More gun violence, Connecticut School Shooting

Training I had stated if you are stopped for any reason by law enforcement you should notify them if you have a cc and if you are armed or not. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I do both, hopefully not very often!

The first amendment is not about the actual speech like using a bullhorn. That was a dumb comparison. The speech that is being talked about is more general and originally of a political nature only. Don't try to make more of it than there is like so many liberals. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Actually, the bullhorn example is NOT a dumb comparison. It is taught in law schools as an example of how free speech may be restricted. The speech restrictions have to be restrictions on time and place and they must be content neutral in order to pass constitutional muster. And that is not a liberal stance, it is a conservative one also. So the example stands.

At one point "fightin words" were not covered by the first amendment. You can also threaten someone life without going to jail. Note the words of Alec Baldwin who wanted a Congressman and his family stoned to death. I didn't see him go to jail for that. Of course it used to be that if you did make such a threat then it was called assault and if the subject of your assault kicked your sorry ass then you were stupid for starting trouble. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What makes you think you can't go to jail for threatening someone's life? To qualify as assault, the threat has to be real and immediate and has to put the person in fear of bodily harm. Do that and you go to jail.

The law doesn't punish ABSTRACT threats of violence, like Alec Baldwin's comment. He wasn't in the Congressman's presence and making an immediate and serious threat to harm or kill him. For THAT reason, it did not qualify as assault. But don't make the mistake of thinking you can threaten to kill a guy who cuts in front of you at Starbucks and that you will get away with it.

If you are at a political rally and you tell everyone that "if the mayor does not stop the 'stop and frisk' police actions, then we are going to go down to City hall and drag his sorry ass out into the street and tar and feather him", it is treated as hyperbole and is protected speech. If you are actually AT City Hall during a rowdy protest and you start yelling at people to "Charge the police barricades and beat the mayor bloody!", you will go to jail for incitement to riot. It is all about the immediacy and seriousness of the threat. Don't think otherwise.

I also gave you examples of libel, slander, and aiding the enemy, which you ignored.

I can also give you examples of blatant false advertising that is punishable by the law. Do I need to go on to demonstrate that not even the first amendment is absolute?

And that is neither the liberal or conservative position, it is just the traditional interpretation of free speech that we inherited from English common law and that predates the Constitution. The Constitution codified it in a way the English common law did not and it expanded on speech rights, the freedom of speech did not start in a vacuum and certainly did not wipe out centuries old laws regarding libel, slander, assault, etc.

As for second amendment rights, wrong again XNYR I can get a gun without a license legally, I don't need a permit to own a pistol, I bought my first gun when I was 16 and that law has still not changed, In 37 states you can get a concealed carry permit and in many other states you do not need a permit to carry a weapon openly. If I check my weapon at the entrance my pistol can go on the plane in luggage and pick it up at my destination. I can go down and buy a .50 caliber rifle right now if I have the money. If I want to get a license I can buy a fully automatic weapon or have a weapon with a sonic suppressor.

XNYR, this is not New York, the world is not New York. You are woefully ignorant of the gun laws in this country and so is your little lap dog Whatzup. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Actually, you just disproved your own argument by pointing out the differences in STATE laws. If the second amendment was absolute there would be NO differences in state laws, would there?

You are using the laws of the least restrictive states as proof that the second amendment cannot be infringed. The law doesn't work that way.

You just conceded that 13 states won't give you a concealed permit and that other states won't even allow you to carry openly. The fact that some states are more permissive than others doesn't prove the second amendment is absolute, Quite the contrary, it demonstrates it is a regulated activity.

Try getting a gun in NY or CA when you are 16. Try to buy a .50 caliber anything in NYC and see what happens. Ask Plaxico Burress about owning a gun without a permit in NY.

I also rattled off a litany of restrictions on gun ownership and you addressed only some of them. What about the rest?

Can you take your 50 caliber onto a plane?

If you were 16 again and had your gun, could you take it into a courthouse?

Can you take your weapon with sonic suppression into a school?

