CDZ Is this the way it is or the way that it should be ?

[Sonny Clark]

View attachment 81555

. What's impossible ? That if I want to attend a rally that is divisive but peaceful, and if I feel the need to carry my weapon for protection while there, then your saying that there is no permit process for me to do so or that it is impossible to have me fill out a form to grant me the authority to carry openly my weapon at the rally in which I am seeking to attend for my personal protection ? A permit in which puts my name on a granted permit list of possible carry holders in which may be attending the rally and attending it while armed ?

No.
I'm saying that it's impossible to know who is carrying a weapon and who is not. I'm saying that a permit does nothing. I'm saying whether there are laws, restrictions, or check points, or not, people that want to bring weapons to marches and rallies will do so. How is anyone going to control such? So, why even get a permit? What real purpose does a permit serve? Those that have no intention to harm anyone, shouldn't be worried about anyway. And the bad guys that do have intentions to harm someone, aren't going to apply for permit.

It's basically the same as stupid gun control and attempting to get weapons off our streets. It's impossible.

. I guess I'm mainly talking about open carry like the situation was in Dallas... Yes concealed carry is just that, but if prohibited at a rally or event, then I wouldn't want the law to find me packing at a rally or event if it is not lawful to do so at the specific event. Right Sonny ? An event could OK open or concealed carry, but shouldn't the event organizers accompanied by law enforcement set the guidelines and rules for such ? Otherwise there could be a permit process that would grant permission or not to those who would want to carry openly or concealed at the event. This way law enforcement along with the event organizers might at least know who is packing, and why they are packing at the event right ?

Only the honest people would come forth and apply for such a permit. Those intent on doing harm would never do such a thing. How would law enforcement personnel know who has what unless they set up security check points like airports have? And, who's to say that someone intent on doing harm, wouldn't do as the sniper did from outside the secure zone? A sniper can pick people off from a 1,000 yards away, or farther.

And, unless every single person is scanned and searched, and there is a secure area that no one can enter without passing through a security check point, how will anyone be sure that only those with a permit have arms? In other words, at protests, rallies, riots, and sudden gatherings into the streets, how would it work?

This is a strawman argument that alleges gun laws can only be acceptable if they stop ALL gun crime from happening.

We create laws to mitigate crime and make an orderly society to the best of our ability. We don't demand perfection and then throw away all laws when we can't achieve it.

The entire premise of all your points in this thread is completely worthless.

Well, you sure haven't proved me wrong. You've made no effort to dispute any point that I've made.
Again, I will ask:

(1) How will gun control laws stop gun related crimes?
(2) How will gun control laws get guns off our streets?
(3) How will gun control laws adversely affect criminals?
(4) How will gun control laws stop people from selling guns among themselves?
(5) How will gun control laws stop the illegal sale of guns?

Please answer all questions in order to prove me wrong.
Thanks.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Very silly........... really cute ......

We have laws to punish crime, not to prevent crime. Our laws are NOT prevention, rather they exist to punish crime.
The bad guys do not care about laws. And, for the most part, the good guys don't need laws to prevent them from doing wrong and committing crimes. How many rapists care that it's against the law to rape? How many thieves care about laws against stealing? How many murderers care that it's against the law to murder?

This argument is soooooo tired and thoroughly debunked.

Well, I challenge you, or anyone else, to debunk it. The argument is true and valid.

I'll wait here for you to debunk it and prove it false. Good luck.

We have all kinds of laws to prevent crime. Murder laws prevent crime, in many cases. Not all of them, sure, but that's not a valid argument for ridding our society of murder laws.

You're an idiot.

And you're an ignorant asshole shithead.
Laws do NOT prevent crime. Laws punish crime.
Use your head. Think.
If laws prevented crime, then why do we have crime? If laws prevented crime, then why do we have murders, theft, child molestation, rape, arson, assault, auto theft, vandalism, kidnappings, illegal drugs on our streets and in our neighborhoods, property damage, spousal abuse, drunk driving, and many other crimes? Please explain that to me.

Laws punish crime, laws do NOT prevent crimes.

Prove me wrong. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Sure, I'll prove it to you. You are obviously a complete asshole with an IQ in the 30s. Yet no one has killed you. Why? Because we have laws against that sort of thing. Apart from laws, there is literally no other reason for people in general to allow you to live.

You are welcome.

Go Fuck Yourself punk ass sissy piece of shit.
Rot like the fucking no-class low-life garbage that you obviously are.

Anything else puke?

 

[yiostheoy]

There seems to be a plethora (means fruit salad bar) of gun haters who do not understand that if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

Why is that so hard to understand? Low I/Q's perhaps? Bottle-feeding from birth? Inadequate nutrition? Retarded brain development?

This affliction seems to affect over half the population in the USA and practically 99% elsewhere.

It is simply not safe to go anywhere unarmed. There is too much crime. This is true everywhere on the Earth in every nation and every country.

If you are unarmed they you are simply bait. Easy meat for an armed thug.

Not even Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and your Tooth Faerie combined can protect you from an armed thug if you are not also armed.

