Philadelphia Open Carry

Off Topic
281

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…such as self-defense within the home."[35]

“within the home”, for emphasis :)[/quote]

“Such as” means exactly that - such as. It gives an example. That language is not exclusionary to carrying beyond the home.

One more thing, I have expressed this before and doubtless will have to do it again: what the USSC decides in regards to a myriad of issues ebbs and flows with the times. It certainly decides what is legal but does NOT necessarily decide what is “right” or “wrong” or even constitutional. It is a group of men and women that often makes mistakes in their job just like you or me or the plumber down the road. Bottom line is Heller certainly is a step in the right direction but not infallibly spot-on.

And for you to bandy about this idea, or at least imply, in a discussion like this one that the USSC can do no wrong is simply ludicrous. Legislating from the bench is a serious problem and has been for a century or more. It happens at all judicial levels and the USSC is certainly not pristine in that regard.

So next time you want to whip out your United States Supreme Court banner and wave it like a Islamic jihadist screaming Allahu Akbar go to the black man in 1857 (or 1957 or 2011 for that matter) and ask him what he thinks of the supreme Supreme Court in regards to the totally awesome USSC Dred Scott decision.[/quote]

Why the strawman? And why the vitriol?

You still have not addressed my basic questions to you. And, you might want to revisit my other comments about the other rights you compared the 2nd to. The point is, there is an ideal, and then there are practical problems about how those rights are exercised in a complex society. USSC does that - I didn’t say it was perfect.

I “whipped” out a court case to illustrate that your alleged air-tight definition “to bear” is very much in dispute. The Islamic imagery was entirely unnecessary. WTF[/quote]

No strawman. No vitriol.

Islamic thing wasn’t necessarily directed at you but at the populace at large that more or less worships the nine gods of the USSC.[/quote]

Thank you.

But like I’ve been saying, I agree with and share your ideals. But tell me how society provides these rights, or more accurately, refrains from infringing upon these rights while still acknowledging the complexities of our modern society?

Do we let anyone get guns? And if we don’t, how does that now then not become a “privilege” and therefore on its merry way down that slippery slope you refer to? I ask you this because although we may disagree on the details, we both have agreed that the 2nd Amendment need be regulated in some manner. My position is that any regulation whatsoever renders it a “privilege”. If it’s a privilege, and subject to any regulation, what we are left with is no bright line test to say a right has been infringed upon. What we are left with is what we have today - individual States regulating things like CCP for instance, among other regulations and the SC occasionally weighing in when it sees fit.

[/quote]

Instituting libel and slander laws doesn’t reduce the right of free speech and press to “privileges”, does it?

You’re speculating.

And you have no reinforcing real world example to back up your assurances. All you can do is point to big cities which historically have THE most stringent gun control in the country and and adamantly claim that “originally intended” (and practiced for generations for that matter) gun rights won’t work there.

You simple can’t “assure” me that the severe restrictions historically in place in Philly-like big cities that keep the hypothetical single abused mom from being able to protect herself from her meth-crazed ex-husband by KEEPING and BEARING a weapon at all times are the answer. If they were these big cities would be the opposite of what they are; they’d be havens of peace and tranquility.

And for crying out loud don’t repeat the idea that anyone can own a (hand)gun. Until the recent USSC Chicago decision a Chicago citizen had virtually no chance of keeping and bearing. Thanks to that decision things are certainly changing but if you will examine the aftermath Chicago politicians are going kicking and screaming and doing everything they can think of to thwart the USSC decision.[/quote]

Your entire response is fallacious.

Push, Philadelphia HAS CCP and OCP (as illustrated by this thread). We have EPIC gun violence in our streets. That is NOT “speculation”. I challenged you to support your position that the right-to-carry arms reduces the type of crime I’m referring to, in the locales I’m referring to. You’re building a strawman with your whole line of reasoning relative to reducing my position to “gun rights won’t work there”. WE HAVE GUN RIGHTS HERE! And there IS a problem! Not only do Pennsylvanians (and Philadelphians) have the right-to-carry, but many that otherwise have been denied have availed themselves to the so-called “Florida loophole” that provides reciprocity with a number of States, including PA!

