Pages

Jump to bottom

25 comments

1 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  May 5, 2014 11:13:44am

This is why simply pointing smugly to Supreme Court decisions, a la Heller, is a bad idea, by the way.

2 Rightwingconspirator  May 5, 2014 12:00:38pm

re: #1 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

This is why simply pointing smugly to Supreme Court decisions, a la Heller, is a bad idea, by the way.

Not sure who or what post you refer to as “smugly”, we certainly see each and every emotion in web comments where moderation is less than stellar. “Smugly” kinda sucks as in unhelpful. Of course very few advocates of any kind refrain from strongly citing high court decisions that are in their favor. In this instance the smug will be from the, ah, shall we say “least restrained” gun control advocates.

It’s interesting to note that was the second affirmation of the 2nd as an individual right, setting aside all that militia insistence. 1886 Presser Vs Illinois.

3 Rightwingconspirator  May 5, 2014 12:11:41pm

re: #1 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

This is why simply pointing smugly to Supreme Court decisions, a la Heller, is a bad idea, by the way.

What is really smug is when a jurisdiction abuses a “good cause” term in the law to deny permits across the board or on such a ridiculously sever manner that even retired police can’t participate. That’s the kind of smug that does real damage, rather than just being annoying on the internet or in conversation.

Los Angeles still does this and I look forward to that city getting yet another slap on the hand accordingly.

4 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  May 5, 2014 12:35:44pm

re: #2 Political Atheist

Not sure who or what post you refer to as “smugly”, we certainly see each and every emotion in web comments where moderation is less than stellar. “Smugly” kinda sucks as in unhelpful. Of course very few advocates of any kind refrain from strongly citing high court decisions that are in their favor.

I do.

In this instance the smug will be from the, ah, shall we say “least restrained” gun control advocates.

My point is the same one I’ve made to you many times. You frequently assert that the Supreme Court made a decision that decided gun possession as an individual liberty. I, as always, tell you that you cannot rely on supreme court decisions as being permanent. There has to be a case that can be argued without citing the 2nd amendment or supreme court decisions to argue in favor of individual gun ownership. This case proves why you shouldn’t ‘rely’ on that decision: new decisions can happen at any time that you won’t like, including a new decision on Heller that revokes the status of gun ownership as an individual right.

What is really smug is when a jurisdiction abuses a “good cause” term in the law to deny permits across the board or on such a ridiculously sever manner that even retired police can’t participate. That’s the kind of smug that does real damage, rather than just being annoying on the internet or in conversation.

The case is about a reserve, not retired, cop. I don’t know the circumstances of his application for a gun, and apparently you don’t either, but you’re entirely willing to immediately say it’s ridiculous he can’t get a CCW. Maybe this is an egregious case, maybe it isn’t, but you don’t seem to have even looked it at all carefully.

Sociologically, if you actually want to show harm from New Jersey’s policy, the figure that you need to find is those who were denied CCWs who were then attacked. That would be the most pertinent statistics. It is likely to be difficult to obtain, but if you want to make a non-ideological argument then, you should find that.

5 Rightwingconspirator  May 5, 2014 2:10:58pm
My point is the same one I’ve made to you many times. You frequently assert that the Supreme Court made a decision that decided gun possession as an individual liberty. I, as always, tell you that you cannot rely on supreme court decisions as being permanent. There has to be a case that can be argued without citing the 2nd amendment or supreme court decisions to argue in favor of individual gun ownership. This case proves why you shouldn’t ‘rely’ on that decision: new decisions can happen at any time that you won’t like, including a new decision on Heller that revokes the status of gun ownership as an individual right.

When did I say it was truly permanent? I think it’s fair to treat standing law as permanent in the practical day to day sense until something solid comes up to cause a re assessment.

The Supreme Court changing it’s mind and removing the 2nd as an individual right appears so extremely unlikely to me I can’t bring myself to take it very seriously at this time, pending some indications otherwise.

A far more legit worry is more like Roe V Wade. States legislative encroachment. Now that bears watching.

6 Rightwingconspirator  May 5, 2014 2:37:37pm
The case is about a reserve, not retired, cop. I don’t know the circumstances of his application for a gun, and apparently you don’t either, but you’re entirely willing to immediately say it’s ridiculous he can’t get a CCW. Maybe this is an egregious case, maybe it isn’t, but you don’t seem to have even looked it at all carefully.

