Two things:

[flamin lib]

Anyone who carries a weapon to a Political event, open or concealed, should lose his carry license on the grounds that they are too stupid to qualify for it.

The words "law abiding" make me sick. Most gun nuts are law abiding only as long as the law suits them. If I never heard those words again I'd be perfectly happy.

I'm not averse to firearms. Currently I have a .223 semi auto rifle, a 30-06 bolt action, a 9mm Beretta, two air pistols for practice and last week bought a dove gun. I'm averse to simplistic phrases that have long since lost any meaning and to the kind of person that flings them around.

Flame on . . .

[paulsby]

1. we don't qualify civil rights

based on "stupidity".

we don't do it with voting, and we aren't going to do it with the 2nd amendment

fwiw, people have been carrying guns to political events for as long as there have been political events.

the "new" thang here is the open carry. open carry is largely done in this context, as a form of expression, to make a point.

[jeepnstein]

2. The whole open carry thing...

is just a way for the protesters to continue to try to steer the course of the debate. If they can turn it into a gigantic squabble over the 2nd Amendment, or into some kind of "Security Theatre", then their benefactors win.

They are stepping right up to, but not crossing, the line the law has established. They're tossing out a bait so powerful they just know the Democrats will bite. So do we suddenly change the debate from health care and into a restriction of the 2nd Amendment? That'll pay huge political dividends.

Everyone knows the guns are being openly displayed in an attempt to intimidate. Everyone knows the opponents of affordable and accessible health care would do anything to prevent this legislation from going forward. Some times in politics you just have to stay cool and not take your opponent's bait.

[TheWraith]

24. Bingo! It's a massive distraction.

The Obama administration is smart enough not to fall for it, by saying that they're cool with people open carrying outside their events. Unfortunately most DUers are not quite so level headed.

[NewMoonTherian]

43. I disagree.

I think it was a mistake on the part of universal health care opponents. Momentum was already mounting in their favor, and the gun tangent has taken some wind out of their sails. It certainly wasn't a calculated move, and I'd bet the majority of opponents would rather it never have taken place.

[X_Digger]

3. Couple of things..

No permit is required for open carry in many states (two states also don't require permits for concealed carry). In order to accomplish your proposal, you'd either have to get new laws passed in 34-ish states to add a new 'prohibited place' or a new federal crime that would kick back on NICS check.

You do know that the recent spate of open carrying was not actually _at_ the events, yes? The NH goober was 1/4 mile away, and the AZ folks were 3-4 blocks away. Federal law allows the secret service to temporarily treat a venue as federal property, and they set up security cordons in concentric rings, with metal detectors in the 'ring' that effectively defines the limit / risk of a firearm (ie, you'll never get within pistol / rifle range of the president without being checked for weapons.) The secret service also lays claim to any places with open sight lines to the president's location, even a rifle with a scope can't get a bead on the president. So how far outside an event would you suggest these new laws apply?

How about a literacy test to vote? IQ test to get a jury trial? Just as the first amendment protects speech that is stupid, hateful, and outrageous, placing intelligence limits on other rights won't pass constitutional muster.

[flamin lib]

18. How abour proof of voter registration?

How about some proof of identification?

How about being not too stupid to find the polling place?

Voting has qualifications.

[X_Digger]

22. Proof of residency, yes..

.. and those are still being debated, as they have a disparate effect on the poor. They may ultimately be ruled unconstitutional. (It ends up being a poll tax on those who may not have enough money or need to purchase a driver's license.)

"Literacy" tests, anyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

23. Do we deny voters on the grounds that they are too stupid to vote?

As you outlined in the OP that Gun toting protester are to stupid to have a carry license?

[flamin lib]

25. Right to carry is a misnomer. Anton Scalia in the Heller case

said the ruling was about the individual right to own guns and that reasonable laws concerning guns were not precluded by the decision. There is no "right to carry" otherwise no state or city could disenfranchise owners by requiring a permit. The fact that some states don't require permits notwithstanding, some do thus carry is not a right but a privilege.

Any body stupid enough to carry to a political meeting where emotions run high should have the permit reviewed because they aren't showing the judgment requisite for responsible carry.

[X_Digger]

30. How do you 'bear' arms without carrying them?

Heller didn't address it directly, but they did lay out the supporting text, should the right argument make it to the court. (See historical references to the PA & VT constitutions- "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state..")

To assert otherwise is to say that you only have the ability to defend yourself with the most capable tool only in your home.

[flamin lib]

34. Take it up with Antonin Scalia nt

[PavePusher]

31. Wow, the legal mind on you...

"The fact that some states don't require permits notwithstanding, some do thus carry is not a right but a privilege."

So, because some states violate the Constitution, that makes it O.K. to violate the Constitution?

Your logic chain is a closed loop.

[flamin lib]

35. Ooooooh, your response leaves me . . . . speechless nt

[HALO141]

45. So Anton Scalia can't be wrong?

Really?!?

I disagree. "There is no 'right to carry' otherwise no state or city could disenfranchise owners by requiring a permit." in other words... "Such cannot be the case because, if it were, then that would mean we've been doing something we don't have the authority to do." In still OTHER words... "I make my legal decisions based not on the letter of the law nor the documented intent of its authors but based on the end result I find less injurious to my personal sensibilities."

It's not just Scalia. They all do it. Just because a justice (or even the entire court) says a thing, that doesn't make it correct. They're just as fallible as any other human beings. Perhaps more so because the whole world's been blowing sunshine up their collective ass.

[Statistical]

47. In this case scalia said nothing like what was stated.

When dealing with gun grabbers it is best to ask for a quote, stat, or some other form of evidence.

They are not immune to simply making up whatever they need to "winz" the argument.

[Statistical]

46. Scalia said nothing of the sort. Got a quote? Cause I have one.

How about this one?

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

DC. v. Heller (2008)

Scalia (or more correctly the Supreme Court because the opinion is the combined interpertation of the majority not a single man) indicate the right is not without limits. Thus laws restricting carry in "sensitive places" are Constitutional. Places restrictions on some locations is a far cry from a complete ban on carrying. There is nothing to indicate the court would find a complete ban on the "bear" poriton of "keep and bear arms" to be Constitutional.

Lastly your logic that since such bans are in place means it is Constitutional shows how far you are reaching.

The ban in DC was in place until it is Constitutional.
The ban in Chicago is in place because Heller was technically limited to federal authority. Once McDonald v. Chicago grants a ruling that the 2nd is incorporated against the states it open up standing for suing against laws prohibiting carrying.

Until those two cases were (Heller establishing an individual right) and are (McDonald establishing the restriction on govt applies to state & local govt) decided one would not have "standing" to sue a restriciton on carrying a weapon simply because the courts hadn't yet ruled the right exists or even if it exists that it applies to the states.

[SteveM]

53. "...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt..." limits the opinion...

to the question of an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Even with regards "sensitive" areas, the opinion does not say "yea" or "nay" -- only that the opinion shouldn't be read as to cast doubt. Later, maybe. This is the kind of limitation that the so-called strict constructionists like to bandy about, and it may be a clue to what the Court had in mind: only a very narrow ruling.

I just can't imagine a Court that conservative which would willingly march into the realm of incorporation; let others do the spade work first.

[slackmaster]

4. You don't need a license to carry a firearm openly in most places

You should research the subject a little before commenting on it.

[Statistical]

5. Anyone who posts stupid things without understanding the law (famin lib)

loses his/her ability to excercise his/her first amendment right on the grounds he/she is too stupid to use it properly.

It IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW to carry OUTSIDE a political event.

Generally speaking under the rule of law we don't arrest someone for a non-crime. In "shall issue" states a felony conviction would be required to revoke the license.

Other than getting mad at people NOT BREAKING THE LAW there is a very simple solution...........

CHANGE THE FRACKIN LAW!

Make it so carrying within 500ft of a national political event a crime. Wow imagine that. You can change behavior without totally taking a dump on the rule of law.

Now personally I think any such law is both stupid and useless but if it was the law and people carried I would say "lock em up".

[flamin lib]

19. I didn't say what they did was illegal, I said it was stupid to the

point of proving inability to make rational decisions regarding when to carry/display.

Same goes for 1st amendment. Can't slander, can't defame, can't blackmail and damn sure can't shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire.

[57_TomCat]

56. Well actually...

You can do these things...

Can't slander, can't defame, can't blackmail and damn sure can't shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire.


There is a legal consequence if you do and are caught but there is nothing stopping you from doing it. That is the general problem with all of our laws. They simply provide a consequence if "YOU" make a decision to engage in the prohibited activity. They in no way stop you from doing the activity.

