New Mexico governor orders suspension of open and concealed carry of guns in Albuquerque
How would this restriction have prevented the tragic deaths? It's nothing more than taking advantage of a situation to apply an ideological policy. One that would have done nothing to prevent the deaths nor will do anything to prevent future ones of similar kind.
The Governor's job is to solve problems. It's not to punish the law abiding citizens with measures that have zero impact on the problem beyond making a political statement to her supporters. It's all show.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, issued an emergency order on Friday suspending the right to carry guns in public across Albuquerque and the surrounding Bernalillo County for at least 30 days following recent instances of gun violence.
The governor said she expects the order to face legal challenges but that she believed she needed to act in response to recent gun-related deaths, such as an 11-year-old boy who was shot and killed outside a minor league baseball stadium earlier this week.
"When New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game — when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn — something is very wrong," Lujan Grisham said in a statement.
The suspension was classified as an emergency public health order, and applies to open and concealed carry in most public places, excluding police and licensed security guards. The restriction is connected to a threshold for violent crime rates met only by the Albuquerque area.
No Trump or fascist nonsense, memes must be topical.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
318 visitors
I find it amazing that her Attorney General would let something like this get out unless she didn't reach out for legal advice before issuing the order. Hard to imagine what the courts will have to say to her, no it's really not hard to imagine at all. I realize New Mexico is heavily Democrat leaning but punishing law-abiding citizens really seems like government overreach to me. Wonder how many criminals will follow suit and not carry their weapons in public....
gee, that sounds like a lib trick to catch the maga unarmed, out in the open... somebody call tucker carlson!!! /s
no open display of handguns in a western town, what a novel concept...
Are you suggesting that Albuquerque has devolved back to the wild west?
The Albuquerque police chief said the his PD won't enforce it and Bernalillo County Sheriff said the ban challenges the foundation of our constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold and he won't ask his officers to enforce it.
Is that all you have? More death wishing bullshit?
Have we ever expected anything different?
It's very likely that many lefties own guns too. But it's not likely that responsible and law-abiding gun owners and carriers are committing these crimes. And most assuredly criminals and gang bangers will meekly obey her dumb ass decree. /s
Five teens were arrested in the drive by shooting that killed a 5 year old girl.
The little boy killed leaving the baseball game was a road rage victim.
You know, this talking point about criminals obeying governors or other officials does not pass the test. By definition, criminals are. . . not committed to following laws. . .and yet we have statutory laws in all fifty states and nobody, bar none, expects criminals (by definition) to abide them for long or forever.
So what value is this conservative talking point? Do tell me (if you can)!
What's your point? Wanna discuss the thread?
Well, you call it a talking point, right? The point is that the decree by the Govenor is pointless because it won't achieve the results she desires for the reason you yourself just wrote in your post. That is, a criminal is gonna do criminal, right?
I am discussing the thread, do you have a problem with that? See Greg if you do!!! [deleted]
And you know of criminals, by definition, that follow laws? Do tell us about them (if you can). That said, as regarding criminals it will give those 'masterminds" and syndicates in the county/ies something to think about (as it does in prison when the Warden issues a decree) as they take the measure of what will become of each of them when found to be in violation of the highest state official's emergency order which I presume is more stringent and severe that during normal periods:
And the decree may fall due to political pressure and handicapping of it by some conservatives who by the way do not value life but like to pretend it is sacrosanct for their own political reasons to oppress.
In which case, go ahead, tie the governor's hands. Perhaps, it is true. They are not 'gunning down' some conservatives or enough conservatives yet to warrant 'alarm.'
Sorry, CB, but I can't see this as anything other than self-deception. Criminals do what they do because they don't consider their actions. They know what can happen to them but they don't care. If they did they wouldn't be criminals.
Furthermore, your position seems more concerned with thwarting what you apparently see as nefarious conservative motives rather than careful consideration of facts and policies.
Believe whatever you want. I'm good with you doing that! Cheers!
I see. So is it your position that all the other laws out there that criminals break and ignore won't cause them to think about the consequences of their actions but this decree will? What is it about this decree you think will be the deterrent they will pay attention to rather than all the other one's they break?
The governor is a typical Democrat empowering criminals.
Followed by a typical leftist response supporting it.
Meh. Yawn.
all of them of course, liberals dreams of gun control depends on that.
If one person is shot in public, is this Governor a failure or just an idiot?
For my money she's an idiot. She double downed with this quote...
So she says not even her oath of office is an absolute, guess she proves it with her declaration. The audacity of her to use a Public Health Order to suspect a Constitutional Right.
