< 1 2 3 > 
2 of 3
Bang!  Bang!  You’re dead!!!!
Posted: 11 February 2014 04:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  532
Joined  2014-02-09

I am a conservative and it is not true that I don’t want the federal government involved in anything (your words). But the Constitution is a document designed to limit the powers of the federal government and I want those limits observed and respected. We are well into blurring the lines and crossing over into lawlessness. The Founding Fathers would be appalled at some of the current grabs for federal power that are exceeding their enumerated powers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2014 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  532
Joined  2014-02-09

Larry,
Also at work here is the supremacy of legislative powers concept. The State of Kansas has legislatively reserved the right to be the level to issue concealed carry permits. If state law delegated that power to municipalities, to have CCL or not, then your argument would be valid. But since the State of Kansas, through their duly elected legislature, authorized CCL all over the state and set licensing standards, then they also have the power to override city ordinances that are in conflict.
I understand that Kansas wants their own law as regards schools for example. Unfortunately, there is a higher power law (federal law) that makes it a federal crime to carry a firearm on any school property. A CCL holder in Kansas can be federally prosecuted for even trying to stop mass killings on school property in Kansas, by use of a firearm against the killer or killers.
Federal law trumps Kansas law, but my own view is that the federal government exceeds its powers with this law and it is probably unconstitutional to boot.
The thrust of the Kansas law or proposed laws, as I understand it (not being a lawyer) is that concealed carry is a constitutional right on ANY public property. It should be noted that Kansas law respects the right of private property holders to ban guns from their premises.
CCL holders are admonished to respect the wishes of stores, restaurants, etc that post the authorized “no guns allowed” sign. That is private property with ownership rights.
I am not opposed to reasonable regulation on firearms, although I respect those states that have little or no firearms legislation, to the point of allowing open carry without so much as a license.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2014 06:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  729
Joined  2013-07-13

Rick, “These seem to be emotional and irrational statements. Police officers carry guns for their own protection, not to protect you.”

This is my point.  The fact that you automatically consider yourself equal to a policemen is just the delusional thinking that I’m talking about.  A Saturday of CC class is to police training what a tricycle is to a Harley.

“Rather than compounding exponentially, many of the studies involving concealed carry holders indicates the opposite.”

Many studies indicate a lot of things CC holders are so in fear of the unknown that they need to be packing to feel safe.

“Although some studies are debatable”

ALL studies are debatable.  I grew up amid WWII vets.  THEY didn’t need guns to go to the grocery.  They knew the difference between irrational and rational fear.

“, the general indication is that they are far less likely to commit crimes of violence or gun-related crimes…by a significant percentage when compared to the general population or even police officers. “

It depends upon which “crimes” you’re talking about, doesn’t it? If some yahoo glances a shell off a chair through some child’s cranium, is that a crime?

“Even the critics agree there is no indication the CCL holders are MORE prone to commit crimes of violence. No evidence whatsoever. So your statement is simply wrong.”

My statement said nothing about “crimes”, only stupid frightened people carrying weapons in public places.

“There were no guns in ANY room at Sandy Hook, but the probability of zero violence was not true, was it?”

So, that loony coward with the AK shot those children with his finger?

“I would accept your irrational statement if the gun-free room were heavily guarded outside the room”

No you wouldn’t.

“with armed guards, such as our national lawmakers enjoy. Are those guards, or the lawmakers for that matter, cowards?”

When you go to the DQ for an ice cream, why do you need to be carrying, if not for irrational fear of some imaginary deadly conflict?

“The characterizations of concealed carry holders as frightened half-wits or cowards is simply erroneous. No, they are not cop wanna-bes either. “

Sure they are.  You compared them in your opening line of this post.

“I know many CCL holders and none of them have that mentality. They are rational, (unlike some of the comments posted here), and are hard working Americans that you encounter many times a day and never even realize they are carrying a weapon. “

I know many CCL holders who couldn’t hit water from a boat.  They have no business carrying a handgun.