Everyone needs to be armed, trained, and practiced at drawing fast and shooting straight.

Everywhere you go.

 

[yiostheoy]

No.
I'm saying that it's impossible to know who is carrying a weapon and who is not. I'm saying that a permit does nothing. I'm saying whether there are laws, restrictions, or check points, or not, people that want to bring weapons to marches and rallies will do so. How is anyone going to control such? So, why even get a permit? What real purpose does a permit serve? Those that have no intention to harm anyone, shouldn't be worried about anyway. And the bad guys that do have intentions to harm someone, aren't going to apply for permit.

It's basically the same as stupid gun control and attempting to get weapons off our streets. It's impossible.

So is murder, so let's get rid of capital punishment..

Very silly........... really cute ......

We have laws to punish crime, not to prevent crime. Our laws are NOT prevention, rather they exist to punish crime.
The bad guys do not care about laws. And, for the most part, the good guys don't need laws to prevent them from doing wrong and committing crimes. How many rapists care that it's against the law to rape? How many thieves care about laws against stealing? How many murderers care that it's against the law to murder?

This argument is soooooo tired and thoroughly debunked.

Well, I challenge you, or anyone else, to debunk it. The argument is true and valid.

I'll wait here for you to debunk it and prove it false. Good luck.

We have all kinds of laws to prevent crime. Murder laws prevent crime, in many cases. Not all of them, sure, but that's not a valid argument for ridding our society of murder laws.

You're an idiot.

Anyone who thinks "murder laws" prevent crime is living under a rock.

 

[beagle9]

With any rally that is organized or march that is conducted, should anyone be allowed to attend the rally with a loaded weapon without proper authorization? Otherwise to just show up with a weapon brandished upon your person, and claiming a right to do so under the Constitution ? For anyone wanting to attend a rally or march, and wanting to do so with a loaded weapon, (I have to ask), should they have to get a separate permit or a permit specifically stating the reason for having the gun coming along with them ? If the reason is not good enough, then should they be denide the permit for carrying a weapon at the specific rally applied for ? Should a bill be created that addresses the issue if there isn't one already ? If a rally is created or a march that is deemed peaceful by the organizers as just that, and it is stated in the permit being granted as such, then shouldn't there be added (due to the peaceful nature) a rule that states no weapons at all are allowed at the event, and a copy of it is to be given to the local police force in order to enforce the rule ?

View attachment 81555

. What's impossible ? That if I want to attend a rally that is divisive but peaceful, and if I feel the need to carry my weapon for protection while there, then your saying that there is no permit process for me to do so or that it is impossible to have me fill out a form to grant me the authority to carry openly my weapon at the rally in which I am seeking to attend for my personal protection ? A permit in which puts my name on a granted permit list of possible carry holders in which may be attending the rally and attending it while armed ?

No.
I'm saying that it's impossible to know who is carrying a weapon and who is not. I'm saying that a permit does nothing. I'm saying whether there are laws, restrictions, or check points, or not, people that want to bring weapons to marches and rallies will do so. How is anyone going to control such? So, why even get a permit? What real purpose does a permit serve? Those that have no intention to harm anyone, shouldn't be worried about anyway. And the bad guys that do have intentions to harm someone, aren't going to apply for permit.

It's basically the same as stupid gun control and attempting to get weapons off our streets. It's impossible.

. I guess I'm mainly talking about open carry like the situation was in Dallas... Yes concealed carry is just that, but if prohibited at a rally or event, then I wouldn't want the law to find me packing at a rally or event if it is not lawful to do so at the specific event. Right Sonny ? An event could OK open or concealed carry, but shouldn't the event organizers accompanied by law enforcement set the guidelines and rules for such ? Otherwise there could be a permit process that would grant permission or not to those who would want to carry openly or concealed at the event. This way law enforcement along with the event organizers might at least know who is packing, and why they are packing at the event right ?

Only the honest people would come forth and apply for such a permit. Those intent on doing harm would never do such a thing. How would law enforcement personnel know who has what unless they set up security check points like airports have? And, who's to say that someone intent on doing harm, wouldn't do as the sniper did from outside the secure zone? A sniper can pick people off from a 1,000 yards away, or farther.

And, unless every single person is scanned and searched, and there is a secure area that no one can enter without passing through a security check point, how will anyone be sure that only those with a permit have arms? In other words, at protests, rallies, riots, and sudden gatherings into the streets, how would it work?

. All areas of concern & question can be addressed if wanted to in this nation. Rallies, Marches & gatherings should have designated areas in which the permits are written for. Any activities committed by those protestors that are rallying outside of the areas granted by the permit for the rallies, marches & gatherings, will be in violation of the overall permit that covers the event. People that are supposed to be attending the event, but are seen carrying outside the event or area in which the permit doesn't cover, then they are subject to questioning, possible arrest or their weapons confiscated. Permits can be written for specific areas anywhere that there is a safe and proper facility, park, mall or tract of land in which the two parties might agree upon as a great place for an event, rallies, march or etc. After that is agreed upon, then the boundaries can be set for the permit, and the rules written for it.
This whole Texas event makes one think about how to have these events safely for all, and especially for the police after Dallas.