Wonder when the first court case will be filed on Monday and when the first talk of impeachment comes out.
This is an impeachable offence by the Governor
Both!
That's insane. Let's see how committed Democrats are to the rule of law and the Constitution . I'm sure she'll be impeached tomorrow with the full support of the national party. Because Democrats can't possibly be hypocritical enough to let this slide, given their rhetoric the last few years.
They won't touch her. She's too solid for their core out here in the SW.
Meh. Maybe not. Most enumerated rights are not absolute.
The right to bear arms isn't absolute. You can't have your own F35 or mobile rocket launcher.
The right to free speech isn't absolute. You can't incite violence or yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Her decision isn't really defensible, but the idea that all rights have limits is reasonably well established.
Within the context of what you are pointing out, I agree. However, I think it's important note that you aren't quite speaking of the same thing Sean is. Enumerated rights are not rights because government grants them. They are recognition of rights that exist simply by being a living human being. As such, every person has the right to self defense, regardless of what government has to say about it. Where government has a say on the issue is to ensure a just and reasonable standard of application of a natural right. If that is so, then it is reasonable and just for a government to deny citizens ownership of the kinds of weapons you give examples of since it would be difficult to argue necessity for self defense.
In the case of this decree, this governor is suspending a just and reasonable method of self defense without establishing why defending oneself with a gun would be both unjust or unreasonable or even explain how this will solve any problems.
It is clear to me that they are committed to neither.
The reason for governments is to enumerate and uphold the rights by consent of the governed. This is why all rights are NOT universal.
It wasn't until June 26th, 2008 that the SCOTUS ruled, "...the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense" when DC tried to ban all carry and all guns at home to be disassembled or under lock.
If we take the Originalist approach to the 2nd Amendment (which many people here agreed with when it came to the right to women's healthcare privacy) then, no, there is no such right to self defense. The 2nd Amendment starts with, "A well regulated Militia..." it's obvious the intent was to keep men (and only men) trained for national defense against the British.
It doesn't really matter in the long run anyway since I expect this to be stayed by a court, probably today.
Scalias opinion is pure originalism.
Right. But's that not this case is it? This specific issue has been decided by the Court. It's not a "um maybe" issue.
There is no precedent for a governor unilaterally suspending constitutional rights based on a declaration of an emergency. It it were to stand, get ready for a lot more "emergencies"
u can't incite violence or yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
FYI The fire in a crowded theatre canard is false.
ut the idea that all rights have limits
What other Constitutional rights can a governor unilaterally suspend?
Scalia had to go all the way back to English Common Law to justify his decision - “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and the best way to destroy a citizen's militia was to disarm them. Considering we don't have well regulated citizen militia anymore a future court could fully try and overturn this past decision following Stevens' dissent “The Court does not appear to grasp the distinction between how a word can be used and how it ordinarily is used.”
I agree that this emergency declaration is a bad precedent and fully expect it to be stayed if not totally overturn on summary. I just don't agree the 2nd Amendment is as sacrosanct as many conservatives believe especially given that now past SCOTUS rulings can be "found" to be ruled erroneously in light of Dobbs.
Originalism is whatever it's proponents want it to be. Conservatives act like the correctness of originalism is self-evident, but that is not true.
Every Supreme Court decision that has ever been made is an interpretation of the Constitution.
There is no such thing as a right that is not granted by the government. Or should say a protected or enforceable right. You may have a "god given" right to own your little homestead , but without government to enforce your right your house could be taken by the first band of marauders that happened by. Government provides the police authority to get your house back from the pirates for you.
"God given rights" is a philosophical precept, not a real world one.
Enumerated rights means they are part of the bill of rights, or further amendments, which are numbered , that is why they are called "enumerated".
ia had to go all the way back to English Common Law to justify his decision
Of course he did. English Common law is the basis of our legal system and the Constitution. That's the language our founders spoke, so you have to understand it to understand the meaning. That's literally the whole point of originalism.
Why not going back to ancient Roman law?
The very fact that Scalia could not prove his point without using dubious arguments from another country before the US was founded or the Constitution written proves the murkiness of his argument.
Either the second amendment is clear in its meaning or its not. Its not.
That's not what the Constitution says.
Please, tell us how a "right" can be protected and enforced without government?
Sure you can "defend your property", but if you are against a superior force you lose. The government protects your property rights, not you.
Originalism starts from a desired outcome and then builds reasoning around it. If English Common Law suites the given argument it's quoted and if not it's ignored. We know the purpose from multiple talks on the subject is to push the country as far to the right as people will allow.
Lol. What do you imagine your interpretations are?
