Constitutional carry now in effect in Oklahoma.

[Helix]

Gun control hasn't stopped a single mass shooter yet. More gun control will not prevent additional mass shootings, either.

News flash: criminals do not obey the law. The only way to stop them is to kill them, which means a broad allowance of firearms, which means practice, which means no recording of ammunition purchasing.

good luck with the "never give an inch" strategy. it's part of why this subforum is useless. i like the target shooting hobby and might take it up again, but it's not a top issue for me at this point.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Man, that was the weakest bow-out I've ever encountered on this thread.

Well, I don't see how 1 CCW class denies Liberals of pistol ammunition. You will need to explain yourself.

 

[Wayne Jr]

good luck with the "never give an inch" strategy.

I don't subscribe to that so I'm not sure why you're wishing me luck.

 

[lwf]

Well, I don't see how 1 CCW class denies Liberals of pistol ammunition. You will need to explain yourself.

And you really couldn't understand the post where I did?

 

[Helix]

I don't subscribe to that so I'm not sure why you're wishing me luck.

i'll have to take your word for it.

 

[Wayne Jr]

And you really couldn't understand the post where I did?

Obviously not. We were talking about permit classes and then you say one such class denies a political group access to pistol ammunition. Which NRA instructor did you personally attend who claimed his or her class barred you from purchasing pistol ammunition? Their exact company name, please.

 

[Wayne Jr]

i'll have to take your word for it.

No, you don't. Just look at Turtle's post history accusing me of being an anti-gun liberal simply because I support Safe Storage laws. As a mod you have access to things regular members do not and you can see these things. It's how vBulliten frum software works. You don't need to take my word for anything, just take 2 seconds and perform a search.

 

[lwf]

Obviously not.

Ok... From earlier in this thread:

I'm not suggesting that the gunfight at the O.K. Corral is going to break out wherever there is unlicensed concealed carry. But the second amendment is fragile, and the country is drifting steadily to the left. One of the agendas of the left (one of the few I disagree with) is stricter gun control. "Common sense" gun laws are a favorite tactic of the anti-second amendment folks, because they tend to be hard to argue with. Locking up a firearm when a small child is in the house is common sense. Knowing how to safely handle a firearm before playing with it is common sense. Carrying a concealed firearm without any training defies common sense. Most won't do this. Of those that do, most won't hurt anyone. But the fact of the matter is that even one untrained yokel who accidentally shoots and kills someone on the bus because he is carrying his firearm in an unsafe manner can too easily start an avalanche of anti-gun hysteria that will be difficult to stop with the decline of the NRA and the progressive direction of the country.

I'm worried about that one untrained fool who accidentally discharges his new semi-auto in a shopping center and takes out a toddler. I'm worried about the groundswell of fear that will sweep the nation once it becomes clear that he was taking advantage of constitutional carry and had no formal training on how to handle firearms. Conservatives are pushing their luck by reducing the amount of gun control in this country. What we need is a compromise between conservatives and liberals: a balance of common sense gun laws that allow responsible, law-abiding adults of sound mind to exercise their right to bear arms. Removing the requirement of responsibility is giving ammo to the anti-second amendment folks to fight to increase restrictions. Liberals are primed to retake control of the government sooner or later. Constitutional carry could be the straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to stricter gun control.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Ok... From earlier in this thread:

There's no class required to buy a pistol. Anyone who owns a pistol could carry it illegally. Your argument has no merit.

 

[Helix]

No, you don't. Just look at Turtle's post history accusing me of being an anti-gun liberal simply because I support Safe Storage laws. As a mod you have access to things regular members do not and you can see these things. It's how vBulliten frum software works. You don't need to take my word for anything, just take 2 seconds and perform a search.

i don't really care about the purity tests that gun hobbyists routinely hold in this subforum.

 

[Wayne Jr]

i don't really care about the purity tests that gun hobbyists routinely hold in this subforum.

Neither do I.

 

[lwf]

There's no class required to buy a pistol. Anyone who owns a pistol could carry it illegally. Your argument has no merit.

I'm not trying to avoid the headline "Untrained man illegally carrying firearm accidentally shoots neighbor." I'm trying to avoid the headline "Untrained man legally carrying firearm accidentally shoots neighbor."

