Crime Governor Just Took Away My Right to Protect Myself

[Poatan Power]

No, sorry you don't get it.

In most of the countries where carrying a gun became a crime WERE loads of guns too. There are ways how to deal with it. In Australia this law was introduced in 1996, in UK it was in 1997. Yeah waste more time and lives and accumulate more weapons in hands of citizens for another 10-30-50 years. Good strategy.

You and your constitution.
Yes USA had a very progressive and modern constitution at that time. AT THAT TIME!
Many countries have their own constituion. No other country of the world uses constitution from the 1787. Constitutions of all other states around the world changed progressively with time.
You can look up data. In each country which adapter gun prohibition, gun related deaths declines,amount of guns dropped significantly etc etc.

The ways to deal with it are in violation of the constitution. Period. It is viewed as a human right to bear arms in this country with varying degrees of logical conditions, just as free speech has degrees of conditions. The government cannot confiscate property from its citizens (4th amendment) that is legally acquired and owned and protected by another amendment (the 2nd). This is why I say you don't get it. You are correct that if there were a magic wand or a magic genie where I get free wishes to evaporate firearms in the U.S. and change the 300 year history on firearm rights, firearm violence would subside. There are already supreme court case rulings on this. Magic wands don't exist. Hundreds of millions of firearms do not disappear. Our own government arms drug cartels and gang members and state sponsors drug trafficking and gang violence, do you not understand this? Guess what else? Violence with firearms doesn't exist outside the communities where the DEA's drug war isn't wreaking havoc, where the state governments profiteering off of imprisonment isn't flourishing and where institutional racism isn't being heavily inflicted on the socioeconomic status of POC. Go figure. People outside of urban and rural ghettos don't commit firearm violence at a rate of concern. Go fucking figure.

There were not "loads of guns" in Australia. The government confiscated 650,000 firearms. That's not even a 1% of the number of AR15's or shotguns by themselves alone that are in this country. There are states in this union that would not even enforce a federal mandate such as this and you would be pouring gasoline on the embers of civil war and civil unrest, up to and including violent groups using it as fuel for action. And you would not reduce the number of firearm homicides for decades because the people that commit firearm murders in this country do not get them legally, and even when someone does that portion for them, they won't be turning those firearms in. And guess what happens to the firearms that are used in murders or confiscated during arrests of people who shouldn't have them? They disappear forever. It already happens.

And your justification would be the 10k-15k of murders that occur in urban ghettos over drugs and gang territory, situations entirely created by the federal and state governments you're proposing enforce this legislation.

You. Do. Not. Get. it.

The argument isn't whether or not the absence of firearms would reduce the number of firearm related deaths and crimes. The argument is whether the U.S can withstand it and what the cost/effectiveness of it would be. Australia is not a sample size of the U.S., and neither was 1996 GB.

 

[MMAisGod]

You did t actually explain anything you just repeated the conversation. It’s true you didn’t say as much as I did but you tell me what is bad and authoritarian and why you would need guns all the time, sans self defense.

I don't think you understand the definition of what is a Strawman. You asked how what you said was a Strawman, and I showed you how your response about needing to be strapped every time you leave the house and such is a literal definition of the word to what my post was. Not sure how else I can explain it.

However you saying "tell me why it's bad" is not a Strawman. It is bad because

1) Removing rights of law abiding citizens and demanding obedience to the new rule is probably an Exhibit A of what an authoritarian action would look like. I would hope most people don't support authoritarian actions.

2) An 11 year old getting shot accidentally by some lunatic would not have been prevented by this law. If someone is crazy enough to shoot someone over road rage, I highly doubt they'd "follow the law" and not have possessed the gun in the first place.

3) Going back to #1, it doesn't even seem to be a legal action to pass, and they themselves are saying it likely will be rejected, but if that is true then why not use the incident to push meaningful reform rather than fake bravado.

4) It potentially puts people who would be able to defend themselves, in a position of harm from criminals. I've shared the story before when my friend made the news, but one of my close friends was almost kidnapped/raped, but fortunately subdued the criminal with her legally owned concealed gun. Had she been under this law, she would likely have been raped and killed.

Nothing to do with "fight the power" or whatever. These are reasons why I feel it is a very bad decision.

 

[Via Heeto]

This is setting a horrible precedent. we start here and there will be a lot of "emergencies" popping up that take away our rights. besides, she is really stretching the definition of what constitutes an emergency.

and it really doesn't matter, because i am not aware of it saying anywhere in the constitution that these rights only matter in non-emergencies

 

[RogerB08]

This some bullshit. This city is so fucked up that a 11 yr old got gunned down leaving a minor league baseball game in a road rage shooting the other the day and the governor solution is to stop people from carrying gun to protect themselves with. This is just doesn’t make sense.

https://www.krqe.com/news/new-mexic...ds-open-concealed-carry-in-bernalillo-county/




people won’t test you if they know you got that thang on you and now the governor is throwing us to the wolves without no way to defend ourselves. All the murders are gonna know we green. This is bullshit.