So, no, I'm not woefully ignorant of the gun laws in this country. I'm pretty knowledgeable about them, even if I am from NY.

And just so you know where I stand on gun ownership, I have a CHL.

I just don't think gun owners need to have the biggest bazooka technology can create for their own personal use. It is entirely possible to have intelligent restrictions on gun calibers and magazine sizes to reduce the levels of street violence and mass murders.

I'm a libertarian, but I'm not a nut.

As I said in another post, there is virtually nothing that can be done in my opinion to prevent such tragedies. Whether it be here or in Norway. One deranged person is all it takes. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Hot damn you're on to something there. You are gonna piss all the other gun grabbers off if you keep admitting that all the gun laws in the world won't stop this kind of murder and bloodshed. That is the whole platform, gun laws wil stop this murdering of the innocent.

It is retarded to to think you can take the good guys guns away and expect all of the bad guys will quit murdering innocent people. It is actually the opposite.

Murderers are on the same page with the anti gun folks, they actually prefer that their victims are unarmed.

The CO movie theatre mass murders is a prime example of this. There were 8 theaters near the murderer showing that movie that night. 7 of the theaters welcomed its patrons to carry their concealed weapons, 1 had a no firearms policy.

Of those 8 theaters, which one do you think this sick fuck went to to do his evil deed? Did he go to the closest ones to where he lived? Nope. He chose to go further out. He chose to go to the 1 of the 8 theatres that he knew didn't allow its customers to carry weapons.

So why do less than 3% of eligible Texans have CHLs? Thank God the majority do not think the way you do. Your answer to everything is so simple -- arm everyone with enough firepower to stop a small army and we'll all be safe. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The majority of Texans do feel the way I do. Its not that only 3% of people feel they need a gun, its that everybody else knows they don't need that license.

I will tell you why less than 3% of eligable Texans have CHL. For one, it is legal to carry a loaded rifle or a shotgun in your vehicle without a CHL.

Also if I remember right in Texas the castle doctrine allows Texans who can legally own firearms to legally carry a concealed hangun in their car without a CHL. In Texas your vehicle is an extention of ones home.

The only time a Texan needs a CHL is if he wants to legally carry on his person. But when was the last time you were stopped and frisked for a weapon walking down the road. I for one have NEVER been stoped and checked. Not once in my life.

The failure to obtain a CHL does not necessarily reflect that one does not possess AND carry a firearm when moving about the State. Given the existing laws in Texas regarding having a handgun in one's possession when "traveling" about the State, many people may believe it is not necessary for them to obtain a piece of paper from the State identifying them as having a handgun or one in their possession.

. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Probably very true. But even if there are 3 law-abiding people illegally carrying conceled handguns, that still gets you to barely about 10% of the people deeming it e
necesary to do so, leaving 90% of the eligible population not worrying about it.

Probably very true. But even if there are 3 law-abiding people illegally carrying conceled handguns, that still gets you to barely about 10% of the people deeming it e
necesary to do so, leaving 90% of the eligible population not worrying about it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I don't really get what you saying here, since it isn't illegall to carry in a persons vehicle, the only ones illiegally carring are the ones who carry on their person. I can see your 90% of people not worrying about it when it comes to carrying it on their person everywhere they go, all the time. That's 1 out of every 10. But I would be willing to bet money that waaaaaaaaaay more than 1 of every 10 people have a rifle, shotgun, or handgun in their vehicle and not have a CHL.

You are unbelievable. Do you really read other people's posts?

"Hot damn you're on to something there. You are gonna piss all the other gun grabbers off if you keep admitting that all the gun laws in the world won't stop this kind of murder and bloodshed. That is the whole platform, gun laws wil stop this murdering of the innocent."

I don't think anyone has said that any gun law would stop such an incident that occurred in Newtown. Since you've made the accusation, please point out such a post.

I am talking about a singular incident. In other incidents gun laws are probably effective.

It is retarded to to think you can take the good guys guns away and expect all of the bad guys will quit murdering innocent people. It is actually the opposite.

Again, no one in this thread has stated that law-abiding citizens should not have the right to carry arms.

