Pages

Jump to bottom

97 comments

1 Charles Johnson  Jul 27, 2014 1:38:05pm

Terrible decision.

2 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 27, 2014 1:44:41pm

re: #1 Charles Johnson

With all respect to those that would accept bans…
Bans don’t pass muster. Having said that, California does well under it’s regulations that do pass muster. Nothing stops DC from reasonable regulations of guns at home and the CCW protocol just like California.

3 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 27, 2014 2:39:23pm

I think it’s important to remember that CCW (the states that require such) is a subset of gun owners with more background checks and training that your average gun owner. There are also a couple of early studies that show it’s a more law abiding subset of the population.

txchia.org

An Analysis Of The Arrest Rate Of
Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders
As Compared To The Arrest Rate Of
The Entire Texas Population
1996 - 1998, Revised to include 1999 and 2000 data

by William E. Sturdevant, PE,
August 24, 2001

The original study as posted in 2000.
|Chart| |Males| |Females| |Notes|

4 Dark_Falcon  Jul 27, 2014 3:59:38pm

re: #1 Charles Johnson

Terrible decision.

Why is it terrible? The DC city government has been anti-gun beyond all reason, and has been slapped down repeatedly by the courts. I’d instead like to ask why DC doesn’t just accept the limits it’s been given and act within them.

5 socrets  Jul 27, 2014 6:04:46pm

re: #4 Dark_Falcon

Because nobody who takes the metro to DC wants to be poked in the back by someone’s gun during rush hour. Also, it’s easier for cops to decide who’s a threat and who isn’t if someone decides to take a shot at POTUS.

6 goddamnedfrank  Jul 27, 2014 7:28:00pm

There are literally dozens of different police agencies all operating armed personnel in DC, though only maybe a dozen or so have actual jurisdiction. It’s the seat of government, a magnet for every disgruntled crank in the country. We’ll see how the hypocritical conservatives on the Supreme Court feel about random assholes being able to carry concealed handguns near them as they drive to work.

This also raises the issue presented in the recent Georgia law that both Skip Intro and RWC posted threads on. RWC repeatedly defended the notion, enshrined in that law, that if a cop should see a pedestrian in possession of a firearm that cop needed be required to have a reasonable articulable suspicion to stop that person that was entirely separate and independent from the observation of a carried weapon. Nevermind that the gun being visible was itself prima facie evidence that the person was engaged in a regulated activity for which a permit was required. Unless the cop had some other reason to stop the person, like observing them jay walking, that cop would have no justification to demand that person produce the permit that actually authorized them to carry at all.

Just for completenesses sake I’ll reiterate why the analogy to car stops doesn’t fly here. Cars have externally visible license plates and registration tabs. The cop can see and call in the plate number without having to stop the driver and ask to see if the car has been reported stolen / involved in a crime or if the registered owner’s driving privileges are currently valid. A handgun’s serial number isn’t readable at a distance, and even if it was conservatives in this country have actively prevented every effort to keep a non-NFA national firearms registration database, and have fought every attempt to end the private party transfer loophole.

7 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 27, 2014 8:32:30pm

re: #6 goddamnedfrank

Cops don’t get to stop folks for nothing. What a concept! But that’s not the point. It;s details of what may come.

Perhaps the regulations will be written as you describe. Perhaps you help demonstrate my point-Regulation will be the path.

You don’t get to ban carry or possession outright. That’s my point today.

You ought not be allowed to criminalize harmless bits of gun paraphernalia either. Like empty brass, and empty magazines and even cartridges nowhere near a gun.

8 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 27, 2014 8:44:26pm

re: #7 Rightwingconspirator

Cops don’t get to stop folks for nothing. What a concept! But that’s not the point. It;s details of what may come.

It really does a disservice to the conversation when you ignore his point.

Police can check on a car without stopping the car, because of the license plate.

They cannot do this with a gun, because the gun doesn’t have any visible way to check it, like a car does.

Can you acknowledge this difference?

9 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 27, 2014 9:07:07pm

re: #8 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

We can discuss that another Page or when the path of regulation is embraced instead of bans. Until then the details of how it works are moot.

10 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 27, 2014 9:10:44pm

re: #8 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

I did not ignore the point, I countered it.

11 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 27, 2014 9:10:57pm

re: #9 Rightwingconspirator

We can discuss that another Page or when the path of regulation is embraced instead of bans. Until then the details of how it works are moot.

Why not discuss it now? You refused to acknowledge the point in a last thread, and now you’re going away from it again.

It is also not in the least bit a moot point: if people are going to be carrying handguns in DC, the question of whether police can stop people with weapons and verify their license or not is obviously relevant.

Can you really not even bring yourself to acknowledge that a cop can run a license without stopping the person but can’t do that with a gun?

12 goddamnedfrank  Jul 27, 2014 9:35:44pm

re: #7 Rightwingconspirator

Cops don’t get to stop folks for nothing. What a concept!

It’s not stopping them for nothing, it’s stopping them for being visibly in possession of a firearm, prima facie evidence that they are engaged in a regulated activity. An activity (unlike with driving a car on the road) the cop has no alternative way to check compliance without stopping and requesting the permitting document.

But that’s not the point.

It was my point.

re: #10 Rightwingconspirator

I did not ignore the point, I countered it.

No, you didn’t. You just dismissed it sarcastically, again demonstrating your classic, immature tactic of attempting to limit conversations to the specific issues you are prepared to discuss.

re: #9 Rightwingconspirator

We can discuss that another Page …

We can discuss it now. This pathetic dodge isn’t going to work anymore.

13 sagehen  Jul 27, 2014 9:39:52pm

Maybe if some disgruntled citizen took a shot at Scalia, the Court would rethink their position on the matter.

14 William Barnett-Lewis  Jul 28, 2014 6:19:06am

Emily Miller is reporting via Twitter that as of last night, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier has instructed her force not to arrest anyone legally able to carry a firearm. This shows that Chief Lanier is, at minimum, unwilling to be found in contempt. Note the broad extent of the order: no arrests of gun owners who can legally carry a gun in D.C. or any state. With 30 states having open carry without a permit, and over 11 million concealed carry permits valid in the United States, that’s a lot of people who may now legally carry in out nation’s capital.

Tweets are here: concealednation.org

Gun Control: What Democrats talk about when they get tired of winning elections.

15 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 6:23:34am

re: #12 goddamnedfrank

re: #11 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

No, you didn’t. You just dismissed it sarcastically, again demonstrating your classic, immature tactic of attempting to limit conversations to the specific issues you are prepared to discuss.

AKA not getting dragged into another repetitive session of a past disagreement.

It’s simple-Police need cause to stop and question. I realize you have a hard time with that idea, but I’ll not be agreeing to a new wave stop and frisk for CCW people in a hostile jurisdiction like DC without cause.

What GDFrank never made clear is what would give a cop cause? A bulge in a coat?

Don’t like my feelings on the matter? Okay well it’s a big world out there lots of decent folks coming to differing conclusions.

So you guys are on board then with the regulatory rather than ban path of CCW? Or not? After all if you support the ban details about how ccw should works are them rendered moot.

Reasonable cause? I have no problem with a stop and question. Zero cause? No way.

16 William Barnett-Lewis  Jul 28, 2014 6:27:06am

re: #8 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Your car remains an unprotected privilege. Like it, or not, the consensus in the judicial system is that gun rights are individual and that as part of those rights is the ability to carry a firearm for personal protection.

You aren’t going to change that law without a constitutional amendment and if the left tries to go that route they’re likely to end up with many other far more radically reactionary changes to the constitution instead.

Want to decrease guns and gun use? Look at how we changed attitudes about tobacco without banning it. Look to decreasing income disparity and wealth inequality. Look at full single payer health care. Look changing the minimum wage to a livable level. Those are the things that will decrease gun violence.

17 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 6:37:19am

re: #16 William Barnett-Lewis

Right no “individual right” applies to driving. The 2nd sets a whole higher bar for guns, as other amendments do for speech, civil protections etc. And let’s not forget how far beyond the pale D.C. goes. I don’t trust them at all to be reasonable based on their history.

18 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 6:41:25am

re: #6 goddamnedfrank

We’ll see how the hypocritical conservatives on the Supreme Court feel about random assholes…

Nice straw man ya got there. Random assholes. Regulate reasonably and it’s not random assholes. It’s people with a b/g check and a regulated & registered gun.

If you ever wonder why I get testy with you that’s a pretty good example. And i don’t share your contempt for the same court/system that upheld many laws you hold dear.

19 William Barnett-Lewis  Jul 28, 2014 6:44:17am

re: #17 Rightwingconspirator

Right no “individual right” applies to driving. The 2nd sets a whole higher bar for guns, as other amendments do for speech, civil protections etc. And let’s not forget how far beyond the pale D.C. goes. I don’t trust them at all to be reasonable based on their history.

See my 14. It will be interesting to see if that attitude lasts.

20 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 6:56:17am

re: #15 Rightwingconspirator

AKA not getting dragged into another repetitive session of a past disagreement.

It’s not repetitive because you have never addressed the difference between a cop being able to run a license plate, and not being able to do something similar with someone carrying a gun. You have not addressed this, ever.