 

[beagle9]

So is murder, so let's get rid of capital punishment..

Very silly........... really cute ......

We have laws to punish crime, not to prevent crime. Our laws are NOT prevention, rather they exist to punish crime.
The bad guys do not care about laws. And, for the most part, the good guys don't need laws to prevent them from doing wrong and committing crimes. How many rapists care that it's against the law to rape? How many thieves care about laws against stealing? How many murderers care that it's against the law to murder?

This argument is soooooo tired and thoroughly debunked.

Well, I challenge you, or anyone else, to debunk it. The argument is true and valid.

I'll wait here for you to debunk it and prove it false. Good luck.

We have all kinds of laws to prevent crime. Murder laws prevent crime, in many cases. Not all of them, sure, but that's not a valid argument for ridding our society of murder laws.

You're an idiot.

And you're an ignorant asshole shithead.
Laws do NOT prevent crime. Laws punish crime.
Use your head. Think.
If laws prevented crime, then why do we have crime? If laws prevented crime, then why do we have murders, theft, child molestation, rape, arson, assault, auto theft, vandalism, kidnappings, illegal drugs on our streets and in our neighborhoods, property damage, spousal abuse, drunk driving, and many other crimes? Please explain that to me.

Laws punish crime, laws do NOT prevent crimes.

Prove me wrong. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

. Well if a law is stern enough, and it is in front of you, otherwise your able to ponder that law and it's affects on you, then you might just decide to change your mind about committing a crime in which the law would then apply. Hanging was a preventive or had preventive qualities, and it was a punishment after the fact as well.

 

[beagle9]

So is murder, so let's get rid of capital punishment..

Very silly........... really cute ......

We have laws to punish crime, not to prevent crime. Our laws are NOT prevention, rather they exist to punish crime.
The bad guys do not care about laws. And, for the most part, the good guys don't need laws to prevent them from doing wrong and committing crimes. How many rapists care that it's against the law to rape? How many thieves care about laws against stealing? How many murderers care that it's against the law to murder?

This argument is soooooo tired and thoroughly debunked.

Well, I challenge you, or anyone else, to debunk it. The argument is true and valid.

I'll wait here for you to debunk it and prove it false. Good luck.

We have all kinds of laws to prevent crime. Murder laws prevent crime, in many cases. Not all of them, sure, but that's not a valid argument for ridding our society of murder laws.

You're an idiot.

Anyone who thinks "murder laws" prevent crime is living under a rock.

. Ok, if a man stole a horse back in the old days, then his punishment would be death by hanging. The reason they made and enacted such a stern law, is because it was to hopefully work as a deterrent and a punishment all in the same thinking. The reason many bad things are happening these days, is because liberals lessened the laws of the land against the criminals, and since then they have been constantly decriminalising things on a daily basis now.

 

[beagle9]

. What's impossible ? That if I want to attend a rally that is divisive but peaceful, and if I feel the need to carry my weapon for protection while there, then your saying that there is no permit process for me to do so or that it is impossible to have me fill out a form to grant me the authority to carry openly my weapon at the rally in which I am seeking to attend for my personal protection ? A permit in which puts my name on a granted permit list of possible carry holders in which may be attending the rally and attending it while armed ?

No.
I'm saying that it's impossible to know who is carrying a weapon and who is not. I'm saying that a permit does nothing. I'm saying whether there are laws, restrictions, or check points, or not, people that want to bring weapons to marches and rallies will do so. How is anyone going to control such? So, why even get a permit? What real purpose does a permit serve? Those that have no intention to harm anyone, shouldn't be worried about anyway. And the bad guys that do have intentions to harm someone, aren't going to apply for permit.

It's basically the same as stupid gun control and attempting to get weapons off our streets. It's impossible.

. I guess I'm mainly talking about open carry like the situation was in Dallas... Yes concealed carry is just that, but if prohibited at a rally or event, then I wouldn't want the law to find me packing at a rally or event if it is not lawful to do so at the specific event. Right Sonny ? An event could OK open or concealed carry, but shouldn't the event organizers accompanied by law enforcement set the guidelines and rules for such ? Otherwise there could be a permit process that would grant permission or not to those who would want to carry openly or concealed at the event. This way law enforcement along with the event organizers might at least know who is packing, and why they are packing at the event right ?

Only the honest people would come forth and apply for such a permit. Those intent on doing harm would never do such a thing. How would law enforcement personnel know who has what unless they set up security check points like airports have? And, who's to say that someone intent on doing harm, wouldn't do as the sniper did from outside the secure zone? A sniper can pick people off from a 1,000 yards away, or farther.

And, unless every single person is scanned and searched, and there is a secure area that no one can enter without passing through a security check point, how will anyone be sure that only those with a permit have arms? In other words, at protests, rallies, riots, and sudden gatherings into the streets, how would it work?