How do you explain Japan and England where
the good guys guns have been taken away and the murder rate barely exists?

Murderers are on the same page with the anti gun folks, they actually prefer that their victims are unarmed.

The CO movie theatre mass murders is a prime example of this. There were 8 theaters near the murderer showing that movie that night. 7 of the theaters welcomed its patrons to carry their concealed weapons, 1 had a no firearms policy.

Of those 8 theaters, which one do you think this sick fuck went to to do his evil deed? Did he go to the closest ones to where he lived? Nope. He chose to go further out. He chose to go to the 1 of the 8 theatres that he knew didn't allow its customers to carry weapons.

Wrong again. Holmes picked the movie theater he did because it was the first showing of "The Dark Knight Rises". When arrested, Holmes told officers he
was The Joker. His hair was dyed red like the Joker's hair. It is very obvious that he was planning to do his slaughtering in this specific theater. Also, I read
several articles on this and could find nothing that substantiates your claim that this theater was the only 1 or 8 that banned concealed weapons.

The majority of Texans do feel the way I do. Its not that only 3% of people feel they need a gun, its that everybody else knows they don't need that license.

Prove your claim please. I'd be willing to accept any form of proof other than pure opinion. Very doubtful you can do so.

I will tell you why less than 3% of eligable Texans have CHL. For one, it is legal to carry a loaded rifle or a shotgun in your vehicle without a CHL.

Also if I remember right in Texas the castle doctrine allows Texans who can legally own firearms to legally carry a concealed hangun in their car without a CHL. In Texas your vehicle is an extention of ones home.

Never said otherwise. Yes, a person can carry a handgun in their car in Texas. However, I don't believe it is an extension of the castle law, although I could be wrong on that.

The only time a Texan needs a CHL is if he wants to legally carry on his person. But when was the last time you were stopped and frisked for a weapon walking down the road. I for one have NEVER been stoped and checked. Not once in my life.

Again, a totally ridiculous statement. I would never expect the police to stop people to check if they are carrying concealed handguns unless they are entering an establishment where it is illegal to do so.

I don't really get what you saying here, since it isn't illegall to carry in a persons vehicle, the only ones illiegally carring are the ones who carry on their person. I can see your 90% of people not worrying about it when it comes to carrying it on their person everywhere they go, all the time. That's 1 out of every 10. But I would be willing to bet money that waaaaaaaaaay more than 1 of every 10 people have a rifle, shotgun, or handgun in their vehicle and not have a CHL. Originally Posted by threepeckeredbillygoat

I can't believe you. We're not talking about what anyone in any state is carrying in their vehicles. We are talking about carrying a concealed handgun on your person.
Less than 3% of Texans legally do so. And if you want to say twice as many carry illegally as carry legally, you get up to about 10% of Texans who carry concealed handguns. I can't make it any easier for you to understand.

Less than 3% of Texans legally do so. And if you want to say twice as many carry illegally as carry legally, you get up to about 10% of Texans who carry concealed handguns. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Just a reality check. Does someone posting on here believe that in Texas only someone with a CHL can legally carry a handgun? In Texas we have "prohibited places" as well as "prohibited firearms" ... and someone with CHL is "prohibited" from carrying their handgun into those enumerated "prohibited places" and if they do they are "illegally" carrying their handgun.

As it relates to the topic of this thread .... the school is a "prohibited place."

So WTF does having a CHL have to do with "school violence"?

As far as we now know the 20 year old in Connecticutt was legally in possession of the weapons ... at least until he got within so many feet of the school and clearly when he stepped onto school property ... so he was "illegally" carrying at the school.

Had he had a CHL in Texas he would still be illegal.

