╌>

New Mexico governor orders suspension of open and concealed carry of guns in Albuquerque

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  snuffy  •  10 months ago  •  244 comments

By:   Snuffy

New Mexico governor orders suspension of open and concealed carry of guns in Albuquerque
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, issued an emergency order on Friday suspending the right to carry guns in public across Albuquerque and the surrounding Bernalillo County for at least 30 days following recent instances of gun violence.

How would this restriction have prevented the tragic deaths? It's nothing more than taking advantage of a situation to apply an ideological policy. One that would have done nothing to prevent the deaths nor will do anything to prevent future ones of similar kind.

The Governor's job is to solve problems. It's not to punish the law abiding citizens with measures that have zero impact on the problem beyond making a political statement to her supporters. It's all show.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


New Mexico   Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, issued an emergency order on Friday suspending the right to carry guns in public across Albuquerque and the surrounding Bernalillo County for at least 30 days following recent instances of gun violence.

The governor said she expects the order to face legal challenges but that she believed she needed to act in response to recent gun-related deaths, such as an 11-year-old boy who was shot and killed outside a minor league baseball stadium earlier this week.

"When New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game — when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn — something is very wrong," Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

The suspension was classified as an emergency public health order, and applies to open and concealed carry in most public places, excluding police and licensed security guards. The restriction is connected to a threshold for violent crime rates met only by the Albuquerque area.


Red Box Rules

No Trump or fascist nonsense, memes must be topical.


 
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1  seeder  Snuffy    10 months ago
After a reporter questioned whether Grisham was upholding her oath to the Constitution, she argued no Constitutional rights were fixed, including her oath.

"No  constitutional right , in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute," she retorted. Grisham cited restrictions on free speech as an example of how rights can be curtailed in emergency situations. 

New Mexico governor shocks with comment about Constitution after issuing temporary gun ban: Not 'absolute' | Fox News

I find it amazing that her Attorney General would let something like this get out unless she didn't reach out for legal advice before issuing the order.  Hard to imagine what the courts will have to say to her, no it's really not hard to imagine at all.  I realize New Mexico is heavily Democrat leaning but punishing law-abiding citizens really seems like government overreach to me.  Wonder how many criminals will follow suit and not carry their weapons in public....

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Snuffy @1    10 months ago

gee, that sounds like a lib trick to catch the maga unarmed, out in the open... somebody call tucker carlson!!! /s

no open display of handguns in a western town, what a novel concept...

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
1.1.1  GregTx  replied to  devangelical @1.1    10 months ago
no open display of handguns in a western town, what a novel concept...

Are you suggesting that Albuquerque has devolved back to the wild west?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @1.1    10 months ago

The Albuquerque police chief said the his PD won't enforce it and Bernalillo County Sheriff said the ban challenges the foundation of our constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold and he won't ask his officers to enforce it.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  devangelical @1.1    10 months ago

Is that all you have? More death wishing bullshit?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.4  bugsy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.3    10 months ago
Is that all you have? More death wishing bullshit?

Have we ever expected anything different?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  devangelical @1.1    10 months ago

It's very likely that many lefties own guns too. But it's not likely that responsible and law-abiding gun owners and carriers are committing these crimes. And most assuredly criminals and gang bangers will meekly obey her dumb ass decree. /s

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.5    10 months ago

Five teens were arrested in the drive by shooting that killed a 5 year old girl.

The little boy killed leaving the baseball game was a road rage victim.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.7  CB  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.5    10 months ago

You know, this talking point about criminals obeying governors or other officials does not pass the test. By definition, criminals are. . . not committed to following laws. . .and yet we have statutory laws in all fifty states and nobody, bar none, expects criminals (by definition) to abide them for long or forever.

So what value is this conservative talking point? Do tell me (if you can)!

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
1.1.8  1stwarrior  replied to  CB @1.1.7    10 months ago

What's your point?  Wanna discuss the thread?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.9  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @1.1.7    10 months ago
So what value is this conservative talking point? Do tell me (if you can)!

Well, you call it a talking point, right? The point is that the decree by the Govenor is pointless because it won't achieve the results she desires for the reason you yourself just wrote in your post. That is, a criminal is gonna do criminal, right? 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.10  CB  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.8    10 months ago

I am discussing the thread, do you have a problem with that? See Greg if you do!!! [deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.11  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.9    10 months ago

And you know of criminals, by definition, that follow laws? Do tell us about them (if you can).  That said, as regarding criminals it will give those 'masterminds" and syndicates in the county/ies something to think about (as it does in prison when the Warden issues a decree) as they take the measure of what will become of each of them when found to be in violation of the highest state official's emergency order which I presume is more stringent and severe that during normal periods: 

Governor announces statewide enforcement plan for gun violence, fentanyl reduction – Plan includes 30-day suspension of concealed, open carry in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County

Governor announces statewide enforcement plan for gun violence, fentanyl reduction – Plan includes 30-day suspension of concealed, open carry in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County
Sep 8, 2023 | Press Releases

SANTA FE – Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced on Friday a new public health order that outlines immediate actions aimed at quickly reducing gun violence and illegal drug use in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.

The recent shooting deaths of a thirteen-year-old girl on July 28, a five-year-old girl on August 14, and an eleven-year-old boy on September 6, as well as two mass shootings this year spurred the governor to declare gun violence a public health emergency on Thursday. Today’s public health order includes directives to curb the gun violence and drug abuse that the Governor has declared to be public health emergencies.

“As I said yesterday, the time for standard measures has passed,” said Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. “And when New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game – when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn – something is very wrong.”

During a substantive and earnest conversation on Friday with public safety officials including District Attorney Sam Bregman, Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen, Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina, former State Police Chief Pete Kassetas, and state law enforcement leadership, the governor expanded on her plans to drastically reduce the number of violent incidents and fentanyl-related deaths in New Mexico.

The governor also on Friday signed an executive order declaring illegal drugs a public health emergency.

The action plan includes a suspension of open and concealed carry laws in Bernalillo County, temporarily prohibiting the carrying of guns on public property with certain exceptions. Exceptions include for licensed security guards and law enforcement officers. Citizens with permits to carry firearms are free to possess their weapons on private property (such as at a gun range or gun store), provided they transport the firearm in a locked box, use a trigger lock, or some other mechanism that renders the gun incapable of being fired.

The public health order also directs:

– The Regulation and Licensing Division to conduct monthly inspections of licensed firearm dealers to ensure compliance with all sales and storage laws.
– The Department of Health, along with the Environment Department, to begin wastewater testing for illegal substances such as fentanyl at schools.
– The Department of Health to compile and issue a comprehensive report on gunshot victims presenting at hospitals in New Mexico, which shall include (if available): demographic data of gunshot victims, including age, gender, race, and ethnicity; data on gunshot victim’s healthcare outcomes; the brand and caliber of the firearm used; the general circumstances leading to the injury; the impact of gunshot victims on New Mexico’s healthcare system; and any other pertinent information.
– A prohibition on firearms on state property, including state buildings and schools. This also includes other places of education where children gather, such as parks.

– The State Police to add officers in Albuquerque with funding for overtime provided.
– The Children, Youth and Families Department to immediately suspend the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative and evaluate juvenile probation protocols.

The orders signed go into effect immediately.

And the decree may fall due to political pressure and handicapping of it by some conservatives who by the way do not value life but like to pretend it is sacrosanct for their own political reasons to oppress.  

In which case, go ahead, tie the governor's hands. Perhaps, it is true. They are not 'gunning down' some conservatives or enough conservatives yet to warrant 'alarm.'

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.12  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @1.1.11    10 months ago
That said, as regarding criminals it will give those 'masterminds" and syndicates in the county/ies something to think about (as it does in prison when the Warden issues a decree) as they take the measure of what will become of each of them when found to be in violation of the highest state official's emergency order which I presume is more stringent and severe that during normal periods: 

Sorry, CB, but I can't see this as anything other than self-deception. Criminals do what they do because they don't consider their actions. They know what can happen to them but they don't care. If they did they wouldn't be criminals. 

Furthermore, your position seems more concerned with thwarting what you apparently see as nefarious conservative motives rather than careful consideration of facts and policies. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.13  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.12    10 months ago

Believe whatever you want. I'm good with you doing that!  Cheers!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.14  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @1.1.11    10 months ago
That said, as regarding criminals it will give those 'masterminds" and syndicates in the county/ies something to think about (as it does in prison when the Warden issues a decree) as they take the measure of what will become of each of them when found to be in violation of the highest state official's emergency order which I presume is more stringent and severe that during normal periods: 

I see. So is it your position that all the other laws out there that criminals break and ignore won't cause them to think about the consequences of their actions but this decree will? What is it about this decree you think will be the deterrent they will pay attention to rather than all the other one's they break? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.15  Ronin2  replied to  devangelical @1.1    10 months ago

The governor is a typical Democrat empowering criminals.

Followed by a typical leftist response supporting it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.7    10 months ago
You know, this talking point about criminals obeying governors or other officials does not pass the test. By definition, criminals are. . . not committed to following laws. . .and yet we have statutory laws in all fifty states and nobody, bar none, expects criminals (by definition) to abide them for long or forever.

The liberal talking point appears to be take guns away from law abiding citizens, or at least curtail their right to carry one.

Good plan, then only the criminals will be carrying.

That's a freaking BRILLIANT liberal plan.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.17  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.16    10 months ago

Meh. Yawn.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.17    10 months ago

That reply is typical of some liberals.

I suppose it is much easier than thinking about what I wrote and replying cogently.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.2  George  replied to  Snuffy @1    10 months ago
Wonder how many criminals will follow suit and not carry their weapons in public....

all of them of course, liberals dreams of gun control depends on that.

If one person is shot in public, is this Governor a failure or just an idiot?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.2.1  seeder  Snuffy  replied to  George @1.2    10 months ago

For my money she's an idiot.  She double downed with this quote...

"No  constitutional right , in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute," she retorted. Grisham cited restrictions on free speech as an example of how rights can be curtailed in emergency situations.  New Mexico governor shocks with comment about Constitution after issuing temporary gun ban: Not 'absolute' | Fox News

So she says not even her oath of office is an absolute, guess she proves it with her declaration.  The audacity of her to use a Public Health Order to suspect a Constitutional Right.

Wonder when the first court case will be filed on Monday and when the first talk of impeachment comes out.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
1.2.2  charger 383  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.1    10 months ago

This is an impeachable offence by the Governor 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.2.3  arkpdx  replied to  George @1.2    10 months ago
If one person is shot in public, is this Governor a failure or just an idiot? 

Both!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @1    10 months ago
No  constitutional right , in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolut

That's insane.  Let's see how committed Democrats are to the rule of law and the Constitution . I'm sure she'll be impeached tomorrow with the full support of the national party. Because Democrats can't possibly be hypocritical enough to let this slide, given their rhetoric the last few years.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
1.3.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3    10 months ago

They won't touch her.  She's too solid for their core out here in the SW.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.3.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3    10 months ago
That's insane

Meh.  Maybe not.  Most enumerated rights are not absolute.