As for your comment about free speech, the same is regulated. To me, regulation is tantamount to granting a privilege. The foregoing may be subject to chicken/egg arguments and such, but regulation is regulation.

I’ll ask you again - how do you propose that the 2nd Amendment work? If Push is the King of the World tomorrow, what does he do with the Federal and State gun laws and why?

Stop the word play and elusiveness; I’m not trying to “win” this debate. I’m not even sure I disagree with you (yet). I’m asking your earnest questions in an effort to understand your position. I know your ideals, but I do not yet understand the practical application of those ideals.

283

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Push, Philadelphia HAS CCP and OCP (as illustrated by this thread)…You’re building a strawman with your whole line of reasoning relative to reducing my position to “gun rights won’t work there”. WE HAVE GUN RIGHTS HERE!..

I’ll ask you again - how do you propose that the 2nd Amendment work? If Push is the King of the World tomorrow, what does he do with the Federal and State gun laws and why?

[/quote]

It has open and concealed carry by PERMIT only. So no you DON’T HAVE GUN RIGHTS THERE (not enough anyway)!

Since you have openly admitted that the flood of criminals with (illegal) guns is overwhelming I strongly suggest making it as easy as possible for the common law abiding man and woman to purchase, own and carry a weapon. The job AINT by your very admission gettin’ done now under the conditions present there, namely very limited gun “bearing”, law abidin’ folks.

If Push is king he issues a royal decree that all states institute gun control laws like Vermont’s and Alaska’s. There.
[/quote]

Ok, so following your logic, what works in VT will hold true in Philadelphia or New York for example? Do you not understand that all “god fearing” law abiding citizens are not “built” to bear (and thus use) a firearm? You may say I’m speculating, but our streets, already awash in blood, would be that much worse. It doesn’t take a study to know that adding more guns to an already existing gun problem would solve the problem. There is NO shortage of guns here.

I know Vermont Push. I was born in Massachusetts near the Vermont border and returned every single summer until my adulthood. I know the area. Vermont is like Philadelphia as the crabs is like AIDS. One itches for a while, the other results in death. Vermont itches.

Also, you have again misrepresented PA laws. It’s not hard to get a CCP/OCP in PA, provided you are not a felon or mentally ill. So, following your ideal, you tell me why it doesn’t work in a place like Philadelphia. Should we arm the felons and mentally ill too? What is your perceived impediment to a PA resident securing a CCP? Because I’m telling you there is none.

285

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Push, Philadelphia HAS CCP and OCP (as illustrated by this thread)…You’re building a strawman with your whole line of reasoning relative to reducing my position to “gun rights won’t work there”. WE HAVE GUN RIGHTS HERE!..

I’ll ask you again - how do you propose that the 2nd Amendment work? If Push is the King of the World tomorrow, what does he do with the Federal and State gun laws and why?

[/quote]

It has open and concealed carry by PERMIT only. So no you DON’T HAVE GUN RIGHTS THERE (not enough anyway)!

Since you have openly admitted that the flood of criminals with (illegal) guns is overwhelming I strongly suggest making it as easy as possible for the common law abiding man and woman to purchase, own and carry a weapon. The job AINT by your very admission gettin’ done now under the conditions present there, namely very limited gun “bearing”, law abidin’ folks.

If Push is king he issues a royal decree that all states institute gun control laws like Vermont’s and Alaska’s. There.
[/quote]

Ok, so following your logic, what works in VT will hold true in Philadelphia or New York for example? Do you not understand that all “god fearing” law abiding citizens are not “built” to bear (and thus use) a firearm? You may say I’m speculating, but our streets, already awash in blood, would be that much worse. It doesn’t take a study to know that adding more guns to an already existing gun problem would solve the problem. There is NO shortage of guns here.