Sociologically, if you actually want to show harm from New Jersey’s policy, the figure that you need to find is those who were denied CCWs who were then attacked. That would be the most pertinent statistics. It is likely to be difficult to obtain, but if you want to make a non-ideological argument then, you should find that.

A reserve cop who has had the gun training, or a retired one has a clear legal reason and ability to carry CCW in California where we have gotten at least that much right. All I have to know about a cop wanting to carry CCW is if he is of good standing. Past that, yeah he gets to carry. I do assert that as the right thing to have arranged under the law.

Sociologically is not my standard at all. I leave that to you. Legally when a jurisdiction treats reasonable need so strictly as to deny those who they denied in this case-Heck yeah that’s wrong. That’s a stealth denial of a right to carry under that states law. It’s called a poison pill when it’s written in. When it’s not even written in, it’s an abuse of the law by the government, The state courts should know better than to allow it.

If I were to think about sociologically, well I’d still prefer well written laws left un-abused by the government as the best thing for society long term.

Again when states can encroach on constitutional rights or simple rights under the law as written we have a problem to address.

At what point might you admit the state has wronged an applicant?

7 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  May 5, 2014 3:29:00pm

re: #5 Political Atheist

When did I say it was truly permanent? I think it’s fair to treat standing law as permanent in the practical day to day sense until something solid comes up to cause a re assessment.

Something solid will come up the moment one of the 5 who voted for it is replaced by someone who may not.

It’s not about being ‘fair’, it’s about making an argument without saying “Well, the Supreme Court agrees”.

A reserve cop who has had the gun training, or a retired one has a clear legal reason and ability to carry CCW in California where we have gotten at least that much right. All I have to know about a cop wanting to carry CCW is if he is of good standing. Past that, yeah he gets to carry. I do assert that as the right thing to have arranged under the law.

Why is that all you have to know? Why are you the one who gets to make these decisions, and not the local law enforcement?

sociologically is not my standard at all. I leave that to you.

It is your standard. You argue about sociology all the time. What you are making is a sociological argument, unless it’s a pure ideological one.

Legally when a jurisdiction treats reasonable need so strictly as to deny those who they denied in this case-Heck yeah that’s wrong. That’s a stealth denial of a right to carry under that states law. It’s called a poison pill when it’s written in. When it’s not even written in, it’s an abuse of the law by the government, The state courts should know better than to allow it.

Okay, do you actually know anything about these cases or why they were denied? What the line of reasoning of law enforcement was?

If I were to think about sociologically, well I’d still prefer well written laws left un-abused by the government as the best thing for society long term.

You’re begging the question in assuming a ‘well-written law’ is the one that you want. Why would it be better to let any reserve cop have a weapon? You know what a reserve cop is, right, and that it differs from a normal cop?

At what point might you admit the state has wronged an applicant?

When I know the accurate information about the case. You thought this was a retired police officer and it’s a reserve police officer.

It looks like you’re saying that CCWs should be given presumptively to anyone who’s passed a course, and that local laws allowing the law enforcement to determine if you can or can’t get a weapon is wrong.

Again when states can encroach on constitutional rights or simple rights under the law as written we have a problem to address.

Under the law as written, didn’t Heller and other Supreme Court decisions affirm this sort of gun regulation? Or are you arguing what ‘should be’, and not what is in terms of Supreme Court decisions, saying that they should have taken this up and struck down these regulations that allow local law enforcement to act as gatekeeper for CCW laws?

8 goddamnedfrank  May 5, 2014 3:37:09pm

re: #6 Political Atheist

A reserve cop who has had the gun training, or a retired one has a clear legal reason and ability to carry CCW in California where we have gotten at least that much right. All I have to know about a cop wanting to carry CCW is if he is of good standing.

What if he’s had several restraining orders in the past, but they’ve expired. What if he’s a vocal sovereign citizen anti-tax nut job. How far into their lives are you willing to peer to question “good” standing.

I don’t get this cop worship, why they should be considered super-citizens when retired or on reserve status and not currently called up. It’s kind of disturbing to be honest.

9 Rightwingconspirator  May 5, 2014 3:40:20pm

re: #7 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

A reserve cop who has had the gun training, or a retired one has a clear legal reason and ability to carry CCW in California where we have gotten at least that much right. All I have to know about a cop wanting to carry CCW is if he is of good standing. Past that, yeah he gets to carry. I do assert that as the right thing to have arranged under the law.