The right to bear arms isn't absolute.  You can't have your own F35 or mobile rocket launcher.  

The right to free speech isn't absolute.  You can't incite violence or yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Her decision isn't really defensible, but the idea that all rights have limits is reasonably well established.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
1.3.3  GregTx  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.2    10 months ago
including my oath,...
 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.3.4  Drakkonis  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.2    10 months ago
Most enumerated rights are not absolute.

Within the context of what you are pointing out, I agree. However, I think it's important note that you aren't quite speaking of the same thing Sean is. Enumerated rights are not rights because government grants them. They are recognition of rights that exist simply by being a living human being. As such, every person has the right to self defense, regardless of what government has to say about it. Where government has a say on the issue is to ensure a just and reasonable standard of application of a natural right. If that is so, then it is reasonable and just for a government to deny citizens ownership of the kinds of weapons you give examples of since it would be difficult to argue necessity for self defense. 

In the case of this decree, this governor is suspending a just and reasonable method of self defense without establishing why defending oneself with a gun would be both unjust or unreasonable or even explain how this will solve any problems. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
1.3.5  arkpdx  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3    10 months ago
Let's see how committed Democrats are to the rule of law and the Constitution

It is clear to me that they are committed to neither. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.3.6  evilone  replied to  Drakkonis @1.3.4    10 months ago
Enumerated rights are not rights because government grants them. They are recognition of rights that exist simply by being a living human being. As such, every person has the right to self defense, regardless of what government has to say about it.

The reason for governments is to enumerate and uphold the rights by consent of the governed. This is why all rights are NOT universal. 

It wasn't until June 26th, 2008 that the SCOTUS ruled, "...the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense" when DC tried to ban all carry and all guns at home to be disassembled or under lock. 

If we take the Originalist approach to the 2nd Amendment (which many people here agreed with when it came to the right to women's healthcare privacy) then, no, there is no such right to self defense. The 2nd Amendment starts with, "A well regulated Militia..." it's obvious the intent was to keep men (and only men) trained for national defense against the British.

It doesn't really matter in the long run anyway since I expect this to be stayed by a court, probably today.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.3.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @1.3.6    10 months ago

Scalias opinion is pure originalism. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.3.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.2    10 months ago
he right to bear arms isn't absolute.  You can't have your own F35 or mobile rocket launcher.  

Right. But's that not this case is it? This specific issue has been decided by the Court.  It's not a "um maybe" issue.   

There is no precedent for a governor unilaterally suspending constitutional rights based on a declaration of an emergency. It it were to stand, get ready for a lot more "emergencies" 

u can't incite violence or yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

FYI The fire in a crowded theatre canard is false. 

ut the idea that all rights have limits

What other  Constitutional  rights can a governor unilaterally  suspend? 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.3.9  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.7    10 months ago
Scalias opinion is pure originalism. 

Scalia had to go all the way back to English Common Law to justify his decision - “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and the best way to destroy a citizen's militia was to disarm them. Considering we don't have well regulated citizen militia anymore a future court could fully try and overturn this past decision following Stevens' dissent “The Court does not appear to grasp the distinction between how a word can be used and how it ordinarily is used.”

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.3.10  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.8    10 months ago
There is no precedent for a governor unilaterally suspending constitutional rights based on a declaration of an emergency. It it were to stand, get ready for a lot more "emergencies" 

I agree that this emergency declaration is a bad precedent and fully expect it to be stayed if not totally overturn on summary. I just don't agree the 2nd Amendment is as sacrosanct as many conservatives believe especially given that now past SCOTUS rulings can be "found" to be ruled erroneously in light of Dobbs.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.11  JohnRussell  replied to  evilone @1.3.9    10 months ago

Originalism is whatever it's proponents want it to be. Conservatives act like the correctness of originalism is self-evident, but that is not true.

Every Supreme Court decision that has ever been made is an interpretation of the Constitution. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @1.3.4    10 months ago
Enumerated rights are not rights because government grants them. They are recognition of rights that exist simply by being a living human being. As such, every person has the right to self defense, regardless of what government has to say about it.

There is no such thing as a right that is not granted by the government.  Or should say a protected or enforceable right. You may have a "god given" right to own your little homestead , but without government to enforce your right your house could be taken by the first band of marauders that happened by. Government provides the police authority to get your house back from the pirates for you. 

"God given rights" is a philosophical precept, not a real world one. 

Enumerated rights means they are part of the bill of rights, or further amendments, which are numbered , that is why they are called "enumerated". 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.3.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @1.3.9    10 months ago

ia had to go all the way back to English Common Law to justify his decision

Of course he did. English Common law is the basis of our legal system and the Constitution. That's the language our founders spoke, so you have to understand it to understand the meaning.  That's literally the whole point of originalism. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.13    10 months ago

Why not going back to ancient Roman law?

The very fact that Scalia could not prove his point without using dubious arguments from another country before the US was founded or the Constitution written proves the murkiness of his argument. 

Either the second amendment is clear in its meaning or its not. Its not. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.3.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.12    10 months ago
here is no such thing as a right that is not granted by the government.

That's not what the Constitution says. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.15    10 months ago

Please, tell us how a "right" can be protected and enforced without government? 

Sure you can "defend your property", but if you are against a superior force you lose. The government protects your property rights, not you. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.3.17  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.13    10 months ago

Originalism starts from a desired outcome and then builds reasoning around it. If English Common Law suites the given argument it's quoted and if not it's ignored. We know the purpose from multiple talks on the subject is to push the country as far to the right as people will allow.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.3.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @1.3.17    10 months ago

Lol. What do you imagine your interpretations are?

It’s easy to claim that,  but you can’t make an originalism argument that is stronger than Scalia’s.  I

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.3.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.16    10 months ago

Read the first amendement for instance. Did the government create the right to freedom of speech, or did it preexist it? 


 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.20  JohnRussell  replied to  evilone @1.3.17    10 months ago
Originalism starts from a desired outcome and then builds reasoning around it.

Of course it does, but originalists tend to claim the high ground as a default. It has to be constantly fought against. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.3.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.20    10 months ago

If that were the case, how is that originalists are the ones who rule against their personal policy preferences, and non originalists votes always align with the interests of the Democratic Party at that moment? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.3.22  Jack_TX  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.8    10 months ago
Right. But's that not this case is it? This specific issue has been decided by the Court.  It's not a "um maybe" issue. 

I already said this particular action is indefensible.  

I merely point out that her statement about rights not being absolute is not as crazy as people seem to think.

What other  Constitutional  rights can a governor unilaterally  suspend? 

In times of emergency, Governors can enact curfews or quarantines, shut down protests, and several other temporary measures as needed to protect the safety of the citizenry. It's actually not all that uncommon.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.3.23  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.12    10 months ago
"God given rights" is a philosophical precept, not a real world one.

The same people who wrote the Constitution also believed that all men were "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights", so it's a very "real world" idea.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.3.24  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.18    10 months ago
What do you imagine your interpretations are?

I'm but one voice amongst many and past our 2 person conversation here my opinions are largely irrelevant. 

but you can’t make an originalism argument that is stronger than Scalia’s.

Stronger or more logical? His is stronger by virtue of position as SCOTUS Justice with 4 others assenting. Don't forget he also had 4 others dissenting.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.25  CB  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.11    10 months ago

Additionally, the founders had no idea that modern people would be so hostile to change that would safe lives. They fully expected our constitution to be modernized according to the times (with frank and honest deliberations between the states) and not drowned and mired in uncompromising rancor by half of the country. What is happening now politically around guns is not incremental change thwarted it is stalemate!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.3.26  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @1.3.25    10 months ago

What have you done to amend the Constitution?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.3.27  seeder  Snuffy  replied to  CB @1.3.25    10 months ago
the founders had no idea that modern people would be so hostile to change that would safe lives.

That's funny as hell.  Do you honestly believe that people back in the 18th Century all sat around singing kumbaya?  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.28  CB  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.27    10 months ago

What kind of a "f-ing" question is that? How on earth do you get "kumbaya" out of my content?

That said, I would not expect them to be singing a song that as near as I can tell was not around until the 20th century. Moreover, they could have been singing a hymn similar in meaning because the verses/meaning of Come By Here Dear Lord" hail from the Old and New Testaments.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.3.29  seeder  Snuffy  replied to  CB @1.3.28    10 months ago

It's quite a logical question as you were comparing the founders (18th Century people) with modern people and thinking that the founders had no idea that modern people would be so hostile to change.  Completely ignoring how hostile to one another people all thru out history (including the 18th Century) were.  There were four major wars fought during that period, I have no idea how many smaller conflicts also occurred during the 1700's.  People back then were rather resistant to change also.  That's human nature.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.30  CB  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.29    10 months ago

What?! Do you imagine the founders would have anticipated MODERN AMERICA to be PARALYZED by guns meant to protect us with our guidance and control over them versus their tyranny over us?

For crying out loud, where does all this contrarian talk end? Does it even have an end?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.3.31  seeder  Snuffy  replied to  CB @1.3.30    10 months ago

Modern America is not paralyzed by guns.  If you truly want to remove guns from the hands of the citizen, then you need to start by removing the 2nd Amendment.  The vast majority of legal gun holders is no more danger to others than any other group/item/thing in public today.  I see more tyranny coming from our political establishment than I do the members of this board who support the right to own guns.

For crying out loud, where does all this contrarian talk end? Does it even have an end?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One can just as easily ask you to stop the contrarian talk also.  TBH your posts do little to further the conversation around this.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.3.32  Drakkonis  replied to  evilone @1.3.6    10 months ago
The reason for governments is to enumerate and uphold the rights by consent of the governed. This is why all rights are NOT universal.

I have a different take. The reason for governments is to protect the basic rights we are all born with apart from governments.  These rights do not proceed from governments or the governed. We simply have them by virtue of existing and government's function is to protect those rights. 

If we take the Originalist approach to the 2nd Amendment (which many people here agreed with when it came to the right to women's healthcare privacy) then, no, there is no such right to self defense. The 2nd Amendment starts with, "A well regulated Militia..." it's obvious the intent was to keep men (and only men) trained for national defense against the British.

That would be one reason for it but not all. The founders also believed they are necessary for self defense, not only from common criminal activity but also against the Federal government, should it become tyrannical. There are plenty of opinions from founding fathers that support this. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.3.33  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.12    10 months ago
There is no such thing as a right that is not granted by the government.  Or should say a protected or enforceable right.

Yes, you should say the second, not the first, because it isn't true. Governments don't invent basic rights, like freedom of speech, unreasonable search and seizure or self defense. If you think they do, ask yourself how they invent those rights? Out of thin air? 

You may have a "god given" right to own your little homestead , but without government to enforce your right your house could be taken by the first band of marauders that happened by.

You're conflating "rights" with "ability to protect". They aren't the same thing. 

"God given rights" is a philosophical precept, not a real world one. 

I doubt God would agree with you. 

Enumerated rights means they are part of the bill of rights, or further amendments, which are numbered , that is why they are called "enumerated".

