'The' Gun Thread (Page 4)

Right.  NC law already says that you can't CC and consume, so I don't understand the restriction on CC in places where other people might.  As far as movie theaters, it's part of a blanket restriction on CC in any place where you have to pay admission.  Also not sure I totally understand.

As far as movie theaters, it's part of a blanket restriction on CC in any place where you have to pay admission.  Also not sure I totally understand.

Do you really want someone CC to a Hurricane's game.  Personally, having been around some rather "interesting" hockey fans, I don't want CC at a game.  OTOH,  the constitution guarantees our right to be armed as a means to protect ourselves (as a group) from foreign gov'ts (as well as our own).  That right has been extended to include the right to protect our "person" from threats by other individuals.  An argument could be made that a hockey game would be the perfect place to CC....just in case that Penguin fan gets out of hand.

I certainly understand the argument, but honestly no matter where somebody CC's they have to be responsible enough to not harm others.  If you're at a public game, the odds of somebody trying to rob you out in the crowd are pretty much zero, so the odds of you engaging somebody with a lot of people in the background are pretty much zero.  Now, if you're heading to the stall halfway through a period and somebody jumps you in the hallway or bathroom, now it's a totally different story.

If you really break it down anywhere a person carries has the risk of collateral damage during an engagement and the person carrying is liable for every bullet that leaves his/her gun.

Then you have the other scenario of a bad guy going into a stadium and unloading his 10,000 round magazines on everyone.  If you had 20 or 30 people in the stands with CCW, I suspect the overall damage (including potential CCW collateral damage) would be far less than it would be if the bad guy were able to unload all his magazines without challenge.

Yes in fact, I would say a sporting event is a very good place to be carrying. 

I like the way Idaho has it. No problem packin at a sporting event but once alcohol touches your lips no gun for you. Makes sense to me. I am okay with not having my gun on me while I am drinking.

Although our laws make no sense either because you can't carry concealed once you have had anything to drink but there is no restriction on open carry and drinking. So I suppose if you are carrying then decide to have a drink just make sure your gun is visible and you'll be fine. 

That is funny about the open carry.  I do completely agree with no carrying while drinking.  I have a hard enough time not breaking out my gun to show everybody how awesome it is.  If I had a few drinks in me I'd be waving it all over.  Hey everyone, look at my cool gun!!! 

As a non gun owning individual, but not against guns, I am curious if there is an increase in the gun shops being started up in different areas of the country.  The small town in which I work, is going to be getting a new small business that is a gun store from what I am being told and I just saw a sign on the building that said Southwest Shooting Store.  It is too small for an indoor firing range, so I am guessing ammo and guns.  Is this happening in a lot of locations?  I will be amazed if this small business lasts, unless they do a lot of business at guns shows.  Too small town for anyone to be able to support it and keep up with the big box stores selling guns, ammo, clothing, fishing, archery, etc...

I gave my guns to my BIL to use, once I quit hunting.

I highly doubt that a lot of new stores are opening. The big stores around here can't get or keep stock to save their lives. Even our Cabela's looks like the gun department is going out of business.

I would think that an upstart would be on the bottom of the list to receive stock.

Good time to already have a gun business (if you can get stock) but based on what I am seeing a terrible time to try to start one. 

Self defense is a fundamental human right, and we have always had it. Not sure what you mean by "extended".

This. You could be a FFL and still not get anything to sell. I would find it hard to believe anyone would be starting one up in this climate. Even guns themselves have small profit margins.

"If you like your plan (errrr gun) you can keep it!"

It's funny that Florida would propose that kind of legislation....before nearly every state passed right to carry laws Florida was issuing permits to just about everyone.  We came across people constantly who were carrying CCW permits from Florida....and most of them probably had never even been to Florida.

My wife is one of the most liberal people I know....born, raised, and drank the koolaid in Berkely, Ca. for over 25 years.  Her comment, "great, only the Police will have high capacity weapons, and they'll come after the rest of them if they get it passed....who the hell wants to live in a country where only the Police have guns?"

There may be hope for her after all. 

That's the whole problem with this. Restricting rights, legislating "your" morality.... it's all great when you agree with it... not so great when they decide you are the onesthat needs to be restricted.

Purely from a political point of view I suspect the gun debate is going to do far more harm than good to the Democrats.  I've got a handful of cousins that are hard core union guys and were all about Obama in the last election because of his support for union rights.  However, these guys are HUGE gun nuts and now all I see is rage and anger towards the Dem's and you'd think they were crazy right wingers by reading their facebook these days.

Speaking of facebook, I saw this stroll across one of my pro union former Obama supporters' facebook page.  I thought it was amusing.
I'm kind of curious as to what the huge spike was in 1906, but I suspect it was related to tracking Homicides versus a true spike.

I think the most relevant data in the chart is the continued downtrend while gun ownership and CCW have spiked heavily the past 20 years.

Surprised the Kentucky laws haven't been posted in this thread yet.  I think it was late February that basically said NO federal gun laws will be legal in Kentucky.

I think that is a shedty idea.  I don't think you should be able to make me buy healthcare or a gun.  And there are a lot of people I could name that I don't think should have a gun...

What about an individual mandate in which the penalty for non-compliance is merely a tax? 

lol, I think you're on to something. 

I can definitely think of a few people I know that I would NOT want to own guns.

The Missouri law has been blown so far out of proportion that it’s ridiculous.  Not the law itself, as written it would absolutely take people’s guns away.  But to hear the pundits like Glenn Beck describe it, the Missouri Democrats are on the cusp of actually making this happen.  Not only will this bill never become law, it won’t even make it out of committee.  This legislation is nothing more than 4 idiots in the St. Louis (i.e. Democrat) area putting their names on a piece of paper for some shameless political pandering.  Other than the 3 co-sponsors, the Missouri Democrats don’t support the bill, and even if they did they only own a 1/3 of the House seats.

And their stupid bill was in turn met with equally shameless pandering from a Republican representative who introduced legislation that would make it a felony to introduce gun control legislation.  Punishable by up to 4 years in prison.  The Missouri congress has become a complete joke.  Both sides are doing nothing with these ridiculous bills other than getting their names in the paper.  It’s good for the political talk shows, but it’s a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Missouri is actually very pro-gun.  What did just make it out of committee is a measure to criminalize the enforcement of any new executive orders from Obama regarding gun control, and another measure to make Missouri guns exempt from all federal regulation as long as they stay within the state.  Also, we’re fixing to amend our state constitution to state that the right to bear arms is an inalienable right.  So basically, we're doing all we can to tell the feds to p1ss off.

People need to take a deep breath.  “They” are not trying to take away your guns.  “He” or “she” or Tony might want to take your guns away, but the government as a whole won’t and can’t.  We should be focusing our attention on the laws that will take certain weapons off the market.  Those have a legitimate chance of passing.  Or laws that would limit how much you can buy, or mandate that you have to pay for some type of liability insurance, or create a national gun registry (although I personally don’t have a problem with that one).  But don’t lose any sleep on any proposed legislation that would take away a weapon that is already owned.  It’s never gonna happen.  Even Feinstein’s bill grandfathers in ownership of all of the weapons she’s trying to get banned. 

If I’m wrong and some rogue blue state manages to pass a law that forces gun owners to surrender their previously legally owned weapons, and that law somehow manages to be held up in the courts and enacted, feel free to call me out and I’ll publicly eat all the crow you can serve.