Obama supports Federal ban on concealed carry

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If Second Amendment haters such as yourself were wise, you'd actually encourage registration for CWPs, and if used illegally, you could enhance the crime.

I have not seen recent statistics, but anybody fearing the misuse of legitimately obtained and lawfully registered weapons for concealment, is misinformed. I cannot understand how anybody opposes CWPs.

I think we should get rid of police. After all, if you are a bad guy, aren't your more likely to try and shoot when the cops shoot at you, and innocent people could get hurt?

Embrace the culture of victimhood. Hell, the murderer is a victim too. A victim of the society that made him murder.

I think a lot of people forgot why them came to hate liberal ideology (thanks Bush). But each day, this nation because more pussified and embraces victimhood.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If Second Amendment haters such as yourself were wise, you'd actually encourage registration for CWPs, and if used illegally, you could enhance the crime.

I have not seen recent statistics, but anybody fearing the misuse of legitimately obtained and lawfully registered weapons for concealment, is misinformed. I cannot understand how anybody opposes CWPs.

Why? Is the rationale that a CWP holder will be able to protect us all when a crazed shooter starts a killing spree in a mall? Am I to place my confidence in the CWP holder at that point instead of the police? I am to assume that a person is fully capable of pulling out his weapon and aiming it at the bad guy, and killing him and only him, because he holds a CWP?

Let's assume everyone in America holds a CWP (which Waters and you seem to think would be fabulous). One person pulls out a gun and fires a shot. Someone else then pulls out their gun to defend the crowd. Who is the original shooter? The next person who pulls out their gun doesn't know. They only saw the 2nd gunman, who is the good guy here. He was trying to protect people. He is shot by the 3rd gunman, who is also trying to be a good guy. Luckily, everyone has a gun in this Wild West show, so the 4th CWP gunman can quickly eliminate the 3rd gunman for killing the 2nd gunman. At this point, everyone else should all pull out their weapons and open fire on the person they each saw kill another person. Right?

Yeah, sounds great.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why? Is the rationale that a CWP holder will be able to protect us all when a crazed shooter starts a killing spree in a mall? Am I to place my confidence in the CWP holder at that point instead of the police? I am to assume that a person is fully capable of pulling out his weapon and aiming it at the bad guy, and killing him and only him, because he holds a CWP?

Let's assume everyone in America holds a CWP (which Waters and you seem to think would be fabulous). One person pulls out a gun and fires a shot. Someone else then pulls out their gun to defend the crowd. Who is the original shooter? The next person who pulls out their gun doesn't know. They only saw the 2nd gunman, who is the good guy here. He was trying to protect people. He is shot by the 3rd gunman, who is also trying to be a good guy. Luckily, everyone has a gun in this Wild West show, so the 4th CWP gunman can quickly eliminate the 3rd gunman for killing the 2nd gunman. At this point, everyone else should all pull out their weapons and open fire on the person they each saw kill another person. Right?

Yeah, sounds great.

I don't really have any statistics on the reduced crime by virtue of CWPs. That's not my point.

If you want to know who has weapons, allowing CWPs lets you identify them.

Second, you are likely to find those persons more responsible and safe in handling guns if they take the trouble to register.

It has nothing to do with reduced crime. CWP holders pose no threat at all, IMHO. It's the unlicensed drug dealer who poses a threat.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why? Is the rationale that a CWP holder will be able to protect us all when a crazed shooter starts a killing spree in a mall? Am I to place my confidence in the CWP holder at that point instead of the police? I am to assume that a person is fully capable of pulling out his weapon and aiming it at the bad guy, and killing him and only him, because he holds a CWP?

Let's assume everyone in America holds a CWP (which Waters and you seem to think would be fabulous). One person pulls out a gun and fires a shot. Someone else then pulls out their gun to defend the crowd. Who is the original shooter? The next person who pulls out their gun doesn't know. They only saw the 2nd gunman, who is the good guy here. He was trying to protect people. He is shot by the 3rd gunman, who is also trying to be a good guy. Luckily, everyone has a gun in this Wild West show, so the 4th CWP gunman can quickly eliminate the 3rd gunman for killing the 2nd gunman. At this point, everyone else should all pull out their weapons and open fire on the person they each saw kill another person. Right?

Yeah, sounds great.

How many thousands of dollars paid at Georgetown law produced this?

So far, we have demonstrated the worthlessness of Harvard Law and Georgetown Law. Of course, some might argue law school at any university is worthless.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why? Is the rationale that a CWP holder will be able to protect us all when a crazed shooter starts a killing spree in a mall? Am I to place my confidence in the CWP holder at that point instead of the police? I am to assume that a person is fully capable of pulling out his weapon and aiming it at the bad guy, and killing him and only him, because he holds a CWP?

Let's assume everyone in America holds a CWP (which Waters and you seem to think would be fabulous). One person pulls out a gun and fires a shot. Someone else then pulls out their gun to defend the crowd. Who is the original shooter? The next person who pulls out their gun doesn't know. They only saw the 2nd gunman, who is the good guy here. He was trying to protect people. He is shot by the 3rd gunman, who is also trying to be a good guy. Luckily, everyone has a gun in this Wild West show, so the 4th CWP gunman can quickly eliminate the 3rd gunman for killing the 2nd gunman. At this point, everyone else should all pull out their weapons and open fire on the person they each saw kill another person. Right?

Yeah, sounds great.

It's a nice example but is just as contrived as the ticking-time-bomb scenario commonly used to justify torture. I doubt you have any statistically meaningful case data to actually back up your hypothetical.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's a nice example but is just as contrived as the ticking-time-bomb scenario commonly used to justify torture. I doubt you have any statistically meaningful case data to actually back up your hypothetical.

Of course he doesn't.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/467988

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Of course he doesn't.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/467988

Dude, if it's not printed in Harvard Law Review or Georgetown Law Review it didn't happen and is not true. Get with Obama's program.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Dude, if it's not printed in Harvard Law Review or Georgetown Law Review it didn't happen and is not true. Get with Obama's program.

No doubt, had Lott tried to publish that in the Harvard law journal when Obama was editor, it would have been denied, after a year of delay.

Actually, lawyers aren't smart enough to understand it. They know zero math. All they know is "guns = danger" sort of like they saw it on a flash card one time.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

PLUS, he isn't even an American! BOOM goes the dynamite!

Back me up, Waters!

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why? Is the rationale that a CWP holder will be able to protect us all when a crazed shooter starts a killing spree in a mall? Am I to place my confidence in the CWP holder at that point instead of the police? I am to assume that a person is fully capable of pulling out his weapon and aiming it at the bad guy, and killing him and only him, because he holds a CWP?

Let's assume everyone in America holds a CWP (which Waters and you seem to think would be fabulous). One person pulls out a gun and fires a shot. Someone else then pulls out their gun to defend the crowd. Who is the original shooter? The next person who pulls out their gun doesn't know. They only saw the 2nd gunman, who is the good guy here. He was trying to protect people. He is shot by the 3rd gunman, who is also trying to be a good guy. Luckily, everyone has a gun in this Wild West show, so the 4th CWP gunman can quickly eliminate the 3rd gunman for killing the 2nd gunman. At this point, everyone else should all pull out their weapons and open fire on the person they each saw kill another person. Right?

Yeah, sounds great.

Thanks for proving my point.


http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...222#post302222