This is a strawman argument that alleges gun laws can only be acceptable if they stop ALL gun crime from happening.

We create laws to mitigate crime and make an orderly society to the best of our ability. We don't demand perfection and then throw away all laws when we can't achieve it.

The entire premise of all your points in this thread is completely worthless.

Well, you sure haven't proved me wrong. You've made no effort to dispute any point that I've made.
Again, I will ask:

(1) How will gun control laws stop gun related crimes?
(2) How will gun control laws get guns off our streets?
(3) How will gun control laws adversely affect criminals?
(4) How will gun control laws stop people from selling guns among themselves?
(5) How will gun control laws stop the illegal sale of guns?

Please answer all questions in order to prove me wrong.
Thanks.

. Are there no laws that already address what you have stated above (old laws on the books maybe ?), or is there no laws that address your frustrations above ? If laws are on the books, then is it a matter of enforcement ?

 

[beagle9]

Getting back to the premise of the thread... How can we prevent a situation like Dallas again, where as you had open carry at a protest, and then the cops didn't know who the shooter was or actually whether or not he had come from amongst the open carry crowd who was at this event ? Was the shooter hidden among the open carry crowd until he slinked off into the shadows to do his evilness?

 

[beagle9]

Why the open carry at this protest, and what was their reasoning behind the open carry or having weapons at this protest ? Who was the open carriers afraid of or who were they sending a message to @ the event or were they carrying in case they needed to defend themselves, but from who ?

 

[Sonny Clark]

No.
I'm saying that it's impossible to know who is carrying a weapon and who is not. I'm saying that a permit does nothing. I'm saying whether there are laws, restrictions, or check points, or not, people that want to bring weapons to marches and rallies will do so. How is anyone going to control such? So, why even get a permit? What real purpose does a permit serve? Those that have no intention to harm anyone, shouldn't be worried about anyway. And the bad guys that do have intentions to harm someone, aren't going to apply for permit.

It's basically the same as stupid gun control and attempting to get weapons off our streets. It's impossible.

. I guess I'm mainly talking about open carry like the situation was in Dallas... Yes concealed carry is just that, but if prohibited at a rally or event, then I wouldn't want the law to find me packing at a rally or event if it is not lawful to do so at the specific event. Right Sonny ? An event could OK open or concealed carry, but shouldn't the event organizers accompanied by law enforcement set the guidelines and rules for such ? Otherwise there could be a permit process that would grant permission or not to those who would want to carry openly or concealed at the event. This way law enforcement along with the event organizers might at least know who is packing, and why they are packing at the event right ?

Only the honest people would come forth and apply for such a permit. Those intent on doing harm would never do such a thing. How would law enforcement personnel know who has what unless they set up security check points like airports have? And, who's to say that someone intent on doing harm, wouldn't do as the sniper did from outside the secure zone? A sniper can pick people off from a 1,000 yards away, or farther.

And, unless every single person is scanned and searched, and there is a secure area that no one can enter without passing through a security check point, how will anyone be sure that only those with a permit have arms? In other words, at protests, rallies, riots, and sudden gatherings into the streets, how would it work?

This is a strawman argument that alleges gun laws can only be acceptable if they stop ALL gun crime from happening.

We create laws to mitigate crime and make an orderly society to the best of our ability. We don't demand perfection and then throw away all laws when we can't achieve it.

The entire premise of all your points in this thread is completely worthless.

Well, you sure haven't proved me wrong. You've made no effort to dispute any point that I've made.
Again, I will ask:

(1) How will gun control laws stop gun related crimes?
(2) How will gun control laws get guns off our streets?
(3) How will gun control laws adversely affect criminals?
(4) How will gun control laws stop people from selling guns among themselves?
(5) How will gun control laws stop the illegal sale of guns?

Please answer all questions in order to prove me wrong.
Thanks.

. Are there no laws that already address what you have stated above (old laws on the books maybe ?), or is there no laws that address your frustrations above ? If laws are on the books, then is it a matter of enforcement ?

Again, for the third or fourth time:
Laws are in place to punish crime, and not to prevent crime. Laws do NOT stop crime. All of the laws in the world can NOT stop crime, and never will stop crime.

Laws are in place to punish those that break the laws. Laws are not prevention, and never will be prevention. How many criminals obey our laws? How many criminal court cases are in this country on any given day? How many people are in our prisons and jails for breaking the law? Laws ensure that anyone breaking them, will be punished. But, there're no laws anywhere that actually prevent crime. You can make all of the laws that you want, of any kind, but those laws will not stop people from breaking them.

So, it would follow that regardless of time, energy, and taxpayer dollars spent, it's impossible to stop gun violence, impossible to get guns off our streets, and impossible to take guns out of the hands of those intent on committing criminal acts. If you know of a law that would work, please tell all of us exactly what that law is. Thanks.

