RE: In an effort to find some common ground.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: In an effort to find some common ground.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: In an effort to find some common ground.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/1/2013 6:08:00 PM

imdoingitagain

Posts: 77
Joined: 4/7/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50
In Australia, there is no bill of rights per se'. But nor is it anything like a Police state, either. Like I suggested to you in Level's thread (Guns), since 9/11 we've likely got more freedoms than the US now, EXCEPT for guns.

I don't doubt that in the least. In the past decade, our rights in the US have been slowly but surely been under attack. The saddest part about it is that most of the population doesn't seem to care just as long as it is "Their guys" (Democrats or Republicans) performing the attack.

(in reply to Focus50)

Post #: 81

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/1/2013 9:52:40 PM

LadyPact

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
I haven't got anything to say about all the above. I just wanted to see if what all the quote boxes would look like inside one another.

The whole lot of you are smart enough to trim your quotes. I appreciate all of your comments, but, DAMN.

_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Post #: 82

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/1/2013 10:13:52 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
I haven't got anything to say about all the above. I just wanted to see if what all the quote boxes would look like inside one another.

The whole lot of you are smart enough to trim your quotes. I appreciate all of your comments, but, DAMN.

You mean you don't like to look at two pages of boxes to read one new line.
I must admit I have been guilty of this and will try to do better, thanks for the reminder.

(in reply to LadyPact)

Post #: 83

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/1/2013 11:29:55 PM

Nosathro

Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

I have been thinking of what OriontheWolf in his post (77) stated and looked at the what is going on in Alabama with the hostage situation and the accused Jimmery Lee Dykes...now I am not profiling but what Orion states does seem to match with Dykes

1) anti-government. It has been reported Dykes is a surviliest and is strongly anti government.

2) Self reliance (this often ties into #1). Dykes does not seem to have any family the underground bunker he built himself, no mention of family or friends.

3) Self defense proponent. Dykes has been reported as patroling his home at night with a firearm and flash light. Neighbors report he has threaten them on several occusions.

4) More likely to support violence as a means of solution. Dykes has killed a dog and threaten children. In fact the day following the incident he was to go to court on charges that neighbors filed against him. Some believe Dykes was planing this for some time. When Dykes boarded the school bus it is reported he demanded two children.

5) Sociological factors where the local culture is made up of smaller areas of living (smaller town, cities, more rural, etc.) Midland City has been reported that it's population is about 2,300.

Interesting....

(in reply to Nosathro)

Post #: 84

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 7:03:19 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

A separate comment on the militia issue; if individuals cannot own firearms, then a local militia could never be raised. The individual right must be there first, before the militia can be addressed. These militia's were created at local levels and managed at the state level, with very little interference by the federal government.

Ironically, the last time a militia was employed to secure the liberty of a free state was when the southern states seceded from the Union. Since then National Guard units have been employed to maintain law and order against riots and natural disasters. The members of these units used weapons issued to them and maintained in an armory. Not their own weapons. The State Guards are needed because Federal Troops are prohibited from performing law and order functions within the states. Basically, the Second Amendment is archaic and useless.

Unfortunately, in 2008 and 2010 SCOTUS held in Heller v District of Columbia: "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."

So, the argument today is what type of firearm is minimal for self-defense. In Senate Hearings we heard of a woman who protected her home from knife wielding intruders with a double barreled shotgun. However, pro gun testimony conjured up imaginary scenarios which required semi-automatic weapons with clip capacity greater than ten and one in the barrel. I am kinda partial to an M1 Abrams tank with land mines and barbed wire around the property.

quote:

It is absolutely necessary to understand where many Americans have come from as a people. While we would like to say "One country" the fact of the matter is that the US is very diverse, and those not living in more rural areas will not understand those that do, when it comes to the attitude of living. The varied cultures that we have will also make it so that this debate will continue to be stated well into the future.

I agree. Your observation is well made. However, spree killings and gang killings occur in urban/suburban areas due to the handy assembly of victims. People in rural areas need to understand the fear and urgency in urban areas.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

Post #: 85

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 7:22:37 AM

Yachtie

Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Ironically, the last time a militia was employed to secure the liberty of a free state was when the southern states seceded from the Union.

Tell that to the Koreans who defended their businesses and themselves with weapons during the 1992 LA riots. from wiki -

During the riots, many Korean immigrants from the area rushed to Koreatown, after Korean-language radio stations called for volunteers to guard against rioters. Many were armed, with a variety of improvised weapons, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles.

