I tried to find good data for cities with high gun crime but there are cities that have strict gun laws with high murders and lax gun laws with high murders. The info is all over the place.
right and as mentioned above a city with strict gun laws is lame when you can buy a gun across city lines and bring it back to the city
You do realize you're breaking the law by bringing that gun over city lines right?
That's why I find a city with strict gun laws silly. It applies to law abiding citizens. Criminals could care less what the law is.
my permit says I can legally carry anywhere in florida including buying anywhere in florida and also it is recognized in about 30 other states.
I tried to find good data for cities with high gun crime but there are cities that have strict gun laws with high murders and lax gun laws with high murders. The info is all over the place.
right and as mentioned above a city with strict gun laws is lame when you can buy a gun across city lines and bring it back to the city
You do realize you're breaking the law by bringing that gun over city lines right?
That's why I find a city with strict gun laws silly. It applies to law abiding citizens. Criminals could care less what the law is.
who is at the city line enforcing that law? give me a break
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,776
Came across this news:
9th Circuit Court of Appeals Says No Right to Concealed Gun Carry A divided federal appeals court in California ruled Thursday that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun, adding to a division among the lower courts on gun rights outside the home.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals Says No Right to Concealed Gun Carry A divided federal appeals court in California ruled Thursday that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun, adding to a division among the lower courts on gun rights outside the home.
yes.....California sucks, it's a state run by corrupted pansies and I'm so glad I left. California is a perfect example of criminals having easier access to guns than responsible citizens .
I tried to find good data for cities with high gun crime but there are cities that have strict gun laws with high murders and lax gun laws with high murders. The info is all over the place.
right and as mentioned above a city with strict gun laws is lame when you can buy a gun across city lines and bring it back to the city
You do realize you're breaking the law by bringing that gun over city lines right?
That's why I find a city with strict gun laws silly. It applies to law abiding citizens. Criminals could care less what the law is.
who is at the city line enforcing that law? give me a break
A holstered gun is not a deadly weapon... but anything can be used as a deadly weapon. A credit card can be used to cut somebody's throat.
(New Hampshire State Representative Dan Dumaine (R) opposing a move to ban guns from the chamber floor)
* These are the accepted counter-arguments to gun control. As stupid as they are... they are all the pro gun crowd has.
So... don't think of the individuals as stupid. Think, instead, that most... well... not most... but some for sure (like the ones on here for example)... don't have much to work with when discussing this topic.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals Says No Right to Concealed Gun Carry A divided federal appeals court in California ruled Thursday that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun, adding to a division among the lower courts on gun rights outside the home.
yes.....California sucks, it's a state run by corrupted pansies and I'm so glad I left. California is a perfect example of criminals having easier access to guns than responsible citizens .
Godfather.
Lol, there is a reason the 9th is the most overturned in the country...
9th Circuit Court of Appeals Says No Right to Concealed Gun Carry A divided federal appeals court in California ruled Thursday that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun, adding to a division among the lower courts on gun rights outside the home.
yes.....California sucks, it's a state run by corrupted pansies and I'm so glad I left. California is a perfect example of criminals having easier access to guns than responsible citizens .
I tried to find good data for cities with high gun crime but there are cities that have strict gun laws with high murders and lax gun laws with high murders. The info is all over the place.
right and as mentioned above a city with strict gun laws is lame when you can buy a gun across city lines and bring it back to the city
You do realize you're breaking the law by bringing that gun over city lines right?
That's why I find a city with strict gun laws silly. It applies to law abiding citizens. Criminals could care less what the law is.
who is at the city line enforcing that law? give me a break
Exactly so why have the law?!?
huh? people commit rape so why have rape laws? Is that where you are heading?
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
9th Circuit Court of Appeals Says No Right to Concealed Gun Carry A divided federal appeals court in California ruled Thursday that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun, adding to a division among the lower courts on gun rights outside the home.
yes.....California sucks, it's a state run by corrupted pansies and I'm so glad I left. California is a perfect example of criminals having easier access to guns than responsible citizens .