It’s easy to claim that, but you can’t make an originalism argument that is stronger than Scalia’s. I
Read the first amendement for instance. Did the government create the right to freedom of speech, or did it preexist it?
Of course it does, but originalists tend to claim the high ground as a default. It has to be constantly fought against.
If that were the case, how is that originalists are the ones who rule against their personal policy preferences, and non originalists votes always align with the interests of the Democratic Party at that moment?
I already said this particular action is indefensible.
I merely point out that her statement about rights not being absolute is not as crazy as people seem to think.
In times of emergency, Governors can enact curfews or quarantines, shut down protests, and several other temporary measures as needed to protect the safety of the citizenry. It's actually not all that uncommon.
The same people who wrote the Constitution also believed that all men were "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights", so it's a very "real world" idea.
I'm but one voice amongst many and past our 2 person conversation here my opinions are largely irrelevant.
Stronger or more logical? His is stronger by virtue of position as SCOTUS Justice with 4 others assenting. Don't forget he also had 4 others dissenting.
Additionally, the founders had no idea that modern people would be so hostile to change that would safe lives. They fully expected our constitution to be modernized according to the times (with frank and honest deliberations between the states) and not drowned and mired in uncompromising rancor by half of the country. What is happening now politically around guns is not incremental change thwarted it is stalemate!
What have you done to amend the Constitution?
That's funny as hell. Do you honestly believe that people back in the 18th Century all sat around singing kumbaya?
What kind of a "f-ing" question is that? How on earth do you get "kumbaya" out of my content?
That said, I would not expect them to be singing a song that as near as I can tell was not around until the 20th century. Moreover, they could have been singing a hymn similar in meaning because the verses/meaning of Come By Here Dear Lord" hail from the Old and New Testaments.
It's quite a logical question as you were comparing the founders (18th Century people) with modern people and thinking that the founders had no idea that modern people would be so hostile to change. Completely ignoring how hostile to one another people all thru out history (including the 18th Century) were. There were four major wars fought during that period, I have no idea how many smaller conflicts also occurred during the 1700's. People back then were rather resistant to change also. That's human nature.
What?! Do you imagine the founders would have anticipated MODERN AMERICA to be PARALYZED by guns meant to protect us with our guidance and control over them versus their tyranny over us?
For crying out loud, where does all this contrarian talk end? Does it even have an end?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Modern America is not paralyzed by guns. If you truly want to remove guns from the hands of the citizen, then you need to start by removing the 2nd Amendment. The vast majority of legal gun holders is no more danger to others than any other group/item/thing in public today. I see more tyranny coming from our political establishment than I do the members of this board who support the right to own guns.
One can just as easily ask you to stop the contrarian talk also. TBH your posts do little to further the conversation around this.
I have a different take. The reason for governments is to protect the basic rights we are all born with apart from governments. These rights do not proceed from governments or the governed. We simply have them by virtue of existing and government's function is to protect those rights.
That would be one reason for it but not all. The founders also believed they are necessary for self defense, not only from common criminal activity but also against the Federal government, should it become tyrannical. There are plenty of opinions from founding fathers that support this.
Yes, you should say the second, not the first, because it isn't true. Governments don't invent basic rights, like freedom of speech, unreasonable search and seizure or self defense. If you think they do, ask yourself how they invent those rights? Out of thin air?
You're conflating "rights" with "ability to protect". They aren't the same thing.
I doubt God would agree with you.
Obviously, but how is this relevant?
[Deleted] Well what are you doing to FURTHER the SUBSTANCE of discussion around this, besides telling us why America can't cope with its gun sickness or maybe you deny it is a sickness? It's disgusting!
Sadly, nothing about Democrat-run states and cities surprises me anymore.
Typical leftist liberal Democrat knee jerk reaction.
Somewhere in the interview, she states that she knows it's "possible" that her order won't stand, so she'll issue the order and wait for the AG and crew to further advise.
She should have gotten the opinion of the Attorney General before she issued the decree. What she did was unconstitutional IMO and she should be impeached for her actions.
Sure, except it's going to leave alot more libs unarmed, out in the open in Albuquerque....
this lib will carry a concealed weapon wherever I want, whenever I want, no matter who says what. as long as there are certain people wandering around this country sucking free air while spewing unamerican ideals, I'll own guns. you never know who may try to subvert the will of the voters, instigate an insurrection, give aid and comfort to domestic enemies, or use their elected office personal political retribution.