“Saying that “any yahoo” can tote a weapon is another example of an emotional temper tantrum not grounded in fact. To legally carry, an applicant is subjected to fingerprinting with a state check as well as a national background check by the FBI. ANY of the following will deny a CCL license: felony convictions, misdemeanor domestic battery convictions, drug convictions, stays in a mental institution, or any court restraining order for domestic abuse, harassing or stalking. Applicants must study state laws and pass a written test and a gun proficiency test. It might make you feel better to exaggerate and provide erroneous statements, but you are still wrong.”

I’m not wrong.  It’s no surprise that you can’t see the truth.  You’d have to acknowledge that you have nothing to fear among your fellow Kansans… and we all know you can’t do that.

“Are either of you willing to admit your statements should be tempered somewhat because they have no basis in fact but display a petulant anger toward the 2nd amendment? “

Remind me again which “well-regulated militia” you belong to?

“BTW, just exactly how many times have you “had to deal” with a legal CCL holder?  Again, I am guessing zero.”

As I said at the beginning of this thread, it’s going to take some innocent slaughter to wake some people up.

“Let’s keep it factual…what say you?”

Absolutely.  FACT:  If there are no guns in a room, no innocents will die by bullet.  FACT:  One Saturday of class does not qualify anyone to carry arms into public places.
FACT:  Men who can’t leave the house without a firearm have an irrational fear of the unknown.  FACT: We, as a society, had moved beyond the gun as a security blanket.  We as a society, have regressed 150 years in the last 10.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2014 09:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  532
Joined  2014-02-09

Randall, you have a LOT of confusion and continuing irrationality. You also seem to have trouble differentiating between opinion and fact. A quick scan of your post told me that everything you call a fact is merely your opinion. I would suggest you pull out a dictionary. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you cannot make up your own facts. You get emotional and separate yourself from reality. Calm down, take a deep breath and try to use reason instead of your emotions.

A good example, you shoot from the hip (pardon the pun) in knee-jerk fashion right away. If you think I was comparing CCL holders to cops or that they view themselves as equals to cops, or receive the same training as cops, you are completely mistaken. You read what you want to hear, but not what was written. I never claimed those things anywhere, but you still jumped to the conclusion. Amazing.  Actually I later clarified that no one I know shows those tendencies and would be more inclined to call 911 if witnessing an armed robbery. That is not very cop-like.  It’s apparent that you get overly emotional and cannot discuss things rationally on this subject.  Anyone who is clear-thinking and does not let their emotions cloud their judgment can follow logic and can see that the comparison with cops extended only so far as the point that carrying a weapon does not make one a coward. This is nothing more than a puerile attempt on your part to demean those you disagree with by stooping to ad hominem attacks…like calling people cowards and half-wits.  It’s sad really. I would suggest you calm down and try to be more rational.

I will try to read your last post in more detail and respond to other areas where you are just flying off the handle. If I think you make a valid point somewhere, I will say so. I didn’t see one in the quick scan however.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2014 09:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  729
Joined  2013-07-13

Thank you, Rick, for reading and considering my post.  That’s all I ever hope for.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2014 10:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  532
Joined  2014-02-09
Randall Baughman - 11 February 2014 06:12 PM

This is my point.  The fact that you automatically consider yourself equal to a policemen is just the delusional thinking that I’m talking about.  A Saturday of CC class is to police training what a tricycle is to a Harley.

Your “point” is pointless. The “delusional thinking” is yours: that you automatically assume I was comparing myself to be the equal of a policeman. Ummmm…never said that, Randall.


“Many studies indicate a lot of things CC holders are so in fear of the unknown that they need to be packing to feel safe. “

This is irrational hyperbole, even nonsensical. Cite the study Randall, that substantiates your opinion. You can’t.

“ALL studies are debatable.  I grew up amid WWII vets.  THEY didn’t need guns to go to the grocery.  They knew the difference between irrational and rational fear.”

Those vets probably knew the difference between rational and irrational, but I see little evidence that you do. I served many years as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army. My father was a WW II vet and a career West Pointer. I personally knew three Medal of Honor recipients, serving with one as his adjutant. I suspect I know a little more about both kinds of fear than you do, but I could be wrong.

“It depends upon which “crimes” you’re talking about, doesn’t it? If some yahoo glances a shell off a chair through some child’s cranium, is that a crime?”

It certainly is a civil lawsuit waiting to happen if it is not a crime. Which is why the CCLs I know are loathe to ever draw a weapon. It is certainly a big concern of mine. Are you speaking of a specific case I can read about, or are you just drumming up more hyperbole?

I said: “Even the critics agree there is no indication the CCL holders are MORE prone to commit crimes of violence. No evidence whatsoever. So your statement is simply wrong.”

You said “My statement said nothing about “crimes”, only stupid frightened people carrying weapons in public places.”

Actually Randall, your statement claimed that with every coward with a gun, the probability of innocent death by gunshot compounds exponentially and you subsequently asked if the shot child was a crime. So you are confused. This is hyperbole. Most studies show you are five times as likely to encounter violent crime from the general public as you are with a CCL holder. You are free to debate the studies….or present verifiable facts instead of wild accusations that are just opinions.

“There were no guns in ANY room at Sandy Hook, but the probability of zero violence was not true, was it?”

So, that loony coward with the AK shot those children with his finger?

Now I agree with you. He WAS a loony coward. But the gun free zone didn’t save those kids, did it?

“I would accept your irrational statement if the gun-free room were heavily guarded outside the room”

No you wouldn’t.

Actually, yes I would. The point is that the absence of guns does not make a room “safe” when that loony coward you mentioned can stroll into the room unchallenged.


“When you go to the DQ for an ice cream, why do you need to be carrying, if not for irrational fear of some imaginary deadly conflict?”

I don’t need to be carrying. But those that do carry are not suffering from irrational fears. This is a confused opinion in your mind.

You said “Sure they are.  You compared them in your opening line of this post.”

You are confused again. YOU did. I did not.

“I know many CCL holders who couldn’t hit water from a boat.  They have no business carrying a handgun.”

I’m having trouble believing this Randall. Smells like more poppycock. I would be shocked if you knew more than one or two CCL holders. Not “many.” And if you do, have you accompanied them to the gun range to observe their shooting? I am guessing “no” considering your aversion to the cowards, half-wits, and yahoos. Do you REALLY spend a lot of time with those people to know how well they shoot? BTW, many CCL holders shoot often at a range. Admittedly, some do not.

“I’m not wrong.  It’s no surprise that you can’t see the truth.  You’d have to acknowledge that you have nothing to fear among your fellow Kansans… and we all know you can’t do that.”

Why is it “no surprise” and how is your opinion necessarily “the truth?” In your mind maybe, but this falls far short of resembling a fact. It is opinion….and flawed opinion at that. Gosh ,you remind me of the quote by Ronald Reagan. “Liberals (and I admit I make the assumption you generally meet that description)...it’s not that they are ignorant. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

“Remind me again which “well-regulated militia” you belong to?”

That is your interpretation, but judicial reviews have supported my contentions. So far, that makes you wrong…again.

“As I said at the beginning of this thread, it’s going to take some innocent slaughter to wake some people up.”

We had innocent slaughter at Sandy Hook. But that had nothing to do with a licensed CCL holder. If one had been present and had a weapon, the loss of life might have been far less. Perhaps you can point me to some cases where CCL holders were responsible for a lot of innocent deaths. The list would be anecdotal and very short if you are even able to….


Absolutely.  FACT:  If there are no guns in a room, no innocents will die by bullet. 

Unless a loon comes in with a gun, and then the roomful is helpless and at his mercy.

qu

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2014 10:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  729
Joined  2013-07-13

Again, Rick, thank you for considering my post.

Calling me confused is, I guess, what this debate is about?

You’re frightened, and I’m confused.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2014 10:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  532
Joined  2014-02-09
Randall Baughman - 11 February 2014 06:12 PM

Rick, “These seem to be emotional and irrational statements. Police officers carry guns for their own protection, not to protect you.”

