DaVinci

The 1st Amendment protects speech that you dislike. The SC said they could picket. You may not like it (I don't), but it is the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. BW, you also have the right to show up and peacefully act as a blockade.

While both CA and NY have weapons permits... It is next to impossible to actually get one.

And how many cases of a gun being taken from a citizen can you find? I can't find any and if a gun was just taken from a guy you damn well know the media would be all over it. Fact is that the majority of guns being taken by force from someone is a criminal taking one from an LEO who is trying to arrest them. Since the average criminal is going to avoid conflict, they are going to avoid a person who is armed *unless* they have no other option (like being arrested). So please, find me some cases of a citizen with an openly carried weapon having the gun taken from him.

I shoot around 500-600 rounds per month. Almost all of my shooting is done at a tactical range where we are from behind cover, moving, the target is moving, or some combination of all three. Even with all this, I still miss at times, and I see others miss as well. And this is KNOWING the course of fire, being READY to shoot, and normally not event he first range of the day. So, take an average guy that shoots a few times a year and at a block range hitting paper targets from a standing position... And I doubt many of them would perform the the standards you seem to want people to have.... For that matter, I don't think many police officers would perform as well as you think they could. I have seen MANY an LEO get humbled at a competition. As for the issue... Well the company has the right to refuse to allow an employee to carry a weapon while working.... Just like a company has the right to limit free speech while an employee is at work. Just as a company has the right to search an employee. The company when it removes the right of self defense is now (IMO) held responsible for the defense of the employee's. So, if an employee were hurt by a robbery, the company should pay up.

But the same thing could be said of not allowing people to drive to bars... Their judgement is impaired and they are more likely to drive home when drunk if they have a car. The point being that a person who is not drinking is not more dangerous in a bar just because they have a gun. Do I support carrying a gun while drinking? No. Do I think a guy that has a glass of wine with dinner should be allowed to carry? YES. Do I think a guy that is not drinking should be allowed to carry a gun in a bar? YES. The problem is ALCOHOL, not the location.

Eating, watching a game, talking to friends, trying to pick a woman.... Lots of reasons. I don't drink and drive at all... So if I am sober, why not be allowed to carry a gun in a bar?

Are you claiming they didn't make those comments?

I normally do. Wonderful thing about studying a subject... You don't have to personally observe the event to know about it.

A shotgun is also a "gun" As Windsor noted, there are many variables.

Why not just use the DUI/DWI standards? For example, I DO NOT drink and drive.... Period. So why should I NOT be allowed to carry a gun in a bar if I am not drinking?

No, cars are NOT banned. It is just illegal to *drive* when over a legal threshold. To be the same, you would be allowed to carry a gun in a bar but you would not be allowed to SHOOT it after you reach a certain threshold. Never said otherwise. Never said anything like that. I am saying that me carrying a gun in an area that other people are drinking is not a danger. Guns in bars are not dangerous anymore than cars in the bars parking lot are dangerous. DRIVING after drinking, or SHOOTING after drinking are dangerous.... But me being sober with a car, or a gun is not dangerous.

The data does not back your opinion. The majority of gun crimes are from black males age 16-15. Here is some data that proves you wrong http://www.freep.com/article/20110731/NEWS06/107310482/Part-1-10-years-after-concealed-weapons-law-unclear-why-many-state-were-gun-shy So everyone should just agree with you? Never mind the Constitution? You do know that the SC has ruled that the police have no duty to protect you? And I guess that all these people might disagree with you http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/crime_prevention/crime_statistics.shtml This as well http://www.aolnews.com/2010/03/29/nyc-murder-rate-up-20-percent-so-far-in-2010/

Like always bringing nothing.....

Rush is correct, you are not.

Yes, so your claim that marijuana is protected by the Constitution is not correct.... And that was the question I asked.

Incorrect, as normal you are unable to debate without the lame one liners. I understood what you TRIED to say, I also saw right through it and saw that your quote did not support your claim. I also bet you would not accept the same dishonesty in grading a students paper.

Canada: The handgun registration law of 1934 is the source being used to confiscate (without compensation) over ½ of the handguns in 2001. Germany: The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition (before the Nazis came to power) required all firearms to be registered. When Hitler came to power, the existing lists were used for confiscating weapons. Australia: In 1996, the Australian government confiscated ove 660,000 previously legal weapons from their citizens. California: The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act required registration. Due to changing definitions of “assault weapons”, many legal firearms are now being confiscated by the California government. New York City: In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and ‘registered’ owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. It did in Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Soviet Georgia as well. So there are plenty of examples. http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/12/registration-leads-to-confiscation.html Might want to read this http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf

That is nonsense. They are using GRENADES in Mexico and you can't buy them here. Look at Canada, the boarder is 3X as long as the US-Mexico boarder and the Canadians do not have the same problem. The Mexican gun problem is a problem with Mexico, not the US. The 90% number has been debunked. Banning or limiting an item does not reduce the availability to the criminal element. If it did, then the US would not have a drug problem and Mexico would not have a gun problem. I am not willing to punish an honest civilian to put into rules that will not stop criminals. Remember, murder is illegal. Do you honestly think that a person that is willing to commit murder will not use a gun since it would be illegal?

Need???? Why does anyone need to buy a parachute? Want???? Well, for example I got a very good deal on buying some weapons in bulk... Just like any other commodity. Also, once I wanted to try out single action/cowboy shooting. So, I bought two of the same model single action pistol. The ATF made me fill out a form for "multiple sales". This is the weapon I bought :http://www.ruger.com/products/vaqueroStainless/models.html So, how many of these do you hear about being used in gang violence? The point is that gun laws only hurt guys like me... People who want to do harm will get them from the black market, not a gun dealer. And finally, the dealers in question TRIED to stop the sales, the ATF TOLD them to sell them. The system WOULD have worked, the ATF prevented it from working and then used the failure to propose additional regulations.

The same WB whose company is not paying all its taxes? http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2010ar/2010ar.pdf Read pg 56 "“At December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million”, (~$1 billion). Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities. They have to be recorded in the company’s financial statements.” So maybe his company should pay its tax bill.

Why am I not surprised 4 people are fine with the police stealing? And I'd bet those same 4 would be up in arms if it was any other object that was stolen.

It is not the same model of gun. It IS however one of the more popular handguns made today. So, from that angle it makes perfect sense. People who want to get upset would have gotten upset even if it was a shotgun, and they would have used the same reasons. Giffords shooting was a tragedy, but in this case it is the Democratic party that is using it for political reasons.

No, they are the same frame size.

You clearly did not read my post.... Here is some of the substance again, just for you. So here is a look at *10 years* of data... and when you add in FL and TX it is pretty easy to see that CHL/CWP does not ADD to any danger. You can debate that it does not reduce crime if you want... But it is perfectly clear that respecting a persons 2nd Amendment rights does not make "blood flow in the streets" But she, and now you, have provided nothing.

And yet..... Which area has more gun crime? A. The people that know what a show chicken is. B. The people who live in regions where hardly anyone, outside of military or police, have ever handled a firearm.