social license
- Thread starter Hayduke
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure that we'll be getting some objective data on how many deaths and injuries are caused by all of the CCW folks in the 40 or so states which allow CCW. Remember, each and every time a state decided to liberalize it's carry permit laws, the folks who don't trust people with guns trotted out all of their old, tired, worn out, lines of warnings. Some of these included, "Florida will turn into the GUNSHINE STATE". "There will be wild west shootouts like there was at the OK Corral". "Road rage will turn into road kill". "Blood will flow in our streets." "Putting more guns on the streets will only make the situation worse and cause more violence and bloodshed".
Those are just a few, and there were many more. Each and every time a state ingored those siren call wailings and passed a CCW permit law anyway, the warnings never turned out to be prescient. That is because the vast majority of folks who take the time and effort and spend the money to get a permit, are already some of our better citizens. Oh sure, there's the rare occasion, but it's certainly not something for the rest of us to fear. Unless someone has some data that the rest of us have not seen from a reliable source where they can show that permitees have been directly responsible for an increase in murders, gun related crimes, and deaths or injuries caused by them being negligent with the handling of their firearms. Let's see the numbers. Put up or ....... (filling in the blank is left open as an exercise for the reader).
Those are just a few, and there were many more. Each and every time a state ingored those siren call wailings and passed a CCW permit law anyway, the warnings never turned out to be prescient. That is because the vast majority of folks who take the time and effort and spend the money to get a permit, are already some of our better citizens. Oh sure, there's the rare occasion, but it's certainly not something for the rest of us to fear. Unless someone has some data that the rest of us have not seen from a reliable source where they can show that permitees have been directly responsible for an increase in murders, gun related crimes, and deaths or injuries caused by them being negligent with the handling of their firearms. Let's see the numbers. Put up or ....... (filling in the blank is left open as an exercise for the reader).
Undoubtedly...but the Founding Fathers certainly werent just looking out for their own personal interests, but rather they wrote the Constitution to protect their children's and future generation's interests. I do not agree with your premise that they were solely looking out for their own interests.
The founders were nothing more then people looking out for their own self interest
This is pure and utter BS. The founders knew that if they were caught doing what they were doing, (Declaration of Independance) that they would be executed by hanging. They were doing this for something far bigger than themselves. Oh, they wanted the freedom alright. But they wanted it for the nation in addition to just themselves. They were some of the colonies most powerful and influential people. They could have negotiated some sweet deals with the British in exchange for loyalty to the crown. They wanted nothing of it. Instead, they risked their well being and their very lives. That to me is not demonstrative of a selfish action.
This is pure and utter BS. The founders knew that if they were caught doing what they were doing, (Declaration of Independance) that they would be executed by hanging. They were doing this for something far bigger than themselves. Oh, they wanted the freedom alright. But they wanted it for the nation in addition to just themselves. They were some of the colonies most powerful and influential people. They could have negotiated some sweet deals with the British in exchange for loyalty to the crown. They wanted nothing of it. Instead, they risked their well being and their very lives. That to me is not demonstrative of a selfish action.
S832 posted:
I don't see the gun banners and gun controllers looking out for everyone's best interest by compromising. The democrats are getting ready to trot out a new assault weapons ban, but it probably won't happen if McCain wins, unless they can get to a veto proof majority, which they probably won't be able to do. However, if Obama wins, expect that to be one of the "first 100 days" accomplishments for him and his democratic controlled congress.
Where does compromise get you? Supposedly, its part of negotiations where each side is looking for some value or way to strengthen their positions. Let's look at the two sides. The anti gunners want to either ban or severely restict the right to keep and bear arms. The pro-gun-rights side wants the right to keep and bear arms left alone unless someone commits a crime with a gun. That person should then be punished.
So what's on the table for the anti gun folks to like? Assault weapons bans. Handgun bans or strict registration. One gun a month laws. Limited CCW laws (BO wants a national ban on CCW according to his previous statements). More regulations to make it harder and more of a burden to possess and carry a firearm. Look at Washington, D.C. for an example of where that side wants to take us. But they know that they cannot do this in one step. So they offer these "reasonable" regulations which will do nothing to stop crime. Then they call the pro gun rights side extremists because they won't "compromise". I fart in the anti gunners general direction when they use such tactics.
What is the value gained by the pro-gun-rights side in giving in or "compromising" with those issues? Nothing. In fact it's a net-net loss for our side. You don't like guns all that much, even though you claim to own some. That makes it OK in your mind to compromise in order to avoid the "extemist" label. I don't mind being labeled by people who are trying to severely restrict or take away my inalienable rights. As a matter of fact, I would wear that badge with honor and I'll try to kick the snot out of the "labelers" (virtually speaking) at every opportunity.
I don't see the gun banners and gun controllers looking out for everyone's best interest by compromising. The democrats are getting ready to trot out a new assault weapons ban, but it probably won't happen if McCain wins, unless they can get to a veto proof majority, which they probably won't be able to do. However, if Obama wins, expect that to be one of the "first 100 days" accomplishments for him and his democratic controlled congress.
Where does compromise get you? Supposedly, its part of negotiations where each side is looking for some value or way to strengthen their positions. Let's look at the two sides. The anti gunners want to either ban or severely restict the right to keep and bear arms. The pro-gun-rights side wants the right to keep and bear arms left alone unless someone commits a crime with a gun. That person should then be punished.