I know Vermont Push. I was born in Massachusetts near the Vermont border and returned every single summer until my adulthood. I know the area. Vermont is like Philadelphia as the crabs is like AIDS. One itches for a while, the other results in death. Vermont itches.

[/quote]

You asked me if I were king…I told you.

[quote]

Also, you have again misrepresented PA laws. It’s not hard to get a CCP/OCP in PA, provided you are not a felon or mentally ill. So, following your ideal, you tell me why it doesn’t work in a place like Philadelphia. Should we arm the felons and mentally ill too? What is your perceived impediment to a PA resident securing a CCP? Because I’m telling you there is none. [/quote]

Then why the need for the permitting system at all? If there is no impediment why doesn’t PA pass VT/AK type gun control laws?

I’m straight up telling you that even though I’ve only visited Philly three times in my life I know there are single abused mothers there who fear their ex husband’s brutality and conceivably COULD get a CCP or OCP permit BUT DON’T strictly because of the hassle. I will straight up bet you a 10 year supply of Biotest’s Spike that if I canvassed the Philly neighborhood of your choice I could find genuine people who genuinely need to protect themselves who WOULD arm themselves if they knew they could legally purchase, own and carry a weapon without the bureaucrats sticking their onerous heads into the situation.

NONE of what I’ve written should be taken to mean that I advocate irresponsible gun ownership so don’t even go there. Instead work to institute a gun culture like we as a society used to have “in the olden days” and still do in many parts of the country and you will not see the wholesale slaughter that you envision.

In a perfect world it would be grand to experiment with what I suggested. Take a slice of crime ridden Chicago, Atlanta, L.A., New Orleans, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., etc., instill that “good” gun culture in that slice of urban area, arm the responsible, law abiding folks and then measure the level of violence afterward. But…that aint gonna happen so in the meantime I will cite areas with large numbers of guns per capita of regular folks and say it does work and you will counter with “I don’t think so in Philly,” and so we are in a Mexican standoff, I guess.[/quote]

I appreciate the king of the world sentiment and dream of it myself often :slight_smile: Yes, I asked.

I think you underestimate the gun culture in Philadelphia and would lose your Spike bet. I would prefer Flameout FTR :slight_smile:

I also concede I don’t know the answer Push, so we’re not really in a Mexican stand-off - just a good respectful discussion. I already stated I’m not trying to be “right” here.

And one final thing I think you’re really missing is what I discussed earlier. I feel like the gun ownership you envision, even it were possible, is not the answer to a complex problem like those plaguing some of our neighborhoods. People and their families have to live there, and walk those streets. It creates a culture of “mind your business or else”. I understand EXACTLY where you’re coming from. But the reality is, your children, your sister, your mother, still has to walk to school, the bus, down the block, etc.

Let me give you a quick case in point about the realities of gun and crime. I’ve posted this before. I was dropping off a female friend in a bad section of Philadelphia, but a “good” block, with families and neatly kept homes. It was winter, so the sun sets early. It was not late, but it was dark. We were sitting parked, in my vehicle, talking. My now 5 year old son was in his car seat in the rear. As we were talking, a older (but not elderly) woman (resident) parked in front of us, and exited her car. Moments later, two young men in their teens were casually walking down the street and they stopped and appeared to be merely talking to her. That’s when one pulled a gun and pointed it at her and presumably demanded her purse. They went thru her purse, smashed her cell phone and ran away. This took about 45 seconds total. It seemed like an eternity. Next to me, tucked in the space between my seat and the center console, was a .45, which I slowly and quietly slid into my lap, and I undid the safety, chambered a round. And waited, heart pounding, thinking of my boy in the back seat. I’ve been around violence all my life Push, and have never been so scared. My son was with me.