From looking at multiple reports, it doesn't seem like this a case where a gun would have actually prevented this from happening.

 

[HomeCheese]

This some bullshit. This city is so fucked up that a 11 yr old got gunned down leaving a minor league baseball game in a road rage shooting the other the day and the governor solution is to stop people from carrying gun to protect themselves with. This is just doesn’t make sense.

https://www.krqe.com/news/new-mexic...ds-open-concealed-carry-in-bernalillo-county/




people won’t test you if they know you got that thang on you and now the governor is throwing us to the wolves without no way to defend ourselves. All the murders are gonna know we green. This is bullshit.

Are you really worried about being shot in your daly life? Your stress level/blood pressure must be through the roof.

Are there really a lot of murderers where you live?

 

[Smokes]

Are you really worried about being shot in your daly life? Your stress level/blood pressure must be through the roof.

Are there really a lot of murderers where you live?

Everyday allday. These are though times we living in. Worst than to worst of the 90s. I sleep with a chopper and have dr on speed dial to ease my minds.

A lot, I would say so but the thing is, these are not gang killing or robberies gone wrong, these are common folks getting killed in their day to day life. Not ones out looking for trouble. This yr alone a guy got killed in a movie theater disrupt over a seat, a girl got kill sleeping in her living room, a boy got killed leaving a baseball game and a few others that have been killed doing everyday thing they need to do to survive.

so to me, the normal civilians are being put in life or death situations just leaving the house. I wish it wasn’t like that but it is. So it’s foolish not be having a gun, it be like driving a car with no spare tire. You might need it

 

[RogerB08]

Not the people I associate with directly, but people who I associate with knew people who have been victims.

They all had one thing in common- they were involved with something illegal- they were effectively looking for trouble.

This all day long. If you aren't mixed up in any dumb shit and/or not associating with people who are, it goes a long way towards not getting shot.

 

[RogerB08]

Everyday allday. These are though times we living in. Worst than to worst of the 90s. I sleep with a chopper and have dr on speed dial to ease my minds.

A lot, I would say so but the thing is, these are not gang killing or robberies gone wrong, these are common folks getting killed in their day to day life. Not ones out looking for trouble. This yr alone a guy got killed in a movie theater disrupt over a seat, a girl got kill sleeping in her living room, a boy got killed leaving a baseball game and a few others that have been killed doing everyday thing they need to do to survive.

so to me, the normal civilians are being put in life or death situations just leaving the house. I wish it wasn’t like that but it is. So it’s foolish not be having a gun, it be like driving a car with no spare tire. You might need it

All day every day? How many enemies do you have Tony Montana?

 

[tenniswhiz]

The ways to deal with it are in violation of the constitution. Period. It is viewed as a human right to bear arms in this country with varying degrees of logical conditions, just as free speech has degrees of conditions. The government cannot confiscate property from its citizens (4th amendment) that is legally acquired and owned and protected by another amendment (the 2nd). This is why I say you don't get it. You are correct that if there were a magic wand or a magic genie where I get free wishes to evaporate firearms in the U.S. and change the 300 year history on firearm rights, firearm violence would subside. There are already supreme court case rulings on this. Magic wands don't exist. Hundreds of millions of firearms do not disappear. Our own government arms drug cartels and gang members and state sponsors drug trafficking and gang violence, do you not understand this? Guess what else? Violence with firearms doesn't exist outside the communities where the DEA's drug war isn't wreaking havoc, where the state governments profiteering off of imprisonment isn't flourishing and where institutional racism isn't being heavily inflicted on the socioeconomic status of POC. Go figure. People outside of urban and rural ghettos don't commit firearm violence at a rate of concern. Go fucking figure.

There were not "loads of guns" in Australia. The government confiscated 650,000 firearms. That's not even a 1% of the number of AR15's or shotguns by themselves alone that are in this country. There are states in this union that would not even enforce a federal mandate such as this and you would be pouring gasoline on the embers of civil war and civil unrest, up to and including violent groups using it as fuel for action. And you would not reduce the number of firearm homicides for decades because the people that commit firearm murders in this country do not get them legally, and even when someone does that portion for them, they won't be turning those firearms in. And guess what happens to the firearms that are used in murders or confiscated during arrests of people who shouldn't have them? They disappear forever. It already happens.

And your justification would be the 10k-15k of murders that occur in urban ghettos over drugs and gang territory, situations entirely created by the federal and state governments you're proposing enforce this legislation.

You. Do. Not. Get. it.

The argument isn't whether or not the absence of firearms would reduce the number of firearm related deaths and crimes. The argument is whether the U.S can withstand it and what the cost/effectiveness of it would be. Australia is not a sample size of the U.S., and neither was 1996 GB.

But what happened here? The temporary executive order doesn’t prevent people from having guns in their homes to protect their property. He just temporarily banned carrying, right?
Carry may as well be banned in about a dozen states, considering how complicated the state laws make it. If it were truly “unconstitutional”, NJ and NY would have had their laws thrown out by now, but that hasn’t happened and doesn’t look like it will ever happen.

 

[scorpiorising]

The most American take on a shooting. More guns. America...fuck ya!

 

[SKYNET]

Police is/should be your protection.

You and your constitution.

 

[ShadowRun]

Same thing one of the Bay Area cities tried to do. The dumb ass worthless mayor passed an ordinance requiring residents to have "gun liability insurance". AND pay an annual "gun harm reduction fee". Has any of it been enforced? Of course not. These lib fucks are in it for the virtue signaling.

The people who think men can get pregnant passed that? I would of never guessed.

 

[balkanbomber85]

As an European I will never understand how anybody wants to live in a country where you think you have to carry a gun to be able to protect yourself and be safe...

I remember when I visited the US and the guy at the hotel reception told me "Sir, if you go outside you can go to the left, its a nice area, bars, restaurants, pretty safe. Don´t go to the right, its not safe! I repeat, do not go to the right side when you leave the hotel!" and I was like, wait, am I in the "greatest Country in the world", the prime example of the first world, or is this some 3rd world shit??? I lived 7 years in Russia and nobody ever told me something like that!

 

[PhitePhan]

As an European I will never understand how anybody wants to live in a country where you think you have to carry a gun to be able to protect yourself and be safe...

I remember when I visited the US and the guy at the hotel reception told me "Sir, if you go outside you can go to the left, its a nice area, bars, restaurants, pretty safe. Don´t go to the right, its not safe! I repeat, do not go to the right side when you leave the hotel!" and I was like, wait, am I in the "greatest Country in the world", the prime example of the first world, or is this some 3rd world shit??? I lived 7 years in Russia and nobody ever told me something like that!

The VAST majority of gun deaths occur in just a handful of cities, most which have very strict gun laws, ironically.

Just avoid those few areas and you should be fine…

 

[Smokes]

All day every day? How many enemies do you have Tony Montana?

too many to count. My life is in danger 24 hr. I don’t think most people could handle it, they probably just give up but not me I want to live. Even people on Sherdog hate me and would kill me if the can and have wish death upon me.

 

[Smokes]

Are people really ok with the Govt taking away your right to protect yourself. What if they made all PC Viruses/Malware Protection illegal and left you with no way to protect yourself on the internet. Would you be ok with it with?

 

[Teppodama]

So here's my question. If the Govenor willingly violates the constitutional rights of the States citizens, having sown to uphold those rights, and acknowledges that they understand the violation will be voided by the courts can they be forcibly removed from office till some sort of trial is held or does it have to be through the impeachment process? Seems a clearcut case of the Governor breaking her oath of office, abusing her political position, violating the constitutional rights of the citizens of her state, etc. Just curious how she is still actively in office right now

 

[SKYNET]

So here's my question. If the Govenor willingly violates the constitutional rights of the States citizens, having sown to uphold those rights, and acknowledges that they understand the violation will be voided by the courts can they be forcibly removed from office till some sort of trial is held or does it have to be through the impeachment process? Seems a clearcut case of the Governor breaking her oath of office, abusing her political position, violating the constitutional rights of the citizens of her state, etc. Just curious how she is still actively in office right now

Tin foil hat says she's been offered something to be a martyr. Push the gun grabbers agenda, take the hit and collect the data for future encroachment of American taxpayers rights, also see how well the base (useful idiots) react to clear constitutional violation.

 

[Scerpi]

This is setting a horrible precedent. we start here and there will be a lot of "emergencies" popping up that take away our rights. besides, she is really stretching the definition of what constitutes an emergency.

and it really doesn't matter, because i am not aware of it saying anywhere in the constitution that these rights only matter in non-emergencies

Presidents and State Governers have been declaring "States of Emergency" to by-pass Government Policies, allowing for them to issue Executive Orders.

lol.. There's still 11 open from the Bush era, including the one issued on 9/14 for the 9/11 attacks.

I think the last war the US has involved itself that was declared properly through DC was WW2... now Presidents just declare a national emergency and off we go.

 

[Scerpi]

As an European I will never understand how anybody wants to live in a country where you think you have to carry a gun to be able to protect yourself and be safe...

I remember when I visited the US and the guy at the hotel reception told me "Sir, if you go outside you can go to the left, its a nice area, bars, restaurants, pretty safe. Don´t go to the right, its not safe! I repeat, do not go to the right side when you leave the hotel!" and I was like, wait, am I in the "greatest Country in the world", the prime example of the first world, or is this some 3rd world shit??? I lived 7 years in Russia and nobody ever told me something like that!

lol.. yeah ok