• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Good guys with guns' hinder police

its hilarious seeing progressives complaining about a freedom that bothers some of the control freak members of police departments. We will keep that in mind when the Antifa and other rent a riots are engaging in civil unrest

It's up to the states if open carry is a right. Antifa should be treated the same as Nazis.
L.A. bans pepper spray, baseball bats, weapons and other items at protests
...
The City Council voted 13 to 1 to pass an ordinance that would prohibit a long list of items at rallies, demonstrations and public assemblies, including metal pipes, swords, torches with an open flame, bricks, signs that are not made out of soft material or thin cardboard, and shields made of wood, metal or hard plastic.
...
 
Thank God and the 2nd Amendment that a good man with an AR15 engaged Devin Kelley long before police arrived. Otherwise would have most surely had more innocent people slaughtered in cold blood.
 
Since the right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right, either concealed carry or open carry must be a right.

I'll argue that you're Constitutionally incorrect here. The Bill of Rights refers to the Federal government. Civil Rights, for example, have been extended by Amendment, and others have been extended by court rulings.

Going to the key case:
District of Columbia v. Heller

...D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this (2nd amendment) guarantee.
...

The 5-4 majority talked about the right to defend one's home.
State and local laws against open carry and requiring a permit for concealed carry remain not overturned. Obviously those laws must include how one transports them legally.

It also matters that D.C. isn't a state, and as such follows Federal Law, if I recall correctly.
 
Last edited:
I'll argue that you're Constitutionally incorrect here. The Bill of Rights refers to the Federal government. Civil Rights, for example, have been extended by Amendment, and others have been extended by court rulings.

Going to the key case:
District of Columbia v. Heller

The Bill of Rights was extended to the states under the 14th, and the 2nd again under McDonald v Chicago.


The 5-4 majority talked about the right to defend one's home.
State and local laws against open carry and requiring a permit for concealed carry remain not overturned. Obviously those laws must include how one transports them legally.

It also matters that D.C. isn't a state, and as such follows Federal Law, if I recall correctly.[/QUOTE]

Heller said "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home". That's not a limitation to the home at all.
 
In which case, any person with a lick of common sense would tell you that the cops in the crowd were just as ineffective.

You love cherry picking this crappola, ......................meanwhile the average gun confrontation is within 20-30 feet.

He's had this explained to him...he chooses to ignore the fact that in the face of surprise attack, ambush, sniper, even cops and soldiers fall victim as guns are not magic.

Only people like him believe in that fantasy and seem to be fixated on supposed claims that 'the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' as if it was meant to stop mass shootings.

His 'needle is stuck,' he hasnt changed the whine in multiple threads and even more posts.
 
The Bill of Rights was extended to the states under the 14th, and the 2nd again under McDonald v Chicago.
...
Heller said "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home". That's not a limitation to the home at all.

Excellent reply, especially since I hadn't seen McDonald v. City of Chicago, which clears up (crushes) my state issue argument. But we have no open carry with permits for concealed carry here in California. I await the court case, I'm obviously over my head here on the Constitution.
 
Excellent reply, especially since I hadn't seen McDonald v. City of Chicago, which clears up (crushes) my state issue argument. But we have no open carry with permits for concealed carry here in California. I await the court case, I'm obviously over my head here on the Constitution.

See Nichols v Brown. The 9th Circuit Court of Rubber Stamp strikes again.
 
See Nichols v Brown. The 9th Circuit Court of Rubber Stamp strikes again.

Thanks, interesting. I was aware of the situation from local San Diego reporting, knew it was being taken to court, didn't know the name of the case or its situation. Is SCOTUS really going to decide open carry for the whole nation?
 
Thanks, interesting. I was aware of the situation from local San Diego reporting, knew it was being taken to court, didn't know the name of the case or its situation. Is SCOTUS really going to decide open carry for the whole nation?

They could. Laws that prevent both open carry and concealed carry would seem to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
 
They could. Laws that prevent both open carry and concealed carry would seem to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

True. But hasn't that always been the case in major cities, for example? And modern weapons have complicated the situation.
 
True. But hasn't that always been the case in major cities, for example? And modern weapons have complicated the situation.

Just a few major cities have de facto prohibited both. The exceptions to concealed carry restrictions are typicallylimited to the rich and famous. And criminal.
 
Just a few major cities have de facto prohibited both. The exceptions to concealed carry restrictions are typicallylimited to the rich and famous. And criminal.

I was thinking further back in history.

Gun Control in the Old West? Facts and Fiction


...
Fort Worth, Texas .... there would be a ban on carrying guns in the city. Even the police officers were to replace their pistols with clubs or nightsticks. Needless to say, the reformers got their share of flack from the “business” interests of the town, but, by the turn of the century, all these reforms were being enforced.

Dodge City, Kansas ... As early as 1876, Dodge City had a ban on carrying guns on the north side of town (the south side remained wide open), a ban that was rarely enforced. However, by 1883 the death toll from gun play had risen sufficiently for the town fathers to enact a stricter ban. Ordinance No. 67 enacted August 14th 1882 specified that no one could “carry concealed or otherwise about his or her person, any pistol, bowie knife, slung shot or other dangerous or deadly weapons, except County, City, or United Sates Officers”

Tombstone, Arizona (reported often)

In NY state, and especially NY City, 1911
Sullivan Act , apparently still in force?

I assume it was similar in many cities of those times.
 
Were there any banning or confiscation efforts in those days?

I don't know about that, but I've been trying to concentrate against open carry with registration for concealed. Keeping it as a state decision.
 
Because the NRA says stuff like "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" with that, yes they are promoting that as a strategy to deal with mass shooters, if they have different plan, I would love to hear it.

What is the average of mass shootings that have been foiled by good guys with guns?

I see.. so the police with guns are not good guys?
 
Were there any banning or confiscation efforts in those days?

there wasn't and since firearms didn't have serial numbers, there was no real way of using those lists to facilitate confiscation or anything else nefarious. Of course back then, no one was advocating the disarming of free citizens and of course slaves couldn't own firearms (though some were able to use them)
 
That assumes he the good guy with a gun doesn't freeze, run away, get shot before he can do anything, gets sloppy while trying to deal with the shooters, etc. There is way too many chance factors for this to be a valid strategy to deal with mass shootings.

You can assume all the worst case scenarios you like, however if a good guy is on the scene with a gun, the chances of more innocents surviving is improved.
 
Back
Top Bottom