Why is that all you have to know? Why are you the one who gets to make these decisions, and not the local law enforcement?

I give law officers the presumed benefit of proper intent and need. And exemplary of how far beyond reason I think you would set the bar. It’s really odd to me you won’t.

Now for the other guy the one that carries cash as part of his job? As a thought experiment as the level of detail available is limited-A couple assumptions-No record of violence etc. He can get the training as a part of the application process. We have the need covered. we have established he is of good character.Need, training, character. All stipulated.

Now should he qualify or is that still not enough in your view? Or should I? You know quite a bit about my job in metals, and something of my past credentials to certify new instructors as good to take on classes.

Do you think I should be denied?

10 Rightwingconspirator  May 5, 2014 3:46:10pm

re: #8 goddamnedfrank

What if he’s had several restraining orders in the past, but they’ve expired. What if he’s a vocal sovereign citizen anti-tax nut job. How far into their lives are you willing to peer to question “good” standing.

I don’t get this cop worship, why they should be considered super-citizens when retired or on reserve status and not currently called up. It’s kind of disturbing to be honest.

How about a reasonable stipulation that it’s a cop in good standing like I said and you not accuse me of cop worship? See now that is where these discussions go off the rails. They are “super citizens” (trying to accommodate your term) by way of the powers and responsibilities they have been given in our society under the law.

How about a reasonable stipulation the guy carrying the cash is in good standing legally and by way of his mindset?

Now that we set aside the rare exceptions how about the guys as I described? Why the heck not allow them the permit?

Lets add I support this law-
Don’t you? If not why not?

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the “qualified law enforcement officer” and the “qualified retired law enforcement officer”—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
The act was introduced during the 108th Congress as H.R. 218 and enacted as Public Law 108-277.[1] The law was later amended by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010 (S. 1132, Public Law 111-272),[2] and Section 1099C of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R. 4310, Public Law 112-239).[3] It is codified within the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 as 18 USC §§ 926B[4] and USC §§ 926C.[5]

11 Rightwingconspirator  May 5, 2014 3:50:20pm

Obdicut-

Again when states can encroach on constitutional rights or simple rights under the law as written we have a problem to address.

Under the law as written, didn’t Heller and other Supreme Court decisions affirm this sort of gun regulation? Or are you arguing what ‘should be’, and not what is in terms of Supreme Court decisions, saying that they should have taken this up and struck down these regulations that allow local law enforcement to act as gatekeeper for CCW laws?

I mean constitutional boundaries on and with state laws like “good cause and good character” should not be abused as we saw in Los Angeles when “good cause” was escalated beyond all reason. So far out there LAPD got pushed back and ordered to comply and issue in a few cases. Then in a further abuse, denied the permit renewals despite zero incidents.

I assert this to be a wrong against the person denied.

12 goddamnedfrank  May 5, 2014 4:05:44pm

re: #10 Political Atheist

How about a reasonable stipulation that it’s a cop in good standing like I said and you not accuse me of cop worship? See now that is where these discussions go off the rails. They are “super citizens” (trying to accommodate your term) by way of the powers and responsibilities they have been given in our society under the law.

That’s circular logic: they’re super citizens under the law because the law says they’re super citizens. And keep in mind we’re talking about retired or reserve cops here, not active duty police, not people whose current day job is policing. Why should retired cops retain any extra legal powers after they’ve stopped doing the job?

13 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  May 5, 2014 4:18:16pm

re: #9 Political Atheist

I give law officers the presumed benefit of proper intent and need. And exemplary of how far beyond reason I think you would set the bar. It’s really odd to me you won’t.

How on earth is it odd that I’m not willing to let every reserve officer have an off-duty piece? Again, you seem to be mixing up reserve officers for regular cops. If a regular cop was denied a permit, I’d expect to see a rationale for denying him, like he was under review for discharging his firearm, or had gotten a DUI. But that rationale might still exist in any given individual case.

Now for the other guy the one that carries cash as part of his job? As a thought experiment as the level of detail available is limited-A couple assumptions-No record of violence etc. He can get the training as a part of the application process. We have the need covered. we have established he is of good character.Need, training, character. All stipulated.

When did we establish he is of good character? Is this literally saying you just made up a bunch of assumptions? And again, why do you get to determine ‘need’ and not the local law enforcement?