Obviously, but how is this relevant? 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.34  CB  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.31    10 months ago

[Deleted] Well what are you doing to FURTHER the SUBSTANCE of discussion around this, besides telling us why America can't cope with its gun sickness or maybe you deny it is a sickness? It's disgusting!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
1.4  Jasper2529  replied to  Snuffy @1    10 months ago

Sadly, nothing about Democrat-run states and cities surprises me anymore.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Snuffy @1    10 months ago

Typical leftist liberal Democrat knee jerk reaction.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
1.6  1stwarrior  replied to  Snuffy @1    10 months ago

Somewhere in the interview, she states that she knows it's "possible" that her order won't stand, so she'll issue the order and wait for the AG and crew to further advise.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.6.1  seeder  Snuffy  replied to  1stwarrior @1.6    10 months ago

She should have gotten the opinion of the Attorney General before she issued the decree.  What she did was unconstitutional IMO and she should be impeached for her actions.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
2  GregTx    10 months ago
gee, that sounds like a lib trick to catch the maga unarmed, out in the open...

Sure, except it's going to leave alot more libs unarmed, out in the open in Albuquerque....

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1  devangelical  replied to  GregTx @2    10 months ago

this lib will carry a concealed weapon wherever I want, whenever I want, no matter who says what. as long as there are certain people wandering around this country sucking free air while spewing unamerican ideals, I'll own guns. you never know who may try to subvert the will of the voters, instigate an insurrection, give aid and comfort to domestic enemies, or use their elected office personal political retribution.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3  CB    10 months ago

So the sanctimonius gun has been given a 'time-out' and the usual suspects are "up in arms" about it. What the hell do we need governors for if they can't fix or counter issues of safety within a state?  She appears to want a cooling off period. . . of course, somebody (either criminal or yes conservative) will "F" it up by going out and being heinous just to put a fine point on how hopeless it is to contend with the curse of guns in U.S. society. (By the way, in their own right guns are a blessing to this country, TOO.)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @3    10 months ago

So you are in favor of the executive unilaterally declaring an emergency and suspending Constitutional rights.

Saw that in Germany about 90 years ago..,   

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.1  seeder  Snuffy  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    10 months ago
So you are in favor of the executive unilaterally declaring an emergency and suspending Constitutional rights. Saw that in Germany about 90 years ago..,   

Spot on.  Can you imagine what could be next in line for this abuse?  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.2  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    10 months ago

In person? And I take exception with your suspension on constitutional rights! The governor is trying to run the damn state and oh save lives! When does doing good for all, fail to match the test of leadership/authority?

Somebody here wrote a criticism about "ideology," and yet here you fatalistically invoking ideology to explain away why little to nothing can be done to make gun violence and lone shooters decrease. 

Ideology, for its on sake - will get you, me, "many" people killed grave-yard dead. And there is no coming back from any death-including ideological death!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @3.1.2    10 months ago
d I take exception with your suspension on constitutional right

Then you are taking exception with reality.

The governor is trying to run the damn state and oh save lives

Right. The Constitution allows the executive to unilaterally do that.  Hitler made the same claims. So you believe all rights can be taken away from you so long as the person taking them claims its for the public good?

When does doing good for all, fail to match the test of leadership/authority?

You understand the purpose of having a Constitution in a Democracy is to prevent someone from unilaterally taking aways rights under the pretext of "doing good for all," right?

Guess what, this isn't a dictatorship.  One persona can't unilaterally decide what is "good for everyone" and do whatever they want citing that as a justification.  Because anyone can justify just about anything by claiming that. '

Ideology, for its on sake - will get you, me, "many" people killed grave-yard dea

That's a lesson you should learn. Your ideology has led you into advocating for the overthrow of the Constitution. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
3.1.4  1stwarrior  replied to  CB @3.1.2    10 months ago

Quit going so off the wall with your attempts to discuss something.  Stick to the topic.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.1.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1.4    10 months ago

[removed]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.6  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.3    10 months ago
The Constitution allows the executive to unilaterally do that.  Hitler made the same claims. So you believe all rights can be taken away from you so long as the person taking them claims its for the public good?

That's full of crap!

Your comment is ridiculous. First, you invoke Hitler. Second you do so haphazardly.

The Enabling Act: even more power for Hitler

March 23, 1933  BERLIN

On 23 March 1933, the German parliament voted in favour of the ‘Enabling Act’ by a large majority. The Act allowed Hitler to enact new laws without interference from the president or the  Reichstag  (German parliament) for a period of four years.

In his speech on that day, Hitler gave those present the choice 'between war or peace'. It was a veiled threat to intimidate any dissenters. With 444 votes in favour and 94 against, the  Reichstag  adopted the Enabling Act. Only the Social Democrats voted against it.

The vote could hardly be called democratic: The  Reichstag  was surrounded by members of the  SA  and the  SS , the armed branches of the NSDAP. The Communist Party was absent because its members had been arrested or were on the run. Twenty-six Social Democrats did not vote for the same reason.

This law allowed Hitler to rule Germany as a dictator from then o n.

The lengths some conservatives would sink beneath to aggressively deny good a proper field to flourish in is. . . astounding.  As you see, Hitler was not after any good by establishing and strong-arming, "The Enabling Act" into law (to make him authority unto himself.)

A thirty-day moratorium on guns to get a grip of the situation in a state, does not a DICTATOR create. After all it is an EMERGENCY ORDER not a permanent law by the New Mexico legislature and presumably it meets the requirements of an order permissible by a state governor.

Stop with the bullshit. We don't have time for this kind of noise every time someone tries to save lives. 

Time to give some thought to what you believe and let others live even if it kills your ideology. People matter. Guns are a tool.  Obviously, guns never expected or did anything political to have overwhelming control over life and death that you willingly grant them.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.1.7  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @3.1.2    10 months ago
The governor is trying to run the damn state and oh save lives!

Let me illustrate the problem with your view. Which following scenario makes the most sense to you. 

1. Bad apple with a gun living in a society that is armed. Bad apple always has to consider that, while doing his criminal thing, someone who is also armed might take his life.

2. Bad actor with a gun living in a society where a Governor unilaterally takes away the right of law abiding citizen to carry a gun, and thereby defend themselves from his criminal predations. Bad actor is happy because the odds of someone being able to defend against him move in his favor. 

This decree favors the criminal, not the law abiding citizen. That is, the decree tends toward having the opposite effect it is claimed to have. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @3.1.6    10 months ago

I was referring to the Emergency Decree for the Protection of the German People that  suspended the democratic aspects of the Weimar Republic and declared a state of emergency, signed on Feb 28, 1933.

 It was for the protection of the people! It was an emergency!  Sound familiar? 

he lengths some conservatives would sink beneath to aggressively deny good a proper field to flourish 

And I'm not surprised  by the quickness some progressives will abandon the Constitution when it suits their ideological agenda.  

 As you see, Hitler was not after any good by establishing and strong-armi

No shit. Does that not provide a hint to you why suspending Constitutional  rights in the name of "protecting the people" on an emergency basis is a bad idea?

If DeSantis had suspended the first amendment for 30 days during the BLM riots to protect the lives of Floridians, would you have been so quick to defend him?  My guess is you only advocate destroying Constitutional  protections when it suits your agenda. 

e don't have time for this kind of noise every time someone tries to save lives. 

Fuck the Constitution! Fuck due process!  Lives are to be saved!   Said every  dictator, ever, to  justifying seizing power.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.9  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.7    10 months ago

original

original

The fact of the matter is Law Enforcement Officer and Licensed security officers are authorized to protect the public on public property . Private citizens can have their guns to protect themselves at-home and at their businesses. Nothing wrong with that.

BTW, if having private citizens with guns in public spaces is a "practical deterrent," why does this New Mexico community have: "1,000 or  more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021 according to Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program AND more than 90 firearm-related emergency department visits per 100,000 residents from July 2022 to June 2023 according to the New Mexico Department of Public Health?"

What say you?

NOTE: The link to the images above details that this order by the N. M. Governor carries only administrative penalties against its violators .

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.10  CB  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1.4    10 months ago

You're not the boss of me. Stick that.  I don't speak "conservati-ese" , but the site allows me to speak "liberal-ese" or I wouldn't be here to start.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.11  seeder  Snuffy  replied to  CB @3.1.6    10 months ago

Get back on topic

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.12  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.8    10 months ago

I don't know what the hell you are dealing with or going on about. You invoked Hitler. I showed you where you were wrong. And, you muddle your own narrative by out of the blue declaring you are talking about whatever you should have been talking about from the start. We are not mind readers here as you well know. Either write what you mean or come with an apology for wasting precious time dithering around with what you meant!

As I have clearly manifested to you; Hitler is no governor of New Mexico. His intentions were rotten from the beginning and were plain to all in time. The United States is not 1930's Germany - not by a long shot. 

So why are you desperately going to invoke Hitler (for New Mexico)? To create false alarm? To get undeserved attention for your comments? Hitler is not a positive influence in history. Especially not today as you well know! He could not be elected dog-catcher in New Mexico, you know this right?

If DeSantis had suspended the first amendment for 30 days during the BLM riots to protect the lives of Floridians, would you have been so quick to defend him?  My guess is you only advocate destroying Constitutional  protections when it suits your agenda.

Apples and Oranges. You've moved from guns/2nd amendment to the first amendment. . .how the hell am I supposed to keep up with the "thread" if you are using it indulgently and unwieldingly?!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.13  CB  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.11    10 months ago

I am on topic. TSee 3.1.3, tell your 'associates' to stop asking questions for which they don't wish to here replies! I didn't mention Hitler - that other guy did. Did you tell him to get back on topic?!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.1.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.11    10 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.1.15  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @3.1.9    10 months ago
BTW, if having private citizens with guns in public spaces is a "practical deterrent," why does this New Mexico community have: "1,000 or  more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021 according to Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program AND more than 90 firearm-related emergency department visits per 100,000 residents from July 2022 to June 2023 according to the New Mexico Department of Public Health?" What say you?

I'd say you seem to expect a simple answer to a problem that has many aspects to it. However, one answer is the vast majority of citizens don't carry. Even so, in spite of the anti-gun lobby's best effort to suppress the facts, those that do have a measurable positive effect on violent crime, both in the home and in public. 

Also, you read the decree wrong. It doesn't say that those are the actual statistics for those locations. It says the restrictions only apply to places that meet that criteria. 

Lastly, what does the Governor's executive order, which speaks about the illicit drug problems in the state and doesn't mention firearms at all, have to do with banning a constitutional right to bear arms? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.16  seeder  Snuffy  replied to  CB @3.1.13    10 months ago

No, you are deflecting from the seed which is the Governor who issued an unconstitutional decree by using public health to restrict the rights of citizens to follow their 2nd Amendment rights.  Post 3.0 is where you started with your deflection.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @3.1.12    10 months ago

I can’t keep up with your delusional claims.  The first two Sentences were so dishonest as to make reading onward pointless.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.18  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.15    10 months ago
Also, you read the decree wrong. It doesn't say that those are the actual statistics for those locations. It says the restrictions only apply to places that meet that criteria.  Lastly, what does the Governor's executive order, which speaks about the illicit drug problems in the state and doesn't mention firearms at all, have to do with banning a constitutional right to bear arms? 

I was planning to forego this article, but since it is you and we don't openly. . .'share' often. I will respond to you:

I did not read the "decree" wrong. I stated it verbatim. I did not subject it to interpretation or opinion.

Nice 'spin' in your first paragraph. If the vast majority of citizens don't carry then what the. . .heaven is the majority complaining about loss for? Is it your opinion, the "minority" gun holders holding back the depth of bloodletting carnage in New Mexico?

She had a health department issuance coupled with her decree. Come on, let's not be required to over-explain the obvious:  The deaths are creating a health SICKNESS in the state, apparently. One which rises to the level a governor feels it her duty to act on it. 

Ban? A suspension is not a ban. Surely you know the difference and nuance in the terms. Why disregard it? Why use loaded language. Done intentionally, it is disingenuous.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.19  CB  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.16    10 months ago

It remains to be seen if the issuance is unconstitutional. Besides, if she rendered an executive officer which she knows to be unconstitutional deliberately, she really would be in deep trouble, eh?

She stated it is likely (thereabouts) going to face "legal challenges," so why do you label it unconstitutional? What do you know about it?

I stand by comment 3, I spoke about guns and governors and cooling off periods and gun-related "fuck-ups" and call-outs - all relevant to this article/discussion. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
3.1.20  GregTx  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.5    10 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.1.21  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @3.1.18    10 months ago

I don't see any point in an endless attempt at trying to unbend your reasoning for you. Thanks for the engagement and have a nice day. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.19    10 months ago
She stated it is likely (thereabouts) going to face "legal challenges," so why do you label it unconstitutional? What do you know about it?

Some of us are pretty familiar with the Constitution.

This order goes against the Constitution, this isn't hard to see or understand.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.23  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.21    10 months ago

good-bye-1430149_1280.png

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.24  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.22    10 months ago

May be. May be not. How soon can some conservatives get it before a judge? (It should be hand-carried and there by Monday? Can y'all get a judge to work on Sunday?)

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.24    10 months ago

Monday will be soon enough to end the stupid order from the Governor.

There shouldn't be a judge in America who would allow this crap to stand.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.24    10 months ago

A lawsuit has been filed!

The Governor may end up learning something about our Constitution!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.27  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.26    10 months ago
Some of us are pretty familiar with the Constitution. This order goes against the Constitution, this isn't hard to see or understand.

So a lawsuit has arrived against the NM governor's executive order. Above you ASSERT that it is a not hard to understand or see that this goes against the Constitution; but at 3.1.26 you added the words, "may end up learning something. . .  ."  You're hedging now?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.27    10 months ago

Please read what I wrote again.

It is beyond obvious that I was referring to the Governor.

This just isn't that hard to get.

Hedging???

That is a delusional statement.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
3.1.29  George  replied to  CB @3.1.27    10 months ago

She is so fucking stupid she probably won’t learn a damn thing, so not a hedge. But hope springs eternal that the progressives in NM didn’t elect someone so stupid she can’t learn from her mistakes.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  George @3.1.29    10 months ago

My statement was so damn crystal clear it is hard to believe that someone could possibly misconstrue it or misunderstand it, but here we are.

Sigh...........

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.27    10 months ago
"may end up learning something. . .  ."  You're hedging now?

Hedging?

No, just haven't seen enough evidence to show me that she is capable of learning.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  George @3.1.29    10 months ago

I do believe he has left.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.33  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.31    10 months ago

Typical. All retort and no substance. Communication with you is the problem. I want less and less of that.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.34  CB  replied to  George @3.1.29    10 months ago

George, please. Partisan bullshit is not helpful. "Probably"? So, while you say she is "so fucking stupid" you are willing to give her benefit of doubt. Let's be clear: You're hedging like that other guy. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.33    10 months ago

It isn't my problem if you don't get it. 

You never 'communicate" anyway.

But I do know every time I ask you a question, you seem incapable of answering.

You could always work to change my mind on that by simply answering a question or two every now and then.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.36  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.35    10 months ago

Ditto.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.34    10 months ago
Let's be clear: You're hedging like that other guy. 

Look, we already know that you are deliberately posting falsehoods or just don't know what hedging is. No need to give us any more examples.

If the woman was truly smart, she wouldn't have ever issued such a dumbass order.

And we are assuming she attended schools, including college, but still doesn't know what she did was wrong, which doesn't give hope she CAN learn.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.36    10 months ago

You ask me a question and I'll answer it no matter what it is.

Can you make the same pledge?

I don't think you can.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.39  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.37    10 months ago

Broken_Record_Logo.png   x 2!

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
3.1.40  GregTx  replied to  CB @3.1.34    10 months ago

Well CB if your looking for a statement of conviction, 

"No constitutional right , in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute," she retorted.

Any elected officials that don't see anything wrong in that statement are stupid.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.39    10 months ago

3.1.38

I am ready any time you are!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  GregTx @3.1.40    10 months ago
Any elected officials that don't see anything wrong in that statement are stupid.

Can you even freaking IMAGINE the "Constitutional crisis" that would be if someone else had said that?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.43  CB  replied to  GregTx @3.1.40    10 months ago

She explained her meaning. Go back to where(ever) you pulled the quote and hear her out. I am not the governor nor did I write the EO. Listen to her this time in context of her duties and responsibilities to the constitution and to her constituents (of which conservatives are only one component: not the whole). Afterwards, take it to court as I understand it a lawsuit has already been filed by MAGA. Watch this space.

That is all I have for you on this. Some things are better left for later discussion after being settled.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.44  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.41    10 months ago

We're see. I have no faith in your ability to be sincere. And after saying that, if/when I respond according to my own judgement to do so or not, I promise you I will not respond to juvenile/opaque/vacuous questions that you tap out on your keyboard apparently that miss the point of substantive (in-depth) discussion.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.43    10 months ago
I understand it a lawsuit has already been filed by MAGA.

Oh, you do?

Who is MAGA that filed?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.44    10 months ago

I await the day you muster up the stones to accept the challenge, if it ever comes.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.47  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.45    10 months ago

Again, a vacuous question (right off the bat). Who filed the lawsuit in your 3.1.26? You know. Speed the process of discussion along or what it stall right here and right now! 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.48  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.47    10 months ago

I challenged your claim that it was MAGA, and you have not been able to supply a shred of FACT to support YOUR claim.

Don't want to get called out on B.S.?

Stop making wild unsupported, false claims! easy-peasy!

And stop expecting me to do your research for you. Do it your own self!

Instead of asking me who filed it, why not just post your source that said it was MAGA, or was that all just invention from you?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.49  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.48    10 months ago

You have not answered the question: Obviously your claim is unsupported with any details .  Maybe you don't know who filed the lawsuit? I'm just saying! jrSmiley_123_smiley_image.gif  

Dude, I have no interest in indulging you. None. I really see no value in these exchanges, and frankly wish you would stop! But, oh well, since I can't stop you, go ahead it is what it is.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.50  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.47    10 months ago
Who filed the lawsuit in your 3.1.26?

The National Association of Gun Rights.

Willing to answer a question now for me?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.51  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.49    10 months ago

I answered you, and a 10 second Google search can confirm it for you.

Now, how's about YOU providing documentation on MAGA filing it as YOU claimed?

Fair is fair!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.52  seeder  Snuffy  replied to  CB @3.1.49    10 months ago

Tex & CB,  please stop the slap fest.  

Yes, the first suit has been filed, it's easy to find.

Group sues after New Mexico governor suspends right to carry guns in Albuquerque in public | AP News

Please do get back to topic and stop the slap fest.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.53  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.52    10 months ago

No problem, I apologize, I know better.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.54  seeder  Snuffy  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.53    10 months ago

Thank you

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.55  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.8    10 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.1.56  bugsy  replied to  devangelical @3.1.55    10 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
3.2  GregTx  replied to  CB @3    10 months ago

If there's a crisis of violence in Albuquerque then the Governor should address it with more LEOs or possibly NG, curfews etc. Criminalizing legal gun owners for their concerns about their personal safety in that environment is dumb.

No constitutional right , in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute," she retorted. Grisham cited restrictions on free speech as an example of how rights can be curtailed in emergency situations.

And that doesn't even begin to cover this dumbassery...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.1  CB  replied to  GregTx @3.2    10 months ago
Criminalizing legal gun owners for their concerns about their personal safety in that environment is dumb.

"Criminalizing" is your word. Deal with it. The second amendment is supposed to be a blessing to the country and not a abusive curse hindering good order and discipline. That is what some conservative think tanks are doing. 

Dumbassery is the lie and pretense to care about life of the unborn while denying gun sense legislation a chance to change the "wild-wild west" ideology/mentality in the midst of the living! 

Some conservatives your politics are all over the place. What it condenses down to is you want an unfair, unequal, divided, country that follows inconsistent-yet conservative ideology wherever it goes right, wrong, and even indifferent. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
3.2.2  GregTx  replied to  CB @3.2.1    10 months ago
"Criminalizing" is your word. Deal with it.

Okay, do you think that there won't be any consequences paid by legal gun owners practicing their right to open carry in a city, and state where it's legal, that the Governor has declared an "emergency public health crisis"?..

That was a pretty good rant.... /s

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.3  CB  replied to  GregTx @3.2.2    10 months ago

What is the proper purpose of designating a governor. . . to ignore soundness and disregard safety??

What consequences will legal gun owners? What is gained by walking around "at the ready"? 

Is there no case to be made for saving life? Good order and discipline? Giving guns a "time out"? 

Who and why is it necessary to make the 2nd amendment unworkable, insufferable, and a menace to society all in the name of "salvation"?

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
3.2.4  GregTx  replied to  CB @3.2.3    10 months ago
What is the proper purpose of designating a governor.

To serve the people of that state.

What is gained by walking around "at the ready"?

To be ready? Obviously the Governor thinks it's a public health problem.....

Who and why is it necessary to make the 2nd amendment unworkable, insufferable, and a menace to society all in the name of "salvation"?

I assume you meant this question for a compadre...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.5  CB  replied to  GregTx @3.2.4    10 months ago

This is hopeless back and forth. I'm out.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
3.2.6  GregTx  replied to  CB @3.2.5    10 months ago

Yes, I get it. I often feel the same..

You have a good evening CB.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3    10 months ago

Please, do enlighten us all on how this crazy stunt from a very liberal Governor solves anything at all.

This should be a real hoot to hear!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4  Just Jim NC TttH    10 months ago

And so it begins 😕🫣

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5  GregTx    10 months ago
“There is a huge portion of our community that doesn’t necessarily want two officers showing up when they call about a situation with respect to behavioral and mental health,” the mayor said in an interview Sunday. “So this is a new path forward for us that has been illuminated because of what we’ve learned during these times. 

Perhaps it's just really bad policy at its core....