[rrneck]

6. Two more things

The president was never in danger.

Why do people feel it necessary to qualify their statements by announcing that they do or do not own a firearm? Unless we're shooting at each other on an internet message board it shouldn't matter. Either you're making sense or not. Either you have something like a solution to a problem for firearms violence or not. Either you have a way to protect our civil rights and control uncivil behavior or you don't.

I don't care about what you own. I care about what you have to say.

[flamin lib]

20. Two more things:

The inventory was to forestall the gun-grabber label.

Nobody has yet mentioned the second thing in the OP. Both are are an example of level of mental usage by the extreme end of the enthusiast spectrum catered to by LaPierre. Such behavior is the second most damaging to the image of firearms in America, the first being the obvious carnage.

[pipoman]

39. What second thing are you talking about?

Certainly not this bit of tripe?

The words "law abiding" make me sick. Most gun nuts are law abiding only as long as the law suits them. If I never heard those words again I'd be perfectly happy.

Tough shit if you don't like it, who the fuck cares...law abiding...law abiding....law abiding..

The term 'gun nuts" make me sick but that doesn't or won't stop you and others stupid asses from using it...it is a demonization as is 'axis of evil', meaningless without the ever absent definition and ONLY used to demean other people's opinions and positions.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

7. I'm more interested in the air guns.

How well do they work for practice? With ammo prices being what they are today and me getting laid off, I can't afford to go to the range nearly as often as I would like but an air gun could be an inexpensive, interim solution. I was just concerned that they would be poor quality and scattered accuracy which would make practice with them pointless. Thoughts?

[X_Digger]

12. If you're willing to spend enough..

.. they can be accurate enough out to about 75 yards (without going absolutely insane re price.)

[jeepnstein]

15. I use one quite often.

It really does help with trigger control and sight alignment. A couple of days with a good air pistol and my shooting improves dramatically.

[spin]

16. Expensive air guns can be more accurate than firearms...

at short range.

Target Shooting: It is not surprising that target shooting with airguns is so popular around the world. The top-grade precision airguns are now considered to be the world's most accurate guns, bar none. In many countries such as Germany and England, target shooting at the local clubhouse is mixed with good fellowship and, after the contest, good beer! Americans also target shoot in clubs, albeit in a bit drier surroundings than their European counterparts. While Americans often think of airgun shooting as primarily a youth program leading to adult firearm events, they are now recognizing that serious airgun competition is an end in itself and something in which members of all ages can participate.

Airgun shooting in America is actively promoted by the National Rifle Association. In fact, airgun shooting is one of only three competitive shooting events that have grown in the US during the last decade (combat pistol and silhouette are the other two). The NRA has established 15 levels of marksmanship awards in their 25-ft airgun shooting programs, awards which you can obtain by shooting right in your own home. Target shooters can also compete with each other via postal matches, and in-person at hundreds of airgun matches at the local, state, national and international levels. Airgun competition is also an official Olympic event for both men and women.

In addition to target shooting, many US shooting clubs have started hunting style metallic silhouette and "running target" programs for air rifles and pistols.
http://www.beeman.com/whybuy.htm

I own a Beeman P1 pistol which is an excellent trainer which helps to maintain my ability between range sessions.

The P1 is a unique combination of Beeman airgun experience and design with the assistance of our German partners engineering and manufacturing skills. The result is a blend of two cultures to make one of the most popular adult air pistols ever produced.

A major objective of the P1 design was to give it an "American" flavor, and it seemed nothing but the famous Colt .45 Auto could come closer to being recognized around the world as one of America's finest. Although the P1 is not a replica, many of the design features between the two guns are similar as virtually all shooters hold the .45 in the highest regard.

This spring piston gun is cocked by a single stroke. The "hammer" on the back is really the catch for the cocking lever. Release the "hammer" and the top cocks over the gun until it locks into place. The pellet is loaded directly into the barrel and the unit then snaps back down, ready to fire. Accuracy is increased as the sights move with the entire cocking arm and barrel, never changing position. A scope can even be mounted on the 11mm dovetail grooves along the top of the action.


http://www.beeman.com/p1.htm

Note the accuracy of the P1 in the chart. 0.30" c-t-c at 10 meters. This is no exaggeration it's amazingly accurate and I've found it's improved my shooting considerably.

