|
Author
|
Topic: URGENT: Help stop a radical gun bill in Ohio!
|
teasel
Knowflake Posts: 10272
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 06, 2017 01:29 AM
  
http://act.everytown.org/sign/stop-HB-233-leadership?utm_campaign=stop-HB-233-leadership&utm_source=fb_n_&akid=s32641..9noj9p&utm_medium=_s&refcode=fbns_stop-HB-233-leadership quote:
IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED: Ohio lawmakers just announced a vote on a radical gun bill that would allow people to carry hidden, loaded handguns in schools and on college campuses, in bars while drinking, and on private property -- even where “no guns allowed” signs are posted.Even worse, lawmakers are trying to sneak the bill through the legislature without any warning and no public discussion. We need to send Ohio House leadership as many letters as we can in the next 12 hours: Help us make it clear that we will not stand for sneaky tactics to pass dangerous gun bills that threaten our communities. Send the letter to House leaders now and tell them to vote NO on HB 233 >>
Anyone else in Ohio? Or have friends or family here? We do NOT need people with guns in schools, bars, and on private property, where they've been specifically prohibited. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 82076
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 06, 2017 07:51 AM
Don't criminals already do that? Most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. Those areas are targeted for just that reason. The cities with the highest rates of violent crime have the strongest gun control laws. Contrast, for instance, a city such as Obama's hometown and Hillary's birthplace, Chicago, with a city in Georgia that requires every adult to own a gun. Robberies and violent crimes fell drastically, with home burglaries falling to zero.IP: Logged |
teasel
Knowflake Posts: 10272
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 06, 2017 08:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
Don't criminals already do that? Most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. Those areas are targeted for just that reason. The cities with the highest rates of violent crime have the strongest gun control laws. Contrast, for instance, a city such as Obama's hometown and Hillary's birthplace, Chicago, with a city in Georgia that requires every adult to own a gun. Robberies and violent crimes fell drastically, with home burglaries falling to zero.
Please refrain from smirking in this thread. What is wrong with you? IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 9951
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 06, 2017 08:41 AM
There's something seriously wrong with the minds of people who want American citizens disarmed in the face of radical Islamic terrorists, rapists, robbers and murderers.If getting themselves, their children, parents, grandparents, friends and neighbors murdered, raped or robbed by Islamic terrorists or members of the goon squad is the price of clinging to their loony-tunes leftist ideology, it's a price they're willing to pay. For the rest of us, there's a Glock, a Sig, a Beretta, a Colt or an H&K in our homes, on our hips or in a purse. We carry our "Safe Places" with us. IP: Logged |
Catalina
Knowflake Posts: 4434
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013
|
posted July 06, 2017 11:51 AM
Requires gun ownership? But requiring health insurance is unconstitutional? Does no one else see the irony involved in that stance? You are far more likely to be murdered by your local headcase than a Muslim terrorist. but by all means arm yourself against something that will probly never happen, all the while scoffing at people who speculate about the future You are putting the cart before the horse. Chicago has always had high rates of crime.. that is why the gun laws are there, not the other way around. SMH😩🤥 IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 82076
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 06, 2017 02:54 PM
The smirk is for the sheer audacity of your post. I didn't say I agree with required gun ownership. I used that to show a point.IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 82076
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 06, 2017 02:56 PM
And GA passed a law that guns can be carried on college campuses. Guess what? No flying bullets!IP: Logged |
teasel
Knowflake Posts: 10272
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 06, 2017 06:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
And GA passed a law that guns can be carried on college campuses. Guess what? No flying bullets!