It’s simple-Police need cause to stop and question. I realize you have a hard time with that idea, but I’ll not be agreeing to a new wave stop and frisk for CCW people in a hostile jurisdiction like DC without cause.

Again, this is ignoring the issue. With a car, the cops can run the license plate. They cannot do this with a gun. You are ignoring this, as you have in the past. Please stop, and address it.

What GDFrank never made clear is what would give a cop cause? A bulge in a coat?

Again, a police officer can run a license plate for no reason at all except that they want to verify that it is a legal vehicle. They cannot do that with a gun, unless they stop the person. Please address this.

Don’t like my feelings on the matter? Okay well it’s a big world out there lots of decent folks coming to differing conclusions.

What I don’t like is that you keep dodging the question, over and over.

So you guys are on board then with the regulatory rather than ban path of CCW? Or not? After all if you support the ban details about how ccw should works are them rendered moot.

The ban would not render it moot, because while I might be for places having the authority to enact a ban, that won’t be the case in all circumstances.

Reasonable cause? I have no problem with a stop and question. Zero cause? No way.

Please address the actual question instead of dodging it. Please acknowledge that with a car, a cop can run the license plate, but with a gun, he cannot do that without stopping the person.

It is really infuriating that I have asked this straightforward, honest question for, like, months now and you have dodged it every single time.

21 William Barnett-Lewis  Jul 28, 2014 7:07:29am

Obdi, You have ignored the answer for months - your car is not a right. The gun is. That’s all the difference needed. A cop can stop you for just about any reason he wants to with or without running your plates, The courts have rather consistently held that to stop for a gun requires probably cause and that “stop and frisk” ala NYC is unconstitutional.

I know you don’t like that but that’s not going to change reality.

22 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 7:09:44am

re: #21 William Barnett-Lewis

Obdi, You have ignored the answer for months - your car is not a right. The gun is. That’s all the difference needed.

Guns are still a regulated right, so no, this objection doesn’t work.

A cop can stop you for just about any reason he wants to with or without running your plates, The courts have rather consistently held that to stop for a gun requires probably cause and that “stop and frisk” ala NYC is unconstitutional.

I’m not talking about what is or is not legal in the current moment, but what would be reasonable and sane. And again, I’d say that gun-rights people resting on court decisions is just a terrible, terrible long-term strategy. What is your recourse, then, when the courts begin to side against you, and rule 5-4 against instead of 5-4 with?

If an argument can’t be made for gun rights without appeal to court decisions, what does that say about those arguments?

23 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 7:52:03am

re: #22 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

If an argument can’t be made for gun rights without appeal to court decisions, what does that say about those arguments?

Obdi, OTOH it’s unfair to exclude the laws on a persons side of a debate or discussion. “When the law is on your side” etc. Court decisions are cased on arguments, often long careful ones. That’s too much to dismiss as a weak argument.

Sometimes that shoe is on the other foot, and few if any hesitate to point that out at those moments.

In an effort to engage your insistence I answer a question that I doubt the premise of… That a cop can just up and stop folks at random. GDF mentioned a visible gun. Well that would be probable cause as a break in concealment into open carry. The visible gun might have prompted a concerned call to the police. That ccw guy might get warned or cited for breaking that rule.

So by what example would a cop be justified to take custody of a person (like getting a ticket is in the cops custody briefly, when you are not free to leave) without any cause? That’s a bad idea on general civil protection principles. With some cause, perhaps some set around CCW specifically we have these concerns covered.

24 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 8:06:17am

re: #23 Rightwingconspirator

Obdi, OTOH it’s unfair to exclude the laws on a persons side of a debate or discussion. “When the law is on your side” etc. Court decisions are cased on arguments, often long careful ones. That’s too much to dismiss as a weak argument.

Then replicate the argument from the court decision, rather than simply citing the court decision. If you cannot make the argument without saying ‘because the court ruled so’, you don’t actually have an argument. Those court decisions also have dissents, which are also long and careful.

In an effort to engage your insistence I answer a question that I doubt the premise of… That a cop can just up and stop folks at random. GDF mentioned a visible gun. Well that would be probable cause as a break in concealment into open carry. The visible gun might have prompted a concerned call to the police. That ccw guy might get warned or cited for breaking that rule.

Nope. I’m talking about a cop noticing that someone has a concealed weapon, which is really not that hard to do with most concealed weapons. Address that situation, please. Or address an open-carry situation.

So by what example would a cop be justified to take custody of a person (like getting a ticket is in the cops custody briefly, when you are not free to leave) without any cause?

If you want to split hairs and call it ‘custody’ when a cop stops someone to ask to verify their license, have at it. The custody would end as soon as the person provided proof that the gun was theirs and they were licensed. Why is that such an onerous burden?

That’s a bad idea on general civil protection principles. With some cause, perhaps some set around CCW specifically we have these concerns covered.

What is the actual objection to simply stopping someone and saying, “Sir, can I check your gun against your license?” Why is that so horribly onerous?

You haven’t actually answered the question, again. A police officer can verify that a car is a legal car by running the plate. They cannot do so with someone carrying a gun, whether concealed or openly, without stopping the person. Can you please acknowledge that this is something that is actually true?

25 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 8:26:11am

Cross post

re: #141 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Either with open-carry, or concealed. It’s often completely possible to see that someone is carrying a concealed weapon, especially if your’e trained to look for it.

Do you think that law would be a good thing, and if not, why not?

For the purpose of simplicity, let’s stick to CCW at least a moment. How often was stop and frisk coming up with false alarms? I think that was too often IIRC. A bulge in a coat can be many things.

That law depending on some very significant details of how it works on the street day to day could be a very good thing or just an instrument to discourage CCW. How well is that going to work with a black man with a CCW? Strike a fair balance and I’m in. Fail to do that and I’m not.

Open carry? I have mixed feeling leaning to allowing the stop and chat. Again I have a hesitation on how fairly that is actually done.

26 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 8:31:18am

re: #25 Rightwingconspirator

Cross post

For the purpose of simplicity, let’s stick to CCW at least a moment. How often was stop and frisk coming up with false alarms? I think that was too often IIRC. A bulge in a coat can be many things.

Stop and frisk is looking for a variety of things. If the policeman stops someone he thinks has a CCW, and the person shows they don’t have a gun, then it’s over and they’re on their way. This is a bad analogy.

That law depending on some very significant details of how it works on the street day to day could be a very good thing or just an instrument to discourage CCW. How well is that going to work with a black man with a CCW? Strike a fair balance and I’m in. Fail to do that and I’m not.

So, to be clear, you now support a law, as long as its evenly applied, that would allow a police officer to stop someone with a concealed weapon and verify that the weapon is permitted and legal?

Open carry? I have mixed feeling leaning to allowing the stop and chat. Again I have a hesitation on how fairly that is actually done.

Why? Please explain why you have ‘mixed feelings’. And if you’re going to bring the idea of unfairness in you can literally argue against every law in existence; it’s a red herring.

27 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 8:50:15am

re: #26 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Stop and frisk is looking for a variety of things. If the policeman stops someone he thinks has a CCW, and the person shows they don’t have a gun, then it’s over and they’re on their way. This is a bad analogy.

So, to be clear, you now support a law, as long as its evenly applied, that would allow a police officer to stop someone with a concealed weapon and verify that the weapon is permitted and legal?

Why? Please explain why you have ‘mixed feelings’. And if you’re going to bring the idea of unfairness in you can literally argue against every law in existence; it’s a red herring.

Every law needs to pass the fairness test, agree or disagree? And in any case I mean the term by a reasonable measure. My mixed feelings are about how easily that kind of law can be used to discourage rather than enforce. Kinda like stop and frisk. When laws are applied unfairly they can make headlines at the ACLU. Sometimes when they turn out to have consequences along racial lines. Or economic.

So in your view a bulge under a coat is justification for a policeman to stop you and see if it’s a gun. I’d really support some stronger evidence that that something, anything is amiss.

So, to be clear, you now support a law, as long as its evenly applied, that would allow a police officer to stop someone with a concealed weapon and verify that the weapon is permitted and legal?
Read more at littlegreenfootballs.com

Show me the statute (proposed or real) and the jurisdiction. then we can cheerfully discuss those pesky details.

28 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 8:53:50am

One other thing_ I think William has a point about this being a right, and until a regulation is passed that requires a reduction in ones ordinary probable cause protections, his point prevails, IMHO.

It takes a law or a court ruling to restrict a right.

29 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 8:54:50am

re: #27 Rightwingconspirator

Every law needs to pass the fairness test, agree or disagree?

I don’t know what you mean by ‘fairness test’.

My mixed feelings are about how easily that kind of law can be used to discourage rather than enforce. Kinda like stop and frisk. When laws are applied unfairly they can make headlines at the ACLU. Sometimes when they turn out to have consequences along racial lines. Or economic.

Again, this could be true for every single possible law. This is not an objection to this law, it’s an objection to unjust laws. Unless there is some way that carrying a gun is linked to race, there isn’t a point here.

So in your view a bulge under a coat is justification for a policeman to stop you and see if it’s a gun. I’d really support some stronger evidence that that something, anything is amiss.

Again: A police officer can run a car’s license plate to check if anything is amiss, not because he has a particular reason to but just because it is obviously a thing that happens that people drive on expired licenses, bad tags, stolen plates, etc. They just can run the plate, and verify that. They cannot do this with a gun without stopping the person to verify.