So what's on the table for the anti gun folks to like? Assault weapons bans. Handgun bans or strict registration. One gun a month laws. Limited CCW laws (BO wants a national ban on CCW according to his previous statements). More regulations to make it harder and more of a burden to possess and carry a firearm. Look at Washington, D.C. for an example of where that side wants to take us. But they know that they cannot do this in one step. So they offer these "reasonable" regulations which will do nothing to stop crime. Then they call the pro gun rights side extremists because they won't "compromise". I fart in the anti gunners general direction when they use such tactics.
What is the value gained by the pro-gun-rights side in giving in or "compromising" with those issues? Nothing. In fact it's a net-net loss for our side. You don't like guns all that much, even though you claim to own some. That makes it OK in your mind to compromise in order to avoid the "extemist" label. I don't mind being labeled by people who are trying to severely restrict or take away my inalienable rights. As a matter of fact, I would wear that badge with honor and I'll try to kick the snot out of the "labelers" (virtually speaking) at every opportunity.
Monsterman
New member
People need to stop with this "democrats out for guns" and stuff like that!
H.R. 6257 only has republican names on it for crying out loud!
H.R. 6257 only has republican names on it for crying out loud!
"People need to stop with this "democrats out for guns" and stuff like that!"
Here is what the official Democrat party platform has to say about guns:
"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
Don't kid yourself. The Democrats *are* out to take your guns.
Tim
Here is what the official Democrat party platform has to say about guns:
"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
Don't kid yourself. The Democrats *are* out to take your guns.
Tim
AlabamaFamilyMan
New member
Let's compromise
Lott's More Guns Less Crime brings lots of evidence.
Thus, the gain is definitely on the side of more carry, so
a little pain on your part should be accepted with little murmur,
right s832?
Let's compromise, anybody for Kennesaw?!?
Lott's More Guns Less Crime brings lots of evidence.
Thus, the gain is definitely on the side of more carry, so
a little pain on your part should be accepted with little murmur,
right s832?
Let's compromise, anybody for Kennesaw?!?
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
I think they are both going to limit your guns. But both of them are not telling you that.
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
It is very easy to see "More Guns Less Crime "
Arizona: open carry less crime
Chicago: no open carry, no carry at all. MAJOR CRIME!!!
Kalifornia: no open carry, no carry at all. MAJOR CRIME!!!
DC: no open carry, no carry at all. MAJOR CRIME!!!
OK, Dems, show me the data which demonstrates that the Clinton Gun Ban (AWB of 94) actually reduced gun crimes committed with those types of firearms. I'm waiting, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't look good as a smurf nor do I want to look like one.
(hint for other readers: There is no data that they can show us. It simply doesn't exist). They should be voted out of office if they support a new assault weapons ban. Plus, the Heller decision might affect how the USSC sees it. How long will it take to get a case to the USSC? Will that be enough time for Obama, if elected, to put some more liberal judges in place?
Even a vote for a moderate to conservative democrat in congress (house or senate) keeps the dems in power with their hard left leaning leadership. As long as they control congress, gun rights will be subjected to more limits, restrictions and regulations. If they get Obama as a rubber stamp, some gun rights will be publicly trampled.
Last edited:
Ruthless4christ
New member
bro did you just call me a troll?
i hope you did notIs it that easy to see? Phoenix and Chicago have similar murder rates, and Phoenix has higher rates of some other crimes than Chicago. Both Phoenix and Chicago are statistically more dangerous than Los Angeles. All three pale in comparison to DC, however.
NYC has strict gun control but a comparatively low murder rate for a large city and is safer all around than Phoenix, with the sole exception of robbery, where the numbers are practically tied.
I'm not sure guns have much to do with any of it.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
In my mind the possibility of the former out ways the possibility of the latter.
I figure, all right, there's a 90% chance they'll go somewhere else instead of shooting me first. That means there's a 10% chance they'll shoot me first. Thats a bit too high for me. I'd rather be concealed and be able to put a couple in the BG when he's distracted by the clerk or who ever.
I am LoLing at anyone who thinks McCain will veto any gun-regulation laws that get past.
Guns don't matter to most people and the more they see kids walking around with sidearms the more the more legislation that is going to go through.
Compromise is the only way you will stop guns from being totally banned, look at Americas gun deaths verses Europe - more guns does not equal less crime.
All it will take is a couple major CCW incidents to get CCW permanently killed, and another Columbine to get a permanent AWB in place.
So I want to prevent these incidents from happening instead of having them happen, and having even more restrictive laws then what I want get put in place.
Guns don't matter to most people and the more they see kids walking around with sidearms the more the more legislation that is going to go through.
Compromise is the only way you will stop guns from being totally banned, look at Americas gun deaths verses Europe - more guns does not equal less crime.
All it will take is a couple major CCW incidents to get CCW permanently killed, and another Columbine to get a permanent AWB in place.
So I want to prevent these incidents from happening instead of having them happen, and having even more restrictive laws then what I want get put in place.
You are correct that it has been compromised, more so then I would like actually. I see nothing wrong with gun registration, a 5 day waiting period or mental health checks. For CCW I see nothing wrong with having an extensive program which will weed out the bad apples.
I don't want anymore guns banned, but I do want more regulation preventing future incidents.
- Status