Say what you want, but that smacks of unorganized militia. Didn't see the Guard there.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to vincentML)

Post #: 86

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 7:25:36 AM

cloudboy

Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

What strikes me is how little the gun lobby cares about the victims of gun violence. Their "rights" are always more important than anything else. The rationale expressed behind these rights doesn't make sense to rational people (in the case of military style weapons.)

The same goes for the US's military industrial complex apologists and backers -- there's a combination of bias, military fetishism, xenophobia, ignorance, aggression, paranoia, cynicism, distorted patriotism, and callousness to their thinking.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 2/2/2013 7:28:05 AM >

(in reply to jlf1961)

Post #: 87

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 7:28:00 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Tell that to the Koreans who defended their businesses and themselves with weapons during the 1992 LA riots. from wiki -

During the riots, many Korean immigrants from the area rushed to Koreatown, after Korean-language radio stations called for volunteers to guard against rioters. Many were armed, with a variety of improvised weapons, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles.

Say what you want, but that smacks of unorganized militia. Didn't see the Guard there.

Why doesn't somebody tell it to the marines. Now if that would have been americans doing that.....................

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to cloudboy)

Post #: 88

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 7:46:14 AM

Yachtie

Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
What strikes me is how little the gun lobby cares about the victims of gun violence. Their "rights" are always more important than anything else.

How can you say this? The gun lobby cares more about the victims than the anti-gunners, as the gun lobby wishes them armed and capable of their own defense instead of the emotional feel good rhetoric of disarmament in the face of criminal activity. It's the anti-gunners who desire Big Brother defense and think hiding, cowering and grabbing the scissors is laudable. The more victims there are the more the anti-gunners cry tears of love as it plays into their safety above all else utopian rhetoric.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to cloudboy)

Post #: 89

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 8:20:27 AM

PeonForHer

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
What strikes me is how little the gun lobby cares about the victims of gun violence. Their "rights" are always more important than anything else.

I must admit, it's commonplace to see the word 'freedom' invoked by the gun-lobby in relation to people's freedom to carry a gun. For me (as a Brit), though, the much more crucial freedom is that of being able to walk around without the fear of a gun being turned on me. I can't imagine how oppressive that must feel.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to cloudboy)

Post #: 90

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 8:23:56 AM

OrionTheWolf

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

A separate comment on the militia issue; if individuals cannot own firearms, then a local militia could never be raised. The individual right must be there first, before the militia can be addressed. These militia's were created at local levels and managed at the state level, with very little interference by the federal government.

Ironically, the last time a militia was employed to secure the liberty of a free state was when the southern states seceded from the Union. Since then National Guard units have been employed to maintain law and order against riots and natural disasters. The members of these units used weapons issued to them and maintained in an armory. Not their own weapons. The State Guards are needed because Federal Troops are prohibited from performing law and order functions within the states. Basically, the Second Amendment is archaic and useless.

There are many situations that the police, guard and military cannot respond fast enough, or there are enough of them to protect every citizen in every event. A free state would include your property being free of dangers to you and others.

quote:

It is absolutely necessary to understand where many Americans have come from as a people. While we would like to say "One country" the fact of the matter is that the US is very diverse, and those not living in more rural areas will not understand those that do, when it comes to the attitude of living. The varied cultures that we have will also make it so that this debate will continue to be stated well into the future.

I agree. Your observation is well made. However, spree killings and gang killings occur in urban/suburban areas due to the handy assembly of victims. People in rural areas need to understand the fear and urgency in urban areas.

Actually you would need to look into the sociology yet again. Gang killings happen in highly impoverished areas, with very low education, and if you look at the statistics, poverty and low education is two of the leading correlations of violence against others. Notice I did not say cause, as a cause is much more difficult to identify across the board.

This is also why I say banning particular guns will have little effect, and prior stats show this as well. Instead of targeting the guns, you target the people that legally use them. Better background checks, mandatory safety classes, licensing and various other methods. All of this would happen at the state level though.

The common ground here should be that "Yes I would like to see gun violence reduced." and then move on one small step at a time from there.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to vincentML)

Post #: 91

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 8:42:17 AM

Nosathro

Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Ironically, the last time a militia was employed to secure the liberty of a free state was when the southern states seceded from the Union.

Tell that to the Koreans who defended their businesses and themselves with weapons during the 1992 LA riots. from wiki -

During the riots, many Korean immigrants from the area rushed to Koreatown, after Korean-language radio stations called for volunteers to guard against rioters. Many were armed, with a variety of improvised weapons, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles.

Say what you want, but that smacks of unorganized militia. Didn't see the Guard there.