Lets add I support this law-
Don’t you? If not why not?

No, that’s an overbroad law that, ironically, can cause trouble for law enforcement. If a local law enforcement guy sees someone with a CCW in an area where he know’s that it’s illegal, he’ll have to try to figure out if the guy is a vacationing cop or a bad guy. Retired cops aren’t going to keep their edge forever.

I assert this to be a wrong against the person denied.

Sure. And like I said, if you can come up with data showing an actual harm from this denial, then you’ll have the beginnings of an argument. You could also find, for example, cases of people who quit their job because they felt unsafe not being able to carry a CCW.

14 goddamnedfrank  May 5, 2014 4:59:31pm

re: #13 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Retired cops aren’t going to keep their edge forever.

Older cops came up before a lot of modern practices, drug testing, dash cams, car gps logging, routine IA audits, etc. They came up at a time when society turned more of a blind eye to official abuse, institutional racism and graft. Older cops are old, and majority male, there’s a certain age when an innate crusty grumpiness sets in, why should those guys be presumed responsible enough to own a gun based on a prior life history of asserting nearly unquestionable authority.

15 Rightwingconspirator  May 5, 2014 6:28:48pm

re: #13 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

I see our basis for disagreement at it’s root. My presumption for police, ex police, reserve police that have POST training, people of good character and a demonstrable need on the same scale as myself or that guy that has to carry cash is “shall issue”.

Show me why reserve officers with the training should not be allowed to carry. The burden is IMO on you to show why not. The presumption is that good cause, good character and good training means you get to have the permit if you want it.

Any higher standard implies an ill intent on those people.

re: #14 goddamnedfrank

Older cops came up before a lot of modern practices, drug testing, dash cams, car gps logging, routine IA audits, etc. They came up at a time when society turned more of a blind eye to official abuse, institutional racism and graft. Older cops are old, and majority male, there’s a certain age when an innate crusty grumpiness sets in, why should those guys be presumed responsible enough to own a gun based on a prior life history of asserting nearly unquestionable authority.

WTF does any of that have to do with CCW? I stipulated in good standing and I will further stipulate reasonably sound body and a sharp mind still there. You are a Police skeptic assuming ill intent or irresponsibility until shown otherwise. Way to go by way of dissing people dedicated to public safety and saving your ass or mine in a jam. Wow.

You presume they just usually go bad and must prove worthiness to carry a gun. This is where you and I are a long ways apart. I presume competence until demonstrated or at least indicated by something more substantial than age.

And that will likely be my last post in this thread. Whew! Called out as a cop worshiper for respecting first responders to a crime as good guys by and large.

16 Skip Intro  May 5, 2014 6:41:38pm

Well, here’s a real world example of a retired, presumably highly trained cop carrying around a weapon. It’s old news. Didn’t work out so well.

Dad’s texting to daughter sparks argument, fatal shooting in movie theater

It started with a father sending text messages to his daughter during the previews of a movie.

It ended with the 43-year-old man shot dead amid the theater seats, and a 71-year-old retired police officer in custody.

The shooting Monday during a 1:20 p.m. showing of “Lone Survivor” at a Wesley Chapel, Florida, movie theater escalated from an objection to cell phone use, to a series of arguments, to the sudden and deadly shooting, according to police and witnesses.

But by all means, let’s have more people carrying guns wherever they go.

cnn.com

17 Rightwingconspirator  May 5, 2014 6:46:55pm

re: #13 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

You may not have understood my stipulations. Where did we establish good character? Show me the link to his convictions. Violent arrests. I presume good character and you presume not.

That law is overbroad? Not At All. It confers the respect for service and potential threat as it should. Again we see the fundamental basis for our disagreement. You presume far more irresponsibility on trusted public servants with lots of very special training than I.

As to actual harm from denial-In the instance of other civil rights the denial of the right is a harm already. I assert that applies to all these civil rights. They have a merit all their own, and I’ll not be dragged into a false standard of who actually gets hurt in a crime where a gun would have helped them. False standards abound from critics like that. Nope not accepting that as a reasonable premise.

18 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  May 5, 2014 6:54:46pm

re: #15 Political Atheist

I see our basis for disagreement at it’s root. My presumption for police, ex police, reserve police that have POST training, people of good character and a demonstrable need on the same scale as myself or that guy that has to carry cash is “shall issue”.

