Trump plan calls for nationwide concealed carry and an end to gun bans

[Larry Gude]

Yeah.....I know.....I'll call 9-1-1 instead. /:-\

I'm not advocating for the policy. I'm telling you, as a gun nut, what it is. :shrug: You choose to break the law, you may save someones life and not be prosecuted or convicted but you WILL go through at least some legal process to see about it.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'll change my wording, in many Free America States, another citizen that is at the crime can shoot Gurps in the back and be well within the law.

Just not in the...Free State.

 

[black dog]

It's my opinion, and it's subject to change. You don't have to agree with it. And I didn't say "on one side of the gate, and not on the other". I said "on a commercial aircraft". Right now, my concern is the limited amount space, the number of people on the plane, and how many people could possibly be firing their guns at the same time. I would add to that, people who are not "responsible" gun owners. Just because it is our right to carry a gun, doesn't mean there won't be people out there who couldn't shoot the side of a barn with a telescopic sight. I'm just really on the fence about this, I guess. While I agree with what you're saying, I can't help but have concerns.

You give up your 2nd Amendment Rights at the Airport as you enter the Homeland Security checkpoint, the Federal side of the airport.
If I'm a sound citizen, why am I considered sound and responsible right up to that checkpoint, but not after? But yet other sound citizens are OK.
We as citizens carried on planes for decades before all this, and nary a problem all those years.

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

I'm not advocating for the policy. I'm telling you, as a gun nut, what it is. :shrug: You choose to break the law, you may save someones life and not be prosecuted or convicted but you WILL go through at least some legal process to see about it.

Well.....yeah, here in the PRM, I fully expect to be, even if I act to prevent imminent or further harm to another. Kinda F'd up.

'The MPD/SMCSO thanks you for intervening.' 'While you did prevent further harm, you will be charged with.....' THAT is the part I don't get.
A CCW holder prevents further harm by intervening, but gets charged with a crime?

"Well, you didn't dial 9-1-1 when you first witnessed the assault in progress."

 

[glhs837]

Show me a cite where a airliner has had difficulty flying or crashed ( not military aircraft ) that was caused by a shot or shots being fired onboard that caused death of passengers or crew . I can't think of one time it's happened in modern history,,, I believe that's more internet precieved problems.

Don't know of any passenger aircraft that has had a gunfight that's happened onboard. But I know airplanes very well, and have passing familiarity with firearms. And the odds are indeed not high that you will hit a vital control bit that isn't redundant in some way. But put say 4-5 people onboard an aircraft (given liberal carry rights, I think that might be a good guess for carrying individuals in a crowd of 250 passengers) shooting, and the odds go way up. Which of course doesn't address the issue of the sheer density of bystanders. Given the frequency we've seen flight crew and passengers have had to restrain disturbed indivduals, adding firearms to that sort of situation at 40K seems like a "Fire in a crowded theater" sort of situation where it's considered a reasonable restriction.

 

[black dog]

Just not in the...Free State.

Touchè.... Sad but true.

 

[black dog]

Don't know of any passenger aircraft that has had a gunfight that's happened onboard. But I know airplanes very well, and have passing familiarity with firearms. And the odds are indeed not high that you will hit a vital control bit that isn't redundant in some way. But put say 4-5 people onboard an aircraft (given liberal carry rights, I think that might be a good guess for carrying individuals in a crowd of 250 passengers) shooting, and the odds go way up. Which of course doesn't address the issue of the sheer density of bystanders. Given the frequency we've seen flight crew and passengers have had to restrain disturbed indivduals, adding firearms to that sort of situation at 40K seems like a "Fire in a crowded theater" sort of situation where it's considered a reasonable restriction.

And with sound citizens carrying firearms, it's just not a problem.
The Second Amendment is written very simple. And " shall not infringe " is even simpler.
For the government to infringe in any manner in, is wrong.

 

[Larry Gude]

And with sound citizens carrying firearms, it's just not a problem.
The Second Amendment is written very simple. And " shall not infringe " is even simpler.
For the government to infringe in any manner in, is wrong.

But it doesn't say jack sh1t about 'sound' or 'mature' or 'experienced' or 'sane'. At best, you can infer that, via the well regulated militia a keeper and bearer of arms would be trained to use good judgement but then that subordinates the individual right to a collective, militia, right, ie, you can keep and bear IF you're in the militia.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You give up your 2nd Amendment Rights at the Airport as you enter the Homeland Security checkpoint, the Federal side of the airport.
If I'm a sound citizen, why am I considered sound and responsible right up to that checkpoint, but not after? But yet other sound citizens are OK.
We as citizens carried on planes for decades before all this, and nary a problem all those years.

And then 9/11 happened and we, as a country, decided it'd be a good idea to get spied on and have TSA grope us.

 

[Larry Gude]

Touchè.... Sad but true.