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
5.1  1stwarrior  replied to  GregTx @5    10 months ago

But, nowhere in her "talk" did she say anything 'bout the "unlicensed" concealed carry folks - of which there are a bunch.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6  Buzz of the Orient    10 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6    10 months ago

Sorry, but we do tend to like our Constitutional rights here.

Besides, this decree is useless and most likely will be struck down by a court.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    10 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.1.1    10 months ago

Not a single gun owner I have known ever "played" with guns.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    10 months ago

Of course they're not toys, their purpose is to KILL KILL!!!!.  

From Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant...

 "Kid, see the psychiatrist, room 604."

And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and
he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the seargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."
 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.1.3    10 months ago

Saying a guns main purpose is to kill, is equivalent to saying a cars main purpose is to kill.

Both are ridiculous suppositions.

   

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.4    10 months ago

That's your comparison?  So you think a gun's main purpose is to transport people from one place to another?  HI Ho Smith and Wesson, awaaaaayyyy.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.1.6  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.1.1    10 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.1.3    10 months ago

All I can go by are your words.

If you meant something else, write it!

Comments like that are why people who value our Constitution and want to have guns get sick of trying to converse with those who would remove our rights.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.1.5    10 months ago

Nice snark Buzz but you’re smart enough to know that isn’t where I was going.

A gun is designed to shoot.    A car is designed to drive.    A knife is designed to chop/cut.    Bleach is designed to clean/sanitize.    I could go on but the point is all of those inanimate objects can kill if used in such a manner.    

To say that any of them is designed to only “kill” is simply a non sequitur.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.1.6    10 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.1.10  Greg Jones  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.1.5    10 months ago

How many guns does your government allow you to have?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.1.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.10    10 months ago

It's not easy.  One goes through a rigorous examination to get a permit for a pistol that is NOT easy to get - a person has to have a damn good reason to have one.  Permits for rifles or shotguns are easier for farmers and hunters.  Nobody can just walk into a store or a gun show and easily walk away with a gun.  As a matter of fact I never knew of any gun stores or gun shows in Canada - MY government is very strict when it comes to guns.  I once had to defend a client who had no permit and was caught with a gun and I had no choice but to plead him guilty so he could walk with only a small fine.  Another client who was an actor had a permit for a pistol only because he had been stalked and threatened.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    10 months ago
Not a single gun owner I have known ever "played" with guns.

You should meet more people. People absolutely play with guns.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.13  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.4    10 months ago
Saying a guns main purpose is to kill, is equivalent to saying a cars main purpose is to kill.

This is the most disingenuous of arguments, and I wish gun advocates would stop making it. It destroys the credibility of the person making it.

A car’s main purpose is transportation. It can be used to kill, but that is not it’s main purpose.

Of course, the main purpose of a gun is to kill. Of course it is. What else would it be? Noisemaker? Paper weight? A gun is a weapon. It is designed and intended to be a weapon. A lethal weapon.

Guns kill. They are meant to kill. Just own it. Then, we can have an honest conversation about how they should best be handled. I have several guns and I am not coy about what they are for. Some are for killing ducks and some are for killing people. But they are all for killing.

Some will say guns are for target shooting, but that is only a thing you can do with it. Target practice is really just killing practice. If you wanted to do pure target activities, you could do it with something non-lethal.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.14  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.8    10 months ago
A gun is designed to shoot

A gun is designed to shoot living things. Just be honest.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.15  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.8    10 months ago

Let's not forget bows, arrows, slingshots, and rocks as well. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.16  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.1.11    10 months ago

Different strokes for different folks. Same goes with laws in different countries.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.1.17  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.16    10 months ago

True enough.  Well, Ed, I had a couple of guns myself and I really liked using them.  One was a water pistol and the other was a cap gun.  But don't think I'm unfamiliar with the real thing although I never owned a real gun.  I happened to be my school's marksman champion - we used WW2 rifles reconditioned for 22s, and of course they had no scopes.  I was able to hit 10  3/4" bullseyes in a row at 20 yards.  Here is a photo of me on my school's Games Day receiving the biggest trophy in the school, the Francis Malloch Gibson Memorial Trophy for best marksmanship.  Gibson's widow is presenting it to me with my school's headmaster Col. John P. Page looking on.  This photo appeared in our local newspaper.  I think if I had been the right age for a war that Canada was involved in, I would have been a sniper. 

800

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.18  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.13    10 months ago
This is the most disingenuous of arguments, and I wish gun advocates would stop making it.

Opinions do vary.    Greatly in this case

It destroys the credibility of the person making it.

Again, only an opinion and again, an opinion I disagree with vociferously.

A car’s main purpose is transportation. It can be used to kill, but that is not it’s main purpose.

It’s exactly the same thing.

Of course, the main purpose of a gun is to kill. Of course it is. What else would it be? Noisemaker? Paper weight? A gun is a weapon. It is designed and intended to be a weapon. A lethal weapon.

Guns kill. They are meant to kill. Just own it. Then, we can have an honest conversation about how they should best be handled. I have several guns and I am not coy about what they are for. Some are for killing ducks and some are for killing people. But they are all for killing.

Some will say guns are for target shooting, but that is only a thing you can do with it. Target practice is really just killing practice. If you wanted to do pure target activities, you could do it with something non-lethal.

Some will say?   Lol, nice try.    Most lawful gun owners will never use a gun to kill another.    Target practice is just killing practice?    You clearly can’t see how ridiculous your rationalizations are so there isn’t much of point to this conversation.    We won’t agree.    Probably ever.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.19  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.14    10 months ago

A gun is an inanimate object designed to shoot.    Rationalizing that it’s only purpose is to kill is a ridiculous supposition.   Just be honest.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.20  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.19    10 months ago

A gun is an inanimate object.  They don't walk around just randomly shooting.  A HUMAN must pick it up.  A HUMAN must load it.  A HUMAN must aim it.  A HUMAN must squeeze the trigger.  The gun ISN'T THE PROBLEM.   It's the HUMAN HOLDING IT THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

But I get it.  Going after that inanimate object is much easier than dealing with the actual problem and the left isn't known for doing the hard right.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.21  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.18    10 months ago
an opinion I disagree with vociferously

Why?

It’s exactly the same thing.

Exactly the same? A gun’s main purpose is transportation???

Most lawful gun owners will never use a gun to kill another.

Most owners of fire extinguishers will never use it to put out a fire, but that doesn’t change the fact that the main purpose of the extinguisher is to put out fires.

You clearly can’t see how ridiculous your rationalizations are

You could try to explain why that is true, but so far, you are unwilling to make the effort.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.22  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.19    10 months ago
A gun is an inanimate object designed to shoot.

Designed to shoot what, specifically? 

Rationalizing that its only purpose is to kill is a ridiculous supposition.

You’re deploying a straw man. Please do not do that. The conversation has been about “the main purpose” of guns - not its “only purpose.” You are trying to change what has been said.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.23  Tacos!  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.20    10 months ago
Going after that inanimate object is much easier

Absolutely, it’s easier. Of course it’s easier! We regulate inanimate objects all day long for that very reason. 

You have to ask yourself what it is you want. Do you want fast solutions to problems? Or do you want to change the nature of people? Because that’s a LOT harder.

Or do you honestly even want a solution? In politics, just complaining - while objecting to every proposed solution - is a great way to win the next election.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.24  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.23    10 months ago
You have to ask yourself what it is you want. Do you want fast solutions to problems? Or do you want to change the nature of people? Because that’s a LOT harder.

I want the right solution.  And going after the inanimate object is not the right solution.  That's the cowards path.  And we see how that's worked out in cities like Chicago and Baltimore.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.25  Tacos!  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.24    10 months ago
And going after the inanimate object is not the right solution.

Ok, what would be the right solution? And remember, people don’t want to wait centuries for the nature of Man to evolve.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.26  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.25    10 months ago
Ok, what would be the right solution? 

It's quite simple.  Quit dickering around and,  I know this is an unheard of concept for those on the left to understand but -  Hold.  People.  Accountable.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.27  Tacos!  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.26    10 months ago
Hold.  People.  Accountable.  

Do you imagine we don’t prosecute people when they commit murder?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.28  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.27    10 months ago

I don't imagine a damn thing.  I'm also not dumb enough to be blaming an inanimate object.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.29  Tacos!  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.28    10 months ago
I don't imagine a damn thing.

Then explain why your answer is to hold people accountable, if you know we already do.

I'm also not dumb enough to be blaming an inanimate object.

Is it dumb? Explain how you commit a firearm homicide without a firearm.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.1.30  George  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.29    10 months ago
Is it dumb?

Absolutely it's dumb!!!  The only common denominator in murders is the people, Started with a rock, ignorant fucktards would outlaw rocks. Blaming a gun is as fucking stupid as blaming the rock. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.31  Tacos!  replied to  George @6.1.30    10 months ago
The only common denominator in murders is the people, Started with a rock, ignorant fucktards would outlaw rocks. Blaming a gun is as fucking stupid as blaming the rock.

In the incident that inspired this prohibition, an 11 year-old was killed when someone fired 17 shots into a car with a gun. Please explain how that could be accomplished with a rock.

And even if you could figure out how to do it, is it easier to kill a person at distance with a gun or a rock?

And if your answer is “rock,” please explain why we do not equip security, police, or military with rocks instead of the guns we give them.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.1.32  George  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.31    10 months ago

I’m sorry that you missed the point completely. And honestly you don’t want the truth. You want an agenda. So we are done.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.33  Tacos!  replied to  George @6.1.32    10 months ago
I’m sorry that you missed the point completely.

No one is preventing you from clarifying your remarks if you feel you have been misunderstood. But perhaps you really had nothing to say in the first place.

You want an agenda. So we are done.

Nope. Just discussing the topic - in detail, for my part. Seems like if anyone is only interested in agenda, it might be you.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
6.1.34  seeder  Snuffy  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.33    10 months ago

While the point should have been clarified better, it's entirely plausible that the first murder was indeed caused by a rock or a tool holding a rock.  Of course nobody will bring a rock to a gun fight, that would be stupidly suicidal.  But I think you're deliberately ignoring the sentiment in order to focus on the gun.  

In the incident that inspired this prohibition, an 11 year-old was killed when someone fired 17 shots into a car with a gun.

Please explain how this Executive Order would prevent this from happening?  I think we can both agree that the person who fired the 17 shots into the car that killed the 11 year-old was not an upright law-abiding citizen.  

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.1.35  George  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.34    10 months ago

Using the retarded logic of blaming inanimate objects, banning the driving of cars would be equally effective. Can’t shoot an 11 year old from a car if you don’t have a car. But hoplophobes always focus on the wrong things.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.36  Tacos!  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.34    10 months ago
it's entirely plausible that the first murder was indeed caused by a rock or a tool holding a rock.

Which first murder? Do you mean the first murder in the history of humans? Or the current event?

Please explain how this Executive Order would prevent this from happening

Nothing is 100%, so I hope that is not the standard you are demanding. That would be unreasonable. But I did discuss how it could potentially help @9.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.37  Tacos!  replied to  George @6.1.35    10 months ago
Using the retarded logic of blaming inanimate objects

You offer no logic in return. You just stomp around declaring it to be stupid, with no reasoning to support your claim.

