No.

Self defense has a definition.

Note how in that scenario no deadly force is being introduced. And you're in public.

The example is meant to portray the kinds of effects gun possession result in certain circumstances; in AZ guns are allowed in bars (what could go wrong?).

Umm.. You could provide stats of a rash of gun violence in AZ bars to justify your claim?

Ray, succinctly what do you think the 2nd Amendment holds?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

As an Arizonan, I'll tell you that is completely untrue.

In 2010, AZ passed a law that allowed concealed carry without a permit.

There are notable exceptions to this law. Of particular importance to your point are two caveats:

1. The law does not cover establishments that serve alcohol. You need a permit to carry in those establishments.

2. Any facility is free to post somewhere on their premises that no guns are allows.

Of more importance though is the result you're trying to prove. How many people have been killed in bars in AZ since the law passed?

So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that you probably think Zimmerman deserves life in prison or worse, and Martin was some kind of a saint? I might just have to go over to that thread and troll you now lol. Maybe tomorrow.

Answer: see your own post for possible explanations unrelated to guns save lives.

See Gus's exceptions

Ray,
I'm curious. Do you believe that I believe business owners should or should not have the right to ban firearms on their property?

Also, what are your opinions on carry permits?

Carry permits are fine. But I would actually put some teeth into the reqs for getting them. Instead of watching/sleeping through a 4 hour safety video, signing a form acknowledging having seen said video, and unloading a couple magazines of rounds, I would recommend comprehensive safety and use training. 40 hours of safety and training should be sufficient to keep guns in the hands of those who have the sufficient dedication and level of care to use them properly and out of the yokels' hands.

The yokel problem extends to gun shows, which should be illegal. NO GUN should be allowed to be purchased without a thorough vetting process.

Business owners should have the right to exclude anyone they feel who threatens the livelihood and safety of their establishment w/i some discriminatory limits.

Wow. I won't even go into the process of getting a firearms license in my state. You may very well faint.

I certainly agree that training is important, but you're unfamiliar with what it takes to maintain proficiency, and that's not enough to accomplish your objectives.

I also take issue with it as a firearms instructor, as I'm fully aware of the fair market value of such training, and have observed citizens being absolutely raped over these required courses in many states.

This is a free trade problem. A gun is property. I should freely be able to sell/trade/barter my property with another consenting adult freely and without government interference. This also creates a tremendous opportunity for FFL holders to rape & gouge the public.


That's the same way I feel. I have no problem with a business owner refusing to service me because I'm carrying. It's his right as a business owner. I also spread the word and do all I can to ensure NO gun owner provides him with a penny of their money until they change their policy.

That all sounds fair to me.

Not letting a crisis go to waste, several Senators have proposed amendments to an unrelated cybersecurity bill. According to this article, the amendments would ban large capacity magazines (i.e., anything that holds more than 10 rounds) except for .22LR.

http://thehill.com/video/senate/2406...ontrol-measure

Can't imagine this would pass the House (or even the Senate, for that matter), so it may just be a PR stunt.

EDIT: Text of the amendment:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-20...1-3.pdf#page=3

Hey anti-guns, I found more bull****:
Link

Can someone please find a reputable quote of the NRA supporting removing background checks or unrestricted concealed carry without license?

Well, given that the first thing you learn in law school is that every word matters, this says that we don't have an unfettered right to bear arms, we have the right to bear arms for the specific purpose of forming a well-regulated militia. And, again, since every word is important, the "well-regulated" part matters a lot.

The current gun laws in this country do not come remotely close to the definition of "well regulated".

Just to start, every gun owner in this country should be registered. Every gun should be registered. Every gun transfer should be registered. If you're the last legal owner of a gun that ends up in the hands of someone who shouldn't have it, YOU go to jail for a long time. No militia tolerates members who let their weapons fall into the hands of enemies for the sake of a quick buck. You don't like guns in the hands of criminals, punish the people who let that happen. You can't do that if you don't know who's supposed to have the gun in the first place.

So start with "well regulated". All of you knee-jerk conservative strict constructionists should be on-board with that, right?