Shooting at Dark Knight in CO. What is WRONG with some people?

[Nemo128]

I've quoted the post above as to where and when IMO it got emotional.

Somehow that response means I am for infringing on your supposed rights. Because having an opinion on something means you're not entitled to your rights. Check, totally tracking you...

IMHO I don't see it that way
While you did mention one short line in each post "I support gun ownership"....but
You then consistently followed that with many, many paragraphs to the contrary.
I clearly posted replies with the few parts of your posts that I did have issues with...and noticed you haven't directly replied to those.

Purposely checked from my very first post and have not missed a single one. I've responded to each, at length.

Unfortunately, I think yes. You think we are illogical...probably thinking such because of your stated personal losses due to firearms (illegally used). So your replies come with strong emotion and heart-felt opinion.

Interesting, I was being directly called illogical and when I responded with a question, "and I'm the one being illogical?", I'm somehow the one that intiated the insult? Interesting.

You seem to think the National Guard (or military in general) is the militia that will protect us from any abuse of power by our government.

You seem to think the military in general won't. How is your opinion any more valid or true than mine?

I don't turn opinions into facts. I state my opinions as such, my beliefs for what they are, and my impressions as how I see them. Do I think that the majority of the drivers I encounter on the road don't deserve a license and should be banned from every getting behind the wheel of anything including a baby carriage? You damn right I do.

That doesn't mean I want their right to do so taken away. I just recognize, logically, that a larger amount of irresponsible crappy drivers will lead to more accidents, higher insurance premuims, increased taxes, and greater loss of life and injury. If anything, people who cling without compromise to "rights" are the ones ruled by emotion.

This sums up perfectly how I think:

 

[Adam]

Do I think that the majority of the drivers I encounter on the road don't deserve a license and should be banned from every getting behind the wheel of anything including a baby carriage? You damn right I do.

Yikes. You should move out here, man. There's the occasional a-hole driver, but in general, it's not too bad out here. Seriously.

Granted, that's subjective. When I'm in a big hurry, people seem to be worse drivers than when I'm not...which really means that I'm the one being the bad driver.

Tucson has gotten more crowded in the 16 years that I've lived here, so it's lost a bit of that small town feel that it had in the 90's - but I think it still has it for the most part. It's due to the lower population density. Even though the population tops one million, we aren't stacked on top of each other. It makes my drive longer but people more friendly, I think.

 

[Rickster71]

Somehow that response means I am for infringing on your supposed rights. Because having an opinion on something means you're not entitled to your rights. Check, totally tracking you...

That's a perfect example of many of your replies.
I quoted you at the point I thought you became emotional....your reply to that (above); was to ask if that infringed on my supposed rights. No...it was the point where IMO you became emotional.

What else but emotional, would anyone be if loved ones were killed?

Purposely checked from my very first post and have not missed a single one. I've responded to each, at length.

What you call 'responding at length' I call obfuscation.
I suppose were back to Tomorrow's Tomayto, tomahto thing.

Edit: I vote for a shut down too, since it's going nowhere.
It was nice to have civil conversations for a while.

 

[AverageJoe]

...
You seem to think the military in general won't. How is your opinion any more valid or true than mine?

I don't turn opinions into facts. ...

Neither do I. I typically try to describe why I make a particular observation or voice a certain opinion, such as the paragraph after the statement I made about the military/National Guard. I never said my opinion was any more valid than anyone else's (but then I never said anyone with a dissenting opinion was FoS, either). Recent history and past actions support the opinion, though.

Typically, the National Guard participates during natural disasters and civil unrest at the request of the Governor of the State. While weather related responses are more common lately, in the 60's and 70's (well... recent history for me - I'm old), the National Guard had been called on frequently to quell student disturbances and civil unrest (Kent State, Democratic National Convention, etc.). One would think the Governor would be the commander in chief if his State's National Guard, not the President, so if top federal officials became the oppressive force we needed protection from, Our "State militia" could help in our defense.

The problem is, in the past, the President has federalized the National Guard, and mobilized them against the Governor of their state to enforce Federal demands over the States (University of Alabama - '63). Now, a recent law (the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007) expanded the president’s authority to activate guard units, eliminating the need for approval from the state governor (not that the new law was apparently needed in the past). Since the federal armed forces - Army, Navy - are legally restricted in their actions within US borders, the National Guard has effectively become the Presidents (Commander in Chief's) forces within the USA (The Alabama situation was just an example - I'm not judging which side was right or wrong. However, even the commander of the National Guard troupes apologized to the Governor - that he was following the demands with which he did not necessarily agree).