So the sanctimonius gun has been given a 'time-out' and the usual suspects are "up in arms" about it. What the hell do we need governors for if they can't fix or counter issues of safety within a state? She appears to want a cooling off period. . . of course, somebody (either criminal or yes conservative) will "F" it up by going out and being heinous just to put a fine point on how hopeless it is to contend with the curse of guns in U.S. society. (By the way, in their own right guns are a blessing to this country, TOO.)
So you are in favor of the executive unilaterally declaring an emergency and suspending Constitutional rights.
Saw that in Germany about 90 years ago..,
Spot on. Can you imagine what could be next in line for this abuse?
In person? And I take exception with your suspension on constitutional rights! The governor is trying to run the damn state and oh save lives! When does doing good for all, fail to match the test of leadership/authority?
Somebody here wrote a criticism about "ideology," and yet here you fatalistically invoking ideology to explain away why little to nothing can be done to make gun violence and lone shooters decrease.
Ideology, for its on sake - will get you, me, "many" people killed grave-yard dead. And there is no coming back from any death-including ideological death!
Then you are taking exception with reality.
The governor is trying to run the damn state and oh save lives
Right. The Constitution allows the executive to unilaterally do that. Hitler made the same claims. So you believe all rights can be taken away from you so long as the person taking them claims its for the public good?
When does doing good for all, fail to match the test of leadership/authority?
You understand the purpose of having a Constitution in a Democracy is to prevent someone from unilaterally taking aways rights under the pretext of "doing good for all," right?
Guess what, this isn't a dictatorship. One persona can't unilaterally decide what is "good for everyone" and do whatever they want citing that as a justification. Because anyone can justify just about anything by claiming that. '
Ideology, for its on sake - will get you, me, "many" people killed grave-yard dea
That's a lesson you should learn. Your ideology has led you into advocating for the overthrow of the Constitution.
Quit going so off the wall with your attempts to discuss something. Stick to the topic.
[removed]
That's full of crap!
Your comment is ridiculous. First, you invoke Hitler. Second you do so haphazardly.
The lengths some conservatives would sink beneath to aggressively deny good a proper field to flourish in is. . . astounding. As you see, Hitler was not after any good by establishing and strong-arming, "The Enabling Act" into law (to make him authority unto himself.)
A thirty-day moratorium on guns to get a grip of the situation in a state, does not a DICTATOR create. After all it is an EMERGENCY ORDER not a permanent law by the New Mexico legislature and presumably it meets the requirements of an order permissible by a state governor.
Stop with the bullshit. We don't have time for this kind of noise every time someone tries to save lives.
Time to give some thought to what you believe and let others live even if it kills your ideology. People matter. Guns are a tool. Obviously, guns never expected or did anything political to have overwhelming control over life and death that you willingly grant them.
Let me illustrate the problem with your view. Which following scenario makes the most sense to you.
1. Bad apple with a gun living in a society that is armed. Bad apple always has to consider that, while doing his criminal thing, someone who is also armed might take his life.
2. Bad actor with a gun living in a society where a Governor unilaterally takes away the right of law abiding citizen to carry a gun, and thereby defend themselves from his criminal predations. Bad actor is happy because the odds of someone being able to defend against him move in his favor.
This decree favors the criminal, not the law abiding citizen. That is, the decree tends toward having the opposite effect it is claimed to have.
I was referring to the Emergency Decree for the Protection of the German People that suspended the democratic aspects of the Weimar Republic and declared a state of emergency, signed on Feb 28, 1933.
It was for the protection of the people! It was an emergency! Sound familiar?
he lengths some conservatives would sink beneath to aggressively deny good a proper field to flourish
And I'm not surprised by the quickness some progressives will abandon the Constitution when it suits their ideological agenda.
As you see, Hitler was not after any good by establishing and strong-armi
No shit. Does that not provide a hint to you why suspending Constitutional rights in the name of "protecting the people" on an emergency basis is a bad idea?
If DeSantis had suspended the first amendment for 30 days during the BLM riots to protect the lives of Floridians, would you have been so quick to defend him? My guess is you only advocate destroying Constitutional protections when it suits your agenda.
e don't have time for this kind of noise every time someone tries to save lives.
Fuck the Constitution! Fuck due process! Lives are to be saved! Said every dictator, ever, to justifying seizing power.
The fact of the matter is Law Enforcement Officer and Licensed security officers are authorized to protect the public on public property . Private citizens can have their guns to protect themselves at-home and at their businesses. Nothing wrong with that.
BTW, if having private citizens with guns in public spaces is a "practical deterrent," why does this New Mexico community have: "1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021 according to Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program AND more than 90 firearm-related emergency department visits per 100,000 residents from July 2022 to June 2023 according to the New Mexico Department of Public Health?"
