Stop guns with signs

[Narf]

APRIL 8 is a high noon of sorts for Akron-area businesses.

That's the first day Ohioans can apply to carry a concealed weapon, although it will take another 45 days for anyone to get a license to pack heat legally.

In the meantime, business owners who want to keep guns out of their offices and shops should start thinking about posting signs. Under the state's new concealed carry law, that's the only way employers can prohibit them.

Full article here.

[Narf]

1. Will a sign actually prevent a criminal from bringing a gun in?

While I fully support the right of private businesses to ban guns on their property does anybody actually believe that a criminal, intent on committing a crime in that place of business, will actually be deterred by a sign? Wouldn't a more accurate sign state: "Attention Criminals. The people within this establishment have been disarmed for your convenience"?

[truthspeaker]

2. probably not, but it's their private property

They have a right to ban guns inside if they want.

[Narf]

4. They most certainly have the right...

But it's almost not worth the money to print the signs.

[Tommy_21]

132. Not really

A business open to the public is considered private/public property. An example would be the desegregated lunch counters, one can not discriminate on who they serve regardless of any "property rights".

If the NRA fanatics push this case in court, they might win against business owners.

[Wickerman]

3. Great, another case of business's rights being

infringed on by someone else's rights agenda. Discussed ad nauseum a week or two ago.

[Narf]

5. How are the rights of the business owner being infringed?

They can choose to post the signs or not. They can choose to allow or prohibit law abiding people from carrying on their property. Criminals, however, were probably already doing it so they won't have to change their M.O. either. Basically, not much changes.

I'd be interested to hear why you, as a business owner would be for/against posting a sign on your door? Strictly hypothetical, of course.

[FatSlob]

6. I disagree here.

The law presumes that one may carry anywhere (excepting buildings owned by the state or one of its political subdivisions). The few businesses that do not want CHL holders to be their customers must therefore inform that they are exercising their private property rights. Similarly, it is considered legal to tresspass upon somebody's property, unless they post a sign that says you can not, erect a barrier obviously designed to bar access to those unauthorized, or tell you personally. This is also similar to the "no soliciting" signs one sees. It is assumed that a business invites solicitors, just as it is assumed a business invites CHL holders, unless a sign is posted saying that the soliciting is not welcome, or the carrying of a firearm is not welcome.

[iverglas]

21. and the questions remain

I mean, I asked them several times in that other thread, and never did get an answer.

... Why should a law that gives individuals permission to carry concealed firearms in public places give them permission to carry concealed firearms onto other people's property?

Why should the onus be on any property owner to post signs on his/her property prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms onto that property?

Why should there not be a presumption that owners/occupants of private property to which others have access (and that includes any occupant of any residential property in these jurisdictions, to which itinerant vendors and canvassers have completely legal access for the purpose of soliciting) do NOT permit the carrying of concealed firearms on their property *unless* otherwise posted?

Why should the onus NOT be on the carrier of the concealed firearm to obtain the permission of an owner/occupant of private property before carrying a concealed firearm onto the property?

What social purpose is served by giving anyone with a permit to carry a concealed firearm the legal authority to carry it into hospitals, churches and apartment complexes, and to any front door at any private residential property where they do not live, or onto anyone's business premises? What social purpose is served by making property owners and occupants responsible for whether or not someone carries a concealed firearm onto their property?

The people affected by this new "right" are NOT only business owners, as far as I can tell. My front porch is the place of business of all the local JoHos and chocolate-bar sellers and electrical company solicitors and advertising flyer distributors. And if I were in a "CCW" jurisdiction, they would ALL be entitled, if they qualified, to obtain a licence to carry a concealed firearm and to carry it right up to my front door and up and down the front porches and to the front doors of all my neighbours. Hey, if I've got this wrong, let me know, eh?


There was previously a long-standing, generalized prohibition against carrying concealed firearms except in exceptional circumstances. Owners and occupants of places open to the public, and of private properties to which strangers have access for business or other purposes, were entitled to rely on that prohibition. If someone illegally carried a concealed firearm onto their property and caused damage there, they were not liable.

Now, if they fail to post a warning that firearms are not permitted on their property, and if someone with lawful authority to carry a firearm wherever s/he bloody well wants uses that firearm to cause damage on the property, I anticipate that anyone harmed would have a cause of action against the property owner for failing to post the prohibition. (Will posting be sufficient? Will some active effort to prevent firearms being carried onto the property be needed?)

This is a huge reversal of the rights of property owners and occupants. For whose benefit? Not theirs, that's for sure. (If they want concealed firearms on their property, they would be perfectly free to post signs welcoming them if the law did not give automatic permission to those carrying them.) Nobody's but the self-absorbed, self-centred toters of firearms, and of course their bought and paid for legislators. Obviously.

.

[FatSlob]

26. You are quite wrong.

If you don't want solicitors, you put up a sign. If you don't want tresspassers, you put up a sign. If you don't want somebody doing something that is otherwise legal, you put up a sign. If you lived in Ohio, you could put up a sign on your property, right below your "no solicitors, please" sign that said, "no guns, please". Basic legal tenets hold that anything that is legal, is assumed to be welcomed by private property owners unless otherwise signed or indicated. It is really simple. Maybe it is different for the CanAmericans, I don't know what kind of laws they have. But, years of law in the United States hold this.

[iverglas]

27. well actually

... years of law in the United States hold this.

What years of law in most parts of the US actually hold is that it is illegal to parade around the world with a firearm concealed on one's person.

This law has been changed. The expectations that property owners and occupants are entitled to have of anyone lawfully entering their property have been changed. The duties and liabilities of property owners have been changed.

Wanna bet how many of them didn't, and still don't, know that strangers now have rights in respect of *their* property that they didn't previously have, and that their duties and liabilities to people on their property have been changed accordingly?

How many people in jurisdictions that now offer permits to people who want to parade around with firearms concealed on their persons know that it is now LEGAL for people who ring their doorbells wanting to sell them stuff, or sign them up for something, or just ask directions to the nearest police station, to be carrying concealed firearms when they do it?

Yup, every one of those people in all those houses and apartments is quite free to erect a honking big ugly sign at the entrance to their property saying "NO GUNS PERMITTED ON THIS PROPERTY". What luck. If you *don't* want something brought on your property that you have *never* given permission to bring onto it, and that the law itself always previously prohibited bringing onto it, you may post a sign.

Of course, since the firearms in question are concealed by definition, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether anyone is disobeying your sign. And a sign is just slightly less of a deterrent, and more likely to be disobeyed, than a law, one might think, for many of those "law-abiding" people carrying those concealed firearms. Why, I'll bet a whole lot of them completely ignore speed limit signs and "don't walk on the grass" signs already.

Those "basic legal tenets" of yours notwithstanding, other people may not walk their dogs on my property or park their cars in my garage or spit on my sidewalk, even if they are lawfully soliciting my business. But they -- people whom I have never set eyes on before and might want nothing to do with -- may walk up to my door (my hypothetical door im one of these savage lands we're talking about) with a gun in their pocket.

Oh, I forgot. Strangers with guns at my door will make me (feel) safer. Silly me.

The entire point is that this law has created the assumption that firearms concealed on the persons of strangers are welcome on all private property. That's one mighty strange assumption.

.

[FatSlob]

28. Read the previous post.

If you decide to move here, feel free to post a small, "no guns, please" sign. There is NO CHANGE from the past. Besides, people who take the time to get a license may not make you FEEL safer, but you'll BE safer. Anyway, go ahead and post your sign, the criminals will then see your hypothetical US home as a criminal protection zone!

edit: Like I said, a legal activity is assumed to be welcome, unless the property owner indicates otherwise. It is quite simple, easy to understand, not a difficult concept.

[iverglas]

54. nah, I think I'll just natter

I never read the posts I'm responding to. I've learned from considerable experience here that reading the post one is responding to is just time wasted. Far more efficient to just make outlandish claims that have been demonstrated false over and over, assert one's "opinion" as if it were writ on ancient tablets and sanctified by the gods, and blah blah blah.


There is NO CHANGE from the past.

What am I missing here? In the past, people without extraordinary reasons could not obtain permits to carry concealed firearms, am I not correct? So the change would be that a whole lot more people with no reason at all to carry a concealed firearm -- no reason being necessary -- may now be wandering abroad with concealed firearms that no one else knows about, and bring them onto other people's property unless expressly told not to (and unless they feel like complying with that instruction).

In the past, the person knocking on my door to try to sell me a vacuum cleaner or get my vote or convert me could *not* legally have been carrying a firearm. Now s/he may. Now s/he may legally enter my property carrying a firearm. Is this not correct? Do you actually not see something different here?


Besides, people who take the time to get a license may not make you FEEL safer, but you'll BE safer.

Yes indeed. And when the proselytizer from some outlandish cult spits on my front porch, it may not make me FEEL safer, but I'll BE safer, because that spit will keep the evil eye from my doorstep. Ditto, of course, for the political canvasser with the pit bull on a leash for protection; it might make ME fear for my safety, not to mention the safety of my cats and the neighbourhood kids, but me and my cats and the kids will BE safer for having a pit bull on the porch keeping all the other pit bulls away ...

Dog forbid that it should be up to the hypothetical USAmerican ME to decide what makes ME safer on MY own property (even if I don't get anything to say about what makes me safer in the rest of my environment). The very idea is just unamurrican, isn't it?

.

[RoeBear]

81. Now YOU'RE the comedian...

"What am I missing here? In the past, people without extraordinary reasons could not obtain permits to carry concealed firearms, am I not correct?"

Where did you EVER get that impression!?! The people who got the permits under the may issue system were; rich people (cause rich people are better than everyone else), politically connected, or friends of the person who issued the permits.

You really didn't know that?

[iverglas]

91. frankly

The people who got the permits under the may issue system were; rich people (cause rich people are better than everyone else), politically connected, ...

... the rich and politically connected are far less likely to show up at my local shopping mall, or on my doorstep trying to sell me something I don't want ...

You really didn't know that?

There are just so many things I don't "know", aren't there? Like how people traipsing around my neighbourhood and places of business with pistols in their pockets would make me safer ...

Quite seriously, as long as rich people were the ones getting concealed firearms permits (which really is not the case where *I* am at), I wouldn't be too likely to encounter a legally concealed firearm-toter, so I wouldn't really care.

I'm not much for that old Aesop trick of looking at the grapes that the fox revlected in the water has, and dropping the ones I've got for the illusion of something better. The fact that some boring idle rich people may have something I don't have wouldn't actually make me want it, or imagine that the world would be better if everybody had it. Just think if we all drove monster luxury SUVs everywhere we went, what the world would be like.

Me, I'd be more likely to be agitating for the boring idle rich people *not* to drive around in monster luxury SUVs with concealed firearms, that being *my* idea of what would be a nicer world for everyone, than demanding that everybody get to have 'em.

.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

101. and another demonstration

of the truly amazing ability of some people to read something and then shamelessly pretend that they believe they read something completely different.

The tangled webs they weave are a testament to the amount of practice they obviously put into that stuff that people weave tangled webs out of.


"'rich people are better than us'"

Can ya tell me where you guys buy those special magic quotation marks that one uses for "quoting" things nobody ever said? I assume you buy them in bulk and at a pretty big discount, or you'd all be broke by now.

Or maybe you all just reload ...

.

[RoeBear]

107. You said it...

...you gotta live with it.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demsrule4life]

109. What do you call someone

that has called 8 million plus people right wingers only because of the states they live in?

[iverglas]

110. I dunno

but here it comes back again?

Yup ... and there it goes ... another sorry attempt to make somebody (who??) believe that someone said something s/he never said ... 'cause NOBODY EVER

"called 8 million plus people right wingers only because of the states they live in".


There are some quite wealthy people in the most desperately impoverished countries in the world. I wouldn't consider it inaccurate (let alone insulting) to refer to the countries in question as "desperately impoverished". Would you?

In fact, although I have an income way up in the rarefied percentiles of the population, I live in a postal code that, at least until the last census, had one of the lowest average incomes in Canada. Is my census tract "low-income"? You betcha. Will I pitch a fit if someone describes the neighbourhood I live in as "low-income"? Hardly. Would I attempt to portray that description as calling me a low-income person because of the neighbourhood I live in? Take a guess.

And when I look at a place where, less than 4 years ago, 4 out of 10 people who cast votes voted to maintain a constitutional ban against interracial marriage (which had to have come from somewhere in the first place, plainly), "right-wing cesspool" doesn't strike me as too far off the mark as a description.

.

[demsrule4life]

111. But you cant use the word all

In the Huntsville area where I live I know of ten members that belong to DU. I feel in Alabama churches have to much power, I think that inroads are being made that is changing that. You cannot condemn the people in an entire state since there are thousands that support the same idea as you do.

[iverglas]

113. gosh, thanks for that sage advice

You cannot condemn the people in an entire state since there are thousands that support the same idea as you do.

And once again, if one had any idea what you are talking about, let alone why you are directing your comments to one, one might think of something to say in response.

As it stands ... nope. No idea, nothing to respond to, noise.

.

[Columbia]

124. Ah, I get it

Quite seriously, as long as rich people were the ones getting concealed firearms permits (which really is not the case where *I* am at), I wouldn't be too likely to encounter a legally concealed firearm-toter, so I wouldn't really care.

...

In fact, although I have an income way up in the rarefied percentiles of the population, I live in a postal code that, at least until the last census, had one of the lowest average incomes in Canada.
____________

The old "Guns for me, but not for thee" elitism... :eyes:

[iverglas]

136. ah yes, and there it blows again

The old "Guns for me, but not for thee" elitism...

And that might even have begun to make a scintilla of sense, except that I don't have, have never had, will never have and do not want a single firearm of any variety, to do anything with, anywhere. As the world at large knows.

I'm happy with my lawn darts, as it happens. Of course, rich people also don't routinely get permits to carry concealed weapons in Canada, as everybody also knows, and there isn't much of a hope in hell that I'd get one if I wanted it, despite my relatively stratospheric income and all the Liberals I happen to know.

So dog knows what you might be on about. Perhaps your eyes have lodged permanently in that rolled position and you've been reading things kinda inside out like ...

Or you're just having some sort of miraculous experience and seeing stuff that isn't there. Eek, would that make thee "visually impaired", and me a bigot, and should I be expecting some fresh fusillade of dunderheadedness?

.

[RoeBear]

142. Then why in the world...

"Of course, rich people also don't routinely get permits to carry concealed weapons in Canada, as everybody also knows, and there isn't much of a hope in hell that I'd get one if I wanted it, despite my relatively stratospheric income and all the Liberals I happen to know."

...do you care about this subject south of your border?

And BTW- Congratulations; you're the first person that I've seen posting here who has bragged about their income. Jolly good.

[Columbia]

143. Mmmkay...

"And that might even have begun to make a scintilla of sense, except that I don't have, have never had, will never have and do not want a single firearm of any variety, to do anything with, anywhere. As the world at large knows."

Yet you support the right of those with similar high income levels (rich folks) to properly defend themselves (CCW) yet deny the less priviliged (the rest of us) that same right.

That doesn't seem very progressive at all to me.

[iverglas]

145. there seem to be a lot of closet ESLers around here

Yet you support the right of those with similar high income levels (rich folks) to properly defend themselves (CCW) yet deny the less priviliged (the rest of us) that same right.

Oops, you forgot your magic quotation marks.

I don't support the "right" of ANYONE to wander around with firearms concealed on their persons, unless they have some demonstrated need to do so. The latter situation would include, maybe, people employed in some sort of security positions. It would actually *not* include individuals who are or claim to have been threatened by someone else. As we're all aware, I don't put any stock in the notion of arming one's self with firearms to counteract risk.

What I actually said, in more or less so many words, is that I don't much give a shit if rich people and politicians carry guns around, because they're not likely to be in places where I and other ordinary people hang out, like shopping malls and workplaces and the doorsteps of me and my neighbours. As long as they're not putting anybody but other rich people and politicians at risk, who really cares? Some will recognize this question as being of the facetious and flippant genre.

That does not mean, and you are perfectly aware that it does not mean, that I "support the right of rich folks" to do anything at all.

(By the way, I have a high income, but I'm not "rich", given that my income is 100% earned from labour, I have precisely $3,000 in inherited fortune in the form of a bank draft from my mother out of the bit of money my father left her last spring, and my assets consist of the house I live in, in this crappy neighbourhood, the house I have my office in, and the money I have in a retirement savings account at the credit union / in Cda savings bonds, since I have no pension plan and my interest in playing with money is precisely nil. Nope, I'm just working class with some very specialized skills and talents that I'm paid well for, by the piece, and work very hard at. So "those with similar high incomes" just aren't the "rich folks" we're talking about.)

So, sadly, but not surprisingly, you just have it all backwards, don't you? I mean, given that I *did* say:

Me, I'd be more likely to be agitating for the boring idle rich people *not* to drive around ... with concealed firearms ... .

See? Where I'm at, they don't get those concealed firearms permits in the first place, to any extent that I'm aware of, and I certainly don't want them to get permits to walk around with firearms and wouldn't support giving them permits to walk around with firearms. So when someone says to me:

Yet you support the right of those with similar high income levels (rich folks) to properly defend themselves (CCW) ...

... what's that called, again? Making a false statement about someone else, knowing it to be false? If I may quote you:

That doesn't seem very progressive at all to me.

Of course, when it comes to what goes on outside my borders, I take no position, other than humbly requesting that whatever it is, it not infringe on my own and the rest of the world's security. I may well have opinions about it, but I certainly don't suggest that anyone ought to care what they are.

Hell, if I wanted to make you people do what I want, I'd be agitating for Canada to impose trade sanctions against the US if it didn't do whatever had to be done to stop the flow of firearms into Canada, the way the US is always making threats to do to Canada if we don't goosestep into line in the war on drugs ...

.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Columbia]

155. You said it

Already quoted in post 124. Didn't think you I'd need to remind you of what you yourself said. But hey, if you want to renege on your previous assertion, that's fine by me.

You say it again here, "What I actually said, in more or less so many words, is that I don't much give a shit if rich people and politicians carry guns around, because they're not likely to be in places where I and other ordinary people hang out, like shopping malls and workplaces and the doorsteps of me and my neighbours. As long as they're not putting anybody but other rich people and politicians at risk, who really cares?"

It doesn't matter what reasoning you give as justification for the stratification of rights. No one should have be afforded more legal privileges than another. It's a little thing called the 14th amendment we have in this country.

[iverglas]

157. yes sirree, I did say it

I said that I think that no one should be permitted to tote firearms around absent extraordinary circumstances. I did indeed.

(My not particularly caring whether rich people tote firearms around of course doesn't mean that I think they should have permission to do it. I don't particularly care whether they kill one another off, either, but I wouldn't be agitating for them to have permission to do it. And of course, where I'm at, they don't have permission to tote firearms around, so, since I'm not advocating that they be given it, it's beyond me how I could be portrayed as giving "justification for the stratification of rights". There ain't no stratification of rights to justify, full stop.)

You know all this, I know it, and the faeries at the bottom of my garden know it.

The faeries are just a little unclear on why you would pretend that you didn't know it, since, as they understand it, pretending is what children do, and you're a grown-up and all. I'll have to sit them down and explain some of the sad facts of life to them when the snow melts.

.

[RoeBear]

115. What a pleasant way to call me a liar...

...except I'm not.


There's no limit to anti-RKBA absurdity, is there?

[Narf]

133. They don't carry a gun for YOUR safety, it's for theirs!

Like how people traipsing around my neighbourhood and places of business with pistols in their pockets would make me safer ...

Why do you assume I'm carrying a gun to make you feel safer. If you want to feel safet you're gonna have to get your own gun. I carry mine so I'M safer. My carrying a gun has no impact, good or bad, on your safety, 'cause you'll never know I have it. Only you, or a criminal intent on causing you harm, can affect your safety. OH, an mine is never in my pocket but rather safely secured in a holster.

[Fescue4u]

61. Nothing has changed in regards to property rights

Nothing.

Ohio is an open carry state (with the exception a 2 localitys). This means that it has always been 100% legal to openly carry a firearm. In addition, it has been legal in Ohio to carry concealed for about 80 years without a license, if a "prudent man would do this".

Business that did not want this have posted "no guns" signs.

Now granted, I've seen only a very few open carriers, and only a handful of signs...but nonethless the principles are the same.


What has changed? Now concealed carry is licensed and guaranteed. Previously you had to hope that you met a jurys definition of "prudent".

But the issue of property rights is completely unchanged.

[natasha1]

165. Some points...

How many people in jurisdictions that now offer permits to people who want to parade around with firearms concealed on their persons know that it is now LEGAL for people who ring their doorbells wanting to sell them stuff, or sign them up for something, or just ask directions to the nearest police station, to be carrying concealed firearms when they do it?

I love the insinuation that people who want to legaly carry a concealed weapon are painted as "parading around", as if they are walking down the street twirling them around their fingers like some cowboy. Nice stereotype.

Yup, every one of those people in all those houses and apartments is quite free to erect a honking big ugly sign at the entrance to their property saying "NO GUNS PERMITTED ON THIS PROPERTY". What luck. If you *don't* want something brought on your property that you have *never* given permission to bring onto it, and that the law itself always previously prohibited bringing onto it, you may post a sign.

Personally, I think it's great. Just like I think every anti-gun person should put a sign in their front yard that says, "There are no guns in this house." Putting a sign "No guns permitted on this property" does the same thing. It says, "Rob me, please - I'm not armed".

Of course, since the firearms in question are concealed by definition, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether anyone is disobeying your sign. And a sign is just slightly less of a deterrent, and more likely to be disobeyed, than a law, one might think, for many of those "law-abiding" people carrying those concealed firearms. Why, I'll bet a whole lot of them completely ignore speed limit signs and "don't walk on the grass" signs already.

Well, then what's the big deal? People who were going to ILLEGALLY walk up to you property with a gun are a hell of a lot more worrysome than those law abiding folks who do the same thing.

Oh, I forgot. Strangers with guns at my door will make me (feel) safer. Silly me.

Remember, the law doesn't change anything in that regard. Strangers could have walked up to your door with a gun before the law. The diference is, now law abiding people can, too.

Nat

[MrBenchley]

8. Not just business

but the private citizens' rights as well....

But what does that matter so long as a few flabby Republicans can indulge their fantasies...

[Wickerman]

9. Like I said, discussed before

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=46055&mesg_id=46251&page=

starts here. I'd read Iverglas' comments over mine.

[liberalhistorian]

7. This Ohioan

doesn't know WHAT or HOW to feel about it. A year ago, I would have been "up in arms", so to speak. I was a Million Mom March member and Brady Group member, if that gives you an idea of where I was coming from.

But since I was robbed at gunpoint in my work parking lot one evening last August, I don't know what to feel anymore. HE had the weapon, HE had the means, with just one second's squeezing of a trigger, to end my life just like that, to leave my son motherless and my parents to raise him, and I had NOTHING! I can still feel him jamming the cold barrel into my ribs each time he told me I was lying because I had no more money to give him, and the overwhelming, all-consuming, indescribable, unbelievable panic and terror throughout the whole thing. When he moved it from my ribs to my neck and demanded my PIN# for my ATM card, I thought I would die of a stroke or heart attack right there. I NEVER EVER want to feel that helpless and powerless ever again. If HE had a weapon he could use to terrorize me with, why shouldn't I be able to have something as well?

OTOH, people have told me that it very well may not have made any difference even if I'd had a weapon, and I'm still not totally convinced that this is the way to go and I'm still not totally happy with this bill. Now I'll have to worry about, if I accidentally piss someone off, will they whip out their gun and express their displeasure (especially on the road). Everywhere I go I'll be nervous.

So I go back and forth on it, obviously.

[Narf]

10. Would a "NO GUNS" sign in the parking lot have stopped this scum?

I'm certainly happy that you were not injured and you are also correct that, even if you'd had a gun, you probably wouldn't have been able to stop him from robbing you. Doesn't it make you a little mad though that the government prevented YOU from having a gun but HE had no problem using one? Also, you were lucky that all he wanted was your money. Money can be replaced, it's just a material thing and really not that important overall. What if he'd wanted something else, like your child? I imagine you would have taken every possible measure to protect your child, but would an alarm, or a can of pepper spray have been good enough? Isn't it nice to finally have the OPTION, if you so choose, to be armed?

[liberalhistorian]

11. Yes, I understand what you're saying,

and you are, for the most part, correct. I think what really got me thinking was the fact that HE had the weapon, but I had NOTHING and wouldn't have been able to have had anything at that time, either. And no, a sign certainly wouldn't have stopped him and wouldn't stop anyone else like that, either. Laws have never stopped people like that, no matter what time and place you're talking about, not now and not ever.

But you've got to understand that I've been staunchly for gun control all of my life, and that it's quite a major psychological change for me to shift gears, I can't do it suddenly. That's probably why I still go back and forth on it.

[Narf]

12. Gun control is a very broad term.

I believe in gun control. I believe criminals, the mentally incompetent, and anyone who is not properly trained should not be allowed to own or carry firearms. I believe anyone who does carry a firearm should meet some tough standards for licensing before they can carry a gun. We license drivers, doctors, and plumbers and we should sure as hell license gun owners.

We should NOT, however, keep lists of who owns guns, lists of who is carrying a gun, and we should not ban a gun simply because it LOOKS scary.

[TX-RAT]

13. What training have you had

I repeat 40 rnds at 15 yrds does not mean you are trained to carry a weapon concealed.

[Narf]

14. I agree...training standards are very lax.

I've been a shooter since I was 11 (I'm 38). I've been in the military since 1985 so I shoot officially a couple of times a year. I shoot on my own a couple of times a month. Probably around 4000-5000 rnds a year through my carry guns, couple hundred a year with military guns.

I believe that the training for a gun carrying license should be not so much in the line of target shooting and much more in the line of WHEN to shoot, and the legal rammifications of shooting someone. I have taken two different courses in self-defense shooting, courses in which WHEN to shoot was emphasised even more than HOW to shoot. Those courses are available in most cities but they are not mandatory for concealed weapons holders. Such a course should be, I believe, a mandatory precursor to receiving a CCW permit.

[TX-RAT]

15. How about a mental evaluation?

[MrBenchley]

16. How about actually demonstrating special need?

[RoeBear]

24. Bingo!

There it is. You have to prove your life is worthy of protecting.

[MrBenchley]

32. Or that you're not just a flabby Republican humhole

with a headful of childish, irresponsible fantasies....

[FeebMaster]

36. Are you saying that we should deny people

the ability to carry a concealed weapon based on their political affiliation and body fat percentage?

[MrBenchley]

48. I'm saying that nobody ought to have a pistol permit

unless they've got a damn good reason...and so far I ain't heard anything that sounds like one from the bullets for brains bunch.

[FeebMaster]

49. What would be a damn good reason?

Since defending life, liberty, and property is apparently not damn good enough.

[MrBenchley]

64. Gee, feeb, ask Jackney Sneeb...

since you seem to think not voting is such a great idea....

[FeebMaster]

71. Please.

I just posted a link to a political quiz. I guess all those links you've posted to stormfront and various KKK sites means you agree with everything on their pages?

On edit: You still haven't answered the question. What would be a good reason for being allowed to carry a gun?

[MrBenchley]

76. You posted a link to a website you claim to endorse...

from an idiotically childish website....

Now why don't you show me where anything I've ever said can be construed to agree with those racist shitheels who peddle the gun rights rubbish you keep pushing. THEN I'll answer your question.

[FeebMaster]

80. I didn't claim to endorse anything.

I linked a political quiz in a thread where a few were linked.

Why don't you get back to browsing KKK websites and come back to tell us that they're honest people who support gun rights for everyone. When you're done with that tell me again how the Republicans want to end the War on Drugs.

[MrBenchley]

83. If you want to pretend otherwise....

it's no skin off my nose....

"Why don't you get back to browsing KKK websites and come back to tell us that they're honest people who support gun rights for everyone."
For the excellent reason that I know that bigoted pieces of shit ilke them are those yelling loudest about gun rights, feeb. They sure as hell don't fool me.

"tell me again how the Republicans want to end the War on Drugs."
Gee, feeb, that was your claim...all I did was show you how Orrin Hatch put speed, steroids and other crap on store shelves without any regulations.

[FeebMaster]

87. Who's pretending?

If by linking to a political quiz on some website I endorse everything on the website and everything that site links to, then surely you endorse all the websites you link to like stormfront and those KKK websites.

[MrBenchley]

96. You dragged it in from far right field and told us you liked it better

than the "libertarian purity test"....

If you want to pretend otherwise, it's no skin off my nose, feeb.

[FeebMaster]

104. I clearly said I liked the quiz better.

How is that an endorsement of an entire website?

[RoeBear]

56. Like the lady in Michigan...

...who recently used her concealed weapon to avoid getting raped?

She'd have been better off being violated? That is a disgusting attitude. Fortunately you AREN'T the person who gets to make that decision.

[MrBenchley]

70. You mean the one in Munro's fantasy that you posted?

There's not a word there about rape....but there's plenty of good old fashioned horseshit.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=47200&mesg_id=47200

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/03242004/opi_20040324016.shtml

Get back to us if you ever have anything BESIDES right wing fantasy.

[RoeBear]

77. Oh I'm sorry...

...did this woman, that you infer is delusional, only prevent herself from being killed?

[MrBenchley]

85. Gee, roe...before it was rape, now it's murder

even Munro doesn't go that far into fantasy....

[RoeBear]

55. So now you're calling me a:

"flabby Republican humhole

with a headful of childish, irresponsible fantasies"

And who is the childish one?

[MrBenchley]

66. Roe, who's the one trying to pass right wing horseshit

off as fact on here with stunning regularity? It sure as hell ain't me.

[FatSlob]

128. Humhole?

What is this? A vagina reference? First penises, now vaginas. I repeat my invitation: Take my hand, let us march together to the promised land of civilised banter.

[Narf]

135. Humhole? That's a pantload of hooey!

[MrBenchley]

138. Fat Slob....it's hilarious

to hear the drivel being spewed by the RKBA crowd described as "civilized banter"

[FatSlob]

144. Well it is a lot more civilized

than "humhole" "stroking their stubbies" and all the other genitalia references that are spewed forth by your typing fingers.

[MrBenchley]

150. Only to those who think weapons are toys

and pimp for Somalia-like armed anarchy...

[FatSlob]

154. "pimp"

Another sex reference to something involving sex. Is there something we should know? Penises, vaginas and pimps, OH MY!

[MrSandman]

139. Need as discussed previously?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=45993

Sometimes, there is not time from realization of need t sak the .gov's permission.

[slackmaster]

17. I have a degree in psychology

And would be very interested to know what kind of mental evaluation you're talking about.

Do you have a particular existing test in mind, or something that hasn't been done before? What subjective components would you test for, and who would evaluate the results?

[TX-RAT]

19. State Standards

Most if not all states require mental exams before allowing a individual to go into law enforcement training. I would apply the same to a CCW.

[Narf]

20. I can certainly see where that would be a good thing.

How about, instead of state standards, we have one national standard. Anyone passing both the psychological exam and required training would then have a national concealed carry permit?

[Wickerman]

88. Psychologists I know who administer that screening

were getting 250$ an eval - that was 14 years ago. Look at your conceal carry permit costs to escalate. Fine with me, though.

[FeebMaster]

105. One more reason not to require permits at all.

Then again, there are those who would like it if only the wealthy could afford to carry a gun for self defense.

[Wickerman]

112. No, my point would be that I don't trust the asshole in the lane next to

me on the highway. I know from work and this message board that a large majority of folks won't follow simple rules when its not convenient. Why the hell should we have more guns out on the street, legal or no? Seems like a chance for the same folks that drive for shit to shoot for shit.

Yep, it costs too much, lets not have a damn thing then, that stands between any asswipe carrying around an instrument of deadly force.
:eyes:

I can accept many CCW arguments - this one is out of my realm of acceptability.

btw - welcome back, hadn't seen you around until of late.

[FeebMaster]

114. Following rules about copyright and

personal attacks on a message board is one thing randomly shooting people in the streets is another. I don't trust people on the road at all. I live in CT where I make up about 20% of the population who actually uses their turn signals. But I don't see how these bad drivers would be more dangerous wearing a gun that there is a good chance they may never have to draw other than for practice. Just because someone drives like a maniac doesn't mean they actually are a maniac who is liable to snap and gun you down at a moments notice.

The vast majority of people aren't going to gun someone down just because they get mad. Are there people out there I don't trust to own guns? Of course. Cars too. Gasoline, chainsaws, and forks while we're at it. But that doesn't mean I think everyone should suffer because of those few bad apples. Especially considering that those people you can't trust to not shoot someone probably can't be trusted to not carry a weapon if it isn't legal.

Yep, it costs too much, lets not have a damn thing then, that stands between any asswipe carrying around an instrument of deadly force.

It's not the asswipes I'm worried about, it's the poor schmucks who can't afford the $250 or whatever it ends up costing to get a permit.


"btw - welcome back, hadn't seen you around until of late."

Thanks. I was away on business last week. It was heaven and torture all rolled into one.

[Wickerman]

118. My point is that most people are idiots

and not incredibly aware of their surroundings or the impact of their actions on others. The more of the populace that is armed, the more assholes we loose on society. Sorry, I think its a horrible idea to arm anyone who wants it for whatever reason. I mean, Christ, look around, let to their own devices 40 odd percent of Americans vote Republican!

At one point 67% of people responded, Yes, I believe that WMD have been found in Iraq, right after they responded in similar amounts to the questions, Yes, I have heard Resident Bush* state that we have not found WMD in Iraq, and Yes, I believe in the tooth fairy. Oh yeah, baby, lets arm all those fuckwads.

I agree that people shouldn't be discriminated against by costs, but I also would like people to have a decent psychological screen, be it background or by a clinician. How could we make those fees equitable? Does it appeal to rkbaers sense of libertarianism to have a sliding fee system/

[FeebMaster]

126. Actually, most people don't vote,

"My point is that most people are idiots and not incredibly aware of their surroundings or the impact of their actions on others. The more of the populace that is armed, the more assholes we loose on society. Sorry, I think its a horrible idea to arm anyone who wants it for whatever reason. I mean, Christ, look around, let to their own devices 40 odd percent of Americans vote Republican!"

so it's more like 20 something percent that vote Republican.

Sure most people are idiots out there, but dumb enough to gun someone down just because they're mad or dumb enough to fire into a crowd of people while trying to shoot a shoplifter or something? I don't know. I doubt it. I'm still more worried about the people who actually mean others harm than those who might potentially harm me accidentally or in a fit of rage.


"At one point 67% of people responded, Yes, I believe that WMD have been found in Iraq, right after they responded in similar amounts to the questions, Yes, I have heard Resident Bush* state that we have not found WMD in Iraq, and Yes, I believe in the tooth fairy. Oh yeah, baby, lets arm all those fuckwads."

People are dumb. They watch Fox News and CNN and MSNBC in between the latest Fear Factor and American Idol. They pick up on bits and pieces of the latest news. For the most part they don't care what's going on. Hell, most Republican voters will tell you that the Republicans are pro-gun. Most of them don't even know about Reagan's gun control nor do they care to. They still have the right to defend themselves as far as I'm concerned.

"I agree that people shouldn't be discriminated against by costs, but I also would like people to have a decent psychological screen, be it background or by a clinician. How could we make those fees equitable? Does it appeal to rkbaers sense of libertarianism to have a sliding fee system/"

I don't support psychological screening or background checks in general, so I don't care really what they end up costing. Having someone go to a clinician for a psychological screening doesn't sound like a half hour job, though, so I'm guessing it would be expensive.

[Wickerman]

134. Well once again I can see we'll both have snappy and pat answers

and wind up no where. However, I really do fail to understand why the CCW advocates don't want at least some level of discretion over who gets a permit and who doesn't. Post after post on this page points to the infinitesimal number of infractions, nearly all minor, of the current CCW crop. Whatcha gonna do when the poll is widened and folks start acting out and it becomes the cause of the day and it forces an outright ban? It only takes a few...

An example of such is (and I truly mean no direct comparison, meant only int he context of the role politics WILL play when someone not well screened fucks up) recent here in Minnesota. Gov Tim Pawlenty (R) gave no shit whatsoever about sex offenders. He cut treatment funds with a vengeance and also cut prison space. Then, we had a horrid, high profile sex offender case. Now, he is the champion of harsh penalties for SO's. Hey, no problem with that, but it is a textbook example how a sleazy politician will take an isolated incident to do an 180 to his political advantage.

Once again, the gun crowd has the chance to use some caution and show the dubious public that they have all of societies interest at heart and the answer is that no one needs any screening. :sigh:

[FeebMaster]

140. I don't know about all the carry permit advocates

but I'm sure most of them support at the very least a background check to get a permit. Plenty support a training requirement. I'm sure some would even support a psychological evaluation. Personally I don't support requiring a permit at all for carrying concealed so whatever requirements there are to do it don't matter much to me.

I don't have society's interest at heart. I'm concerned about the individuals that make up the society. How can society be free and healthy if the rights of the individuals in the society are being trampled?

[Wickerman]

141. Yeah, I know what you mean

I just see the perspective of both sides; those who feel their rights are trampled because they can't carry a deadly weapon and those who feel their rights are tampled by the proliferation of deadly weapons in their communities.

[Narf]

18. What would be the criteria?

I agree that those who have, in the past, shown signs of mental instability should automatically be excluded from possessing firearms but who would set the standard for an acceptable mental profile?

[iverglas]

22. the suggestion has been tried

... by one who's also needed it: me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=43542&mesg_id=44008&page=

As I said there, in response to a flurry of cheesecake pix (bottle blondes in trenchcoats carressing firearms) with slogans along the lines of "no means no" and "never again":

Just so's you know how viciously insensitive what you're doing is ...

... I mean, just in case you didn't.

I spent part of Monday afternoon at my psychologist's office, reliving the trauma of the abduction, sexual assault and near-murder I experienced 30 years ago -- a necessary step in dealing with the aftermath of a fresh trauma I suffered late last year.

Victims of trauma are often "sensitized" to trauma, and may suffer more severe stress in response to a subsequent traumatic event (as well as experiencing severe anxiety when unexpectedly reminded of the trauma).

I've had several experiences in my life that have indeed had this cumulative effect ... and no, a firearm probably wouldn't have prevented the first, which had to do with being isolated and psychologically/emotionally abused while confined and immobilized as a long-term patient in the children's ward of a religious hospital, as a result of a playground injury. Had I had a firearm during the time of the third, the time spent with an emotionally abusive intimate partner (an addict; they're so much fun), one of us might well have been dead; I certainly had mind pictures of him "falling" down stairs, and there were incidents in which I reacted in ways that were, shall we say, out of proportion, to other stressful events in life having nothing to do with him.

Trust me, because I know: people suffering from post-traumatic stress are not people you want walking around with guns. And there are quite a lot of us, including one who has posted here about planning to acquire a firearm so as never to be victimized again. Not all of us recognize the problems we have. And I don't think that a question on the form asking whether someone has been the victim of a violent crime or was abused as a child, and has unresolved anxieties and fears as a result, is going to be quite the best way of protecting the public in this case.

So you keep on posting your tacky pictures and pretending that you care. I'm here to tell you how obvious it is that you don't care, either about me and people like me whose victimization you are exploiting and whose anxieties you don't care whether you trigger, or about the danger of the quick fix of arming people beset with anxieties and fears and determined that nobody's ever going to hurt them again.

People living with post-traumatic stress have altered perceptions of danger and, for one thing, react to interference with their emotional security as threats that need to be averted; the fight-or-flight response is heightened and brodened. People like that need to re-learn to live with the risks of life and deal with them in ways that don't endanger themselves or other people, not be equipped to walk around with both the chip on their shoulder and the firepower to blow away anyone they perceive as a threat to their security.


Here's a simple thumbnail, for anyone who needs it:
http://www.stormwind.com/magnificentseven/fightorflight.html
(Ask google for "post-traumatic stress" "fight or flight" for more.)

People suffering post-traumatic stress need to deal with the problem, not find a quick fix for the symptoms.

.

[Narf]

23. Very good post.

We often disagree but this one is really good.

[TX-RAT]

25. excellent example

Old wounds are hard to heal.....sorry.

[CO Liberal]

29. We Have Signs Like That Where I Work

I work for a major defense contractor, and possession of weapons on company property is against corporate policy. So they have signs posted at all entrances. Thie prohibition also applies to the parking lot, so no one can have a gun in their car, either.

It makes ME feel safer, knowing that no one here can "go postal".

[FeebMaster]

30. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAHAHAH

Right. Someone who is going to "go postal" is going to heed that sign. :eyes:

[FatSlob]

31. Are you serious?

You think that a SIGN is going to keep a nut from going off? Signs and law worked real well at the USPS. "I can't wait to kill my coworkers, unfortunately, there is a sign that says I can't take a gun to kill them" Get real. I note that you stated that you FEEL safer. Too bad it is nothing more than a feeling.

[CO Liberal]

33. I Wouldn't Feel Any Safer....

...if any of my co-workers had guns strapped to them. In fact, I'd feel less safe.

[FeebMaster]

34. What does that have to do with someone not

going postal because a sign told them not to carry a gun?

Just think of all the school shootings and office shootings that could have been stopped if only those schools and places of business had put up signs saying "no guns." It's a tragedy.


On edit: punctuation

[CO Liberal]

37. Just as You Say Signs Don't Make Us Safer....

...I say that guns don't make us safer.

[FeebMaster]

38. I still don't see what that has to do

with a sign stopping someone from "going postal".

[CO Liberal]

41. The Sign Is Posted Mainly For Legal Purposes

However, before we moved in to this new facility, we were all told that weapons were specifically prohibited. So those who have them were put on notice that they had to leave them home.

[FeebMaster]

51. So a sign isn't enough,

then, to stop someone from going postal. They also have to be told face to face that guns are prohibited and going postal will not be tolerated.

[RoeBear]

73. If the signs are made of...

...armor plate they might have some use.

[FeebMaster]

74. I should hope if they're made of armor

plate that they're securely attached to the wall. They could make potentially lethal weapons otherwise.

[MrBenchley]

42. But it is wonderful to see the contempt for the law

our law-abiding gun owners have, isn't it?

[FeebMaster]

46. What contempt for the law have I shown? (nt)

[Narf]

44. Guns don't make US safer, but MY gun makes ME safer...

And that's the bottom line.

[CO Liberal]

52. And Makes ME Feel Less Safe

That's MY bottom line.

[Narf]

116. I'll be sure not to bring my gun to your house...

Or anybody else's house who doesn't want me to.

One question, would you hang one of these signs on your front door? I'm not being sarcastic, it's a serious question. Would you, someone who is most definitely anti-gun, post one of these signs on your front door, or in your yard?:

[FatSlob]

146. Feel?

Once again, it is about feelings, not fact.

[iverglas]

117. "and that's the bottom line"

Just exactly as I've always said it was for the anti-firearms control brigade and the rest of the right wing.

Their bottom line is ME ME ME, and fuck the rest of you. Every day, in every way.

.

[Narf]

119. It's always been about me first, but not f**k you at all.

I am, however, going to take care of me and my family before I worry about anyone else...you included.

[FeebMaster]

129. And here I thought we pro-gun types

were arguing for the equal right of everyone to defend themselves using the most effective means available.

[Narf]

137. Anti-gun types have the right to defend themselves too, of course.

It's not my fault if they decide to be the helpless victim. It's entirely up to them. 911=Government sponsored Dial-a-prayer.

[iverglas]

148. would that be

the equal right of everyone to defend themselves using the most effective means available.

... kinda like the equal right of everyone to use his/her property in the way most likely to benefit him/her (and to hell with laws that require everyone not to discriminate against tenants or customers on the basis of race, religion, etc.), or to earn a profit in the way most likely to benefit him/her (and to hell with workplace health and safety laws), or to earn a living in the way most likely to benefit him/her (and to hell with consumer protection regulations) ...?

Why should landlords not be able to restrict their occupancy to married white protestants? Why should employers have to spend their profits to protect their employees' health? Why should anyone who wants to not be able to practise medicine, or sell snake oil?

Hell, everyone would have those same rights to do exactly what they want, so where's the problem??

Why should WE interfere in anyone's choice as to the "most effective means available" for exercising whatever right s/he might want to exercise?

Ah, the "libertarian" way. Well, some of us would call it, rather, the neo-liberal way (although those in the US would probably call it neo-conservative).

And yup, all I see is ME ME ME. And I see it just as much in the words of those who demand to be permitted to wander around toting firearms as I see it in the words of anyone who wants to abolish the minimum wage, or deregulate business, or eliminate anti-discrimination measures, or do any of the myriad other things that people who care only about themselves and not about people who are more vulnerable than themselves to harm and exploitation can be counted on to want to do.

No matter what they call themselves.

.

[FeebMaster]

152. Wow

neo-liberal = neo-conservative = libertarian.

One of these things is not like the other. < /singing >

[iverglas]

156. well, ya can't say I didn't try

What I said:

Ah, the "libertarian" way. Well, some of us would call it, rather, the neo-liberal way (although those in the US would probably call it neo-conservative).

What it's been represented as:

neo-liberal = neo-conservative = libertarian.

I must need new glasses ...

But let me try again.

I put "libertarian" in quotation marks, meaning that I was referring to a particular brand of SELF-DESCRIBED libertarianism, the kind that puts its own "freedom" above everybody else's interests ... like, you know, the writers of the quizzie you recommended: http://www.no-treason.com/laissezfirearm/quiz.htm

(Not at all like the "libertarianism" measured by the political compass quiz, which had to do with the value placed on the individual, not the extent to which one values one's own interests over others'.)

"Neo-liberal" is what the rest of the world calls the new school of laissez-faire capitalism, and its attendant public policies, that have been so popular in the US of late, and that for reasons unique to the US are called "neo-conservative" there:

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/neoliberalDefined.html

What is "Neo-Liberalism"?

"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.

"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Right-wing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neo-liberalism.

"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. ... Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted.

But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale.

Ya see how silly one sounds when one doesn't know what one is talking about and does it anyhow?

So let's chart what I said again, accurately this time:

"Neo-liberalism" in the rest of the world = "neo-conservatism" in the United States = the brand of "libertarianism" that rejects all regulation of individual behaviour for the common welfare.


One of these things is not like the other.

Any differences are of degree only, when seen otherwise than through the distorted lens of the modern USAmerican political lexicon. (You go right ahead and use that lexicon -- just don't pretend that it applies to what *I* say when I have clearly indicated that I am using a different lexicon and included an explanation for the benefit of those who use the USAmerican one.)


Oh, by the way, about that quizzie of yours; I'm wondering what the "Negroes With Guns" crowd here might think of your source:

http://www.no-treason.com/laissezfirearm/reparate.htm

.

[FeebMaster]

158. Oh, another

you posted a link to a political quiz so you must agree with everything on the site and everything the site links to person? So what do you think of a certain poster's constant links to stormfront and various KKK sites?


"I put "libertarian" in quotation marks, meaning that I was referring to a particular brand of SELF-DESCRIBED libertarianism, the kind that puts its own "freedom" above everybody else's interests ... like, you know, the writers of the quizzie you recommended: http://www.no-treason.com/laissezfirearm/quiz.htm "

You sure got a lot out of that one question political quiz.



"Neo-liberal" is what the rest of the world calls the new school of laissez-faire capitalism, and its attendant public policies, that have been so popular in the US of late, and that for reasons unique to the US are called "neo-conservative" there:

I think you're confused about what we call neo-conservatives down here south of the border. Down here a neo-conservative can basically be summed up as someone who agrees with PNAC. They want to build an American empire. They are hardly supporters of laissez-faire capitalism. Down here a neo-liberal is someone who agrees with PPI. Basically they want the same thing as the PNACers, only they want to build the empire with a bit more UN support.

I will concede that there are people among both groups who like to call themselves libertarian. It probably started in the '90s when calling yourself a libertarian was apparently the thing to do. How these warmongering "libertarians" are actually libertarian, I don't really know.


"Any differences are of degree only, when seen otherwise than through the distorted lens of the modern USAmerican political lexicon. (You go right ahead and use that lexicon -- just don't pretend that it applies to what *I* say when I have clearly indicated that I am using a different lexicon and included an explanation for the benefit of those who use the USAmerican one.)"

Yes. You're Canadian. We get it.


"Oh, by the way, about that quizzie of yours; I'm wondering what the "Negroes With Guns" crowd here might think of your source:

http://www.no-treason.com/laissezfirearm/reparate.htm"

That doesn't look like the political quiz I linked. But if you want to know what the "Negroes With Guns" crowd thinks of my source or reparations for slavery maybe you should start a thread on it.

You post a couple of political quizzes in a thread where a number had been posted and you never hear the end of it. You link policers are a tough crowd.

[MrBenchley]

159. Feeb, you keep bringing these sites up as hot shit

and then running away....

"you posted a link to a political quiz so you must agree with everything on the site"
Tell us, feeb, does the quiz not represent the viewpoint of the numbnutz who put together that quiz? Is that not the same numbnutz who put together the site? Are you not saying this is a swell viewpoint?

"So what do you think of a certain poster's constant links to stormfront and various KKK sites?"
You mean me, feeb? I'd bet Iverglas knows the difference between reporting and endorsing. But then I'm not running around saying "here's a swell bunch of guys with a dandy quiz we all ought to take," now, am I?

"It probably started in the '90s when calling yourself a libertarian was apparently the thing to do."
The "thing to do" for whom? The sort of pissant who was embarassed to be identified as conservative?

[FeebMaster]

160. Keep bringing up these sites?

I linked 2 political quizzes in one thread about political quizzes. The link police seem to want to bring it up in every thread I respond in. I rarely link anything unless it's a government website for just this reason. A guy has a little fun in a thread about political quizzes and he'll never hear the end of it. :eyes:

"Tell us, feeb, does the quiz not represent the viewpoint of the numbnutz who put together that quiz? Is that not the same numbnutz who put together the site?"

Of course they do. Now go harass the guy who posted the libertarian ones. Or maybe you should get back to reading Jackney Sneeb. Since you apparently agree with him on the concealed carry issue, who knows what else you might find out you agree with him on.

"You mean me, feeb?" I'd bet Iverglas knows the difference between reporting and endorsing."

Yes, I mean you. Reporting? If linking 2 political quizzes is an endorsement of a whole website I'm not sure it would be fair to call linking stormfront and KKK websites reporting.

I don't know. Maybe reporting and endorsing have different meanings up in Canada than they do here in the States.

""It probably started in the '90s when calling yourself a libertarian was apparently the thing to do."
For who? The sort of pissant who was embarassed to be identified as conservative?"

For warmongering empire builders, I guess.

[iverglas]

162. this and that

So what do you think of a certain poster's constant links to stormfront and various KKK sites?

About what I think *my* frequently linking to right-wing sources here: that the poster in question is drawing the reader's attention to what is said at those sites. That's information that might be of interest to many people.

I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone with two brain cells and a thimbleful of integrity to rub them together in would attempt to portray the reporting of information with the adoption of a point of view, or the exposing of lies as attempting to propagate the lies.

So I'll have to assume that this is not what *you* keep trying to do ...


You post a couple of political quizzes in a thread where a number had been posted and you never hear the end of it.

The question that arises is how and why someone knew where to find the political quiz in question (quite apart from any question about why someone would say he likes it). That site certainly wasn't in *my* bookmark file. ... Although it is now, and I daresay you may see me link to it again in future when I feel the urge to illustrate the tight bonds between racism and "gun rights" and the huge overlap between those who espouse them. But I won't likely be saying anything about liking anything on it.


I think you're confused about what we call neo-conservatives down here south of the border. Down here a neo-conservative can basically be summed up as someone who agrees with PNAC.

Ah, well, two years ago nobody had heard of PNAC, and yet lots of people had heard of neo-conservatives. In fact, I just googled for Reagan neo-conservative and I got 11,000+ returns.

However, this site concurs with you:
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/03/07/3e6862fd4a750

... and I see other sources that put that emphasis on a particular foreign policy stance and other idiosyncracies of "neo" conservatism.

I myself would really have just said that what we out here call "neo-liberalism" you people simply call "conservatism". What is accurately called "economic liberalism" is what you have long called "conservatism" in that context. "Neo-liberalism" really just refers to the resurgent manifestation of the same old thing. Unbridled capitalism.

And of course we do know that the highest form of capitalism is imperialism, and there's nothing that the PNACers are if not imperialist.

"Neo-liberalism" refers to what is, today, "corporatist" economic policy, and essentially the global exploitation of people for profit. "Neo-conservatism" could perhaps be described as the political ideology on the other side of the same coin?


(edited: modified my subject header, as the content of the discussion caught my interest a little more)

.

[MrBenchley]

163. Amazing, isn't it?

On the same day we get another chorus of "not all gun owners are racists oh no no no no no" we get a load of explicitly racist crap from a member of the RKBA crowd.

I'm trying to think of the last time one of us pushing for gun control had to run away from a source we posted because it was either racist, far right wing, or excessively feeble-minded to the point of "Jackney Sneeb" hilarity. I can't think of a single instance.

[FeebMaster]

166. Yes,

because a one question political quiz is a load of explicitly racist crap.

Find anything else you agree with Jackney Sneeb on yet? Surely concealed carry isn't the only issue you agree on. Maybe you're looking for more evidence that the Republicans want to end the war on drugs and haven't had time to look.

[FeebMaster]

164. That and this.

"About what I think *my* frequently linking to right-wing sources here: that the poster in question is drawing the reader's attention to what is said at those sites. That's information that might be of interest to many people.

I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone with two brain cells and a thimbleful of integrity to rub them together in would attempt to portray the reporting of information with the adoption of a point of view, or the exposing of lies as attempting to propagate the lies.

So I'll have to assume that this is not what *you* keep trying to do ..."

You know what they say about assuming.

"The question that arises is how and why someone knew where to find the political quiz in question (quite apart from any question about why someone would say he likes it). That site certainly wasn't in *my* bookmark file. ... Although it is now, and I daresay you may see me link to it again in future when I feel the urge to illustrate the tight bonds between racism and "gun rights" and the huge overlap between those who espouse them."

Gee. Maybe I found them when someone linked to it and said "Hey guys. Check out this political quiz." Nah. That's too implausible.

"But I won't likely be saying anything about liking anything on it."

That's a shame.

"And of course we do know that the highest form of capitalism is imperialism, and there's nothing that the PNACers are if not imperialist."

The highest form of capitalism is imperialism. Wow. Just wow. The PNACers certainly are imperialist though.

As for the rest, I think I'll stick with the USAmerican definitions of neo-liberal and neo-conservative. By all means, though, continue to use the definitions the rest of the world uses.


On edit: typos

[MrBenchley]

167. "You know what they say about assuming." TOO funny

So tell us feeb...are you telling us we can't assume you have "two brain cells and a thimbleful of integrity"?

Or are you telling us to assume you're deliberately LYING?

[FeebMaster]

168. I don't know.

I haven't counted my brain cells and I'm not sure how to measure integrity on the thimble scale. I'm also pretty busy searching for explicitly racist crap to post. You know us pro-gunners, we can't get enough of the stuff. Maybe you have some suggestions for good KKK websites for me to visit.

You still haven't told me what you consider a valid need for getting a concealed carry permit. To be honest, I haven't had time to look up yours and Jackney Sneeb's position on the subject. Maybe you could spell it out for me in a few sentences.

[slackmaster]

171. I doubt you'll ever get a straight answer to your question

Those who would rather have a subjective system in place of an objective one typically haven't thought through the implications of what they think they're arguing for. It's just not always possible for one person to evaluate the merits of another person's explanation of his or her needs.

Here's where the needs-based crowd goes ballistic: Confront them with whether or not the state should be liable in cases where they denied someone a permit and the applicant was subsequently robbed, raped, or murdered by the person he or she had claimed was a threat and the basis for the application.

No, we can't have the state taking responsibility for their errors. After all, Sheriff Andy or the gun board of busybodies or the Gun Czar was acting in good faith.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[iverglas]

169. goodness

The highest form of capitalism is imperialism. Wow. Just wow.

You're that impressed by my quoting a trite bit of Marx?? Or were you disagreeing with him? Impossible to tell, I'm afraid.

The PNACers certainly are imperialist though.

Yes, they certainly are. Capitalist too, doncha think? I don't think Marx would have been at all surprised by them.

.

[FeebMaster]

170. I'm going to have to disagree with Marx.

I'm also going to have to disagree that the PNACers are capitalist.

You know what they say: Marx had to talk about capitalism since he couldn't spell mercantilism. Or something like that.

[demsrule4life]

35. Lockheed Martin in Meridian MS also has a no gun

policy. That really worked out well didn't it?

[FeebMaster]

39. Did they post a sign? (nt)

[demsrule4life]

40. That I'm not sure of

but you do sign a piece of paper stating that you understand that no guns are allowed on company property.

[CO Liberal]

45. I Guess Some Pro-Gunners Can't Read.....

:-)

[demsrule4life]

50. Still begs the question

why people work for the right wing defense industry. :)

[CO Liberal]

53. To Buy Groceries

[Narf]

131. Cause the defense industry pays damn good?

[MrBenchley]

47. A right wing bigot with a gun

killed six people and wounded eight....swell argument for more guns, dems.

http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0311/17/ma01.html

"The sheriff's department did not immediately confirm the name of the shooter, but co-workers said it was Doug Williams. Steverson said Williams was known as a "racist" who didn't like blacks. Williams was white.
"When I first heard about it, he was the first thing that came to my mind," said Jim Payton, who is retired from the plant, but had worked with Williams for about a year.
He said Williams had talked about wanting to kill people. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2003/07/08/national1208EDT0580.DTL

Yeah, there's the sort of voter Democrats should be pandering to...NOT.

[demsrule4life]

57. The thread is about do signs keep guns out

there has to be a reading comprehension test somewhere on the net.

[CO Liberal]

59. YOU Brought Up The Lockheed Shootings, Dems

Bench simply posted some facts.

I hope you find that comprehension test you're looking for.....

[MrBenchley]

62. Hey, if he wants to publicize bigots and guns

I got no beef....

But it does show what a terrible idea MORE guns, and especially hidden guns, are....

[demsrule4life]

65. Just remember

you are known by the company you keep. After his reply on the 4th amend poll this morning I will never mistake him for anything but somebody that wants total control over everybody.

[CO Liberal]

68. Aren't You Going a Tad Over The Top, Dems????

Hmmmmmmmmmm????

[demsrule4life]

69. Anybody that can make jokes

about another amendment of the bill of rights being gutted deserves no respect from anyone. Daddy Ashcroft sure was proud this morning.

[CO Liberal]

72. Which Post Are You Talking About, Specifically?

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

94. Dems is still bent out of shape

because the right wing shitheels on the Fifth Circuit Court, who were completely out of step with the Constitution and the law on Emerson, recently ruled that search warrants are no longer needed, out of step with the Constitution and the law AGAIN.

Evidently he doesn't mind that conservatives are dishonest pieces of shit, but he hates when people point out what dishonest pieces of shit conservatives are.

[RoeBear]

75. BWAHAHAHA!

Was he carrying that rifle and shotgun concealed? After all that is what we are talking about here, concealed carry at the workplace.

[MrBenchley]

79. You mean you think it would have been better

if he could have snuck up on his victims, roe?

[demsrule4life]

82. It would of been nice

if someone could of snuck up on him and put one through the back of the head before he caused all that damage.

[MrBenchley]

90. So they should have murdered him

pre-emptively?

Guess that's more of that RKBA logic.

[demsrule4life]

92. Dont remember saying he should be killed "pre-emptively"

strange world where it is ok for someone to kill a bunch of people but it is not ok to kill him before he can complete his "mission".

[MrBenchley]

98. "put one through the back of the head before he caused all that damage."

That's EXACTLY what you said, dems.

Strange world where people don't remember from moment to moment what they just said.

[RoeBear]

84. No I think it would have been better if...

...his victims would have been able to protect themselves. You obviously don't care about the victims or you wouldn't insist that they be disarmed.

[MrBenchley]

89. Yeah, there's an idea...NOT

How about if they worked with one hand and held their popguns in another?

There's no limit to RKBA absurdity, is there?

[RoeBear]

93. Much better that they die

is your idea.

There's no limit to anti-RKBA absurdity, is there?

[MrBenchley]

99. No, dems...

My idea is that humholes don't lug guns around....

[demsrule4life]

103. You talking to me?

or Roebear? So humholes dont lug guns around? OK :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[FatSlob]

147. Another Vagina reference!

I'm glad to see that you've stopped talking about penises, but did you have to switch to vaginas? I thought you were more mature than, wait, nevermind.

[demsrule4life]

97. FYI

popguns shoot cork attached to a string. Firearms shoot bullets. Please get it right, it sounds so fucking stupid.

[MrBenchley]

100. FYI...ask me next what I think of the idea

of neurotics toting popguns in their pockets....

[demsrule4life]

106. Personally I don't

give a shit that neurotics cry about me carrying a gun. :)

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Narf]

120. What we're talking about makes no difference to some people.

Just so long as they get to spout their uninformed remarks and snide comments.

[Narf]

43. The sign actually stops someone from bringing in a gun?

Does the sign search everyone who enters the property and remove any weapons, or could someone simply ignore the sign and "go postal" anyway?

[iverglas]

63. gee, I think that's what I've been asking

In jurisdictions that permit the carrying of concealed firearms, property owners/occupants may post their properties as off-limits to concealed-firearms carrying.

So, if I may quote you:

"The sign actually stops someone from bringing in a gun?"

About as well as it might stop some people from speeding or walking on the grass, is my guess. And my feeling is that anybody who feels the bizarre need to have a firearm within reach at all times isn't the person I'm going to trust most to obey signs like that.

Without a permit, someone carrying a concealed firearm is committing a crime. For some people, that might be a bit more of a deterrent to doing it than a sign telling them they may not bring it onto premises that don't belong to them -- when, by definition ("concealed"), no one will know whether they have done so or not unless inquiries are made.

To make the sign effective, one might want to include something like retail stores say about shopping bags that customers carry in. Stores "reserve the right" to inspect shopping bags; if you don't want your shopping bag inspected, go shop somewhere else. A wise property owner might post a sign reserving the right to search the persons of people entering, for concealed weapons. If you don't want to be frisked, go someplace else.

But obviously, the best assurances of the least likelihood of anyone, and the smallest number of people, bringing firearms onto private property where they are not wanted would be (a) to ban handguns from private possession except in extraordinary circumstances (it being pretty difficult to conceal a rifle on one's person), and (b) to implement other measures to deter the toting about of firearms in public, which would of course include all the measures that would make it difficult for people who should not be doing that to get hold of firearms in question in the first place.

Then we could all feel and be safer. And you can just all take *my* word for that last bit.

.

[RoeBear]

58. And do you REALLY feel that...

...a sign can protect you from someone going 'postal'?

You don't suppose that someone who would be desperate enough to kill another person would be willing to ignore a sign too, do you?

[FeebMaster]

60. If you take a look at posts 41 and 51 you'll see

that a sign isn't enough to stop someone from going postal. They also need a stern talking to.

[Narf]

121. Perhaps a sign AND a picture will stop them from going postal?

Let's make another law that says all gun toting maniacs must be at least this tall before committing murder. That'll deter 'em, eh?

[FeebMaster]

130. I'm pretty short so I guess no one will have

to worry about me going on a rampage.

[Fescue4u]

67. You have got to be kidding.

You really believe that a man willing to murder a dozen people is not willing to violate corporate policy?

[RoeBear]

78. But there was a sign...DAMN IT...

...A SIGN!

[CO Liberal]

86. How Unfair

After all, it's safe to assume that there are gun nuts out there who can't read.....

:-)

[MrBenchley]

102. Hell, some can't remember what they say from post to post

[Narf]

122. If signs are so effective why don't the police carry them instead of guns?

Imagine that...a cop responds to a 911 call of a maniac with a gun in the workplace, confronts the lunatic, and WAVES A SIGN AT HIM reminding him that guns in the workplace are illegal!

[demsrule4life]

123. Half of the cops killed on duty are killed by their driving

1/4 of the cops are killed by their own gun. If we made cops walk and carry no guns we could save lots of cops lives every year.

[Narf]

125. Good point. And if we gave them "NO GUNS" signs ....

think of the lives they could save!

[Pert_UK]

151. Wow, another example of freedom.......

Now not even shopowners have the freedom to keep their properties gun-free without putting up signs.

And incidentally, I realise that you're quoting but referring to carrying a gun as "packing heat" really rather highlights the macho bullshit image.

If you want to carry a gun for personal protection or shoot for sport then fair enough, but I think that the macho posturing that goes with it is a little disconcerting....

Maybe it's just me.

P.

[FeebMaster]

153. How are people supposed to know the property

is gun free if there isn't a sign or something?

[Fescue4u]

161. I thought Red Light Cameras were Bad.

God only help is Stop Sign Guns because the norm.

Run a stop Sign. BAM!


:)