From a recent article: "About half of the states in the United States also maintain a state defense force. These forces are more like militias – all of the troops are volunteers, they receive no federal funding and often have to purchase their own uniforms and equipment. A state defense force is separate from the state National Guard, though they may be organized in parallel... ".

Personally, I would probably classify these volunteer groups as the "militia" described in the Constitution - not a force under federal government control, which has historically placed federal demands over the desires of the State.

 

[markw]

This is JERSEY!!!

Knowing Nork fairly well (I still have family there, some on the police force) I doubt that the boyz in da hood had to go all the way down south to find a cracker willing to sell their legally purchased firearms. Odds are that they just gave a wad of cash to one of their homies to get one. Criminals don't need no permits to get all the firepower they want.

Nemo, If I read correctly, you're not opposed to CCW, but mainly that you can't get one. I can appreciate that but keep in mind that we are the most densily populated state in the nation. That would be a heckuva lot of guns in a heckuve lot of hands.

Getting a rifle or shotgun isn't too difficult if you've got a clean record and aren't on record and being unstable*. You just need to get a reference from someone in authority, probably a policeman or a politician. Generally, that's not too difficult if you've mingled with the locals for some time and they don't think you're weird.

But, a CCW here is a bit more complicated. You must show a real need for one,a and a good one at that. Simply saying "for my protection" doesn't really make it. So, in this respect, we ARE at a disadvantage for these but we most likely can keep rifles/shotguns in our homes, if we've kept our nose clean.

* As for stability, had the laws been followed to a "T", the Joker would have not been legally able to purchase firearms.

 

[Adam]

Two years ago, Arizona changed the law so that we can carry concealed without a CCW.

 

[AverageJoe]

This ain't Jersey!!!

Probably there is a difference in culture out here that helped mold my attitudes on firearms and government, etc. Certainly many of my friends and most of my relatives in the East (especially New York and New Jersey ) are more cynical about government officials in general, but at the same time embrace the policies and protections that the government provides, and the tax bill it generates, a bit more enthusiastically than we do in my neck o' the woods.

It is quite easy to obtain a carry permit here. Many people have one, regardless of need or political leanings, from the ultra conservative redneck radical down the road, to my ultra liberal teacher cousin, who embraces every other left-wing cause and agenda you can imagine. My father had one, my daughter has one. Most of them acknowledge the "deterrent" benefit I've described, but their immediate focus is more for personal protection and home defense, or target and competition shooting.

I don't have one - I'm not that concerned with personal protection when I'm out and about in our little burg, but I live in a rural area and can just shoot out in the front yard if I want to without any permit. I do believe it is prudent to have firearms available in the unlikely event that we need to defend ourselves from our own government, or the more likely event of an economic failure or viral epidemic, and I need to protect our home from mobs or bands of thieves... or the government.

My little contribution to this thread was just a good-natured attempt to show that the 2nd amendment is not archaic, and the people who believe that the reason for it's inclusion in our Constitution is still a valid one are not necessarily FoS, and that the people who ..."never, never, ever... period." might surprise you some day.

 

[Rickster71]

This sums up perfectly how I think:

That was very good. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[randyb]

Yikes. You should move out here, man. There's the occasional a-hole driver, but in general, it's not too bad out here. Seriously.

Granted, that's subjective. When I'm in a big hurry, people seem to be worse drivers than when I'm not...which really means that I'm the one being the bad driver.

Tucson has gotten more crowded in the 16 years that I've lived here, so it's lost a bit of that small town feel that it had in the 90's - but I think it still has it for the most part. It's due to the lower population density. Even though the population tops one million, we aren't stacked on top of each other. It makes my drive longer but people more friendly, I think.

My wife recently read to me the most recent fatality statistics for Missouri. It was fascinating because everyone of them was not wearing their seat belts and/or was a motorcycle accident. I guess my point is that seat belts save lives but dumb is dumb and you can't legislate dumbness out of the population. As far as drivers in MO, I wish there was a death penalty for diring while texting or talking on a cell phone without paying a lick of attention. Am I too harsh?