Depends on how you look at it.

As I am sure you know, gun control isn't just rooted in racism; it's the point of it. I would love to hear a debate concerning those implications and reasons among gun control advocates. I'd ask;

Given the history of gun control, to subordinate blacks, to keep them subordinate, do you agree blacks do not deserve the full rights of whites? Why or why not?

 

[Larry Gude]

And then 9/11 happened and we, as a country, decided it'd be a good idea to get spied on and have TSA grope us.

I was so profoundly disappointed in Dubbya. After hearing 'these people will here from us soon.." I thought we'd get an appeal to citizens' "all good men, if you are already permitted, carry. If you're not, go get one. Or carry a pocket knife. Be more aware. Be on guard to help law enforcement. Help protect our nation"

Instead we got "shut up, get in line, take your shoes off and do as your told"

 

[glhs837]

And with sound citizens carrying firearms, it's just not a problem.
The Second Amendment is written very simple. And " shall not infringe " is even simpler.
For the government to infringe in any manner in, is wrong.

Well, sound citizens fill the theaters, but still we have agreed to restrict that right to free speech because of the increased risk to other citizens. We restrict the right to free speech in the case of inciting a riot, why, because of the same thing. Note the connection. In circumstances where one citizens ability to cause harm to a large number of innocent citizens, we have decided that the rights of the other citizens to be free to pursue happiness trumps your right to exercise your rights. don't think I'm some rabid anti-gun sort of person, there is virtually no other place in the everyday walk of life where I don't agree with your point. Schools, churches, hospitals, you name it, I'm fine with carry for everyone. But not on aircraft.

 

[Lurk]

According to this, no http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jun/13/20060613-123248-2105r/

Has anything changed in the ten years since that article was printed? Is this now a red herring since air Marshall firearms/ammunition has changed? I don't know, but shouldn't you?

 

[Lurk]

I may not be able to shoot you in the back, but I can shoot you in the leg til you turn around.

This is the second time you've suggested shooting a bad guy in the leg. Are you really that irresponsible? People don't shoot to hit someone in the leg or to shoot the pistol out of the bad guy's hand. That's Hollywood thinking. If you shoot, you shoot to kill. It's that simple.

 

[Larry Gude]

Has anything changed in the ten years since that article was printed? Is this now a red herring since air Marshall firearms/ammunition has changed? I don't know, but shouldn't you?

Heck if I know. My goal was to find something that supported frangible as suitable for in flight airline use because I had no idea and it's a good question.

 

[Lurk]

Heck if I know. My goal was to find something that supported frangible as suitable for in flight airline use because I had no idea and it's a good question.

Had you read beyond the title/first paragraph you would have seen the air Marshalls were determining whether a change in firearms and ammunition should be considered. That should have raised the question.

Federal Air Marshal Service Director Dana Brown is reviewing the agency’s use of a .357-caliber handgun and Speer Gold Dot .357 SIG round, nonfrangible ammunition, said FAMS spokesman Conan Bruce.

:Buds:

 

[Larry Gude]

Had you read beyond the title/first paragraph you would have seen the air Marshalls were determining whether a change in firearms and ammunition should be considered. That should have raised the question.



:Buds:

I did. I read to the point I was after;

“An aircraft is made up of composites, plastics, and aluminum. If a round were to penetrate through the front plastic/composite windshield of the aircraft, the results would be catastrophic at 500 miles per hour. We should be using frangible ammunition. It’s a no-brainer,” the Nov. 27 memo said.

 

[Lurk]

Ok.

 

[Midnightrider]

Self Defense (even if someone is with you). The latter is/would or could be termed "Personal Protection." Right?

No. If you feel YOUR life, or a family member, is in danger and you don't think YOU can safely retreat, once you've run through the check list, you can start thinking about presenting and, then, if things haven't improved, you can start to think about whether or not shooting is going to keep you from serious harm or death.

Technically, if GURPS is pretty clearly gonna shoot me and you are a bystander and ccw, you can't shoot to save me. Some might say it's OK to join in and shoot me but that's another question. Point is that in Maryland, legally, you're putting yourself in the hands of the jury if you help a stranger and/or draw 'too soon' or shoot 'too soon'

yes, unless my weapon is drawn and I am actively re leaving Larry of his wallet you cannot fire .....
only in Texas can you get away with 'he just needed killing'
[and maybe not anymore]

looks like its already been covered, but larry has it exactly right. unless that person is with you, you can not interject yourself into the situation to save them in maryland.

right or wrong, that is the law

 

[PsyOps]

looks like its already been covered, but larry has it exactly right. unless that person is with you, you can not interject yourself into the situation to save them in maryland.

right or wrong, that is the law

That is, unless I feel my life is in jeopardy; which I most certainly will. If GURPS is going to shoot Larry and I'm in the area, automatically I'm going to assume he would shoot me too.