http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... otout.html

Well, at least no one is claiming that if they had only been allowed to be able to openly carry a gun in public they could have prevented this...but in any case it looks they will be able to soon in Texas, wild-west style....http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /24892513/

I just can't imagine going into public and seeing people-- non- police just ordinarily people--carrying guns in holsters. (Well, they do have to get a license requiring minimal training. )And they're arguing whether people can carry guns in the state Capitol building or college campuses. Unbelievable.

If only more people had been carrying guns then I'm sure this whole sorry mess could have been avoided...

freeman3 wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/17/cops-rip-hooters-knockoff-twin-peaks-after-waco-biker-gang-shootout.html

Well, at least no one is claiming that if they had only been allowed to be able to openly carry a gun in public they could have prevented this...but in any case it looks they will be able to soon in Texas, wild-west style....http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /24892513/

I just can't imagine going into public and seeing people-- non- police just ordinarily people--carrying guns in holsters. (Well, they do have to get a license requiring minimal training. )And they're arguing whether people can carry guns in the state Capitol building or college campuses. Unbelievable.

Is your point that guns being carried openly caused this? I don't get your point.

Criminal gangs asked permission to have a meeting at this location against the advisement of authorities.

Gee Whiz... criminal activity broke out.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/19/dispute-over-parking-space-may-have-ignited-deadly-texas-biker-gang-brawl/?intcmp=latestnews

Are you saying anything about this situation being caused by anything other than criminality?

That's not the law currently so that's not my point. I was just going to comment that this was one incident that having the public be armed in public could not have stopped. Also that I am a bit appalled that this happened in America. I wonder whether, possibly, having a gun culture could have contributed to it but I have no idea that it did. But my main point is that allowing citizens to display arms in public represents a breakdown of authority. Part of the usual definition of the State includes a monopoly on the use of force/ violence. You remember how the gunfight at the OK Corral started? It initially began over being armed within the city limits and violating the city's ordinance against that. This was not an uncommon law.http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/956035

It is interesting people in frontier towns understood that people carrying guns in public was not good for civilized life. Only law enforcement with state- sanctioned authority to use force to compel obedience to the law should be authorized to carry guns in public. When everyone is allowed to carry guns in holsters...you are undercutting lawful authority.

freeman3 wrote:That's not the law currently so that's not my point. I was just going to comment that this was one incident that having the public be armed in public could not have stopped. Also that I am a bit appalled that this happened in America. I wonder whether, possibly, having a gun culture could have contributed to it but I have no idea that it did. But my main point is that allowing citizens to display arms in public represents a breakdown of authority. Part of the usual definition of the State includes a monopoly on the use of force/ violence. You remember how the gunfight at the OK Corral started? It initially began over being armed within the city limits and violating the city's ordinance against that. This was not an uncommon law.http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/956035

It is interesting people in frontier towns understood that people carrying guns in public was not good for civilized life. Only law enforcement with state- sanctioned authority to use force to compel obedience to the law should be authorized to carry guns in public. When everyone is allowed to carry guns in holsters...you are undercutting lawful authority.

I don't know that you have proven that "people in frontier towns understood that people carrying guns in public was not good for civilized life." It seems very likely to me that it was more like this "people in frontier towns understood that people carrying guns after drinking heavily in public was not good for civilized life."

In any event, then or now, criminals don't obey gun laws. So, the more laws there are restricting them from the "good guys," the more "bad guys" get to do whatever they like to whomever they want to do it.

The shootout at that restaurant involved one of the most notorious motorcycle gangs, the Bandidos. They are known to be violent. Pass a million laws and they will still carry weapons and shoot people.

Furthermore, this statement is a definition of a police state: "Only law enforcement with state- sanctioned authority to use force to compel obedience to the law should be authorized to carry guns in public" You would have to repeal the 2nd Amendment. good luck with that.

Maybe that is why a Constitutional Convention is wanted...

bbauska wrote:Maybe that is why a Constitutional Convention is wanted...

I want a "convention of the States," which is a bit different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_rat ... onventions

In any event, the Second Amendment won't change in my lifetime, unless we are invaded or a dictator assumes control.

In any event, then or now, criminals don't obey gun laws. So, the more laws there are restricting them from the "good guys," the more "bad guys" get to do whatever they like to whomever they want to do it.

Except the reality of the situation is that those countries with tighter gun laws have fewer guns in circulation and inevitably end up with significantly fewer incidents like this.

They have nasty biker gangs in a lot of countries, but in most of them the bikers don't carry guns.

Sassenach wrote:

In any event, then or now, criminals don't obey gun laws. So, the more laws there are restricting them from the "good guys," the more "bad guys" get to do whatever they like to whomever they want to do it.

Except the reality of the situation is that those countries with tighter gun laws have fewer guns in circulation and inevitably end up with significantly fewer incidents like this.

In every country, criminals break laws. That's what they do. We can pass as many laws as you'd like, they will still have guns. And, when they think they might need them, they will have them.

