RVTPilot

I compromised and called an ambalamps. While they take her to the ER I am picking up take out for both kids, the emergency responders, and myself. I will try your idea on Zach next time. He's meatier anyway.

He just wants to be air tight in a bipartisan sausagefest.

You know, just to prove you wrong, I spent the last few minutes setting fire to my 6 year old. Yeah, she screamed, but they do that when playing anyway, so it wasn't hard to block out mentally. And truth be told, after a few moments, it all really just kinda smelled of mongolian BBQ. So now I am hungry, and wondering if I should stop for take out before or after we get to the ER. Hmmmm.....I wonder if Maing Wok delivers to St. Johns West Shore?

Wait......I have supporters?

I am the authority in the means to which I choose to protect myself. My mental state is not your concern until I have done something wrong to cause harm to others. Denying someone the opportunity to defend their life because they have the potential to cause others harm is too restrictive and fraught with the potential for abuse. Racially, socially and culturally are just a few with many, many more, I don’t want a higher authority to judge anyone on their potential to do wrong; I want it to be for actually doing something wrong. I understand your point here, but still feel that in order to carry a firearm into a public setting, you should have to maintain a certain level of competency. I do understand that instituting an unbiased system to qualify someone would be difficult, and you mention some reasons that I will get to later for their effect on this issue. For me however, its difficult to get past the idea of someone who clearly has no business OC'ing, or even CC'ing for whatever reason, and then punishing him after he has done irreparable damage to an otherwise innocent family. I don't want to come off as posing this person and guilty until proven innocent, but the damage done when that mistake takes place would very likely outweigh the liberties compromised for him. I could just as well use a hammer to abuse another if I were so inclined so the tool I choose to use makes little difference. I do hate any of the gun laws we have but I don’t find them to be ambiguous. I know when I am carrying legally and illegally, adding another layer of bureaucracy won’t help to make the laws easier to understand or make us safer from those who would abuse a firearm. The possession of a firearm doesn’t turn anyone into a social degenerate, by percentages we have few gun related deaths compared to ownership, I hate to use this as an argument though because to tries to place the gun at blame which it clearly is not. I find it very hard to swallow your statement that our species and sociological state is such that we don’t have the capacity to responsibly own firearms. Law enforcement carry them along with millions of other people, I carry one and you are not any safer from me causing you harm because I have gone through higher authority to do so and I am sure that standard applies to the millions of others who carry. You don't find them ambiguous because you are smarter than the average bear. You have taken it upon yourself to educate yourself on them in order to have the ability to CC. But if we have both gun owners and law enforcement questioning them and having difficulty understanding the aspects of them, then there is obvioulsy some problems there. I am sure a good bit of it comes down to education, be it John Q. Gunowner taking the time to catch up on them, or law enforcement being properly trained. When it comes to the laws, I am not saying the answer is more laws, but simply more concise language so that the understanding is easier for all. And I will go back and check my context, but I did not intend to imply nor do I think I said owning a gun makes one a social degenerate. In fact, I think that somewhere in my dialogue, I mentioned that while a gun is often the common denominator in an unfortunate event, its often not the single greatest factor in said event. And I did not say we don't have the capacity to own a firearm, but we are not born with the understanding of that responsibility of owning them, and simply giving someone the right to do so without any formal training is irresponsible citizenship. Law enforcement carries them and has had necessary training. You and I received training thanks to Uncle Sam, and you have continued yours in order to acquire your CCW permit. However, if I am not any safer from you for any reason while you carry then you would have no business carrying a weapon in public. What makes me safer, carrying a gun of my own? Only if I shoot you preemptively. Even if your weapon of choice is anything other than your gun, to arbitrarily attack someone is proof enough that you would have no business carrying something with the effective lethal capabilities of a firearm. And I know that one of the reasons you carry one is in the event that you would encounter someone in public acting out in that fashion, and if he's armed with anything less than a gun, one of the first "things you would think is "damn, I'm glad he didn't have a gun!" You are trying to make my head explode by saying there is someone who knows better than me how aggressive I am to defend myself. I like to be prepared for situations and in most cases I am over prepared, this doesn’t mean I need to use the full capacity of how I am prepared. I don’t pull off a perfectly good tire just because I have a spare; I won’t shoot fifteen times when three will do. My ability to apply discretion is immeasurable along with anyone else’s, again find fault if they have abused it don’t try to define it. Judging someone not capable is arbitrary, punitive and is not the place of government as a preemptive strike for their potential to cause harm. We are all capable of that and no man can determine what is in our hearts. I don't want your head exploding, especially if you have an LCD monitor. They need to be cleaned carefully. Again, you are not a good example here, because you have exercised proper judgement and have acquired significant enough training to justify carrying. But I don't think the ability to do so should just be handed out to anyone because the feel the need to defend themselves as an American. My father has a friend who is a paranoid schizophrenic. A loving soul and not unintellignet, yet completely terrified of his own shadow. Yet by being an American, he's entitled to carry a gun? Maybe the gun makes him feel safer from the shadows, but what happens when he decided to shoot up the shadows and hurts or kills an innocent bystandard? So that man's right to carry a gun to potentially defend himself has now cost someone their life, or drastically altered it at least, when its preventable by not allowing him to becom armed to that degree. Sure this might be a radical example, but how far is it from the point you are making with regard to not knowing what is truly in one's heart? And I can smell the comments coming about someone being able to kill with a hammer or crowbar...yada yada yada. True. But the maximum effective range of that device it usually arms length, maybe a few feet if the crackpot can throw it with any sort of accuracy. But a hammer does not have maximum effective range of 50 yards and travel with enough kinetic energy to explode a watermelon. I wasn’t calling out your patriotism when I made that statement and regret you took it as such. I find the constitution to be a wise document with much foresight that I don’t take exception to, so defending it wasn’t a conflict for me. I believe in the people it protects more so than the instrument of a government, so my inclination is to trust them to do the right thing with their freedoms and punish them if they are abused not to regulate them to my comfort level. I didn't feel as if you called my patriotism into question, but more to elaborate on the point you touched on, and there wasn't any offense taken. I think the Constituion is still a viable document and very necessary, but as our nation and society evolves, it must as well. Proof of this is the right to vote being extended to women and minorities, which at that time was long overdue. There wasn't conflict for me with the document in as much as I knew that I would be defending the right of Americans to abuse those liberties, and that was disheartening to say the least. You and I took up the fight to allow Americans to burn their own flag, or to demonstrate that a race can promote themselves greater than the race of a fellow American. Those things sadden me, but to put the kaibosh on them then inhibits the rigts and privileges of others.

