DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus "These United States" states fight back

Regular people who carry a firearm must know how to handle a firearm if the situation calls for it. You and arch advocate they do not. I know you don't "do links" but you may actually wish to see how a lack of training impacts someones ability to react instead of just continuing with this. But probably not.

We are just going to disagree, so I don't see any point to carry on the conversation any further. This isn't a college debate team where we get "points" for our points, or law school moot court.

It is what it is...carry on.

Somebody enlighten me, define "regular people" and please be specific.

The biggest point in all of this is that laws such as these only give the anti gun people more reasons to call people who uphold such things as "gun nuts" and further garner support for even stricter gun laws that neither of us want.

LOL....go away, ask Pit. He knows what I mean.

Not surprising that you won't define it but you'll say it. I can only guess that you mean people like you, because all the other definitions sound like masked bigotry. You can blow off the question but you can't deny what it sounds like.

Look man...Pit used the term "regular people" just as I. He knows what I mean by that and it isn't anything close to the meaning you make up in your mind.

Please, show me anywhere I said what is underlined. Or even advocate it.

I simply showed you that what you are afraid of happening in TN did NOT happen in Maine.

That in NO way means I endorse it or advocate it. I stated a fact, and you are twisting it to suit you AND adding something I never said, endorsed, or advocated. Happy Easter.

It gets twisted to the point that if you don't see a big problem that you are a advocate.

As are you, I am not an advocate. I wouldn't be calling for such measures if it didn't happen, I just see it as a non starter. As I previously said, I don't see regular folks seeing this as their chance to go out and shoot people.

Nuts are going to do what nuts do, no matter the law.

AND I ASKED:

Somebody enlighten me, define "regular people" and please be specific.

When you say things like "regular" as a qualifier for "people", that suggests that there are irregular or not regular people. I would like to know where those lines are and who gets to decide?

Since it seems to be such a stickler for you I will do it.

Every day people who follow the laws, are not convicted of felony criminal behavior and conduct themselves in a manner where they do not make other citizens victims of their crimes.

I do not wish to consider people who conduct themselves otherwise as "regular people". I would hope that most in our society to consider those who conduct themselves by preying on the rest of society as "irregular people".

If I misspoke I'm sorry about that. Since you posted a source that indicated this isn't a problem I took that to mean you were advocating it. You certainly took no measures to indicate that you didn't. Normally someone shares things that represent their views.

BTW arch. I'm not afraid of it. I'm more than prepared for whatever comes my way. I just know for a fact that allowing anyone and everyone who isn't a convicted criminal to carry a weapon with no idea if they have any sort of experience handling a firearm adds an unnecessary level of danger that is uncalled for.

FWIW, when I hear/read "normal people" in this context, I translate that to 'responsible gunowner' or 'responsible future gunowner'.

-knows what they're doing (through previous experience or safety courses
-keeps them in good working order, and secure
-not at felon or would use them in an aggressive/violent manner

I think responsible people might be a very good term for it. The thing is, the discussion involves people having the legal ability to simply buy a gun, ammunition and a holster, walk outside the gun store, load it and carry it concealed with zero training.

A law that sets up a legal process to conduct yourself in a manner that's totally irresponsible. What I think is causing me not to understand such a law is we have threads showing how people in our society often times exercise almost no responsibility. So now a state decides to pass a law promoting that no responsibility is needed.

So would you consider the 2A gun toters that stormed the capitol buildings "regular people"? Would people like that get guns in your world? I think these people are as big or bigger threat than the mass shooters. And I think mass shootings are horrible, but they don't try to take political power by force to impose their will on me. Fascism is the bigger threat.

I'm not sure you will ever be able to put the mass shooting genie back in the bottle but we can damn sure put the wouldbe insurrectionist in their place.

After they stormed the capital or before? You see, before something happens you can't predict who will or won't be committing an act. Do you stop people from buying guns based on what they believe or according to what they do?

As far as I know there weren't any firearms found on these people nor will most of them be charged with a felony. I don't make the laws but the laws as they exist should be enforced equally on everyone.

I suppose I could pose the same question in the other direction. Should everyone involved in criminal activity that was not a felony during the summer riots not be allowed to own a firearm as well?

If you have a different standard for both groups I would tend to believe that your concern lies much more with the motivation for their actions than the actions themselves.

The 2 A people stormed different State level capitol buildings to intimidate lawmakers with their guns. They claimed it was legal because of open carry laws. These are dangerous people IMHO.