I perfectly well understand that you want ‘stronger evidence’. You have not, however, explained why. What is the bad outcome for the person with the gun, if the cop says, “Excuse me, sir, you’re carrying a concealed weapon/you’re clearly carrying a weapon, can I see your permit and match the gun to it?”

re: #28 Rightwingconspirator

One other thing_ I think William has a point about this being a right, and until a regulation is passed that requires a reduction in ones ordinary probable cause protections, his point prevails, IMHO.

It takes a law or a court ruling to restrict a right.

And what will you do when that ruling happens? What argument will have then, if all you’ve depended on is that court ruling?

30 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 9:16:11am
Again, this could be true for every single possible law. This is not an objection to this law, it’s an objection to unjust laws. Unless there is some way that carrying a gun is linked to race, there isn’t a point here.

You forget to mention the unfair application of a law. Like some drug laws.

Again: A police officer can run a car’s license plate to check if anything is amiss, not because he has a particular reason to but just because it is obviously a thing that happens that people drive on expired licenses, bad tags, stolen plates, etc. They just can run the plate, and verify that. They cannot do this with a gun without stopping the person to verify.

And there is a difference between a licensed activity that is not an individual right, and an activity that is held with that very special protection we call due process as part of a civil right in the bill of rights. AKA constitutionally protected.

Due process includes legal language stating how and why that stop works.or when it’s not justified. See the car is in public view. A concealed gun is not. Or else it’s not concealed. Are you really taking the position any old bulge under a shirt or jacket does it?

And what will you do when that ruling happens? What argument will have then, if all you’ve depended on is that court ruling?

I will happily cross that bridge when we get to it. Or at least have blueprints in detail to discuss.

31 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 9:23:44am

re: #30 Rightwingconspirator

You forget to mention the unfair application of a law. Like some drug laws.

I didn’t forget that, I made that point: The unequal application of a law is not the fault of the law. If the law itself is unequal, like the penalization of crack more than cocaine without rational basis, that is not something that’s applicable here.

And there is a difference between a licensed activity that is not an individual right, and an activity that is held with that very special protection we call due process as part of a civil right in the bill of rights. AKA constitutionally protected.

Again, going back to the “It’s a right” argument is weak. I can make an argument for every single right in the constitution without referencing the constitution. I can even do that for the 2nd amendment. So should you.

Due process includes legal language stating how and why that stop works.or when it’s not justified. See the car is in public view. A concealed gun is not. Or else it’s not concealed. Are you really taking the position any old bulge under a shirt or jacket does it?

Again, if the police officer is mistaken and the person doesn’t have a gun, where is the harm to the person? What is the problem? The cop thinks the bulge under the arm is a gun, the person shows its their wallet, there is no problem. You have not answered this: Please do. Or deal with the open-carry example instead, if you’re getting yourself too hung up on the CCW problem.

I will happily cross that bridge when we get to it. Or at least have blueprints in detail to discuss.

No, please answer the question now. Most of the gun rights decisions are 5-4. When the Supreme Court changes, it is very likely that these will be reversed, unless gun rights supporters can make good, coherent arguments that don’t just say “It’s a right”. You will need to argue, in court, for why it is a right, and address these problems and concerns. I do not understand, at all, why you want to wait for those court decisions to restrict your rights before constructing a coherent argument for those rights.

32 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 9:40:39am
Again, going back to the “It’s a right” argument is weak. I can make an argument for every single right in the constitution without referencing the constitution. I can even do that for the 2nd amendment. So should you.

From here I reject the contention that a point showing the legal rights we do enjoy is somehow weak. It’s not weak for other amendments. Not by a reasonable measure anyway, the measure being our day to day reality of the laws we live with.

Self and family protection is the underpinning of CCW and defensive guns at home or ones place of business. Violent crime makes this self evident. At home and work the legal underpinning goes back more than a century to SCOTUS.

Your expectation these rulings such as the 2nd as an individual right will fall is speculative.

33 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 9:49:31am

Obdi

I’m not talking about what is or is not legal in the current moment, but what would be reasonable and sane. And again, I’d say that gun-rights people resting on court decisions is just a terrible, terrible long-term strategy. What is your recourse, then, when the courts begin to side against you, and rule 5-4 against instead of 5-4 with?

First how you define sane and I define sane in this narrow issue is different. Keeping civil protections intact for CCW holders in not anything but sane. In California we gun owners face a plethora of regulations and court rulings that went against us. What do we do? Simple-We comply and we protest and we advocate change.

34 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 9:51:06am

re: #32 Rightwingconspirator

From here I reject the contention that a point showing the legal rights we do enjoy is somehow weak. It’s not weak for other amendments.

It absolutely is. I can make a long, persuasive, powerful argument for why freedom of the press is necessary for a healthy democracy. I can do this without once referring to the fact that its constitutionally enshrined. That is a strong argument. An argument that relies on ‘Well, it’s legal’ is extremely weak, because, historically, all sorts of things have been legal or illegal that shouldn’t be, or that later changed.

To put it another way, pretend you are answering the question “Why do we have the 2nd amendment? What benefit is it?”

Self and family protection is the underpinning of CCW and defensive guns at home or ones place of business. Violent crime makes this self evident. At home and work the legal underpinning goes back more than a century to SCOTUS.

Then, again, replicate those arguments, don’t just refer to them. Self-defense is absolutely a common-sense thing, so base your argument from that.

Your expectation these rulings such as the 2nd as an individual right will fall is speculative.

Sure. To put it another way, the right to abortion is under serious threat in this country. To deal with this, I’m not simply pointing out that court decisions have said that abortion is legal, but instead I can mount an entire defense of why it should be that way. It is entirely possible that a time will come when abortion is criminalized more so than it is now, and I will be able to argue against that and that we should change things.

I do not understand, if this right is important to you, you’d rather just ignore that the court cases may very well start going against you.

Is there any reason you skipped the rest of that post, having to do with the main conversation we were having, about a policeman stopping someone to check the legality of their gun?

First how you define sane and I define sane in this narrow issue is different. Keeping civil protections intact for CCW holders in not anything but sane. In California we gun owners face a plethora of regulations and court rulings that went against us. What do we do? Simple-We comply and we protest and we advocate change.

What ‘civil protections’ are you referring to, and can you explain what the burden is on CCW holders if they are asked by a cop to verify the legality of their carry? How are they harmed by this?

35 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 12:23:32pm

re: #34 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

It absolutely is. I can make a long, persuasive, powerful argument for why freedom of the press is necessary for a healthy democracy. I can do this without once referring to the fact that its constitutionally enshrined. That is a strong argument. An argument that relies on ‘Well, it’s legal’ is extremely weak, because, historically, all sorts of things have been legal or illegal that shouldn’t be, or that later changed.

This is about posting or comment style more than substance. In general the poster gets to choose the foundation legal or practical for a point. usually when a law that has made it up all the way through SCOTUS it is legit to cite as a strong argument. Again, when the law actually is on your side, it’s a fair and strong point to cite it as such. Pending change of course. It’s a rare thing for a ruling from the highest court in the land to be called weak.

What ‘civil protections’ are you referring to, and can you explain what the burden is on CCW holders if they are asked by a cop to verify the legality of their carry? How are they harmed by this?

Due process, probable cause. The proper burden on CCW holders is the permit process and due diligence on safety, the law and shooting skills. As a practical matter of course one would simply answer the policeman accurately and follow instructions. Regardless of the circumstances.

But that cop should have some cause, some reason the question the permittee compliance. If not then a CCW holder is being asked to have a lesser kind of civil protection than the average person. Really? Just exactly how far are we to go in assuming non compliance or hostile intent when there is not a shred of reason to think so?

If they write a regulation for CCW that requires such, at least then we have a legal framework. Now, we do not. There would be checks and balances.

What harm is done by being asked? No more harm than would come with other similar police encounters, absent the requirements of due process and probable cause. To me that’s a bad direction to go.

36 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 12:31:13pm

re: #35 Rightwingconspirator

This is about posting or comment style more than substance. In general the poster gets to choose the foundation legal or practical for a point. usually when a law that has made it up all the way through SCOTUS it is legit to cite as a strong argument. Again, when the law actually is on your side, it’s a fair and strong point to cite it as such. Pending change of course. It’s a rare thing for a ruling from the highest court in the land to be called weak.

It’s as strong and fair a point as the judicial reasoning. For example, you wouldn’t find the reasoning behind the Dredd Scott decision strong, nor, I believe, many recent Roberts courts decisions. i’m not calling the ruling ‘weak’, I’m calling relying on it as the lynchpin of your argument, weak. You do understand a 5-4 ruling means that 4 supreme court justices disagree, right?

Due process, probable cause. The proper burden on CCW holders is the permit process and due diligence on safety, the law and shooting skills. As a practical matter of course one would simply answer the policeman accurately and follow instructions. Regardless of the circumstances.

I’m sorry, I asked what harm they’d suffer. You haven’t cited any harm.

But that cop should have some cause, some reason the question the permittee compliance. If not then a CCW holder is being asked to have a lesser kind of civil protection than the average person. Really? Just exactly how far are we to go in assuming non compliance or hostile intent when there is not a shred of reason to think so?