And I sat there and did nothing. They did not know we were in the car. If they noticed and turned their attention to us, I would have shot them FIRST thru the window, asked questions later. I would not have allowed a gun to be pointed at me with my son in the car. Do I, as a good citizen, exit my vehicle and protect this lady because I have a gun? Do I alert them to our presence, risking everyone’s life, including the victim? Do I risk the life of my son? At the end of the day, I made a split second judgment that I was not going to risk the life of my son to save the contents of this lady’s purse. A gun was in the hands of a good person (me) and it did not stop the crime. If she had a gun, it would not have saved her either. He who draws first…WINS.

Now, what if I somehow successfully interfered, and they are local, and recognize my friend? What of her future safety? Or that of her mother, her brother, her children? I get to go home to NJ, but she has to live there. Does she have to carry a gun now too? Her mother? Brother? Is that the answer you suggest Push?

My only point is this Push; things are a bit more complex when you live on top of each other, and next to each other, for blocks and blocks, rows of homes, that form very distinct neighborhoods. Where foot traffic is not out of place, and danger can lurk right outside your door and you could never see it coming…never have the chance to draw your weapon. That lady that was mugged? She lived there her whole life. She wasn’t stupid. She wasn’t not “streetwise”. And she NEVER saw it coming. I’ve protected people for a living Push, and I was damn good at it. And I saw the assailants walking down the block - I was aware of them, but their body language, their carriage, did NOT betray their intentions, and I did NOT see it coming. At first, I thought they KNEW the lady and were just talking to her - that’s how casual the whole thing started.

Who knows what happens if they notice us sitting there? Am I glad I had a gun? Yes. Do I feel like I absolutely needed a gun to protect myself and my son? Yes, absolutely. Was it my right? Fucking yes. Would a gun have helped that lady? No. Would the average citizen risk a shoot-out? Doubtful.

For selfish reasons, I want the unfettered right to bear arms and I am with you 100% - selfishly. But I shudder to think of the consequences of city life without some type of gun regulation…my experience, not speculation, has formed my opinion here.

Now can we go ride your snowmobile or what?

287

I want to ride! Love my ATV, snowmobiles look like a blast.

288

“We come from the land of the ass and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot chicks blow…”

lol

294

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No reason to let this thread die now that we’re gittin’ along and such.[/quote]

I had a nice sexy pic or two tucked in here but alas, they were deemed inappropriate for this forum and so I humbly comply.[/quote]

At least I feasted my eyes upon 'em before they were removed.

Thanks!

295

I’m still reading.

Push,

Not to derail the tennis match you two have going on, but with regards to the concern for defending oneself against tyranny…won’t be happening in our lifetime. Antiquated argument.

Our middle class–and general American apathy (general means not necassrily YOUR apathy, but as a society) toward many political issues–pretty much ensures that we’ll only have modest reforms, not revolutions, because most compromises are considered “good enough” by the middle class (unfortunately). No, that’s not a “liberal” argument. It’s the motherfucking truth (like Durant, right BG?).

Please continue.

296

[quote]pushharder wrote:

  • Side note. From an email sent to me today:

"State Senator R.C. Soles (D - NC) Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City, N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician’s home county said.

The intruder, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, district attorney for Columbus, Bladen and Brunswick counties.

The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff’s Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested, declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.

“I am not in a position to talk to you,” Soles said by telephone. “I’m right in the middle of an investigation.”

The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn’t hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.

In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the “Do as I say and not as I do” Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.

It has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety is more valuable than yours or mine. But, this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can."
[/quote]

Un.Fucking.Believe.Able.

And poetic.

297

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I’m still reading.

Push,

Not to derail the tennis match you two have going on, but with regards to the concern for defending oneself against tyranny…won’t be happening in our lifetime. Antiquated argument.

Our middle class–and general American apathy (general means not necassrily YOUR apathy, but as a society) toward many political issues–pretty much ensures that we’ll only have modest reforms, not revolutions, because most compromises are considered “good enough” by the middle class (unfortunately). No, that’s not a “liberal” argument. It’s the motherfucking truth (like Durant, right BG?).

