I'll admit this kid is an odd bird, and not really doing much to help the gun rights cause, but the world takes all types, and he's not hurting anyone. Best to just smile and wave.
Well, you're right to cite California, because you'd have to outlaw the open carrying of even unloaded weapons to affect this kid, just like they did out there.
Of course, that raises all kinds of questions about how you carry your gun to a shop, to go shooting at a range, etc. etc.
California is going to find that they overreached with that one. Best that you just drop the hysteria over open carry--yeah, folks with long guns look a little nutty, but folks with pistols are becoming a regular enough occurrence most places that they don't freak everyone out anymore.
And, just so you know, the reason we so stridently oppose you on outlawing open carry is because we're sick of seeing the stories and incidents where some cops arrest people because their shirt or jacket blew open, revealing their gun for a second, and resulting in a ruling by the officer that the individual wasn't carrying concealed.
It's truly in our best interests to fix laws like that where a sudden gust of wind can turn you into a criminal.
"we're sick of seeing the stories and incidents where some cops arrest people because their shirt or jacket blew open, revealing their gun for a second, and resulting in a ruling by the officer that the individual wasn't carrying concealed."
You know what? I read gun stories every day and I've never come accross one of them. I don't doubt it has happened, but you make it sound commonplace enough that it's a real problem.
This is another example of your spinning matters in order to make an argument where none exists.
Frankly, my darling, I don't believe you. The video in this news segment was all over the internet earlier this year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBCUEniMwJU
The charges eventually got dropped, but the guy was arrested and charged, even in spite of a state law that tried to fix this situation. As the story notes, there's another, similar case working its way through the courts in Florida.
That's just in one state in a narrow window. This is a real issue that causes us real concern.
Is he going to shoot a peeping tom? He'll probably shoot himself or some neighborhood kid. This is an accident waiting to happen; and I understand that people are nervous when they see a person patrolling the neighborhood armed with a gun and a knife. Is he a self appointed policeman? This is why we pay police. Is the neighborhood a problem neighborhood? Do I trust a wacko 19 year ild to make the right decision if something were to happen? NO!
If he was stalking my house4 with gun, I would get my gun and ask him at gun point just what the hell he was doing stalking my house with his gun and other deadly weapons. So you trust a 19 year old with a 60 year old weapon more than the police? Fine, that's you not me.
2. You say that you'd get a gun and confront this fellow. Perhaps you're someone who shouldn't have a gun if you'd threaten another who is doing nothing wrong. In fact, Anonymous, you're adding evidence to my suspicion that the one category of person who should be banned from having guns is gun control freaks.
The problem with this guy, and gun owners in general, is we can't tell if he's responsible and sane by looking at him. And given the low threshhold for gun ownership and lax gun laws, this is a real problem.
The solution is obvious. No open carry and only highly qualified people get to own guns and carry concealed.
That solution is obvious only to a tyrant or a willing slave. Since he's breaking no law, I don't have a right to take away any of his rights. That's the presumption of American law.
Stalking your house? At what point did merely walking a public sidewalk become stalking of any sort? It's patently absurd to suggest the addition of an inanimate object, carried openly or otherwise, changes a stroll into stalking your house.
No, we can't tell if a person is responsible and sane by looking at him. So what? For instance, we can't tell by looking at him if a journalist is responsible or sane. Thus, even though he may acquire knowledge of military or intelligence actions, the publication of which arguably endangers lives, the First Amendment still applies. The idea that people should prove or demonstrate some degree of competence or responsibility before exercising a basic right has been floated before (the Jim Crow laws that applied to voting come to mind).
You are correct about one thing. The solution is obvious, though it's not the one you suggest. The one I offer doesn't make criminal a previously lawful behavior. It is, however, consistent with what we know about people, psychology/behavior modification and punishment. It's simple. If a person is convicted of a crime, the punishment should fit the crime and it should be carried out swiftly, surely and completely. This allows complete regard for due process, avoids cruel and unusual punishment and prevents making criminals out of law abiding citizens.
And you think a strange teenager stalking a neighborhood with deadly weapons is not to be suspected. I don't and did not reply to you, i made a statement, but an egomaniac like you wouldn't understand that.
What I understand is that you made a rash and asinine comment and rather than address objections or reconsider its wisdom when called on it you resorted to sophomoric insults rather than logic.
"Do you not know how to use the reply button?" Now that's an "asinine comment and a sophomoric insult." Greg proves again that instead of addressing what's been said he reverts to asinine and sophomoric insults as he has multiple times before, glad to know you are part of that character so I can also ignore your blathering as childish and not worthy of response.
How horrifying! An unloaded bolt action rifle!
ReplyDeleteI'll admit this kid is an odd bird, and not really doing much to help the gun rights cause, but the world takes all types, and he's not hurting anyone. Best to just smile and wave.
No, best to make the foolishness of open carry illegal like it is in California.
DeleteWell, you're right to cite California, because you'd have to outlaw the open carrying of even unloaded weapons to affect this kid, just like they did out there.