Can’t shoot an 11 year old from a car if you don’t have a car.

Do you really think that’s the worst part of this? That a car was involved? Not that it was so easy to kill a child?

But hoplophobes always focus on the wrong things.

There’s nothing hoplophobic about it. It’s common sense. As I mentioned elsewhere in this seed, I am a gun owner, but I still have a flexible enough mind to consider the possibility that better control of guns might reduce gun crime.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.38  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.21    10 months ago
You could try to explain why that is true, but so far, you are unwilling to make the effort.

Not unwilling.    But you are clearly unwilling to consider other opinions that have already been offered..

My opinion was made abundantly clear in my first post.    That you disagree with it is inconsequential and not my problem

Exactly the same?

Yes, exactly the same.   An inanimate items main purpose.    The same thing.

A gun’s main purpose is transportation???

No, a cars purpose is to shoot.    Lol …. Get real and tell me again you don’t understand the point I was making.    Honestly, sometimes you make such good arguments.    Other times you’re off in loony land.

Most owners of fire extinguishers will never use it to put out a fire, but that doesn’t change the fact that the main purpose of the extinguisher is to put out fires.

Now you’re just throwing darts into space.   Not a good analogy    Not even close.   But thank you for reinforcing my position.    Like a gun, a fire extinguisher stands ready to be used when needed and potentially help save lives.    Like a gun most will never be used and like a gun it must be used properly or it is basically useless in it’s main purpose.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.39  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.22    10 months ago

Okay, change “only” to “main.”    It changes nothing.    Certainly not my main point.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.40  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.29    10 months ago
Then explain why your answer is to hold people accountable

Because that is what needs to happen.  And no, we don't hold people accountable because others are dumb enough to blame an inanimate object for the problem.

Explain how you commit a firearm homicide without a firearm.

You want to claim the gun is the problem.  Explain how a gun kills somebody without a person holding it?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.1.41  George  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.40    10 months ago
Explain how a gun kills somebody without a person holding it?

Or a knife kills somebody without a person holding it, or a blunt object kills somebody without a person holding it, or a plane kills 2977 people without someone flying it.  There seems to be a common denominator there. but the hoplophobes find it easier to blame the gun than the person. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.42  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  George @6.1.41    10 months ago
There seems to be a common denominator there. but the hoplophobes find it easier to blame the gun than the person. 

It's lazyness.  They don't want to acknowledge the real problem for fear that they will actually have to put in the work to resolve it.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
6.1.43  seeder  Snuffy  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.36    10 months ago
it's entirely plausible that the first murder was indeed caused by a rock or a tool holding a rock.
Which first murder? Do you mean the first murder in the history of humans? Or the current event?

Yes, the first murder ever.  That's what I took away from the post at 6.1.30 .  

Please explain how this Executive Order would prevent this from happening
Nothing is 100%, so I hope that is not the standard you are demanding. That would be unreasonable. But I did discuss how it could potentially help   @9 .

No, nothing is 100%.  But defending this Executive Order is placing the blame on all citizens for the crimes done by a few and it removes the right of self-defense from the citizens.  That IMO is unreasonable.  Your discussion in @9 shows that IMO also.  

Yes we have a terrible problem in this country around guns.  It took a long time to get here and there's no one fix that is going to resolve the issue.  But unless the Constitution is changed, you cannot issue an edict that is unconstitutional and expect it to resolve the problem or even provide a small amount of aid.  Criminals already are such because they do not follow the law, why would anybody think they will follow this?  The only way to enforce it would be for the police to stop and frisk every person in public. I don't really see that coming back into place.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1.44  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.43    10 months ago
But defending this Executive Order

All Taco's is saying is that with less guns there will be less gun violence. How is that so difficult to understand? Yes there will continue to be violence. Yes violence is the root cause. It's just easier and more efficient with guns and the US has a shit ton of guns. Rock violence isn't a major issue... 

...you cannot issue an edict that is unconstitutional and expect it to resolve the problem or even provide a small amount of aid.

I don't think anyone, including the NM Governor thinks this will resolve anything. It restarts and reframes the conversation. Yes it's a shitty idea and even if it passes legal muster it's a bad precedent, but here we are. 

Yes we have a terrible problem in this country around guns.  It took a long time to get here and there's no one fix that is going to resolve the issue.

Yes. The conversation is GUN violence. Guns are plentiful, easy to get and efficient in what they do. The first AND easy part the problem of GUN violence is to reduce the number of guns. Less guns equals less GUN violence. At the same time we can increase mental health parity with medical health. Open access, remove the stigma and push back on media that glorifies GUN violence and attack crime from a societal point AND from a criminal point of view. Hold people accountable at the same time we work to reduce crime in the first place.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.45  Sparty On  replied to  evilone @6.1.44    10 months ago

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1.46  evilone  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.45    10 months ago

Quoting Franklin doesn't lessen gun violence nor does having a gun give one all that much liberty in the 21st Century. 

 "All the other kids with the pumped up kicks
You better run, better run outrun my gun"

- Foster the People

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
6.1.47  seeder  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @6.1.44    10 months ago
But defending this Executive Order
All Taco's is saying is that with less guns there will be less gun violence. How is that so difficult to understand? Yes there will continue to be violence. Yes violence is the root cause. It's just easier and more efficient with guns and the US has a shit ton of guns. Rock violence isn't a major issue... 

That's like saying with less water there would be fewer drownings.  It ignores the responsibility of the individual.  Yes it's more efficient with guns just like farming is more efficient with tractors than horse-drawn carts.  

...you cannot issue an edict that is unconstitutional and expect it to resolve the problem or even provide a small amount of aid.
I don't think anyone, including the NM Governor thinks this will resolve anything. It restarts and reframes the conversation. Yes it's a shitty idea and even if it passes legal muster it's a bad precedent, but here we are. 

I don't think it restarts the conversation at all.  The idea of restricting guns has been around for a long time and this I believe is a political act to use the violence to forward a political end.  IMO it's beyond a shitty idea, it's downright horrible in the burden it places on the citizen while removing the burden from the criminal.

Yes we have a terrible problem in this country around guns.  It took a long time to get here and there's no one fix that is going to resolve the issue.
Yes. The conversation is GUN violence. Guns are plentiful, easy to get and efficient in what they do. The first AND easy part the problem of GUN violence is to reduce the number of guns. Less guns equals less GUN violence. At the same time we can increase mental health parity with medical health. Open access, remove the stigma and push back on media that glorifies GUN violence and attack crime from a societal point AND from a criminal point of view. Hold people accountable at the same time we work to reduce crime in the first place.

But the gun is just the tool being used.  We don't blame the hammer for a bent nail.  The problem is the person who does the act, not the tool being used.  I agree that mental health needs to be brought up to meet the need, and we need to change a few laws so that these issues don't get ignored but can be seen before the person is able to purchase a gun.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.48  Sparty On  replied to  evilone @6.1.46    10 months ago
having a gun give one all that much liberty in the 21st Century. 

Lol …. yeah you stick with that.

This Franklin quote is spot on right now.    Spot on in more than one way.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.49  Sparty On  replied to  evilone @6.1.46    10 months ago

Comparing Ben Franklin and Foster the People?

Alrighty then …..

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1.50  evilone  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.48    10 months ago
This Franklin quote is spot on right now.    Spot on in more than one way.

Sure... next time any of you right wing populists try bringing up "saving children" from whatever boogieman de jure your propaganda master tell you will win votes I'll just quote Franklin. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1.51  evilone  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.49    10 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.52  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilone @6.1.50    10 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.53  Sparty On  replied to  evilone @6.1.50    10 months ago

Knock yourself out.    
It might phase “right wing populists” but it won’t phase me.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
6.1.54  afrayedknot  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.45    10 months ago

This was not uttered in the context of gun ownership, it was a tax issue. But stretch to fit.

And as an aside, just what is in the water in East Lansing? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.55  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.52    10 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.56  Trout Giggles  replied to  afrayedknot @6.1.54    10 months ago

Pb and Cu

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.57  Sparty On  replied to  afrayedknot @6.1.54    10 months ago

I see.    Is that the latest left wing reconstruction being pushed?    First I’ve heard that one.

The quote speaks to liberty.    Not just one liberty.   So of course it includes the 2nd amendment.

And thanks for the concern but my water table is much further North of East Lansing.    Not so much for Gretchen …

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.58  Tacos!  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.43    10 months ago
But defending this Executive Order is placing the blame on all citizens for the crimes done by a few and it removes the right of self-defense from the citizens.  That IMO is unreasonable.

There is certainly reason behind it. However, I readily concede that it is unfair. Unfortunately, as we all know, Life is unfair. We have many restrictions on us because people, in general, cannot be relied on to do the right thing.

I have to take my shoes and belt off at the airport. Why? I am not a terrorist. But because some asshole tried to blow up a plane with his shoe twenty years ago, forever more I am treated like a criminal and flying is a pain in the ass. Is that reasonable? Arguably, but it’s definitely not fair. We do it, though, to prevent a horrible tragedy.

But unless the Constitution is changed

I would change the Constitution. I still want people to be able to keep and bear arms, but that right should come with more responsibility than it does. 

Criminals already are such because they do not follow the law, why would anybody think they will follow this?

It surprised me to learn this, but there are some criminals who actually do care about following the law because they fear the consequences of not following it. From what I have seen, and in talking to other attorneys, the certainty of consequences is maybe the strongest deterrent we can have.

Here in California, as in some other states, there are special penalties for committing a crime with a gun. While getting convicted is maybe not a certainty, these special penalties are basically a certainty if you are convicted. Criminals know this.

So, breaking into a house is obviously already a crime. But if you do it while armed, you go to prison for a lot longer. Consequently, there are burglars who choose to burgle unarmed. My mind was blown when I found this out. It seems like an insane way to live, but this is criminal logic, and it’s a real thing. It’s not 100%, but it’s something.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1.59  evilone  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.57    10 months ago
Is that the latest left wing reconstruction being pushed?  

At the point in history there was no second amendment. The French and Indian War was from 1754 to 1763. The Bill of Rights was ratified in December 1791. Franklin quote was pro tax and pro domestic defense and quoted from a letter on the tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns. The Penns rules Pennsylvania from outside the colony. The Assembly was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense in the French and Indian War and the Penns kept instructing the Governor to veto. Franklin found this lack of ability of the legislature to govern unacceptable. The Penns on the other hand were trying to give the colony a lump sum stating the Assembly didn't have the authority to tax them. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.60  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.47    10 months ago
It ignores the responsibility of the individual.

Because they don't want to deal with holding people accountable.  That would be the hard (and right) thing to do.  It's much easier to place blame on an inanimate object instead of actually doing something about the real problem.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.61  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.38    10 months ago
But you are clearly unwilling to consider other opinions that have already been offered..

I don‘t think anyone has offered an opinion that I have failed to consider, unless it was some ad hominem bullshit like I have a gun phobia or a leftist agenda.