 

[beagle9]

. I guess I'm mainly talking about open carry like the situation was in Dallas... Yes concealed carry is just that, but if prohibited at a rally or event, then I wouldn't want the law to find me packing at a rally or event if it is not lawful to do so at the specific event. Right Sonny ? An event could OK open or concealed carry, but shouldn't the event organizers accompanied by law enforcement set the guidelines and rules for such ? Otherwise there could be a permit process that would grant permission or not to those who would want to carry openly or concealed at the event. This way law enforcement along with the event organizers might at least know who is packing, and why they are packing at the event right ?

Only the honest people would come forth and apply for such a permit. Those intent on doing harm would never do such a thing. How would law enforcement personnel know who has what unless they set up security check points like airports have? And, who's to say that someone intent on doing harm, wouldn't do as the sniper did from outside the secure zone? A sniper can pick people off from a 1,000 yards away, or farther.

And, unless every single person is scanned and searched, and there is a secure area that no one can enter without passing through a security check point, how will anyone be sure that only those with a permit have arms? In other words, at protests, rallies, riots, and sudden gatherings into the streets, how would it work?

This is a strawman argument that alleges gun laws can only be acceptable if they stop ALL gun crime from happening.

We create laws to mitigate crime and make an orderly society to the best of our ability. We don't demand perfection and then throw away all laws when we can't achieve it.

The entire premise of all your points in this thread is completely worthless.

Well, you sure haven't proved me wrong. You've made no effort to dispute any point that I've made.
Again, I will ask:

(1) How will gun control laws stop gun related crimes?
(2) How will gun control laws get guns off our streets?
(3) How will gun control laws adversely affect criminals?
(4) How will gun control laws stop people from selling guns among themselves?
(5) How will gun control laws stop the illegal sale of guns?

Please answer all questions in order to prove me wrong.
Thanks.

. Are there no laws that already address what you have stated above (old laws on the books maybe ?), or is there no laws that address your frustrations above ? If laws are on the books, then is it a matter of enforcement ?

Again, for the third or fourth time:
Laws are in place to punish crime, and not to prevent crime. Laws do NOT stop crime. All of the laws in the world can NOT stop crime, and never will stop crime.

Laws are in place to punish those that break the laws. Laws are not prevention, and never will be prevention. How many criminals obey our laws? How many criminal court cases are in this country on any given day? How many people are in our prisons and jails for breaking the law? Laws ensure that anyone breaking them, will be punished. But, there're no laws anywhere that actually prevent crime. You can make all of the laws that you want, of any kind, but those laws will not stop people from breaking them.

So, it would follow that regardless of time, energy, and taxpayer dollars spent, it's impossible to stop gun violence, impossible to get guns off our streets, and impossible to take guns out of the hands those intent on committing criminal acts. If you know of a law that would work, please tell all of us exactly what that law is. Thanks.

. No specific law will stop non-specific events, but we can make or customize laws as is needed, and hopefully they will have an effect on specific or certain events and their outcomes. Your right that there is no magic wand to wave, but we can take it step by step by step to stop Americans from being killed by idiots who somehow got his hand on a highly lethal weapon.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Getting back to the premise of the thread... How can we prevent a situation like Dallas again, where as you had open carry at a protest, and then the cops didn't know who the shooter was or actually whether or not he had come from amongst the open carry crowd who was at this event ? Was the shooter hidden among the open carry crowd until he slinked off into the shadows to do his evilness?

You can not prevent what happened in Dallas Texas. I have explained it in great detail why it can't be stopped. In addition, you can not stop what happened in Nice France. Bad people are going to do bad things. Terrorists are going to do bad things. There are many mentally unstable people in this world. People go postal all the time.

Bad people will find ways to do their dirty work.

If you know of a solution that will work, and solve the problem, please tell all of us what it is. Thanks.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Only the honest people would come forth and apply for such a permit. Those intent on doing harm would never do such a thing. How would law enforcement personnel know who has what unless they set up security check points like airports have? And, who's to say that someone intent on doing harm, wouldn't do as the sniper did from outside the secure zone? A sniper can pick people off from a 1,000 yards away, or farther.

And, unless every single person is scanned and searched, and there is a secure area that no one can enter without passing through a security check point, how will anyone be sure that only those with a permit have arms? In other words, at protests, rallies, riots, and sudden gatherings into the streets, how would it work?

This is a strawman argument that alleges gun laws can only be acceptable if they stop ALL gun crime from happening.

We create laws to mitigate crime and make an orderly society to the best of our ability. We don't demand perfection and then throw away all laws when we can't achieve it.

The entire premise of all your points in this thread is completely worthless.

Well, you sure haven't proved me wrong. You've made no effort to dispute any point that I've made.
Again, I will ask:

(1) How will gun control laws stop gun related crimes?
(2) How will gun control laws get guns off our streets?
(3) How will gun control laws adversely affect criminals?
(4) How will gun control laws stop people from selling guns among themselves?
(5) How will gun control laws stop the illegal sale of guns?

Please answer all questions in order to prove me wrong.
Thanks.

. Are there no laws that already address what you have stated above (old laws on the books maybe ?), or is there no laws that address your frustrations above ? If laws are on the books, then is it a matter of enforcement ?

Again, for the third or fourth time:
Laws are in place to punish crime, and not to prevent crime. Laws do NOT stop crime. All of the laws in the world can NOT stop crime, and never will stop crime.

Laws are in place to punish those that break the laws. Laws are not prevention, and never will be prevention. How many criminals obey our laws? How many criminal court cases are in this country on any given day? How many people are in our prisons and jails for breaking the law? Laws ensure that anyone breaking them, will be punished. But, there're no laws anywhere that actually prevent crime. You can make all of the laws that you want, of any kind, but those laws will not stop people from breaking them.

So, it would follow that regardless of time, energy, and taxpayer dollars spent, it's impossible to stop gun violence, impossible to get guns off our streets, and impossible to take guns out of the hands those intent on committing criminal acts. If you know of a law that would work, please tell all of us exactly what that law is. Thanks.

. No specific law will stop non-specific events, but we can make or customize laws as is needed, and hopefully they will have an effect on specific or certain events and their outcomes. Your right that there is no magic wand to wave, but we can take it step by step by step to stop Americans from being killed by idiots who somehow got his hand on a highly lethal weapon.

There's no way possible. It's impossible. Why can't you understand that?

Again, if you know of a way to prevent crime, then please tell all of us exactly what it is. Thanks.
There's nothing that can be done, NOTHING !!!!
It's impossible !!!!!!
Bad people will do bad things !!!!!!
Criminals will commit crimes !!!!!

Please try very hard to understand this. It's not that difficult to understand. If laws on the books now have absolutely no effect on stopping violence, what makes you think that some new magical law will do the trick?

 

[beagle9]

Getting back to the premise of the thread... How can we prevent a situation like Dallas again, where as you had open carry at a protest, and then the cops didn't know who the shooter was or actually whether or not he had come from amongst the open carry crowd who was at this event ? Was the shooter hidden among the open carry crowd until he slinked off into the shadows to do his evilness?

You can not prevent what happened in Dallas Texas. I have explained it in great detail why it can't be stopped. In addition, you can not stop what happened in Nice France. Bad people are going to do bad things. Terrorists are going to do bad things. There are many mentally unstable people in this world. People go postal all the time.

Bad people will find ways to do their dirty work.

If you know of a solution that will work, and solve the problem, please tell all of us what it is. Thanks.

. Are you a liberal ? Liberals figure that nothing can be prevented or nothing can be stopped or made better if they don't want it to be or don't think it can be. Conservatives are known for a more preventive approach to deterring crime before it happens. The death penalty was a huge conservative value & law against heinous crimes committed, but the libs raised cane about that one, then the conservatives are for waterboarding in order to prevent huge life altering events/disasters to happen again in America, and the libs wanted that stopped. Then the libs don't want us to know who is coming here from the war zones, and we as conservatives say no entry in order to prevent further mayhem and chaos in this nation until further notice.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Getting back to the premise of the thread... How can we prevent a situation like Dallas again, where as you had open carry at a protest, and then the cops didn't know who the shooter was or actually whether or not he had come from amongst the open carry crowd who was at this event ? Was the shooter hidden among the open carry crowd until he slinked off into the shadows to do his evilness?

You can not prevent what happened in Dallas Texas. I have explained it in great detail why it can't be stopped. In addition, you can not stop what happened in Nice France. Bad people are going to do bad things. Terrorists are going to do bad things. There are many mentally unstable people in this world. People go postal all the time.

Bad people will find ways to do their dirty work.

If you know of a solution that will work, and solve the problem, please tell all of us what it is. Thanks.

. Are you a liberal ? Liberals figure that nothing can be prevented or nothing can be stopped or made better if they don't want it to be or don't think it can be. Conservatives are known for a more preventive approach to deterring crime before it happens. The death penalty was a huge conservative value & law against heinous crimes committed, but the libs raised cane about that one, then the conservatives are for waterboarding in order to prevent huge life altering events/disasters to happen again in America, and the libs wanted that stopped. Then the libs don't want us to know who is coming here from the war zones, and we as conservatives say no entry in order to prevent further mayhem and chaos in this nation until further notice.

No, I'm NOT a Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, Right Wing, Left Wing, Democrat, Republican, nor anything else except an American for America.

Again, for the fourth or fifth time, what law(s) will prevent crime? What law(s) will prevent gun violence? What law(s) will prevent crazies from going postal? What law(s) will prevent snipers from killing innocent people? You keep going around in circles, avoiding my question, and injecting bullshit that has absolutely nothing to do with laws that will prevent crime and criminal acts of violence.

This is NOT a political problem, this is NOT a Republican problem, this is NOT a Democrat problem, this is NOT a Liberal problem, this is NOT a Conservative problem, this is NOT a Moderate problem, this is NOT a "take sides" problem.

I am an American for America. What law(s) will work? Leave politics out of this. It's not a political issue. It's a common sense issue. It's a simple logic issue.

 

[beagle9]

Getting back to the premise of the thread... How can we prevent a situation like Dallas again, where as you had open carry at a protest, and then the cops didn't know who the shooter was or actually whether or not he had come from amongst the open carry crowd who was at this event ? Was the shooter hidden among the open carry crowd until he slinked off into the shadows to do his evilness?

You can not prevent what happened in Dallas Texas. I have explained it in great detail why it can't be stopped. In addition, you can not stop what happened in Nice France. Bad people are going to do bad things. Terrorists are going to do bad things. There are many mentally unstable people in this world. People go postal all the time.

Bad people will find ways to do their dirty work.

If you know of a solution that will work, and solve the problem, please tell all of us what it is. Thanks.

. Are you a liberal ? Liberals figure that nothing can be prevented or nothing can be stopped or made better if they don't want it to be or don't think it can be. Conservatives are known for a more preventive approach to deterring crime before it happens. The death penalty was a huge conservative value & law against heinous crimes committed, but the libs raised cane about that one, then the conservatives are for waterboarding in order to prevent huge life altering events/disasters to happen again in America, and the libs wanted that stopped. Then the libs don't want us to know who is coming here from the war zones, and we as conservatives say no entry in order to prevent further mayhem and chaos in this nation until further notice.

No, I'm NOT a Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, Right Wing, Left Wing, Democrat, Republican, nor anything else except an American for America.

Again, for the fourth or fifth time, what law(s) will prevent crime? What law(s) will prevent gun violence? What law(s) will prevent crazies from going postal? What law(s) will prevent snipers from killing innocent people? You keep going around in circles, avoiding my question, and injecting bullshit that has absolutely nothing to do with laws that will prevent crime and criminal acts of violence.

This is NOT a political problem, this is NOT a Republican problem, this is NOT a Democrat problem, this is NOT a Liberal problem, this is NOT a Conservative problem, this is NOT a Moderate problem, this is NOT a "take sides" problem.

I am an American for America. What law(s) will work? Leave politics out of this. It's not a political issue. It's a common sense issue. It's a simple logic issue.

. I've already said what needs to be pondered, discussed or legislated over the situation in which got 12 officers either wounded or killed at the protest rally or event in Dallas. The reason that you don't except my ideas or suggestions I think, is because it touches on some sort of gun control at protest events, and as an American myself, well I know that the steel ear muffs are put on when anything pertaining to guns is discussed. I am pro-gun, but I am not for anything like what happened in Texas to those cops. I am for the cops not being ambushed, and I'm for the good guys knowing who there enemy is. It was not good for anyone to be carrying weapons at such an event, but there they were carrying, but for what reason were they carrying there ? Was the shooter amongst the open carry crowd, and therefore the cops paid no attention to him until it was to late ? Where did he come from at the event ? Was he among the crowd or was he there prior to the event or did he enter the event from a back doorway so the speak ?

 

[FA_Q2]

View attachment 81555

. What's impossible ? That if I want to attend a rally that is divisive but peaceful, and if I feel the need to carry my weapon for protection while there, then your saying that there is no permit process for me to do so or that it is impossible to have me fill out a form to grant me the authority to carry openly my weapon at the rally in which I am seeking to attend for my personal protection ? A permit in which puts my name on a granted permit list of possible carry holders in which may be attending the rally and attending it while armed ?

No.
I'm saying that it's impossible to know who is carrying a weapon and who is not. I'm saying that a permit does nothing. I'm saying whether there are laws, restrictions, or check points, or not, people that want to bring weapons to marches and rallies will do so. How is anyone going to control such? So, why even get a permit? What real purpose does a permit serve? Those that have no intention to harm anyone, shouldn't be worried about anyway. And the bad guys that do have intentions to harm someone, aren't going to apply for permit.

It's basically the same as stupid gun control and attempting to get weapons off our streets. It's impossible.

. I guess I'm mainly talking about open carry like the situation was in Dallas... Yes concealed carry is just that, but if prohibited at a rally or event, then I wouldn't want the law to find me packing at a rally or event if it is not lawful to do so at the specific event. Right Sonny ? An event could OK open or concealed carry, but shouldn't the event organizers accompanied by law enforcement set the guidelines and rules for such ? Otherwise there could be a permit process that would grant permission or not to those who would want to carry openly or concealed at the event. This way law enforcement along with the event organizers might at least know who is packing, and why they are packing at the event right ?

Only the honest people would come forth and apply for such a permit. Those intent on doing harm would never do such a thing. How would law enforcement personnel know who has what unless they set up security check points like airports have? And, who's to say that someone intent on doing harm, wouldn't do as the sniper did from outside the secure zone? A sniper can pick people off from a 1,000 yards away, or farther.

And, unless every single person is scanned and searched, and there is a secure area that no one can enter without passing through a security check point, how will anyone be sure that only those with a permit have arms? In other words, at protests, rallies, riots, and sudden gatherings into the streets, how would it work?

This is a strawman argument that alleges gun laws can only be acceptable if they stop ALL gun crime from happening.

We create laws to mitigate crime and make an orderly society to the best of our ability. We don't demand perfection and then throw away all laws when we can't achieve it.

The entire premise of all your points in this thread is completely worthless.

This is irrelevant to these particular laws though. What you are referring to is the fact that laws, such as laws against murder and theft, have a deterrence factor involved and therefore prevent some crimes from occurring because people do not want to be caught and go to jail.

This dies not apply to gun control law affecting criminals because the very act they are committing is ALREADY ILLEGAL. IOW, there is no deterrence whatsoever to a murderer in gun control - they are already committing a crime and the additional crime on top of it is immaterial to that decision. Making something illegal twice is nonsensical. To think that someone willing to gun down as many people as possible will be deterred because it is illegal to carry a gun simply does not make sense.

 

[beagle9]

. What's impossible ? That if I want to attend a rally that is divisive but peaceful, and if I feel the need to carry my weapon for protection while there, then your saying that there is no permit process for me to do so or that it is impossible to have me fill out a form to grant me the authority to carry openly my weapon at the rally in which I am seeking to attend for my personal protection ? A permit in which puts my name on a granted permit list of possible carry holders in which may be attending the rally and attending it while armed ?

No.
I'm saying that it's impossible to know who is carrying a weapon and who is not. I'm saying that a permit does nothing. I'm saying whether there are laws, restrictions, or check points, or not, people that want to bring weapons to marches and rallies will do so. How is anyone going to control such? So, why even get a permit? What real purpose does a permit serve? Those that have no intention to harm anyone, shouldn't be worried about anyway. And the bad guys that do have intentions to harm someone, aren't going to apply for permit.

It's basically the same as stupid gun control and attempting to get weapons off our streets. It's impossible.

. I guess I'm mainly talking about open carry like the situation was in Dallas... Yes concealed carry is just that, but if prohibited at a rally or event, then I wouldn't want the law to find me packing at a rally or event if it is not lawful to do so at the specific event. Right Sonny ? An event could OK open or concealed carry, but shouldn't the event organizers accompanied by law enforcement set the guidelines and rules for such ? Otherwise there could be a permit process that would grant permission or not to those who would want to carry openly or concealed at the event. This way law enforcement along with the event organizers might at least know who is packing, and why they are packing at the event right ?

Only the honest people would come forth and apply for such a permit. Those intent on doing harm would never do such a thing. How would law enforcement personnel know who has what unless they set up security check points like airports have? And, who's to say that someone intent on doing harm, wouldn't do as the sniper did from outside the secure zone? A sniper can pick people off from a 1,000 yards away, or farther.

And, unless every single person is scanned and searched, and there is a secure area that no one can enter without passing through a security check point, how will anyone be sure that only those with a permit have arms? In other words, at protests, rallies, riots, and sudden gatherings into the streets, how would it work?

This is a strawman argument that alleges gun laws can only be acceptable if they stop ALL gun crime from happening.

We create laws to mitigate crime and make an orderly society to the best of our ability. We don't demand perfection and then throw away all laws when we can't achieve it.

The entire premise of all your points in this thread is completely worthless.

This is irrelevant to these particular laws though. What you are referring to is the fact that laws, such as laws against murder and theft, have a deterrence factor involved and therefore prevent some crimes from occurring because people do not want to be caught and go to jail.

This dies not apply to gun control law affecting criminals because the very act they are committing is ALREADY ILLEGAL. IOW, there is no deterrence whatsoever to a murderer in gun control - they are already committing a crime and the additional crime on top of it is immaterial to that decision. Making something illegal twice is nonsensical. To think that someone willing to gun down as many people as possible will be deterred because it is illegal to carry a gun simply does not make sense.

. There should only be a discussion on how to prevent the situation that happened in Dallas. There were factors involved that should not have been allowed at the event. Individual gun ownership and gun rights pertaining to individuals are not the issue here, but carrying weapons to events like this, and without a written permit granting the permission for people to carry to an event like this, should be the issue at hand or the debate now. If those protestors carrying would have had to get a permit for the event, then they would have had to state the reason for carrying a weapon at the event. This would have given the city the right to grant permission or refuse permission for the permit to the group or individual.

 

[Skull Pilot]

With any rally that is organized or march that is conducted, should anyone be allowed to attend the rally with a loaded weapon without proper authorization? Otherwise to just show up with a weapon brandished upon your person, and claiming a right to do so under the Constitution ? For anyone wanting to attend a rally or march, and wanting to do so with a loaded weapon, (I have to ask), should they have to get a separate permit or a permit specifically stating the reason for having the gun coming along with them ? If the reason is not good enough, then should they be denide the permit for carrying a weapon at the specific rally applied for ? Should a bill be created that addresses the issue if there isn't one already ? If a rally is created or a march that is deemed peaceful by the organizers as just that, and it is stated in the permit being granted as such, then shouldn't there be added (due to the peaceful nature) a rule that states no weapons at all are allowed at the event, and a copy of it is to be given to the local police force in order to enforce the rule ?

I go to all kinds of places with a loaded weapon and nobody knows.

IMO only an idiot who wants to draw attention to himself open carries