RIP to the rider, and condolences to that family. The kid blew a .171? Holy shit! 23 is plenty old enough to know better. He needs to do some serious time in the joint and have his license revoked. Permanently.

ouch, mang! glad you were able to make it back and post. I took a crow off my dome a couple months back at about the same pace, maybe a bit slower. didn't do muck to me, but being hit in the chest where there is nowhere to glance off is a different story.

that hurt to watch.

I don't think a man with a fuzzy green sports mascot as his avatar needs to be singing the virtues of his manhood.

I think the above line is the only consistently agreed upon statement in this entire thread. Rather than try and go go spot for spot and reply (as that might induce a seizure on my part) I will do my best to respond to the highlighted comments you provided. And again, I appreciate a spirited and intelligent debate. First, in my mind, I see carrying a weapon as falling under the same privilege, or right on the other side of an arguement. IMHO, I am looking at it being a privilege to carry any firearm into a public setting that it is otherwise unnecessary to do so. (I'm going to the range, goin' hunting with the boys, my teenage daughter is pregnant; these are all justified reasons to leave the house loaded for bear.) To a degree, OC vs. CC is semantics. I understand your perspective on having it and not needing it, like life insurance I guess. Just seems like a drastic measure for everyday comings and goings, but to each his own. And you are correct that ordinarily mundane situations can turn violent out of nowhere, but I wouldn't consider even having a weapon to be the answer in all of them, and perhaps it being a negative component of the situation potentially. With the laws, I too feel that there are: a) too many, b) too ambiguous, c) should be consitent from state to state. Like health care now, the right to bear arms is provided by the federal government. It should be up to them to control and maintain the systems and standards by which that is done. This would be beneficial to both the gun toting public, and those opposed to it in having clear, concise information for each side. You and I probably come from simialr backgrounds, and have passed the respect for guns down to out children. I have a 9 year old son and a 6 year old daughter. Both know there are guns in the house, neither of them know where they are right now. They have both been exposed to them, and will get more as they get older. (My son has shot a .22 and the one I hve in my home now is intended for his use as he is getting older. His grandfathers and I have been training him on the proper use and respect of guns with this rifle.) I agree that there is a strong amount of anti-gun sentiment within the U.S., and a lot is based on a lack of or misinformation by the uneducated public. Some is based on the involvement of guns in repeated negative and horrific unncessary situations (boy finds gun, accidentally shoot own brother, postal workers, etc.) The common denominator in those situations is the gun, while the other equally or even more significant (i.e. human mental instability) factors existed. That is an uphil battle gun activists will continue to fight until humans are no longer made out of people. I understand your point as well in that those that OC rarely have anything to hide, but seem to have a point to make. You, by your comments here, simply carry because you chose to, not to drive home any particlar point. But there are just as many gun activists using OC as marketing for their agenda as there are anti-gunners with megaphones and signs. As long as there are sides to be taken, there will be radicals on each side. When it regards a volatile subject such as carrying a gun in public, those who are radically for that idea can be extremely polarizing to the other side, sometimes to the point of actually doing a disservice to their own cause. I am figuring on you not being that radical, and also appreciate your feedback in that most of your looks and inquiries from the non-gun carryig public are more of curiosity and not of disdain. That no doubt benefits the pro-gun ideology, and will perhaps begin to sway the tide of negative gun perception in our country. I think the biggest disagreement we might have is your comaprison to free speech and the right to carry a weapon. You have never accidentally said "Obama is an idiot" and paralysed someone from the waist down, or shot yourself in the leg. Yes our words carry weight, and we are entitled to them. But no one has had to carry a casket because their mouth accidentally went off in Wal Mart. All men are created equal. All rights do not carry the same weight and gravity when exercised. (FWIW, no one has ever said "Obama is an idiot" by accident. It is always on purpose, and quite often correct.) You and I are both aware of the consequences that come with exercising ones liberties, having been places where they are not nearly as wide ranging as the ones we enjoy (and some take for granted) here in America. And with regard to the the "expert" commentary that I gave birth to, that was relatively speaking. Even our difference of opinion notwithstanding, because of this conversation your words carry with them a great deal of weight as you have admitted looking to learn more about ths subject, and cite facts that you are aware of. I too look tobe more informed about the subject, and hope that in doing so, the differences that lie scattered amongst this subject decrease and there is a means to getting everyone in the conversation equally informed. We may never completely agree, but if we can base our opinions on understood facts all around, it makes for a better debate. And FWIW, don't get me wrong. I am far from anti-gun. I am pro gun, as a matter of fact. But I am a HUGE proponent of responsible gun ownership, to the point that if its necessary for me to sacrafice my right down to a privilege to make it better for the masses, then I will do so. I know asking fellow gun owners to do so is like asking Ricky Lake to lay off the cake. And as we have often referenced our sworn duty to defend the Constitution and those subject to it, I am also responsible to those who have views that differ from my own, and when presented tactfully, I respectfully defend them. I think if I would take a bullet for Slick Willie C, I can agree with a thing or two Ms. Mary Nogun has to say.