I can't think of anyone who would want guns to be allowed on the school grounds where their children are. People getting rowdy in bars, don't need to have guns to go along with that. And this bill would also remove the rights of people who have chosen to not allow guns onto their private property - what about their rights? IP: Logged |
teasel
Knowflake Posts: 10272
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 06, 2017 06:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Catalina:
[b]Requires gun ownership? But requiring health insurance is unconstitutional? Does no one else see the irony involved in that stance? You are far more likely to be murdered by your local headcase than a Muslim terrorist. but by all means arm yourself against something that will probly never happen, all the while scoffing at people who speculate about the future You are putting the cart before the horse. Chicago has always had high rates of crime.. that is why the gun laws are there, not the other way around. SMH😩🤥[/B]
Right. Last night, I ended up reading about mass murders in this country, that were committed by middle-aged white men, angry, hated women and minorities, ****** off at the world. Thought the government was working against them, too. One had a stockpile of weapons, and killed children and a baby, as well as adults, at a McDonalds in 1984. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 82076
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 06, 2017 07:23 PM
Let's see, can you think of a time people were shot in a night club? Or children shot in a school? If people were armed, those outcomes would have been very different.IP: Logged |
teasel
Knowflake Posts: 10272
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 06, 2017 07:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
Let's see, can you think of a time people were shot in a night club? Or children shot in a school? If people were armed, those outcomes would have been very different.
Let's see: they aren't talking about armed guards for the schools, or private property, they're talking about anyone being allowed to carry guns anywhere they please. Accidents happen, arguments happen. What about the rights of the property owners, who don't want guns there? IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 82076
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 06, 2017 09:53 PM
Gun-free zones are absolute. That's why the security personnel were not armed at the gay nightclub. What's wrong with teachers having weapons? And if the private property is open to the public, the owners must give up some rights. IP: Logged |
Catalina
Knowflake Posts: 4434
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013
|
posted July 07, 2017 12:15 AM
There's a wide gap between having armed guards and allowing everybody who wants to walk thru carry a gun. teasel lives in Ohio.. isn't her voice as worthy of being heard as any other voters? Why should n't she use it and gather as many people as she can to add theirs? Isn't that what civic duty is about? Standing up for what you think is right? Hashing it out
And letting representatives know what their constituents think is hardly "audacity". Private property is not open to Anyone who wants to be on it. By definition the owners have some say in the matter.. just as you have a right to search Anyone who comes into your house, or kick them out if you don't like their face.
IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 82076
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 07, 2017 12:23 AM
No one is shutting down Teasel's free speech. One's home isn't at issue here. One has the highest possible expectation of privacy in one's home. But this bill is talking about private ownership with public access, such as shopping malls, for example, where there is no reasonable expection of privacy. For example, CA courts have ruled that mall owners cannot ban the handing out of flyers, which sounds odd to the rest of the country. IP: Logged |
teasel
Knowflake Posts: 10272
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 07, 2017 01:08 AM
Thank you, Catalina. quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
No one is shutting down Teasel's free speech. One's home isn't at issue here. Meaningless comparison. We are talking about private ownership with public access, such as shopping malls, for example.
It says private property. Seems to be any property to me, and hey, malls don't need guns, either. If the owners also think that way, and the visitors - the public, who spend time there, and spend money (so important to the economy! and jobs!), it isn't fair to them to pass a law that says that people can carry their guns anywhere they want to. The republicans also apparently want mentally ill people to have access to guns. This guy called for help, but he didn't give them long to get back to him. He didn't tell them how serious it was (so you don't get to blame the place he called). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGpym2LagOk IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 82076
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 07, 2017 04:18 AM
Private property is any property not owned by the government. One's home isn't included. To bring a gun into my home, you have to get into my home. That would entail the breaking of any number of laws. Then there are many other forms of private property not open to the public. But if your private property is made available to use by the general public, you shouldn't be allowed to deny me a Constitutional right.IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 9951
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 07, 2017 07:41 AM
More guns in the hands of American civilians means less crime, fewer murders, fewer robberies and fewer rapes..in their homes, on their streets and in the businesses they frequent.Criminals and terrorists aren't nearly as stupid as the lunatics who support them. They know the success of their outrages depends on an unarmed citizenry. If leftists had the guts to put their idiotic nonsense into action, there would be a sign on all their doors. THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE IP: Logged |
Catalina
Knowflake Posts: 4434
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013
|
posted July 07, 2017 02:10 PM
Private property is private property. That is why many stores have signs,saying "We reserve the right to refuse service"..because they canMall security is often armed. Bars are private property and frequently arguments break out amongst drunk people. You think packing weapons under the influence should be encouraged? Sorry but i dont feel safer knowing the streets are full of armed idiots no one can challenge. I dont think giving criminals the cover of making carrying totally normal helps. Was it a "good armed civilian" who stopped Al Capone? And I think a bill such as this should at least be open to discussion IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 82076
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 07, 2017 02:28 PM
Just because there's a sign doesn't make it so. If depends on the reason for refusal.IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 9951
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 07, 2017 07:34 PM
"We reserve the right to refuse service"..Yeah, we all remember what happened to the bakers who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding. Try to get it right...at least once in a while. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 82076
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 07, 2017 08:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jwhop:
"We reserve the right to refuse service"..Yeah, we all remember what happened to the bakers who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding. Try to get it right...at least once in a while.
IP: Logged |
Blind writer
Knowflake Posts: 645
From: Texas, USA
Registered: May 2012
|
posted July 08, 2017 01:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Catalina:
Sorry but i dont feel safer knowing the streets are full of armed idiots no one can challenge. I dont think giving criminals the cover of making carrying totally normal helps.
I would feel far safer knowing that the number of armed good samaritans outnumber the armed criminals in any given situation. In general, I trust my fellow stranger on the street to do the right thing. There is a hero inside most people that never make it out because they had no means to protect themselves or anyone else. If I am in a dance club, and a disgruntled person with a gun starts firing off shots, then one of the fifty other armed people will be able to take them down, and ultimately save lives. If I was a criminal, I would certainly think twice before pulling out a gun if I knew there was a very real likelihood of getting shot and killed in return. That being said, I think guns should not be allowed in k-12 schools, but I also think schools should be stricter about who can come and go on school grounds. This is only because I don't trust a child with a gun, and accidents are prone to happen. College campuses are fine, because everyone attending is a capable adult with the legal right to own a gun. People should be allowed to exercise their constitutional right to have a weapon. Concealed carry laws were only made to make other people feel more comfortable about it. Out of sight, out of mind. IP: Logged |
Catalina
Knowflake Posts: 4434
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013
|
posted July 08, 2017 01:58 PM
Let me put it this way, Blindwriter. In countries where fewer people carry guns, there are far fewer gun deaths. Vigilantism has never proved a good form of crime control.
IP: Logged |
Catalina
Knowflake Posts: 4434
From: shamballa
Registered: Aug 2013
|
posted July 08, 2017 02:13 PM
Thank you Dynamic Duo for doubling down on the hate. The fact that you consider that appropriate response makes the thought of you carrying guns even more reprehensible.There are many adult children in the world, Blindwriter. IP: Logged |
Blind writer
Knowflake Posts: 645
From: Texas, USA
Registered: May 2012
|
posted July 08, 2017 04:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Catalina:
Let me put it this way, Blindwriter. In countries where fewer people carry guns, there are far fewer gun deaths. Vigilantism has never proved a good form of crime control.
Of course there are fewer gun deaths when there are fewer guns. That is simple math, but overall death rates are a completely separate thing and not related. Guns do not equal death, nor do they kill people - PEOPLE kill people. People prone to violence will find a way to hurt others, be it with a knife, or a bomb, or poison, or whatever other nefarious means they have access to. Unfortunately, these people will always be out there. Fortunately, they are a tiny minority. As our constitution guarantees, we will always have access to guns in our country. It is our right, and meant to provide our citizens with a means of self-defense. It is foolish to force our everyday heroes to bring just their fists to a gunfight. EDIT: Also, I am not supporting vigilantism. That is a crime. Self-defense is not. quote:
Originally posted by Catalina:
There are many adult children in the world, Blindwriter.
Only adults who are not convicted felons or classified as mentally disabled are legally allowed to own and carry guns. That's a subjective assessment. By that logic, these same "adult children" should have their drivers license revoked, because a vehicle is also considered a deadly weapon. Automobiles are responsible for far more deaths each year than firearms. IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