Get real and tell me again you don’t understand the point I was making.

I am not the only one who has pointed out the lack of logical connection in that attempt at analogy.

Not a good analogy    Not even close.

You say it’s not a good analogy, but then you go on to acknowledge how the two things are alike. That’s precisely what an analogy is supposed to do.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.62  Tacos!  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.40    10 months ago
You want to claim the gun is the problem.

Well, I can’t get rid of people. That’s called genocide. So I figure the gun is a smarter choice. Wouldn’t you agree?

What’s easier? Regulate guns? Or change the nature of Man?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.63  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.62    10 months ago
Well, I can’t get rid of people.

Nobody is saying get rid of people.  And you also don't want to deal with the real problem.

So I figure the gun is a smarter choice. 

Its also the cowards choice.  I guess doing the right thing isn't in your wheelhouse.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.64  Sparty On  replied to  evilone @6.1.59    10 months ago

True but now for the ….. rest of the story.

So it was more about liberties in general and not just taxes and defense.   For example, Quartering of troops wasn’t specifically mentioned in 1755 but it was by Franklin himself 20 years later in 1775.

The words of the quote itself themselves speak volumes.    No  21st century word-smithing required.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.65  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.61    10 months ago
I don‘t think anyone has offered an opinion that I have failed to consider, unless it was some ad hominem bullshit like I have a gun phobia or a leftist agenda.

[Deleted]

Guns specific purpose is to shoot.   Not to kill.   To kill they need an animate component.    Ergo, a person.    

Inanimate objects like guns are no more designed to kill than cars are.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.66  CB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.42    10 months ago

This is sad commentary on the state of this country, that some conservatives can sit here- apparently unwilling to life a 'finger' to do anything about gun violence or gun polices in this country exception: more of the same or just more guns. . .and then call others names for wanting to do something but can't get a single assent from your group. 

Pretty tiresome. Very sad.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
6.1.67  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @6.1.66    10 months ago

What do you want done while abiding by the Constitution or do you propose an amendment?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.68  Tacos!  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.63    10 months ago
Nobody is saying get rid of people.

Aren’t they? What does “hold people accountable” mean? I asked you which was easier: regulate guns or change people. Do you have an answer?

And you also don't want to deal with the real problem.

I’ve done nothing but deal with the problem. All you’ve done is complain at me. If you want to frame the problem in a different way, then stop jerking us around and say plainly what you think the “real problem” is.

It’s also the cowards choice.

More name calling. Why is it cowardly? What would be the brave person’s choice, then?

I guess doing the right thing isn't in your wheelhouse.

Yet another personal attack. Do you have anything of substance to contribute to the topic, or will you only whine about other people?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.69  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.65    10 months ago
Not even trying to recognize that opinions have been proffered and then sliding right into personal attack mode.

Who have I attacked? What opinion do you refer to? Be specific.

Guns specific purpose is to shoot.

Shoot what? Specifically.

Not to kill.   To kill they need an animate component.    Ergo, a person.

This is tortured . . . something. I can’t call it logic or reasoning.

Inanimate objects like guns are no more designed to kill than cars are.

Just so we’re clear: “inanimate” means “not alive.” The un-alive nature of a gun does not say anything about its design or purpose. A chair is designed for sitting. The fact that it is inanimate does not change that fact.

It blows my mind the mental gymnastics someone will go through to argue that a weapon was not designed to kill.

If you really believe that, then why do you think we supply guns to our military? Do you imagine that it is so they can shoot paper targets?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.70  CB  replied to  evilone @6.1.44    10 months ago

These people are not stupid that come here to talk about this. Just watch all the other stunts and tricks they place on a variety of issues. They are 'crazy like a fox.' It's all bullshit. They don't have to help make proper change that correlates with the times and so they don't. Then, they come here and SHIT on every discussion about the 2nd amendment even while they do shit to stop the very violence they will complaint against in the next breath.

IT'S ALL BULLSHIT WITH NO END IN SIGHT: until the end comes in sight!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.71  CB  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.45    10 months ago

Benjamin Franklin would be ashamed to have been quoted out of context. What are some conservatives afraid of anyway - that somebody is going to shoot them. It's possible . But as some conservatives here keep implying and even stating. . . 'most law-abiding gun carrying citizens do not shoot anybody anyway. 

So why all the fear?

I don't have a gun. Have never needed a gun. And I am 'old' and getting older. The bigger fear fI have of getting shot is from so-called, "twisted sister of a PATRIOT" who thinks he or she has the right to own the country and gets to play vigilante in it!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6    10 months ago

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Some idiot lefties can't seem to get that through their thick skulls.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2    10 months ago

It doesn't matter.  It's too late for America to wake up about guns.  I've suggested previously that in America, at this point, guns should be DISTRIBUTED to every person once they reach the age of 13 in order to defend themselves.  From the news articles I've more recently read, maybe that should be when they reach the age of 3.  I'll add to that that kids should be required to wear bullet-proof vests when they go to school.   What a fucking way to have to live.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.2  CB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.2.1    10 months ago

Exactly.  What you are describing is LIFE ON A BATTLEGROUND FRONT. 

And when it is put that way two things will have to be considered and dealt with: 

1. What do you do about policing when everyone is 'packing' and,

2. Who (from across the world) would wish to tour a militarized nation? (I am trying to think of such a place as 'appetizing' to come vacation or more: Stay. None comes to mind.)

The question: Did tourism exist in the U.S. wild west?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.2.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  CB @6.2.2    10 months ago

1.  Metal robots like in the Transformer movies.

2.  There are lots of adventurers in the world - people who climb Mount Everest, people who want to view the Titanic wreck up close, people who want to board a rocket to circle the Earth...there are lots of adventurers and people who gamble with their lives.  

Can't answer your last question - I wasn't there. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
6.2.4  arkpdx  replied to  CB @6.2.2    10 months ago
The question: Did tourism exist in the U.S. wild west?

Yes it did just not to the extent it does now. It was much more time consuming and expensive to come here from other countries than it is now. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.5  CB  replied to  arkpdx @6.2.4    10 months ago

Thank you for sharing. Now, anything to share on the rest of the comment?

Exactly.  What you are describing is LIFE ON A BATTLEGROUND FRONT. 

And when it is put that way two things will have to be considered and dealt with: 

1. What do you do about policing when everyone is 'packing' and,

2. Who (from across the world) would wish to tour a militarized nation? (I am trying to think of such a place as 'appetizing' to come vacation or more: Stay. None comes to mind.)
 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
6.2.6  arkpdx  replied to  CB @6.2.5    10 months ago
1. What do you do about policing when everyone is 'packing' and,

Probably will be less of a problem. If there criminals know everyone's packing the crime rate should go down. 

Who (from across the world) would wish to tour a militarized nation? (I am trying to think of such a place as 'appetizing' to come vacation or more: Stay. None comes to mind.)

I guess you forget about Israel. Tourists go there all the time. Many South and Central American countries including Mexico have a thriving tourist industry even with high crime rates and terrorism threats.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
6.2.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @6.2.2    10 months ago
Exactly.  What you are describing is LIFE ON A BATTLEGROUND FRONT. 

How has guns changed your life?  Mine has been unaffected. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.8  CB  replied to  arkpdx @6.2.6    10 months ago

True. They are the envy of the world.  /s

That said, I don't think people are walking around 'strapped' in like manner has is being proposed here and now in the U.S. by some conservatives. Strapping all the citizenry for violence in the streets would remarkably change our brand of being an "open" community and nation. Is that the type of change you want for the U.S.

Please be clear if/when you reply!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
6.2.9  seeder  Snuffy  replied to  CB @6.2.8    10 months ago
That said, I don't think people are walking around 'strapped' in like manner has is being proposed here and now in the U.S. by some conservatives.

Actually, you would be very surprised.  You should visit Israel and visit areas where there is a heightened level of security.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.10  CB  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.9    10 months ago

Is this Israel? Are Native Americans calling us (all) out as OCCUPIERS and doing what they can to make like unbearable for us? Again, how far do you need these contrarian remarks to go?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
6.2.11  arkpdx  replied to  CB @6.2.8    10 months ago

You first asked ;

Did tourism exist in the U.S. wild west?

To which I answered:

Yes it did just not to the extent it does now. It was much more time consuming and expensive to come here from other countries than it is now. 

Then you changed the question again to:

Who (from across the world) would wish to tour a militarized nation? 

And my answer was:

I guess you forget about Israel. Tourists go there all the time. Many South and Central American countries including Mexico have a thriving tourist industry even with high crime rates and terrorism threats. 

 I am not sure how I can make my comments clearer than that. Tell me what part you did not understand and I'll try to help. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
6.2.12  arkpdx  replied to  CB @6.2.8    10 months ago
Strapping all the citizenry for violence in the streets would remarkably change our brand of being an "open" community and nation.

Who said anything about "strapping all of the citizenry"?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.2.13  Sparty On  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.2.1    10 months ago
I've suggested previously that in America, at this point, guns should be DISTRIBUTED to every person once they reach the age of 13 in order to defend themselves.

Ridiculous.    This is the king of emotional, nonsensical comment that does nothing to forward this conversation.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.2.14  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @6.2.13    10 months ago

Maybe I don't want to forward a conversation that reeks of sick wild west gunslinger bravado defensive ("It's our Constitutional Right") comments.  I think I'll start a group to post the daily American gun violence, just as a kind of reminder to the gun lovers on this site of what they're defending..

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.2.15  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.2.14    10 months ago

You have it all wrong. They, we, aren't defending the violence at all. That you think that, is a bit over the top. No  one controls what others choose to do but, taking everyone's rights away isn't going to stop it. As said elsewhere, if you take the guns away, only criminals will have guns. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.2.16  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.15    10 months ago

I didn't mean that you're defending the violence, I meant that you are defending the right to have guns, and you know of course that there are more guns than people in America.  

"...if you take the guns away, only criminals will have guns."  Which is why I said it's too damn late to do what's needed to stop the violence, and why I made a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that EVERYBODY should have a gun to defend themselves, a comment that some freaked out about. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.2.17  Sparty On  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.2.14    10 months ago

Your comments once again show that your understanding of lawful gun ownership in the USA is sophomoric at best.    

We take our unique constitutional freedoms seriously here.   A concept unknown in much of the world.    [Deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.18  CB  replied to  arkpdx @6.2.11    10 months ago

True. Israel does have tourism. The point is made. I'll accept that.  Actually, I am talking about militarized in the sense of guns everywhere. As I am not in and have never been to Israel I can't vouch for guns being pervasive. Though, the militarization of the country as a whole, small as that country is, is real. 

That written, the differences between guns being everywhere in Israel and in the U.S. anybody can understand. 

Point taken, nevertheless!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.19  CB  replied to  arkpdx @6.2.12    10 months ago

Well, what ARE conservatives really after here?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.20  CB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.15    10 months ago
As said elsewhere, if you take the guns away, only criminals will have guns. 

I want to understand what you are proposing. Are you implying or asserting that when gun violence breaks out in a red-state (closest to you I reckon) that an ordinary citizen has the right to engage said gun shooting individual? 

I ask this question because I do not see in the news where "Joes" are intercepting or interfering with gun-violent individuals on a regular basis. Do you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7  Texan1211    10 months ago

After years of hearing about "Constitutional threats" and "Constitutional crises", where all those good folks NOW when something like this happens?

Never mind, I know where.

It's a Democrat doing this, so it's all good, right?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.1  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @7    10 months ago

Thinking people see where the real threat is and will respond accordingly.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.2  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @7    10 months ago
so it's all good, right?

Of course it is..most leftists agree with her

the only thing is this idiot governor said the quiet part out loud.

You won't see any leftist here with balls say the same thing.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8  Sparty On    10 months ago

Old crotch grabber is now grabbing guns eh?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9  Tacos!    10 months ago
How would this restriction have prevented the tragic deaths?

It could have.

It makes it so that when cops - or even civilians - have reason to believe someone is walking or driving around with a gun, you have a crime in progress. Someone out there probably knew the shooter had a gun and was taking it out into the world. That someone could have called police; and if police saw this person, they could detain and possibly arrest him - before he killed someone.

A lot of firearm attacks are committed in moments of passion and anger when a weapon is easily at hand. So a restriction like this - if enforced - could prevent some shootings. That’s why this kind of restriction was so common in the Old West.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
9.1  Drakkonis  replied to  Tacos! @9    10 months ago
It makes it so that when cops - or even civilians - have reason to believe someone is walking or driving around with a gun, you have a crime in progress. Someone out there probably knew the shooter had a gun and was taking it out into the world. That someone could have called police; and if police saw this person, they could detain and possibly arrest him - before he killed someone.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that if law abiding citizens unanimously got behind the restriction, then anyone not a cop or licensed security guard carrying could be more reasonably assumed to be the kind of person we're trying to stop, right? That occurred to me as well. Leaving aside the constitutional question however, the problem with it is that the citizen carries all the risk of such a restriction, not the government. In essence, it is asking the citizen to forego self protection in the hope that law enforcement will protect them at any given moment while nothing really changes for the government side. 

Consider what you said:

Someone out there probably knew the shooter had a gun and was taking it out into the world. That someone could have called police; and if police saw this person, they could detain and possibly arrest him - before he killed someone.

This was already true before the restriction. It would be difficult to envision this restriction changing that. Rather, what I would think more likely is reports of otherwise law abiding citizens carrying in spite of the restriction because they believe they are standing up against government overreach, thereby endangering their life rather than addressing individuals who are the real problem. 

A lot of firearm attacks are committed in moments of passion and anger when a weapon is easily at hand. So a restriction like this - if enforced - could prevent some shootings. That’s why this kind of restriction was so common in the Old West.

I do agree that firearm attacks are sometimes committed in moments of passion and anger. I disagree that this restriction would be of any real utility in preventing them. I think it more likely it would simply ensnare people who are simply opposing government overreach. At the least, it would complicate the issue for law enforcement. Are they dealing with a "criminal" who is only a criminal due to the Governor's decree or is this a genuine bad actor we're looking to stop? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Drakkonis @9.1    10 months ago
In essence, it is asking the citizen to forego self protection 

When they’re out in the world, yes. At home they could still have a weapon.

in the hope that law enforcement will protect them at any given moment while nothing really changes for the government side.

I didn’t say it was a great idea. I was just thinking about how it could achieve the desired goal.

This was already true before the restriction.

Not quite, though. Without the restriction, mere possession of a firearm in public doesn’t constitute probable cause for arrest. Now it does - notwithstanding the constitutional question. Many legal scholars believe the firearm restrictions of the Old West were unconstitutional. They just weren’t challenged.

In reality, cops do harass people for carrying guns, but by itself, it’s not generally a crime.

I disagree that this restriction would be of any real utility in preventing them.

It’s pretty straightforward. If you don’t have easy access to a gun, you can’t shoot someone in anger.

Are they dealing with a "criminal" who is only a criminal due to the Governor's decree or is this a genuine bad actor we're looking to stop? 

That’s the beauty of the restriction. It’s so simple. Literally anyone with a gun in public - who is not a cop or security guard - is committing a crime.

It seems obviously unconstitutional, though. I know they’re trying to make some emergency public safety claim, but it’s not narrowly focused enough to survive strict scrutiny.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
9.1.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.1    10 months ago
In essence, it is asking the citizen to forego self protection 
When they’re out in the world, yes. At home they could still have a weapon.

Okay...

in the hope that law enforcement will protect them at any given moment while nothing really changes for the government side.
I didn’t say it was a great idea. I was just thinking about how it could achieve the desired goal.

Acknowledged. The reason for my post was to explain why it (the decree) would not. 

This was already true before the restriction.
Not quite, though. Without the restriction, mere possession of a firearm in public doesn’t constitute probable cause for arrest. Now it does - notwithstanding the constitutional question. Many legal scholars believe the firearm restrictions of the Old West were unconstitutional. They just weren’t challenged.

This doesn't address the issue quote to which you referenced addressed, which was:

Someone out there probably knew the shooter had a gun and was taking it out into the world. That someone could have called police; and if police saw this person, they could detain and possibly arrest him - before he killed someone.

To which my response was:

This was already true before the restriction. It would be difficult to envision this restriction changing that. Rather, what I would think more likely is reports of otherwise law abiding citizens carrying in spite of the restriction because they believe they are standing up against government overreach, thereby endangering their life rather than addressing individuals who are the real problem. 

Do you understand the difference? I was addressing the public responsibility issue you brought up and how this decree was unlikely to change current behavior concerning that. In the post I am currently addressing, you seem to have changed the issue I was responding to as about tools law enforcement can use to arrest someone. 

In reality, cops do harass people for carrying guns, but by itself, it’s not generally a crime.

More accurately, it isn't generally treated as a crime, although it is, when cops harass people simply for carrying guns when it is allowed by law. Unfortunately, this is an example of an impossible situation for law enforcement and society as a whole.

I disagree that this restriction would be of any real utility in preventing them.
It’s pretty straightforward. If you don’t have easy access to a gun, you can’t shoot someone in anger.

Perhaps. I am somewhat skeptical, however, that if you have the personality that would allow you to shoot someone simply out of anger that you would obey the decree in the first place. 

Are they dealing with a "criminal" who is only a criminal due to the Governor's decree or is this a genuine bad actor we're looking to stop? 
That’s the beauty of the restriction. It’s so simple. Literally anyone with a gun in public - who is not a cop or security guard - is committing a crime.

I find this profoundly disturbing. Specifically, that you find it beautifully simple. That, in order to achieve your desired result, you're willing to disregard other valid issues in order to achieve a specific goal. This seems to be the logic presented by tyrants throughout time. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Drakkonis @9.1.2    10 months ago
I find this profoundly disturbing. Specifically, that you find it beautifully simple.

It’s not a philosophical assessment. It’s an objective one. You’re focusing too much on the word “beautiful,” and not enough on the word “simple.” The solution to a problem can be simple and most effective. That doesn’t mean it will be the most desirable.

That, in order to achieve your desired result, you're willing to disregard other valid issues in order to achieve a specific goal.

Again, it’s not my desired result or goal. I have analyzed someone else’s action. I didn’t write the damned policy.

This seems to be the logic presented by tyrants throughout time. 

It’s an uncomfortable truth that tyranny can be a highly efficient method of governing.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2  CB  replied to  Tacos! @9    10 months ago

The governor is calling for a 30-day cooling off period. It will accomplish that and also give the local/state authorities to access what the hell is going on in the vicinity (county) and possibly come up with a set of deterrents to deal with the situations. At least, that would be a stellar use of a cooling off period ordered by professionals. 

In other words, some conservatives can not ask the governor to solve violent gun crimes with one hand tied behind her back (or any governor for that matter) because she is constitutionally blocked by congress, legislatures, and courts,  to effectively do even the simplest technique of all: Call a medical "stand-down" on guns in one or more violent counties!

What do these people want from leaders?! They are the same people would turn then and spin the violence as out of control and call leaders "feckless." All because governors can't 'best' the constitution or those who seek lawsuits every time the task is undertaken to tamp down gun violence by tamping down on the public use of them!

This is IMPOSSSIBLE!

Any fool can see this is for what it is.

______________________________________________________

As for the notion that having more guns on the street in the hands of good-guys belies the truth that if someone really thought about harming someone the first thing that 'wise' criminal would do is pull his gun first and proceed to pat-down everyone nearby rendering them harmless and vulnerable as every. 

Now, I reckon someone would like to believe that is not doable? I would like to know why so (from that one)!

We have already seen this good-guy with a gun against a bad guy with a gun in a Texas school shooting. The good-guys were put at bay by a single shooter and the good guys were armed. 

It could easily be that a bad guy can lay a trap for the good guys to fall into when they arrive with some planning. And that would be a worse case scenario-and yet possible once bad guys take time to think it through.

The stasis of this country is maddenly ridiculous. We look like a nation full of fools TRAPPED and CAPTURED by the gun industry and an "ancient" clause in the constitution that unreasonable won't compromise or mitigate. Those PIGS make money off of misery. And we are just stuck letting them do so - because of some conservatives and their power blockage!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.1  CB  replied to  CB @9.2    10 months ago

One more thing. Has anyone noticed that more times than not. . . the good guy that shows up with a gun is law enforcement or security officers and not your average Joe carrying a concealed weapon? 

Why is that? Average Joes with a side arm or concealed weapon, or both we are led to believe are 'everywhere'? But, are they?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
9.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  CB @9.2.1    10 months ago

Remember, when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.3  CB  replied to  Greg Jones @9.2.2    10 months ago

I concede the point. Yet, you ignored the fact that it is law enforcement and security officers who are on the scene 99.99 per cent of the time during and afterwards of gun violence and no 'credit' is given to the Average Joe 'good guy' in the narrative. It is because he or she is not present, even after the authorities arrive. 

Speak to the point, not the dodge!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
9.2.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @9.2    10 months ago
The governor is calling for a 30-day cooling off period. It will accomplish that and also give the local/state authorities to access what the hell is going on in the vicinity (county) and possibly come up with a set of deterrents to deal with the situations.

No doubt, a crackerjack solution, don’t know why it took so long to think of.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
10  Jeremy Retired in NC    10 months ago
Bernalillo County   Sheriff   John Allen, Bernalillo County District Attorney   Sam Bregman   and Albuquerque Mayor   Tim Keller, all Democrats, have said they will not enforce the open and concealed carry ban,   The Associated Press   reported Monday.

"While I understand and appreciate the urgency, the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our Constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold. I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense," Allen said Friday after the order was issued.

You know you fucked up when even the Democrats siding with actual American citizens and are saying they refuse to enforce it.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
11  seeder  Snuffy    10 months ago

This back and forth has gone on long enough and there's no longer any conversation around the issue.  The two sides are too deeply dug in to allow for conversation on the topic.  

I'm locking this seed at this point as I have other issues that I need to deal with.

 
 

Who is online
















jw


41 visitors