A simple question for gun rights folk.

It's a simple and valid question, true enough.

But the early leaders decided to make the United States unique in all the world by making firearms rights part and parcel of being an American citizen in good standing.
Let's not even discuss if we agree with this or not. It's what they decided to do.
And in modern, polarized conditions, amending the constitution is not possible.

No, the right to walk heavy doesn't grant anybody access to what they didn't have before.
But there isn't a fucking thing that can be done about it.

We get used to living in Westworld, or we disband the current republic.
If you're opposed to both solutions, then sorry, you're fucked.

Since you don't recognize the republic anyway, what do YOU care?
 
my assertion?

activities don't have to change for you to be actually safer and more well protected.

your argument is stupid.

you thought this demanding of activity change lists would be effective and compelling, but it's just dumb, bluster-boy.

So by your "logic", you're doing the very same activities BEFORE you were allowed to carry a gun in public (concealed). Therefore, you weren't feeling that threatened to the point where you couldn't function. And if you think/feel "safer" with that gun, then what situations are you preparing to potentially deal with? Will you be trained to deal with these situations? And how will the police differentiate between you and an armed criminal if they are called to a crime in action (i.e., reported armed criminals or shootings)?

Oh, and I asked a question....the "argument" stems from your hostility.

See, what I'm getting at is that people are not fully thinking through this situation. And they should, because the potential repercussions for the general public (more shoot outs, police shooting the good guy with a gun, more stray bullet/cross fire hits on civilians, neighbor disputes becoming deadly) are not good.
 
we can do the same stuff and we just don't die doing it.

you could probably even start going to more areas of town that improve because an armed society is a polite society.

Obviously, you didn't die doing it before you got strapped, least you wouldn't be alive now. Oh, and as to your premise that an armed society is a polite society

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/concealed-carry-linked-increased-gun-violence-wisconsin/

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/concealed-carry/
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
I'll elaborate: will carrying a gun change your recreational activities? Job activities? Commuting status/situation? Food/clothes shopping? And if so, how?

different question......last time you asked what the decision about the NY law changed........to the new question, .not mine.....I don't own a gun......

No, it's an elaboration of the original question which you balked about. The elaboration is relevant to NYC or any other state that is similarly affected by the new ruling. And since you don't own a gun, what's your reason for supporting this new ruling?
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Repeating a dodge is no answer. You see, I am asking the question towards a new ruling that YOU endorse. In effect, the burden of proof is on YOU to explain just what carrying a gun allows you to do in society that you couldn't do before.

I'll elaborate: will carrying a gun change your recreational activities? Job activities? Commuting status/situation? Food/clothes shopping? And if so, how?


the question you are asking has nothing to do with the Bruen ruling, therefore you're never going to get the answers you seek. I explained, in detail, how the ruling affects the people of New York. It's no longer my issue if you can't understand it.

You "explained" nothing....all you did was render a moot point. My question still remains...a question that you continually avoid. We know what the New Jersey ruling does...I (and others) would like to know WHY you (or others) need to carry that weapon beyond the old requirements (a'la NYC)? Clearly, you seem to fear answering a simple question. Your attempt to substitute a repetition of what the law does for WHY folk require it doesn't work. If you can't give a valid reason beyond "Because I want it" or a vague "just in case", then you're just giving knee jerk support for a NRA talking point. THAT can have deadly consequences that I for one would rather not add to my daily routine.
 
For the average CCW carrier, activities probably won’t change much of their day to day routine … except they will be a little more prepared for defense in the case of an attack of some sort, should one occur when living and carrying out that routine. This is a right of every American citizen in good standing with the law, even in the state of New York.

I’m in St. Louis for the weekend. Everywhere I have gone and plan to go I am carrying concealed except to last night’s baseball game at Busch Stadium. I carry with no worries about repercussions from law enforcement because I have met the requirements of my state’s laws to have a CCW permit and Missouri recognizes that. Reciprocity is a good thing, and knowing the law is essential.

