Pro-Gun Group backs down from rallies

[Checkerboard Strangler]

since when did OWNING, bearing or keeping a gun mean someone dies. another event must happen.

Like many gun banners you really don't understand rights apparently

Don't call me a gun banner. I am not interested in banning guns and I am okay with the right to own firearms.

keeping bearing, acquiring and possessing arms doesn't hurt anyone and should generally not be restricted by the government and only insignificantly by the federal or state government in areas where the federal government or the state government has jurisdiction

laws against

1) harming people with firearms

2) preventing the discharge of firearms in public areas

3) possessing firearms in certain areas such as a federal courthouse, a prison or a federal office building

NONE OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS interfere with the 2A

assault weapon bans
magazine limits
waiting periods
machine gun bans
limitations on how many guns you can own or buy

ALL are violations of the 2A

I asked you a question, are you really implying that all of our constitutional rights, which are indeed sacred, are UNLIMITED?"
Either you're going to respond to that question, or you're going to put words in my mouth and continue attempting to paint me as a gun banner.
Which is it going to be?

You're calling things like waiting periods, mag limits, machine gun bans and limitations on purchase VIOLATIONS.
I'm calling them REGULATIONS, and I am not even in agreement with all of them. For instance, I am on the fence about assault weapons although
I am not so sure that any Joe Blow off the street can demonstrate adequate reason to own military style firearms.
But okay, let's compromise.

My thing isn't about categorizing certain weapons as dangerous. Cars are dangerous.
That said, it's entirely possible to own a car with 2200 horsepower and drive it normally on the street, I've seen it done.
But I'm not about to put my eighteen year old son behind the wheel till he demonstrates that he can handle a 180 HP PT Cruiser first.

So you see, I'm more interested in our ability to categorize certain PERSONS as dangerous.

Now, do you have any interest in answering my question?

 

[TurtleDude]

Don't call me a gun banner. I am not interested in banning guns and I am okay with the right to own firearms.



I asked you a question, are you really implying that all of our constitutional rights, which are indeed sacred, are UNLIMITED?"
Either you're going to respond to that question, or you're going to put words in my mouth and continue attempting to paint me as a gun banner.
Which is it going to be?

You're calling things like waiting periods, mag limits, machine gun bans and limitations on purchase VIOLATIONS.
I'm calling them REGULATIONS, and I am not even in agreement with all of them. For instance, I am on the fence about assault weapons although
I am not so sure that any Joe Blow off the street can demonstrate adequate reason to own military style firearms.
But okay, let's compromise.

My thing isn't about categorizing certain weapons as dangerous. Cars are dangerous.
That said, it's entirely possible to own a car with 2200 horsepower and drive it normally on the street, I've seen it done.
But I'm not about to put my eighteen year old son behind the wheel till he demonstrates that he can handle a 180 HP PT Cruiser first.

So you see, I'm more interested in our ability to categorize certain PERSONS as dangerous.

Now, do you have any interest in answering my question?

constitutional rights maybe subject to restrictions if the federal government actually has been delegated the power to act. I don't see that when it comes to firearms issues

the 2A was not intended to apply to states. however, the court has incorporated the 2A to the states. THere is where you have a real conflict.

I have answered the question. laws that restrict use of weapons are not generally violating the 2A

laws that restrict or impede the ownership or possession of firearms do

 

[Bob N]

Okay, here's why those guys went into Chipotle with open-carry rifles and shotguns: They were encouraged to do so by a Texas gun rights group -- Open Carry Texas. What idiots.

They've asked their members to cease and desist their demonstrations immediately. What idiots.

They decided maybe it wasn't such a good idea after Chipotle reconsidered their gun policy -- and understand that Chili's (because of the same kind of demonstration) was reconsidering theirs. What idiots.

The powers that be within Open Carry Texas are quite obviously mentally impaired.

Pro-Gun Group Backs Down After Chipotle Rally Backfires

They're probably the jamokes behind these young men walking up-and-down Main Streets with their semi-automatics slung over their shoulders. What idiots.