What say you?
NOTE: The link to the images above details that this order by the N. M. Governor carries only administrative penalties against its violators .
You're not the boss of me. Stick that. I don't speak "conservati-ese" , but the site allows me to speak "liberal-ese" or I wouldn't be here to start.
Get back on topic
I don't know what the hell you are dealing with or going on about. You invoked Hitler. I showed you where you were wrong. And, you muddle your own narrative by out of the blue declaring you are talking about whatever you should have been talking about from the start. We are not mind readers here as you well know. Either write what you mean or come with an apology for wasting precious time dithering around with what you meant!
As I have clearly manifested to you; Hitler is no governor of New Mexico. His intentions were rotten from the beginning and were plain to all in time. The United States is not 1930's Germany - not by a long shot.
So why are you desperately going to invoke Hitler (for New Mexico)? To create false alarm? To get undeserved attention for your comments? Hitler is not a positive influence in history. Especially not today as you well know! He could not be elected dog-catcher in New Mexico, you know this right?
Apples and Oranges. You've moved from guns/2nd amendment to the first amendment. . .how the hell am I supposed to keep up with the "thread" if you are using it indulgently and unwieldingly?!
I am on topic. TSee 3.1.3, tell your 'associates' to stop asking questions for which they don't wish to here replies! I didn't mention Hitler - that other guy did. Did you tell him to get back on topic?!
[Deleted]
I'd say you seem to expect a simple answer to a problem that has many aspects to it. However, one answer is the vast majority of citizens don't carry. Even so, in spite of the anti-gun lobby's best effort to suppress the facts, those that do have a measurable positive effect on violent crime, both in the home and in public.
Also, you read the decree wrong. It doesn't say that those are the actual statistics for those locations. It says the restrictions only apply to places that meet that criteria.
Lastly, what does the Governor's executive order, which speaks about the illicit drug problems in the state and doesn't mention firearms at all, have to do with banning a constitutional right to bear arms?
No, you are deflecting from the seed which is the Governor who issued an unconstitutional decree by using public health to restrict the rights of citizens to follow their 2nd Amendment rights. Post 3.0 is where you started with your deflection.
I can’t keep up with your delusional claims. The first two Sentences were so dishonest as to make reading onward pointless.
I was planning to forego this article, but since it is you and we don't openly. . .'share' often. I will respond to you:
I did not read the "decree" wrong. I stated it verbatim. I did not subject it to interpretation or opinion.
Nice 'spin' in your first paragraph. If the vast majority of citizens don't carry then what the. . .heaven is the majority complaining about loss for? Is it your opinion, the "minority" gun holders holding back the depth of bloodletting carnage in New Mexico?
She had a health department issuance coupled with her decree. Come on, let's not be required to over-explain the obvious: The deaths are creating a health SICKNESS in the state, apparently. One which rises to the level a governor feels it her duty to act on it.
Ban? A suspension is not a ban. Surely you know the difference and nuance in the terms. Why disregard it? Why use loaded language. Done intentionally, it is disingenuous.
It remains to be seen if the issuance is unconstitutional. Besides, if she rendered an executive officer which she knows to be unconstitutional deliberately, she really would be in deep trouble, eh?
She stated it is likely (thereabouts) going to face "legal challenges," so why do you label it unconstitutional? What do you know about it?
I stand by comment 3, I spoke about guns and governors and cooling off periods and gun-related "fuck-ups" and call-outs - all relevant to this article/discussion.
[Deleted]
I don't see any point in an endless attempt at trying to unbend your reasoning for you. Thanks for the engagement and have a nice day.
May be. May be not. How soon can some conservatives get it before a judge? (It should be hand-carried and there by Monday? Can y'all get a judge to work on Sunday?)
So a lawsuit has arrived against the NM governor's executive order. Above you ASSERT that it is a not hard to understand or see that this goes against the Constitution; but at 3.1.26 you added the words, "may end up learning something. . . ." You're hedging now?
She is so fucking stupid she probably won’t learn a damn thing, so not a hedge. But hope springs eternal that the progressives in NM didn’t elect someone so stupid she can’t learn from her mistakes.
Typical. All retort and no substance. Communication with you is the problem. I want less and less of that.
George, please. Partisan bullshit is not helpful. "Probably"? So, while you say she is "so fucking stupid" you are willing to give her benefit of doubt. Let's be clear: You're hedging like that other guy.
Ditto.
Well CB if your looking for a statement of conviction,
Any elected officials that don't see anything wrong in that statement are stupid.
