how easy is it to get CC if you don't fall into the typical "i was threatened or attacked once" or "I work next to a drug ghetto" crowd? You need to reason for CC...does "I want to exercise as many rights available to me" actually work? I've looked into CC, and many places say that you need a "good/valid" reason and makes a list. The list basically says, "you must have your fucking life threatened first and then we can decide to issue you a CC license"...
I want to eventually get a weapon because I think it can be a good tool, I'm exerscising my second amendment rights, and it (god forbid) may come in use in the future. However, I really haven't had my life threatened, I don't work in the ghetto. I would still want to CC because as a preventative measure in case anything MAY arise (better safe than sorry), and to further exercise rights available to me that fall in line with the 2nd amendment.
That is really the truth...and has anyone had that work?
I want to eventually get a weapon because I think it can be a good tool, I'm exerscising my second amendment rights, and it (god forbid) may come in use in the future. However, I really haven't had my life threatened, I don't work in the ghetto. I would still want to CC because as a preventative measure in case anything MAY arise (better safe than sorry), and to further exercise rights available to me that fall in line with the 2nd amendment.
That is really the truth...and has anyone had that work?
WTF country do you live in that you believe what you post? You must live in one of those fucked up states.
-edit-
I'm not insulting you, but it's apparent you live in those few "fucked up states" if you're in the US. Move somewhere else, pay a fee, get your CCW.
Nope not at all. If he wants to do it, he'll find a way to do it. Banning full auto is just a feel good measure.
I would think the smart ones would not be using full auto. People get scared of a guy pulling that trigger and mowing down people. What they forgot is that on full auto your accuracy is going to fucking suck balls and probably not hit people. If you really wanted to do it right you'll doing semi auto/popping 2-3 bullets per trigger.
I don't what to say exactly where I live, so I'll pm you the stuff...but its SoCal. I was looking at the sherriff's website with the criteria and went "Mother fucking shit"
edit:
nah didn't see anything insutling about it spidey :beer:
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,562
- 3
- 0
Oh yeah, because I can do a lot more damage in a crowded area (ie: a busy mall) with a semi auto than a full auto with an extended clip. Why we might as well un-invent the machine gun. :roll:
And banning automatic weapons isn't a "feel good measure". Sure if someone really wants to get it they'll get it, but restricting it will make is less available to the average gang-bangers and such who would love to get their hands on something that powerful.
It's not super difficult to modify one to full auto. When was the last time somebody shot up a mall with an automatic weapon? To date no coorelation between banning automatic weapons and a reduction in crime can be shown. It IS a feel good measure.
You can bump fire a rifle making it act like full auto. What next? You want to limit magazine capacity?
And why single out semi shotguns? They aren't near as deadly as a semi rifle at mowing down crowds. When was the last time somebody mowed down a crowd with a semi-auto shotgun? When was the last time somebody got a few ducks with a semi-auto shotgun (hint about 5 seconds ago).
sourceninja
Diamond Member
- Mar 8, 2005
- 8,805
- 65
- 91
The best argument I have heard is this.
Why is the people who want to try to ban guns because they can't control them are the same people who want to legalize drugs because they can't control them?
Why is the people who want to try to ban guns because they can't control them are the same people who want to legalize drugs because they can't control them?
sourceninja
Diamond Member
- Mar 8, 2005
- 8,805
- 65
- 91
Possibly, it did come from twitter.
To be fair however, I do own quite a few weapons and I do kill people on a daily basis. Usually over petty things. It's quite common in this state to get a carry permit, and a pistol and go around murdering people.
To be fair however, I do own quite a few weapons and I do kill people on a daily basis. Usually over petty things. It's quite common in this state to get a carry permit, and a pistol and go around murdering people.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,580
- 982
- 126
Well, unfortunately, this is the type of thing that gets all the press. Nobody gives a shit when criminals use guns...because we can't do anything about that. It's when law abiding idiots go on a shooting spree or when someone's kid gets a hold of a gun that should have been locked away safely and blows away some teachers and classmates that captures national headlines.
Tell you what, you fucking asswipes who own guns legally (and I'm one of them) don't drink and carry, don't be irresponsible with them, and lock your fucking guns up when you aren't using them and you won't give the gun grabbers any more ammunition to disarm you through legislation.
Law abiding gun owners piss me off sometimes with their rhetoric and gun rights bullshit. They seem to feel as if their guns aren't somehow their responsibility. If you need examples of this just go talk to one of these fools about selling guns privately and how that should be handled.
I've met more sketchy "law abiding" gun owners than I'd like to. Honestly, I think some of these people should have to go through a thorough psychological exam before being allowed to possess firearms.
your best argument came from twitter?
:laugh:
/facepalm
i dont have a problem with some regulation. i grew up in eastern nc and lots of people are used to having guns and dealing with them safely. the CCW restrictions here are pretty strict...not so much to get one, you just have to bascially not be a felon and pass a CCW course (im ok with these) but youre severely restricted in where you can carry a concealed weapon here legally.
basically you can have it concealed on private property or in the glovebox of your car. any public place is basically off limits, and public gathering is off limits, any place with any kind of notice about a restriction on fire arms is off limits, and government property is off limits.
now, i expect a number of people around here, a very rural part of the state, can get away with a concealed weapon without a hassle, i dont know the last time i heard of someone getting in trouble for it.
other than that, around here, getting guns, registered and legal or not, is pretty damn easy. theres a pretty healthy used gun market and nobody gives a golly god damn about any paperwork that is legally required for used firearms.
i was actually surprised at how tight the gun control laws are here.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,580
- 982
- 126
SoCal? Yeah, you're fucked. You might as well try to get a weekly pass for free flights on the Space Shuttle.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,580
- 982
- 126
I don't know about magomago but CCW just isn't that important to me. In fact, it ranks up there with how hard the water is. Totally not worth leaving SoCal for IMO.
sourceninja
Diamond Member
- Mar 8, 2005
- 8,805
- 65
- 91
So if you can't carry it in public places, what is the point of a license? I don't need a license to carry a gun on my own property, its my property. I need a license to carry it in public places. I carry my pistol everywhere. The only place I don't carry it is at work because it is against federal law. Protection is not a sometimes thing, it's like saying you only use a condom when you are in a car, but not if you were at the chicks house.
Less reading, more contributing to the discussion is what it means.
I'm surprised at how civil and well reasoned the discussion has been thus far. Apart from me calling out OP on the auto and in kind semi-auto shotgun which I admit could be construed as incendiary, and I apologize for that. Just rehashing the debate that currently illegal weapons are not hard to find or get if you want to use them for illegal puposeses, because at that point you don't care about the consequences of owning or obtaining them because you're already OK with using a firearm to commit a crime, why would you care about the consequences of having the weapon?
Muse
Lifer
- Jul 11, 2001
- 40,871
- 10,222
- 136
Originally posted by: irishScott
So I just had an extensive debate with some of my more liberal acquaintances and I need to get this out. They seem to be of the opinion that severe gun restrictions will magically lead to fewer killings by virtue of the fact that there will simply be fewer guns to go around.
And that's what pisses me off. Alcohol kills more people/year then gun crime. Why don't we give alcohol prohibition another shot? Oh, right, that utterly failed. So instead we've accepted alcohol as a part of life (as it has been for thousands of years), and try to teach people to drink responsibly. When someone doesn't drink responsibly, they are likely to kill themselves if not others. Yet when we hear about an alcohol related death, everyone accepts it as a tragedy and moves on. Maybe MADD makes some noise no one cares about.
When someone uses a gun irresponsibly, suddenly it's OMG WE NEED MOAR GUN RESTRICTIONS!!!!oneone1! Now I'm not saying we should teach firearm responsibility in schools or anything (although the idea has some merit), as guns aren't as ubiquitous as alcohol (hence the fewer gun crime related deaths); but I'm just pointing out the relative hypocrisy here. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible when it comes to their firearms. If they get drunk however...
Thus the issue of deaths due to gun crime as an argument for gun control is laid to rest.
-snip-
I'll comment on your rant thus far (haven't read the rest, I feel I need to answer right here).
First of all, I'm not OK with those alcohol deaths, and you made no mention of the obvious fact that it's not just the alcohol that kills these people. In the vast majority of cases it's alcohol plus driving. I think the courts and legislative/judicial system is way too lenient on abusers of the privilege to drive a motor vehicle. Abusers are constantly getting back behind the wheel in circumstances when they should be barred from doing so. People do not have a God given right to drive. If they have demonstrated that they are not law abiding enough, not mature enough to drive safely, they should be prevented from driving.
Even if it were true that the alcohol attitudes of the nation are hypocritical, this does not put the gun control issue "to rest." Where the hell do you get that? The fact is that severely restricting gun ownership would/will eventually severely deplete the gun activity. It will take a while. People attached to guns are very much in denial concerning this, but it's the truth. It would take a while, a long time in some circumstances but it would eventually work out.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,866
- 10,653
- 147
No, no, no, people are evil.
Guns are merely innocently helpful tools for defending yourself against the satanic tyranny of squirrels, providing the conclusively winning argument in random traffic disputes, and combating the ever increasing Liberal/Negro/Latte slurping menace that is threatening to destroy our vibrantly loud and intolerant yahoo culture and to forcibly impregnate your sister, my friends, no matter how much her mustache and tiny, too close eyes highlight her jiggly morbid obesity.
Those Negroes don't care.
Buy more guns.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter