04-16-2010, 23:12
|
#1
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Georgetown, SC
Posts: 4,204
|
And Arizona Makes Three!
Governor Brewer has signed it into law! Arizona now joins Vermont and Alaska in allowing 21+ people to carry concealed without a permit.
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/ph...3FcbxvC7w.cspx
__________________
"I took a different route from most and came into Special Forces..." - Col. Nick Rowe
|
|
ZonieDiver is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 00:08
|
#2
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,691
|
This is such a double edged sword....
__________________
"This is the law: The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck, "The Law"
|
|
Smokin Joe is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 06:45
|
#3
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL
I really ( I mean really) don't want to get into a 2d amendment argument hear...and obviously the posters on this site are in a class by themselves when it comes to understanding gun safety...responsibility and intelligence etc ---
But does it bother anyone that any moron can get a gun? Seriously, ever see the
I'm just sayin' -- shouldn't there be some IQ test, or even a test that requires you to demonstrate that you can toast a pop-tart without looking at the box?
I'm being quite facetious, here, but I'm also serious. Help me out here...thoughts?
|
yeah... I would rather turn a kid loose with a gun before I turn _him_ loose with his male body parts.. that "gun" is just as, if not more dangerous.. :P
uh counselor...shouldn't there be an IQ test before we turn a barrister loose on the world, just sayin'...... 
In all seriousness... why you *you* have a problem with someone open carrying thier personal firearm? Va. has had open carry for a long time. I don't see anything in the news that says it is a problem there.
http://opencarry.org/ will give you more info.
Why open carrylaws work.
maps showing more info on open carry
More info at opencarry dot org
Last edited by armymom1228; 04-17-2010 at 07:24.
|
|
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 06:51
|
#4
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Where the Trade Winds blow
Posts: 711
|
Six hour drive to Phoenix. Ice chest full of road pops. Listening to Roland the Headless Thompson gunner on the way. After arrival, I am just going to walk down the street and start shoot'n stuff.
Just kidding.
While I am all for guns. Guns for all without proper vetting is bothersome. I do not know the AZ laws as they pertain to aquiring the weapon in the first place.
|
|
Last hard class is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 07:00
|
#5
|
|
BANNED USER
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,751
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL
I really ( I mean really) don't want to get into a 2d amendment argument here...and obviously the posters on this site are in a class by themselves when it comes to understanding gun safety...responsibility and intelligence etc --- Help me out here...thoughts?
|
Well, then, you've come to the wrong place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by armymom1228
yeah... I would rather turn a kid loose with a gun before I turn _him_ loose with his male body parts.. that "gun" is just as, if not more dangerous..
|
I never killed anyone with MY body parts. (My eye sight is a little dimmer and she did call out to God, but nobody died. -- I guess cuz her Dad didn't find out.  )
Quote:
Originally Posted by armymom1228
uh counselor...shouldn't there be an IQ test before we turn a barrister loose on the world, just sayin'...... |
Ladies . . .  (BTW I think they call em the LSAT and the Bar Exam) just sayin'
Last edited by Dozer523; 04-17-2010 at 07:05.
|
|
Dozer523 is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 07:00
|
#6
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Jaw-Juh (that's "Georgia")
Posts: 887
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Last hard class
While I am all for guns. Guns for all without proper vetting is bothersome.
|
...and the constitution says gun owners should be vetted where? Maybe we need to progress the meaning of the constitution a bit, because, after all, we are now much more technologically advanced and a bit wiser than the founders. I mean...with what we have nowadays, they would absolutely believe in some type of government control over who gets to have a gun or not if they were alive today, right? Would they really change the principals they stood for and articulated so well in those two documents (DOI and Constitution)?
Last edited by Don; 04-17-2010 at 07:01.
Reason: just to be clear...added the declaration of independance and constitution.
|
|
Don is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 07:08
|
#7
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Jaw-Juh (that's "Georgia")
Posts: 887
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL
I really ( I mean really) don't want to get into a 2d amendment argument hear...
|
Let's see...bloviate on intelligence and gun ownership...ask for thoughts...but preface it all with a comment that you dont want to argue the constitutionality of who should be able to own a gun. Hmmmmmmm, maybe I got your post wrong? I am a bit slow on the uptake sometimes. PLease 'splain it to me a little more so I can understand.
|
|
Don is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 07:11
|
#8
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,355
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL
I really ( I mean really) don't want to get into a 2d amendment argument hear...
|
Go ahead, show us all how smart you are... 
__________________
"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither Thou goest." - Ecclesiastes 9:10
"If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so." - JRRT
|
|
jatx is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 07:18
|
#9
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Where the Trade Winds blow
Posts: 711
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don
...and the constitution says gun owners should be vetted where? Maybe we need to progress the meaning of the constitution a bit, because, after all, we are now much more technologically advanced and a bit wiser than the founders. I mean...with what we have nowadays, they would absolutely believe in some type of government control over who gets to have a gun or not if they were alive today, right? Would they really change the principals they stood for and articulated so well in those two documents (DOI and Constitution)?
|
I certainly am not advocating changing the constitution or the principles it protects. I believe everyone should have the right to bear arms. I just think some mandatory training on how to use them and/or a proficiency test makes sense. It's that 1% I worry about. The reality is, there are some pretty dim bulbs out there. You wouldn't want them on your team. You wouldn't even want them in your army. I don't want them walking down the street with a concealed weapon.
Just my opinion.
Last edited by Last hard class; 04-17-2010 at 07:20.
|
|
Last hard class is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 07:26
|
#10
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dozer523;326000Ladies . . . :( (BTW I think they call em the LSAT and the Bar Exam) [COLOR="Pink"
just sayin'[/COLOR]
|
Dozer, I was just joking....
|
|
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 07:42
|
#11
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,045
|
Sounds like a good deal for everyone. . .including those who got their guns through illegal means.
__________________
"Are you listening or just waiting to talk?"
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
"Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing."
Optimus Prime
|
|
Kyobanim is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 07:57
|
#12
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LA
Posts: 1,653
|
What some of you are advocating is punishing people because you think they are stupid or will do something stupid in the future. Oh, and protecting them from themselves with legislation. Typical liberal thought process.
Yes, it should be responsible gun ownership. But you punish people when they have proven to be irresponsible, not because you think they are going to be.
CCW classes and licensing do not prevent stupid people from carrying. They only have to be smart for a couple of hours.
It is a right. If they screw it up, you take it away from that individual. Not the group and not because you think you are smarter than they are.
__________________
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home.
He knows only The Cause.
Still want to quit?
|
|
NousDefionsDoc is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 08:04
|
#13
|
|
Guerrilla Chief
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 694
|
Laws only "work" because of the law abiding. You know, since criminals don't give a shit about the law, and have already been illegally carrying guns for a long time.
I'd like to see the state offer some kind of a free safety course if they don't already, and really push for getting those people who are going to carry educated.
|
|
DJ Urbanovsky is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 08:15
|
#14
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Jaw-Juh (that's "Georgia")
Posts: 887
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc
What some of you are advocating is punishing people because you think they are stupid or will do something stupid in the future. Oh, and protecting them from themselves with legislation. Typical liberal thought process....
...It is a right. If they screw it up, you take it away from that individual. Not the group and not because you think you are smarter than they are.
|
And there you have it. Well put. The words "Shall not be infringed" is not conditional (at least not until you get into the whole deal of convicted felons).
|
|
Don is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2010, 08:24
|
#15
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Where the Trade Winds blow
Posts: 711
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc
What some of you are advocating is punishing people because you think they are stupid or will do something stupid in the future. Oh, and protecting them from themselves with legislation. Typical liberal thought process.
Yes, it should be responsible gun ownership. But you punish people when they have proven to be irresponsible, not because you think they are going to be.
CCW classes and licensing do not prevent stupid people from carrying. They only have to be smart for a couple of hours.
It is a right. If they screw it up, you take it away from that individual. Not the group and not because you think you are smarter than they are.
|
I surrender! This is not a torch I want to carry.
What can I say? My mother taught sociology at Kent state in the 70's. My father tried to beat the liberal out of me but I guess it didn't completely take.
I still like a grape ne-hi.
Last edited by Last hard class; 04-17-2010 at 08:32.
|
|
Last hard class is offline
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:54.
|
|
|
Linear Mode
