kaninja

bill1024
Lets start with parents teaching their kids right from wrong and some work ethic.
Then maybe we would not need a gun to protect ourselves. Tech them it is cool to stay in school.
Stop breaking up families by not giving support to the moms when the father lives in the house. Let the fathers live there and help the whole family.
How about relaxing some regulations and make it easier on business to get established and create some jobs.
We hardly make anything here anymore. Making things is a dirty business. Most all steel mills are gone, most electronics are made over seas.
Maybe there would not be so much crime if we did not glorify people who resist arrest and vilify the police for doing their job.
Most all the the people getting shot by the police have two things in common. Long arrest records and resisting arrest.
Decline of the family, no education and no morals. What do you expect to happen. Crime, gangs and drug dealers.
That is why we need guns.

You make some good points Bill. I disagree with relaxing regulation due to businesses and the financial sectors proven history of making decisions that jeopardize the public's best interest and look only to pad their own pockets. After decades of deregulation we see the largest financial inequality in the history of the U.S. What we do know is there is a third thing that those that are both victims of gun violence and those that are the perpetrators of have in common.....poverty.

My Grandfather was murdered in Hawaii in 1980 while on vacation. I was only 4 years old, but when I got older I needed answers of how this happened....or at least what might have been contributing factors besides "some evil man stabbed him to death in his hotel room". It turned out 1980 was one of the worst years economically in Hawaii's history with rampant unemployment and poverty levels.....the worst in their history. I later did a paper in school that showed the same thing not just in the U.S. but around the world....as poverty levels rise so do the violent crime and murder rates.

So instead of worying about guns, I say lets look at the entire landscape and see what is really happening. There should not be so much poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth.....work on that and the rest will follow.

BF3PRO
I don't really think it's deregulation doing that... It's more the government picking which ones to help and which ones not too help... Under bush we saw some of the heaviest business regulations and the Obama administration has dereged cronies and made it harder for true capitalists... I just think that if everyone did what they wanted as long as they didn't hurt anyone that'd be fine but people worry about what others do... That's why I like all the Canadians I know... They mind their own business and don't really try and control others...

nateman_doo
 
Scared sheep?  So if numerous armed persons came to your house, what would you do?  I think the term your looking for is COMPLY, not bow down like a shaky robot.  The actions taken by the police were DEAD WRONG.
 
Lets look at this 2 ways...  You hear a banging at your door, you open the house door and you are confronted by 2 scenarios.  Since you still have a screen door your afforded a moment (lets give you 5 seconds) to analyze the situation.
 
Scenario 1:  Cops.
They have body armor, firearms experience, superior numbers, tactical training, and backup.  They come to your door and threaten you in an offensive posture that they are taking your guns.  Whether they were right or wrong, anyone who is a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN is going to do what the police ask.  shaky robots?  What law abiding citizen wants another Waco compound shootout??  This was a VERY localized incident. If you manage to kill all the cops at that particular moment, they will all descend upon you with everything they have.  You fight these things in court after they happen but your still alive to do so.
 
Scenario 2: Thugs.
They have no body armor, possibly slight experience with their weapons, superior numbers, no tactical training, and limited backup.  They come to your door and threaten in the same offensive posture that they are going to take EVERYTHING YOU OWN (not just your guns) likely kill you.  You have to fight back, because you are in the right to exercise lethal force.  If you kill them all on the spot, your have stood your ground and no more attacks will likely happen.  If nothing else the police will show up and file a report.
 
 
While people have different opinions about open carry, I will submit this little bit of logic:
Does anyone mess with cops?  No.  Why?  Because they open carry.
Will you walk up and assault a person with a gun on their hip?  NO.  why?  because they can shoot you.
 
You can mess with anyone, but you don't know if they are carrying a concealed weapon on them.  So its at your own peril in texas, meanwhile most of us here in Jersey.. its hunting season year round.  The open carry takes the guess work out of it. 
 
I am going to take a guess that you aren't a parent?  When you know how defenseless you truly are and your children lives can be ended in horrific fashion before your very eyes, you will know why people carry.  If you are, then well... life is good for you in your little bubble.
 
The cops are supposed to be the good guys.  I think what they did was dead wrong, but this again was a VERY unique circumstance and the order to confiscate the weapons was probably brought about by a politician that has the same mindset as you do.  It should bother everyone how the police acted.  Just imagine if they took something YOU cared about, like your bowl of Kashi, or granola or something.  The fact that it happened to gun owners is where you don't care, but if they took the paper of the college campus protesters... oh boy you would be singing about the 1st amendment.  And then you would understand how ignorant you sound and how angered we are that their second amendment right was taken.
 