I tried to find good data for cities with high gun crime but there are cities that have strict gun laws with high murders and lax gun laws with high murders. The info is all over the place.
right and as mentioned above a city with strict gun laws is lame when you can buy a gun across city lines and bring it back to the city
You do realize you're breaking the law by bringing that gun over city lines right?
That's why I find a city with strict gun laws silly. It applies to law abiding citizens. Criminals could care less what the law is.
who is at the city line enforcing that law? give me a break
Exactly so why have the law?!?
huh? people commit rape so why have rape laws? Is that where you are heading?
So maybe we need more rape laws. Maybe if we banned penises there would be no rapes since they are the main thing used. Penis free zones? Penis registration? Sorry, just my lame attempt at humor on a Friday...
Real Sports on HBO has a great segment this month on the assault rifles available for sale here in the US. i honestly don't know how anyone can defense those being sold here. I get and agree with the argument you can't ban all guns but there is no reason AR-15/AK-47s and the like should be available to the public. they were designed for military usage. for the gun people whats next, hand-grenades and tanks available for public consumption?
Real Sports on HBO has a great segment this month on the assault rifles available for sale here in the US. i honestly don't know how anyone can defense those being sold here. I get and agree with the argument you can't ban all guns but there is no reason AR-15/AK-47s and the like should be available to the public. they were designed for military usage. for the gun people whats next, hand-grenades and tanks available for public consumption?
I respectfully disagree. In fact, AR-15s were specifically designed for the public as the non-fully-automatic version of the rifle that is designed for military use
If you ban assault rifles... then you better be prepared to round the edges of credit cards so nobody can slice your neck with them... because even though assault rifles were designed for urban assaults and killing many in close proximity... you can't convince me that those credit cards were made 'just to buy things with'.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals Says No Right to Concealed Gun Carry A divided federal appeals court in California ruled Thursday that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun, adding to a division among the lower courts on gun rights outside the home.
yes.....California sucks, it's a state run by corrupted pansies and I'm so glad I left. California is a perfect example of criminals having easier access to guns than responsible citizens .
I tried to find good data for cities with high gun crime but there are cities that have strict gun laws with high murders and lax gun laws with high murders. The info is all over the place.
right and as mentioned above a city with strict gun laws is lame when you can buy a gun across city lines and bring it back to the city
You do realize you're breaking the law by bringing that gun over city lines right?
That's why I find a city with strict gun laws silly. It applies to law abiding citizens. Criminals could care less what the law is.
who is at the city line enforcing that law? give me a break
Exactly so why have the law?!?
huh? people commit rape so why have rape laws? Is that where you are heading?
there is no constitutional amendment for rape......this is the gun thread right ?
If you ban assault rifles... then you better be prepared to round the edges of credit cards so nobody can slice your neck with them... because even though assault rifles were designed for urban assaults and killing many in close proximity... you can't convince me that those credit cards were made 'just to buy things with'.
So there.
Not to mention axes and bows since they were the original assault weapons. Just thinking...if you banned fire, none of these things would work. Yeah, let's ban fire and metal. Yeah, metal too since that's what guns and bullets are made out of. And let's ban 3D printers since anyone with a 3D printer can make gun parts. Oh, and pipes since someone can make a gun out of a pipe.
why would it matter to you what gun I own ? would you outlaw high performance cars as well ? the problem is not the guns the problem is people.....people kill and you know the rest.
why would it matter to you what gun I own ? would you outlaw high performance cars as well ? the problem is not the guns the problem is people.....people kill and you know the rest.
Godfather.
No need to outlaw high performance cars. Everyone who drives them is too old to drive them the way they were meant to be driven anyways!
why would it matter to you what gun I own ? would you outlaw high performance cars as well ? the problem is not the guns the problem is people.....people kill and you know the rest.
why would it matter to you what gun I own ? would you outlaw high performance cars as well ? the problem is not the guns the problem is people.....people kill and you know the rest.
Godfather.
Exactly
Guns don't kill people
Gun owners kill people
And little kids too!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
"Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, mankind should be thinking about getting more use out of the weapons we already have."
(Jack Handy)
* I'm thinking Donald Trump comes as close as anyone to being the living embodiment of Jack Handy. He says some stuff that could have scrolled on SNL easily.
by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.
and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.
by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.
and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.
Meh, tanks and hand grenades would make the venison and pork inedible. My main concern is that there are so many definitions of "assault rifles" that it makes one's head spin. Most of these asshats trying to spin legislation have no idea what they are talking about in regards to gun parts/function. my problem is more about the political term "assault rifle".
by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.
and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.
Meh, tanks and hand grenades would make the venison and pork inedible. My main concern is that there are so many definitions of "assault rifles" that it makes one's head spin. Most of these asshats trying to spin legislation have no idea what they are talking about in regards to gun parts/function. my problem is more about the political term "assault rifle".
that's a fair point in the underlined above.
that being said the question i posed was not answered. if the weapon is not at fault why is any weapon banned?
by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.
and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.
Meh, tanks and hand grenades would make the venison and pork inedible. My main concern is that there are so many definitions of "assault rifles" that it makes one's head spin. Most of these asshats trying to spin legislation have no idea what they are talking about in regards to gun parts/function. my problem is more about the political term "assault rifle".
that's a fair point in the underlined above.
that being said the question i posed was not answered. if the weapon is not at fault why is any weapon banned?
I think that's maybe the slippery slope pendulum; where to draw the line on both sides of the argument. There are plenty out there that would say that civilians should have access to any and everything and on the other saying that there should be no access to anything. Personally I feel that a certain amount of force in the hands of the public is a good thing for a country to have. I realize others disagree with that statement, but people knowing they risk being shot back at has surely been a factor in the heads if *some* seeking to do harm to others.
by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.
and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.
Meh, tanks and hand grenades would make the venison and pork inedible. My main concern is that there are so many definitions of "assault rifles" that it makes one's head spin. Most of these asshats trying to spin legislation have no idea what they are talking about in regards to gun parts/function. my problem is more about the political term "assault rifle".
that's a fair point in the underlined above.
that being said the question i posed was not answered. if the weapon is not at fault why is any weapon banned?
I think that's maybe the slippery slope pendulum; where to draw the line on both sides of the argument. There are plenty out there that would say that civilians should have access to any and everything and on the other saying that there should be no access to anything. Personally I feel that a certain amount of force in the hands of the public is a good thing for a country to have. I realize others disagree with that statement, but people knowing they risk being shot back at has surely been a factor in the heads if *some* seeking to do harm to others.
i think people who think none should be legal are as crazy as the people who say all should be legal. there should and has to be a middle ground in my opinion. unfortunately it's one of those issues that is so divided there is very little useful dialogue at this time.
by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.
and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.
Meh, tanks and hand grenades would make the venison and pork inedible. My main concern is that there are so many definitions of "assault rifles" that it makes one's head spin. Most of these asshats trying to spin legislation have no idea what they are talking about in regards to gun parts/function. my problem is more about the political term "assault rifle".
that's a fair point in the underlined above.
that being said the question i posed was not answered. if the weapon is not at fault why is any weapon banned?
I think that's maybe the slippery slope pendulum; where to draw the line on both sides of the argument. There are plenty out there that would say that civilians should have access to any and everything and on the other saying that there should be no access to anything. Personally I feel that a certain amount of force in the hands of the public is a good thing for a country to have. I realize others disagree with that statement, but people knowing they risk being shot back at has surely been a factor in the heads if *some* seeking to do harm to others.
i think people who think none should be legal are as crazy as the people who say all should be legal. there should and has to be a middle ground in my opinion. unfortunately it's one of those issues that is so divided there is very little useful dialogue at this time.
