Gun Legislation

[Mr.B]

"My bad, sorry (see how easy that is?)."
Ummmm....what?

"Your emoticons inside a colored post appear to me with that magnifying glass you once complained about."
So you still haven't figured out how to get rid of the magnifying glass, have you?

"You must be using a different "board style", which one?"
Imodium Express

"Now, about your other flubs and all the lies?"
My present and previous not replying to your bullying and goading is eating at you like a cancer, because you can't reply with further taunting and name calling....suffer on.

[bannination]

Mr.B hypothesizes: "Why do you think that US citizens want to arm themselves to begin with? (careful, I know the pain is unbearable, but hang on, it gets easier) You think (ouch!) maybe it's because they want to protect themselves from those that would invade your home, steal, rob and/or murder you for sometimes less than a few dollars to buy their next fix? "

I'm sure that's true in many instances, although depending on where one lives the risk is pretty low. But my question isn't so much why one wants to arm themselves. My question is why would one argue against a requirement that everyone who needs (or just wants) a firearm should be trained to use it? Why would one argue against making it easier to track weapons used in crimes - or to find yours if you lose it or it gets stolen? Why would one argue that shooting your kid while "cleaning" your firearm should be an "opps" and leaving the kid in the house by himself while you go to the store is "negligent"?

The only reason I argue against it is because it makes me jump through a bunch of crap to get a gun. I've got enough common sense to deal with guns. I have to concede though that obviously a lot of people getting guns don't. It seems to be that it may be worth putting up with some crap to make the world a safer place.

What do you think Mr. B.?

[Mr.B]

"The only reason I argue against it is because it makes me jump through a bunch of crap to get a gun. I've got enough common sense to deal with guns. I have to concede though that obviously a lot of people getting guns don't. It seems to be that it may be worth putting up with some crap to make the world a safer place."

"What do you think Mr. B.?"

I agree. I too don't have a CCW permit because of the costly dog and pony show involved in obtaining one.
I grew up around guns, I know how to use and respect them, and I know the consequences my foolishly handling a gun will produce.

When I wish to carry, NC law allows me the right to open carry with no special permit or license. When I travel to other states, I check on local/state laws so I will be in compliance. Maryland is the only state that I travel to that I wouldn't want to be caught with a gun...licensed or unlicensed. They recognize no other states' laws.

[neoplacebo]

I don't understand why you would want a conceal carry permit; if you want to wear a gun, go ahead and do it. I may just do this myself and get two hip holsters, two shoulder holsters, and a leg strap holder to be worn on the outside of my pant legs.....that's six visible guns. Along with this I will have at least two magazine belts that will each hold ten full magazines. And unless someone comes up behind me and hits me with a baseball bat, I will be safe.

[Mr.B]

As stated, according to NC law, you can open carry; not certain on the quantity though. Also there is a law against "going armed to the terror of the public"....if some paranoia-obsessed yoyo called the cops about all that armament you were carrying; you might would encounter a wee problem when you were told to "drop your weapon(s)"....maybe a permanent wee problem.

[O Really]

As stated, according to NC law, you can open carry; not certain on the quantity though. Also there is a law against "going armed to the terror of the public"....if some paranoia-obsessed yoyo called the cops about all that armament you were carrying; you might would encounter a wee problem when you were told to "drop your weapon(s)"....maybe a permanent wee problem.

Ah, you've caught on to the reason the cultural war is winning even if the NRA still owns more members of Congress. Because you can bet whether it's legal or not, that person would attract some 911 "man with a gun" calls. I don't think one would have to be a yoyo to think a person carrying a bunch of guns might be dangerous.

[O Really]

I don't understand why you would want a conceal carry permit; .

You might not want to wear a holster - you might just want to carry it in a bag or in your hiking pack. Or in your car in a non-secured manner. Or even in a holster not having to make sure your shirt tail doesn't cover it.

[O Really]

I agree. I too don't have a CCW permit because of the costly dog and pony show involved in obtaining one.

Seriously? NC has some hoops to jump through because of the sheriff "approval" but you don't need a NC license. NC recognizes a FL license, as do 30 or so other states. And you can get a FL license even as a non-resident with minimal cost or effort. And a 50-shot "training" class. Take some hokey course from your local firing range, send in the paperwork with a fingerprint from any law enforcement agency and you are rubber-stamped. Less of a dog and pony show than getting your license plate sticker from the NC farmed-out DMV office.

[Mr.B]

Because you can bet whether it's legal or not, that person would attract some 911 "man with a gun" calls. I don't think one would have to be a yoyo to think a person carrying a bunch of guns might be dangerous.

That has only become an issue within the last several years; now you've got all the half-wits and their selfie-takin' copycats to contend with.

[O Really]

Because you can bet whether it's legal or not, that person would attract some 911 "man with a gun" calls. I don't think one would have to be a yoyo to think a person carrying a bunch of guns might be dangerous.

That has only become an issue within the last several years; now you've got all the half-wits and their selfie-takin' copycats to contend with.

