because he thinks there’s no reason to, the thief is still a thief. I’m not sure how the drug dealer committed extortion. I agree that many drug dealers are among the lowest of the low, but that’s not because they are selling drugs; it’s because few quality people are going to risk being imprisoned for life to make a meager living-there’s too much risk to make it worth someone who has any other option’s effort.

126

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Na, death penalty sentencing should be by a jury of your peers. I would be fine with a medical ethics board That would have their decisions reviewed later (this is how life and death medical ethics dilemmas are handled now) deciding at the hospital whether or not imminent danger existed because of time constraints. I would liken this situation to the owner of a home(mother) inviting a guest in to stay for a while. If that guest attempts to kill me I have the right to defend myself. This is my only real justification for why abortion should be legal. It essentially is a matter of self defense.

And to the drug dealer thing. The person taking the drugs without payment is not guilty of theft because no theft was ever reported (I presume the dealer wouldn’t be that stupid), I never advocated the execution of thieves and disagree with that. The drug dealer commited the act of murder while commiting extortion. They are some of lowest of the low on the Earth and I see absolutely no reason to show sympathy to someone because “that guy stole my drugs”.[/quote]

I guess we wouldn’t need a review of any sort before the abortion. The local police would probably then review the case, and the U.S. DOJ may then review it if the local government doesn’t make the desired decision about the incident. I would prefer not equate the baby with a houseguest because a homeowner can kick out a houseguest for any reason at any time(meaning all abortions should be legal). The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident would probably be a better example(Zimmerman probably did some things that put him in harm’s way, but once Martin began assaulting him and put him in fear for his life, Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin).

If someone steals a bicycle, but the bicycle owner never reports it because he thinks there’s no reason to, the thief is still a thief. I’m not sure how the drug dealer committed extortion. I agree that many drug dealers are among the lowest of the low, but that’s not because they are selling drugs; it’s because few quality people are going to risk being imprisoned for life to make a meager living-there’s too much risk to make it worth someone who has any other option’s effort.[/quote]

Na, the fact that they are selling drugs makes them scum. He committed extortion because he attempted to get money through the threat of violence. Guy didn’t pay, threat became action.

127

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Na, the fact that they are selling drugs makes them scum. He committed extortion because he attempted to get money through the threat of violence. Guy didn’t pay, threat became action. [/quote]

We’ve gotten so far off topic that we’ll have to just agree to disagree on drugs. Unless you’re talking about a different scenario, the drug dealer did not attempt to get money through the threat of violence. In my scenario, the dealer gave the buyer a zero-interest loan which was to be paid off by a certain date.

128

And when he didn’t, he went to him and threatened him with a gun if he didn’t pay, correct? Or did he not even worry about trying to get the money and just shoot him.

129

Let me chime in here on the open carry. If you have been watching the news lately, you saw the story about a guy who stormed a municipal building and killed 3 people in PA. That was my Township, 5 minutes from my home. I am on the zoning hearing board and worked with the zoning office that was murdered. Fortunately, I was at a separate meeting that night.

It pains me to say this but I still support the right to carry in PA. And for the record I do own several firearms.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Ben Franklin

131

I don’t see what the problem with the law is since the only significant change with open carry is it protects citizens from police abusing public disturbance citations. The sheriff around here seems more pissed that the ccw permits last 5 years instead of having to be renewed annually, cutting into there revenue.

132

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
I don’t see what the problem with the law is since the only significant change with open carry is it protects citizens from police abusing public disturbance citations. The sheriff around here seems more pissed that the ccw permits last 5 years instead of having to be renewed annually, cutting into there revenue.[/quote]

To me, it’s just sad that they care so much about that, the revenue from people exercising their rights, rather than just doing their jobs. For heaven’s sake, if police departments want good funding, they need to keep their people in line better than seems to be happening.

133

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]doublelung84 wrote:
Let me chime in here on the open carry. If you have been watching the news lately, you saw the story about a guy who stormed a municipal building and killed 3 people in PA. That was my Township, 5 minutes from my home. I am on the zoning hearing board and worked with the zoning office that was murdered. Fortunately, I was at a separate meeting that night.

It pains me to say this but I still support the right to carry in PA. And for the record I do own several firearms.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Ben Franklin
[/quote]

Also, it pains me to say we may indeed suffer another significant terrorist attack if we don’t endlessly pry into every nook and cranny of Americans’ lives but…we simply must not.

We have to take the good with the bad with liberty always being the primary goal. When safety usurps liberty on the hierarchical scale totalitarianism inevitably looms. [/quote]

I think less prying into the lives of real American citizens will lead to less violence. It is not the 75 year old lady who was born in Ohio that we need to be patting down at airports. Nature has taught us to profile long before it was called profiling; it is nothing more then a survival technique that has kept us alive for 1,000s of years.

134

[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]

Like the saying goes, “An armed society is a polite society.”

135

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
I am somewhat surprised to find out you can’t already do this in those two states…

[/quote]

We actually could. No one really did but for whatever reason they decided to “clean up the language of the law” and now it is costing us a fortune in tax dollars. Very stupid in my opinion.

