• 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!

Do you have a conceal and carry license?

Do you have a conceal and carry permit?


  • Total voters
    66
And the police are mind readers so they know your intentions. Having bad intentions in itself is not a crime.


I'm an ex-cop from a state where every fourth car has a gun in the glovebox...legally.

Mind readers? No. Trained to observe behavior, expression and body language, and the context of the situation, to determine whether a situation of Jeopardy exists? Yes.

That's Jeopardy, as in the legal term, not the gameshow. :mrgreen:

Back to the frequency with which police encounter guns in my state... it isn't a huge deal. SOP is to tell the person to leave the gun where it is and not reach for it... most people aren't that stupid anyway, but the reminder helps. Normally SC cops only take someone's gun if they suspect ill intentions of some kind.

Probable cause to believe someone's actions constitute Jeopardy is about the totality of the circumstances.

If I'm at the playground, and there's a man there who's spent the last 30 min playing with his child, then his shirt rides up and I note that he has a concealed pistol on a belt holster under his shirt... absent other signs of malicious intentions I'd reasonably assume he was armed for defensive reasons. Granted I'd probably keep an eye on him afterwards.

That isn't theoretical, btw, I've been in almost exactly that scenario.

Some guy approaching the playground with an M60 LMG over his shoulder, loaded belt dangling from the breech, fixed stare on his face, hunched shoulders and reddened or paled complexion, stiff movements... the totality of those circumstances does indeed scream "Jeopardy!" and indicates some kind of action be taken, even if it were technically legal to bring an M60 onto a playground.

For another example, my reactions would be very different if a man approached me with an AK47 slung over his shoulder on the sling, and otherwise appearing calm and unruffled, vs a man approaching me with an AK47 held in low-ready and body language indicating high stress levels.

People actually do tend to broadcast their intentions in a manner that is often readily apparent to the trained eye.

Again, context.
 
There are some here that think it is perfectly acceptable to carry an M60 machine gun onto a playground and it is his constitutional right. No strawman. They actually believe it.
My point is some common sense rules concerning firearms are neccessary in a modern society. The Supreme court agrees with me.
Name them.
 
William Shatner on Gun Control - It's How Well You Aim the Gun (and carrying a gun).
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0D78JtxmqI"]YouTube- William Shatner on Gun Control - It's How Well You Aim the Gun[/ame]
 
Name them.


Actually Dirty Harry is the one who painted the (implausible) scenario, and got one or two people to argue with him about whether it should be legal or not. However, it is meaningless because there was no context to the scenario, no hint of the circumstances or apparent intentions of this hypothetical redneck with the highly-implausible LMG at the imaginary playground. The scenario just hangs there in space, unsupported, in the same way that bricks don't.

Classical strawman ploy: paint a ridiculously extreme scenario as if it had relevance then knock it down.
 
I've wanted to get a permit for a long time, but I have had other priorities. I've carried one anyway on a couple occasions when I thought it might be good to have with me. I usually have a handgun in the car when I go on long drives, because you never know where you might breakdown.

It is extremely easy here to get a permit though:

General Information:

A license to carry authorizes a person to carry a handgun on or about his person, openly or in certain concealed positions. These include: in a shoulder or waist belt holster, hip grip, or similar device, handbag, purse, attaché case, briefcase, or other closed container.

Requirements - All Applicants:

-Must be 21 years of age
-Must be a resident of the county
-A picture identification including applicant's physical address is required.
-Military persons must bring a copy of their papers showing they are stationed at the base if they have not changed their driver's license.
-Foreign nationals must have INS resident card. If you are a naturalized US citizen, you should bring your naturalization papers.

Additional Information:

Once the application process is complete in our office, all applicants will get fingerprinted at the Sheriff's Department (located in same building.) Their Fingerprint Cards will be sent to the FBI and GCIC.

Applicants can expect to receive their license between two to four weeks unless something comes back on their background check.

Fees:

$60.00 (Cash or Money Order Only)
NO Personal Checks will be accepted
 
Actually Dirty Harry is the one who painted the (implausible) scenario, and got one or two people to argue with him about whether it should be legal or not. However, it is meaningless because there was no context to the scenario, no hint of the circumstances or apparent intentions of this hypothetical redneck with the highly-implausible LMG at the imaginary playground. The scenario just hangs there in space, unsupported, in the same way that bricks don't.

Classical strawman ploy: paint a ridiculously extreme scenario as if it had relevance then knock it down.

Wrong. Some people here believe that their right to bear arms should not be infringed. That a person should be free to carry any firearm wherever he wants, concealed or not.
Implausible or not. It is about his constitutional right to do so. Intentions do not matter because no one can read his mind.
You just don't get it. You should be arguing with the guy that believes it is his constitutional right to carry an M60 onto a playground.
 
Wrong. Some people here believe that their right to bear arms should not be infringed. That a person should be free to carry any firearm wherever he wants, concealed or not.
Implausible or not. It is about his constitutional right to do so. Intentions do not matter because no one can read his mind. You just don't get it. You should be arguing with the guy that believes it is his constitutional right to carry an M60 onto a playground.

I've been reading back over this thread. As best I see, nobody said they supported unconditionally the right of a redneck to carry an M60 into a playground. Nobody was quite stupid enough to rise to the bait. They argued the general principle but declined to bite into the strawman.

The bolded sentence, about mind-reading, is also a straw man argument... I'll explain why below.

As I said, your scenario is meaningless without context... perhaps you missed this post:

I'm an ex-cop from a state where every fourth car has a gun in the glovebox...legally.

Mind readers? No. Trained to observe behavior, expression and body language, and the context of the situation, to determine whether a situation of Jeopardy exists? Yes.

That's Jeopardy, as in the legal term, not the gameshow.

Back to the frequency with which police encounter guns in my state... it isn't a huge deal. SOP is to tell the person to leave the gun where it is and not reach for it... most people aren't that stupid anyway, but the reminder helps. Normally SC cops only take someone's gun if they suspect ill intentions of some kind.

Probable cause to believe someone's actions constitute Jeopardy is about the totality of the circumstances.

If I'm at the playground, and there's a man there who's spent the last 30 min playing with his child, then his shirt rides up and I note that he has a concealed pistol on a belt holster under his shirt... absent other signs of malicious intentions I'd reasonably assume he was armed for defensive reasons. Granted I'd probably keep an eye on him afterwards.

That isn't theoretical, btw, I've been in almost exactly that scenario.

Some guy approaching the playground with an M60 LMG over his shoulder, loaded belt dangling from the breech, fixed stare on his face, hunched shoulders and reddened or paled complexion, stiff movements... the totality of those circumstances does indeed scream "Jeopardy!" and indicates some kind of action be taken, even if it were technically legal to bring an M60 onto a playground.

For another example, my reactions would be very different if a man approached me with an AK47 slung over his shoulder on the sling, and otherwise appearing calm and unruffled, vs a man approaching me with an AK47 held in low-ready and body language indicating high stress levels.

People actually do tend to broadcast their intentions in a manner that is often readily apparent to the trained eye.

Again, context.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. Some people here believe that their right to bear arms should not be infringed. That a person should be free to carry any firearm wherever he wants, concealed or not.
Implausible or not. It is about his constitutional right to do so. Intentions do not matter because no one can read his mind.
You just don't get it. You should be arguing with the guy that believes it is his constitutional right to carry an M60 onto a playground.
You can't name them and won't.

EPIC FAIL, you lose. Have a nice day.
 
You can't name them and won't.

EPIC FAIL, you lose. Have a nice day.

Read the thread if you can read. If not, stay out of the debate. I am not going to reread the thread to satisfy you. I heard about guys like you on this forum. Get a life.
 
Has the "wife-beating redneck' been convicted of a viuolent crime?
Was the M-60 purchased legally?
Does the playground have a 'no-gund' sign?
Depending on the answers to these questions, the answer is yes.[/QUOTE
 
Has the "wife-beating redneck' been convicted of a viuolent crime?
Was the M-60 purchased legally?
Does the playground have a 'no-gund' sign?
Depending on the answers to these questions, the answer is yes.

Okay, you got Goobie to bite into your strawman argument. Congratulations.

Even so, his reply was not unconditional: in his post he was asking for some context of the fictitious and implausible scenario. He didn't ask the more important questions, like Who is this guy? Is he a National Guard Recruiter doing a demo with an unloaded weapon for some high-school prospects? Is the weapon loaded? Are the circumstances readily explicable or are they suspicious?

The scenario remains unreasonably unlikely and extreme, nothing more than a ploy, in the absence of some kind of context that explains what is actually happening.
 
Last edited:
Okay, you got Goobie to bite into your strawman argument. Congratulations.

Even so, his reply was not unconditional: in his post he was asking for some context of the fictitious and implausible scenario. He didn't ask the more important questions, like Who is this guy? Is he a National Guard Recruiter doing a demo with an unloaded weapon for some high-school prospects? Is the weapon loaded? Are the circumstances readily explicable or are they suspicious?

The scenario remains unreasonably unlikely and extreme, nothing more than a ploy, in the absence of some kind of context that explains what is actually happening.

I guess you just don't get it, do you. It's about constitutional rights.
Does a guy have a constitutional right to bring a weapon on to a playground if there are no signs. Intentions, who he is, why, circumstances, context... are not relevant. It is about his right to do so.

Goobie believes it is a constitutional right and it doesn't even matter what kind of weapon it is.
 
Last edited:
I guess you just don't get it, do you. It's about constitutional rights.
Does a guy have a constitutional right to bring a weapon on to a playground if there are no signs. Intentions, who he is, why, circumstances, context... are not relevant. It is about his right to do so.





Yes, why wouldn't he be allowed to carry on a playground?
 
What's he doing with it on a playground?





On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman


I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
 
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman


I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

I think it's nuts to carry a concealed weapon into a playground.
 
"


Law abiding people, don't change thier ways simply because of some steel on thier hip.

Actually that isn't always true. There was a case of road rage here a few years ago that escalated into a shooting. The guy just "could not understand what came over him." Rage can make law abiding people do things they otherwise wouldn't. In this case he had a gun and used it. Lucky no one was killed.
 
Back
Top Bottom