DeleteOf course, that raises all kinds of questions about how you carry your gun to a shop, to go shooting at a range, etc. etc.
California is going to find that they overreached with that one. Best that you just drop the hysteria over open carry--yeah, folks with long guns look a little nutty, but folks with pistols are becoming a regular enough occurrence most places that they don't freak everyone out anymore.
And, just so you know, the reason we so stridently oppose you on outlawing open carry is because we're sick of seeing the stories and incidents where some cops arrest people because their shirt or jacket blew open, revealing their gun for a second, and resulting in a ruling by the officer that the individual wasn't carrying concealed.
It's truly in our best interests to fix laws like that where a sudden gust of wind can turn you into a criminal.
"we're sick of seeing the stories and incidents where some cops arrest people because their shirt or jacket blew open, revealing their gun for a second, and resulting in a ruling by the officer that the individual wasn't carrying concealed."
DeleteYou know what? I read gun stories every day and I've never come accross one of them. I don't doubt it has happened, but you make it sound commonplace enough that it's a real problem.
This is another example of your spinning matters in order to make an argument where none exists.
Frankly, my darling, I don't believe you. The video in this news segment was all over the internet earlier this year.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBCUEniMwJU
The charges eventually got dropped, but the guy was arrested and charged, even in spite of a state law that tried to fix this situation. As the story notes, there's another, similar case working its way through the courts in Florida.
That's just in one state in a narrow window. This is a real issue that causes us real concern.
Hmm...He doesn't seem to be harming anyone...no big deal.
ReplyDeleteIs he going to shoot a peeping tom? He'll probably shoot himself or some neighborhood kid. This is an accident waiting to happen; and I understand that people are nervous when they see a person patrolling the neighborhood armed with a gun and a knife. Is he a self appointed policeman? This is why we pay police. Is the neighborhood a problem neighborhood? Do I trust a wacko 19 year ild to make the right decision if something were to happen? NO!
ReplyDeleteSo you regard the police as trustworthy by definition?
DeleteWhat, exactly, is this young man doing wrong?
ReplyDeleteNot a thing.
DeleteIf he was stalking my house4 with gun, I would get my gun and ask him at gun point just what the hell he was doing stalking my house with his gun and other deadly weapons. So you trust a 19 year old with a 60 year old weapon more than the police? Fine, that's you not me.
ReplyDelete1. Do you not know how to use the reply button?
Delete2. You say that you'd get a gun and confront this fellow. Perhaps you're someone who shouldn't have a gun if you'd threaten another who is doing nothing wrong. In fact, Anonymous, you're adding evidence to my suspicion that the one category of person who should be banned from having guns is gun control freaks.
The problem with this guy, and gun owners in general, is we can't tell if he's responsible and sane by looking at him. And given the low threshhold for gun ownership and lax gun laws, this is a real problem.
DeleteThe solution is obvious. No open carry and only highly qualified people get to own guns and carry concealed.
That solution is obvious only to a tyrant or a willing slave. Since he's breaking no law, I don't have a right to take away any of his rights. That's the presumption of American law.
DeleteStalking your house? At what point did merely walking a public sidewalk become stalking of any sort? It's patently absurd to suggest the addition of an inanimate object, carried openly or otherwise, changes a stroll into stalking your house.
DeleteThe problem with your thinking, Mike, is that you want to treat the unknowns like bad guys. In a free society it should be the opposite.
DeleteNo, we can't tell if a person is responsible and sane by looking at him. So what? For instance, we can't tell by looking at him if a journalist is responsible or sane. Thus, even though he may acquire knowledge of military or intelligence actions, the publication of which arguably endangers lives, the First Amendment still applies. The idea that people should prove or demonstrate some degree of competence or responsibility before exercising a basic right has been floated before (the Jim Crow laws that applied to voting come to mind).
DeleteYou are correct about one thing. The solution is obvious, though it's not the one you suggest. The one I offer doesn't make criminal a previously lawful behavior. It is, however, consistent with what we know about people, psychology/behavior modification and punishment. It's simple. If a person is convicted of a crime, the punishment should fit the crime and it should be carried out swiftly, surely and completely. This allows complete regard for due process, avoids cruel and unusual punishment and prevents making criminals out of law abiding citizens.
And you think a strange teenager stalking a neighborhood with deadly weapons is not to be suspected. I don't and did not reply to you, i made a statement, but an egomaniac like you wouldn't understand that.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I made my reply on my phone, so it wound up in the wrong place.
DeleteWhat I understand is that you made a rash and asinine comment and rather than address objections or reconsider its wisdom when called on it you resorted to sophomoric insults rather than logic.
ReplyDelete"Do you not know how to use the reply button?"
ReplyDeleteNow that's an "asinine comment and a sophomoric insult."
Greg proves again that instead of addressing what's been said he reverts to asinine and sophomoric insults as he has multiple times before, glad to know you are part of that character so I can also ignore your blathering as childish and not worthy of response.
So you failed to notice my response to you?
Delete