Usmc, I completely do not understand the vilification of the assault rifle. It is such an insignificant source of gun violence it just makes no sense. If they went after handguns I could at least understand their thinking. And they talk about the quantity of damage they can do, but I still think that if you have two guys go into a building, one with a shotgun with a 10 rd mag of buckshot and the other with a 30 rd assault rifle, I am liking my odds much better against the assault rifle.[/quote]

When the Commander in Chief along with many members of our Congress have no idea what an, “assault rife,” is or how they operate, this is the type of response you get.

It just like the 10 rounds mag vs. 30 round crap. Sure in total (in theory) you are limiting the # of rounds a person can carry, but it literally takes 2 seconds to reload any M16/M4 style weapon. [/quote]

That and it makes it a hassle to reload all the damn time for us normal people.

137

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Starbucks Support

I’m headed to Starbucks now. With my SD 40 VE on my hip.[/quote]

nevrr liked Starbucks coffee, and in fact dislike them because they have been putting out local coffeehouses which I am a huge fan of. but I will make damned sure I go buy a drink from them today. and since I dont currently own a firearm I will.make sure to tell them why I am supporting them.

138

[quote]pat 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]

Like the saying goes, “An armed society is a polite society.”[/quote]

Yeah, right. Then the saying, guns don’t kill people, people kill people, would be false. If guns don’t matter when it comes to killing then how would they matter when it comes to not killing? If someone really wants you dead your gun won’t save you.

And as far as open carry goes: it’s a mistake for almost everyone. Unless you have some training and then the ability to put it into practice when it comes to weapons retention you should not advertize being armed. It is only a deterrent to those who were not much of a threat in the first place. Everyone should know about the 21 foot rule. Well, if someone who can beat you with his bare hands and they are close enough to close the gap before you can draw and fire then you are going to be beaten up at best and killed with your own gun at worst. Most people do not have weapons retention training and most couldn’t get through it anyway. There is video evidence of inmates training disarm techniques in prison. Police officers who have training get disarmed.

I’ve seen those videos with people openly carrying in order to provoke the cops into violating their rights. They can do that because of where they are. If it were legal to open carry in Newark, where I once lived, and one of those jokers walked around with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder he would only have it taken from him, not by force, but by fear of having his ass kicked. If some ex-con built like a linebacker said, “hand it over,” they surely would. I worked out with guys like that and most people, including most who post here, would not want to have to deal with them in a confrontation if possible. Why show your hand and lose any tactical advantage? I read somewhere how a guy who was carrying noticed how nice people were with him. That’s just someone fantasizing. If I believe I can kick your ass then carrying a gun won’t make me fear you any more than not carrying would. And since most people can’t fight for shit (Zimmerman anyone?) why walk around worrying about, “what if someone takes my gun away from me?”…and if you aren’t worried about that then you shouldn’t be openly carrying.

I’m not anti-gun mind you, I’m just saying all the would be Wyatt Earps need a reality check. I’ve seen that reality check when training cops in weapons retention. When someone smaller then they are is able to disarm them they realize just how vulnerable they are.

139

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Starbucks Support

I’m headed to Starbucks now. With my SD 40 VE on my hip.[/quote]
And what if the bad guy is standing behind you in line?

140

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat 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]

Like the saying goes, “An armed society is a polite society.”[/quote]

Yeah, right. Then the saying, guns don’t kill people, people kill people, would be false. If guns don’t matter when it comes to killing then how would they matter when it comes to not killing? If someone really wants you dead your gun won’t save you.

And as far as open carry goes: it’s a mistake for almost everyone. Unless you have some training and then the ability to put it into practice when it comes to weapons retention you should not advertize being armed. It is only a deterrent to those who were not much of a threat in the first place. Everyone should know about the 21 foot rule. Well, if someone who can beat you with his bare hands and they are close enough to close the gap before you can draw and fire then you are going to be beaten up at best and killed with your own gun at worst. Most people do not have weapons retention training and most couldn’t get through it anyway. There is video evidence of inmates training disarm techniques in prison. Police officers who have training get disarmed.

I’ve seen those videos with people openly carrying in order to provoke the cops into violating their rights. They can do that because of where they are. If it were legal to open carry in Newark, where I once lived, and one of those jokers walked around with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder he would only have it taken from him, not by force, but by fear of having his ass kicked. If some ex-con built like a linebacker said, “hand it over,” they surely would. I worked out with guys like that and most people, including most who post here, would not want to have to deal with them in a confrontation if possible. Why show your hand and lose any tactical advantage? I read somewhere how a guy who was carrying noticed how nice people were with him. That’s just someone fantasizing. If I believe I can kick your ass then carrying a gun won’t make me fear you any more than not carrying would. And since most people can’t fight for shit (Zimmerman anyone?) why walk around worrying about, “what if someone takes my gun away from me?”…and if you aren’t worried about that then you shouldn’t be openly carrying.

I’m not anti-gun mind you, I’m just saying all the would be Wyatt Earps need a reality check. I’ve seen that reality check when training cops in weapons retention. When someone smaller then they are is able to disarm them they realize just how vulnerable they are.
[/quote]

The right to defend yourself is inviolate. actually knowing how to use that right, well thats a personal choice in developing skills. two different things and a person’s inability to be bothered to learn their skill should not impinge on the inviolate right they have in the first place. that’s their fault.