guns

[MAKAVELI]

So you'd be ok with the FBI or local law enforcement invading your privacy and raiding your house without a warrant and following you everywhere you go and watching you simply because you "might" be a drug dealer as long as they figure out that you really aren't?

You gotta stop smoking that . It's making you paranoid bro.

 

[Babagounj]

How does that make sense?
No one forces people to go to a business that prohibits firearms. In fact, they have to post signs at every entrance letting people know they're prohibited. Don't like it?Then turn around and go somewhere else. Or even better, just ignore the sign.

This is political pandering disguised as a legislation.

Maybe I want to pick the kids up at school , go down to the local courthouse to file some papers or pay some fees , and some one else goes there at the same time to do some thing illegal . All gun free zones .

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Maybe I want to pick the kids up at school , go down to the local courthouse to file some papers or pay some fees , and some one else goes there at the same time to do some thing illegal . All gun free zones .

So you want to be able to sue the government? I thought you were talking about private businesses.

 

[realbrown1]

So you want to be able to sue the government? I thought you were talking about private businesses.

Maybe he just wants to carry a firearm where ever he goes.

I see nothing unreasonable about that.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Maybe I want to pick the kids up at school , go down to the local courthouse to file some papers or pay some fees , and some one else goes there at the same time to do some thing illegal . All gun free zones .

If you read the legislation you posted none of those places are covered. You wouldn't be able to sue.

 

[1BROWNWRENCH]

I checked some ammo sites I know and even the places that carry .284 ammo are all out of stock. It is pretty much a load your own cartridge now since it is considered obsolete.

Maybe time to move on to something more common like 30-40 Krag.

 

[oldngray]

Maybe time to move on to something more common like 30-40 Krag.

.284 is mostly known for using its case for wildcat cartridges. Components are readily available but you are almost out of luck finding factory ammunition. Better performance than the 30-40 if he chooses to stick with it.

 

[1BROWNWRENCH]

My Speer manual is full of oddball calibers.

 

[oldngray]

My Speer manual is full of oddball calibers.

I have a bunch of loading manuals but with the internet you can get most of that information free online now.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

You gotta stop smoking that . It's making you paranoid bro.

Deflection acknowledged.

 

[bbsam]

Maybe he just wants to carry a firearm where ever he goes.

I see nothing unreasonable about that.

Well, it's kinda unreasonable to do so if it's against the law.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Maybe he just wants to carry a firearm where ever he goes.

I see nothing unreasonable about that.

I don't either, but that's not what we're talking about, TTKU.

We're talking about suing people that ban weapons on their private property, when something out of their control happens to someone who willingly chose to go there and agreed to their rules.

My suggestion to someone who wants to carry a gun where ever they go is to keep that in mind when they choose where they're going. I don't see anything unreasonable about that.

 

[realbrown1]

I don't either, but that's not what we're talking about, TTKU.

We're talking about suing people that ban weapons on their private property, when something out of their control happens to someone who willingly chose to go there and agreed to their rules.

My suggestion to someone who wants to carry a gun where ever they go is to keep that in mind when they choose where they're going. I don't see anything unreasonable about that.

If you want to demand your customers not carry firearms for self protection, and something happens to them because you did not protect them, then you ought to be sued.

Now, it they make their establishment a gun free zone, and have private armed security, that cool, but if they don't, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

I don't see anything unreasonable about that.

 

[realbrown1]

Well, it's kinda unreasonable to do so if it's against the law.

I wasn't talking about places where it is illegal.

I was talking private property.

 

[bbsam]

I wasn't talking about places where it is illegal.

I was talking private property.

Is a UPS truck private or public property and are theyou responsible to send armed protection for each driver?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

If you want to demand your customers not carry firearms for self protection, and something happens to them because you did not protect them, then you ought to be sued.

Now, it they make their establishment a gun free zone, and have private armed security, that cool, but if they don't, they open themselves up to lawsuits.

I don't see anything unreasonable about that.

Why should they be able to sue? They chose to go there and agreed to the terms of not carrying. No one forced them go there. They put themselves in that situation.

 

[rickyb]

I was reading a noam chomsky article the other day and he mentioned the origins of the gun culture in america:

Melissa Parker (Smashing Interviews Magazine): President Obama receives much criticism and even hatred from his detractors almost on a daily basis. How do you feel about his executive orders regarding stricter gun control laws?

Noam Chomsky: Well, that’s a real pathology in the United States which goes way back. It happens to be kind of peaking in the last few years again, but deep roots go back to the early part of our history. About half of the history of the country, there were two major problems that required guns. One was eliminating the indigenous population. They had to be eliminated or exterminated. They fought back which meant you needed guns.

The other was that the United States was running the most hideous slave labor camps in human history in the South, which is a large part of the basis of their economy. It was not done just for the wealth of the plantation owners, the manufacturing system was based for a long time on textile production that was largely cotton based. The banks were developing credit for cotton. Cotton was the main commodity of the early part of the Industrial Revolution. Same in England. A large part of their economic wealth and power developed from the slave labor camps. Well, you know, running slave labor camps means you’ve got to be afraid of the slaves. Maybe they’ll erupt.

Melissa Parker (Smashing Interviews Magazine): So they needed guns to protect themselves from the slaves. Thomas Jefferson had some radical views on slavery.

Noam Chomsky: Thomas Jefferson had a mixed attitude toward slavery. He thought it was wrong. In fact, he thought it was a terrible crime. But he kept slaves. The way he described it once was saying, “We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” In other words, we want to hold onto it because we shouldn’t punish the wolf, and we can’t let it go because it’ll destroy us. Jefferson thought that if you don’t keep the slaves in the slave labor camps, there’d be a race war, and they’d wipe us out. All of this required guns, of course.

In fact, in the South, guns were part of the culture for other reasons, not just for fear of the slaves, but in order to show that you were not a slave. Like if you wanted to stand up to another white man and say, “Look. You’re not going to push me around.” You had to have a gun. All of that shows up today while keeping your gun ostentatiously on your hip when you enter a coffee shop or walk around a university with it, all those crazy things. The effect is very clear.

The United States is pretty much like other industrial counties, but deaths from guns are way out of sight. If you look at what are called massacres, meaning the killing of four or more people, I think the majority is families where a kid picks up a gun and shoots somebody. It’s just a plague.

With the president, it seems that gun sales have increased considerably during the Obama years. That’s probably straight racism of which there’s plenty...

 

[realbrown1]

I was reading a noam chomsky article the other day and he mentioned the origins of the gun culture in america:

Melissa Parker (Smashing Interviews Magazine): President Obama receives much criticism and even hatred from his detractors almost on a daily basis. How do you feel about his executive orders regarding stricter gun control laws?

Noam Chomsky: Well, that’s a real pathology in the United States which goes way back. It happens to be kind of peaking in the last few years again, but deep roots go back to the early part of our history. About half of the history of the country, there were two major problems that required guns. One was eliminating the indigenous population. They had to be eliminated or exterminated. They fought back which meant you needed guns.

The other was that the United States was running the most hideous slave labor camps in human history in the South, which is a large part of the basis of their economy. It was not done just for the wealth of the plantation owners, the manufacturing system was based for a long time on textile production that was largely cotton based. The banks were developing credit for cotton. Cotton was the main commodity of the early part of the Industrial Revolution. Same in England. A large part of their economic wealth and power developed from the slave labor camps. Well, you know, running slave labor camps means you’ve got to be afraid of the slaves. Maybe they’ll erupt.

Melissa Parker (Smashing Interviews Magazine): So they needed guns to protect themselves from the slaves. Thomas Jefferson had some radical views on slavery.

Noam Chomsky: Thomas Jefferson had a mixed attitude toward slavery. He thought it was wrong. In fact, he thought it was a terrible crime. But he kept slaves. The way he described it once was saying, “We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” In other words, we want to hold onto it because we shouldn’t punish the wolf, and we can’t let it go because it’ll destroy us. Jefferson thought that if you don’t keep the slaves in the slave labor camps, there’d be a race war, and they’d wipe us out. All of this required guns, of course.

In fact, in the South, guns were part of the culture for other reasons, not just for fear of the slaves, but in order to show that you were not a slave. Like if you wanted to stand up to another white man and say, “Look. You’re not going to push me around.” You had to have a gun. All of that shows up today while keeping your gun ostentatiously on your hip when you enter a coffee shop or walk around a university with it, all those crazy things. The effect is very clear.

The United States is pretty much like other industrial counties, but deaths from guns are way out of sight. If you look at what are called massacres, meaning the killing of four or more people, I think the majority is families where a kid picks up a gun and shoots somebody. It’s just a plague.

With the president, it seems that gun sales have increased considerably during the Obama years. That’s probably straight racism of which there’s plenty...

You are a fool.

My god you are such a misguided fool, your parents should be slapped.

 

[realbrown1]

Why should they be able to sue? They chose to go there and agreed to the terms of not carrying. No one forced them go there. They put themselves in that situation.

Or, go in with your concealed carry.

They will never know.

And you protect yourself at the same time.

A win-win scenario.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Or, go in with your concealed carry.

They will never know.

And you protect yourself at the same time.

A win-win scenario.

I agree, and I've made that point here before.
So again, what's the point of this legislation? It doesn't make legal sense at all to place blame on the property owner. So is it just pandering to a base that doesn't know better? Or maybe it's to try and scare property owners from exercising their right to decide what's done on their property? Both?

And why is the government left out of the law? Why can they decide whether people can carry on government land (that you're often forced to go to) without the responsibility of protecting them, but someone who owns private land that people choose to go to are held responsible?

The proposed legislation is kind of a joke.