Mace1647545504 Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-no-carry-concealed-weapons-public-175139817.html Where will it stop mace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrodh Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 I know this is missing the point but just start carrying a lot of cash and then apply for conceal permit. So aka be a drug dealer and your gold. Good one Cali Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 In before Kerry wants to continue our conversation on why California sucks. Consider this reason 56 on top of the other 55 already provided. Dianne Feinstein and many others leftist pussies need to be ejected from office. I wouldn't shed a tear if it a Telsa freaked out and ran her down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 NYC has had restrictions like this for years. Know why? 2 reasons: population density and irresponsibility of owners. This is the first time I have heard of it state wide rather than restricted to municipalities but it doesn't surprise me since California as a state has always had high instances of gun violence for both illegal and legal gun owners. laws have to evolve and reflect the needs of the people as they are, not as they were - it is not 1760 and King George isn't coming for you land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furloaf Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 is not 1760 and King George isn't coming for you land. That's good that in 1789 they wrote into the Constitution the process of being amended so that it can change as the times change. What? It would never be ratified? Well tough shit. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty easy to comprehend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 it is not 1760 and King George isn't coming for you land. Nope today the country has brought more shit upon itself than back then by tolerating the poor irresponsible behavior that needs to be punished. Most of the gun violence in the county, especially in LA, is by thugs and drug dealers and basically the scourge of society. In 1760 they likely knew better on how to deal with scourges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Nope today the country has brought more shit upon itself than back then by tolerating the poor irresponsible behavior that needs to be punished. Most of the gun violence in the county, especially in LA, is by thugs and drug dealers and basically the scourge of society. In 1760 they likely knew better on how to deal with scourges. That is pure conjectural bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 That is pure conjectural bullshit. No, if you read through the lists of multiple shooting incidents that were going around being called "mass shootings" by the media near the end of last year when the Cali shootings happened and actually read the articles, nearly everyone one was either Gang or drug related; Inner city shootings with rats killing each other or redneck fucks drunk at a bar or trailer trash type shootings. No, it's not conjecture. I'll find the list and share it with you. That list had links to the stories published and broadcast. It was very comprehensive. I think there was only a handful of middle class family related shootings whereby an Audi owner shot a BMW owner over a dog shitting on their respective lawns. Again, Cali is a leftist liberal BS state of pussies that taxes the hell out of its residents and yet is still broke. A bunch of lawmakers and pansies that have no experience with guns trying to find scapegoats for their lack of being able manage their cities. Their magazine limits, and gun laws that go around hurting the good citizens hasn't proven effective at all. Their criminals and sanctuary city BS will still result in the same old same old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sully Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versluis Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 That is pure conjectural bullshit. Here we go, another Geeto "I'm right your wrong" thread. California sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinner Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 NYC has had restrictions like this for years. Know why? 2 reasons: population density and irresponsibility of owners. So does Chicago how is that working out for them? Just wait till it starts getting hot out too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Tim, it's hard to take you seriously when you call people pussies and pansies. It just shows all you want to do is say inflammatory things with no real merit to "piss off" the imaginary liberals. I get that you are pandering to an audience, it's just unfortunate that you have such a low opinion of your audience that you think this is the appropriate way to reach them. I may have unpopular opinions Tim, but I have the integrity that they are my own. Not going to get into a huge debate with you about how specious your sources are. The underlying flaw in most conservative arguments against gun control is that presumes that the goal is to stop criminals from having guns. It is not, It is to prevent gun deaths in total, and to that end current measures are pretty effective since we are no longer dueling in the streets like the old west. One of the difficulties in making a data driven argument is that the NRA successfully lobbied to suppress gun research. I find it hard to find favor with any organization that feels it is protecting the rights of citizens by suppressing knowledge. so now I am going to take a page out of Tim's book (which is actually an old "Radio trick" anyway) and be intentionally inflammatory to promote discussion: If you argument is gun control is not supported by the "second amendment" your argument is a looser. Why? The only thing the second amendment guarantees is your right to own and carry. This is not a guarantee to carry or own unrestricted, just a prevention of an outright ban. this is supported by 100 years of legislation and case law and is not going anywhere anytime soon. Honestly the only people who are debating this are the extremists on both sides and nobody is taking them seriously. We well never fully ban guns because they are already here and obama or <insert next democratic president here> isn't coming for your guns. So just chill the fuck out. There is already gun control in this country and we aren't going backwards no matter how much you scream about the founding father's intentions. BTW, I am just going to point out here that "arms" in the second amendment was never intended to mean just guns. It also refers to knives, swords, bows, etc...but you don't really see a lot of open carry sword advocates out there. so where are we? well the mainstream national debate is: We already have gun control, but it exists on a local level.... - should it exist on a national level? - If so what should be the minimum standards? - Are the restrictions achieving the desired social goals? The reason why this is such a fractured debate between political parties is they two sides can't even agree on the "goals". Conservatives usually only see control