Yep and some of the them got arrested by the police. Further, Koreans and Blacks in LA at that time. One of the big things was a Korean Store keeper shooting a black girl, she was convicted of it. The Koreans were over charging Blacks in many of the stores, I am not aware of what the current situation. The California National Guard was called up on the second day of the riot, April 30th, however the National Guard had loaned their riot equipment to the police and could not get to LA. One May 1st some 10,000 Guards arrived in LA. On May 2nd 2,000 soldiers of the then 7th Division and 1500 Marines from Camp Penalton came to LA to support the Guard. On May 9 all Federal troops were ordered to stand down, buy May 27th all soldiers left LA.

Here is an interest quote

"One of the most iconic and controversial television images of the violence was a scene of two Korean merchants firing pistols repeatedly at roving looters. The New York Times said "that the image seemed to speak of race war, and of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands."

California Law

PENAL CODE
SECTION 11460
11460. (a) Any two or more persons who assemble as a paramilitary
organization for the purpose of practicing with weapons shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year
or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by
both that fine and imprisonment.

The dyer busser went off, your white sheets are dry.

(in reply to Yachtie)

Post #: 92

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 8:48:40 AM

Nosathro

Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

This is also why I say banning particular guns will have little effect, and prior stats show this as well. Instead of targeting the guns, you target the people that legally use them. Better background checks, mandatory safety classes, licensing and various other methods. All of this would happen at the state level though.

[/quote]

[/quote]
Unfortuntially the NRA opposes background checks...remember the Brady Bill....
January 24, 2013

Statement from Chris W. Cox Regarding Universal Background Checks

An article appearing on TheHill.com today asserted that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is working on a bill with the NRA that would implement universal background checks. NRA does NOT support universal background checks and is not working with Manchin to implement this type of legislation. NRA opposes, and will continue to oppose, universal background checks and registration schemes.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

Post #: 93

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 8:49:30 AM

Yachtie

Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
What strikes me is how little the gun lobby cares about the victims of gun violence. Their "rights" are always more important than anything else.

I must admit, it's commonplace to see the word 'freedom' invoked by the gun-lobby in relation to people's freedom to carry a gun. For me (as a Brit), though, the much more crucial freedom is that of being able to walk around without the fear of a gun being turned on me. I can't imagine how oppressive that must feel.

Interesting. The gun lobby, and pro-gunners, are about your having the means (freedom) to repel that criminal activity which might be turned on you, which a gun is but one possible aspect; there also being knives, baseball bats, 200lb man versus 90lb woman, etc.

The crucial freedom you desire is being able to walk around without the fear of criminality being fostered upon you. So I ask you, is that possible?

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to PeonForHer)

Post #: 94

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 9:29:43 AM

igor2003

Posts: 1718
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
What strikes me is how little the gun lobby cares about the victims of gun violence. Their "rights" are always more important than anything else.

I must admit, it's commonplace to see the word 'freedom' invoked by the gun-lobby in relation to people's freedom to carry a gun. For me (as a Brit), though, the much more crucial freedom is that of being able to walk around without the fear of a gun being turned on me. I can't imagine how oppressive that must feel.

I live in an open carry state. It is not unusual to see someone walking around with a gun holstered at their belt. Just this past week an item made the local news when surveillance cameras at the state capital building caught a man, with a gun on his belt, moving about inside the building. Not really a news item since it is 100% legal here. But a number of Nervous Nellies had whined about it due to recent national events, and so the local news aired the "event".

Several of the members of the ATV club I ride with carry on every ride we go on. I, among a number of other people I know, have a CCW permit, though I seldom actually carry. But guess what...I have NEVER been threatened with a gun. Knives? Yes. Clubs? Yes. Fists? Yes. Guns? NEVER.

To be fair, I do live in what is considered a rural state. People living in cities, especially where gang violence is common, may, and probably do, feel more "oppressed". There is a lot of gang activity here, but it is, for the most part, less violent, and more prone to be theft and drug related.

Anyway, I sincerely doubt that my fear of having a gun turned on me is any greater than your own fear of the same. However, if such a situation should ever occur I hope that I don't end up with an epitaph that reads, "I turned in my gun like the government said. The other guy didn't, and now I'm dead."

_____________________________

If the women don't find you handsome they should at least find you handy. - Red Green

At my age erections are like cops...there's never one around when you need it!

Never miss a good chance to shut up. - Will Rogers

(in reply to PeonForHer)

Post #: 95

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 10:32:32 AM

Nosathro

Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

Interesting. The gun lobby, and pro-gunners, are about your having the means (freedom) to repel that criminal activity which might be turned on you, which a gun is but one possible aspect; there also being knives, baseball bats, 200lb man versus 90lb woman, etc.