  FACT:  One Saturday of class does not qualify anyone to carry arms into public places.

Randall, I personally know three CCL holders that regularly practice at a range and shoot like an expert. They are experts. In the Army, I qualified as an expert on both the M-16 and on the M1911 .45 caliber pistol…numerous times. I am thankful I have never encountered a situation where I felt the need to draw a weapon in a dire situation, and I hope I never do.  I think one day is enough for these people….remember we are NOT holding them to a standard of a policeman and, in my opinion, that is enough. I also agree with you that one day may not be enough for some. But the state of Kansas sets the requirements and they say it does qualify you. I would suggest you take your anger up with your lawmaker in Topeka.

FACT:  Men who can’t leave the house without a firearm have an irrational fear of the unknown.
This is an opinion, Randall. Sorry, it is not a fact. You are entitled to your opinion. I fail to see it in the CCLs I know.

FACT: We, as a society, had moved beyond the gun as a security blanket.  We as a society, have regressed 150 years in the last 10.
Again, this is your opinion. It is not a “fact.” In my opinion, you are wrong. We can agree to disagree on this one too.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2014 10:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  532
Joined  2014-02-09

No Randall, I am extremely at ease. Anyone who knows me would laugh at calling me frightened. You sure add a lot of hype where your opinion is way off base.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2014 10:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  729
Joined  2013-07-13

So, I’m not confused?

I’m not frightened either, Rick. 

I speak the truth, across the board. 

I qualified as an expert in both rifle and pistol at the US Naval Academy in 1971.  I still have the medals, as well as the 45 slug that ricocheted off the pipe holding the target… 40 feet away… for the shooter next to me.

It is not my “opinion” that a lot of unqualified people are carrying out there, it’s my observation. 

It is not my “opinion” that men carrying guns are afraid of non-existent threats, it’s my observation.

It’s not opinion that WWII vets didn’t carry because they knew the difference between rational and irrational fear.  It’s my observation.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2014 11:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  532
Joined  2014-02-09

And why I seriously doubt that you know ANY CCL holders who couldn’t hit water if they fell out of a boat, Randall?

The requirement to be qualified is to hit a man sized torso over three distances…5, 10, and 15 yards, at least 18 times out of 25 shots. That’s just a little bit harder than hitting water falling out of a boat. Admittedly, you might demand a more stringent standard.

I would like to hear your actual cases of harm caused by CCL holders to an unrelated, innocent bystander off the top of your head. Again, I am betting on zero.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2014 11:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  729
Joined  2013-07-13

So, now I’m a liar?  Because you “seriously doubt” what I say?

I speak the truth.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2014 11:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  532
Joined  2014-02-09

Randall, Your observations are diametrically opposed to my observations. That would argue that these are opinions and NOT facts for both of us

BTW, I realize it is anecdotal, but do you suppose that the 88 year old WW II vet who was beaten to death by a 17 year old thug in a Walmart parking lot knew the difference between rational fear and irrational fear? I am guessing he would have loved to be in possession of a handgun to level the odds a little bit. Most frail 88 year old vets are no match for a muscular 17 year old. You are just full of empty hyperbole, Randall.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2014 11:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  532
Joined  2014-02-09
Randall Baughman - 11 February 2014 11:08 PM

So, now I’m a liar?  Because you “seriously doubt” what I say?

I speak the truth.


You used the word liar, not me. I think your characterization of hitting water is an exaggeration. The required standards belie your characterization. So, is it the truth? Are you saying you have observed them shoot and they could not hit 18 out of 25 shots? They should not have been licensed then.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2014 11:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  729
Joined  2013-07-13

Oh, yes.  You’re right.  It’s a jungle out der in Kansas.  Evil evawhar!  Who WOULDN’T be frightened, right?

Profile
 
 
   
 < 1 2 3 > 
2 of 3
 

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | The Manhattan Mercury, 318 North 5th Street, Manhattan, Kansas, 66502

Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without written consent.