They have exactly the same civil protection as an average person under what I’m proposing. Exactly the same. Not in the least bit different, in any way, at all.

What harm is done by being asked? No more harm than would come with other similar police encounters, absent the requirements of due process and probable cause. To me that’s a bad direction to go.

Nope. Far less harm, because all the policeman is doing is asking to verify the gun and the license. They’re not, as in stop and frisk, searching the individual.

Please explain what harm the person with the gun harms to by being asked to show the permit. You haven’t, actually, shown harm yet. You’ve shown harm if a different scenario occurred, where people with guns were stopped and searched, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

So again, can you come up with a harm that is done?

37 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 12:47:35pm

re: #36 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

we really should be done with the back and forth about the strength of citing the law of the land to support a point. I can’t imagine any reader is left with any doubt about our differing views there.

They have exactly the same civil protection as an average person under what I’m proposing. Exactly the same. Not in the least bit different, in any way, at all.

So again, can you come up with a harm that is done?

Saying so does not make it so.

How is a greater exposure to stops without cause harmless? And say the cop asks about that bulge and is told “it’s a cell phone under my jacket. May I leave now? ”

Really we are wasting time on a small point or procedure, procedures that should have the same checks and balances as any. I’m not keen on making a subclass with lesser protections out of CCW hiolders, and that is what you want amounts to. Either they get to walk away right then or it’s a search to verify.

As much as you may disagree is there anything I have said you don’t comprehend?

38 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 12:53:19pm

re: #37 Rightwingconspirator

we really should be done with the back and forth about the strength of citing the law of the land to support a point. I can’t imagine any reader is left with any doubt about our differing views there.

But I’m not satisfied with it, because you’re not addressing my point. A legal decision is very ‘strong’ in terms of determining what actually happens, but as a way to persuade other people of the rightness of your cause, it is no use at all. Do you understand what I am saying? So far, you haven’t shown you comprehend the point I’m making.

Saying so does not make it so.

What makes it so is that it is so. What I’m proposing would not burden people with guns any more than people without guns.

How is a greater exposure to stops without cause harmless? And say the cop asks about that bulge and is told “it’s a cell phone under my jacket. May I leave now? “

Where is the harm? You say ‘how is it harmless’, but I’m asking ‘how is it harmful’, and so far you haven’t not, at all, shown any harm.

As to the cell phone—why isn’t the person showing that it is, in fact, their cell phone?

Really we are wasting time on a small point or procedure, procedures that should have the same checks and balances as any. I’m not keen on making a subclass with lesser protections out of CCW hiolders, and that is what you want amounts to. Either they get to walk away right then or it’s a search to verify.

They would not be a class with lesser protections. And the search would be limited exactly to the supposed gun, which is entirely different from a general search of a person for whatever they have on them. This is absolutely common sense. And why would the permit holder not simply show their permit? How would this circumstance come about, where the gun-holder refuses to show their permit to a police officer? What motivation could they have to do that?

As much as you may disagree is there anything I have said you don’t comprehend?

Yes. I don’t comprehend the harm that you see coming to a person carrying a gun who is asked to show their license for that gun. You haven’t actually shown a possible harm. Can you do so?

39 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 1:39:08pm

re: #38 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Reducing or removing due process as in being stopped for no particular cause is harm. you may choose to disagree, but you have your answer.

Unless someone else has real questions about what I had to say, we are done, as furthering this discussion will be repetitious. That just drives away readers. No thanks.

if you want to continue on a private venue like email fine. But this repetitive back and forth is just not good for the blog or my time.

40 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 1:40:11pm

Cross posting an excellent answer to Obdi from another sharp Lizard-
littlegreenfootballs.com

Harm doesn’t matter. Burden doesn’t matter. The police are required to have probable cause before they can stop someone about a possible gun.

That’s why “stop and frisk” is unconstitutional - they did not have probable cause to stop those men.

You are not required to show a license to talk about the government in public but you are required to have a license to get to the place you wish to talk if you want to go by driving an automobile.

That’s the difference.

41 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 2:06:46pm

re: #40 Rightwingconspirator

Cross posting an excellent answer to Obdi from another sharp Lizard-
littlegreenfootballs.com

That isn’t an answer. That’s just ‘Because the second amendment’.

re: #39 Rightwingconspirator

Reducing or removing due process as in being stopped for no particular cause is harm. you may choose to disagree, but you have your answer.

How is that harm? What is harmed about you? What suffers during the process?

Unless someone else has real questions about what I had to say, we are done, as furthering this discussion will be repetitious. That just drives away readers. No thanks.

Stop this sort of ass-covering. You just don’t want to continue the conversation, as always. You always back off with ‘oh, this is driving away readers’. It isn’t. I’m being completely civil, as are you, and we’re discussing gun control. If you can’t handle this conversation, a completely reasonable and mild one, how on earth do you think you can convince anyone of the rightness of your views?

if you want to continue on a private venue like email fine. But this repetitive back and forth is just not good for the blog or my time.

I disagree, that it isn’t good for the blog, and I really don’t think you get to make that call, especially when Charles specifically said he wished this page would get more attention. In fact, I’d say you’re exactly wrong. As for your time: this would go a lot faster if you addressed my actual questions. But it also makes it weird that you want to continue over email if this is taking up too much of your time.

My main challenge to you is this: Come up with a guns rights defense that isn’t sourced in the 2nd amendment. I can come up with a defense for every other amendment without resorting to simply saying that they are a right. I can come up with arguments for having guns, too, but those arguments are predicated on having a reasonable degree of concern and accommodation for fellow citizens and law enforcement.

If someone carrying a gun is asked by the police to produce his license for that gun, and he does so, the ‘harm’ has been a few moments of his time, correct? That is the complete and sum total of the harm that you can foresee coming from this to that person, right?

42 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 2:51:38pm
My main challenge to you is this: Come up with a guns rights defense that isn’t sourced in the 2nd amendment.

CCW/home protection gun—Self defense.

Beyond that since you said gun rights, not carry or home possession-

Sustenance hunting and sport shooting.

43 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 3:01:54pm
Stop this sort of ass-covering. You just don’t want to continue the conversation, as always. You always back off with ‘oh, this is driving away readers’. It isn’t. I’m being completely civil, as are you, and we’re discussing gun control. If you can’t handle this conversation, a completely reasonable and mild one, how on earth do you think you can convince anyone of the rightness of your views?

I appreciate the civility. But you should recognize an answer as such even when you disagree. Like about the civil protections we are all supposed to have at all times. I see a harm there you don’t. Okay that’s how it goes but you had your answer. A couple of times William has pointed out that I have answered and you don’t recognize what I said as such. That’s a pretty good disincentive to answer, what’s the point when it’s set aside so out of hand?

My turn-Do you support the D.C carry ban as it was written and overturned?

44 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 3:06:07pm
I disagree, that it isn’t good for the blog, and I really don’t think you get to make that call, especially when Charles specifically said he wished this page would get more attention.

I do get to decide when to disengage Who else do you think gets to decide that for us but ourselves?!

Charles had featured Randalls page not mine. he mentioned it, not this one in the midst of a thread.

So if anyone thinks this depth of back and forth is good for the readership, the blog overall please speak up. I can’t always tell from where i sit.

45 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 3:08:54pm

re: #42 Rightwingconspirator

CCW/home protection gun—Self defense.

Beyond that since you said gun rights, not carry or home possession-

Sustenance hunting and sport shooting.

This isn’t an argument, this is a list of sentence fragments.

re: #43 Rightwingconspirator

I appreciate the civility. But you should recognize an answer as such even when you disagree.

I do. Which is why I recognize the many, many times you do not give an answer.

Like about the civil protections we are all supposed to have at all times. I see a harm there you don’t.

Then show me the harm. What is the harm?

Okay that’s how it goes but you had your answer. A couple of times William has pointed out that I have answered and you don’t recognize what I said as such. That’s a pretty good disincentive to answer, what’s the point when it’s set aside so out of hand?

Because you have not answered as to the harm that a person suffers from being asked to verify the gun they’re carrying is being carried legally. Can you do so?

My turn-Do you support the D.C carry ban as it was written and overturned?

I’ve made my position clear to you an umpteen times before: I don’t favor gun bans, I favor regulation with training. If someone is going to carry a CCW, they should prove that they can use that weapon in a tactical situation, otherwise there is no point in them carrying it around. If they can do that, and they have a need for it, I’m fine with them having it. So no, I don’t support blanket handgun bans.

Please note that you asked a question and I immediately answered it as fully and explicitly as I could, both addressing your question and giving you more information than you requested.

re: #44 Rightwingconspirator

I do get to decide when to disengage Who else do you think gets to decide that for us but ourselves?!

Yes. So don’t hide behind ‘it’s bad for the blog’. Just say you’re quitting the argument. Don’t act like you’re doing a public service by doing so.

Charles had featured Randalls page not mine. he mentioned it, not this one in the midst of a thread.

He clearly wants more discussion on the topic.

So if anyone thinks this depth of back and forth is good for the readership, the blog overall please speak up. I can’t always tell from where i sit.

Why on earth do you have the slightest reason to believe, in an way, at all, that it’s bad?

46 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 3:15:50pm

re: #45 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Why on earth do you have the slightest reason to believe, in an way, at all, that it’s bad?

Observations given to me by other Lizards and a lurker, and the well known TL;DR factor.

Sometimes the time you have for this exceeds my own. I do balance a full time gig that’s 50 hours a week, my own small enterprise and balance my fun on the web time. Which is mostly here at LGF.

47 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 3:23:12pm

re: #46 Rightwingconspirator

Observations given to me by other Lizards and a lurker, and the well known TL;DR factor.

TL:DR is used to make fun of people who want bite-sized news and don’t bother to do the reading necessary to really engage with a subject.

Sometimes the time you have for this exceeds my own. I do balance a full time gig that’s 50 hours a week, my own small enterprise and balance my fun on the web time. Which is mostly here at LGF.

Then just say that, again, don’t say that it’s for the good of the blog. But really, you waste a shitload of time during these arguments avoiding questions, it would go a fuckload faster if you just actually answered questions straightforwardly.

48 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 3:35:21pm

re: #47 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

re: #42 Rightwingconspirator

CCW/home protection gun—Self defense.

Beyond that since you said gun rights, not carry or home possession-

Sustenance hunting and sport shooting.

This isn’t an argument, this is a list of sentence fragments.

It’s my answer to your question. How many words does “self defense”
really need to be clear? Maybe if you took my answers as answers liked or not this would go a fuckload faster. The questions I “avoid” are those that contain a premise I reject.

And my concern about bad for the blog is my honest concern when we go this far with this little new information. it comes from real people pointing the risk out.

49 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 3:44:06pm

re: #48 Rightwingconspirator

re: #42 Rightwingconspirator

CCW/home protection gun—Self defense.

Beyond that since you said gun rights, not carry or home possession-

Sustenance hunting and sport shooting.

This isn’t an argument, this is a list of sentence fragments.

It’s my answer to your question. How many words does “self defense”
really need to be clear? Maybe if you took my answers as answers liked or not this would go a fuckload faster. The questions I “avoid” are those that contain a premise I reject.

Then explain why you’re rejecting the premise. That’s a perfectly good argument, too.

Self-defense needs a lot of words to be clear. For example, does self-defense mean that you can respond to threats with lethal force? Does it mean that you should respond with a similar level of force? Can you be pro-active in self-defense and strike first against someone who is threatening you? Are there any restrictions on weapons permissible for self defense?

And my concern about bad for the blog is my honest concern when we go this far with this little new information. it comes from real people pointing the risk out.

Who?

50 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 3:51:28pm

re: #47 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

On the upside we are in agreement then that the DC ban was not the approach we would like to see? That a strict regulatory system in place for CCW is a better option? i’m glad to discuss some common ground for a change.

So is self defense still not an acceptable answer to your question about what underpins CCW or home protection with a gun besides the law? Would a link about self defense and the law improve it?

51 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 3:55:31pm

re: #50 Rightwingconspirator

On the upside we are in agreement then that the DC ban was not the approach we would like to see? That a strict regulatory system in place for CCW is a better option? i’m glad to discuss some common ground for a change.

From what I recall, you are against what I consider a very common-sense level of training for CCW holders: That they have to demonstrate that they can use their gun in a tactical setting usefully. Otherwise, of course, there’s no use carrying the gun around. As I recall, you support the current anodyne requirements for CCW.

If I was asked to choose between letting not-trained-enough people carry weapons around or an outright ban, I’d go with the outright ban, but there’s no reason it would have to come to that.

So is self defense still not an acceptable answer to your question about what underpins CCW or home protection with a gun besides the law? Would a link about self defense and the law improve it?

I’m not sure how I can be more clear that in order to make an argument for gun ownership via self-defense you have to actually make that argument. It’s an acceptable answer as to what argument could be made, but it is not, actually, an argument.

For example, you haven’t addressed the “How big” part of the argument. What limitation on weaponry should there be for use in the home? If someone buys a gun to protect themselves at home but that gun actually puts them at more risk than they’d be without it, is that a legitimate ‘self-defense’ use? It’d rather counterintuitive. Etc.

I assume that you are aware that countries with restrictions on guns still allow self-defense, right? So self-defense is a starting point for an argument for gun rights, but is not an ending point.

52 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 4:12:46pm

re: #49 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Self-defense needs a lot of words to be clear. For example, does self-defense mean that you can respond to threats with lethal force? Does it mean that you should respond with a similar level of force? Can you be pro-active in self-defense and strike first against someone who is threatening you? Are there any restrictions on weapons permissible for self defense?

In my view self defense or defense of another (perhaps family member etc) is all about saving the health or life of a person. I don’t accept more than very mild force to defend property. Certainly not deadly force. And you will get no “Rumsfeldian” preemptive strikes justified from me. The weapons permissible must be appropriate to the task. Small arms at worst, I don’r expect to toss a grenade down my stairs or fire 100 full auto shots at a burglar LOL.

My definition is a conservative strict definition of self defense. Now you should define threat for me. Verbal? Pffft. Implied. Puhlease. Nothing worth mentioning.

Imminent and close physical harm as in bad guy with a knife coming in the locked bedroom door despite warnings? That’s very serious at that point. if I confront a bad guy with a gun in my hand and he turns and runs he will get away from me without a shot fired. I won’t chase anyone. If I ever kill someone I will be in need of help at length to deal with it as human with empathy. Even if it saves my own life as legit as can be found.

A decision to have a gun for protection need not be tied to specific statistics. I say that because I am of the opinion we are permitted to protect ourselves against events that are common in general but rare at a particular address. This goes with a critical caveat-Steps are always taken to avoid those things that can go wrong with a gun. But that right of access to an effective defense against an assault should not be denied IMO over accident or suicide statistics.

53 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 4:18:23pm

re: #52 Rightwingconspirator

In my view self defense or defense of another (perhaps family member etc) is all about saving the health or life of a person. I don’t accept more than very mild force to defend property. Certainly not deadly force. And you will get no “Rumsfeldian” preemptive strikes justified from me. The weapons permissible must be appropriate to the task. Small arms at worst, I don’r expect to toss a grenade down my stairs or fire 100 full auto shots at a burglar LOL.

Why is a gun appropriate for the task and a grenade not?

My definition is a conservative strict definition of self defense. Now you should define threat for me. Verbal? Pffft. Implied. Puhlease. Nothing worth mentioning.

So if someone says “I am going to murder you, I am going to strangle you until your eyes pop out”, you don’t believe that there’s a right to pre-emptive self defense?

Imminent and close physical harm as in bad guy with a knife coming in the locked bedroom door despite warnings? That’s very serious at that point. if I confront a bad guy with a gun in my hand and he turns and runs he will get away from me without a shot fired. I won’t chase anyone. If I ever kill someone I will be in need of help at length to deal with it as human with empathy. Even if it saves my own life as legit as can be found.

I’m not asking for your personal views, though of what’d youd do, but for an argument supporting gun ownership through self-defense. I have no problem with what you said above on any sort of moral or ethical level, but it’s not part of an actual argument for why gun ownership is an outgrowth of self-defense. As I said, other countries have self-defense AND strong gun limitations; the two are not synonymous.

54 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 4:26:56pm
Why is a gun appropriate for the task and a grenade not?

A grenade (frag not flash) is laughably excessive.

So if someone says “I am going to murder you, I am going to strangle you until your eyes pop out”, you don’t believe that there’s a right to pre-emptive self defense?

Anyone can say what they want. My response to a statement like that would be a restraining order not a gunshot. I don’t accept preemptive as self defense at all. What am I defending against? Harsh words? Guy says that and reaches for my throat for real and it’s a battle.

55 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 4:31:51pm

re: #54 Rightwingconspirator

A grenade (frag not flash) is laughably excessive.

Why? What makes it excessive, and a gun appropriate? Put it into concrete terms.

Anyone can say what they want. My response to a statement like that would be a restraining order not a gunshot. I don’t accept preemptive as self defense at all. What am I defending against? Harsh words? Guy says that and reaches for my throat for real and it’s a battle.

Okay. Just so you know, in the US and in most countries, credible threats justify self-defense. I support it too, because rational and reasonable people often respond to threats by fighting back. I can’t tell, again, if you’re just talking about your personal views and what you think should be public policy but since you said you don’t accept it at all, I’m assuming you’d like it criminalized?

56 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 4:32:23pm
I’m not asking for your personal views, though of what’d youd do, but for an argument supporting gun ownership through self-defense. I have no problem with what you said above on any sort of moral or ethical level, but it’s not part of an actual argument for why gun ownership is an outgrowth of self-defense. As I said, other countries have self-defense AND strong gun limitations; the two are not synonymous.

For many people a weapon would be needed to prevail. Those places that ban guns and allow self defense put the victim at profound disadvantage. Bats and knives and chains are powerful weapons best overcome by a weapon with a little more reach than a cane or club. The physically weak and disabled should have a better chance to prevail in an attack than unarmed provides.

Having a taser or pepper spray or a bat against a bad guy with a pistol is a losing proposition. Needlessly so.

Defenseless may not be a good plan for all.

57 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 4:36:17pm

re: #56 Rightwingconspirator

For many people a weapon would be needed to prevail. Those places that ban guns and allow self defense put the victim at profound disadvantage. Bats and knives and chains are powerful weapons best overcome by a weapon with a little more reach than a cane or club. The physically weak and disabled should have a better chance to prevail in an attack than unarmed provides.

Since you favor the gun because it will let them prevail, I assume that you are changing your opinion on the level of training necessary for owning a gun at home, that the person should take enough training to be able to confidently use the gun in a tactical situation?

Having a taser or pepper spray or a bat against a bad guy with a pistol is a losing proposition. Needlessly so.

In this case, then, I’m assuming that allowing guns for home defense should be based on actual likelihood of having to defend their home? So in most areas, where there’s an very small chance of home defense, a gun wouldn’t be an appropriate weapon for home defense?

Defenseless may not be a good plan for all.

I’m really not sure what this sentence means or why you put it here.

58 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 5:04:12pm

re: #55 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Why? What makes it excessive, and a gun appropriate? Put it into concrete terms.

One can aim a gun and use ammunition unlikely to carry through walls. Grenades? Not so much. It’s a sphere of fragments.

Since you favor the gun because it will let them prevail, I assume that you are changing your opinion on the level of training necessary for owning a gun at home, that the person should take enough training to be able to confidently use the gun in a tactical situation?

My disabled wife was able to do really well with a gun. Her disability is juvenile arthritis. I think that’s often the case. Paraplegic might be another kind of disability. I could train a person like that.

59 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 5:04:34pm

BBL

60 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 5:14:10pm

re: #58 Rightwingconspirator

One can aim a gun and use ammunition unlikely to carry through walls. Grenades? Not so much. It’s a sphere of fragments.

Frangible shrapnel grenades exist, but assuming then don’t: again, you would be in favor of stringent training and testing, then?

My disabled wife was able to do really well with a gun. Her disability is juvenile arthritis. I think that’s often the case. Paraplegic might be another kind of disability. I could train a person like that.

That’s great, but it doesn’t actually answer the question that I asked.

61 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 5:52:34pm

re: #60 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Frangible shrapnel grenades exist, but assuming then don’t: again, you would be in favor of stringent training and testing, then?

That’s great, but it doesn’t actually answer the question that I asked.

No my opinion has not changed over the training. it’s not beyond many disabled people. Since the gun does most of the kinetic heavy lifting it’s perfect for those that are not physically strong but respond well to training. and practice.

62 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 5:54:07pm

re: #60 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Frangible shrapnel grenades exist, but assuming then don’t: again, you would be in favor of stringent training and testing, then?

That’s great, but it doesn’t actually answer the question that I asked.

Not a weapon I’d advise legal or not.

63 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 5:56:19pm

re: #61 Rightwingconspirator

No my opinion has not changed over the training. it’s not beyond many disabled people.

But I didn’t say it was beyond them. Or anything like that. Where did you pull that out of?

Since the gun does most of the kinetic heavy lifting it’s perfect for those that are not physically strong but respond well to training. and practice.

Right. So you’re in favor of stringent training and testing for those who have guns for self defense. Right?

64 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 6:03:35pm

re: #63 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Right. So you’re in favor of stringent training and testing for those who have guns for self defense. Right?

Stringent like what police detectives get yes.

65 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 6:04:39pm

Dinner time GTG

66 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 6:12:36pm

re: #64 Rightwingconspirator

Stringent like what police detectives get yes.

No, I meant stringent beyond that because people using them for home defense are going to be using them in very different situations. Detectives have back-up, they’re not using their guns after having been woken up late at night, and in general will be in a situation where they can plan ahead.

You want people to actually be able to defend themselves, right, not just feel like they can?

67 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 6:14:40pm

re: #66 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

No, I meant stringent beyond that because people using them for home defense are going to be using them in very different situations. Detectives have back-up, they’re not using their guns after having been woken up late at night, and in general will be in a situation where they can plan ahead.

You want people to actually be able to defend themselves, right, not just feel like they can?

Yes but gotta cook. Later ok?

68 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 7:01:57pm

Okay got stuff prepped for dinner. SteelPh I see your in agreement with Obdi but do you have any questions / challenges top my points of your own? In for a penny in for a pound, more the merrier etc.

Tell you what Obdi on training requirements— That seriously deserves a page all its own. I have trained a bunch of people and saw with my own eyes how long it took them to pick up the skills involved.

Now with all due respect to a point of view that will want to set that bar differently than I would I have a serious disadvantage. I have no means to demonstrate or prove what I or my teachers would advocate actually brings to the skill set of a student in tactical shooting. Kind of a dead end for me despite doing the actual work for a long time. Perhaps you can understand that is a little frustrating.

69 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 7:07:36pm

re: #68 Rightwingconspirator

Okay got stuff prepped for dinner. SteelPh I see your in agreement with Obdi but do you have any questions / challenges top my points of your own? In for a penny in for a pound, more the merrier etc.

Tell you what Obdi on training requirements— That seriously deserves a page all its own. I have trained a bunch of people and saw with my own eyes how long it took them to pick up the skills involved.

It really doesn’t require anything that complicated to talk about. If someone wants to have a gun for self-defense, they should be competent in the use f it for self defense. This is something that’s trainable, but also, testable. If someone can’t perform in a test, which is a much more controlled environment, they’re not going to be able to perform at 2:00 AM.

Now with all due respect to a point of view that will want to set that bar differently than I would I have a serious disadvantage. I have no means to demonstrate or prove what I or my teachers would advocate actually brings to the skill set of a student in tactical shooting. Kind of a dead end for me despite doing the actual work for a long time. Perhaps you can understand that is a little frustrating.

No clue what you mean by this. Why do you have a disadvantage? A disadvantage in what? What dead end are you talking about? Sincerely, I just have no clue what you mean by any of this.

70 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 7:23:09pm

re: #69 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

It really doesn’t require anything that complicated to talk about. If someone wants to have a gun for self-defense, they should be competent in the use f it for self defense. This is something that’s trainable, but also, testable. If someone can’t perform in a test, which is a much more controlled environment, they’re not going to be able to perform at 2:00 AM.

No clue what you mean by this. Why do you have a disadvantage? A disadvantage in what? What dead end are you talking about? Sincerely, I just have no clue what you mean by any of this.

Based on your experience in gun training if any, what tests would you propose and how would you prove their results to me?

71 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 7:34:38pm

re: #70 Rightwingconspirator

Based on your experience in gun training if any, what tests would you propose and how would you prove their results to me?

I have no experience in gun training, I would rely on experts in the tactical use of weapons. I’d set them a brief that a person who has a gun for home self defense should be at a skill level where they can be confident of success if woken up at two am, scared and startled. Right now, the bar is set exceedingly low in many places (there is no bar in others), and if we want people to be able to defend themselves we should raise it to an appropriate level.

Can you explain what you meant with the whole ‘frustration’ part? I really have no clue what you mean.

72 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 8:23:57pm

re: #71 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

I have no experience in gun training, I would rely on experts in the tactical use of weapons. I’d set them a brief that a person who has a gun for home self defense should be at a skill level where they can be confident of success if woken up at two am, scared and startled. Right now, the bar is set exceedingly low in many places (there is no bar in others), and if we want people to be able to defend themselves we should raise it to an appropriate level.

Can you explain what you meant with the whole ‘frustration’ part? I really have no clue what you mean.

Sure. I’m that guy you mention. Expert in tactical weapons for self defense. Now this is the internet. We have some worthwhile trust between us about who we are and what we have done. But the media fails me- I can’t show you the result of the curriculum I was taught and learned to impart to nascent instructors of the same skill set. Got no video, no links to test results or how they did in a gunfight or false alarm. Given the topic at hand that’s frustrating. How might I get past spoken assertions? If we were not so darn far apart we would visit a my range and I’d show you what tests we put forth what the curriculum is. Hang with the police SWAT trainer and kick around police vs civilian training. get in a room with a couple tactical guys and kick this stuff around.

it’s like flying. talking is nice but nothing beats getting in a plane and showing how the flight training plays out in the air. I have everything in place to show you tactical except we are thousands of miles apart.

73 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 9:01:23pm

Okay who is really still here? :-0

74 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 9:14:34pm

re: #72 Rightwingconspirator

Sure. I’m that guy you mention. Expert in tactical weapons for self defense. Now this is the internet. We have some worthwhile trust between us about who we are and what we have done. But the media fails me- I can’t show you the result of the curriculum I was taught and learned to impart to nascent instructors of the same skill set. Got no video, no links to test results or how they did in a gunfight or false alarm. Given the topic at hand that’s frustrating. How might I get past spoken assertions? If we were not so darn far apart we would visit a my range and I’d show you what tests we put forth what the curriculum is. Hang with the police SWAT trainer and kick around police vs civilian training. get in a room with a couple tactical guys and kick this stuff around.

I really am not getting you. WHat is it you’re trying to convince me of? That you teach good things? I’m sure you do.

it’s like flying. talking is nice but nothing beats getting in a plane and showing how the flight training plays out in the air. I have everything in place to show you tactical except we are thousands of miles apart.

So what? It’s nothing I have to see for myself. What I want is for people who have guns for self defense to actually need them, and to be trained well enough in them that they can use them effectively, even when woken up at two AM and panicked and scared. I know that that is a lot higher level of training than the detective-endorsed course, and that a regular testing component is not part of requirements these days.

It’d be far cry from what a lot of states allow, the incredible, almost comically low standards for having a weapon in the home these days.

75 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 6:09:19am

re: #74 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

I really am not getting you. WHat is it you’re trying to convince me of? That you teach good things? I’m sure you do.

So what? It’s nothing I have to see for myself. What I want is for people who have guns for self defense to actually need them, and to be trained well enough in them that they can use them effectively, even when woken up at two AM and panicked and scared. I know that that is a lot higher level of training than the detective-endorsed course, and that a regular testing component is not part of requirements these days.

It’d be far cry from what a lot of states allow, the incredible, almost comically low standards for having a weapon in the home these days.

No need to show you? I don’t think you are thinking that through, unless you are prepared to accept my expertise as more accurate an appropriate than your sheer lack of experience on what training is required to achieve and maintain defensive gun skills.

76 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 29, 2014 6:23:05am

re: #75 Rightwingconspirator

No need to show you? I don’t think you are thinking that through, unless you are prepared to accept my expertise as more accurate an appropriate than your sheer lack of experience on what training is required to achieve and maintain defensive gun skills.

What are you talking about? I really am not understanding you at all.

What I want: A curriculum and a test designed to test whether someone with a gun for home defense can use that gun in actual home defense scenarios. I’m not competent to evaluate this course, but I don’t have to be, there are a ton of people who are.

I know for a fact this is not the curriculum required in the vast majority of places in the US, many of which require absolutely no training whatsoever to purchase and keep a firearm in the home.

77 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 7:46:48am

re: #76 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

What are you talking about? I really am not understanding you at all.

What I want: A curriculum and a test designed to test whether someone with a gun for home defense can use that gun in actual home defense scenarios. I’m not competent to evaluate this course, but I don’t have to be, there are a ton of people who are.

I know for a fact this is not the curriculum required in the vast majority of places in the US, many of which require absolutely no training whatsoever to purchase and keep a firearm in the home.

Are you aware of any that have what you would call adequate requirements?

78 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 29, 2014 7:54:52am

re: #77 Rightwingconspirator

Are you aware of any that have what you would call adequate requirements?

I don’t think there’s anywhere that actually tests whether or not people can use guns in realistic self-defense situations, which is kind of baffling. You’d know better than I: Are there any states that require people with guns at home be trained to the extent they could actually be confident of their abilities with them when woken up at 2:00 AM in the morning by someone breaking into their house? Which, I think you’ll agree, is a completely realistic home self-defense scenario.

79 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 8:23:07am

re: #78 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Quite so. the law is not on the testing ball. Fortunately however anyone with a bit of aptitude can meet or exceed almost any standard via available schools.

I think we discussed how a person can go about the schooling and then either continue exercises to continue improving their skills or there are a couple sports that are shaped around practical defensive shooting. Those are so good at that purpose L.E. officers including active SWAT / DEA etc come to practice and enjoy the stressors of timed shooting and competition. IPSC and IDPA come to mind.

My strong recommendation for a defensive gun owner is to either commit to regular training the also tests skills, and or join a sport that will do the same. If they can’t do either of those things they are making a mistake with the gun already.

80 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 29, 2014 8:25:18am

re: #79 Rightwingconspirator

Quite so. the law is not on the testing ball. Fortunately however anyone with a bit of aptitude can meet or exceed almost any standard via available schools.

Why are you sure of this?

I think we discussed how a person can go about the schooling and then either continue exercises to continue improving their skills or there are a couple sports that are shaped around practical defensive shooting. Those are so good at that purpose L.E. officers including active SWAT / DEA etc come to practice and enjoy the stressors of timed shooting and competition. IPSC and IDPA come to mind.

That’s nice.

My strong recommendation for a defensive gun owner is to either commit to regular training the also tests skills, and or join a sport that will do the same. If they can’t do either of those things they are making a mistake with the gun already.

Good. So you support the idea of having people who own guns for self-defense at home passing a test of the kind that I described, showing they can use the weapon in a self-defense situation and not just have adequate gun safety and accuracy?

81 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 8:53:31am

re: #80 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Yes I advise any defensive shooter to look at training and testing of skills as a lifelong process not a project that gets checked off a list. I remind them that even police must re qualify. If they don’t they can’t do their jobs and neither could a homeowner be safe and effective in a spot.

That’s a good starting standard-About the same gun training a cop gets but with a different more restrictive use of force or R.O.E.

Do you recall my posts about similar regime to pilot licensing for gun owners? In principle- Time training and testing gets the higher level credentials?

82 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 8:56:35am
Quite so. the law is not on the testing ball. Fortunately however anyone with a bit of aptitude can meet or exceed almost any standard via available schools.

Why are you sure of this?

i have seen the schools. Again given some aptitude those schools generate very capable shooters. Good enough to favorably impress SWAT guys and “door kickers” from the military. This was via some range shoot house competition. That’s well above patrolman minimum quals.

83 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 29, 2014 9:21:55am

re: #81 Rightwingconspirator

Yes I advise any defensive shooter to look at training and testing of skills as a lifelong process not a project that gets checked off a list. I remind them that even police must re qualify. If they don’t they can’t do their jobs and neither could a homeowner be safe and effective in a spot.

I’m not talking about advice, though. I’m talking about making this the legal standard.

That’s a good starting standard-About the same gun training a cop gets but with a different more restrictive use of force or R.O.E.

Again, the gun training a cop gets isn’t very similar to what a citizen protecting themselves at home would undergo, so I’m not sure why you keep bringing it up.

Do you recall my posts about similar regime to pilot licensing for gun owners? In principle- Time training and testing gets the higher level credentials?

Nope. What do you mean by ‘higher level credentials’?

re: #82 Rightwingconspirator

i have seen the schools. Again given some aptitude those schools generate very capable shooters. Good enough to favorably impress SWAT guys and “door kickers” from the military. This was via some range shoot house competition. That’s well above patrolman minimum quals.

But they weren’t being tested on how they could handle themselves in a home defense situation, right? And really, I was expecting you to have some data— your contention isn’t supported by this evidence, because the people doing this training are a self-selected, not a random, group.

84 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 9:28:12am

Are you seriously suggesting to me that trained POST certified patrol officers lack enough training to have a defense firearm at home?

85 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 29, 2014 9:38:53am

re: #84 Rightwingconspirator

Are you seriously suggesting to me that trained POST certified patrol officers lack enough training to have a defense firearm at home?

I don’t think the training alone would suffice, but their day-to-day experience would, probably. Still, a lot of police wind up being desk jockeys, so there may be quite a few who would still not actually be able to pass a test oriented around home defense shooting.

It’d be easy enough to prove, though: once you get a test for home defense actually designed and in use, police can take the test. If police who have gone through POST persistently pass the test, then they could probably be exempted in general, though again, if a guy works the evidence locker for 20 years and just re qualifies with accuracy there’s not a lot of reason to believe he’d pass the test.

Can you acknowledge that the way that police are trained to use their weapons and the way that citizens defending themselves from attack with weapons should use them are pretty different? The citizen, for example, can’t count on backup, whereas the cop can. The citizen isn’t likely to have been forewarned about the situation, but will be confronting them in a sudden panic. The cops don’t have the same ability to just retreat if they don’t want to engage in the confrontation, I mean, they can hunker down but not just run away. Etc. To put it another way, if a cop is in a situation that resembles a citizen defending themselves at home, that’d be a very rare and unusual situation.

86 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 9:58:35am

re: #85 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

No backup? That’s so wrong. We have 911.

Home defense is not that hard to learn. A fresh graduate from the academy has the skills for self defense with a gun at home or on the job. it’s just a start, but it’s enough to properly do the job and be safe at home.

i will oppose standards higher than that for having a gun at home to start with.

I have day job work to do so moving on.

87 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 29, 2014 10:00:18am

re: #86 Rightwingconspirator

No backup? That’s so wrong. We have 911.

That is supposing that you already have called 911. Cops also have partners,

Home defense is not that hard to learn. A fresh graduate from the academy has the skills for self defense with a gun at home or on the job. it’s just a start, but it’s enough to properly do the job and be safe at home.

As I said, this can just be tested. We don’t have to use supposition.

i will oppose standards higher than that for having a gun at home to start with.

You oppose the standard that people who want a gun for home defense should show that they are able to use their gun a home defense situation?

88 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 11:31:40am

re: #87 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

That is supposing that you already have called 911. Cops also have partners,

As I said, this can just be tested. We don’t have to use supposition.

You oppose the standard that people who want a gun for home defense should show that they are able to use their gun a home defense situation?

police are our backup. One should make arrangements to be able to summon them in an incident first or simultaneous with getting that gun from the fast safe.

I oppose a standard higher than what reality/history has proven adequate as shown by long developed police training standards. Those police go home, and they do have what they need at least to start out of the academy.

To start- as I said it’s a lifelong process of improvement.

89 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 11:32:36am

Obdicut I’m working on another Page, this about Picasa. It’s a bit of work so I’m done with this chat until next time. Have a good day.

90 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 29, 2014 11:46:29am

re: #88 Rightwingconspirator

police are our backup. One should make arrangements to be able to summon them in an incident first or simultaneous with getting that gun from the fast safe.

Yes, that’s the sort of thing that should be tested for. But even so, everything else I said stands. Police have partners, they go into situations with information. There is very little similarity between what a police officer does, or shooting situations police officers get into, and a person defending themselves at home.

I oppose a standard higher than what reality/history has proven adequate as shown by long developed police training standards. Those police go home, and they do have what they need at least to start out of the academy.

It hasn’t been shown to be adequate for home self defense because it wasn’t developed for home self defense. As I said, if it can be shown to be adequate, by cops regularly passing the home use test, then you’re right and it can be waived in general for cops. But why are you resisting testing that hypothesis?

You haven’t provided any actual argument for why the police testing is a good match for home defense. I’ve provided quite a lot of arguments as to why it isn’t. But even if I’m wrong, all that I”m proposing to do is test the home defense abilities—why is that a bad idea?

Obdicut I’m working on another Page, this about Picasa. It’s a bit of work so I’m done with this chat until next time. Have a good day.

I’m disappointed that you don’t support the idea that people who want a gun for home defense should show that they can use their gun for home defense. It is a completely common-sense, straightforward standard, and you haven’t given anything approaching a reason for why it shouldn’t be a standard. If what you’re saying is true, then there wouldn’t be a problem because all the people in the current training programs would pass it.

91 Aunty Entity Dragon  Jul 29, 2014 1:15:30pm

re: #1 Charles Johnson

Terrible decision.

It was pretty much mandated by previous SCOTUS decisions. Blanket bans are no longer enforceable.

92 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 3:19:57pm

re: #90 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

You forget that the cops take the guns home. the comparison is regular folks and cops at home with a gun for defense. We know know for a fact of history that training translates just fine to the home. Yes a home is diffrerent. It is far and away easier than street / CCW.

I don’t see a need to prove anything to you. Probably can’t be done given a lack of studies arranged as you would see fit. Reality has had its way and countless cops take guns home and demonstrate it’s safe enough and good enough for defense. Giving civilians the same level of training is de facto reasonable. We already know it’s adequate.

i answer your very extended skepticism and questions on the hope that others will get it.

93 goddamnedfrank  Jul 29, 2014 5:35:04pm

re: #91 Aunty Entity Dragon

It was pretty much mandated by previous SCOTUS decisions. Blanket bans are no longer enforceable.

No it wasn’t mandated at all. Heller only dealt with a ban on handguns in the home, it didn’t strike down the ban on carrying in public. McDonald only extended the Heller decision to the States. The Supremes have never even come close to ruling on a state or municipality’s right to prevent concealed or open carry by civilians when off of their own personal property.

94 goddamnedfrank  Jul 29, 2014 5:45:17pm

Also, FYI the Supreme Court had a perfect opportunity to extend the right to bear arms outside the home just last year, but instead they declined to hear the Second Amendment Foundations appeal in Woollard v. Gallagher. The blanket ban struck down in Moore v. Madigan was never appealed to the Supreme Court because the Illinois legislature simply acquiesced and changed the law, overriding Quinn’s veto. The issue of blanket bans on concealed / open carry has never been ruled on by SCOTUS.

95 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 7:10:12pm

re: #94 goddamnedfrank

Good point, outside is a whole other deal. The original castle doctrine is at home, on your land, and at your place of business. I do not expect he 2nd to underpin CCW.

96 Aunty Entity Dragon  Aug 1, 2014 10:00:35am

re: #93 goddamnedfrank

No it wasn’t mandated at all. Heller only dealt with a ban on handguns in the home, it didn’t strike down the ban on carrying in public. McDonald only extended the Heller decision to the States. The Supremes have never even come close to ruling on a state or municipality’s right to prevent concealed or open carry by civilians when off of their own personal property.

When the SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd amendment as an indivdual right, and applied that to the states…blanket bans became utterly untenable. Maybe you are confused with what a constitutional right is. In any event, rights are subject to reasonable restrictions (like not carrying guns in schools, shouting fire in a theatre etc) but outright bans on a significant part of that right simply cannot pass muster.

Whether SCOTUS ruled well or wisely is another matter…but the ruling was made and bans are not going to fly at this point.

97 goddamnedfrank  Aug 1, 2014 11:40:07pm

re: #96 Aunty Entity Dragon

When the SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd amendment as an indivdual right, and applied that to the states…blanket bans became utterly untenable. Maybe you are confused with what a constitutional right is. In any event, rights are subject to reasonable restrictions (like not carrying guns in schools, shouting fire in a theatre etc) but outright bans on a significant part of that right simply cannot pass muster.

Whether SCOTUS ruled well or wisely is another matter…but the ruling was made and bans are not going to fly at this point.

Sure they are. You are making a huge assumption that SCOTUS’s ruling applies to carry outside the home when it is very specifically limited to possession inside the home. The Supremes didn’t rule on anything beyond that. They had a chance just last year to take up an appeals court ruling that completely dismisses your weird contention that the 2nd applies to carry outside the home, instead they passed and declined to even hear Woollard v. Gallagher. I have no idea why you’re ignoring this.


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
Pino Palladino + Blake Mills + Sam Gendel - Djurkel (Live) Pre-order the new album “Notes With Attachments” available March 12: pinoblake.lnk.to Shop merch: blakemills.lnk.to Follow Pino:Instagram: pinopalladino.lnk.toFacebook: pinopalladino.lnk.toTwitter: pinopalladino.lnk.toSpotify: pinopalladino.lnk.to Tidal: pinopalladino.lnk.to Amazon: pinopalladino.lnk.to Pandora: pinopalladino.lnk.to YouTube Music: pinopalladino.lnk.to Follow Blake:Instagram: blakemills.lnk.toTwitter: blakemills.lnk.toSpotify: blakemills.lnk.toApple Music: blakemills.lnk.toAmazon: blakemills.lnk.toSoundcloud: blakemills.lnk.toPandora: blakemills.lnk.toYouTube ...
Thanos
1 day, 6 hours ago
Views: 259 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
Molly Tuttle, Sierra Hull, Sarah Jarosz -Salt CreekMolly Tuttle, Sierra Hull and Sarah Jarosz playing "Salt Creek" during the Music City Bandwidth's virtual show from The East Room in Nashville on October 15, 2020
Thanos
1 day, 6 hours ago
Views: 215 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
Black Pumas - I’m Ready (Live on the Late Late Show With James Corden) "I'm Ready" is available on the GRAMMY-nominated Deluxe Edition of the Black Pumas debut album. The Deluxe Edition includes 11 bonus tracks (3 brand new songs, 4 covers, and 4 live recordings) and is available now in 2xLP, 2xCD ...
Thanos
3 days, 5 hours ago
Views: 436 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
Tomorrow - Jimmy Wahlsteen, Vincent VegaProvided to YouTube by Epidemic Sound Tomorrow · Jimmy Wahlsteen · Vincent Vega Epidemic Presents: Crates (M. Bison Edition) ℗ Epidemic Sound Released on: 2020-03-13 Producer: Kasper LindgrenComposer: Jimmy Wahlsteen Auto-generated by YouTube.
Thanos
5 days, 23 hours ago
Views: 645 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210221The waterfall bilge pump died three weeks ago.We're trying something new.Saturday we test installed two tiny aquarium pumps to get the waterfall going again.These pumps are very small but are designed to run all the time. Bilge pumps aren't. Though ...
Dangerman
6 days, 3 hours ago
Views: 649 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 •
The Staves - Best Friend [Live at Lafayette] The Staves - Best Friend [Live at Lafayette] Our new album 'Good Woman' is out now: lnk.to Follow The Staves:Facebook thestaves.lnk.toTwitter thestaves.lnk.toInstagram thestaves.lnk.to YouTube thestaves.lnk.toSpotify thestaves.lnk.toiTunes thestaves.lnk.to When I could be anythingThat I wanted OhWe could be better thanBetter ...
Thanos
1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 1,166 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
Sting - Shape of My Heart (Official Music Video)REMASTERED IN HD!Official Video For Sting's "Shape Of My Heart".#Sting #ShapeOfMyHeart #Remastered
Thanos
1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 1,323 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 •
Amy Macdonald - Statues (Single Mix) (Official Audio) One of Amy's best features is that she doesn't "Americanize" her singing voice, something too many UK performers do. The Official Audio for Statues (Single Mix) by Amy Macdonald, taken from the new album 'The Human Demands'. Listen now: ...
Thanos
1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 1,339 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
KALEO - Break My Baby (LIVE From Þrídrangar, Iceland) Break My Baby - Live from Þrídrangar - Iceland Music and Lyrics by JJ Julius Son Stream/Download: kaleo.lnk.to Þrídrangar means “three rock pillars” and is located 4.5 miles from Iceland's south coast. In 1939, three of Westman Islands' best ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 2 days ago
Views: 2,075 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 6 •
Lake Street Dive - Hypotheticals [From Phantom Studios] Video Directed + Produced by Alex Chaloff for Bucket's Moving CompanyRecorded at Phantom Studios, Gallatin TN"Hypotheticals" from the upcoming Lake Street Dive album ObviouslyOut March 12th on Nonesuch RecordsPre-Order Obviously NOW: smarturl.it Produced by Mike ElizondoRachael Price: vocalsMike “McDuck” ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 2 days ago
Views: 1,724 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 4 •