Probably very true. But even if there are 3 law-abiding people illegally carrying conceled handguns, that still gets you to barely about 10% of the people deeming it e
necesary to do so, leaving 90% of the eligible population not worrying about it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I can't believe you. We're not talking about what anyone in any state is carrying in their vehicles. We are talking about carrying a concealed handgun on your person.
Less than 3% of Texans legally do so. And if you want to say twice as many carry illegally as carry legally, you get up to about 10% of Texans who carry concealed handguns. I can't make it any easier for you to understand. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

From what I get out of it, correct me if I'm wrong, you are saying that because only 3% of people have taken advantage of the CHL that everybody else doesn't feel as if they need a firearm to protect themself or their familys. And then you magicly figure by doubeling that 3% (I have no idea where you come up with x2 means your imaginary math is accurate) that it means no more than 10% of all Texans have access to guns when they are out and about.


I am saying you are absoutley out of your mind if you think that only 10% of Texans want to or feel they need to have a gun close to them to defend theirselves and their familys. And 90% don't.

When the opportunity came up people said to theirselves, "self, I have got the chance to get a license that allows me to legally carry a handgun anywhere I want (excluding courts, schools, airports, ect.) and all I have got to do is spend extra money and make extra time to go to a class."

And then after thinking about it for a bit, they decided, "why in the fuck would I spend extra money and take up my time going to a class to do what I have already been doing for years and years? Its already legal to carry it in my car, if I go to the mall or a concert and want to or feel the need to carry it on my person, all I have to do is put it in my pocket and take it with me. I have never had anyone stop me and check me to see if I am carrying. As a matter of fact I don't know anybody who has ever been stopped and checked, so I'm not afraid of getting in trouble. I have seen people doing it for as long as I can remember. My grandpa did it, my mom and dad have always done it, my brothers and sisters do it, our preacher at church does it, almost all the neighbors I know do it, most of my friends do it, almost everybody at work does it. So I think I will pass and just keep doing it the way we have always done it."

Now I know everybodys experiences in life are different. And I realize like minded people tend to stick together. In other words if I run into a PETA member who is totally against peoples right to hunt, we won't become friends, and I will never get to know them or their lifestyle. They probably don't carry guns in their cars and neither do their friends or familys. They don't want to to get to know me and I doubt they like anything we stand for. But the way I was raised, we kill animals and we eat them. And we carry guns in our truck and if we want to, or feel we might need to, we put them in our pocket or our waistband and we go on about our business without a second thought. We teach our children how to use them safely at an early age. We teach them to respect them and make sure they understand the dangers. And then when we feel they are responsible enough we pass down to them the same rifle or shotgun that our dads and grandpas pased down to us. Its our way of life and it always will be. And I am willing to bet money that waaaaaaaaay more than 10% of people from the great state of Texas are like me. And people like me aren't the ones killing school children.

threepeckeredbillygoat,

your last post explained your viewpoint on guns perfectly. Thanks so much. Since we share so little in common we will never reach any kind of neutral ground. I have proven you wrong so many times in so few days that dialogue with you has lost any challenge.

Go in peace and have a wonderful Christmas season.

In light of the massacre of the children, I wonder if ANY of the posters in this thread feel just a little sheepish about their semi-erotic exhibition of their guns:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=595086

Especially the guy who posted pictures of his ELEVEN handguns.

threepeckeredbillygoat,

your last post explained your viewpoint on guns perfectly. Thanks so much. Since we share so little in common we will never reach any kind of neutral ground. I have proven you wrong so many times in so few days that dialogue with you has lost any challenge.

Go in peace and have a wonderful Christmas season. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The constitutions viewpoint on guns is explained to you perfectly as well. You might as well accept it. You have proven nothing other than you think your opinion is the only one that matters.

Merry Christmas

In light of the massacre of the children, I wonder if ANY of the posters in this thread feel just a little sheepish about their semi-erotic exhibition of their guns:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=595086

Especially the guy who posted pictures of his ELEVEN handguns. Originally Posted by ExNYer

That's stupid as fuck.

If a nut job runs over his mother in his drive way and then goes and plows his car through a playground full of children and kills 20 of them, are you going to feel bad because you own some cars?

Is it really chevy and fords fault?

Listen to yourself.

You're a fucking moron!

Yea I'm a moron for not laying blame where it doesn't belong.

Only a fucking moron would blame the car for something that the mental case that was driving it did.