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 04-25-2014, 03:19 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,360 posts, read 51,970,126 times
Reputation: 23808

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
Yeah, the only point I was trying to make is that 2rd amendment right is subject to change. (I am fine with that) But I wonder what do we expect next? Punishing somebody for carrying an unloaded gun in public is just strange to say the least.
I'm not sure if I agree with this law or not, to be honest. But to play devil's advocate for a moment and TRY to explain their thought process, how would you know if the gun (on someone's hip) is loaded or not? If a police officer approaches and sees a GUN on your person, they won't stop to consider if it's loaded - they will probably shoot you first, and check the chamber as you lay twitching on the ground. Same goes for your fellow citizens, gang members, etc, who will not check for the bullets it may or may not have inside. So I can see how an unloaded gun might indirectly cause harm, but still on the fence over the law itself.

P.S. I am also in California, and do not personally own a gun... but I know how to shoot one, and have no problem with adults (minus the two examples I gave above) obtaining them legally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-25-2014, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,714 posts, read 31,190,673 times
Reputation: 9270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post

The federal government has no say in the matter. That is the purview of the States.

Only the States may impose limitations. For example, the State may require that as a condition to purchasing a firearm, an individual undergo 20 hours of training, or 40 hours or 120 hours.


Mircea
If what you say is true, then how has the Gun Control Act of 1968 withstood constitutional tests? Among other things it prohibits the sale of firearms to certain people.

The National Firearms Act (1934) clearly regulates certain firearms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,239 posts, read 27,629,646 times
Reputation: 16073
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
why would they be carrying it?
With all due respect, you may want to consider going back and read all the responses.

I really don't think it is your business WHY WOULD THEY be carrying it. Somebody's freedom is actually somebody else's tolerance. Because of paranoid folks like you, people like us have to give up on our 2rd amendment right. I don't think it is fair. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, You won. In my state, carrying UNLOADED gun in pubic is considered illegal, I really don't know what you are arguing or worrying about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,811,485 times
Reputation: 24863
gizmo980 - You make too much sense for this forum.

I support the Constitution in its entirety. I support the Right of Free Speech so long as the speaker takes responsibility of what they say. Publically threating some one is a simple assault in front of witnesses. It is also dumb. I support the Right to be armed so long as it does not apply to people who have proven to be or are incapable of being responsible for their actions. I speak of children, convicted violent felons and the medically confirmed insane.

I believe the ban in CA of carrying an exposed firearm is a simple triumph of the squirrel people over common sense. If someone is openly carrying a pistol it just may make a criminal realize this is not going to be a one sided mugging but may become a gunfight. Gunfights have losers. Most criminals are breaking the law for money and really do not want to risk their life knocking off a convenience store for a few hundred bucks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 03:24 PM
 
32,027 posts, read 36,813,277 times
Reputation: 13311
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
No, you would be very polite and understanding.
If it came off his hip, you would be running.
I might not be polite and understanding but if they drew their weapons I'd sure be diving for cover.

Screaming lunatics with guns are not a good thing, even though they may have the constitutional right to be screaming lunatics with guns.

I cannot imagine that is what the drafters of the Second Amendment had in mind. Do you think they did?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 03:24 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
702 posts, read 727,226 times
Reputation: 932
I have no problem with people walking around with guns openly carrying them, loaded or no. It'd be pretty depressing to get to the point where you see tons of people walking around armed like it was the wild west, mad max, or some banana republic though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,239 posts, read 27,629,646 times
Reputation: 16073
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
I'm not sure if I agree with this law or not, to be honest. But to play devil's advocate for a moment and TRY to explain their thought process, how would you know if the gun (on someone's hip) is loaded or not? If a police officer approaches and sees a GUN on your person, they won't stop to consider if it's loaded - they will probably shoot you first, and check the chamber as you lay twitching on the ground. Same goes for your fellow citizens, gang members, etc, who will not check for the bullets it may or may not have inside. So I can see how an unloaded gun might indirectly cause harm, but still on the fence over the law itself.

P.S. I am also in California, and do not personally own a gun... but I know how to shoot one, and have no problem with adults (minus the two examples I gave above) obtaining them legally.
You made a valid point. I think carrying a loaded gun in pubic is a bit outrageous. But now carrying unloaded gun in public will land somebody in county mail for up to 1 year. I just don't believe it is fair at all. That is all.

It makes me wonder "Do we really have 2rd amendment right, or do we not?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,811,485 times
Reputation: 24863
Bent Bow - In such a confrontation I would not be running. I would be shooting until the threat was ended. BTDT
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 03:31 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,360 posts, read 51,970,126 times
Reputation: 23808
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
You made a valid point. I think carrying a loaded gun in pubic is a bit outrageous. But now carrying unloaded gun in public will land somebody in county mail for up to 1 year. I just don't believe it is fair at all. That is all.

It makes me wonder "Do we really have 2rd amendment right, or do we not?"
Well, I certainly don't think it should carry a felony or jail sentence... if anything it should be just a warning or minor infraction, since this law seems to be more for the protection of the gun OWNER. Obviously they cannot hurt anyone else with an unloaded gun (aside from beating someone with it), and I'm not in favor of laws that punish people for endangering themselves alone.

But we do still have gun rights, just with some restrictions. Are there any rights that don't come with a few exceptions or caveats? For example, I have the right to drink alcohol as an adult - but I don't have the right to drink while driving, to carry open bottles in my car, to visit a school campus with liquor, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 03:32 PM
 
Location: MS
4,395 posts, read 4,915,062 times
Reputation: 1564
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
If what you say is true, then how has the Gun Control Act of 1968 withstood constitutional tests? Among other things it prohibits the sale of firearms to certain people.

The National Firearms Act (1934) clearly regulates certain firearms.
The Supreme Court also upheld the internment of American citizens of Japanese, German and Italian heritage. They have made mistakes in the past.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:15 AM.

© 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