Frankly, the US has no desire to be like other countries. Well, I should revise that. There are a certain percentage of Americans who would love to surrender their liberties and turn ever more control to the Federal government. The rest of us prefer freedom.

The big takeaway from Waco: don't go to biker hangouts.

About 10 miles down the road from the town where I grew up is a little village called Matlock Bath. It's a beautiful little tourist place that just happens to be packed to the gunwales with bikers on any sunny day. Bikers come from miles around to congregate there because all of the roads into it are really twisty and fun to ride, but the end result is that you get hundreds of them hanging out there all the time. I guess you could call it a 'biker hangout'. Funnily enough, none of them are armed and you never get any trouble.

I know I'm not going to convince you, but I do occasionally feel the need to point out that armed criminals are not an unwavering law of nature. You get so many armed criminals because you have so many guns. In other countries where they don't have so many guns they don't have so many armed criminals either. I don't think these two phenomena are entirely unrelated.

Sassenach wrote:About 10 miles down the road from the town where I grew up is a little village called Matlock Bath. It's a beautiful little tourist place that just happens to be packed to the gunwales with bikers on any sunny day. Bikers come from miles around to congregate there because all of the roads into it are really twisty and fun to ride, but the end result is that you get hundreds of them hanging out there all the time. I guess you could call it a 'biker hangout'. Funnily enough, none of them are armed and you never get any trouble.

There are plenty of biker groups in the US who do no harm whatsoever. And, then there are the Banditos, the Hell's Angels and other, lesser, criminal gangs.

I know I'm not going to convince you, but I do occasionally feel the need to point out that armed criminals are not an unwavering law of nature. You get so many armed criminals because you have so many guns. In other countries where they don't have so many guns they don't have so many armed criminals either. I don't think these two phenomena are entirely unrelated.

In the US, they are. And, it's not like you have zero violence.

Americans are not giving up their rights just because a few bikers want to shoot each other. We also don't give up our right to free speech or freedom of religion, unlike other countries (see "Uk" for example).

Since I will not be dissuaded from my opinion either, I would like to submit the following:

If you do not like guns, then don't have them. The 2nd Amendment in not saying that it is a mandatory carry provision. That is the great thing about choice. You don't have to partake. But that is not good enough for some. They not only want to ensure that they don't have guns, but want to make sure that everyone (except for those who choose to not follow the laws) don't have guns either.

For a self proclaimed believer in people having choice, there sure are many things that would not be allowed under the extreme left.

Cigarettes
Guns
School selection
Alternate opinions
Religious Freedoms

For all the supposed freedom that is advocated by some on the left, there is little tolerance for those who choose a different path. (Firefox CEO is a fine example)

For a self proclaimed believer in people having choice, there sure are many things that would not be allowed under the extreme left.

Cigarettes
Guns
School selection
Alternate opinions
Religious Freedoms

A peculiar point to raise Brad, since I've never claimed to be a member of the extreme left and I'm pretty sure I could never be accused of it with a straight face.

I don't have a problem with cigarettes or alternate opinions. I assume by 'school selection' you're referring to home schooling, which I do think is probably ill-advised but not something I'd go so far as to ban (although I reserve the right to criticise, since I believe in alternate opinions...). 'Religious freedoms' is too vague a term for me to really understand. I'm all for people having freedom to practise whatever faith they like, but not if that impinges upon the rest of society. It's a large and complex area and not easily conflated with the more specific issue of gun control, for all that you seem keen to do it.

But yes, I do favour restrictions on gun ownership. For me it's not a matter of grand political philosophy, not a left/right issue at all. I just see it as simple common sense that restricting the mass ownership of lethal weapons will make us all safer.

Sassenach wrote:But yes, I do favour restrictions on gun ownership. For me it's not a matter of grand political philosophy, not a left/right issue at all. I just see it as simple common sense that restricting the mass ownership of lethal weapons will make us all safer.

Our right is based on a fear of a domineering government.

The problem with the "it makes us safer" argument is that it does . . . until it doesn't. In situations where a person's life is in peril, a gun can make the difference. There are hundreds of such situations a year, probably more.

I hate the "government needs to protect me" argument.

But, the overall picture is a mistrust of government. We think the government is a threat--even when it says it's benign. Most of the time, almost all of the time, it is. But, when you give up your weapons, you give up your last resort. We needed them to fight off a pretty overbearing monarchy once upon a time.

Heller was a 5-4 decision so I'm not sure where your confidence regarding the Second Amendment is coming from, DF. In fact, Steven's dissent is far more persuasive than the majority opinion by Scalia (which you can see in part reflected in Scalia's defensive petulance regarding Steven's criticism of his opinion). In any case, Heller only applied to handguns used for protection in the home and so the issue of how far guns can be regulated in public has not been decided. But given Scalia's tortuous reasoning to find an individual right to self-defense under the Second Amendment over prior Supreme Court precedent in Miller, I guess he'll find reasons to justify being openly armed in public. His statements in Heller indicate that he would, but whether he could get four other justices is an open question.