Businesses are most definitely NOT public. :thumbdown

 

[1750Texan]

since when did OWNING, bearing or keeping a gun mean someone dies. another event must happen.

Like many gun banners you really don't understand rights apparently

keeping bearing, acquiring and possessing arms doesn't hurt anyone and should generally not be restricted by the government and only insignificantly by the federal or state government in areas where the federal government or the state government has jurisdiction

laws against

1) harming people with firearms

2) preventing the discharge of firearms in public areas

3) possessing firearms in certain areas such as a federal courthouse, a prison or a federal office building

NONE OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS interfere with the 2A

assault weapon bans
magazine limits
waiting periods
machine gun bans
limitations on how many guns you can own or buy

ALL are violations of the 2A

None of your reasoning has anything to do with a private business not wanting firearms carried inside their restaurants.

You have the right to challenge everyone of the restrictions to your second amendment right in a court of law on their contitutionality. Take Sonic, Chili's, and Chipotle to court to establish your second amendment right to open carry in their restaurants.

Until you or another advocate of open carry in private restaurants has done so...Chili's, Sonic's, and Chipotle's right to refuse you and any other open-carry advocate service and entry is lawful and constitutional.

 

[TurtleDude]

None of your reasoning has anything to do with a private business not wanting firearms carried inside their restaurants.

You have the right to challenge everyone of the restrictions to your second amendment right in a court of law on their contitutionality. Take Sonic, Chili's, and Chipotle to court to establish your second amendment right to open carry in their restaurants.

Until you or another advocate of open carry in private restaurants has done so...Chili's, Sonic's, and Chipotle's right to refuse you and any other open-carry advocate service and entry is lawful and constitutional.

you sort of didn't keep up with the conversation

 

[1750Texan]

you sort of didn't keep up with the conversation

I can jump in and challenge your incorrect contentions at any point. You just have no replay to what is the truth...challenge any restriction you feel is unconstitutional. Take Sonic, Chili's, and Chipotle to court.

Of course you won't because your contention that ristrictions are uncontitutional would be throw out of court along with you on your head.

 

[TurtleDude]

I can jump in and challenge your incorrect contentions at any point. You just have no replay to what is the truth...challenge any restriction you feel is unconstitutional. Take Sonic, Chili's, and Chipotle to court.

Of course you won't because your contention that ristrictions are uncontitutional would be throw out of court along with you on your head.

you are arguing over something I have not said. I believe property owners can make stupid rules preventing people from carrying guns on their private property. Then again, I believe private property owners should not be forced by the federal government to have to serve anyone they do not want to

so your argument is specious

 

[Goshin]

yeah disarming the pimps, drug dealers and gang bangers. I suspect MDA would be RIP rather quickly though

groups like this have a pretty standard foundation. Some women become hysterical because a child is murdered-understandable enough. In order to work through their grief they WANT TO DO SOMETHING. Not much chance of doing anything about the murderer who killed the child so they think banning guns will accomplish SOMETHING. hard core anti gun operatives soon join the group to use the energy of the hysterics for nefarious political ends-that being to punish gun owners and make pro gun groups defend turf they already hold. Its why I have no use for such groups and I refuse to cut the hysterics any slack even if they have lost a loved one since they are now being tools to deprive us of our rights

Reminds me of Kyle's Mom.

 

[1750Texan]

you are arguing over something I have not said. I believe property owners can make stupid rules preventing people from carrying guns on their private property. Then again, I believe private property owners should not be forced by the federal government to have to serve anyone they do not want to

so your argument is specious

You have been arguing this entire thread of uncontitutional restrictions. Correct? Of course you have. So trying to side-step by calling my arguement "specious" is not valid.

I listed your believed "restrictions". I stated that you or any other advocate of open carry can challenge that in court. Whether it be the Chipotle gun ban, assault weapon bans, magazine limits, waiting periods, machine gun bans, limitations on how many guns you can own or buy...Any one or all.

 

[TurtleDude]

You have been arguing this entire thread of uncontitutional restrictions. Correct? Of course you have. So trying to side-step by calling my arguement "specious" is not valid.

I listed your believed "restrictions". I stated that you or any other advocate of open carry can challenge that in court. Whether it be the Chipotle gun ban, assault weapon bans, magazine limits, waiting periods, machine gun bans, limitations on how many guns you can own or buy...Any one or all.

your argument is silly because private land owners generally don't have the ability to engage in restrictions upon the 2A.

 

[Goshin]

Not true at all. They are protecting themselves. Killing 1 person does little on the whole when it comes to effecting an entire society. It simply does not occur enough. The amount of killings in self defense are a drop in the bucket when compared to those killed on the whole. To try and make the argument that private gun owners are somehow a private security force is simply false and gives a false sense of security. The reason people carry firearms is not to protect others, it is to protect themselves.

True for some people; not for all.

I wouldn't stand still while someone was being raped or murdered in my presence.


But you make some good points... we need LOTS MORE citizens carrying and shooting scumbags! Amen! :lamo

 

[TurtleDude]

True for some people; not for all.

I wouldn't stand still while someone was being raped or murdered in my presence.


But you make some good points... we need LOTS MORE citizens carrying and shooting scumbags! Amen! :lamo

ask any LEO or ADA or AUSA-and they will tell you that the vast majority of really bad crimes are caused by a small number of hard core assholes. When an armed civilian kills a violent attacker, chances are that will stop lots of crimes down the road.

 

[Goshin]

ask any LEO or ADA or AUSA-and they will tell you that the vast majority of really bad crimes are caused by a small number of hard core assholes. When an armed civilian kills a violent attacker, chances are that will stop lots of crimes down the road.

Yessir... as a former LEO I agree. They don't get to that point (of needing to be shot) overnight in most cases. Typically there's a long lead up of petty theft and vandalism, minor assault and miscellaneous mopery and dopery, leading up to larger thefts and more serious assaults (many of which they never get caught for, or get off with probation)... they reach a point where they think they can get away with anything, and they end up killing or raping someone... and incredibly enough, sometimes they're out in 5 or 10 years and often do it again.

We used to joke among ourselves that we could pack 100 carefully chosen individuals into a room and toss in a few grenades, and cut the county crime rate by 90% instantly.

 

[Capster78]

registration

1) doesn't apply to criminals

Does not have to. Criminals are supplied guns by those who never get caught supplying them guns. As far as the law knows, they are legal owners because the law has no way of holding people who illegally sell their legally purchased firearms illegally. That is the point of holding gun owners responsible for the legal sale and accountability of their weapons. If they cant account for several weapons, then the questions would be: Did they sell them illegally? Were they stolen and used in a crime? Holding gun owners responsible for the legal sale of deadly weapons I think is paramount to solving the issue of guns on the illegal market.

2) is unconstitutional since the federal government clearly has no power to demand that

Nothing in the constitution states that registration is unconstitutional.

3) is desired by EVERY group that wants to ban or confiscate guns

There is no coreleation between registration and a ban on firearms. Only conspiracy nuts make these claims and have little evidence that any sort of thing would happen in the US.

4) has been used to confiscate weapons many times

Streatching here. You could claim any step that regulates firearms is one step closer to confiscation but you have no evidence such a thing would ever happen in the US.

5) has no value in anything legitimate

Why continue to make one line statements as if they were fact. You prove no evidence for the claim you made. I provide plenty of reasonable logical thinking behind my statement that registration and accountability are the way to solve the problem.

the rest of the crap you propose are not able to be applied to criminals due to the fifth amendment.

I guess I am not tracking here. Not sure what the fifth amendment has anything to do with gun control.

there is no common sense in demanding laws that criminals are exempt from.

so your suggestions are idiotic.

Criminals would be exempt from what exactly? If they are found to be in posession of a firearm illegally, there are already laws that apply to them and they are generally enforced if they commit a crime with a firearm. So I am not sure why you believe criminals are exempt... There could be laws that add punishment for the possession of an unregistered firearm.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yessir... as a former LEO I agree. They don't get to that point (of needing to be shot) overnight in most cases. Typically there's a long lead up of petty theft and vandalism, minor assault and miscellaneous mopery and dopery, leading up to larger thefts and more serious assaults (many of which they never get caught for, or get off with probation)... they reach a point where they think they can get away with anything, and they end up killing or raping someone... and incredibly enough, sometimes they're out in 5 or 10 years and often do it again.

We used to joke among ourselves that we could pack 100 carefully chosen individuals into a room and toss in a few grenades, and cut the county crime rate by 90% instantly.

when I shot a mope in a generally quiet college town resulting in him getting 20 or so months in prison, there was not another mugging for a year. Not only was the mope I shot the leading street thug, his shooting edified his fellow scum bags of a fact few of them knew about--that being half the adult residents of the area who were not college students had licenses to carry

 

[TurtleDude]

Does not have to. Criminals are supplied guns by those who never get caught supplying them guns. As far as the law knows, they are legal owners because the law has no way of holding people who illegally sell their legally purchased firearms illegally. That is the point of holding gun owners responsible for the legal sale and accountability of their weapons. If they cant account for several weapons, then the questions would be: Did they sell them illegally? Were they stolen and used in a crime? Holding gun owners responsible for the legal sale of deadly weapons I think is paramount to solving the issue of guns on the illegal market.


Nothing in the constitution states that registration is unconstitutional.



There is no coreleation between registration and a ban on firearms. Only conspiracy nuts make these claims and have little evidence that any sort of thing would happen in the US.



Streatching here. You could claim any step that regulates firearms is one step closer to confiscation but you have no evidence such a thing would ever happen in the US.



Why continue to make one line statements as if they were fact. You prove no evidence for the claim you made. I provide plenty of reasonable logical thinking behind my statement that registration and accountability are the way to solve the problem.



I guess I am not tracking here. Not sure what the fifth amendment has anything to do with gun control.



Criminals would be exempt from what exactly? If they are found to be in posession of a firearm illegally, there are already laws that apply to them and they are generally enforced if they commit a crime with a firearm. So I am not sure why you believe criminals are exempt... There could be laws that add punishment for the possession of an unregistered firearm.

The bolded section is beyond stupid. For the government to DO something it has to have the power to do so. NOTHING in the constitution allows the federal government to demand registration. Not even the mutated tortured expansion of the commerce clause.

the second bolded statement is a pathetic denial of reality. NJ, NY and California have all used registration lists to facilitate confiscation or forcing people who owned weapons that were registered and later banned to get rid of said weapons. So you are either not telling the truth or ignorant of the facts

The fifth amendment has been held to prevent governments from punishing a criminal for refusing to incriminate himself. Its basic Constitutional law. You see if a criminal has a gun making him

1) register it

2) conduct a background check if he tries to sell it

3) buy insurance for it

all are violations of the fifth amendment

 

[Kal'Stang]

Personally I think those that are making a point by carrying their guns openly should stay away from businesses and just stick to walking along the sidewalks. Businesses such as Chipotle are private property and the same rules does not apply. Now if the owner reached out and said "Hey! Come ove here to support your 2nd Amendment Rights!" that'd be one thing. But just doing it is a bit crass.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Okay, here's why those guys went into Chipotle with open-carry rifles and shotguns: They were encouraged to do so by a Texas gun rights group -- Open Carry Texas. What idiots.

They've asked their members to cease and desist their demonstrations immediately. What idiots.

They decided maybe it wasn't such a good idea after Chipotle reconsidered their gun policy -- and understand that Chili's (because of the same kind of demonstration) was reconsidering theirs. What idiots.

The powers that be within Open Carry Texas are quite obviously mentally impaired.

Pro-Gun Group Backs Down After Chipotle Rally Backfires

They're probably the jamokes behind these young men walking up-and-down Main Streets with their semi-automatics slung over their shoulders. What idiots.

Yea, that pesky 2A. Exercise it in private only. The cowering victims of the US dont want to see it.

 

[MaggieD]

Yea, that pesky 2A. Exercise it in private only. The cowering victims of the US dont want to see it.

Exercise it with some common SENSE. They're idiots.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Not true at all. They are protecting themselves. Killing 1 person does little on the whole when it comes to effecting an entire society. It simply does not occur enough. The amount of killings in self defense are a drop in the bucket when compared to those killed on the whole. To try and make the argument that private gun owners are somehow a private security force is simply false and gives a false sense of security. The reason people carry firearms is not to protect others, it is to protect themselves.

I am mine and my family's security force and that is all I have a duty to or will protect. But no one has a right to tell me to or demand that I disarm.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Exercise it with some common SENSE. They're idiots.

Owning any weapon or defending oneself is not using common sense to many. Its all or none.

 

[Capster78]

The bolded section is beyond stupid. For the government to DO something it has to have the power to do so. NOTHING in the constitution allows the federal government to demand registration. Not even the mutated tortured expansion of the commerce clause.

There is nothing in the constitution that prevents the government from demanding registration. Saying that the constitution does not allow the government power to do something is looking at the purpose of the constitution the wrong way. The constitutions purpose is to limit government power, not to grant it. The constitution does not tell the government what power it has, but what power it does not have. It is up to the voters to decide how to interpret the language of the constitution as to what it allows the government power to do. It seems that the VAST majority of the voting public are for gun regulation but the powers that be (NRA, lobbyist, special interests) are preventing that debate to occur on the floor of congress. I believe that if that debate were allowed and my argument was put forth, most Americans would support it. And Americans decide what the constitution allows the government to do, not the other way around. That time will come, and I believe you will soon be looking back at the old days and lamenting the time where arms were just allowed to propagate all willy nilly. It is going to happen and I think the smart thing for those who want cake and eat it to on the pro-gun side better start rethinking their strategy. Come to the table and debate with the rest of us so that we can come to a compromise instead of forcing the majorities hand and put something in place forcefully. You are going to loose.. It may take a few decades, but how many straws will it take until the camel's back breaks. How many more media frenzies over mass shootings and gun crime can the pro gun side dodge before they will be forced to make a better argument then guns are not the problem? That argument will eventually wear out as well as the other arguments constantly repeated. People are already starting to get tired of the non-action pro gun crowd when it comes to solving this issue.

the second bolded statement is a pathetic denial of reality. NJ, NY and California have all used registration lists to facilitate confiscation or forcing people who owned weapons that were registered and later banned to get rid of said weapons. So you are either not telling the truth or ignorant of the facts

Thats fine, but there is no mechanism to check if people are or are not registering their weapons. The only way you can ensure registration is to demand people account for their weapons. Were they sold to someone that can legally purchase one? Were their weapons sold into the black market? Are they an irresponsible owner, leaving their weapons laying around unsecured and as a result, were stolen and are going to be used in the next mass killing by a crazy person who can not legally purchase a weapon? There are a lot of questions to be asked when it comes to how weapons get into the hands of people who are irresponsible, crazy, or criminal. The only way to positively control this issue is to demand people to account for the weapons they own as well as the legal sale of the weapons they sell.

The fifth amendment has been held to prevent governments from punishing a criminal for refusing to incriminate himself. Its basic Constitutional law. You see if a criminal has a gun making him

1) register it

2) conduct a background check if he tries to sell it

3) buy insurance for it

all are violations of the fifth amendment

I am not asking criminals to incriminate themselves, although it would be nice if they choose too. We could abolish the police and just handle everything civilly. That will never happen because people who commit crime obviously do not commit crime to get caught. I am not really sure what your point is?

 

[Cryptic]

I wouldn't stand still while someone was being raped or murdered in my presence.

Neither would I. But I also dont believe that a concealed carry permit transforms a citizen into a reserve police officer with arrest authority or a vaguely defined "block warden".