She explained her meaning. Go back to where(ever) you pulled the quote and hear her out. I am not the governor nor did I write the EO. Listen to her this time in context of her duties and responsibilities to the constitution and to her constituents (of which conservatives are only one component: not the whole). Afterwards, take it to court as I understand it a lawsuit has already been filed by MAGA. Watch this space.
That is all I have for you on this. Some things are better left for later discussion after being settled.
We're see. I have no faith in your ability to be sincere. And after saying that, if/when I respond according to my own judgement to do so or not, I promise you I will not respond to juvenile/opaque/vacuous questions that you tap out on your keyboard apparently that miss the point of substantive (in-depth) discussion.
Again, a vacuous question (right off the bat). Who filed the lawsuit in your 3.1.26? You know. Speed the process of discussion along or what it stall right here and right now!
You have not answered the question: Obviously your claim is unsupported with any details . Maybe you don't know who filed the lawsuit? I'm just saying!
Dude, I have no interest in indulging you. None. I really see no value in these exchanges, and frankly wish you would stop! But, oh well, since I can't stop you, go ahead it is what it is.
Tex & CB, please stop the slap fest.
Yes, the first suit has been filed, it's easy to find.
Group sues after New Mexico governor suspends right to carry guns in Albuquerque in public | AP News
Please do get back to topic and stop the slap fest.
Thank you
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
If there's a crisis of violence in Albuquerque then the Governor should address it with more LEOs or possibly NG, curfews etc. Criminalizing legal gun owners for their concerns about their personal safety in that environment is dumb.
And that doesn't even begin to cover this dumbassery...
"Criminalizing" is your word. Deal with it. The second amendment is supposed to be a blessing to the country and not a abusive curse hindering good order and discipline. That is what some conservative think tanks are doing.
Dumbassery is the lie and pretense to care about life of the unborn while denying gun sense legislation a chance to change the "wild-wild west" ideology/mentality in the midst of the living!
Some conservatives your politics are all over the place. What it condenses down to is you want an unfair, unequal, divided, country that follows inconsistent-yet conservative ideology wherever it goes right, wrong, and even indifferent.
Okay, do you think that there won't be any consequences paid by legal gun owners practicing their right to open carry in a city, and state where it's legal, that the Governor has declared an "emergency public health crisis"?..
That was a pretty good rant.... /s
What is the proper purpose of designating a governor. . . to ignore soundness and disregard safety??
What consequences will legal gun owners? What is gained by walking around "at the ready"?
Is there no case to be made for saving life? Good order and discipline? Giving guns a "time out"?
Who and why is it necessary to make the 2nd amendment unworkable, insufferable, and a menace to society all in the name of "salvation"?
To serve the people of that state.
To be ready? Obviously the Governor thinks it's a public health problem.....
I assume you meant this question for a compadre...
This is hopeless back and forth. I'm out.
Yes, I get it. I often feel the same..
You have a good evening CB.
And so it begins 😕🫣
Perhaps it's just really bad policy at its core....
But, nowhere in her "talk" did she say anything 'bout the "unlicensed" concealed carry folks - of which there are a bunch.
[deleted]
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Some idiot lefties can't seem to get that through their thick skulls.
It doesn't matter. It's too late for America to wake up about guns. I've suggested previously that in America, at this point, guns should be DISTRIBUTED to every person once they reach the age of 13 in order to defend themselves. From the news articles I've more recently read, maybe that should be when they reach the age of 3. I'll add to that that kids should be required to wear bullet-proof vests when they go to school. What a fucking way to have to live.
Exactly. What you are describing is LIFE ON A BATTLEGROUND FRONT.
And when it is put that way two things will have to be considered and dealt with:
1. What do you do about policing when everyone is 'packing' and,
2. Who (from across the world) would wish to tour a militarized nation? (I am trying to think of such a place as 'appetizing' to come vacation or more: Stay. None comes to mind.)
The question: Did tourism exist in the U.S. wild west?
1. Metal robots like in the Transformer movies.
2. There are lots of adventurers in the world - people who climb Mount Everest, people who want to view the Titanic wreck up close, people who want to board a rocket to circle the Earth...there are lots of adventurers and people who gamble with their lives.
Can't answer your last question - I wasn't there.
Yes it did just not to the extent it does now. It was much more time consuming and expensive to come here from other countries than it is now.
Thank you for sharing. Now, anything to share on the rest of the comment?
Probably will be less of a problem. If there criminals know everyone's packing the crime rate should go down.
I guess you forget about Israel. Tourists go there all the time. Many South and Central American countries including Mexico have a thriving tourist industry even with high crime rates and terrorism threats.
How has guns changed your life? Mine has been unaffected.