I think we are lost in translation somewhere, UP, though if we are not, I will respectfully agree to disagree. I would wholeheartedly agree that self preservation is a right. The means by which you chose to preserve yourself however should be graduated, and those with the most significant means of permanently altering ones life (and the understood means of self preservation) should not be granted simply because of citizenship. I didn't state that I think the defending ones self was a privilege. We are all born with the right to preserve and protect ourself. But in this day and age, I am not of the opinion that it for one takes a handgun to do so, nor do I think because you have the right to defend yourself that it gives you the right to simply carry a gun without proving you have the mental stability to do so, or established yourself to some form of authority the proper judgement skills necessary to carry a firearm in a public setting. Some of this has to do with the ambiguity that currently exists with our gun laws, some of it has to do with our species and its current sociologial state with regard to firearms. You and I both know that the moment you were in a position to discharge a firearm in a public setting because you understood your life to be in imminent danger that your life, as well as everyond around that situation would be changed permanently, regardless of the level of significance for each person. That shot fired is a bell you cannot unring. Regardless of where that bullet would land, or the harm done, that is a situation that I would want the person posessing and discharging that weapon to be certified and recognized beyond a reasonable doubt to be capable of understanding the responsibility that comes with that decision. You and I both know as well that not every person born unto this nation is capable of understanding and respecting the gravity of said descision. It is within those parameters that I find the right to self preservation becomes dependent on the privilege of how it is executed. Your right to self preservation also allows you the ability to not engage in activity that is potentially threatening. Are we aware of every single threat out there when we step outside the confines of our homes, of course not. Is it necessary to then take the steps to deal with a worst-case scenario each and every time we leave? Not really. Each moment is a judgement call, and therein lies the most significant aspect of self preservation: discretion. And unfortunately, ever single born American does not come equipped with the discretion necessary to carry a firearm. Therefore I feel the ability to do so should be extended as a privilege to those who have satisfied an established set of requirements, and be able to maintain one's standing within those parameters rather than simply being born under the Constitution of The United States of American and co-signed with their birth certificate. And as you recognized me as someone sworn to defend that Constitution, I did so, and would do so once again with these views. I know that my POV is one of desired perfection for this case, I know that its not always wise to allow perfection to interfere with simply making things better. With what wisdom and experience that I have acquired in the 19 years since I took that oath, I would have done it all over again, and would today, were it not for the fact my body isn't much more than a one-time protective device for the Marine standing behind me. Hell, I served the majority of my service under Bill Clinton, and I loathe the idea he was ever leader of the free world. He shit on us when we were in, and showed little respect for the veterans while he served his watch. But I would have then, and would now for the current President take a bullet for them. Not because of the person they are, but what they represent. So if I am willing to take one for freaking Bill Clinton, I would die on any soil to preserve the rights and freedoms of my fellow Americans. Even if I don't agree to the degree of liberty that they provide.