Of course there are many other very accurate airguns to consider. One is the Daisy 747.I also owned own for years, but finally sold it to another shooter who wanted to try an air pistol for practice.



A good review can be found at http://www.ihmsa.com/shooting_the_daisy_747.htm

[flamin lib]

27. Depends on what you want in the gun.

Single shot break barrel pistols are extremely accurate and are excellent for precision shooting. Each shot is punctuated by re-charge, load, target acquisition and finally sight picture. Makes for forming really good habits and concentration.

On the other hand, a gas powered Beretta replica with "blowback" almost completely mimics the feel of the 9mm it imitates. Won't group better than 3 inches at 20 feet but it improves muscle memory and reinforces the safety concerns of accidental fire with a semi auto pistol.

The semi is a lot of fun to shoot and makes the 9mm more familiar but the single action is better for actual skill training.

[gorfle]

8. Provably false.

Anyone who carries a weapon to a Political event, open or concealed, should lose his carry license on the grounds that they are too stupid to qualify for it.

Carrying a weapon at a political event is a symbolic act. It is no different than hanging someone in effigy, or burning a flag. They are making a statement of defiance.

What would you think of protesters who carried replica firearms? Or pictures of firearms?

The words "law abiding" make me sick. Most gun nuts are law abiding only as long as the law suits them. If I never heard those words again I'd be perfectly happy.

This is provably false. There are some 40-80 million firearm owners in this country. Yet from 1973 to 2005, we see that there have never been more than 5 million serious violent crimes committed annually, and for the last 8 years it has been less than 2 million serious violent crimes committed annually. Serious violent crimes include rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and homicide, and include attempted rape and assaults by family members.

Even if we assume that every single serious violent crime is committed by a firearm owner, this still means that 87% - 94% of firearm owners are not involved in serious violent crimes every year.

Clearly the vast majority of firearm owners are "law abiding", at least concerning serious violent crime.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/4meastab.htm

[yost69]

9. You do know that anti gunners don't care about numbers right?

[gorfle]

11. It's important to keep drawing people to the facts.

.

[flamin lib]

21. Law abiding as long as the law suits them, period. Pass a law

requiring something they don't like and it will be ignored, period.

Registration anyone?

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns BECA

[flamin lib]

28. finishing 21

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns BECAUSE gun owners won't obey that law.

It's a semantic thing . . .

[DonP]

29. I'm sure you can point to multiple examples...

... of law abiding gun owners willfully disobeying a law they didn't "like"?

Registration is not the law, except in a few places like "Gun Free" Chicago, Washington DC and a few other cities with serious crime rates.

How about even one example that doesn't involve a felon acquiring a gun by illegal means and using it?

Maybe your cousin's friend Beevis made his own machine gun in violation of the NFA? Or someone you know manufactured and sold a magazine that held more than 10 rounds in 1995?

We're looking forward to your cites anytime now.

Or is that how you think people that own guns behave?

[PavePusher]

As it should be.

"Pass a law requiring something they don't like and it will be ignored, period."

That is called "Civil Disobedience" my friend and has a long and distinguished history dating all the way back to acts that helped kick-start the American Revolution. If they get enough people on their side, the law will get revoked (Jim Crow laws, anyone?).

Irony, it's what's for dinner.

[flamin lib]

36. You just made my point. Law abiding only as long as the law suits.

I wasn't making a value judgment on the efficacy of any particular law, only on the tired old phrase that really only applies when it fits someone's pleasure.

[JonQ]

10. I would think "law abiding" is an important distinction

as opposed to say "law breaking".

Essentially you are arguing for stripping people of their rights based on them *not* breaking the law.

What other right would receive the same treatment on here? Anyone who makes an erroneous comparison to hitler is obviously too stupid to have freedom of speech, that should be revoked. Anyone who attempts a frivolous lawsuit is obviously too stupid to be entitled to a trial by jury.

[flamin lib]

26. There is no right to carry. Get over it.

If carry were a right states couldn't infringe it by requiring a permit and posting competency to get that permit. States can't infringe the right to vote with poll taxes and they can't infringe the right of free speech. They can, however, require residency and punish damaging speech (slander, incitement etc). There is a right to speak, but not to incite violence. There is a right to own a gun (Heller) but not a right to carry.

[PavePusher]

33. Many state Constitutions, and a number of Courts, disagree with you. n/t

[flamin lib]

37. And the one and only US Constitution doesn't.

Look, there are a lot of conflicts between local, state and federal law. That's why there is a Supreme Court. D.C. happily ran along with their restrictions until Heller happened. We'll see what happens when those other conflicts are put to the test.

[Statistical]

49. The constution does protect the right to carry firearms.

Nothing in Heller indicates the right is limited to only keeping firearms.

[JonQ]

42. So the 2nd amendment

doesn't exist?

Or you have a right to keep and bear arms, but not physically carry them? That makes as much sense as granting the right to free speech, so long as you can't actually be heard by anyone.

And by the logic that "states infringe on it, so it can't be a right" then neither is abortion, or gay marriage, or blacks voting, or any other myriad rights that have been trampled on by some states in the past.

[Treo]

55. State Permits

I agree the state shouldn't be allowed to restrict my carry of a firearm however in most states OC is legal and that's howthey get around it.

By your logic the Jews had no right to life because the state infringd it at places like Sobibor and Auschwitz.

As for there not being a right to carry what, exactly does "bear" mean?

[rd_kent]

13. I am glad you are not in charge then.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. 'dove gun'

You mean 'shotgun' right?

Simplistic phrases that have lost meaning indeed.

[Euromutt]

17. I thought "dove gun" communicated meaning

Sure, it's a shotgun, but "dove gun" narrows it down to something suited for hunting upland birds, as opposed to turkey or deer. So probably something with a long (27" or so) barrel, perhaps in a lighter gauge like 20 or even 28.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Oh I suspect it's intended to communicate meaning.

Something harmless to humans, like a feather duster.

Any shotgun will do for doves. Any 'dove gun' can be used to hunt humans.

[Euromutt]

40. Are you sure you're not reading too much into this?

After all, "flamin lib" there has already stated he owns "a .223 semi auto rifle" (I'm guessing Mini-14), "a 30-06 bolt action" (Springfield M1903?) and "a 9mm Beretta." So it's not like he's tip-toeing around the fact that he owns weapons perfectly capable of killing humans.

Incidentally (and entirely off-topic), would you be up grabbing a beer some time and swapping stories? Seeing as how we both live in King Co. and all.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. A .223 semi-auto rifle sounds pretty tame.

I find it interesting he might use downplaying shorthand for the shotgun, but not 'assault weapon' or 'assault rifle' for the .223.

It's not a big deal, I just found it ironic in light of his concerns about language.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. You are a gun nut. What on earth do you need machine guns only designed to kill people for?

Since you are only law abiding when it suits you, you should turn in your guns.

[Treo]

54. Needing Machine Guns

Under the current Constitution “ I want a machine gun” is all the “need” you need.
The purpose of the 2A is crystal clear to give the people the means to ensure the security of a free state. There are 80+ Million gun owners in this country W/ 300+MILLION guns. All together the armed forces and every cop in the country might add up to 2 million. As long as that’s the case we will remain a free country

[flamin lib]

48. DAMN! I've never had a post that got the little flamey thing

for more than 50 replys. I thought surely if I posted something here in the gungeon I'd get flamed to the point of 50 replies, but nooooo, not even here can I get a little flamey thing.

Sigh, perhaps another day . . .

[burrfoot]

50. Point #1

Well, they can't be to stupid to have qualified for it, because they did qualify for it.
They might, possibly, be too stupid to keep it.
I think you can grow stupid on you like a fungus- if you keep yourself in the dark and eat nothing but bullshit. I can believe that they may have earned it but no longer deserve it.

[burrfoot]

51. Point #2

Congratulations on the little flamey thing!

Oh right- my second point was that nobody actually brought a gun to a presidential event. They brought them to a place where they were protesting the president, but he wasn't there.

Smarter people than me have said this- the SS knows what it's doing. The president is NOT in danger from these jamokes. It's either a random outbreak of (IMO) idiocy (I'd never carry either way anywhere remotely near the president, regardless of the fact that as a CCW holder I'm allowed to outside of the security cordon, at least in whichever locations respect FL CCW's); or it's somebody manipulating them to do this in order to distract our attention from the issue that was under discussion.


Again, for my .02; this is the MSM making a huge fucking hoopla out of the LCD, the issue that gets the sound byte at the moment.

:evilgrin:

[flamin lib]

52. THANKS FOR THE LITTLE FLAMEY THING!!!!!!! OMG!!! THIS ID HUGH1!