 

[gmichael]

My wife recently read to me the most recent fatality statistics for Missouri. It was fascinating because everyone of them was not wearing their seat belts and/or was a motorcycle accident. I guess my point is that seat belts save lives but dumb is dumb and you can't legislate dumbness out of the population. As far as drivers in MO, I wish there was a death penalty for diring while texting or talking on a cell phone without paying a lick of attention. Am I too harsh?

Yeah, a little. Maybe a good flogging instead of death. Death seems so permanent.

 

[Nemo128]

My wife recently read to me the most recent fatality statistics for Missouri. It was fascinating because everyone of them was not wearing their seat belts and/or was a motorcycle accident.

I am against seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws. I'm basically against any law that forces safety precautions which impact only the individual. Air traffic safety, sure, crumple zones in cars, ok. Things that could affect more than the individual.

But the rider who's stupid enough to ride without a helmet and winds up being asphalt art, that's their own fault (of which I've known a couple, so although I'm personally vested I recognize they themselves were stupid). The same for seatbelts.

You're right randy, and as Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid."

When I'm in a big hurry, people seem to be worse drivers than when I'm not...which really means that I'm the one being the bad driver.

That's one thing, I'm never in a rush behind the wheel. I could be late to work, late for a funeral, going to the hospital, on my way to pick up the child from school, whatever it is I refuse to rush behind the wheel. I don't like the idea that I could be putting other people at risk because either I didn't plan ahead of time or I feel the need to get where I'm going minutes earlier. I can count literally on one hand the number of times I've used my horn in the last couple of years. I also famously say out loud "Yeah, your magic horn is going to part the traffic Moses..." when I hear someone else's.

 

[gmichael]

I am against seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws. I'm basically against any law that forces safety precautions which impact only the individual. Air traffic safety, sure, crumple zones in cars, ok. Things that could affect more than the individual.

But the rider who's stupid enough to ride without a helmet and winds up being asphalt art, that's their own fault (of which I've known a couple, so although I'm personally vested I recognize they themselves were stupid). The same for seatbelts.

You're right randy, and as Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid."

Come on Darwin?

 

[CaliHwyPatrol]

I am against seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws. I'm basically against any law that forces safety precautions which impact only the individual. Air traffic safety, sure, crumple zones in cars, ok. Things that could affect more than the individual.

You're basically against any law that you don't know anything about, just like most people.

Seatbelts don't just save your life, they save the lives of anyone else in your path when you go flying around in or out of the vehicle. I once saw a picture of a woman who was driving and got in an accident, at which point an unbuckled occupant in her back seat flew forward and embedded his teeth in her skull, killing her. People are heavy objects, and physics can do some pretty nasty things with heavy objects.

 

[3db]

Let's say you great white north guys get your wish. Dreams of abundant safety come true and private North American citizens become completely disarmed. (Canadians will be very happy.) Further, conservationists and PETA are delighted because there will be no more hunting game. No reason for weapons of distruction to be owned in civilized society.

GO-NAD has suggested that the military will keep the peace (I presume there will be armed local peace officers, too.) I give you a couple of the administrations that had exactly this delightful, safe situation: Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mao's Communist China, Ortega's Nicaragua, Stalin's Soviet Union. I leave off situations that result in tens of millions of deaths, usually genecide, in places like Rwanda, Uganda, and Cambodia...because only certain types of people were disarmed.

Hitler and Germany is totally irrelevant to this discussion and must be kept out of this as it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. To even attempt such a comparison is discussion in bad faith. Let's clean this up instead of throwing out irrelevance.

 

[XEagleDriver]

Two years ago, Arizona changed the law so that we can carry concealed without a CCW.

Doesn't sound very effective (CCW = Concealed Carry Weapon)

On a serious note, the big problem with not requiring a CCP (Concealed Carry Permit) is the loss of requisite training (both legal/moral use of force academics and practical/range ability to hit what you are aiming at).
- Training is important for the public's safety at large; helping avoid future 2nd Amendment backlash because an unqualified/incompetent clown screws up a self-defense situation; protection of the legal gun user from financial and or criminal ruin because he/she is unaware of the legal limits/risks on use of deadly force.

Fortunately where I live this same law was attempted and failed in large part due to the out cry of CCP holders.

XEagleDriver

 

[Matt34]

Like the Summer Olymipics, I think this thread has ran it's course.

Oh, and just because: