Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Open Carry Activists (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Open Carry Activists
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They are balanced in the sense they offer both points of view and often end the article by giving the last word to the opposing point of view from what was introduced at the beginning of that article.
Which often means that they make a crackpot perspective look like it's equally as valid as a mainstream one in pursuit of a false "balance" that doesn't actually exist. Lending the fringe the legitimacy of equal consideration is actually very imbalancing, even though it can be spun as balance.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Not quite open-carry, but even moreso. Looks like the Oathkeepers are opening up to their true beliefs:
quote:
A top official with New York’s Oath Keepers chapter sparred with a Fox News radio host over an individual’s right to disobey laws they believe to be unconstitutional.

The group, which is comprised mostly of retired and active-duty law enforcement personnel, claims they are not bound to enforce such laws due to their oaths to defend the constitution.

“See, the people are supposed to be the boss,” said John Wallace, vice president of the New York Oath Keepers. “We’re telling people not to comply with an unconstitutional law.”

He appeared Thursday on “The Alan Colmes Show,” where the host repeatedly challenged Wallace to explain how the U.S. Constitution granted individual rights to interpret the law.

“No right is absolute, and there’s nothing in the Constitution that says that there can’t be regulation,” Colmes said. “Just (Thursday), the Supreme Court made a decision on regulation of free speech. No right is absolute, and on what basis do you get to determine whether a law is enforceable or not?”

Wallace said that ruling, which struck down a Massachusetts law that banned protesters within 35 feet of abortion clinics, expanded the right to free speech, and quickly changed the topic from the First Amendment to the Second Amendment.

The group is specifically concerned about the state’s Safe Act, which stiffens gun laws, and Wallace said four pending challenges to the law would take too long for the courts to decide.

“I don’t think it’s in the purview of the state of New York to decide – I have a Second Amendment constitutional right – the government is supposed to protect those rights, by the way,” Wallace said. “My rights come from God. It comes from the fact that you exist."

That's right, they're not defending the Constitution, they're defending their God-given rights that no man or government can take from them.
How many sheriffs have come out against the SAFE Act? Also, anyone care to recall the part of the Heller and McDonald decision about common firearms that can't be outright banned?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
They are balanced in the sense they offer both points of view and often end the article by giving the last word to the opposing point of view from what was introduced at the beginning of that article.
Which often means that they make a crackpot perspective look like it's equally as valid as a mainstream one in pursuit of a false "balance" that doesn't actually exist. Lending the fringe the legitimacy of equal consideration is actually very imbalancing, even though it can be spun as balance.
Crackpot and fringe were the words you used? Don't those refer to small amounts of people? Which news network has the highest ratings again? Please remind everyone for me, thanks.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
“I don’t think it’s in the purview of the state of New York to decide – I have a Second Amendment constitutional right – the government is supposed to protect those rights, by the way,” Wallace said. “My rights come from God. It comes from the fact that you exist."

That's right, they're not defending the Constitution, they're defending their God-given rights that no man or government can take from them.
How many sheriffs have come out against the SAFE Act? Also, anyone care to recall the part of the Heller and McDonald decision about common firearms that can't be outright banned?
How could you have missed what I was talking about? The Oathkeepers believe their gun rights come from God, not the Constitution, right?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The founders believed many of the rights they enshrined in the Constitution came from God and were extensions of the main 3 they outlined in the Declaration of Independence. What's your point? Does it really matter? They exist and aren't going away anytime soon. The state of NY blatantly violated Heller and McDonald with the absurd SAFE Act and will most likely be smacked down.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, to be clear, you believe that the Constitution itself is an expression of rights the come from God. If the Founders knew that, why did the Constitution they wrote need to have the 2A? All it does in that case is create confusion by tying it to the militia.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't necessarily believe anything, just reminding you of something that is known historical fact.

As to the "Militia," that's absurd. The 2A is written the way it is to say "hey, militias are important, and because we need to be able to have citizens who can form those Militias if they choose to, citizens need to be able to have and carry guns."

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As to the "Militia," that's absurd. The 2A is written the way it is to say "hey, militias are important, and because we need to be able to have citizens who can form those Militias if they choose to, citizens need to be able to have and carry guns."
The militias were mandatory, not an option.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good to see you admit there were many. Yes, some drafted citizens at certain times in history, others did not. That doesn't change the point.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Good to see you admit there were many.
???

"...if they choose to..." is wrong.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I watched the Penn and Teller video about the Second Amendment and I can’t say it contributed a great deal to this outsider’s understanding. I’ve no idea who this tyrannical state militia, “the People” had been fighting for two years, was let alone who exactly “the People” were.

Anyone care to explain what the word “keep” relates to in the Second Amendment. If they meant “own” wouldn’t the writers have just said so?

I get the Collective argument such as arms stored as community property for members of the militia to keep when needed. It’s the Individualistic argument I'm not sure about.

This is purely to do with original intent. What Americans do to one another, unless it endangers the planet, is none of my business.

Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You have it backwards with the keep issue. The founders used keep because "own" and "bear" weren't good enough since at the end of the day the tyrannical government might force citizens to store their guns at a community lockup at night or when not bearing them, like the British did.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the 18th Century the ownership of guns was not an issue. This was covered by the English Bill of Rights and the States own Militia Laws. Every WASP was allowed a gun. The farmers who shot at the British troops returning to Boston had legal guns. The British never confiscated any legal guns, they didn’t have the right. During the rebellion they did control the supply of gunpowder with the use of permits but the British Parliament never issued any Act about confiscating legal firearms.

So in America does “keep” have the same meaning as “own”?

Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It had multiple meanings back then. I don't have time to do an exhaustive search of my dictionaries, but looking just at Webster's first dictionary (1828) the definition of "keep" is one of the longest. The primary meaning is "to hold", which is not the same as "to own"but has shades of that, but also of "to hold in memory". The stronger association is with custody for security or preservation. That is more relevant to the drafters' intent.

Note the word is the verb form of the noun "keep", as in "castle keep", which was a protected (often guarded) courtyard surrounded by the walls of the castle. In that sense, weapons were often stored in the inner area where they would be readily available and safe from enemy hands.

If Seneca wants to insist on another meaning (i.e., "to own") he should look at Webster, but also at Wedgwood, Klein, Oxford, Shipley and even Johnson. I'd be happy to engage in that discussion when I have more time, but only after Seneca (or you, if you're interested) has done some research on his own.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks Granddad. (Assuming the Al stands for Alfred)

The way English (or even ex-English) lawyers and politicians have the habit of never saying definitely what they mean has always fascinated me. Just look at the trouble they got into over Palestine.

Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think they were plenty smart enough to craft the language encompassing their ideas accurately but not so precisely that they couldn't be reinterpreted within some boundaries over time. In this case it was up to the states to determine whether it meant guaranteed arms (musket) ownership for individuals for the general welfare as instituted through state governed militia (for which every able bodied man within certain age ranges had to own a suitable weapon (musket)), and whether he got to possess it outside of those militia activities.

I think you're right that general gun ownership wasn't prohibited, but neither were the states (or municipalities) prohibited from making laws to limit their use or places where they could be carried. The most famous incident from that era is Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts, but there were others.

Our famous Dodge City of the 1800's had a prominent sign at the city limit proclaiming that visitors had to turn in their guns at the sheriff's office upon entering and could reclaim them when they left town. We also have a different meaning of "sheriff", who in those days was an officer of the crown whose primary duty was to protect royal properties from misappropriation by local denizens, not individuals from each other.

Only in recent years has the sense of perspective shifted away from civic responsibility all the way toward individual freedom. By that theory it is not Constitutional to prohibit any person of any age or criminal status from buying as many weapons as they want and using them however they want (as long as they aren't committing a crime not similarly protected by other parts of the Constitution or Amendments). Thus, we have to accept every news account of a child shooting themselves, another child or their parent as just the cost of freedom -- gun freedom, that is.

Yes, son, that very Alfred is my spiritual forebear insofar as Ornery matters matter, which they pretty much don't.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now you’ve got me wondering how I would define freedom. Surely it can’t be to do exactly what you like without any concern for others.
Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is a little rushed, but I think I covered what I wanted to say.

The best modern definition I think I've seen is "to not be imprisoned or enslaved". Other definitions have the sense of freedom as the result of striving to escape an involuntary or unwilling constraint. The result is a state that is only reached through (sometimes great) effort against an imposition.

Back to the Founders, Webster (1828) mostly defines it as a state of being without the struggle, in the manner of an "exemption" or "freedom from". One of his definitions is: "Exemption from fate, necessity, or any constraint in consequence of predetermination or otherwise; as the freedom of the will." That suggests that fate or predetermination can be avoided, but they still somehow exist for others. That's a muddled notion for me.

I think the Founders had some conflicting ideas about the meaning of the word. My reading is that Locke is closer to Rousseau in thinking that man exists in a state of nature that is voluntarily compromised by living in society. Hobbes was more assertive that the state of nature was subservient to the obligations of civil life. The Founders may have leaned toward Locke in their philosophical conception, but they recognized the Hobbesian guideline that a civil society can't survive without an internal order maintained by a common duty imposed on everyone equally.

So freedom is something that we willingly compromise for the greater good. The paradox is that we give up some freedom to preserve the rest, and would lose it all if we didn't. We retain our relative remainder of freedom until we are punished for breaking the laws, codes and rules we agreed to live by.

Interesting that Webster doesn't define "anarchy" in terms of freedom, but of "acting with impunity" or "political confusion".

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
They are balanced in the sense they offer both points of view and often end the article by giving the last word to the opposing point of view from what was introduced at the beginning of that article.
Which often means that they make a crackpot perspective look like it's equally as valid as a mainstream one in pursuit of a false "balance" that doesn't actually exist. Lending the fringe the legitimacy of equal consideration is actually very imbalancing, even though it can be spun as balance.
Crackpot and fringe were the words you used? Don't those refer to small amounts of people? Which news network has the highest ratings again? Please remind everyone for me, thanks.
Indeed they mean small amounts of people. Which is why it's not balanced at all to present extreme positions held by such as reasonable counter points as Fox likes to do, creating the false impression that those positions are wee supported and reasonable- actively building further adoption of them among their audience.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you are right then surely Fox would have alienated a vast amount of its viewers and not be #1 right?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a place where open carriers don't have to demonstrate, because the staff and regular patrons already are!

This is an interesting read: http://www.postindependent.com/news/11970006-113/shooters-rifle-guns-carry

Amazing the low crime in that town...

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I bet there would be the same amount of crime if nobody carried guns. It's that kind of town. But are you sure you want to use this town as the model for open carry? This is from your article:
quote:
“We stand behind the Second Amendment, but we don’t encourage people to carry guns as a public display in places like stores or restaurants,” said Jennifer Hope of Golden, the Colorado chapter leader for the national Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, founded in 2012 after the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut. “If there was a problem in a store and it got robbed or something happened, how would you know who were the good guys and who were the bad guys?”
That's the reasonable argument that people who don't want guns carried in the open make.

Note that in Kenessaw, Georgia, a man who was a "good guy with a gun" shot up the local FedEx building in April, suddenly turning into a "bad guy with a gun", so you never know what someone carrying a gun intends to do with it.

And here's a case of a town that added unarmed citizen watch groups with a very positive result:
quote:
Moore Haven, Florida [population 17,000], started their Citizens Observer Patrol (COP) in 1996. Problems at area boat ramps that were unpatrolled because of short staffing led the Glades County Sheriff's Office to look for citizen volunteers to patrol the areas. After being trained in a three-week academy held at the sheriff's office, the volunteers from the community were mobilized into stations and given patrol cars and uniforms donated by a local t-shirt company.

Since the implementation of the program, the incidence of property crime has decreased more than 70 percent. Burglary and theft near the boat launches has been almost eliminated. There have been no further reports of grand theft auto, and the number of juvenile delinquency cases has fallen. Residents report to police that they feel safer. Since patrols started, residents once again picnic and walk along the water at night.

I think the lesson from your article and the one I cited is that guns don't help, it's the quality of life that the citizens maintain that determines how safe a city is.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's the reasonable argument that people who don't want guns carried in the open make.
No, it's not. That woman, who by the way was simply a member of one of Bloomberg's mindless gun control groups, was being idiotic. You can tell criminals from law abiding citizens because criminals don't open carry. Why? Most violent crime is committed by the same repeat offenders, so criminals get known to police. They wouldn't want local police who would recognize them easily seeing that they had a gun.


quote:
Note that in Kenessaw, Georgia, a man who was a "good guy with a gun" shot up the local FedEx building in April, suddenly turning into a "bad guy with a gun", so you never know what someone carrying a gun intends to do with it.
Bad example, it works the opposite of how you attempted to portray it. That facility was a designated GUN FREE ZONE, hence why he choose it as a target, why so many were shot, and demonstrates the stupidity of disarming the public via large areas.

The lesson from the article, and from the crime stats show that more legally owned and carried guns reduce crime.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The lesson from the article, and from the crime stats show that more legally owned and carried guns reduce crime.
I'm curious what part of the article leads you to conclude that that's the "lesson."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can tell criminals from law abiding citizens because criminals don't open carry. Why? Most violent crime is committed by the same repeat offenders...
IIRC, that is about 70% per one of your previous posts. So about 3 out of 10 violent crimes are by new offenders, who were previously considered non-criminals.

And that's where your argument fall apart.

So you can only tell criminals from non-criminals in 30 percent of the incidents. Not great odds, if you ask me. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're forgetting a general culture of those with criminal intent concealing. They don't open carry.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For you the fear a person carrying a gun induces in unarmed and unprepared people is justified if they don't start shooting. For those others the fear that they might start shooting outweighs any assurances you can make. Are you able to understand their position, even though you don't agree with it?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're forgetting a general culture of those with criminal intent concealing. They don't open carry.
Unless they are trying to intimidate. Which is fairly common. Both amongst criminals and amongst "law abiding," open carriers. In fact, its the ONLY reason you would open carry. Which makes the baseline open carrier a bully.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, wouldn't that culture change if open carry becomes more common? I think a big reason the criminally inclined don't open carry now is because of the attention it attracts, but if carrying a gun is common enough, then it won't attract attention.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
You're forgetting a general culture of those with criminal intent concealing. They don't open carry.
Unless they are trying to intimidate. Which is fairly common. Both amongst criminals and amongst "law abiding," open carriers. In fact, its the ONLY reason you would open carry. Which makes the baseline open carrier a bully.
It's a good thing the courts and law enforcement disagree with this absurd and outlandish opinion.

My grandmother was told she was a bully for engaging in sit-ins at lunch counters in Alabama. She was told that by white guys who sprayed her with a firehouse when she eventually came out. Given that numerous court decisions have stated open carry is inherent to the 2nd Amendment as well as it being enshrined in state Constitutions and laws, it is fairly clear it is a civil right. And even as that federal suit from CO that could unlock the last few states creeps up the chain, guess which state just voluntarily became the 45th open carry state now?

But then, I guess rights aren't for everyone huh? That kind of thing is right out of Rules for Radicals.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're forgetting a general culture of those with criminal intent concealing. They don't open carry.
And you're forgetting that many crimes (perhaps 30 percent? [Wink] ) are committed without prior intent. People get mad, do something stupid.

What is the rate of 2nd degree murder? (Or is it voluntary manslaughter? [Confused] )

[ July 03, 2014, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Seneca, wouldn't that culture change if open carry becomes more common? I think a big reason the criminally inclined don't open carry now is because of the attention it attracts, but if carrying a gun is common enough, then it won't attract attention.

You are forgetting the other half of the equation. The overwhelming vast majority of crime is committed by the same small group of repeat offenders which are often know, on sight, to cops. Criminals won't open carry because cops will recognize them. As far as the other 30%? I'll take a 70% reduction in crime and free society any day of the week. GOOD DEAL!
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So cops would be justified in harrassing 'known criminals' who are exercising their civil right to open carry?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
You're forgetting a general culture of those with criminal intent concealing. They don't open carry.
And you're forgetting that many crimes (perhaps 30 percent? [Wink] ) are committed without prior intent. People get mad, do something stupid.

What is the rate of 2nd degree murder? (Or is it voluntary manslaughter? :confusded: )

If we start keeping murderers and violent career criminals in jail, then I'll take a 70% reduction in crime plus being able to live in a free society over any promises on "total crime control" that comes with disarming me no matter how sweetly the progressives spewing that yarn go on.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oddly, it is hard to find statistics on 1st vs 2nd degree murder with a simple search. The closest I've come is a survey on spousal murders in large urban areas, that have about 70% as first degree murder, with the other 30% as 2nd degree murder and non-negligent manslaughter.

quote:
If we start keeping murderers and violent career criminals in jail, then I'll take a 70% reduction in crime plus being able to live in a free society over any promises on "total crime control" that comes with disarming me no matter how sweetly the progressives spewing that yarn go on.
And saying that we can elimate 70% of crime by locking up all the career criminals is another yarn, one spewed by conservatives. [Razz]

Besides, conservatives would never be willing to pay for it! [LOL]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Oddly, it is hard to find statistics on 1st vs 2nd degree murder with a simple search. The closest I've come is a survey on spousal murders in large urban areas, that have about 70% as first degree murder, with the other 30% as 2nd degree murder and non-negligent manslaughter.

quote:
If we start keeping murderers and violent career criminals in jail, then I'll take a 70% reduction in crime plus being able to live in a free society over any promises on "total crime control" that comes with disarming me no matter how sweetly the progressives spewing that yarn go on.
And saying that we can elimate 70% of crime by locking up all the career criminals is another yarn, one spewed by conservatives. [Razz]

Besides, conservatives would never be willing to pay for it! [LOL]

You realize keeping career criminals in jail would be CHEAPER and require LESS MONEY than we're spending now right? So we could cut taxes and issue refund checks to taxpayers.

How is this so? Simple.

Take criminal X. Give him a manhunt, arrest, processing, charging, jury trial or even plea deal, sentencing, parole hearings, parole officer, etc. Now repeat all those expenses every 5-10 years vs the cost of just keeping him in jail. It's pretty clear which one is cheaper. You want to save money AND lives? The choice is simple. Violent criminals who unlawfully harm others need to STAY in jail.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lock them away for life along with debtors, misdemeanorators and scofflaws. Why should normal people have to live in a free society with such people who clearly don't know how to carry a loaded gun around in public without shooting it at passersby. Better, trade them one for one with Mexicans who come here to have a better life. Our deviant misfits would fit better with the sub-Texan primitive over-armed lawless society. No wait, I think we have a bigger criminal contingent than they do. Why don't we send nice people there to improve the character of their country and they send their criminals here because we have people like Seneca who know how to throw the book at them and make it hurt.
quote:
How is this so? Simple.
I have never seen anyone take so many complex and dynamic problems that permeate society and declare all of the solutions to be simple. If they were indeed simple, don't you think someone with a brain bigger than yours would have already figured that out? There are a lot of people right here on Ornery who can help you answer that question.

[ July 03, 2014, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I heard an interesting interview today that discussed the principle of the separation of Church and State. The phrase and the principle goes back to Jefferson and Madison who wanted to make sure that government wouldn't adopt a single religion which it would then promote over the population.

Justice Hugo Black was an Alabama SC Justice who was prominently associated with that principle in the 1930's and 1940's. I hadn't known that he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and was promoting a position that they put even above their more well-known racist beliefs.

His purpose, which was the KKK's, was to try to make sure that government wasn't "infiltrated" by Catholics. Their fear at the time was that Catholics took their orders from the Pope (whereas Protestants took theirs from God), and the Catholic Church was secretly plotting to subvert the US government and turn the country into a papal vassal state. The KKK had further goals, including to pass laws to prevent any avowed Catholic from working for government at any level or to teach in public schools. They controlled several state legislatures in the 1920's and perhaps beyond where they worked toward these and other ends.

The KKK saw themselves as spreading the word of Jesus among all Americans. As a side note, they didn't burn crosses to signify crucifying blacks (and Jews as well as Christians), but as a symbol of enlightening the world through Christ.

That separation has been at the heart of many SC decisions since then, but the special intent that Black and the KKK had in mind has been lost to the more general sense of preserving individual freedom in the interim.

It's ironic that it was a liberal tendency of the SC in the 1940's-1960's that led to the success of most of those freedom issues, but it is now a conservative SC that is restricting those personal liberties and passing them on to corporations and institutions that can choose to limit our individual freedoms in the exercise of their collective rights.

I expect that others here will challenge some of these comments. I welcome a discussion on these things.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
in places like Texas where open handgun carry is illegal, that is their only avenue for political activism to try and get open carry of handguns legalized again. I don't blame them for using the only thing they have left.

Out of curiosity; do you consider this an effective form of activism? Do you think it will lead to the outcome that those activists desire?
Looks like it's working rather well...

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2014/12/17/texas_considers_allo.html

In his campaign the new governor promised to sign an open carry bill, and it looks like it will clear the state legislature. When that happens, Texas, one of the largest states, will unlock and be added to the list making this legal almost everywhere in the US with exception of a tiny handful of states. My guess is Florida will go next.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Something going down here in my home state. Recently a fellow named Tony Bosworth was legally open carrying on federal grounds outside a federal courthouse in Spokane. Completely legal. The statutes that cover no weapons near this area only apply to the inside of the buildings.

However, federal agents harassed and arrested him. 5 hours later they turned him loose with no charges. They eventually cited him for "failure to comply," which is essentially a bogus charge and likely won't stick when it's pushed in court.

Fast forward to this week where an open carry rally was planned to protest this today. http://www.examiner.com/article/spokane-protest-to-defy-judge-s-gun-ban-on-federal-grounds
In anticipation, the Obama-appointed federal Chief Justice in the area tried signing an emergency order annexing the grounds around several regional federal facilities as part of a "no weapons zone." http://www.waed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/general-ordes/15-54-1.pdf

The only problem, it didn't work.
http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/gun-rights-activists-march-on-courthouse/31653838

The activists peacefully entered the courthouse plaza and grounds without incident and the federal agents acknowledged their presence and retreated inside. There were, disturbingly, federal snipers positioned on nearby roofs monitoring the protest.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1