The crucial freedom you desire is being able to walk around without the fear of criminality being fostered upon you. So I ask you, is that possible?

[/quote]

This is the standard rhetoric of the pro-guners, yet studies do not support this the following is from a 1995 Northeaster Study, it was submitted by a pro gunners...

Perception that if the gun was not used someone would have died
Almost certainly not 20.8%
Probably not 19.3%
Might have 16.2%
Could not say 13.7%
Only 64.2% called the police

crime victims are willing to take the risks of forcefully resisting the offender is that most offenders faced by victims choosing such an action are unarmed, or armed only with less lethal weapons. Relatively few victims try to use a gun against adversaries who are themselves armed with guns. According to this survey, offenders were armed with some kind of weapon in 48% of DGU (Meaning 52% were unarmed)
14% of all violent crime victims face offenders armed with gun.

Only 19% of all DGU cases involved only assault.
Only 24% of the gun defenders in the present study reported firing the gun, and only 8% report wounding an adversary
17% of the gun crimes reported in the NCVS involve the offender shooting at the victim, and only 3% involve the victim suffering a gunshot wound. Only 24% of the incidents involved the defender firing their gun, and only 16% involved the defender shooting at their adversary. [89] In only 4.5% of the cases did the offender shoot at the defender
46% of the Defender were not threaten nor attacked.
11% did have property taken.
The Crime most Defender thought was being committed, burglary 33.8%, rape and sexual assault was only 8.2%.
The Offender shot at the Defender 4.5% as compared to 24% of Defenders shooting and remember it was only 16% did they shoot at Offender only hitting the Offender 3% of the time

To me, pro-gunners are not about trying to defend against crimes, it about egos and low self-esteem. Further the crime rate has been decline for over 40 years...

< Message edited by Nosathro -- 2/2/2013 11:03:47 AM >

(in reply to Yachtie)

Post #: 96

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 10:58:32 AM

Nosathro

Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

Anyway, I sincerely doubt that my fear of having a gun turned on me is any greater than your own fear of the same. However, if such a situation should ever occur I hope that I don't end up with an epitaph that reads, "I turned in my gun like the government said. The other guy didn't, and now I'm dead."

You statement remind me of what is happening now in Alabama, Jimmery Lee Dykes, very anti government, has killed a bus driver (I know that all the pro-gunners would claim he should have had a gun as well as all the kids on the bus) and taken a 5 year old autistic boy hostage to use a shield should law enforcement make any attempt to capture him (5 year old autistic boy, Jimmy is very brave). Now there is history of mental illness, no previous reports of threatening behavior and the only previous criminal history is a 1995 charge in Florida that was dismissed and a 2000 marihuna charge out come unknown. His neighbors have claimed he has killed a dog and threaten them in fact, Jimmy was to go to court the next day to answer charges.
Yes here is your pro gun, anti government, law bidding person.

I live in an open carry state. It is not unusual to see someone walking around with a gun holstered at their belt. Just this past week an item made the local news when surveillance cameras at the state capital building caught a man, with a gun on his belt, moving about inside the building. Not really a news item since it is 100% legal here. But a number of Nervous Nellies had whined about it due to recent national events, and so the local news aired the "event".

You may have a open carry State, but perhaps there are places that do not allow you to carry a firearms, government building may have such a restriction.

< Message edited by Nosathro -- 2/2/2013 11:04:15 AM >

(in reply to igor2003)

Post #: 97

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 11:49:40 AM

igor2003

Posts: 1718
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

Anyway, I sincerely doubt that my fear of having a gun turned on me is any greater than your own fear of the same. However, if such a situation should ever occur I hope that I don't end up with an epitaph that reads, "I turned in my gun like the government said. The other guy didn't, and now I'm dead."

You statement remind me of what is happening now in Alabama, Jimmery Lee Dykes, very anti government, has killed a bus driver (I know that all the pro-gunners would claim he should have had a gun as well as all the kids on the bus) and taken a 5 year old autistic boy hostage to use a shield should law enforcement make any attempt to capture him (5 year old autistic boy, Jimmy is very brave). Now there is history of mental illness, no previous reports of threatening behavior and the only previous criminal history is a 1995 charge in Florida that was dismissed and a 2000 marihuna charge out come unknown. His neighbors have claimed he has killed a dog and threaten them in fact, Jimmy was to go to court the next day to answer charges.
Yes here is your pro gun, anti government, law bidding person. I have no idea how you associate my statement with what you wrote. Would you care to elaborate?