MrImSoGood

BF3PRONo one was saying you're against guns... Scenarios don't matter the fact that the police carry is reason enough for me to as well...

bill1024
People with guns kill 13,000 a year, smoking kills 400,00 people a year, cars 25,000 a year, alcohol/drugs 200,000 a year, abortion 5,000 a day
 

rjohnson11
We haven't locked this thread yet but we've received some complaints. Please stay on topic, no insults, and post professionally. We also ask everyone to stop the deliberate misspelling of Texas and using two ss's in the state name. 

Greenfire
 
Your guess is wrong. I have two daughters but that's irrelevant to the point I made earlier. The authorities confiscating legal owners' firearms door-to-door after Katrina like the Gestapo had nothing to do with open carry.
 
Let's remember that it was the Bush admin., which was heavily supported by the NRA and most gun nuts. My point was that we didn't see any of these self-proclaimed tough guy "liberty lovers" or rabid 2nd Amendment supporters doing anything about having their guns taken illegally by the evul gubmint. They caved like the chicken hawk blowhards most of them are, (just like their "I'm a WAR Preznit!" Shrub, Dickless Cheney, and several others got out of the Vietnam War he/they should have served in. FWIW, as an Army vet I found that quite despicable.) But we didn't see any opposition armed militias materialize that the gun nuts fantasize about, or AFAIK not even scattered individual push back on those illegal confiscations.
 
You guys let us know when/if you decide to get an armed militia together to oppose the fascist gov't + corporations that we've had since at least 2000. What are you brave patriots waiting for? Isn't Jefferson's 'Tree of Liberty' long overdue for some refreshing with the blood of patriots and tyrants? If what has happened in the last 15 years isn't enough to "take back your liberty", what would be?
 
I won't be holding my breath. I'm also done with this ridiculous thread.

nateman_doo

JustinHEMI
A lot of people say that guns in the hands of civilians is blood in the streets. Every time gun rights are expanded, they say that. When the idiot AWB of the 90's expired, they said that.
 
Yet, blood doesn't run in the streets.
 
Justin

exactly.  Politicians in NJ think that if the citizens carry, the wild west will happen and we will have shootouts in the parking lots.  Why they cant see that this doesn't happen in the 40some other states that are "shall issue" is beyond me. 

lempo
My biggest concern with open carry is that it is has the potential to actually provoke an engagement. Not only by others that are carrying, but by law enforcement in general. When you see a law enforcement agent carrying a gun, you instantly recognize that as part of their job, to uphold the laws that society has deemed as a necessity. It comes with a badge and uniform that says this person has at least received some level of training and is endorsed by an organization that should have your best interest in mind (even though that's not always the case, it was the founding principal). Then on the other hand, you might be walking down the street with your family and you see John Q. Public wearing a sidearm. Most likely your first inclination would be to round up your kids and cross the street. It's that form of intimidation and uncertainty that I don't find welcoming, and would not want to incite in others. That is my reason for choosing not to open carry.

lempo
This definitely seems to be a hot topic for people that don't even live in Texas. I personally choose not to carry a gun, and not because I lived some magical fairytale of a sheltered existence that seems to be the go to argument against people who don't. The mere fact that this topic can't even be discussed with a civil tone is maybe the best evidence for it being generally a bad idea. That being said, I have nothing against people that want to open carry. The people that are licensed to carry have never really been the problem in the first place.
 
My biggest concern with open carry is that it is has the potential to actually provoke an engagement. Not only by others that are carrying, but by law enforcement in general. When you see a law enforcement agent carrying a gun, you instantly recognize that as part of their job, to uphold the laws that society has deemed as a necessity. It comes with a badge and uniform that says this person has at least received some level of training and is endorsed by an organization that should have your best interest in mind (even though that's not always the case, it was the founding principal). Then on the other hand, you might be walking down the street with your family and you see John Q. Public wearing a sidearm. Most likely your first inclination would be to round up your kids and cross the street. It's that form of intimidation and uncertainty that I don't find welcoming, and would not want to incite in others. That is my reason for choosing not to open carry.
 
P.S. choose your responses wisely! the Admins open carry on these forums...