As to your first paragraph....the ONLY "RIGHT" has to deal with A WELL REGULATED MILITIA....not for anyone who can afford it to walk around strapped 24/7. Beyond hunting for food, there were RULES that each colonial state had regarding weapons. Hell, even towns of our "wild west" period had rules regarding gun carrying. And let's be clear as to "more prepared"....that is a bit paranoid, because if you really want to "be prepared" in that mindset, you'd have a back pack with a gas mask, geiger counter, med kit, food & water rations, ham radio along with that gun and extra ammo. Extreme, you say? Well, the average Joe Schmoe walking around with a gun is extreme, because a cop won't know the difference when responding to a crime in progress, and given most NY'ers hair triggers, I shudder to think what the next "road rage" incident will bring.

As for you in Missouri....how would you feel letting into the mix folks who unlike you didn't meet the requirements that you did, but now carry that gun?
 
“spanked?”

They will just keep passing new laws while the gun manufacturers burn up their money challenging them, the new laws are more extensive than the one

Here's the thing: the good guy with a gun myth doesn't actually work in real life.

https://thehill.com/changing-americ...ails-good-guy-with-a-gun-after-officer-kills/

And more CCW permits does not automatically equate a lower crime rate:

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/concealed-carry/

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/concealed-carry-crime-rates/
 
The old law required applicants to justify why they needed to carry a concealed weapon in areas other than in their work, hunting, and for protection if they could prove they were in danger. Plus, the process was long including reviews by local police, character references, the whole nine yards

Currently, the existing backlog before the law was overturned was like six months, and given the new law is seemingly just as burdensome, and includes a review of social media history, time evolved will probably be longer, so the answer to your question, is little if any.

We know what the law does, but the question is WHY do advocates feel its needed. To date, a few on this thread honestly answered that lifestyles wouldn't be affected, but people would "feel" safer. In my life time, people feeling unsafe change their habits and routines.....so this "feeling" seems rather hyped if not altogether a bogus reason. Just saying.
 
The constitution gives individuals the right to bear arms in public. NYC prosecutes those who exercise that right.

Wrong. There's that whole "militia" thing that you're ignoring. Militias have rules and regulations....there are many state militias that still exist today. The Constitution does NOT give anyone who can afford it the right to walk around in public strapped.
 
I believe what goat is referencing is the 86 FOPA act, which is supposed to provide protection to people traveling through states with firearms in their possession, but not being carried on their person. NY and NJ have been notorious for arresting people despite this law.

Umm, no.


Per federal law 18 USC § 926A, every U.S. citizen may legally transport firearms across state lines as long as he or she is legally allowed to possess the weapons in both the state of origin as well as the destination.

As for the 1986 FOPA;

https://government-programs.laws.com/firearms-owners-protection-act
 
It's a simple and valid question, true enough.

But the early leaders decided to make the United States unique in all the world by making firearms rights part and parcel of being an American citizen in good standing.
Let's not even discuss if we agree with this or not. It's what they decided to do.
And in modern, polarized conditions, amending the constitution is not possible.

No, the right to walk heavy doesn't grant anybody access to what they didn't have before.
But there isn't a fucking thing that can be done about it.

We get used to living in Westworld, or we disband the current republic.
If you're opposed to both solutions, then sorry, you're fucked.

A fatalistic outlook. If a law can be changed one way, it can be changed another. Before this ruling, each state regulated to a degree it's CCW laws. Hell, you still have state recognized militias outside of the National Guard.

Not perfect, but this latest ruling is making things worse. As the SCOTUS changes in the next decade or so, the rules may swing back towards sanity.
 
Gun manufacturers aren't bring the suit, dumbass. The NY governor is now in open contempt of court, a criminal offense.

Not really, because the State still reverse the right to regulate it's laws. The fed may give any gun owning yahoo the right to walk around strapped, but the State decides what's off limits outside a city street.
 
Obviously, you didn't die doing it before you got strapped, least you wouldn't be alive now. Oh, and as to your premise that an armed society is a polite society

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/concealed-carry-linked-increased-gun-violence-wisconsin/

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/concealed-carry/

linked how, in time?

correlation is not causality.

this new freedom decision also happened soon after dems defunded police, in a fit of genius. lol.
 
No, it's an elaboration of the original question which you balked about. The elaboration is relevant to NYC or any other state that is similarly affected by the new ruling. And since you don't own a gun, what's your reason for supporting this new ruling?

the constitution and the demise of lib'rul atrocities.......
 
As to your first paragraph....the ONLY "RIGHT" has to deal with A WELL REGULATED MILITIA....not for anyone who can afford it to walk around strapped 24/7. Beyond hunting for food, there were RULES that each colonial state had regarding weapons. Hell, even towns of our "wild west" period had rules regarding gun carrying. And let's be clear as to "more prepared"....that is a bit paranoid, because if you really want to "be prepared" in that mindset, you'd have a back pack with a gas mask, geiger counter, med kit, food & water rations, ham radio along with that gun and extra ammo. Extreme, you say? Well, the average Joe Schmoe walking around with a gun is extreme, because a cop won't know the difference when responding to a crime in progress, and given most NY'ers hair triggers, I shudder to think what the next "road rage" incident will bring.

As for you in Missouri....how would you feel letting into the mix folks who unlike you didn't meet the requirements that you did, but now carry that gun?

As to your first paragraph … we definitely disagree as to what the “right” of the individual is. And yes, even in the days of the “Wild West” people like Wyatt Earp violated constitutional rights thinking that was the solution.

As to your second paragraph … they’re already there. They’ve been there all along.
 
A fatalistic outlook. If a law can be changed one way, it can be changed another. Before this ruling, each state regulated to a degree it's CCW laws. Hell, you still have state recognized militias outside of the National Guard.

Not perfect, but this latest ruling is making things worse. As the SCOTUS changes in the next decade or so, the rules may swing back towards sanity.

My hope is that within a few decades, the United States of America will be a former nation.
Too many Americans have to compromise much too much for us to remain united. We should each be able to do our own thing instead of constantly trying to impose our will on one another like two tribes of savages.
We viscerally hate one another and don't have to. Partition is the answer.
 
My hope is that within a few decades, the United States of America will be a former nation.
Too many Americans have to compromise much too much for us to remain united. We should each be able to do our own thing instead of constantly trying to impose our will on one another like two tribes of savages.
We viscerally hate one another and don't have to. Partition is the answer.

wrong.

divide and conquer is the illuminati way.


reject your own stupidity and step into the now, dum dum.
 
wrong.

divide and conquer is the illuminati way.


reject your own stupidity and step into the now, dum dum.

Do you know what the word "conquer" even means, AssFace?

Where in my proposal for partition do you see the word "conquer," you disgusting pile of pigshit?

My plan is for everybody to do their own thing, following their own values, even if those values are as fucked up as yours.

Your wish is for assholes like yourself to force civilized people to live your pathetic way.

You're the one being belligerent, and if I'm wrong and hell does exist, you'll pay for it dearly.

More than likely, though, somebody will just find you floating face down in a river, and after experiencing a little short-term pain and misery, your troubles will be over.
You don't deserve it, but you'll probably find the perfect peace of non-existence in the long run.
You're a lucky mutant, AssFace.
 
Do you know what the word "conquer" even means, AssFace?

Where in my proposal for partition do you see the word "conquer," you disgusting pile of pigshit?

My plan is for everybody to do their own thing, following their own values, even if those values are as fucked up as yours.

Your wish is for assholes like yourself to force civilized people to live your pathetic way.

You're the one being belligerent, and if I'm wrong and hell does exist, you'll pay for it dearly.

More than likely, though, somebody will just find you floating face down in a river, and after experiencing a little short-term pain and misery, your troubles will be over.
You don't deserve it, but you'll probably find the perfect peace of non-existence in the long run.
You're a lucky mutant, AssFace.

conquer
Konker
overcome and take control of (a place or people) by use of military force.

example sentence:

"China conquered the usa after first dividing it through many means."
 
Back
Top