as a measure to reduce gun violence perpetrated by "criminal types" where as liberals see it as a measure to prevent gun death on the whole. One of the reasons we can't see eye to eye is...well...there isn't data to support either course of action because the NRA is suppressing research because it perceives it harmful to their position that ugn ownership makes you safer (the last time research was allowed to be conducted was 1993 and the result was that you are generally not any safer owning a gun). I will point out that what few data points are out there point to the overwhelming majority of gun deaths being linked to suicides and not criminal activity. Increasing background check standards might help with this but is it punishing law abiding citizens? some people seem to think so. This is not a "simple" issue - it is in fact quite complex. There are areas where a national standard might help alleviate some of the issues (like state law management for carry laws), and other areas where a national approach is not the right one (the needs of a firearm as a tool are different in Brooklyn NY than they are in Billings MT). Anybody who is "simplifying" this issue by just calling another group a "pussy" is just choosing to be ignorant of how difficult a problem this really is. Just to tie it all back up - the Yahoo article is written in an intentionally inflammatory way to serve as click bait in our new media society. At the end of the day, the state, which has some of the most densely populated cities in the country, is trying to feel out it's need for justifiable reason to carry. The restriction already exist and was being challenged, nothing is really changing other than a poorly worded decision is being being interpreted in an inflammatory way to get people to click on a yahoo article. I am interested in seeing where this will go if it reaches the supreme court. Again, because California is defending it's existing right to ask it's citizens if a carry permit is "really necessary" doesn't mean Obama is coming for your guns in Ohio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wagner Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Humans will always have the desire to kill other humans always have, always will. The tool is really not relevant., you can take away all the guns, the bad, and the crazy will still kill but with less of these OMG MASS KILLINS Will gun restrictions help limit deaths, you bet your last wooden nickle it will. Guess what, the United States is not really like any other country so applying the logic that "well (insert country) did it, so it has got to work here!" No, no it won't, not to the same level. The fractured political fuckstain we have in this country will never allow the problem to be solved, the right wants to scare you into thinking the left is coming for your guns, the left riles up their base into an insane froth with half truths and other bullshit. tl;dr: People suck, guns are fun, and nobody will ever agree on anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Tim, it's hard to take you seriously when you call people pussies and pansies. It just shows all you want to do is say inflammatory things with no real merit to "piss off" the imaginary liberals. I get that you are pandering to an audience, it's just unfortunate that you have such a low opinion of your audience that you think this is the appropriate way to reach them. I may have unpopular opinions Tim, but I have the integrity that they are my own. Not going to get into a huge debate with you about how specious your sources are. The underlying flaw in most conservative arguments against gun control is that presumes that the goal is to stop criminals from having guns. It is not, It is to prevent gun deaths in total, and to that end current measures are pretty effective since we are no longer dueling in the streets like the old west. One of the difficulties in making a data driven argument is that the NRA successfully lobbied to suppress gun research. I find it hard to find favor with any organization that feels it is protecting the rights of citizens by suppressing knowledge. so now I am going to take a page out of Tim's book (which is actually an old "Radio trick" anyway) and be intentionally inflammatory to promote discussion: If you argument is gun control is not supported by the "second amendment" your argument is a looser. Why? The only thing the second amendment guarantees is your right to own and carry. This is not a guarantee to carry or own unrestricted, just a prevention of an outright ban. this is supported by 100 years of legislation and case law and is not going anywhere anytime soon. Honestly the only people who are debating this are the extremists on both sides and nobody is taking them seriously. We well never fully ban guns because they are already here and obama or <insert next democratic president here> isn't coming for your guns. So just chill the fuck out. There is already gun control in this country and we aren't going backwards no matter how much you scream about the founding father's intentions. BTW, I am just going to point out here that "arms" in the second amendment was never intended to mean just guns. It also refers to knives, swords, bows, etc...but you don't really see a lot of open carry sword advocates out there. so where are we? well the mainstream national debate is: We already have gun control, but it exists on a local level.... - should it exist on a national level? - If so what should be the minimum standards? - Are the restrictions achieving the desired social goals? The reason why this is such a fractured debate between political parties is they two sides can't even agree on the "goals". Conservatives usually only see control as a measure to reduce gun violence perpetrated by "criminal types" where as liberals see it as a measure to prevent gun death on the whole. One of the reasons we can't see eye to eye is...well...there isn't data to support either course of action because the NRA is suppressing research because it perceives it harmful to their position that ugn ownership makes you safer (the last time research was allowed to be conducted was 1993 and the result was that you are generally not any safer owning a gun). I will point out that what few data points are out there point to the overwhelming majority of gun deaths being linked to suicides and not criminal activity. Increasing background check standards might help with this but is it punishing law abiding citizens? some people seem to think so. This is not a "simple" issue - it is in fact quite complex. There are areas where a national standard might help alleviate some of the issues (like state law management for carry laws), and other areas where a national approach is not the right one (the needs of a firearm as a tool are different in Brooklyn NY than they are in Billings MT). Anybody who is "simplifying" this issue by just calling another group a "pussy" is just choosing to be ignorant of how difficult a problem this really is. Just to tie it all back up - the Yahoo article is written in an intentionally inflammatory way to serve as click bait in our new media society. At the end of the day, the state, which has some of the most densely populated cities in the country, is trying to feel out it's need for justifiable reason to carry. The restriction already exist and was being challenged, nothing is really changing other than a poorly worded decision is being being interpreted in an inflammatory way to get people to click on a yahoo article. I am interested in seeing where this will go if it reaches the supreme court. Again, because California is defending it's existing right to ask it's citizens if a carry permit is "really necessary" doesn't mean Obama is coming for your guns in Ohio. I'm going to sue you for the pain and suffering my thumb endured having to scroll past this worthless wall of text. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Alex- Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Not going to get into a huge debate with you... Liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 (edited) Tim, it's hard to take you seriously when you call people pussies and pansies. It just shows all you want to do is say inflammatory things with no real merit to "piss off" the imaginary liberals. I get that you are pandering to an audience, it's just unfortunate that you have such a low opinion of your audience that you think this is the appropriate way to reach them. I may have unpopular opinions Tim, but I have the integrity that they are my own. Yes I can troll with the best of them Kerry. The low opinion is the reality in my view. The integrity of ones opinion is gone when they agree with a pretty clear list of points written by someone else? That's new. also, I think I more than shared my own first-hand experiences in both NY and CA in the other thread. Not going to get into a huge debate with you772 words follow your point and I bet you will. You take bait better than Trump. The underlying flaw in most conservative arguments against gun control is that presumes that the goal is to stop criminals from having guns. It is not, It is to prevent gun deaths in total, and to that end current measures are pretty effective since we are no longer dueling in the streets like the old west. I don't presume that at all. The real goal of the liberals making these decisions is to remove the guns period and they trying little by little. They lack loads of credibility when they have near zero first hand knowledge of guns. One of the difficulties in making a data driven argument is that the NRA successfully lobbied to suppress gun research. I find it hard to find favor with any organization that feels it is protecting the rights of citizens by suppressing knowledge. I think the studies the CDC have published are pretty solid. There is already gun control in this country and we aren't going backwards no matter how much you scream about the founding father's intentions. Good. Now the legislators need to stop enacting ineffective measures like this and get to solving the real issues around the actual cause of deaths and it's not the guns. We've covered this before. The family unit, inner city youth and the core of the problem that the lawmakers don't clearly understand let alone have a clue as to how to resolve are the real areas they need to focus on and sharpen up on. Learning how to load, fire, clean, store and handle an actual gun would be good for many of them too. Time for some of them to put on their big-boy pants and actually get familiar with these tools. Are the restrictions achieving the desired social goals? If you think restrictions are going to solve the problems you're mistaken. No different than speed limits don't keep people under 65mph. The reason why this is such a fractured debate between political parties is they two sides can't even agree on the "goals". Conservatives usually only see control as a measure to reduce gun violence perpetrated by "criminal types" where as liberals see it as a measure to prevent gun death on the whole. How about the liberals work on fixing the criminal element and once they prove they can actually achieve success there then worry about the next step. Again, CDC figures don't show little kids and gun accidents leading the way nor the average respectable gun owner as the leader of firearm deaths either. It's suicides and the criminal element that leads the way. I will point out that what few data points are out there point to the overwhelming majority of gun deaths being linked to suicides and not criminal activity. good to know Suicide is a gun problem. Thankfully the law is passed because we all know the guy about to blow his head off is going to apply for a CHL before he does. (the needs of a firearm as a tool are different in Brooklyn NY than they are in Billings MT). So is the need to own a 4x4 truck. Should we restrict people in Brooklyn from owning one? Anybody who is "simplifying" this issue by just calling another group a "pussy" is just choosing to be ignorant of how difficult a problem this really is. Kerry, the shoe fits. There are plenty of anti-gun folks and lawmakers who are terrified of guns, have zero experience with them and refuse to get educated including working with them first hand. Sorry bud, but if someone is that way, yes, I'm calling them a pussy because they are. Time for them to grow up and quit letting their lack of experience and unfounded fear drive decisions that impact ME and OTHERS. Just to tie it all back up - the Yahoo article is written in an intentionally inflammatory way to serve as click bait in our new media society. welcome to the world of media and news today. At the end of the day, the state, which has some of the most densely populated cities in the country, is trying to feel out it's need for justifiable reason to carry. perhaps its time they listen to their citizens who are showing them solid reason why they feel they are justified instead of living in a vacuum and engaging in conversations around topics they don't fully understand themselves. I know zero about driving a semi truck thus I wouldn't consider myself in a position to discuss the matter let alone make laws around it. Time they do the same. because California is defending it's existing right to ask it's citizens if a carry permit is "really necessary" doesn't mean Obama is coming for your guns in Ohio.sure...thus the reason "not one more inch" comes to mind..... Edited June 10, 2016 by TTQ B4U Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unfunnyryan Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Tim and Kerry walk into a thread /thejoke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex L. Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 The only thing this thread's taught me is that I want to start advocating, as well as demonstrating, open sword carry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 The only thing this thread's taught me is that I want to start advocating, as well as demonstrating, open sword carry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Tim and Kerry walk into a thread /thejoke ^^ Reserving this space for future use Save Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.