But you make some good points... we need LOTS MORE citizens carrying and shooting scumbags! Amen! :lamo

So long as the scum bags are really scum bags. And there in lies a potential problem: In the minds of some, the terms "scum bag" and "those who annoy me" get blurry. Likewise, "Scum bag" and "people whom I dont think belong here" can turn into synonyms.

Just look at Zimmeran:
- Yes, with the avaliable evidence and nothing to contradict his word, Zimmerman's actions were justified.
- No, for over all stability, I dont want to empower alot of Zimmermans- regardless of their ethnicity.

 

[TurtleDude]

There is nothing in the constitution that prevents the government from demanding registration. Saying that the constitution does not allow the government power to do something is looking at the purpose of the constitution the wrong way. The constitutions purpose is to limit government power, not to grant it. The constitution does not tell the government what power it has, but what power it does not have. It is up to the voters to decide how to interpret the language of the constitution as to what it allows the government power to do. It seems that the VAST majority of the voting public are for gun regulation but the powers that be (NRA, lobbyist, special interests) are preventing that debate to occur on the floor of congress. I believe that if that debate were allowed and my argument was put forth, most Americans would support it. And Americans decide what the constitution allows the government to do, not the other way around. That time will come, and I believe you will soon be looking back at the old days and lamenting the time where arms were just allowed to propagate all willy nilly. It is going to happen and I think the smart thing for those who want cake and eat it to on the pro-gun side better start rethinking their strategy. Come to the table and debate with the rest of us so that we can come to a compromise instead of forcing the majorities hand and put something in place forcefully. You are going to loose.. It may take a few decades, but how many straws will it take until the camel's back breaks. How many more media frenzies over mass shootings and gun crime can the pro gun side dodge before they will be forced to make a better argument then guns are not the problem? That argument will eventually wear out as well as the other arguments constantly repeated. People are already starting to get tired of the non-action pro gun crowd when it comes to solving this issue.



Thats fine, but there is no mechanism to check if people are or are not registering their weapons. The only way you can ensure registration is to demand people account for their weapons. Were they sold to someone that can legally purchase one? Were their weapons sold into the black market? Are they an irresponsible owner, leaving their weapons laying around unsecured and as a result, were stolen and are going to be used in the next mass killing by a crazy person who can not legally purchase a weapon? There are a lot of questions to be asked when it comes to how weapons get into the hands of people who are irresponsible, crazy, or criminal. The only way to positively control this issue is to demand people to account for the weapons they own as well as the legal sale of the weapons they sell.



I am not asking criminals to incriminate themselves, although it would be nice if they choose too. We could abolish the police and just handle everything civilly. That will never happen because people who commit crime obviously do not commit crime to get caught. I am not really sure what your point is?

This is pathetic.Your understanding of the constitution is faulty. You cannot claim the commerce clause supports registration of weapons that have not moved in interstate commerce for years,

so tell us what clause of the constitution allows it other than your wish it were so. Your attitude seems to be-I WANT IT SO ITS CONSTITUTIONAL

You need to read the Lopez decision

 

[Capster78]

This is pathetic.Your understanding of the constitution is faulty. You cannot claim the commerce clause supports registration of weapons that have not moved in interstate commerce for years,

so tell us what clause of the constitution allows it other than your wish it were so. Your attitude seems to be-I WANT IT SO ITS CONSTITUTIONAL

You need to read the Lopez decision

Yes... What I WANT, what the MAJORITY wants determines how the constitution is interpreted. The constitution is not language specific. It is broad and general in nature for a reason. Part of that reason was because the founding fathers believe in states rights. The other reason is so that the government and the people are not restricted by the laws of the late 1700's. Its a malleable document which is meant to be legitimate even as values and beliefs evolve. Your view, and the view of virulent pro gun advocates is simply wrong who believe the constitution determines finality on any issue. The people determine how specific the constitution is and the specificity is ever changing as societal values change. That's the way it should be. Unless of course you want what makes our country the most powerful an innovating country on the planet to stagnate.