True that, and becoming more of an "issue" - which is why the culture war is winning. You have nuts shooting up school campuses and such, so it's not unreasonable to think somebody walking around armed might be a hazard. Change of mental attitude - once maybe somebody carrying a rifle might be considered to be going to hunt, to target shoot, to get his piece repaired...whatever. Now they're considered to be potential mass murderers. Attitude change will win the war.

[rstrong]

The BG Daily News reported that Smith agreed to retire from the police force following the incident, but didn't receive workers' compensation because the injury was not work-related. On Friday, Smith filed a lawsuit against the store to cover his medical expenses and lost earnings.

Speaking as someone whose hand was badly mangled and is missing a few finger tips - and who went on to do board-level electronics repairs and now types all day (programming) - there's no reason why a missing finger would cost him his job.

He obviously quit or was let go for some other reason, and this is just a (potentially lucrative) excuse.

[Mr.B]

"....Mr.B says, "Violent crime knows no specific geographical area," a flub he's yet to admit, while incorrectly saying that "NY, LA" have higher violent crime rates than SC...."

I'm thinking you're getting senile, but the more I think, I realize I'm wrong; you ain't 'gettin', you're already there; right up there with your condescending natural way of life.

You wanna show me, in the form of a direct quote, where I said "NY, LA have higher violent crime rates than SC" ? If I'm incorrect, then maybe I'm getting senile. And while you're at it, prove that violent crime is limited to specific geographical areas; no percentages, figures, given time frames, etc., show where there has never been a commission of a violent crime..

[Mr.B]

"You clearly said that violent crime was to be expected more in "NY, LA" than in SC. It isn't."
Liar...you're so full of undigested fecal matter. Here's what I wrote, Dingle Weed, before you twisted it all out of proportion:

"Violent crime knows no specific geographical area. Remember the motorcycle shop in SC down off Hwy 11? Who'da thunk that someone would walk in there, in a secluded rural area, and wipe out everyone there? That wasn't NY, LA, or even Podunk, Idaho. Crime happens; or hasn't your liberal-denying little mind noticed?"

I said "a secluded rural area" meaning it's not NY or LA where street crime is an everyday occurrence. Does everything have to be explained to you in great minute detail; or is it totally necessary that you pick apart and dissect every word, sentence, or phrase in order to prove yourself superior?


"Violent crime definitely does know "specific geographical" areas, as the stats prove, though they don't prove your delusions about "NY, LA" relative to SC."
You're the delusional, lying, condescending one here; I mentioned one "secluded rural area" of SC, not the whole frickin' state, stupid.

"What you did not post is your backtracking now to that it might happen somewhere unusual. Duh, of course it might."
Not backtracking...it's right there for all to see.

"In the case at hand, I'll wager that the only gun death ever in that small town Idaho Walmart was of the idiot Mom at the hands of her toddler."
Just like you to mock and make fun of the deceased.

Point proved, again.

[neoplacebo]

I don't understand why you would want a conceal carry permit; .

You might not want to wear a holster - you might just want to carry it in a bag or in your hiking pack. Or in your car in a non-secured manner. Or even in a holster not having to make sure your shirt tail doesn't cover it.

Well, that makes sense. I suppose I was just being suspicious of those who would hide the fact that they're armed and wondering why they would want to. I think if it were me doing the concealed carry gig, I'd go with the type of thing deNiro had in Taxi Driver; that arrangement where he could extend his arm and the gun would slide out to his hand in one quick motion. "You talkin' to me?" Of course, this could be awkward if you're just trying to shake someones hand.

[Mr.B]

"Poor Mr.B, too illiterate to get the only logical conclusions of his own posts. Largely rural SC is more likely to see violence than "NY,LA" according to all available data, seclusion is irrelevant...."
Poor, illiterate, condescending Vrede; too damn stupid to admit his own inability to understand, and admit his flub. Try this again: I mentioned one "secluded rural area" of SC, not the whole frickin' state, stupid, not "largely rural SC".
Since nobody is correct in your pea-brained mind; all facts are irrelevant.

"Ummm, we have to take your words at face value. Would you really prefer that we assume illiteracy with each post and try to read your "mind", instead?"
Inasmuch as you're so condescending, it wouldn't matter what you (or "we" since you are spokesman for everyone here) assume. Being compared to you, illiteracy is a college degree.

"Don't be such a crybaby, all you have to do is say, "Opps, I meant _____."
Heed your own words.

"If you wish to delude yourself that you're more adept with the English language than both of us, be my guest."
So you speak for rstrong too? I really care less how "adept with the English language" you are; your word twisting abilities doesn't impress me nor probably any one else here. They're probably laughing at you, "the legend in his own mind", as much as I am.

"How is calling the dead Mom you defend an idiot making fun of her? Besides, she has no feeling (sic) to hurt, anymore. She probably ruined her toddler's life along with the rest of their family's."
Because she made a move to provide defense for herself and her toddler, according to you and other blind, ignorant idiots that feel she should not defend herself against rape or kidnapping of her child, she is an idiot; and now that "she has no feelings to hurt", she is open to ridicule and shame by the cold, heartless, uncaring ilk that you so proudly are part of.

I remember once when you chided and ran the subject into the ground where I was accused by you of disrespecting the dead "gay" husband. Had this woman been "gay", you would be falling all over yourself sympathizing with her death.

This woman no more ruined her toddlers life by carrying a gun than that "gay" guy did by telling his family he was "marrying" a man; if he even told them to begin with.

That woman's death was a sad, unfortunate accident that shouldn't have happened; but accidents happen day in and day out. Some get slightly injured, some seriously injured, and some killed. Regardless the outcome, they're still accidents. If you were killed in your car on a snowy road, would it be right for someone to call you an idiot for being out driving on a snow-covered road?

"But, you don't care about that - "gun rights", you know."
Nor do you care - "foolish, arrogant, condescending pride", you know.

[O Really]

I don't understand why you would want a conceal carry permit; .

You might not want to wear a holster - you might just want to carry it in a bag or in your hiking pack. Or in your car in a non-secured manner. Or even in a holster not having to make sure your shirt tail doesn't cover it.

Well, that makes sense. I suppose I was just being suspicious of those who would hide the fact that they're armed and wondering why they would want to. I think if it were me doing the concealed carry gig, I'd go with the type of thing deNiro had in Taxi Driver; that arrangement where he could extend his arm and the gun would slide out to his hand in one quick motion. "You talkin' to me?" Of course, this could be awkward if you're just trying to shake someones hand.

It's not necessarily "hiding" the fact they're armed - it's just not calling attention to it. Plus, the definition of "open" is pretty literal. On your car seat, for example. The other alternative is to have your piece in a case/bag in the trunk or locked glove box "not readily accessible." Makes more sense to me to have it readily accessible without being on the seat visible to all, including the cop who might shoot me for it. To do that, you need a concealed weapons permit.

Also, if I'm out hiking, I don't want to go around looking armed and attract attention of people who think I'm dangerous as well as the gendarms. The only way to carry in my bag or pack is with a concealed weapons permit.

[neoplacebo]

I don't understand why you would want a conceal carry permit; .

You might not want to wear a holster - you might just want to carry it in a bag or in your hiking pack. Or in your car in a non-secured manner. Or even in a holster not having to make sure your shirt tail doesn't cover it.

Well, that makes sense. I suppose I was just being suspicious of those who would hide the fact that they're armed and wondering why they would want to. I think if it were me doing the concealed carry gig, I'd go with the type of thing deNiro had in Taxi Driver; that arrangement where he could extend his arm and the gun would slide out to his hand in one quick motion. "You talkin' to me?" Of course, this could be awkward if you're just trying to shake someones hand.

It's not necessarily "hiding" the fact they're armed - it's just not calling attention to it. Plus, the definition of "open" is pretty literal. On your car seat, for example. The other alternative is to have your piece in a case/bag in the trunk or locked glove box "not readily accessible." Makes more sense to me to have it readily accessible without being on the seat visible to all, including the cop who might shoot me for it. To do that, you need a concealed weapons permit.

Also, if I'm out hiking, I don't want to go around looking armed and attract attention of people who think I'm dangerous as well as the gendarms. The only way to carry in my bag or pack is with a concealed weapons permit.

Yeah, that all makes sense; I myself am not familiar with the requirements of concealed carry other than to know you have to be licensed for it. I do not own a gun myself. But I've considered getting one of those automatic shotguns.

[O Really]

I do not own a gun myself. But I've considered getting one of those automatic shotguns.

I'm guessing you mean a semi-automatic shotgun, but with the new technology, one that would be able to detect an intruder and shoot by itself would probably be available soon. Of course, a shotgun app that couldn't tell the difference between a thief and your daughter wouldn't be foolproof, but wouldn't be any worse than a lot of current gun owners.

[neoplacebo]

I do not own a gun myself. But I've considered getting one of those automatic shotguns.

I'm guessing you mean a semi-automatic shotgun, but with the new technology, one that would be able to detect an intruder and shoot by itself would probably be available soon. Of course, a shotgun app that couldn't tell the difference between a thief and your daughter wouldn't be foolproof, but wouldn't be any worse than a lot of current gun owners.

No, I want the Saiga AA-12 fully automatic shotgun. It kicks ass.

[bannination]

I do not own a gun myself. But I've considered getting one of those automatic shotguns.

I'm guessing you mean a semi-automatic shotgun, but with the new technology, one that would be able to detect an intruder and shoot by itself would probably be available soon. Of course, a shotgun app that couldn't tell the difference between a thief and your daughter wouldn't be foolproof, but wouldn't be any worse than a lot of current gun owners.

No, I want the Saiga AA-12 fully automatic shotgun. It kicks ass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD0PKDGlwiw


This should be relevant to everyone's interests.