Gun Legislation

[1 CAT FAN]

You have to acquire marijuana illegally, that’s not good, Neo. Maybe billy can set you up with his health provider.

[neoplacebo]

Most of the time it's pretty good; sometimes it's better than that. I have no valid medical reason for getting marijuana but I recommend it for anyone who wants to relax now and then, maintain a good appetite, and get plenty of rest. I would never lie and say I had a medical reason to use pot; I use it for the past 50 years just because I like it.

[Vrede too]

1 FAT CAN is lying, again. Arizona is an open carry state, no "card" required, never has been. In fact, it's probably three lies:

1. S/he does not have a nonexistent open carry card.
2. Pretty much everyone in Arizona knows that it's an open carry state, especially a gunhugger, and wouldn't be so stupid as to mention a card. S/he is not in Arizona.
3. Pretty much everyone involved in "law enforcement" anywhere would know or suspect that Arizona is an open carry state and would check if needed before claiming possession of an open carry card. S/he is not in "law enforcement".

Good chance there's a 4th lie, too:

4. Pretty much every gun owner anywhere would know or suspect that Arizona is an open carry state and would check if needed before claiming possession of an open carry card. S/he may not be a gun owner at all, but since some of them are really, really stupid, s/he might be.

There is one truth here: 1 FAT CAN is an idiot.

Most of the time it's pretty good; sometimes it's better than that. I have no valid medical reason for getting marijuana but I recommend it for anyone who wants to relax now and then, maintain a good appetite, and get plenty of rest. I would never lie and say I had a medical reason to use pot; I use it for the past 50 years just because I like it.

In medical marijuana states the MDs are pretty loose about giving out Rxs, or at least enough of them are. Montana even had one traveling the state in a van, kind of like a food truck for MM Rxs. You don't even have to lie. If you honestly say that it relaxes you (also helps with "appetite" and "rest"), an MD will say, "Good enough," though she might code it as stress reduction or anxiety disorder for the authorities.

[1 CAT FAN]

I only answer to SLED - South Carolina.
Not Arizona.
I thought the avatar would be a given.
Guess not.
Wait.... Clemson does have alumni all over the country.

[Vrede too]

http://www.blueridgedebate.com/forum/vi ... ona#p94914

... We live on a small ranch in rural Arizona, and recently had a well drilled. ... as before the well was drilled, we had to haul water via a 600-gallon tanker trailer to the site. The area is considered part of the Painted Desert....

Lie #5, either AZ then or SC now, or both thus making it 6 lies.

There are three truths here: 1 FAT CAN is an idiot, a liar, and a pansy when busted.

[1 CAT FAN]

That was a quote from the article, dumb@$$.

[billy.pilgrim]

The drug epidemic hasn't slowed down.

nothing to do with the discussion, but then, that's why you said it.

Yes, you receive yours legally.

Yes, I get meds legally.

How do you get your meds?

Are you high now, billy?

Can't answer even a simple question.

[Vrede too]

Riiiight, YOU fail to use quotation marks or a quote box, but somehow I'm a "dumb@$$." You went to grade school in SC, didn't you?

You remain a pansy when the screw up was entirely yours, which does support your claim to be in "law enforcement".

Anyhow:

South Carolina is not a traditional open carry state. You may not even open carry with a SC permit.

... I have a card too, only it specifies that I am allowed legally to open carry a gun....

You're still lying. In fact, it's probably three new lies:

1. You do not have a nonexistent SC open carry card.
2. Pretty much everyone in SC knows that it's not an open carry state, especially gunhuggers, and wouldn't be so stupid as to mention a card. You are not in SC.
3. Pretty much everyone involved in "law enforcement" anywhere would know that SC is not an open carry state or would check before claiming possession of an open carry card. You are not in "law enforcement".

Good chance there's a 4th lie, too:

4. Pretty much every gun owner anywhere would know to check whether SC is an open carry state before claiming possession of an open carry card. You may not be a gun owner at all, but since some of them are really, really stupid, you might be.

[1 CAT FAN]

That’s for South Carolina citizens, dumb@$$.
SLED requires that SC Law Enforcement be certified to open carry. SC citizens can only obtain a CWP.

