Gun Legislation

[Roland Deschain]

Hardy har.....if you can shove that AK or the RPG in your pants and conceal it I'd see a doctor. Seriously, can you not inject a little common sense here and remember we are talking about concealed carry or do you have to start jumping off the deep end of extremes because your argument is loosing footing?

The pic may not yet be realistic for the US, but the principle is sound. If one thinks that most everyone else in the bar is armed, he's going to want to be armed, too. If it gets to the point that everyone is armed with handguns, those who want an upper hand (good guys or bad) will get bigger ones, more of them and eventually you'll have to carry a rifle around.

But yes, the law does, generally and in most places, allow the use of lethal force in the face of lethal force. That doesn't mean you can expect to get off unscathed if you shoot a guy who threatens you with a pocket knife from across the room. Except maybe Florida.

Again, be realistic with the concept of concealed. There are limits as to what can be concealed and your attempts to use the impractical/virtually impossible extremes removes credibility from your argument. You are above those tactics. I will agree with your analogy about shooting a guy with a pocket knife from across the room though. That would have a tough time standing as "self defense"

[Ombudsman]

Hardy har.....if you can shove that AK or the RPG in your pants and conceal it I'd see a doctor. Seriously, can you not inject a little common sense here and remember we are talking about concealed carry or do you have to start jumping off the deep end of extremes because your argument is loosing footing?

The pic may not yet be realistic for the US, but the principle is sound. If one thinks that most everyone else in the bar is armed, he's going to want to be armed, too. If it gets to the point that everyone is armed with handguns, those who want an upper hand (good guys or bad) will get bigger ones, more of them and eventually you'll have to carry a rifle around.

But yes, the law does, generally and in most places, allow the use of lethal force in the face of lethal force. That doesn't mean you can expect to get off unscathed if you shoot a guy who threatens you with a pocket knife from across the room. Except maybe Florida.

Again, be realistic with the concept of concealed. There are limits as to what can be concealed and your attempts to use the impractical/virtually impossible extremes removes credibility from your argument. You are above those tactics. I will agree with your analogy about shooting a guy with a pocket knife from across the room though. That would have a tough time standing as "self defense"

In other words it eventually becomes a zero sum game making the person most likely to live being the one who chooses to shoot first. Great gun nut logic at play there Roland. So how much of your income is dependent on people buying this kind of propaganda?

[O Really]

I'm sorry, but I'm bored with the discussion about bears and whatever weapons God issued. Here's the thing: the NC legislature, at the urging of the NRA and ALEC, passed a law allowing people to carry guns into bars, and did so against the opinions of senior law enforcement personnel and most bar owners (other than Roland's relatives). Why? What is gained by changing a long-standing and, until recently almost universal among states, prohibition of carrying firearms into bars. What compels the law change? What gets better for society by changing that law? Who gains? Who makes money?

[bannination]

Well regardless of the fake sign, is anyone actually advocating the complete removal of guns? At least here on the forum, I think the sentiment is better regulation, you know, not letting anyone own a gun that's mentally unstable or has histories of violence and other common sense stuff.

[bannination]

I'm sorry, but I'm bored with the discussion about bears and whatever weapons God issued. Here's the thing: the NC legislature, at the urging of the NRA and ALEC, passed a law allowing people to carry guns into bars, and did so against the opinions of senior law enforcement personnel and most bar owners (other than Roland's relatives). Why? What is gained by changing a long-standing and, until recently almost universal among states, prohibition of carrying firearms into bars. What compels the law change? What gets better for society by changing that law? Who gains? Who makes money?

Cops - the T.V. show. Should be some good footage of drunk people firing guns, I predict that show will make a come back.

[O Really]

Cops - the T.V. show. Should be some good footage of drunk people firing guns, I predict that show will make a come back.

Bad boys, bad boys - whatcha gonna do?
My favorite episodes involved turning the dogs loose on some bubba. On one, the guy tried to hide under a kids swimming pool, but he left his ass hanging out and the dog just chewed on him while he was screaming like a little girl.

[Mr.B]

"Well regardless of the fake sign, is anyone actually advocating the complete removal of guns?
At least here on the forum, I think the sentiment is better regulation...."

That doesn't appear to be the consensus in Ombudsman's posts or replies.

[Ombudsman]

"Well regardless of the fake sign, is anyone actually advocating the complete removal of guns?
At least here on the forum, I think the sentiment is better regulation...."

That doesn't appear to be the consensus in Ombudsman's posts or replies.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

[Ombudsman]

Well regardless of the fake sign, is anyone actually advocating the complete removal of guns? At least here on the forum, I think the sentiment is better regulation, you know, not letting anyone own a gun that's mentally unstable or has histories of violence and other common sense stuff.

If it were a real sign, the next door neighbor would probably have more to fear from the nut who put the sign in his yard in the first place. Roland's solution would be for said neighbor to obtain bigger guns.

Life According to Roland

[O Really]

Not to mention guns are one of the top items stolen in home break-ins. Why doesn't the (I know, fake) guy put up a sign saying he keeps the jewelry in the gun safe?

[Roland Deschain]

I'm sorry, but I'm bored with the discussion about bears and whatever weapons God issued. Here's the thing: the NC legislature, at the urging of the NRA and ALEC, passed a law allowing people to carry guns into bars, and did so against the opinions of senior law enforcement personnel and most bar owners (other than Roland's relatives). Why? What is gained by changing a long-standing and, until recently almost universal among states, prohibition of carrying firearms into bars. What compels the law change? What gets better for society by changing that law? Who gains? Who makes money?

Translation.....I can't argue the fact that self defense is part of the natural order, I can't give my own reasons as to why I oppose the law, so I'm gonna stick with my "they don't like it, so I don't too" story.

[Boatrocker]

I'm sorry, but I'm bored with the discussion about bears and whatever weapons God issued. Here's the thing: the NC legislature, at the urging of the NRA and ALEC, passed a law allowing people to carry guns into bars, and did so against the opinions of senior law enforcement personnel and most bar owners (other than Roland's relatives). Why? What is gained by changing a long-standing and, until recently almost universal among states, prohibition of carrying firearms into bars. What compels the law change? What gets better for society by changing that law? Who gains? Who makes money?

Translation.....I can't argue the fact that self defense is part of the natural order, I can't give my own reasons as to why I oppose the law, so I'm gonna stick with my "they don't like it, so I don't too" story.

What did I say earlier?

. . . Are you an idiot or just a troll? No one, not one goddamn person, has claimed you don't have a right to defend yourself. Why keep pretending that's the argument?

One can be both. This is the Straw King, here. He loves to argue with something you haven't said, then demand that you prove him wrong.

Same shit, different day.

[O Really]

I'm sorry, but I'm bored with the discussion about bears and whatever weapons God issued. Here's the thing: the NC legislature, at the urging of the NRA and ALEC, passed a law allowing people to carry guns into bars, and did so against the opinions of senior law enforcement personnel and most bar owners (other than Roland's relatives). Why? What is gained by changing a long-standing and, until recently almost universal among states, prohibition of carrying firearms into bars. What compels the law change? What gets better for society by changing that law? Who gains? Who makes money?

Translation.....I can't argue the fact that self defense is part of the natural order, I can't give my own reasons as to why I oppose the law, so I'm gonna stick with my "they don't like it, so I don't too" story.

How you "translate" is up to you. But nobody has said there is no right to self defense. That's not part of the immediate issue. Law enforcement, including police officers and prosecutors, as well as bar owners have listed numerous reasons why passing such a law is not a good thing. I do in fact agree with them. What's more, nobody has as far as I've seen offered any justification why a long-standing and almost universal law prohibiting firearms in bars should be changed.

[Roland Deschain]

How you "translate" is up to you. But nobody has said there is no right to self defense. That's not part of the immediate issue. Law enforcement, including police officers and prosecutors, as well as bar owners have listed numerous reasons why passing such a law is not a good thing. I do in fact agree with them. What's more, nobody has as far as I've seen offered any justification why a long-standing and almost universal law prohibiting firearms in bars should be changed.

Yes, we know you "agree" with them. Yet, when offered repeated chances you can not give a single reason why you "agree" with them. So, again, I submit that you are simply going with the "they disagree with it, so I am too" attitude. In other words, a blind sheeple incapable of individual thought.

[O Really]

If you knew me or anybody who knows me, the last thing you'd think is that I'm incapable of individual thought, but what-everr. I don't have to come up with original ideas as to why allowing guns in bars is bad law. It's just belaboring the obvious.

[Roland Deschain]

If you knew me or anybody who knows me, the last thing you'd think is that I'm incapable of individual thought, but what-everr. I don't have to come up with original ideas as to why allowing guns in bars is bad law. It's just belaboring the obvious.

It is apparently only obvious to you and the sheeple like you. It has already been stated that those with CCP's are the good guys, they have undergone extensive background checks, and training. You say you won't "belabor the obvious" yet you have refused to offer up a single thought other than liberal talking points. I, on the other hand, have given clear and concise reasons as to why I support it and why I think it should be allowed. Why are you running away from a chance to state your own ideas about something you so vehemently oppose? The only logical answer is the one I have previously posted.

[O Really]

If you knew me or anybody who knows me, the last thing you'd think is that I'm incapable of individual thought, but what-everr. I don't have to come up with original ideas as to why allowing guns in bars is bad law. It's just belaboring the obvious.

It is apparently only obvious to you and the sheeple like you. It has already been stated that those with CCP's are the good guys, they have undergone extensive background checks, and training. You say you won't "belabor the obvious" yet you have refused to offer up a single thought other than liberal talking points. I, on the other hand, have given clear and concise reasons as to why I support it and why I think it should be allowed. Why are you running away from a chance to state your own ideas about something you so vehemently oppose? The only logical answer is the one I have previously posted.

Some with CCP's are good guys, but there is a practical problem that I mentioned earlier, so far not addressed. If CCP holders are allowed to take their guns to bars, how does the bar owner know who is legal without looking. Do we expect the bar owner to start frisking people and asking to see permits? If you see a guy with a gunnish-looking bulge or catch a glimpse of an ankle holster, how does the bar management know it's legal? Or does the bar management just figure that only "good guys" will bring their guns and their permits into his bar?

And BTW, the "training" required for a CCP can hardly be called "extensive". It borders on "pretend."

[Roland Deschain]

Some with CCP's are good guys, but there is a practical problem that I mentioned earlier, so far not addressed. If CCP holders are allowed to take their guns to bars, how does the bar owner know who is legal without looking. Do we expect the bar owner to start frisking people and asking to see permits? If you see a guy with a gunnish-looking bulge or catch a glimpse of an ankle holster, how does the bar management know it's legal? Or does the bar management just figure that only "good guys" will bring their guns and their permits into his bar?

And BTW, the "training" required for a CCP can hardly be called "extensive". It borders on "pretend."

There is that pesky little problem called "the law" and what is legal, and illegal. With that in mind your example can also be turned to ask you about prior to this law when the bad guys were illegally carrying their guns into bars. What was the owner to do then?? You are naive if you say that was not happening. Point being the bad guys was going to do whatever he wanted, where and when ever he wanted to. However, if caught he could loose his right to ever own a gun again. The new law has leveled the playing field and allowed the good guys to legally carry theirs.

[O Really]

My guess is that the average bar owner is way smarter than the current crop of NC legislators, and will post a "No Weapons" sign and enforce it.

[O Really]

NRA-owned Tennessee legislators passed a law allowing guns in bars in 2009, (subsequently struck down) despite 70% of Tennessee voters opposing it. A non-scientific but apparently thorough survey of Knoxville bars in 2010 found NONE allowed guns in their establishment. Polls in Ohio show about the same percentage opposed the 2011 law allowing guns in bars. A PPP survey in July 2013 in NC found 73% opposed guns in bars. It's hard to find 73% majority on any issue, because that requires some people from all parties having the same view. (no party has a 73% majority). In fact, there is no major political issue that either position has carried a 73% majority. Not abortion (why that's a "major" political issue is beyond me anyway); not immigration, not tax cutting, not even the raping and pillage of public schools and their teachers. Not even same-sex marriage, pro or con. Nothing but guns in bars. 73% oppose. But the NRA-owned legislators passed it anyway. So much for "representation."