Please continue.[/quote]

I generally agree, but who knows what would happen if our economy crumbled. I’m not in that alarmist-stock-up-on-gold camp, but if it did collapse (I don’t think it will), who knows what would happen? I think we’re too fucking advanced (LEO and military) for there to be any militia or uprising. If there was a revolution, it would have to be a military coup in my opinion. And given our democratic government, I seriously doubt a coup would ever be necessary.

The average person doesn’t have a clue and it’s why “politics as usual” continues, because people are easily misled and distracted. We kill Osama, and Obama’s approval rating goes up, as if he’s suddenly doing a relatively better job, because we killed a terrorist. We are a nation of headlines and soundbites. People don’t even want to be bothered to READ anymore - just look at most magazine formats these days and what you have are one paragraph “news bites”. As a result, the average person can talk “sound bites”, but are usually very unaware of the substance beneath the real issues. Of course, this is why we elect those crooks to begin with - to deal with those nasty little issues and details on our behalf, but we know how that’s working out don’t we?

Some people may think Push and I beat a dead horse here. But intellectual debate is important to keep us sharp and to challenge our beliefs. For instance, I started out in this thread “spitballing” to some degree, and responding on personal belief only. Push’s challenges to me actually made me do some research and read up on some constitutional law. At first, I was arguing “sound bites” and personal feelings…and toward the end, I was actually educating myself on the details. If that’s not a worthwhile endeavor, I don’t know what is.

300

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

…defending oneself against tyranny…won’t be happening in our lifetime. Antiquated argument…

[/quote]

By the way if you’re gonna bring your “antiquated argument” pinata to our party at least hang it out there where we can whack at it for crying out loud. In other words why is it such an antiquated argument? Just because YOU say so?[/quote]

No problem. Just keep posting those vacation photos :slight_smile:

No, not simply because I say so.

“Antiquated,” because of the time period in which the argument was founded; the argument was a reflection of those times, i.e. the time of an oppressive rule over a small populace of a fairly UNIFORM DEMOGRAPHIC–i.e., shared the same plight, roughly same social class–or at least FAR more uniform than what exists today: a much larger populace, spread out across this vast country, with much more variance in the populace in terms of social class.

So, if we had a small ruling “elite” social class with the remainder of the country dirt poor–read: the appropriate economic conditions that would lead them to be pissed at their condition, thus wanting to cause a REVOLUTION and NOT simply a reform–then the MAJORITY lower class would be a dangerous force (just by sheer numbers and the degree of SHARED discontent), and that danger would pre-empt the ruling minority elite to use force and fear, the tactics we witness regimes like Ghadaffi’s using.

As it stands, the way our society is structured–an apathetic MAJORITY middle class, apathetic because whatever their conditions, things are “good enough” and thus not enough to cause them to take up violent ARMS against the upper class/government (and the middle class has too much at stake to throw it away and become rebels, so a revolution is not on its To Do list)–we likely won’t ever, EVER need the “right to bear arms” solely for the off chance that the government declares martial law enforceable by violence.

I am NOT saying that guns should be outlawed, I am saying that the argument used to justify a RIGHT to bear arms, the argument that was used when the idea was founded, is OUT OF PLACE in today’s fabric of society. It just doesn’t hold.

If we had some military arm of the incumbent or even opposing party, like the Philippines in 2006, or the threat of coup d’etats, then the “antiquated argument” would hold water.

For example, there is too much foreign interest in America (for the good of the country, I mean), financially, for the government to want a shit storm of a domestic situation as its PR. I doubt the govt would risk it, using force on its own people or even allowing them to reach the point of such discontent that a true revolution would be a concern.

America has too much to lose to allow itself to break down like that. If it were to break down, it wouldn’t be due to a general feeling of disenfranchisement by the majority (middle PLUS poor), it would have to be MANY factors layered and brewing for decades, i.e. a period of time that would see multiple presidencies and thus multiple ideologies/political platforms and reactions to the growing problems, each side responding differently but not likely that each side would EQUALLY EXACERBATE the problem(s).