[Vrede too]

I thought that was it, I just wanted to see if I could bait you into making an even bigger fool and pansy of yourself. Ding, ding, ding!



1. You're cowering from the AZ screw up being entirely yours by failing to use quotation marks or a quote box.
2. You're cowering from my question: "You went to grade school in SC, didn't you?"
3. Still a lie:

... I have a card too, only it specifies that I am allowed legally to open carry a gun....

Your supposed LEO ID does not specify "open carry" anywhere on it.
4. "open carry" has a specific meaning that has NOTHING to do with LEOs, hence the link I've twice used is for OpenCarry.org, a site exclusively discussing civilian abilities and restrictions. ESL much?
5. Pretty much every LEO everywhere knows that "open carry" ONLY refers to civilians. That said, some of them are really, really stupid.
6. SLED does NOT require "that SC Law Enforcement be certified to open carry." It has proficiency and ongoing firearms assessment standards, but does not call them "open carry" certifications. You lie, again.
7. All this, but somehow I'm mysteriously a "dumb@$$."

You cower, lie, spew stupidity, and remain a pansy when the screw ups are entirely yours, which does support your claim to be in "law enforcement". I'm guessing that SLED does not do IQ, character or ethical testing, dumbass.

[neoplacebo]

I only have one reason to not believe the rabid Clemson fan is a member of law enforcement, and that is that when he first appeared here and made that assertion, I said I didn't believe it, and when i offered to meet him (in his jurisdiction) and lie to his face that he's not overweight enough to be part of the force, it didn't faze him. A real cop, especially a marginally qualified barely literate Southern US cop would go ballistic with such an offer. So, he's no cop; maybe a wannabe or has a brother in law or cousin or something that's a cop. So, now I predict he will suddenly take me up oh my prior offer in order to save face, but the offer has expired. However, I will be willing to provide the date and time I will be visiting my daughter and granddaughter in Spartanburg, and he knows the type of car I drive and here's some more help; TN tags. And will be taking I-26 East the entire way.

[1 CAT FAN]

1. You're cowering from the AZ screw up being entirely yours by failing to use quotation marks or a quote box.
2. You're cowering from my question: "You went to grade school in SC, didn't you?"
3. Still a lie:

... I have a card too, only it specifies that I am allowed legally to open carry a gun....

Your supposed LEO ID does not specify "open carry" anywhere on it.
4. "open carry" has a specific meaning that has NOTHING to do with LEOs, hence the link I've twice used is for OpenCarry.org, a site exclusively discussing civilian abilities and restrictions. ESL much?
5. Pretty much every LEO everywhere knows that "open carry" ONLY refers to civilians. That said, some of them are really, really stupid.
6. SLED does NOT require "that SC Law Enforcement be certified to open carry." It has proficiency and ongoing firearms assessment standards, but does not call them "open carry" certifications. You lie, again.
7. All this, but somehow I'm mysteriously a "dumb@$$."

You cower, lie, spew stupidity, and remain a pansy when the screw ups are entirely yours, which does support your claim to be in "law enforcement". I'm guessing that SLED does not do IQ, character or ethical testing, dumbass.

The Registration Card says “ARMED”.
Everyone that has ever seen a Law Enforcement Officer in uniform can visibly see the weapon.

Also, you know, there was a link to the article.
You just didn’t bother to click on it, dumb@$$.

[Vrede too]

I thought that was it, I just wanted to see if I could bait you into making an even bigger fool and pansy of yourself. Ding, ding, ding!

Again.

Hah, made you look. Anyhow, “ARMED” does not equal specifying "open carry". You fail English, again, and demonstrate how wussy you are when YOU screw up, again.

We all post our own words next to links and everyone, even SC middle school kids, knows how to make it clear that something is being quoted. No reason for me to click, crybaby, when you presented living in AZ as being your own words. Grow a pair, Officer Dumbass, your poor composition skills are not my fault.

You're cowering from your desperate lie about having an "open carry" certification from SLED.

[neoplacebo]

We used to ride SLED down Cypress Street here in town; very scary and cold. I once ran into the back of a parked car. It was the end of SLED. SLED's dead, baby.

[O Really]

Wait - CAT claims to be a retired LEO from South Carolina? Well, that would explain a lot.