I live in an open carry state. It is not unusual to see someone walking around with a gun holstered at their belt. Just this past week an item made the local news when surveillance cameras at the state capital building caught a man, with a gun on his belt, moving about inside the building. Not really a news item since it is 100% legal here. But a number of Nervous Nellies had whined about it due to recent national events, and so the local news aired the "event".

You may have a open carry State, but perhaps there are places that do not allow you to carry a firearms, government building may have such a restriction. Yes, there are places where guns are not allowed, whether open carry or with a CCW. The state capital building is not one of them, which is why I said it is 100% legal. See how that works?. Here is what it says from the state attorney generals website: You may not carry a concealed weapon (or any weapon. [my edit]) in a courthouse, juvenile detention facility, adult correctional facility, prison, jail, public school or private school.

Federal law may prohibit you from carrying a weapon in places such as federal courthouses and airports. The previous quote is from a FAQ about concealed weapons at the AGs website. There are other restrictions and requirements about both concealed and OC weapons, but this covers the general gist of your comment.

So what's your point?

_____________________________

If the women don't find you handsome they should at least find you handy. - Red Green

At my age erections are like cops...there's never one around when you need it!

Never miss a good chance to shut up. - Will Rogers

(in reply to Nosathro)

Post #: 98

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 12:36:53 PM

Nosathro

Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

Anyway, I sincerely doubt that my fear of having a gun turned on me is any greater than your own fear of the same. However, if such a situation should ever occur I hope that I don't end up with an epitaph that reads, "I turned in my gun like the government said. The other guy didn't, and now I'm dead."

You statement remind me of what is happening now in Alabama, Jimmery Lee Dykes, very anti government, has killed a bus driver (I know that all the pro-gunners would claim he should have had a gun as well as all the kids on the bus) and taken a 5 year old autistic boy hostage to use a shield should law enforcement make any attempt to capture him (5 year old autistic boy, Jimmy is very brave). Now there is history of mental illness, no previous reports of threatening behavior and the only previous criminal history is a 1995 charge in Florida that was dismissed and a 2000 marihuna charge out come unknown. His neighbors have claimed he has killed a dog and threaten them in fact, Jimmy was to go to court the next day to answer charges.
Yes here is your pro gun, anti government, law bidding person. I have no idea how you associate my statement with what you wrote. Would you care to elaborate?

I live in an open carry state. It is not unusual to see someone walking around with a gun holstered at their belt. Just this past week an item made the local news when surveillance cameras at the state capital building caught a man, with a gun on his belt, moving about inside the building. Not really a news item since it is 100% legal here. But a number of Nervous Nellies had whined about it due to recent national events, and so the local news aired the "event".

You may have a open carry State, but perhaps there are places that do not allow you to carry a firearms, government building may have such a restriction. Yes, there are places where guns are not allowed, whether open carry or with a CCW. The state capital building is not one of them, which is why I said it is 100% legal. See how that works?. Here is what it says from the state attorney generals website: You may not carry a concealed weapon (or any weapon. [my edit]) in a courthouse, juvenile detention facility, adult correctional facility, prison, jail, public school or private school.

Federal law may prohibit you from carrying a weapon in places such as federal courthouses and airports. The previous quote is from a FAQ about concealed weapons at the AGs website. There are other restrictions and requirements about both concealed and OC weapons, but this covers the general gist of your comment.

So what's your point?

Thank you for clearing that up...I am not formular with your State Laws. As to Alabama, my point well wait to that comes to an end....what ever end it is.

< Message edited by Nosathro -- 2/2/2013 12:39:11 PM >

(in reply to igor2003)

Post #: 99

RE: In an effort to find some common ground. - 2/2/2013 1:35:02 PM

Focus50

Posts: 3962
Joined: 12/28/2004
From: Newcastle, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Now if that would have been americans doing that.....................

By "americans", you mean whites?

In Australia, if there's some kinda racial incident worthy of political or editorial comment, the underlying perception/conclusion you're left with is that a racist is pretty much defined as any white Australian.

IE, if you're white, you're an overt racist and if you're black/asian/whatever, then you must've been provoked by whitie. The pollies and journos never actually state that, of course, but phrase it in a way such that two plus two equals...., and the total is left blank for whatever conclusions the audience wants to draw.

Our (predominantly white) governemt and its apologists are as self-flagellating as any other western democracy when it comes to a stubborn belief that multiculturalism can exist without generating racial tensions. And when it inevitably goes south, you know who to blame....

Focus.

_____________________________

Never underestimate the persuasive power of stupid people in large groups. <unknown>

Your food is for eating, not torturing. <my mum> (Errm, when I was a kid)

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 100

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: In an effort to find some common ground.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125