True. They are the envy of the world. /s
That said, I don't think people are walking around 'strapped' in like manner has is being proposed here and now in the U.S. by some conservatives. Strapping all the citizenry for violence in the streets would remarkably change our brand of being an "open" community and nation. Is that the type of change you want for the U.S.
Please be clear if/when you reply!
Actually, you would be very surprised. You should visit Israel and visit areas where there is a heightened level of security.
Is this Israel? Are Native Americans calling us (all) out as OCCUPIERS and doing what they can to make like unbearable for us? Again, how far do you need these contrarian remarks to go?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You first asked ;
To which I answered:
Then you changed the question again to:
And my answer was:
I am not sure how I can make my comments clearer than that. Tell me what part you did not understand and I'll try to help.
Who said anything about "strapping all of the citizenry"?
Ridiculous. This is the king of emotional, nonsensical comment that does nothing to forward this conversation.
Maybe I don't want to forward a conversation that reeks of sick wild west gunslinger bravado defensive ("It's our Constitutional Right") comments. I think I'll start a group to post the daily American gun violence, just as a kind of reminder to the gun lovers on this site of what they're defending..
You have it all wrong. They, we, aren't defending the violence at all. That you think that, is a bit over the top. No one controls what others choose to do but, taking everyone's rights away isn't going to stop it. As said elsewhere, if you take the guns away, only criminals will have guns.
I didn't mean that you're defending the violence, I meant that you are defending the right to have guns, and you know of course that there are more guns than people in America.
"...if you take the guns away, only criminals will have guns." Which is why I said it's too damn late to do what's needed to stop the violence, and why I made a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that EVERYBODY should have a gun to defend themselves, a comment that some freaked out about.
Your comments once again show that your understanding of lawful gun ownership in the USA is sophomoric at best.
We take our unique constitutional freedoms seriously here. A concept unknown in much of the world. [Deleted]
True. Israel does have tourism. The point is made. I'll accept that. Actually, I am talking about militarized in the sense of guns everywhere. As I am not in and have never been to Israel I can't vouch for guns being pervasive. Though, the militarization of the country as a whole, small as that country is, is real.
That written, the differences between guns being everywhere in Israel and in the U.S. anybody can understand.
Point taken, nevertheless!
Well, what ARE conservatives really after here?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want to understand what you are proposing. Are you implying or asserting that when gun violence breaks out in a red-state (closest to you I reckon) that an ordinary citizen has the right to engage said gun shooting individual?
I ask this question because I do not see in the news where "Joes" are intercepting or interfering with gun-violent individuals on a regular basis. Do you?
Old crotch grabber is now grabbing guns eh?
It could have.
It makes it so that when cops - or even civilians - have reason to believe someone is walking or driving around with a gun, you have a crime in progress. Someone out there probably knew the shooter had a gun and was taking it out into the world. That someone could have called police; and if police saw this person, they could detain and possibly arrest him - before he killed someone.
A lot of firearm attacks are committed in moments of passion and anger when a weapon is easily at hand. So a restriction like this - if enforced - could prevent some shootings. That’s why this kind of restriction was so common in the Old West.
If I understand correctly, you're saying that if law abiding citizens unanimously got behind the restriction, then anyone not a cop or licensed security guard carrying could be more reasonably assumed to be the kind of person we're trying to stop, right? That occurred to me as well. Leaving aside the constitutional question however, the problem with it is that the citizen carries all the risk of such a restriction, not the government. In essence, it is asking the citizen to forego self protection in the hope that law enforcement will protect them at any given moment while nothing really changes for the government side.
Consider what you said:
This was already true before the restriction. It would be difficult to envision this restriction changing that. Rather, what I would think more likely is reports of otherwise law abiding citizens carrying in spite of the restriction because they believe they are standing up against government overreach, thereby endangering their life rather than addressing individuals who are the real problem.
I do agree that firearm attacks are sometimes committed in moments of passion and anger. I disagree that this restriction would be of any real utility in preventing them. I think it more likely it would simply ensnare people who are simply opposing government overreach. At the least, it would complicate the issue for law enforcement. Are they dealing with a "criminal" who is only a criminal due to the Governor's decree or is this a genuine bad actor we're looking to stop?
When they’re out in the world, yes. At home they could still have a weapon.
I didn’t say it was a great idea. I was just thinking about how it could achieve the desired goal.
Not quite, though. Without the restriction, mere possession of a firearm in public doesn’t constitute probable cause for arrest. Now it does - notwithstanding the constitutional question. Many legal scholars believe the firearm restrictions of the Old West were unconstitutional. They just weren’t challenged.