Since you have conveniently adopted a GOPer talking point to justify whatever you think you are justifying, no I don't think BLM protesters should be on the no gun list, but the guys like Kyle Rittenhouse should definitely be on a no guns list. And the rioter who used guns, them too. But they should be prosecuted for their crimes if crimes were commited not for just having a gun.

The point I'm trying to make is that the 2A guys could arguably BE regular people, yet they showed up at the capitols armed to the teeth to take control of or to influence by intimidation the state legislature's business. So who decides who these "regular people" are? I don't think they are regular people but a guy like Peen or Throw might think they are way more regular than me... Who decides?

Because possessing a gun in DC is against the law, by definition, no... those people are not 'regular/responsible' people. I get the feeling that you were asking more of a rhetorical question, but I don't fully understand the point you're trying to make (other than to rant).

I think a better example would be the protestors that demonstrated in the KY capitol building openly carrying and causing a panic. And if your question was applied to that group, my answer would be that according to the evidence at hand (the article), no those folks probably would not meet my definition of responsible gunowners.

Maybe my message was confusing. There's a difference between "what I think and feel" and what the reality of the situation is.

I "think, feel and believe" there should be laws against carrying a gun into a statehouse or any government building. I "feel" that should be a felony offense.

I "think, feel and believe" than everyone who participated in storming the capital was trying to overthrow democracy and committed the crime of insurrection. That would be a felony which would involve a long prison sentence and the inability to ever possess a firearm.

I however am not basing my actual opinion of what should happen on my "thoughts, feelings or beliefs".

That's who I've been talking about, the 2A guys that stormed different state capitol buildings, not the DC insurrectionists. They did it in a few states, and threatened to do it in many others.

Problem being the laws allow for those actions to be legal. Sad but true.

The question was who decides who regular people are? Just answer that.

That's probably a term which may have a slightly different meaning to different people. You quoted something I stated as fact and have asked me a question that's totally unrelated.

I don't find being able to openly carry a weapon in a statehouse as being "normal". That's just the law in certain states.

You asked a hypothetical question that has no answer of certainty. I have no idea what your fixation with it is. I know what seems normal to me and I'm fairly certain you have a concept of what normal means to you.

Insurrection was the event. Sedition is the crime.

just sayin'

Thanks.

I think, if we let only the regular people have guns we'll be ok.

I believe the majority of gun owners are regular law abiding people. That does not mean that a small number of them won't have issues or experience life changing events that push them to do really dumb things.

The problem as I see it is how do you determine if someone will go off 5, 10 , 15 years from now? We can't. Even the Ned Flanders of the world can have a bad day and lose it. I don't see how we can determine and govern on "maybe's".

Which then brings to question. What can we do "better" to ensure people acquiring deadly weapons are being properly trained to use them, store them, and handle them (as much as I hate the car/gun analogies, gun purchase should require some training like driving lessons).

The 2A may be law, but it does say "regulated" which would insinuate even our fore fathers didn't intend an unbridled gun toting citizenry. It should be possible to purchase guns, but requiring some basic training is not something I see as infringing on that right.

The above is just my opinion on the matter, as a gun owner and CCL permit carrier.

Gotcha... then I misread your post(s). My mistake.

Weren't you arguing that Biden hasn't done anything wrong because the federal government has controlled federal lands for decades so it's not really a change?

For nearly 200 years it was perfectly legal to do exactly what you said above.. so there is no "new precedent" being put in motion. You are basically just re-establishing the precedent that existed from 1776 up until about the 1960s.

As for the overall premise of the discussion.. Joe Biden not withstanding, the fact that the political left is opposed to the rights of states (and individuals) should be of no surprise to anybody. They have been hard at work erasing states abilities to govern themselves as much as they could since the great depression and replacing that ability with national mandates...

The left realized long ago that they have solid control of almost every major city of any size in this country and that has only increased recently. They also realize that in between those cities are vast swaths of people who don't want to be controlled by a federal government and the contempt they hold for those people used to be below the radar but as of late the hatred just spews forth about those hard working, independent people. Mocking them just roles off their tongues and goes pretty much unnoticed.. whereas if similar things were said about any of their "protected groups" it would be met with disdain and disgust.. but hey, it's just prejudice and bigotry toward rural white people so say whatever in the hell comes to mind, nobody will care.

Oh dear Lord. what a reach of epic proportions. It's not even worth discussion.