Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-14-2009, 06:22 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,404,089 times
Reputation: 11335

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
There are only 11 states with full open carry law, then there are others such as Maine, who support it in theory, but have restrictive laws and exceptions. You need to be careful when you carry in those states unless you are fully aware of all their laws regarding their carry laws
No, 27 states. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. I've open carried many times in Maine, no problem at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-14-2009, 06:36 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,020 posts, read 47,402,518 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
No, 27 states. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. I've open carried many times in Maine, no problem at all.
You've been lucky. Next time you might go to jail.

Maine Gun Law - Handguns
  • Permit to purchase handgun? No
  • Registration of handguns? No
  • Licensing of owners of handguns? No
  • Permit to carry handguns? Yes
I suppse the latter refers to conceled carry. They allow open carry with restrictions. That's why it is not consireded "full open carry state" like the 11 other states with full carry. Just make sure you know what the restrictions are next time you go there with your firearm.


Also in Maine,

No state permit is required to purchase a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. Dealers must keep a record of all firearm sales, rentals or loans. This record shall consist of the make, caliber, and serial number of the firearm and the name and address of the purchaser or recipient. This record shall be open to the inspection of any sheriff, deputy sheriff, police officer, constable, game warden or prosecuting attorney.

Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 10-14-2009 at 06:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2009, 08:02 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,404,089 times
Reputation: 11335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
You've been lucky. Next time you might go to jail.

Maine Gun Law - Handguns
  • Permit to purchase handgun? No
  • Registration of handguns? No
  • Licensing of owners of handguns? No
  • Permit to carry handguns? Yes
I suppse the latter refers to conceled carry. They allow open carry with restrictions. That's why it is not consireded "full open carry state" like the 11 other states with full carry. Just make sure you know what the restrictions are next time you go there with your firearm.


Also in Maine,

No state permit is required to purchase a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. Dealers must keep a record of all firearm sales, rentals or loans. This record shall consist of the make, caliber, and serial number of the firearm and the name and address of the purchaser or recipient. This record shall be open to the inspection of any sheriff, deputy sheriff, police officer, constable, game warden or prosecuting attorney.
Permit needed to conceal carry, not to open carry. No I won't be arrested for open carry in Maine (or neighboring NH). If I am I will win a nice chunk of cash in a civil rights lawsuit against the officer responsible.

You should educate yourself before posting such nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2009, 08:33 AM
 
1,043 posts, read 1,288,977 times
Reputation: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
The sentence obviously means they carried the weapon while the committed the crime, not when they did the time.

Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.

Finn_Jarber i highly doubt you'll take on any of my arguments, because you seem to be drunk with fantasy and fail to focus your arguments on tangible real-life evidence posted by the DOJ. The governor and you used a buzz-word to scare people into giving up rights or creating a law that is not needed and does not make anyone safer. I proved this, but im going to take it a step further.

Since the term "Gang Related" was used as the main reason the REPUBLICAN Governor signed such a silly law into existence. I'm going to point out based only on fact how stupid the passing of this law actually is in terms of safety related to gang violence.


In 2005 there was a nationwide total of 16,692 (homicides/murders) in the entire United States of America.

The break down by victim is listed below

Felony 2,432 or (2,432/16,692 = 14.5% of all homicides)
Argument 4,787 or (4,787/16,692 = 28.6% of all homicides)
Gang Related 955 or (955/16,692 = 5.7% of all homicides)
Other 2,223 or (2,223/16,692 = 13.3% of all homicides)
Unknown 6,295 or (6,295/16,692 = 37.7% of all homicides)

Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide Trends in the United States: Trends in the number of homicides by circumstance table (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/circumsttab.htm - broken link)

It would seem to me both you and the Governor are extremely dishonest (you probably because you just do not know the facts, but the governor is purposely being dishonest, because he's an elected office and he should know the facts, so his ignorance is inexcusable)

My question to you is how does creating a law that focuses on the least committed category of homicide make us any safer?

Keep in mind 90%-95% of all homicides are intra-racial meaning they are done by people of the same race

Keep in mind blacks commit 45% of all homicides (7k-8k)
Keep in mind whites commit 48% of all homicides (7.5k - 8.5k)

Keep in mind homicide is the least committed crime in this country 16,900 murders out of a total of 23 Million total crimes and homicide is the least committed of violent crimes ...total violent crimes are 5.2 Million



Based on the law of large numbers even if the total homicide number went down to half the number it was in 2005, that would not make America any safer. (If i have to explain why a small decrease in the numerator vs a larger increase in the denominator mathematically happens, I'm completely done with this argument)

The other point i will make is judging by the data provided by the DOJ. The most likely cause of homicide is

Argument 4,787
Unknown 6,295

Total 11,082 homicides (or 11,082/16692 = 66.3% of all homicide's are related to these two occurrences)

If the goal is to reduce homicide the only solution would be to ban argument, which would be a serve violation of free-speech, so in any words the passage and creation of the law by the Governor has no backing in fact. He was only able to pass the law, because of California's ignorance and racism, so now all law abiding individuals in the state are forced to suffer, because of others ignorance and racist behavior.

I'll say it again for those of you that do not follow my comments

The biggest mistake that citizens make is assuming they can extend freedom to themselves by limiting freedom to other citizens. The end result is a loss of freedom for both parties involved.

One day maybe people will wake up and stop being pawns in the politically lies that have consumed this country. I for one am sick and tired of it and I've had it up to here with the blatant dishonesty. It is not morally right and if you had any sort of conscience you would not be supporting such behavior, so shame on anyone that backs a bill like this or any others. Shame on anyone that goes out and attacks their fellow citizen based upon the law of someone in a legislative position.

Unjust/Unfair laws lead to unjust/unfair outcomes. Until people wake up and start to demand fair/just laws and the equal treatment of all citizens, this will continue to plague the American landscape.

Thanks for supporting the police state!

Always remember under a police state if it can happen to them it can certainly as hell happen to you too!

Last edited by dorock99; 10-14-2009 at 08:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2009, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,020 posts, read 47,402,518 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Permit needed to conceal carry, not to open carry. No I won't be arrested for open carry in Maine (or neighboring NH). If I am I will win a nice chunk of cash in a civil rights lawsuit against the officer responsible.

You should educate yourself before posting such nonsense.
If you violate one of their exceptions or rules, you will go to jail. Don't pretend you don't what I am talking about. You know full well Maine is not considered "full open carry" state like VT is, although they have open carry law.

Heck, whatever makes you happy. I don't care if you go to jail due to your ignorance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2009, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,020 posts, read 47,402,518 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorock99 View Post
Finn_Jarber i highly doubt you'll take on any of my arguments, because you seem to be drunk with fantasy and fail to focus your arguments on tangible real-life evidence posted by the DOJ.
You are trying to argue that violent crime is not a problem, so there is no point in trying to reduce it? LOL. Good luck with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2009, 09:39 AM
 
Location: in my imagination
13,562 posts, read 21,335,031 times
Reputation: 10053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
I read the actual text, and there are other things in it which I would not support in my state, so this will conclude it for me. No more support. I think the basic idea and intent was good, but they should have left it at that, but of course they had to go ahead and add other unnecessary things to it.
That's the way they do it. They only tell you the parts that appeal to people's reason, and they use buzz words over and over to drill it into people. They don't tell you all the other stuff in legislation because it would bring out their intentions, as far as intentions they want you to think theirs are true to safety and public common good when more often it is more about their personal agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2009, 09:45 AM
 
1,043 posts, read 1,288,977 times
Reputation: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
You are trying to argue that violent crime is not a problem, so there is no point in trying to reduce it? LOL. Good luck with that.

Finn_Jarber what a dishonest response. What i'm arguing is a fact violent crime in America is not a problem despite what some politician or TV told you. While we'd prefer all violent crimes are zero, that will never happen in this country. Crime will always be present in any society. I might add notice Arnold never threw out any empirical evidence to back up his statement about safety in relation to violent crime. He used buzz-words (gang members, violent parolee, and etc)

The point Finn_Jarber is that we do not have a problem with violent crime. There is no statistical evidence you could refence that would support any other opinion on the matter. It is the least committed crime in this country. These are facts you cannot argue around.

Taking it a step further you mentioned it will stop Gang Homicides. I made a factual point that Gang Homicides are only 5.7% of all homicides, so how does a law that claims to ensure safety make us safer if it only intends to focus on 5.7% of all homicides? What about the other 95% of homicides???


The logic involved is like an obese person rationalizing the following as an acceptable way to lose weight. It's like a fat person going to McDonald's ordering a Super Big Mac, Large Fries, an Apple Tart, and then a Diet Coke. Rationalizing in their head that somehow drinking the diet coke makes the fact that they took in 34000 calories in one meal acceptable. It is not logical and it is absurd.

Just as illogical and absurd that passing a bill that greatly reduces the freedom of average citizens in an effort to give them more safety. I'm going to make you more safe by going after crimes that rarely ever happen with any sort of consistency. However, I'm going to require you to give up some sort of freedom to get it done.

Point of the matter is there is no empirical evidence that suggest having citizens flash their id cards is going to reduce overall crime. In fact if you want to get more specific nothing indicates, that this will even reduce the 950 murders or 5.7% of homicides related to gang violence.

I asked you a simple question that you cannot prove. It cannot be proven mathematically or otherwise, so by default it is an unfair/unjust law, that should not even have been signed into law. If the stated goal of the law is to make us safer and it does not then why would he sign it into law?

Intelligent individuals would have figured this out, because the goal of the law has nothing to do with making us safer, it has to do with giving the state more power with which to infringe upon citizens rights.

Advantage State 1 Common Citizen 0


How can i make it any simpler than that?


Finn_Jarber give me 5 reasons (which are backed up by fact) how this law makes you safer?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2009, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,020 posts, read 47,402,518 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
That's the way they do it. They only tell you the parts that appeal to people's reason, and they use buzz words over and over to drill it into people. They don't tell you all the other stuff in legislation because it would bring out their intentions, as far as intentions they want you to think theirs are true to safety and public common good when more often it is more about their personal agenda.
I still believe public safety and crime reduction is their top priority, after all a reduction in crime would make them look mighty good (see Giuliani and NYC), but there was something in the bill I would never support in my home state, so I won't support it in other states either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2009, 09:57 AM
 
Location: in my imagination
13,562 posts, read 21,335,031 times
Reputation: 10053
California also banned .50BMG caliber rifles saying they were only good for "shooting helicopters" and no one "needed" one. When in fact they are usually a rifle starting at $3000 up that are not some gangbangers choice of weapon ,are as long as a person ,weigh alot. Which not one that I know of has ever been used in a crime the only people who use them civilian wise are long distance target shooters yet they were branded a menace and banned by the light headed California politicians which Arnold also signed into law.

How did they ban them, they used buzz words and relied on people being ignorant about the rifles and just believing the politicians without actually questioning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top