Show me why reserve officers with the training should not be allowed to carry. The burden is IMO on you to show why not. The presumption is that good cause, good character and good training means you get to have the permit if you want it.

I already made my argument, you seem to have just skipped it. Reserve cops have less training than regular cops. Even regular cops I’d like to see some sort of review.

Any higher standard implies an ill intent on those people.

No clue what that means.
re: #17 Political Atheist

You may not have understood my stipulations. Where did we establish good character? Show me the link to his convictions. Violent arrests. I presume good character and you presume not.

I don’t presume not, though.

That law is overbroad? Not At All. It confers the respect for service and potential threat as it should. Again we see the fundamental basis for our disagreement. You presume far more irresponsibility on trusted public servants with lots of very special training than I.

Do you know the actual rates of cops committing crimes vs. the regular population?

As to actual harm from denial-In the instance of other civil rights the denial of the right is a harm already. I assert that applies to all these civil rights. They have a merit all their own, and I’ll not be dragged into a false standard of who actually gets hurt in a crime where a gun would have helped them. False standards abound from critics like that. Nope not accepting that as a reasonable premise.

Then you’ll only convince ideological people who share your beliefs, not people who look for some sort of pragmatic approach.

19 Dark_Falcon  May 5, 2014 7:54:45pm

re: #12 goddamnedfrank

That’s circular logic: they’re super citizens under the law because the law says they’re super citizens. And keep in mind we’re talking about retired or reserve cops here, not active duty police, not people whose current day job is policing. Why should retired cops retain any extra legal powers after they’ve stopped doing the job?

Because they’ve proven that they can handle the responsibility, is the first thing, and secondly because cops can still have dangerous enemies even after they retire.

To me, there are certain jobs that a person having done them successfully for a long period of time, in my mind constitute proof that that person is reliable enough to carry a concealed firearm. And once that qualification has been established over such a long period of time, that person does not need to justify carrying that firearm.

20 Rightwingconspirator  May 5, 2014 8:26:01pm

re: #18 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

I already made my argument, you seem to have just skipped it. Reserve cops have less training than regular cops. Even regular cops I’d like to see some sort of review.

No clue what that means.

I don’t presume not, though.

Do you know the actual rates of cops committing crimes vs. the regular population?

Then you’ll only convince ideological people who share your beliefs, not people who look for some sort of pragmatic approach.

From the top-
I’d like a reference of link to show me why to presume reserve police training is inadequate. Your presumption is backwards IMO. But if you can show that resereve police are somehow undertrained by all means show me.

See ordinary citizens can easily get to a level of training that makes CCW as safe as any detective with a snubbie under his coat. But if reserve training is really that bad-on gun safety show me.

Where you have no clue-I can’t help that. Try having someone else read through and explain it to you. I suspect most folks can do that.

If you don’t imply ill intent, or a lack of good character, then why not issue? This kinda flies in the face of your contention unless you seek to apply an impossibly high standard to getting a ccw. Nice, Well played as they say.

Now I reject your implication that I must show a lower rate or equal of crime from police to justify them having a CCW when retired or reserved.. No, show me why I should not impart trust in the very same police that go through background checks, training, retraining, drug tests, cameras in their cars and a police division devoted to watching their behavior as in Internal affairs responsibilities.

I really don’t agree only ideological people will see the harm in denial of civil rights short of actual damages like a civil suit.

So are you finally clear on where and how we disagree so extensively on this topic? Leaving aside the relative merits that of course only readers could decide for themselves, have I left anything unclear about my opinions? Except that have no clue thing of course I can let that go as misunderstood.

21 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  May 6, 2014 3:12:54am

re: #20 Political Atheist

From the top-
I’d like a reference of link to show me why to presume reserve police training is inadequate. Your presumption is backwards IMO. But if you can show that resereve police are somehow undertrained by all means show me.

There’s not one universal standard of reverse police training, though. This isn’t even possible. And no, the presumption shouldn’t be that people are sufficiently trained. Why is that backwards? Why would the assumption that, for example, a reserve cop who works the evidence room has enough training?

See ordinary citizens can easily get to a level of training that makes CCW as safe as any detective with a snubbie under his coat. But if reserve training is really that bad-on gun safety show me.

Can you prove that first assertion? Most of the training for CCW, as I’ve found in looking into this, is incredibly brief and haphazard. Florida, for example, allows people who have taken a hunting safety course to have a CCW, which is just ridiculous.

Where you have no clue-I can’t help that. Try having someone else read through and explain it to you. I suspect most folks can do that.

I’m sure that you can restate it so that it makes sense. Refusing a gun doesn’t imply that you think the person is going to go out and commit crimes with it.

If you don’t imply ill intent, or a lack of good character, then why not issue? This kinda flies in the face of your contention unless you seek to apply an impossibly high standard to getting a ccw. Nice, Well played as they say.

You’re writing in a really weird way, and you seem, again, to just be begging the question of what the standard should be. Even in Jersey, you can’t be arguing it’s an impossibly high standard, since CCWs do get issued.

I don’t think that everyone with good character and who doesn’t have bad intentions should automatically have a gun. I think they should also have a demonstrable need for it.

Now I reject your implication that I must show a lower rate or equal of crime from police to justify them having a CCW when retired or reserved.

That’s not what I said, though. I’m saying you’re giving retired police a special allowance here, and I’m asking you where it comes from. Cops are just normal people. On the job, cops are surrounded by rules, fellow cops, etc. Off-duty, they’re not. That structure, the formalization, has actual effects on behavior. Cops aren’t just dudes we issue badges and guns to and tell to go at it, there’s an entire system under which they exercise their powers under oversight.

No, show me why I should not impart trust in the very same police that go through background checks, training, retraining, drug tests, cameras in their cars and a police division devoted to watching their behavior as in Internal affairs responsibilities.

Because they have about the same crime rate as normal citizens.

I really don’t agree only ideological people will see the harm in denial of civil rights short of actual damages like a civil suit.

They literally will. For people who don’t see it as a harm to be denied a gun permit, they’re not going to see a harm. That’s pretty straightforward.

So are you finally clear on where and how we disagree so extensively on this topic? Leaving aside the relative merits that of course only readers could decide for themselves, have I left anything unclear about my opinions? Except that have no clue thing of course I can let that go as misunderstood.

The only thing unclear is why you think that this sort of pure ideological argument would ever convince someone who doesn’t fully agree with you already. What is the point of making the arguments you make?

22 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  May 6, 2014 4:06:12am

To put it another way: Imagine that you’re in a country that has very restrictive gun laws, rather than the much more lax ones we have in this country. How would you argue for their relaxation? How would you make the argument that, for example, Florida or Texas’s CCW regulations, which set a very low bar, would be a good thing to introduce?

23 EPR-radar  May 6, 2014 1:17:00pm

re: #22 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

To put it another way: Imagine that you’re in a country that has very restrictive gun laws, rather than the much more lax ones we have in this country. How would you argue for their relaxation? How would you make the argument that, for example, Florida or Texas’s CCW regulations, which set a very low bar, would be a good thing to introduce?

Bingo. How are peoples’ rights being violated on a massive scale in the UK, Japan and Australia by the relatively restrictive gun control in these countries?

24 Rightwingconspirator  May 6, 2014 5:45:34pm

re: #23 EPR-radar

Bingo. How are peoples’ rights being violated on a massive scale in the UK, Japan and Australia by the relatively restrictive gun control in these countries?

Bingo? Not even close. Ahem. I was discussing the United States. The proper way to judge our rights and laws may or may not be another country with a very different history. Now you guys have moved the goal posts not just off the field but clean off the continent.

This take Texas CCW and apply it to Texas is no more logical than applying their lack of anti trust laws here. Ad Absurdum, jet age goalposts,

Obdi, if someone were using these tactics to argue against you on a popular subject, you and others would be all over them.

Somehow this unpopular position of mine, well a lot of that seems is going unmentioned. Not anymore. Not by me.

Obdi, I can show you where gun safety training is easily available. I said available, not required. again with the changing what I said and thinking I need to defend it. Um, no I don’t. The NRA offers excellent CCW training. So does ISI, Front Sight, and countless others. CCW gun safety is not hard to teach or absorb. It’s not even all that different from hunter safety. Gun safety I said, not speed accuracy, use of force drilled into muscle memory. that takes about as much time as Police spend on it. Tens of hours not multiples of hundreds to qualify.

Cop worship my ass.

25 Rightwingconspirator  May 6, 2014 6:19:06pm

re: #21 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

You’re writing in a really weird way, and you seem, again, to just be begging the question of what the standard should be. Even in Jersey, you can’t be arguing it’s an impossibly high standard, since CCWs do get issued.

They always got issued here in LA too. friends of the Mayor/Sheriff etc. Call me unimpressed.

And again remember I stipulated good character and good cause. For Police that good cause is those who seek to take revenge on a law officer. I did not assert that good character and training was enough. I said good cause. I even laid out the scenario where the cash refilling ATM guy had a clean record. or myself. And you skipped that question. hmmm.

Do you think a guy with responsibilities that include carrying goods like gold and gems and cash, with a clean record should be able to train up and get a CCW? Please keep my stipulations in mind. Good character, cash/gold/gems robbery threat for cause, and adequate training.

if you don’t you hold a stricter standard than California State law. That’s fine of course but puts you in somewhat of an outlier position. If you do think that’s acceptable with the givens, then we agree a little.

Popcorn anyone?


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
David Bowie - Tryin’ to Get to Heaven (Official Audio) Official audio for David Bowie's cover version of @Bob Dylan's Tryin' To Get To Heaven released to mark what would have been David's 74th birthday on the 8th January 2021. Subscribe now: bit.ly Watch David Bowie's official music videos ...
Thanos
2 hours, 15 minutes ago
Views: 51 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
Kings of Leon - 100,000 People (Visualizer) Kings of Leon // When You See Yourself // The New Album Available March 5Feat. “100,000 People” & “The Bandit” // Listen: smarturl.it Pre-Order / Pre-Save: smarturl.it Director: Robert Smyth & Casey McGrathCinematographer: Janusz Kaminski Editor: Adam ZuckermanColor: Tom ...
Thanos
2 hours, 17 minutes ago
Views: 59 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 3 •
QAnons: Biden Is Really Trump, So We Won After All!I really have no capacity left to express my utter despair at this point.
Khal Wimpo (part of the vote-stealing cabal)
10 hours, 8 minutes ago
Views: 123 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 1 •
Mogwai - Ritchie Sacramento (Official Video) The official music video for Mogwai – Richie Sacramento, the second single taken from 'As The Love Continues', you can pre-order it at store.mogwai.scot CreditsDirector and build : Sam Wiehl (vimeo.com)Editor : Kit MonteithSpecial thanks to Polyphoria, Aglobex, NatureManufacture ...
Thanos
16 hours, 3 minutes ago
Views: 174 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
Amanda Shires - That’s All (Official Lyric Video)Music video by Amanda Shires performing That's All (Official Lyric Video). (C) 2020 Silver Knife Records marketed and distributed by Thirty Tigers vevo.ly
Thanos
1 day, 23 hours ago
Views: 332 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
The KLF - Justified & Ancient (Official Video)The KLF - Justified & Ancient (Official Video) An Atlas AdventureDirected by Bill ButtKLF Communications Listen to Solid State Logik 1: smarturl.it
Thanos
2 days, 12 hours ago
Views: 403 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 3 •
Freddie Washington 2010 KSBR Bash If you listen to music at all, then you've heard Freddie & probably liked it. He's played or toured with Herbie Hancock, Michael Jackson, Al Jarreau, Aaron Neville, Lionel Richie, Anita Baker, B.B. King, Elton John, Stevie Wonder, Whitney ...
Thanos
3 days, 3 hours ago
Views: 414 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 4 •
Barry Gibb - Too Much Heaven (Visualizer) Ft. Alison Krauss ‘GREENFIELDS The Gibb Brothers Songbook, Vol. 1’ out now: barrygibb.lnk.to Listen to more Barry Gibb here: barrygibb.lnk.to... Socials -Facebook: facebook.com...Twitter: @GibbBarryInstagram: instagram.com... #barrygibb #greenfields Music video by Barry Gibb performing Too Much Heaven (Visualizer). A Capitol Records Release; © ...
Thanos
4 days ago
Views: 753 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 4 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210110We received the second check valve and installed it.It works as it should.They should both ease up the startup workload on the small pumps.We can forget about this for a while or longer. We bought a bunch more plants. Some ...
Dangerman
5 days, 17 hours ago
Views: 703 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 7
Tweets: 0 •
No One’s Disciple — Theremin Trees A reflection on something of special importance at this time: the dangers of magical heroes, human and divine. You can support the channel at: patreon.com--0:00 the importance of individuality4:08 heroes, harmful and helpful6:29 religious disciples7:22 a little learning9:20 hero ...
Thanos
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 968 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 3 •