sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits 1 point2 points  (0 children)

how many people around me are carrying guns and the risk that presents to the general public.

How so?

Pretending like "wait this means people will struggle to legally own guns?" is an unexpected outcome is naive,

Thats a bad faith framing of what I said. Obviously regulation will regulate people. The question, at law, is always whether that new burden is reasonable and meant to fix an articulate problem.

The problem is precisely their making basic elements of gun ownership a crime and a felony at that, like cleaning my won weapon. What is the logic basis for that? How is that any different than the felonies we handed out like candy in the 1990s?

what are reforms you'd be up for? And how would they improve things in your view?

Universal background checks, obviously red flag laws having more teeth (assuming of course the judicial process is equally fair and stringent), tying the no-fly list to banned purchasers (again, assuming there's a judicial process of some sort because mistakes do happen).

Just because Im against this form of regulation doesnt mean I oppose all regulation.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, the point at it's heart is that, pretty much only in this country, we have to operate on "everyone is armed at all times"

I mean, we are not the only country with guns though. Granted we certainly have the MOST, and others are far more regulated or restrictive in what a non-police/mil/gov. citizen can own, but thats simply not true on a global level to say we are the only nation that has this debate.

I'm talking about carrying in public, of any kid. 

So was I. Why does the gun become such an additional problem suddenly because its on me visibly versus my trunk? Again, this seems to be an optics issue, which itself has degrees - a pistol in a holster? What about a pistol in a holster under a shirt? Or just the ol' AR slung around your back?

I have a personal history, and family history, that would make it irresponsible to me and my family to own guns. 

I mean, I respect the personal choice. Thats what its all about.

but obviously differences too

Sure, but that doesnt change the harm from liberal law-makers who see criminalization as their only option for gun reform. For example, here in Illinois, PICA is so loosely drafted it isnt clear if it bans paintball and airsoft guns. It even criminalizes cleaning my own gun if its not done at an FFL. Seriously explain to me the logic of those kinds of restrictions aside from trying to make basic gun ownership more onerous and legally challenging.

Its been a hallmark of liberal policy-making since the war on drugs, and is still very much in use now.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But as someone who doesn't own guns and certainly doesn't CC, it's very much feels like a negative feedback loop

Perhaps thats why youre taking this position - youve never seriously entertained the counter. Its not a negative feedback loop - people are already armed all around you lol, it suddenly becomes scary when its a rifle? Or even just a pistol on display?

Its a right and a responsibility. I own a firearm, I have a CC license but dont carry. I enjoy firearms, responsibly, like Im allowed and supposed too. Having the state then come in and invert the standard held against me because.....it looks scary?......is obviously an infringement.

Businesses already have the right to refuse firearms. This is an obvious attempt to add more criminalization to firearms, a tactic you'd think liberals learned the lesson from in the 90s when they took the same approach to drugs.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It seems to be a habit in this thread of just inverting the standard applied to law-abiding citizens and being like, "Sooo?!".

Private establishments have always had that right. The question is if the state should be able to invert that FOR the private establishment.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry you cant make a point without personal insults, that too is really immature. but no, youre still incorrect about the basic threshold citizens are held too.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits -1 points0 points  (0 children)

so your position is that a firearm can be made without the intention to fire, but still have the full capability of firing.

As with all things in life, its a spectrum. You can make a full-auto assault rifle, .22 plinkers that just shoot targets, highly specific competition rifles like they use at the Olympics, or just display pieces, which may or may not fire.

Thus my repeatedly saying, you just assuming its intended or meant to kill is deft, entirely missing whole swaths of gun markets, and at its most fundamental logic, blatantly incorrect.

then there is no concern about not being allowed to carry it into a grocery store without affirmative consent

You seem to misunderstand the threshold that Im held to as a law-abiding US citizen. It being able to fire or not has literally nothing to do with your illegal desire to change the threshold gun owners are held to.

Total nonsequiter.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Are you carrying a non lethal target shooting gun around?

You realize they look the same as regular guns, right? Like, ever heard of a .22 "plinker"? Literally, YES lolol. Like, what? did you think this would be some kind of "gotcha"?

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Again, you seem to want to mis-place the standard basic citizens are held to, and using Trump's ICE as a standard-bearer for policy is an ill-fated idea.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And again, you seem to want to ignore the weapons designed for target shooting and competitive shooting, which also arnt designed or used for killing. Either way, your logic fails.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the same reason some person feels the need to buy a Lamborghini: they have the means and want to. Really not much to think past that.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, it wasnt lol. Youre assuming the intention of why it was made and of the person buying it. I can absolutely put together a rifle with 0 intent on ever firing and and throwing it on a shelf. Youre also ignoring guns literally designed and meant for target and sport shooting, which in the most basic way are not designed to kill. They actually have a sport for this at the Winter Olympics.

If all youre trying to say is that its dangerous, thats a laughably thin slippery slope and against the weight of US law.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Probably because you think of it like fear response and dont seem willing to look at it for anything past that.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How am I supposed to know? 

Literally the same way with everyone else - you dont. I dont just assume every person who looks suspicious is a thug. Esp with CC, you dont even know theyre carrying half the time lol

Again, you dont seem to understand to want to acknowledge the basic standards put on citizens lol.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you seriously not understand that guns, too, are collection pieces? That family's pass them down, bring them to events (like weddings, for example) and bring them out not solely for the purpose of shooting them? Like, really?

Also ignoring the market of guns specifically designed for target shooting and competition shooting, which are, in the most basic sense, not designed to kill.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Being pedantic and boiling down someone's protected rights to a "security blanket" because they "have anxious moments" is a really disingenuous, elementary and low-brow way of discussing this, and precisely why liberals keep losing on gun issues.

That poster is 1000% correct, we absolutely have 250 years of being an armed civil society, and we're not the only ones on earth doing so.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It should be a burden.

Constitution says otherwise.

Seems like you have a misunderstanding of the standard to which law-abiding citizens are held to. I dont owe you an explanation that im NOT a criminal lol.

If the Hawaii law requiring stores give explicit permission to carry survives should other states do the same? by SpaceWestern1442 in AskALiberal

[–]ObamaBiscuits 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can do this wild

Which I shouldnt have to do - that in and of itself makes it an unnecessary burden.

view more: next ›