Gotcha. It piqued my curiosity, since I understand that recording audio of someone without their consent is inadmissable in either prosecution or defense of someone. Now perhaps I am wrong on that, and if someone has the details, please let me know. Either way, it just kinda stuck out to me. No big deal. Thanks for answering my question very directly. I guess my unsolicited $.02 would be that regardless what is currently on the books about inducing panic may help once you get to the courtroom, but in the court of public opinion, where Johnny and Jane Smith take their families out they aren't up-to-speed on that, nor are they accustomed to someone OC'ing all over the place. You just said yourself, "that I know a person OC'ing is not always a welcomed sight". So you know that as soon as you step foot out of your front door, someone is not going to get it right. Someone is going to either challenge you (hence the need for your voice recorder) or at the very minimum, you are going to get disapproving stares from other customers in the establishment. The reality is regardless of the laws on the books, folks are uncomfortable with other folks they don't know touting lethal hardware. And quite frankly, if you don't carry a badge John Q. Public does have the right to question whether or not you should be carrying a weapon in plain sight and close proxmimity of him and his family, and John Q. Manager has the same to do so for his establishment. I do agree with your sentiment that in the case of a store that sells weapons, one would expect him to be better versed on the laws at hand, but that doesn't make it a requirement. Hell, folks buy computers from jackoffs at Best Buy all the time, and I know the lion's share of the blue polo hardware jockeys know jack shit about PCs other than what's on sale. Still, there seems to be the overwhelming contingent of gun owners who take offense at anyone taking the time to question why they are carrying a weapon somewhere, yet cannot seem to understand how someone who doesn't feel the need to pack heat to go get groceries wonders to themselves "he has a gun, what makes him/her uniquely qualified to carry one near me?". Chev, I know (for as much as our non-pr0n interwebz site can provide me with) you are a decent guy. You're a fellow vet, and by and large, that plenty enough for me to be comfortable with you carrying around me. And I figure that for the most part, you don't OC as if its your entry into a biggest dick contest. My guess is at worst one of your thoughts as you OC is the same as the marking on a poisonous creature in the wild. "I am potentially dangerous only if you fuck with me. Otherwise, we're good". And as someone myself looking to acquire my CCL this year, I am good with folks who ask those that openly tout their firearms why they do so, and to a degree, even questions your answers as to whether or not they are fact. Just because you know you have read the laws, that doesn't make you the expert to the public. In your own mind and hear you know this, and that's good from the standpoint that it is the framwork by which you carry yourself, and your weapon. Think about this. We question law enforcement all the time. You do both as a motorcyclist with reference to traffic and vehicle laws, and as an armed citizen about weapons laws. In some cases, for very good reason and some mebers of law enforcement have proven to be behind on the latest laws, or in some very few cases simply abuse their authority. In the same vein, common citizens have the right to question why you are carrying. A citizen's right to bear arms does not supercede his or her fellow citizen's right to openly question that armed citizen's need to do so, or whether or not they are uniquely qualified to possess and brandish a weapon. I am of the opintion that right now, the Constitution has it wrong. It should not be a right to bear arms simply because you were born into this nation, but a privilege to those Americans that have proven themselves worthy of that responsibility. That amendment is dated, and refelctive of the nation at that particular time, and not the vastly different nation we find ourselves in right now. And before anyone gets going on the "well that won't stop the criminals from carrying..." angle, well, no shit. That isn't what we are talking about here. Think about this. Were it based on the privilege of carrying, you would then immediately reflect upon those around you that you have (or should have) met all the necessary criteria to posession of that weapon, and potentially far less of the questioning and disapproving stares from your fellow countrymen. If law enforcment asks you for proof, you show them your license, and be on your way. But by having it as a right that is justifaibly debated now, and then subject to a variety of different laws from one place to another, one situation or another, we will continue to find ourselves mired in constant debate of which right it greater, who is right, and who is wrong, which only exacerbates the tension between gun activists, and anti-guners. I think that if you feel that where you are going is potentially unsafe, you have the right to be prepared to defend yourself. But there's also advice we all got from mo mand dad a long time ago. If its not someplace you feel you're safe, ya probably don't need to be going there in the first place. Just because the store is called Target doesn't mean it is filled with them.

Chevy, quick question. Of all the conjecture in this thread on all sides, the one thing that jumped out at me was your digital voice recorder. Is that something you require for your job? Just curious how that worked its way into the conversation.

I wonder if you have to possess some sort of license or certification to buy them, sort of like science teachers who buy chemicals for chemistry class. I would hate to think just any keyboard jockey on the interwebz can get a hold of one of these.

Freaking ouch. Simialr to Russell at Daytona a few years back. He did right by raising his hand, but you have to sit still. You start walking it, and you wobble. Though no one has to tell him that now.

That is a non-kiddo weekend for me, so I think I am in!

[attach]1878[/attach]

wd40 ftmfw!

Happy Birthday, mang!!

Truly saddening to discover this. RIP Tim, and thoughts and prayers to the family. Shocking and sad.

@ UP & Inya...FWIW, Kev and I have been talking about a ride up around our area up here (though its not as twisty as Coshocton) and coming back to my place and grilling out. I am more than happy hosting the gang post ride and maybe it would be a shorter route if we'd all be coming back here and hanging out, but I'll throw it out there. And it would be around end of July that we'd be talking. I would want to do it on a sans kids weekend myself, so I can PM you those dates if you are mildly interested, either of you.

Sorry to hear about his incidnet. Hope things take an upturn soon.

42

I got home, had a beer, couple bottles of water, a shower, then a nap until 6. Hit bed around my regular bedtime of 11:30.

Just a couple of good ol' boys negotiating a fair price on that strapping black man for work one of our plantations. Or two frightened pasty crackers fearing the wrath of a huge black gentleman who was fed up with the system and looking to take his frustrations out on the first two honkeys he saw. More of the latter, I think. Especially since I am the one on the left.