Open carry soon to be banned in California.

[irishScott]

By that logic we shouldn't regulate anything ever. We don't need speed limits because responsible drivers will drive a safe speed anyway and irresponsible drivers will ignore it, etc, etc.

Sorry but no. To use your analogy, the answer to speeding is not banning cars.

Also, shall-issue concealed carry means you can legally own a gun and pass a safety test demonstrating basic use.

 

[irishScott]

WTF does any state actually allow loaded open carry, I would hope not. This isn't the wild wild west people.

So all the open carrying done by families defending their homes post-Katrina and by the Korea-town shop owners during the Rodney King riots (after the cops had been swept away) was completely useless right? 🙄

The system is prone to collapse in all areas if properly stressed. The system has collapsed in the past and will again in the future. When that happens, the wild west looks like a picnic.

You'll probably scoff at how unlikely this is in your area or something and dismiss it as survivalist (which it most certainly isn't). But whatever. It's a simple, endlessly provable bland fact that doesn't fit into your fantasies. Deal with it.

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry but no. To use your analogy, the answer to speeding is not banning cars.

Also, shall-issue concealed carry means you can legally own a gun and pass a safety test demonstrating basic use.

First, this description is incorrect. California is not banning gun ownership (cars), it is regulating the way in which they can be used.

Second, I wasn't taking issue with guns specifically, but your logic. Your logic said that those the regulation was seeking to control would ignore it, and that the regulation was unnecessary for everyone else. If that's the case then regulations are unnecessary, period.

 

[momeNt]

Wrong.

It's extremely well documented that laws most certainly change people's behavior through the deterrent effect. Rape and certain other crimes are less amenable to this effect because of the psychological nature of people who tend to commit them, but unless you're saying that people have a psychological compulsion to carry firearms openly we're talking about two different things.

What crimes committed with a gun wouldn't fall under a psychological compulsion that isn't rational and would be effected by a deterrent such as the legality of the action? Besides of course, simply carrying one.

 

[spidey07]

WTF does any state actually allow loaded open carry, I would hope not. This isn't the wild wild west people.

Most do.

An unloaded weapon is a useless weapon.

 

[BadThad]

CA, once again bassakwards. People openly carrying obviously have no intent to commit a crime. If people panic over seeing a hand gun, then they are ignorant pussies.

In my state I must conceal my gun. I don't really mind though, at least I can get a permit to carry and I do every day.

 

[fskimospy]

What crimes committed with a gun wouldn't fall under a psychological compulsion that isn't rational and would be effected by a deterrent such as the legality of the action? Besides of course, simply carrying one.

Armed robbery.

 

[fskimospy]

CA, once again bassakwards. People openly carrying obviously have no intent to commit a crime. If people panic over seeing a hand gun, then they are ignorant pussies.

The ridiculous macho shit in this thread is hilarious to me. I'm willing to bet that I've handled and shot more guns than 90% of the people in here, and I sure as shit don't want to be surrounded with idiots displaying guns everywhere I go.

 

[Jaepheth]

Because a stranger has absolutely no idea who is law-abiding and who is not.

Well then we obviously just need legislation that mandates everyone have "SANE" tattooed to their foreheads at the age of 12 and if someone ever breaks the law in such a way as to deem them unsafe we just add "IN" to the front of the first tattoo.

Now we've eliminated the need for gun control, and racial profiling (there'll be justified tattoo profiling instead). Two birds with one stone.

 

[xBiffx]

The ridiculous macho shit in this thread is hilarious to me. I'm willing to bet that I've handled and shot more guns than 90% of the people in here, and I sure as shit don't want to be surrounded with idiots displaying guns everywhere I go.

So you counter the ridiculous macho shit with some of your own ridiculous macho drivel. Hypocrite.

If I were you, I would be scared. But then again, I don't surround myself with idiots.

As to the car analogy earlier. You are right, California is not trying to take away your guns or cars in that example. But what they are doing is analogous to letting you own the car but you must keep it in the garage, without fuel. Makes the car pretty useless.

 

[momeNt]

Armed robbery.

So you're saying someone wanting to commit armed robbery is like, oh shit, i can't, I can't carry a gun in public?

Isn't armed robbery already a crime! So I think we are covered there. Save our constitution man, we have toilet paper to wipe our ass with instead!

 

[halik]

self hayt

fixed

 

[dphantom]

The ridiculous macho shit in this thread is hilarious to me. I'm willing to bet that I've handled and shot more guns than 90% of the people in here, and I sure as shit don't want to be surrounded with idiots displaying guns everywhere I go.

What macho?? I think it is great people exercising their freedoms. Just like all the other freedoms enumerated why is only carrying a firearm viewed as being ridiculous? It should be celebrated no less than freedom of speech for instance.

And the idea that a person walking around open carrying is a threat to others is simply illogical if one just takes a minute to actually think instead of emotionally responding. A criminal or someone with criminal intent as others have pointed out will not be openly carrying a weapon prior to their committment of an illegal act.

 

[fskimospy]

So you counter the ridiculous macho shit with some of your own ridiculous macho drivel. Hypocrite.

If I were you, I would be scared. But then again, I don't surround myself with idiots.

As to the car analogy earlier. You are right, California is not trying to take away your guns or cars in that example. But what they are doing is analogous to letting you own the car but you must keep it in the garage, without fuel. Makes the car pretty useless.

No.

People in this thread have chalked up opposition to open carry as coming from people who are unfamiliar or scared of guns. My example showed that I am neither, yet I still oppose open carry. This isn't that complicated.

 

[fskimospy]

So you're saying someone wanting to commit armed robbery is like, oh shit, i can't, I can't carry a gun in public?