The former requires no new gun laws because the man was carrying illegally. He was a criminal even before his gun discharged. In the latter the man was doing nothing illegal and he still killed an innocent person. He was not a criminal, and an innocent still died. This latter scenario may provoke liberals into taking it upon themselves to solve this problem. They may solve it by requiring training for all conceal and carry... Or they may solve it by making it illegal to carry firearms like so many European countries have done.

I'm not arguing that this will actually solve the problem, I am arguing that liberals are capable of doing either one of these things. Do you like having the right to carry a firearm legally? You may consider it your god-given right, but all it would take for you to lose that right is a majority of your neighbors voting to strip you of it.

Arguing that minimal training is useless does not make your liberal neighbors any more comfortable with you carrying your firearm. If training is useless anyway, maybe they should just band together outlaw conceal and carry entirely? If you do not want them to do this, maybe you should be attempting to convince them that training can allow someone to safely handle a firearm, and maybe you should be in favor of allowing only trained people to carry firearms?

 

[Wayne Jr]

I'm not trying to avoid the headline "Untrained man illegally carrying firearm accidentally shoots neighbor." I'm trying to avoid the headline "Untrained man legally carrying firearm accidentally shoots neighbor."

The former requires no new gun laws because the man was carrying illegally. He was a criminal even before his gun discharged. In the latter the man was doing nothing illegal and he still killed an innocent person. He was not a criminal, and an innocent still died. This latter scenario may provoke liberals into taking it upon themselves to solve this problem. They may solve it by requiring training for all conceal and carry... Or they may solve it by making it illegal to carry firearms like so many European countries have done.

I'm not arguing that this will actually solve the problem, I am arguing that liberals are capable of doing either one of these things. Do you like having the right to carry a firearm legally? You may consider it your god-given right, but all it would take for you to lose that right is a majority of your neighbors voting to strip you of it.

Arguing that minimal training is useless does not make your liberal neighbors any more comfortable with you carrying your firearm. If training is useless anyway, maybe they should just band together outlaw conceal and carry entirely? If you do not want them to do this, maybe you should be attempting to convince them that training can allow someone to safely handle a firearm, and maybe you should be in favor of allowing only trained people to carry firearms?

Trying to avoid headlines is your first folly. The media's first rule is "if it bleeds, it leads", regardless of political position.

I'm an atheist. God doesn't exist, for any rights to be granted or revoked by him. If my neighbors vote to remove my RKBA, I will kill them. The choice to live or die is theirs.

Also, I am ok with my liberal neighbor being uncomfortable. As liberals they are uncomfortable about absolutely everything anyway, so this is normal.

 

[lwf]

Trying to avoid headlines is your first folly. The media's first rule is "if it bleeds, it leads", regardless of political position.

Also, I am ok with my liberal neighbor being uncomfortable. As liberals they are uncomfortable about everything, so this is normal.

Fair enough. Que sera, sera, eh? May as well not worry about the second amendment until we lose it.

 

[Rich2018]

I do not think there is an agenda beyond limiting access to firearms.

Me too.

But the RW gun owners think that people wanting to enact gun control have an agenda to turn the USA into a tyranny.

 

[TurtleDude]

"serious competitive shooters" should be an easy enough variable to filter. in the event that one of them trips an alarm occasionally, i'm sure that they'll live through explaining that they are a serious competitive shooter.

I don't believe in guilty until proven innocent-you do. and how many mass shootings were perpetrated by people who buy lots of ammo? almost none

 

[TurtleDude]

Me too.

But the RW gun owners think that people wanting to enact gun control have an agenda to turn the USA into a tyranny.

well you are wrong. Schumer bragged that the clinton gun ban was the first of many laws designed to harass the NRA. The crushing defeat dems took a few months later, stopped his wet dreams

 

[Helix]

I don't believe in guilty until proven innocent-you do. and how many mass shootings were perpetrated by people who buy lots of ammo? almost none

you don't? you're a supporter of this guy :



****, my proposal isn't anywhere near that extreme.

 

[bluesmoke]

Suicides are self inflicted murder is not. Trying to lump the two together is blatantly dishonest and proves that your side thinks the ten to fourteen thousand homicides a year is not enough to move public sentiment towards banning guns.

That suicides are self-inflicted does not mean guns are not problematic in that equation nor that such should not be of concern in society. Gun related deaths have increased in the US due, mostly, to suicides. That makes such a genuine concern in our society. Murder alone is going down and is a much smaller number of total firearm related deaths. True, that may not move public sentiment. But, mass school shootings, a tiny % of gun deaths, is moving public sentiment towards banning certain type/style of firearm.

All gun related deaths are properly grouped because they are all gun related. That you don’t get that is your deficiency in cognition, not my dishonesty for “lump(ing)” them together.

You show how guns have no significant effect on suicide and suicide no significant portion of violent death in our society. You choose to ignore those facts and pretend they should not be in discussion to do with gun related death and that to think otherwise than you is dishonest.

 

[Glitch]

That suicides are self-inflicted does not mean guns are not problematic in that equation nor that such should not be of concern in society. Gun related deaths have increased in the US due, mostly, to suicides. That makes such a genuine concern in our society. Murder alone is going down and is a much smaller number of total firearm related deaths. True, that may not move public sentiment. But, mass school shootings, a tiny % of gun deaths, is moving public sentiment towards banning certain type/style of firearm.

All gun related deaths are properly grouped because they are all gun related. That you don’t get that is your deficiency in cognition, not my dishonesty for “lump(ing)” them together.

You show how guns have no significant effect on suicide and suicide no significant portion of violent death in our society. You choose to ignore those facts and pretend they should not be in discussion to do with gun related death and that to think otherwise than you is dishonest.

More people are killed by hammers and knives than are killed by rifles according to the FBI. Yet we hear no outrage about hammer or knife ownership, or restrictions on possession. Of all the various tools people use to kill themselves or others with the anti-American left choose to go after only firearms. The only tool that is specifically protected by the US Constitution. Why do you think that may be?

Why do you think Democrats created the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990, if they didn't want to specifically create massacre magnets?

You have to ask why are the anti-American left so eager to abolish the one constitutionally protected right that protects all others?

It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with the safety or security of the people, as the massacre magnets they created clearly demonstrate. The answer should be obvious.

 

[TurtleDude]

you don't? you're a supporter of this guy :



****, my proposal isn't anywhere near that extreme.

who do you think was a better choice as of November 2016 for gun owners-Trump vs Hillary?

Now do you realize why your comments are rather inane.

 

[Glitch]

who do you think was a better choice as of November 2016 for gun owners-Trump vs Hillary?

Now do you realize why your comments are rather inane.

Both are equally bad choices, so if that was the ONLY choice given it would be a wash. Flip a coin, it wouldn't make a difference.

Thankfully, there were other factors involved that made the choice, no matter how distasteful, very obvious. There was absolutely no way Hillary could ever be elected President. It has nothing to do with women, you could put the moron Nancy Pelosi, or the dingbat Sarah Palin, as President and they would both be far better than Hillary. Hillary is criminally insane, and no one like that should ever be in a position of power.

 

[TurtleDude]

Both are equally bad choices, so if that was the ONLY choice given it would be a wash. Flip a coin, it wouldn't make a difference.

Thankfully, there were other factors involved that made the choice, no matter how distasteful, very obvious. There was absolutely no way Hillary could ever be elected President. It has nothing to do with women, you could put the moron Nancy Pelosi, or the dingbat Sarah Palin, as President and they would both be far better than Hillary. Hillary is criminally insane, and no one like that should ever be in a position of power.

GOP justices often disappoint, Democrat Justices have never ever supported gun rights

 

[Glitch]

GOP justices often disappoint, Democrat Justices have never ever supported gun rights

That is why I voted for the Constitution Party's candidate in 2016, Sen. Ted Cruz. He would have been an absolutely terrible President, but he had a proven conservative voting record in the Senate, and I wanted a conservative candidate nominated to the Supreme Court by the next President. I didn't care about the rest of the four year term, as long as they nominated a conservative to the Supreme Court. I felt Cruz would have done that. I'm not so certain about Trump's choice. We'll have to wait and see what kind of decisions he makes.

 

[Helix]

who do you think was a better choice as of November 2016 for gun owners-Trump vs Hillary?

Now do you realize why your comments are rather inane.

Like I said, the worst enemy of gun hobbyists is unchecked nutters.