[Vrede too]

Wait - CAT claims to be a retired LEO from South Carolina? Well, that would explain a lot.

Has s/he said "retired"? The exchange above sounds like s/he is claiming to still be active.

[1 CAT FAN]

Wait - CAT claims to be a retired LEO from South Carolina? Well, that would explain a lot.

Has s/he said "retired"? The exchange above sounds like s/he is claiming to still be active.

Vrede doesn’t know, he has to have it spelled out in quotation marks.

[Vrede too]

Gun control really works. Science has shown time and again that it can prevent mass shootings and save lives.

[O Really]

Wait - CAT claims to be a retired LEO from South Carolina? Well, that would explain a lot.

Has s/he said "retired"? The exchange above sounds like s/he is claiming to still be active.

I don't know - I had missed the part where he said he was a SC cop.

But if, hypothetically, we had a person who had retired from South Carolina law enforcement, what might we surmise about such a hypothetical person? We would know that s/he spent his/her career earning way less than the average police officer. The median pay for a police or sheriff's patrol officer in the U.S. is $29.35 an hour or $61,050 annually. The median pay for a police officer in South Carolina is $19.21 an hour, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

We could reasonably guess that s/he got and kept his/her job through some form of "blue line" politics - maybe not a union, since this is SC, but maybe the Fraternal Order of Good Old Boys. We could also reasonably guess that his/her employer was willing to put up with a good bit of bad policing among this hypothetical person's fellow officers since law enforcement units all over the state have a difficult time recruiting and retaining trained officers. The tolerance for bad policing is also helped due to some unusual SC liability laws that limit the amount a victim of, say, hypothetically, excessive force can get in court - even if they are shot while reaching for their drivers' license as instructed by the officer. SC is also unique in having SLED, that, in addition to a number of other responsibilities, investigates most police shootings and is credibly accused of being less than independent and impartial and being willing to let bad behaviour slide by.

We could be pretty sure s/he worked in an environment tolerant of discriminatory practices since in South Carolina Black people are shot, arrested, and incarcerated in numbers well beyond their proportion of the population. And outside of criminal law, though enforced by police, South Carolina is a leader in civil asset forfeitures, with 65 percent of civil asset forfeiture cases targeting Black men, despite the fact that they represent only 13 percent of the state population. And of the Whites who suffer forfeiture, they are twice as likely to successfully recover property taken than Black people.

We could guess there's a fair chance our hypothetical officer worked in a unit that wasn't very good, or maybe wasn't very well trained or supported, or maybe was just outmanned, since South Carolina ranks number 42 among states in its management of crime and corrections (US News & World Report Best Places to Live), and has a violent crime rate about 30% higher than the US average.

So such a hypothetical person would have been exposed throughout their career, either personally or indirectly, with enforcement of various drug laws, and unlikely to be willing to consider that aspect of their career a total waste. Thus they would tend to support continued drug criminalization. But the hypothetical person would also have seen a lot of criminal activity and be acutely aware that law enforcement can't really do much to prevent crime, and thus would have a fatalistic, nothing-can-be-done view on issues such as firearm laws and gang issues.

If our hypothetical person was in law enforcement long enough to retire, s/he would have remembered times in the past, maybe when they started out, that they saw the job differently, found a higher level of popular respect for police, and now they would likely be bitter about anything creating problems including video games, social media, etc., and have some desire for "the old days and ways."

So we might guess our hypothetical person could have spent 30 years with crappy pay, insufficient support and training, cheap equipment, discrimination all around, and a revolving door of criminals caught and released.

If such a person showed up at an online forum, s/he'd probably ridicule proposals for firearm regulation, would oppose any de-criminalization of drug use, would find Trump at least tolerable since all politicians in his/her personal life have been, or seemed to be, incompetent liars crooks and thieves. S/he would be cynical about any effort to effect meaningful change, because of a life spent living with the same ol' same ol' from the city councils, the police hierarchy and the never-ending flow of criminals. S/he would defend law enforcement even in extreme cases of documented abuse because of a career of being in a thin blue line "us against them" environment - loyal to fellow officers to a fault and wary of politicians and the public.

But it's only "hypothetical" eh?

[billy.pilgrim]

You forgot the hypothetical donuts