Being devils advocate...

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • TxAggie

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 25, 2012
    4,734
    Anne Arundel County, MD
    To go along with the same lines as the OP what if they decided to leave the purchasing process alone, but ammend it to allow people with CCW's to cash and carry anything. this would be predicated on actual shall issue in the state?

    Yes i know this is a pipe dream

    This is a great idea, in fact this is the policy in Texas. Which is precisely the reason it would never happen here.
     

    jonnyl

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 23, 2009
    5,969
    Frederick
    Ohh, I agree that you cannot prevent everything, but that cannot be ones argument to allow everything. If one is going to go there then why have any laws at all.

    I have a number of friends who are on both sides of 2A, far on both sides.

    My biggest problem with 2A is that I know I can be trusted, I know I am stable, patient, and tend to think before I act. However I am also a jaded, untrusting, cynic who believes, strongly, in the corruption and worst side of people as a whole.

    Ohh I'm also a smartass... but that is neither here nor there.

    So with that said.. why should I, or anyone who believes in the worst in people, agree with Carry/Conceal, stopping assault ban, or expanded clips? to mention just a few.

    Shouldn't people be held responsible for their actions rather than possible actions that some small percentage of people MAY take?

    Look at drunk driving deaths as an example. When the nation decided to DO SOMETHING about drunk driving my life as a responsible drinker changed very minimally. It consisted of being carded more often (something that takes 30 seconds or less and that I don't find intrusive). Where was the focus? It was in a few main areas: Looking for retailers that sold to under age drinkers (enforcement of existing law), stiffer penalties for drunk drivers (people who were actively committing the crime), stricter attitudes of law enforcement not letting people "head straight home" after a few too many.

    This reduced the people getting alcohol illegally to start with, and created a stronger deterrence that made people stop and think "Holy hell, I can't get busted for DUI".

    No one suggested selling beer in 4 packs, or banning the 1.5 liter bottles of liquor because "who NEEDS that much".

    No one even suggested banning the use of alcohol outside the home.

    You mentioned "why should someone who thinks the worst of people agree with concealed carry?". The answer is it's not up to others to agree with someone else exercising their right. Even in a world where you would balance the greater good, there is no evidence that concealed carry laws increase shootings or accidents, so there is no basis to say you disagree with what other people do. Guns in the hands of law abiding ciitzens are more like free speech than second hand smoke.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Ohh, I agree that you cannot prevent everything, but that cannot be ones argument to allow everything. If one is going to go there then why have any laws at all.

    I have a number of friends who are on both sides of 2A, far on both sides.

    My biggest problem with 2A is that I know I can be trusted, I know I am stable, patient, and tend to think before I act. However I am also a jaded, untrusting, cynic who believes, strongly, in the corruption and worst side of people as a whole.

    Ohh I'm also a smartass... but that is neither here nor there.

    So with that said.. why should I, or anyone who believes in the worst in people, agree with Carry/Conceal, stopping assault ban, or expanded clips? to mention just a few.

    You fell into the trap that they have set for you. And that I. Detailed in the thread about losing the public debate. I would link to it here but I fk not yet know how to do that.

    What is always true about a fundamental right specified in the constitution and now recognized by the court it it gets a special level of scurtiny. That means that the burden of proof is on those who would restrict the right.

    This is now settled law. We do not know exactly what the standard of rewiew will be.But it is going to higher than any old law.
    The left is trying to big lie its way around this.

    Please read up. If you think my post is wrong Google is your friend.

    Our battle his hard enough without conceding the hard won battles in scotus . And that is what they do when they refuse to shoulder the burden of proof.. Please read up

    Do not fall for the sophistry of The left. And please read my post from a few days ago..

    If you disagree let's discuss it there .This is the one point we can never conceede ever . It is a right and the burden of prof is on those who would restrict it.....
     

    mrbunny

    Da Bullet go Boom.
    Feb 4, 2013
    191
    Dundalk.
    Well, first, concealed carry is a part of the 2nd Amendment (keep and bear arms). And the "crazies" should be weeded out by the licensing process. I'm not aware of there being any high number of CCW holders who commit crimes or snap and start shooting people. Plus, if someone were going to do that, it wouldn't matter if they had a CCW permit, they'd be planning on breaking the law already.

    Second, the "assault ban" as you say is semantics. It's already illegal to assault people. Calling certain types of guns "assault weapons" is just making up terms. The military doesn't consider the types of weapons they want to ban "assault weapons". And DHS actually considers the fully-automatic versions of the AR15 to be "Personal Defense Weapons".

    And finally, the "expanded clips" is another made-up issue. First, the media keeps using the term "clip" even though that's not what they're talking about. They're talking about magazines. Second, these magazines are not "high capacity" or "extended" (with the exception of the ones like 30-round Glock mags or such). 30 rounds is the standard size for an AR15 magazine. Many handguns are designed such that their standard magazines hold 15-19 rounds.

    Don't buy into the politicians' or media's BS on these topics. :)


    All excellent answers. Forgive me for feigning a POV, now to the real question.

    Why is it, that we do not put out to the public this well thought out, well spoken, reasonable defense of the 2A?

    What people see when they are faced with 2A supporters is that we are the boogieman, we are the son of Sam, we are extremist loonies like Alex Jones. Sorry for those who like him.. but dudes a freak.

    I see rallies and often what I hear is "It's da damn Liberals!" "Obama's a Nazi" " Der Gunna Tek Er GNzz!!"

    Where as, with some public education, straight speak, and honest communication is the strongest face we could provide.

    Thoughts?
     

    mrbunny

    Da Bullet go Boom.
    Feb 4, 2013
    191
    Dundalk.
    This is a great idea, in fact this is the policy in Texas. Which is precisely the reason it would never happen here.

    Sorry mate, personal opinion, but I lived in Tx for a while.

    The fact that it is the policy out there is not the strongest argument that one could make.

    LOL, I really did not like it there at all.

    Just my opinion... :P
     

    bmelton

    Active Member
    Jan 23, 2013
    486
    So with that said.. why should I, or anyone who believes in the worst in people, agree with Carry/Conceal, stopping assault ban, or expanded clips? to mention just a few.

    Per Justice Scalia's comments in the Heller judgement, in regards to gun control, "the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table". Meaning that they acknowledge that gun violence may be a problem, but that banning guns isn't allowable carte blanche.

    What they're trying to do is ban guns "of a certain type" that misses the mark altogether. As Seeker has already mentioned, the guns that they're trying to ban only LOOK like they're more lethal, and they scare people, so they get to pass feel-good legislation that won't fix anything. That the AR15 is the gun of choice for mass shooters speaks only to its popularity, not its lethality.

    The AR15 (of all makes and models) is the most widely sold rifle in America today, so that it is responsible for a good percentage of a certain type of crime isn't remarkable. If Fords were the most common car in America, then it would be just as likely that they would be responsible for a good percentage of vehicular crimes, but that doesn't make the car itself in any way to blame.

    The other thing, since I got off on that tangent, is that AR15s are "in common use". As I said, they are THE most common modern sporting rifle sold today, which makes banning it Unconstitutional.

    As for how to mitigate crime, I think eliminating gun free zones and going 'may issue' on concealed or open carry should be the norm. Every mass shooting in America since 1950 has occurred in a gun free zone (except maybe the Gifford shooting in Arizona, but I've heard tale that was in the parking lot of gun-free private building).

    Compare and contrast that with areas where open or concealed carry is the norm. New Hampshire has, per capita, the densest population of machine gun owners (real machine guns, fully automatic), and open carry is common, but they're either the first or third safest state in America depending on which study you read.

    In 1981, Kennesaw, GA passed a bill MANDATING that every household had to own a firearm. The difference in crime from 1981 to 1982 was that it plummeted 80%. In 2004 or 2005, they celebrated 25 years without a homicide in the city of Kennesaw, and the crime rate in Kennesaw is, to this day, 60-70% lower than the national average (again, depending on which study you cite).
     

    bmelton

    Active Member
    Jan 23, 2013
    486
    Why is it, that we do not put out to the public this well thought out, well spoken, reasonable defense of the 2A?

    Dunno if you attended the Feb 6th State Senate hearings, but the majority of what was said was well thought, well spoken and reasonable. We showed up in suits and ties, and those who provided written testimony were overwhelmingly well prepared with these sane and rational arguments.

    Due to time constraints, it's possible that we just never "got to" the crazies, but as that was the first political rally I'd ever attended on purpose, I was genuinely surprised by how nice, smart and even keel the crowd was. You expect a few crazies, or even a Ted Nugent type of person (who makes great arguments, but ends them with a '**** Yeah' or something to equally discredit him), but I got almost none of that vibe at all.
     

    mrbunny

    Da Bullet go Boom.
    Feb 4, 2013
    191
    Dundalk.
    Dunno if you attended the Feb 6th State Senate hearings, but the majority of what was said was well thought, well spoken and reasonable. We showed up in suits and ties, and those who provided written testimony were overwhelmingly well prepared with these sane and rational arguments.

    Due to time constraints, it's possible that we just never "got to" the crazies, but as that was the first political rally I'd ever attended on purpose, I was genuinely surprised by how nice, smart and even keel the crowd was. You expect a few crazies, or even a Ted Nugent type of person (who makes great arguments, but ends them with a '**** Yeah' or something to equally discredit him), but I got almost none of that vibe at all.


    That's good to hear, I was out of town on the 6th.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Sorry mate, personal opinion, but I lived in Tx for a while.

    The fact that it is the policy out there is not the strongest argument that one could make.

    LOL, I really did not like it there at all.

    Just my opinion... :P

    Unless it become the model for nation wide carry since scouts will eventually tire of hearing the same case over and over again.

    Can you say commerce clause. Can you say 14a .
    Can you say liberals hoisted on their own petard. ( what the Hell is a petard you say. Well so did I so Google is now my very best friend. It appears to be an improvised pipe bomb used to breach fortifications ;) and now we know).
     

    mrbunny

    Da Bullet go Boom.
    Feb 4, 2013
    191
    Dundalk.
    I'm new to the forum and shooting (always been an archer but not so much with guns till recently.) so I'm not sure if this is done.

    Do we as a community ever organize family shooting events at outdoor ranges and invite all the representatives, especially the Democratic and other opponents of 2A rights? Show them the strength of responsible ownerships, close community, and family.
     

    mrbunny

    Da Bullet go Boom.
    Feb 4, 2013
    191
    Dundalk.
    Can you say liberals hoisted on their own petard. ( what the Hell is a petard you say. Well so did I so Google is now my very best friend. It appears to be an improvised pipe bomb used to breach fortifications ;) and now we know).

    I know you are trying to be funny, but seriously, this is exactly the kind of comments that makes us look like mindless right wing nut jobs.

    Git them Liberals!!! git'em gud!

    I am very pro 2A, I am also very liberal when it comes down to many social issues, but I am also very conservative when it comes to law and finance...
     

    Huckleberry

    No One of Consequence
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 19, 2007
    23,313
    Severn & Lewes
    The best hope we have for carrying outside the home is Federal Judge Legg's ruling that Marylanders have a right to carry a firearm for defense outside the home. As we know Maryland is still objecting and appealing in the courts.

    What is not often discussed is that the State of Maryland can acknowledge our 2nd Amendment rights FOUR ways. If a state bans the OPEN carry of firearms (as we know Maryland does) they are obligated to permit citizens to carry CONCEALED. Or there is this: the State of Maryland could theoretically ban concealed carry, but only if they permitted OPEN carry--and wouldn't that be interesting.

    The Federal ruling is that Maryland has 4 options:

    1) ban OPEN carry and allow CONCEALED carry
    2) ban CONCEALED carry and allow OPEN carry
    3) allow both CONCEALED carry (with permits) and OPEN carry (no permit needed) (as Virginia does)
    4) allow both CONCEALED and OPEN carry without ANY permits whatsoever (as Vermont does)

    It is important to remember that each US Supreme Court Justice oversees one of the Federal Circuit Court systems. Chief Justice John Roberts oversees the Circuit that Maryland is in and he gets pissed whenever local or state jurisdictions ignore Supreme Court rulings.

    The reason Federal Judge Legg got the case was because Chief Justice John Roberts kicked the previous judge off the case for foot-dragging. He handed the case to Judge Legg and that's why we have a clear Federal ruling today that Maryland is violating our rights. Our best hope for achieving SHALL ISSUE concealed carry permits is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court gets personally insulted when Maryland flouts Federal law.

    Good Post and one other very important fact to remember.....

    Chief Justice Roberts lives in Chevy Chase, MD

    So he is seeing MOM's BS first hand every day and not from 1000 miles away.
     

    Seeker

    Seeker of Truth
    Aug 1, 2012
    307
    Laurel, PG County, MD
    Why is it, that we do not put out to the public this well thought out, well spoken, reasonable defense of the 2A?

    I actually put arguments out like that on a daily basis on various facebook pages and in verbal conversations with people. I do my best to educate people on the purpose of the 2A, the types of weapons they're talking about, and why none of these laws will stop or limit violent crime from occurring.

    I was also at the hearing last week, but didn't get a chance to actually testify. However, most of the things I'd intended to say were said by one person or another. We really had a great showing of intelligent, well-spoken, pro-freedom people there giving statements. I only remember one person whose testimony and antics made us look bad, but I don't think he did any real damage (the other side had one even more kooky).
     

    jonnyl

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 23, 2009
    5,969
    Frederick
    I know you are trying to be funny, but seriously, this is exactly the kind of comments that makes us look like mindless right wing nut jobs.

    Git them Liberals!!! git'em gud!

    I am very pro 2A, I am also very liberal when it comes down to many social issues, but I am also very conservative when it comes to law and finance...

    I don't want to speak for Brooklyn, but "hoisted on their own petard" is a very old saying that, while literally means "blown up by their own bomb", has come to be a generic saying that has the everyday meaning of "their plan backfired against them"

    Not really a right wing nutjob comment.

    I now return you to your regularly scheduled program...:)
     

    mrbunny

    Da Bullet go Boom.
    Feb 4, 2013
    191
    Dundalk.
    I don't want to speak for Brooklyn, but "hoisted on their own petard" is a very old saying that, while literally means "blown up by their own bomb", has come to be a generic saying that has the everyday meaning of "their plan backfired against them"

    Not really a right wing nutjob comment.

    I now return you to your regularly scheduled program...:)

    Sorry, I'm touchy about the use of "Liberals" like a pariahs. I think the use of any term that isolates a group and inherantly paints them in a negative light is counter productive. It puts people on the defensive and makes it more difficult to bring them to your side of a debate.
     

    Tashtego

    Member
    Jan 6, 2013
    276
    So with that said.. why should I, or anyone who believes in the worst in people, agree with Carry/Conceal, stopping assault ban, or expanded clips? to mention just a few.

    I don't think believing the worst in people is a helpful guiding principle in thinking about these proposals. The argument is that these measures give more power to government people and criminal people, and less to lawful citizen people. Either way your belief in the worst in people is being threatened.
     

    bmelton

    Active Member
    Jan 23, 2013
    486
    Sorry, I'm touchy about the use of "Liberals" like a pariahs. I think the use of any term that isolates a group and inherantly paints them in a negative light is counter productive. It puts people on the defensive and makes it more difficult to bring them to your side of a debate.

    Here here. I try my very best to not paint ANYONE with too broad a brush. I might call a specific individual an *******, for any reason I feel warrants it, but I do my level best to never stereotype anyone else into the same bucket with them. Except for politicians. ;-)

    But in reality, most of the 'gun grabbing liberals' we so often refer to are just people trying their hardest to prevent the murder of innocents. Dehumanizing "the enemy" is propagandist. Anytime you want to reach someone, or convert them, you have to do the exact opposite.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,926
    Messages
    7,259,325
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom