Sportbike World banner

1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Guns

Fasterbusa should enjoy this. Cookie might not.

click me
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,324 Posts
Thank you Vash for posting that.
Of course, "we" gun "nuts" are already aware of these types of articles, but it is good to see them in print for others (non gun nuts) to read.

The press in Ohio and a few other states have been trying to get ahold of the identities of those with CCW/CPL's for the purpose of publishing the data. So far, they have been blocked.

Keeping the names of those legally licensed to carry a pistol a secret is a good thing.

That way, bad guys can not always be sure that their intended victim is one of those who is armed or unarmed. It is just better to keep bad guys guessing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
the publishing issue is complex. On one hand I see then sense of what you are saying, on the other, there is a slew of information needs to be free sort of arguments. dont know where I stand on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
CCW

why should anyone care who carries a firearm. The state and federal governments has deemed these people suitable by law to carry.

Even a lot of police departments have their officers obtain a CCW to carry a weapon off duty. Do you think they want to have their info out there for all to see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,254 Posts
Man if that is not an invasion of privacy I do not know what is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,324 Posts
Well Judge, while we call it invasion of privacy, to those in the "media" (and others, like Mayor of NYC, Bloomberg), it seems to be some kind of "the public has a right to know" and "its for the good of the public to know who has one and who doesn't" and stuff like that.

So far, the progun communitys have been able to block this kind of nonsense, but in the future, who knows.

It is just an anti-gun tactic anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,279 Posts
Gonna be my fav for a long time...
http://www.alex-in-wonderland.com/GirlsWithGuns/Pictures/A/Text/JessicaAlba1.html

site that gives me bad flashbacks of an
ex-girlfriend/divorced/married and getting divorced/ or married and full of shit...pick one, I'll never know which it was....and finding a loaded gun, with the saftey off, under a womans bed pillow is never erotic unless ur fucked in the head....yes, it was a bad moment.....
http://www.moviebadgirls.com/index.html
but good site....

nice....
http://www.gungirls.com/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,279 Posts
Duner said:
...and finding a loaded gun, with the saftey off, under a womans bed pillow is never erotic unless ur fucked in the head....yes, it was a bad moment.....
Then again,....... I do have a bud that's a Macomb cop and avid mountain biker that IS...into getting freaky like that.....
but he IS fucked in the head/not right......lol....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Judge said:
Man if that is not an invasion of privacy I do not know what is.
There is no invasion of privacy on the part of the media here. The CCW list is considered public information, you can get a copy by going down to the court house. All the newspaper did was post the copy online. Questionably morally, but not illegal by any means. Wether or not such a list should be public information is questionable. On one hand we shouldnt let the criminals know who has guns, on the other hand, keeping the list public is the only way to give society some oversight over who and how the gov't issues CCW liscences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
Vash said:
There is no invasion of privacy on the part of the media here. The CCW list is considered public information, you can get a copy by going down to the court house. All the newspaper did was post the copy online. Questionably morally, but not illegal by any means. Wether or not such a list should be public information is questionable. On one hand we shouldnt let the criminals know who has guns, on the other hand, keeping the list public is the only way to give society some oversight over who and how the gov't issues CCW liscences.


And this is a quote from a guy that lives in a state that has the death penalaty for retarded criminals.:twofinger
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,324 Posts
Why does the gov have to have oversight over who has and how they got a CCW/CPL? They are the issuing body, so they already have that information. So, there is no need for the public to need it other than for anti-gun people to try to cause problems.

So you think that a list of everyone who has ever had an abortion or tried to seek one should be publc knowledge as well? For the good of society, perhaps?

I think there are many things and associations that no one needs to know about.

Again, pedophiles are one thing. People with CCW/CPL's are another thing. Not the same at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Faster, I'm suprised that you of all people would question the need for gov't oversight. What if some politician decided to start a bribe system to issue liscences, and other saw it easier to just jump on board intead of opposing? Just one possible scenario. I want to actually be secure in the knowledge that people who get these liscences have undergone a background check, been fingerprinted and all the other good stuff. I donno I've always been a "guns for people who have shown that they are responcible enough to keep them" sort of guy. That may be against the second amendment
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
658 Posts
Re: Guns

Vash said:
Fasterbusa should enjoy this. Cookie might not.

click me
Yet another attempt by anti-gun media to create hysteria in the general public - "You might live next to someone with a gun!" In Tennessee, you do live next to someone with a gun. Fortunately, the attempt was defeated by logic, and the paper pulled the database.

I don't see any reason to make the names of permit holders public. They are people who have passed an additional test to prove they are worthy of carrying a weapon, beyond what is required just to own one. They are the people who have never done anything very bad, and they're mentally stable. On the aspect of government oversight, there are many more things for which we need to hold the various governments accountable before we worry about reviewing their CCW procedures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Corruption follows the path of least resistance. Why is military spending covered in corruption? Because there is less oversight. CCW may not be riddled with corruption now, but I guarantee they will be in 5 years if there is no one to stop it. If there is one thing all politicians seem to be good at, its getting rich.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,324 Posts
I am afraid that you do need to reread the 2nd Amendment. It says that we can have guns, period. Only felons cannot automatically have guns, once one has attaind a particular age in this country.

US citizens do not have to "show that they are responcible enough to keep them" as you put it. We are endowed by our Creator (spelling does not count here) with unalienable rights, and then the Bill of Rights sort of enumerates them.

One of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment is just so that we do not have to "prove" to "someone" that we are capable of having them.

We can have guns until we do something (felony conviction) that shows that we cannot have them.

Sort of like that pesky 1st Amendment. We do not have our writings censored first and then shown, we get to write it as we like, until we abuse the right and then there is a problem.

Reporting names and addresses of those who have already passed 3 background checks (in MI there are 3, city police, MI State Police and FBI) and submitted fingerprints and taken and passed a class and paid rather alot of money for the "privilage" of obtaining a license seems kind of stupid.

And, again, this "naming of those who have a license" is silly because you are talking about law abiding citizens. Go after the bad guys, not the good guys.

These reporters only want the names reported so they can cause them problems, not for any other reason.

Most states now have "shall issue" for CCW/CPL licensing. "Shall issue is different than the way the system used to work. Before, you had to have "been a friend" of the sheriff or mayor in order to get a license.

Now, with Shall issue, you cannot be denied just because you are not paying someone under the table or do not have a "special" reason or are some famous, like a Senator or rock star.

With Shall issue, you ask for the license, jump through the hoops that no one can prevent you from getting the license. So, there goes the pretend requirement of accountability.

If the State Police and FBI are in collusion in granting licenses, then there is a bigger problem out there than who has one.

Also, publishing a listing can give bad guys the locations of where someone might have weapons. Now, is that a really good idea or what?
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Top