Can we go back to a time when there was no CNN, no FOX News, etc!?!? Make people fear that their guns are going to be taken away and get ratings. Make people fear that gun owners are crazy rednecks hell bent on destruction and get ratings. Fear Fear Fear
by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.
and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.
Statistically speaking, "assault rifles" are used in a very low number of crimes. More people are killed with bare hands and feet in the US annually.
That's why, I feel, some gun rights supporters think that banning "assault rifles" would affect more law-abiding citizens negatively while having little to no reduction in violent crime.
"Assault rifles" aren't the problem. Handguns are used in the majority of gun deaths and the majority of those are suicides.
Take care of the people and they will kill themselves and each other less often.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.
and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.
Meh, tanks and hand grenades would make the venison and pork inedible. My main concern is that there are so many definitions of "assault rifles" that it makes one's head spin. Most of these asshats trying to spin legislation have no idea what they are talking about in regards to gun parts/function. my problem is more about the political term "assault rifle".
that's a fair point in the underlined above.
that being said the question i posed was not answered. if the weapon is not at fault why is any weapon banned?
I think that's maybe the slippery slope pendulum; where to draw the line on both sides of the argument. There are plenty out there that would say that civilians should have access to any and everything and on the other saying that there should be no access to anything. Personally I feel that a certain amount of force in the hands of the public is a good thing for a country to have. I realize others disagree with that statement, but people knowing they risk being shot back at has surely been a factor in the heads if *some* seeking to do harm to others.
i think people who think none should be legal are as crazy as the people who say all should be legal. there should and has to be a middle ground in my opinion. unfortunately it's one of those issues that is so divided there is very little useful dialogue at this time.
Can we go back to a time when there was no CNN, no FOX News, etc!?!? Make people fear that their guns are going to be taken away and get ratings. Make people fear that gun owners are crazy rednecks hell bent on destruction and get ratings. Fear Fear Fear
Totally agree with this.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Comments
Godfather.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
9th Circuit Court of Appeals Says No Right to Concealed Gun Carry
A divided federal appeals court in California ruled Thursday that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun, adding to a division among the lower courts on gun rights outside the home.
MORE: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/9th-circuit-court-appeals-says-no-right-concealed-gun-carry-n589041
California is a perfect example of criminals having easier access to guns than responsible citizens .
Godfather.
(New Hampshire State Representative Dan Dumaine (R) opposing a move to ban guns from the chamber floor)
* These are the accepted counter-arguments to gun control. As stupid as they are... they are all the pro gun crowd has.
So... don't think of the individuals as stupid. Think, instead, that most... well... not most... but some for sure (like the ones on here for example)... don't have much to work with when discussing this topic.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
He only LOOKS like a penis but doesn't have one.
Here is a little portion of the segment.
http://www.hbo.com/real-sports-with-bryant-gumbel/episodes/0/230-episode/video/ep-230-bonus-clip-modern-sporting-rifle
So there.
Godfather.
the problem is not the guns the problem is people.....people kill and you know the rest.
Godfather.
Guns don't kill people
Gun owners kill people
(Jack Handy)
* I'm thinking Donald Trump comes as close as anyone to being the living embodiment of Jack Handy. He says some stuff that could have scrolled on SNL easily.
and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.
My main concern is that there are so many definitions of "assault rifles" that it makes one's head spin. Most of these asshats trying to spin legislation have no idea what they are talking about in regards to gun parts/function. my problem is more about the political term "assault rifle".
that being said the question i posed was not answered. if the weapon is not at fault why is any weapon banned?
That's why, I feel, some gun rights supporters think that banning "assault rifles" would affect more law-abiding citizens negatively while having little to no reduction in violent crime.
"Assault rifles" aren't the problem. Handguns are used in the majority of gun deaths and the majority of those are suicides.
Take care of the people and they will kill themselves and each other less often.