Isn't armed robbery already a crime! So I think we are covered there. Save our constitution man, we have toilet paper to wipe our ass with instead!

That's not what you asked, so don't get mad at me for not answering a different question than the one you put up. Inhibiting the means by which someone would commit a crime deters both crimes of opportunity as well as providing an avenue for crime prevention.

Constitutional freedoms are not absolute, all are open to reasonable regulation such as this. If you like the Constitution so much, you should read more about it.

 

[momeNt]

That's not what you asked, so don't get mad at me for not answering a different question than the one you put up. Inhibiting the means by which someone would commit a crime deters both crimes of opportunity as well as providing an avenue for crime prevention.

Constitutional freedoms are not absolute, all are open to reasonable regulation such as this. If you like the Constitution so much, you should read more about it.

Well the only reason we protected the right to bear arms is so we could have a a revolution in case the government started taking away our freedoms. Since there is no fear of that, there may not be a reason to allow the right to bear arms anymore.

 

[fskimospy]

Well the only reason we protected the right to bear arms is so we could have a a revolution in case the government started taking away our freedoms. Since there is no fear of that, there may not be a reason to allow the right to bear arms anymore.

I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. Stick to fake economics, it suits you better than fake public policy.

 

[momeNt]

I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. Stick to fake economics, it suits you better than fake public policy.

Keynesianism is fake economics, Krugman himself doesn't even understand how modern fiat money works. Keynesian economics didn't work in hard money currencies, and it doesn't work in non-convertible currencies. Since we are in a fiat money system, it may help if the mainstream economics school is actually informed at how it actually works.

Maybe someone can teach the nobel prize winner MMT because he has tried to learn it on his own and can't grasp it.

http://pragcap.com/paul-krugman-again

http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system


Back to the point of gun control though, you're just refusing to see the point that gun violence isn't stopped by regulation such as this. The only thing it will help is helping people see less guns until one is pointed at them in a violent act.

 

[xBiffx]

Well the only reason we protected the right to bear arms is so we could have a a revolution in case the government started taking away our freedoms. Since there is no fear of that, there may not be a reason to allow the right to bear arms anymore.

The Second Amendment is there to assure that all other rights, namely the Bill of Rights is not infringed upon. Without a way to protect all your other rights and freedoms, the Constitution is merely words without meaning. The Second Amendment assures they cannot be taken away. And if you aren't afraid of the government taking away your freedoms then you truly are living in a fantasy world. Its happening or the attempt is happening everyday with this administration, one example, Obamacare.

 

[schneiderguy]

That's not what you asked, so don't get mad at me for not answering a different question than the one you put up. Inhibiting the means by which someone would commit a crime deters both crimes of opportunity as well as providing an avenue for crime prevention.

Constitutional freedoms are not absolute, all are open to reasonable regulation such as this. If you like the Constitution so much, you should read more about it.

"Reasonable regulations" != completely banning the practice of a constitutional right.

Would you be OK with a "reasonable regulation" on the 1st amendment that said you could only practice free speech inside your home (basically what banning public carry of firearms does?)

 

[fskimospy]

Back to the point of gun control though, you're just refusing to see the point that gun violence isn't stopped by regulation such as this. The only thing it will help is helping people see less guns until one is pointed at them in a violent act.

I'm not interested in your fake economics that eschews scaaaaaaary math. There's a reason why the Austrian school is considered a joke by real economists.

I'm not refusing to see your point, I just think your point is wrong. Not to mention it only addresses one aspect of why open carry laws exist, ignoring that communities are most certainly allowed to regulate the circumstances under which someone may brandish deadly weapons in public.

 

[fskimospy]

"Reasonable regulations" != completely banning the practice of a constitutional right.

Would you be OK with a "reasonable regulation" on the 1st amendment that said you could only practice free speech inside your home (basically what banning public carry of firearms does?)

1.) This is not a complete ban of a constitutional right in any way, shape, or form.

2.) Speech and guns are two very different things. This law does not ban having firearms outside of the home. Also, the idea that what would constitute a reasonable regulation of speech and a reasonable regulation of a gun would be the same thing is absurd on its face. Anyone should be able to see the absolute silliness of such a statement.

Both are constitutional rights. Both are subject to reasonable regulation. Both are NOT subject to identical regulation.

 

[fskimospy]

The Second Amendment is there to assure that all other rights, namely the Bill of Rights is not infringed upon. Without a way to protect all your other rights and freedoms, the Constitution is merely words without meaning. The Second Amendment assures they cannot be taken away. And if you aren't afraid of the government taking away your freedoms then you truly are living in a fantasy world. Its happening or the attempt is happening everyday with this administration, one example, Obamacare.

Hahaha. Why don't you go tell us some more about the 10th amendment and states ruling things to be illegal, Mr. Constitutional scholar?

 

[xBiffx]

Hahaha. Why don't you go tell us some more about the 10th amendment and states ruling things to be illegal, Mr. Constitutional scholar?

Seems to me that the 10th Amendment is pretty straightforward. If a power is not given to the federal government specifically in the Constitution, then that power is reserved for the states. I've read through it and I'm not seeing anywhere where the Constitution says the federal government has the right to require its citizens to purchase something, namely healthcare. That being the case, its for the states to decide, and since some have decided that its illegal for the government to require its citizens to purchase something then the federal government can't go back and require it. That is, of course, unless there is another amendment passed, ratified by the states, that changes this.

Then again, why am I having to say this when you don't recognize the fact that the Constitution and its Amendments are indeed laws.

 

[momeNt]

Thomas Jefferson in today's USA would just be some redneck buffoon with a tinfoil hat on while polishing his gun muttering that the gub'mint is out to steal his freedoms.

Nothing to fear anymore though, just ask eskimospy.