Limits on guns in parks argued

The laws of a state should be the same anywhere in that state you may be standing. If towns and cities are allowed to make their own rules and laws, anyone passing through minding their own buisness can be UNLAWFULLY prosecuted for doing nothing wrong... except being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is another attempt by crooked, unjust politicians and misled people to impose their beliefs on the general population. I am a smoker, but I can no longer smoke in public because
the majority of people voted otherwise and I respect that vote. Why can't we hold a public vote on gun issues and let the people decide what they want? Maybe it's because the right to protect yourself is more important
than smoking in public, and the vote would reflect it... by a LANDSLIDE :-)

Georgia allows citizens with CCW permits to carry in parks. We have not had major issues with it.

banksuary 1 wrote:

....If towns and cities are allowed to make their own rules and laws, anyone passing through minding their own buisness can be UNLAWFULLY prosecuted ....

If they violate the town's laws,
they can be Lawfully prosecuted.

banksuary 1 wrote:

The laws of a state should be the same anywhere in that state you may be standing. If towns and cities are allowed to make their own rules and laws, anyone passing through minding their own buisness can be UNLAWFULLY prosecuted for doing nothing wrong... except being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is another attempt by crooked, unjust politicians and misled people to impose their beliefs on the general population. I am a smoker, but I can no longer smoke in public because
the majority of people voted otherwise and I respect that vote. Why can't we hold a public vote on gun issues and let the people decide what they want? Maybe it's because the right to protect yourself is more important
than smoking in public, and the vote would reflect it... by a LANDSLIDE :-)

Please don't get me started on why smoking isn't the same thing as gun ownership. When was the last time you were in a restaurant eating and the cop sitting next to you had his gun in your face?
NEVER.

But who here has eaten in a restaurant while funky smoke from the person next to you blew in your face clothes, eyes, etc? ALL of us. Please don't compare. Smoking got shut down because the moment I inhale your smoke, it infringes upon my freedom NOT to smoke.

If I carry a firearm. YOU still don't have one.

DeepThinka wrote:

<quoted text>
Please don't get me started on why smoking isn't the same thing as gun ownership. When was the last time you were in a restaurant eating and the cop sitting next to you had his gun in your face?
NEVER.
But who here has eaten in a restaurant while funky smoke from the person next to you blew in your face clothes, eyes, etc? ALL of us. Please don't compare. Smoking got shut down because the moment I inhale your smoke, it infringes upon my freedom NOT to smoke.
If I carry a firearm. YOU still don't have one.

While it's true that smoking and carrying a weapon are obviously not the same thing, the core issue is.

Anti-gun and anti-smoking laws are all about do-gooder control freaks believing that in addition to knowing what's best for everyone, they possess some God given right to trespass upon the rights of others in order to enforce their beliefs.

"The great inlet by which a colour for oppression has entered into the world is by one man's pretending to determine concerning the happiness of another."- Edmund Burke

Boomer215 wrote:

<quoted text>
Anti-gun and anti-smoking laws are all about do-gooder control freaks believing that in addition to knowing what's best for everyone, they possess some God given right to trespass upon the rights of others in order to enforce their beliefs.

I agree with you that anti-gun laws are an attempt to trespass on the rights of others, but you're wrong on the anti-smoking... and apparently a court somewhere thinks you're wrong too because smoking is still illegal in most public places while guns are not.

First of all, technically, smoking isn't a right. More importantly though a smokers rights stop the moment their actions directly affect me.

Why do you think if you shoot a gun wildly, but hit no one, the cops can arrest you for wreckless endangerment? Because you've crossed the line buddy. It's no longer just your gun, quietly at your hip affecting no one. Now it's people running for their lives because of one idiot. But gun ownership in and of itself is not that. It does NOT affect you. Therefore really none of your business.

Smoking, when in close proximity to me, ALWAYS affects me. It's not the same. Sorry.

DeepThinka wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you that anti-gun laws are an attempt to trespass on the rights of others, but you're wrong on the anti-smoking... and apparently a court somewhere thinks you're wrong too because smoking is still illegal in most public places while guns are not.
First of all, technically, smoking isn't a right. More importantly though a smokers rights stop the moment their actions directly affect me.
Why do you think if you shoot a gun wildly, but hit no one, the cops can arrest you for wreckless endangerment? Because you've crossed the line buddy. It's no longer just your gun, quietly at your hip affecting no one. Now it's people running for their lives because of one idiot. But gun ownership in and of itself is not that. It does NOT affect you. Therefore really none of your business.
Smoking, when in close proximity to me, ALWAYS affects me. It's not the same. Sorry.

Your car's exhaust immediatly affects me,please stop driving,forever.

Over reaction I know,but people must be a little more calloused.

DeepThinka wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you that anti-gun laws are an attempt to trespass on the rights of others, but you're wrong on the anti-smoking... and apparently a court somewhere thinks you're wrong too because smoking is still illegal in most public places while guns are not.
First of all, technically, smoking isn't a right. More importantly though a smokers rights stop the moment their actions directly affect me.
Why do you think if you shoot a gun wildly, but hit no one, the cops can arrest you for wreckless endangerment? Because you've crossed the line buddy. It's no longer just your gun, quietly at your hip affecting no one. Now it's people running for their lives because of one idiot. But gun ownership in and of itself is not that. It does NOT affect you. Therefore really none of your business.
Smoking, when in close proximity to me, ALWAYS affects me. It's not the same. Sorry.

Smoking is a right.
9th amendment-
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

-Careful using the "apparently a court somewhere thinks you're wrong too" argument, because I'll bet there's a court somewhere that will differ with your opinion as to your right to keep and bear arms.

- "More importantly though a smokers rights stop the moment their actions directly affect me."

So don't patronize the business. Where do you get the right to use the law in order to force a business owner to cater to you.
He is the one who as invested in the business, he is the one taking risk. Does he not have the right to cater to whomever he wishes?
Just as you have the right not to patronize his business.

Individual Gun ownership in the United States for personal protection should be considered a social and personal behavioral disorder. Nowhere in History in any serious social discourse are individual weapons for personal protection given any credence for the social organization of a particular group of people. In fact, they are scorned upon as a reflection of something out of the normal, as uncivil, as a sign of chaos, as non-conformity and a general lack of a rational social organization.

In the modern society people go about their tasks without any concern for their general welfare, like someone doing them bodily harm or any other threatening behavior. In a modern society people should feel safe and their well being insured by the social principles that govern each and every individual in this social situation.

It’s easy to translate the advanced social behavioral diseases that manifest themselves from the lack of social norms to the Psychosis of the individual to the overall behavior of society in general. An example of psychotic behavior is where an individual has a firearm in their possession for “protection,” this firearm is more likely to kill a family member than someone who may be a threatening force to the person, something the Gun Lobbyists don’t like to talk about.

Individual Gun Ownership is only a symptom of something seriously wrong with the general overall social thinking. The key is why do people act why they do act? Are the leaders facing the social situation squarely? Is the philosophy for governing sound? Do we know where the future lies, in the sense where do we go from here, as a society? Is there Democracy, so individual guns are unnecessary?

In China we’ve seen what’s happening in the United States many, many times in our history. In a directionless social philosophy that doesn’t work anymore and an old ossified leadership whose only interest is to cling to power, even as the social manifestations all point to the future as a general decline into a chaotic social situation, the answer is not in individual protection but as a general social recognition of contradictions that manifest themselves into an unsocial and uncivil behavioral situation..

That is the answer.

Deng wrote:

Individual Gun ownership in the United States for personal protection should be considered a social and personal behavioral disorder. Nowhere in History in any serious social discourse are individual weapons for personal protection given any credence for the social organization of a particular group of people. In fact, they are scorned upon as a reflection of something out of the normal, as uncivil, as a sign of chaos, as non-conformity and a general lack of a rational social organization.
In the modern society people go about their tasks without any concern for their general welfare, like someone doing them bodily harm or any other threatening behavior. In a modern society people should feel safe and their well being insured by the social principles that govern each and every individual in this social situation.
It’s easy to translate the advanced social behavioral diseases that manifest themselves from the lack of social norms to the Psychosis of the individual to the overall behavior of society in general. An example of psychotic behavior is where an individual has a firearm in their possession for “protection,” this firearm is more likely to kill a family member than someone who may be a threatening force to the person, something the Gun Lobbyists don’t like to talk about.
Individual Gun Ownership is only a symptom of something seriously wrong with the general overall social thinking. The key is why do people act why they do act? Are the leaders facing the social situation squarely? Is the philosophy for governing sound? Do we know where the future lies, in the sense where do we go from here, as a society? Is there Democracy, so individual guns are unnecessary?
In China we’ve seen what’s happening in the United States many, many times in our history. In a directionless social philosophy that doesn’t work anymore and an old ossified leadership whose only interest is to cling to power, even as the social manifestations all point to the future as a general decline into a chaotic social situation, the answer is not in individual protection but as a general social recognition of contradictions that manifest themselves into an unsocial and uncivil behavioral situation..
That is the answer.

Here........Pull my finger.

http://newtimesslo.com/letters-to-the-editor/...

Ban only automatic and long-range weapons
San Luis Obispo

Steve T. Kobara
Thank you for the July 16 article “What assault weapons ban?” about the erosion of state control over military assault guns. I’m disturbed by the ease with which full-auto freaks turn semi-automatic guns into illegal automatics.

I would support a sensible assault gun ban that does not ban semi-automatic arms; guns that carry eight to 20 rounds and can fire at a speed of 20 to 40 rounds per minute. Bolt-action guns can be fired at a rate of 10 to 15 rounds per minute, which is enough for most legal uses.

I would also consider a law based on muzzle velocity and hence lethality. Rifles are far deadlier than pistols, with muzzle velocities of 2,000 to 3,000 feet per second, compared with pistols’ 600 to 1,250 per second. A 7.62-mm rifle’s effective range is 800 to 1,000 yards but submachine guns firing 9-mm pistol ammunition have ranges of 75 to 200 yards.

I question the pro-gun contention that restricting one gun means banning all guns, and that making gun users be responsible is synonymous with punishing them. The outcome of such speculation is gun anarchy.

Ohio is behind the times when it comes to CCW laws. In all contigious states, you can carry inside a restaurant that serves alcohol whereas in Ohio, you cant. You dont need to notify an LEO that you have a CCW in other states like you do here in Ohio. As a CCW license holder, our laws need work.

GaryGroux wrote:

http://newtimesslo.com/letters -to-the-editor/2974/ban-only-a utomatic-and-longrange-weapons /
Ban only automatic and long-range weapons
San Luis Obispo
Steve T. Kobara
Thank you for the July 16 article “What assault weapons ban?” about the erosion of state control over military assault guns. I’m disturbed by the ease with which full-auto freaks turn semi-automatic guns into illegal automatics.
I would support a sensible assault gun ban that does not ban semi-automatic arms; guns that carry eight to 20 rounds and can fire at a speed of 20 to 40 rounds per minute. Bolt-action guns can be fired at a rate of 10 to 15 rounds per minute, which is enough for most legal uses.
I would also consider a law based on muzzle velocity and hence lethality. Rifles are far deadlier than pistols, with muzzle velocities of 2,000 to 3,000 feet per second, compared with pistols’ 600 to 1,250 per second. A 7.62-mm rifle’s effective range is 800 to 1,000 yards but submachine guns firing 9-mm pistol ammunition have ranges of 75 to 200 yards.
I question the pro-gun contention that restricting one gun means banning all guns, and that making gun users be responsible is synonymous with punishing them. The outcome of such speculation is gun anarchy.

We need machine guns and powerful rifles to deter slavery, genocide, other tyrannys and govt oppressions, and personal tragedys.

If we listen to you the govt will force us into mandatory national service (slavery). If we resist, the govt will kill us (genocide). It will destroy our lives (families), liberties, and the pursuit of happiness (inflict personal tragedy).

Why do you want to convert America into China ?

Boomer215 wrote:

<quoted text>
Smoking is a right.
9th amendment-
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-Careful using the "apparently a court somewhere thinks you're wrong too" argument, because I'll bet there's a court somewhere that will differ with your opinion as to your right to keep and bear arms.
- "More importantly though a smokers rights stop the moment their actions directly affect me."
So don't patronize the business. Where do you get the right to use the law in order to force a business owner to cater to you.
He is the one who as invested in the business, he is the one taking risk. Does he not have the right to cater to whomever he wishes?
Just as you have the right not to patronize his business.

Moronic to say the least. You smokers have lost your so called rights. Quit now and avoid the rush. Smoke in your basement.

You gun nuts are funny. Keep babbling about the "right to bear arms," but ignore the "well-regulated" part.

You're just like a Christian. You pick the parts you like, but ignore the parts you don't like.

Public expression of one's personal opinions without prior consent of the state can only be regarded as a symptom of severe psychological illness. We in China have seen many times how the willingness of the government in the United States to allow individuals to say or print what they think leads to social chaos and disorder. Indulgence of such mental delusions such as that one is a sovereign individual with rights not granted by the state inevitably leads to anarchy. All right thinking subjects must look towards the wise leadership of the state for guidance and not to their personal beliefs and prejudices.

Boomer215 wrote:

<quoted text>
Smoking is a right.
9th amendment-
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-Careful using the "apparently a court somewhere thinks you're wrong too" argument, because I'll bet there's a court somewhere that will differ with your opinion as to your right to keep and bear arms.
- "More importantly though a smokers rights stop the moment their actions directly affect me."
So don't patronize the business. Where do you get the right to use the law in order to force a business owner to cater to you.
He is the one who as invested in the business, he is the one taking risk. Does he not have the right to cater to whomever he wishes?
Just as you have the right not to patronize his business.

What part of this amendment says you have the right to smoke. I guess I am just too stupid to see it. Would you please tell me where it says so.

Evilution wrote:

<quoted text>
Your car's exhaust immediatly affects me,please stop driving,forever.
Over reaction I know,but people must be a little more calloused.

Actually smarty, in many states you must take an emissions test before you can get you car registered to drive it on the road. If your car fails the emissions test and is deemed harmful, you cannot get the car registered and therefore not drive.

The "emissions" that come from someone who smokes have proven themselves to be harmful to others. So you've only proven my argument in yet another instance. I thank you.

Boomer215 wrote:

<quoted text>
Smoking is a right.
9th amendment-
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-Careful using the "apparently a court somewhere thinks you're wrong too" argument, because I'll bet there's a court somewhere that will differ with your opinion as to your right to keep and bear arms.
- "More importantly though a smokers rights stop the moment their actions directly affect me."
So don't patronize the business. Where do you get the right to use the law in order to force a business owner to cater to you.

So you think “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." is as explicit as "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"? You're reaching. You're reaching a lot to say smoking is your 9th amendment privilege here.

It's not like the amendment says, "right of the people to keep and smoke cigarettes". Then you'd have me dead to rights. You sound like one of these people who after having their drivers license suspended, refuse to quit driving because of their "right" to drive. Driving is not a right. It's a privilege. I'm not saying smoking is a privilege, but it's not a right.

I see where you're going on your point about the courts. I agree, not the best argument to use since judges often disregards the constitution. I was merely showing that this was so obvious to people, that smokers themselves barely put up a protest because most realize they're killing themselves, not to mention others around them.

Lastly, two things; 1. There are certain places/businesses where you cannot elect to do business elsewhere, ex. airlines.- it doesn't matter which airline I take, I'd still be couped up with the stench of foul smelling - more importantly, cancer causing smoke. 2. I'm a capitalist, so I'd never force a business owner to do anything. There are in fact still restaurants who allow patrons to smoke at the bar. I don't eat there.

Deng wrote:

Individual Gun ownership in the United States for personal protection should be considered a social and personal behavioral disorder.

Nice try. Communist.