In reality, cops do harass people for carrying guns, but by itself, it’s not generally a crime.
It’s pretty straightforward. If you don’t have easy access to a gun, you can’t shoot someone in anger.
That’s the beauty of the restriction. It’s so simple. Literally anyone with a gun in public - who is not a cop or security guard - is committing a crime.
It seems obviously unconstitutional, though. I know they’re trying to make some emergency public safety claim, but it’s not narrowly focused enough to survive strict scrutiny.
Okay...
Acknowledged. The reason for my post was to explain why it (the decree) would not.
This doesn't address the issue quote to which you referenced addressed, which was:
To which my response was:
Do you understand the difference? I was addressing the public responsibility issue you brought up and how this decree was unlikely to change current behavior concerning that. In the post I am currently addressing, you seem to have changed the issue I was responding to as about tools law enforcement can use to arrest someone.
More accurately, it isn't generally treated as a crime, although it is, when cops harass people simply for carrying guns when it is allowed by law. Unfortunately, this is an example of an impossible situation for law enforcement and society as a whole.
Perhaps. I am somewhat skeptical, however, that if you have the personality that would allow you to shoot someone simply out of anger that you would obey the decree in the first place.
I find this profoundly disturbing. Specifically, that you find it beautifully simple. That, in order to achieve your desired result, you're willing to disregard other valid issues in order to achieve a specific goal. This seems to be the logic presented by tyrants throughout time.
It’s not a philosophical assessment. It’s an objective one. You’re focusing too much on the word “beautiful,” and not enough on the word “simple.” The solution to a problem can be simple and most effective. That doesn’t mean it will be the most desirable.
Again, it’s not my desired result or goal. I have analyzed someone else’s action. I didn’t write the damned policy.
It’s an uncomfortable truth that tyranny can be a highly efficient method of governing.
The governor is calling for a 30-day cooling off period. It will accomplish that and also give the local/state authorities to access what the hell is going on in the vicinity (county) and possibly come up with a set of deterrents to deal with the situations. At least, that would be a stellar use of a cooling off period ordered by professionals.
In other words, some conservatives can not ask the governor to solve violent gun crimes with one hand tied behind her back (or any governor for that matter) because she is constitutionally blocked by congress, legislatures, and courts, to effectively do even the simplest technique of all: Call a medical "stand-down" on guns in one or more violent counties!
What do these people want from leaders?! They are the same people would turn then and spin the violence as out of control and call leaders "feckless." All because governors can't 'best' the constitution or those who seek lawsuits every time the task is undertaken to tamp down gun violence by tamping down on the public use of them!
This is IMPOSSSIBLE!
Any fool can see this is for what it is.
______________________________________________________
As for the notion that having more guns on the street in the hands of good-guys belies the truth that if someone really thought about harming someone the first thing that 'wise' criminal would do is pull his gun first and proceed to pat-down everyone nearby rendering them harmless and vulnerable as every.
Now, I reckon someone would like to believe that is not doable? I would like to know why so (from that one)!
We have already seen this good-guy with a gun against a bad guy with a gun in a Texas school shooting. The good-guys were put at bay by a single shooter and the good guys were armed.
It could easily be that a bad guy can lay a trap for the good guys to fall into when they arrive with some planning. And that would be a worse case scenario-and yet possible once bad guys take time to think it through.
The stasis of this country is maddenly ridiculous. We look like a nation full of fools TRAPPED and CAPTURED by the gun industry and an "ancient" clause in the constitution that unreasonable won't compromise or mitigate. Those PIGS make money off of misery. And we are just stuck letting them do so - because of some conservatives and their power blockage!
One more thing. Has anyone noticed that more times than not. . . the good guy that shows up with a gun is law enforcement or security officers and not your average Joe carrying a concealed weapon?
Why is that? Average Joes with a side arm or concealed weapon, or both we are led to believe are 'everywhere'? But, are they?
Remember, when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away!
I concede the point. Yet, you ignored the fact that it is law enforcement and security officers who are on the scene 99.99 per cent of the time during and afterwards of gun violence and no 'credit' is given to the Average Joe 'good guy' in the narrative. It is because he or she is not present, even after the authorities arrive.
Speak to the point, not the dodge!
No doubt, a crackerjack solution, don’t know why it took so long to think of.
You know you fucked up when even the Democrats siding with actual American citizens and are saying they refuse to enforce it.
This back and forth has gone on long enough and there's no longer any conversation around the issue. The two sides are too deeply dug in to allow for conversation on the topic.
I'm locking this seed at this point as I have other issues that I need to deal with.