Separate names with a comma.
Are you a current member with account or password issues?
Please visit following page for more information
Discussion in 'Handguns' started by darth_guy101, Dec 4, 2011.
... and another firearms thread goes downhill.
Nah, just one person took their bat, ball and infringements and went home, that's all.
And another told me to me to be quiet and that I wasn't fit to answer the question, all because he did not understand the context of the discussion. Also that I insulted my own integrity and am not skilled with words.
The dude who went home asked honest questions and got honest answers he didn't like...
If you walk down a street with a weapon in your hand - because you are exercising your right to carry your weapon however you please - would you think it unsurprising or unreasonable if someone else pulls on you and orders you to ground?
I guess at the heart of my questions in this thread is the point of personal responsibility. If you are asked to carry your weapon in a responsible manner would you agree to this? If you don't agree to this, would you accept the potentially lethal consequences? Do you think people who refuse to carry responsibly should still be permitted to carry, despite the dangers to themselves and everyone else? Are we free to act irresponsibly in such a way that presents a danger to others without accepting that there should be consequences to our behaviour?
IMPORTANT BIT: Please understand I am not against gun ownership or carry (concealed or otherwise), but it seemed to me that the regulations concerning carry were centred around safety and responsibility. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the intent of those regulations, and I would be happy to be informed of this if this is so. I was dragged up to accept personal responsibility for my actions, as I am sure most of us were, but what do we do about those who refuse to accept that responsibility? From a governmental position what is the easier approach: to deal with the myriad of individual cases as they arise, or to impose a blanket standard for safety?
Look, I had no intention of starting an argument for or against anything. What I was trying to ascertain was the general picture as seen from those within the system. You guys can well imagine how it looks from outside the system without me telling you!
I have deleted my comment. I don't need another run on thread that I am watching.
Not even close to accurate. Information is information, there is no like or dislike in this for me (I tell it truly). Attitude, however, is another fish entirely.
hey at least you weren't called a troll or that you were baiting folks.
how about "i carry a gun because a cop is too heavy"...
Alright everyone, settle down in here.
So far, it's been an interesting discussion, I've learned plenty already. Thanks for all the quotes, @11c1p.
@DavyJ, were you able to get your questions answered? If not, what information are you yet missing?
I must have missed that, wasn't me. I have seen a lot of people mention in gun threads that they don't understand the whole thing with guns in America, then go on to pontificate about what we should do. While I think they certainly have that right, it might not be the wisest thing. Kind of like us Americans telling England how they should deal with royalty. It's not our culture and many tend to find it fascinating, but for us to say "get rid of it" or do this or that isn't generally going to be coming from a place of experience nor well received.
@cowsmilk, yeah, I think I am getting a flavour of how things are seen over there. Thanks.
@11C1P, I wouldn't dream of telling anyone what to do! I just wanted know how things were and how they related to stuff in the thread and news. By the way, if you wish to tell us Englanders how to deal with our royalty please go right ahead. We don't mind really, and often even agree with you.
You keep talking about imposing restrictions for "safety". I can only assume that is where your disconnect lies. What you may consider safe or "responsible carry" is what many others consider "useless for daily carry" and there may or may not be a lot of room in between the two. Every single gun law and restriction is created in the name of "safety" You keep progressing your safety scenario in hopes of finding a spot to say "ah ha, so I can start infringing here!" Well the supreme court has already laid the boundaries. I can't remember which justice said it, but it was "Your right to swing your fist stops at another mans nose!" So if someone is walking down the street with a weapon drawn, I do not have any right to shoot them until they do something to harm or be in the act of harming someone. So if they have the gun drawn pointed in the air, I would probably be prosecuted if I shot them, unless they were screaming "I'm gonna kill you!" or something like that. Now a jury may or may not convict me, that's another story. If someone is dumb enough to walk down a street with weapon drawn and play with fire like that, then they probably aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer to begin with. The idea of carrying concealed vs open carry being similar to walking down the street with a weapon drawn is so ridiculous I can see why you might be getting some less than polite posts. Oh, welcome back by the way.
And you keep thinking that I am looking for this spot!
Quite incorrectly as it happens.
I was trying to find out why there are different carry options/regulations and how they are related to the 2nd amendment right.
Not telling anyone what they can or cannot do, but without clear information I have to probe to see what the boundaries are. Please don't take it out of context and into the realm of hidden agendas (concealed carry, aha!) because there simply isn't one.
Note: I didn't say to shoot someone walking down the street gun in hand, I said 'order them to ground'. Personally if I saw someone walking down the street with a weapon out, and they weren't in uniform, I would be instantly on guard. But that's beside the point.
You are assuming that people here will go to the ground when they are told, especially by someone not in uniform. Just watch some episodes of cops or wild police chase videos, most of us don't ever do what we're told, that's why we're so susceptible to reverse psychology.
Not at all. It was just used as an example of heightened danger.
Anyway, I get the gist of it, I think.
You want to be able to carry in such a way that you can bring your weapon to bear easily, quickly, and safely (i.e. without accidentally shooting yourself in the 'nads). Anything else is not considered carry but is considered 'transportation'. Suggestions of carry that do not conform to the first statement are considered infringements of your right to carry.
And that it varies state by state, because apparently, the Constitution is not evenly applied.
That it? Just curious really.
As we used to say in the Army & Feds....Close enough for government work.
i love watching parliament on cspan...trying to explain to others not born here about why we like our arms and especially our guns is like someone from india trying to explain why they still have a caste system...
Hey, I like guns too! Unfortunately (depending on viewpoint of course) we are not allowed to have them here outside of 'working in the countryside/law enforcement/armed forces' environment. Alas, alas!
You should have a go at watching the Australian parliament on TV. Now there's a headspinner.
Ah Davy, we wild colonials started a riot in the 1700's. The next big one was what we call "the recent unpleasantness" here in the Old North State. And we have helped start or stop "riots" for others alot too. And these days we even seem to enjoy brandishing our opinions at different sects of our own populace. So maybe we are advancing somewhat at least; that is shooting our mouths off and not our guns! I dunno, I got an early start with guns I think, watching too many Hop A Long Cassidy flicks as a toddler and then going out and whacking poor groundhogs on the property . . .
a quick review of history will reveal that gun control and revolution started at least 100 years prior when the white people wanted to violate the treaty terms with the locals...back in 1675 the white establishment forced the local natives to turn in their arms which was a major reason for the king phillips war in 1675...how is it that the invaders think they have a right to tell the aboriginal free man that he has to give up his right to arms and no right to defend his homeland...