Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
which is why texas made it law that unless there is a very specific sign posted (it details and shows a picture of whats required) then concealed carry is not prohibited. They also added that IF a private property owner (store, church, etc) is not posted properly and then notices you carrying, all they have to do is ask you to leave. The request is considered proper notice and if you do not leave, you are then considered to be trespassing.
There are always exceptions Pan, MOST people looking to make a statement will try to make the biggest statement they can, and that means going to a place where people are going to be unarmed.
|
True, but the argument could be made that they go to courthouses, schools and so on because the statement they wish to make is there.
Just as people who go into McDonald's, or Wal*Marts or wherever. To say shootings will only occur where people are not allowed to have guns.... or that the psychos choose places because they know there are no guns there, is ludicrous.
What of armed guards in the courthouses?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I had planned on replying to all of your points, but I don't see the point. No disrespect intended to you Pan, but you have an extremely low regard for the capabilities of people. I've learned that theres just no argument that can combat that except experiencing it for yourself.
|
Where do I show "low regard for the capabilities of people"? And yes, that is very offensive to me. You're response here and the attack on me, shows me that you cannot come up with a true rebuttal, without attacking me.
If I truly had "low regard for the capabilities of people", I would be wanting guns banned period. I just believe the vast majority of people whether they carry guns or not, can talk a great game but when in the real situation and the pressure is on, will tend to react very differently then they talk.
Or are you trying to state that every single person carrying a gun will respond the exact same way, and will be perfect shooters and there would be no crossfire or innocents hurt? Which if that's the case, I find as misguided and sad as you obviously found my comments.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Although, in regards to your san francisco point. Only 58% voted for that ban, how do their rights get to supercede the other 42%?
|
That's the point of voting, majority rules. The 42% had their chance to show their case to the people and lost. And I don't know about where you live but a 16% difference in votes, is a landslide where I come from.
But I still don't see how that gives people who live outside that community the right to try to dictate policy and overturn the voice of the people.
Again, that's why the Federal government is so strong. They capitalize on the fighting and have to make laws. And when that is the case we all lose.
But, keep fighting the voice of the people in places you don't live and may never visit. Keep believing that you know what's best for a community you don't even live near. You tell me I have "low regard for the capabilities of people"? Yet you support going into a community where the voters have spoken and want to tell the vast majority there that they are wrong..... and use the courts to do so? Who wants to dictate policy now, who wants to tell whom, "they know what's best for the people"? Not me, I believe in the voices of the people and respect the voting procedures from which our nation was founded upon.
It's like the C&CW laws here in Ohio. The majority voted for it. I may not like it, but it passed, the people have spoken and I respect the law they voted for. I can still speak out and try to get it repealed on a later election, but it is not my right nor should it be, to take it to court and demand the government steps in and repeals it against the will of the majority that voted for it.
If you want to use the tired argument that the above example would allow a law that discriminates against a man's color/religion/ethnicity and so on to be legal. Then by all means. But that argument is a fallacy. There is a huge difference between discrinating between a person, himself and what a person chooses to carry on them.
If your community votes that "no one with blue eyes can own land" and I move there and try to buy land and am denied for that reason. It's illegal because it discriminates me personally, they are singling me and everyone else with blue eyes out. But if push came to shove, I could buy my property and live outside city limits.
Now if San Francisco says, "People are not allowed to have guns within the city limits, except in their own homes." and you get arrested for carrying a gun, then you should suffer the consequences. Because there is no singling out of anybody, and because you knew the law and chose to carry there.
One of the above is discrimination against a person for whom they are and the other is a law for an OPTIONAL appliance one chooses to carry.