What decision have I made? You can disagree with whatever you want, that does not make you right nor any less ignorant and bigoted.
1 Like
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
@Michael779, name-calling is not allowed in the USCCA Online Community - including people who are not in the Community.
Everyone, tensions are running high due to the current political situation. Personal attacks and overall nasty comments do nothing to improve the situation. Please remember the Community Guidelines as you post.
We don’t ask that you agree with everyone, however, we do expect you to keep the discussion civil.
This thread was closed by the Community platform due to the number of flags. It will open again this afternoon. If the thread does not return to a civil discussion, it will be closed permanently.
5 Likes
This topic was automatically opened after 4 hours.
Open for business…play nice!
3 Likes
Like ladies in skirts with their children on the playground. We just need to be mindful of the motorcycle gangs. 
2 Likes
Behave @Brad 
I’ll be watching you…
@Dave17, watch out for @Dawn, she’s a mom and rides a motorcycle. 
(Yes, that is meant to be lighthearted after a very passionate set of exchanges earlier today 
)
5 Likes
Crap…that’s me. lol
5 Likes
Clubs… they are clubs!!!
Gangs are so ‘rebel without a clue’
2 Likes
Fine…
4 Likes
Wow! Never thought my views were controversial.
I just read Biden’s plan for gun control. I do think that the government has a compelling public health mandate to address illegal gun violence. And I believe that police shootings are a part of the problem and not a solution. I do not think that they will be able to push this agenda through congress, even given recent majority in the Senate. Executive Authority is limited and we should do what we can to limit overreaching. For my part I will be agitating against executive actions as is my right, and yours.
Moreover, I believe that government has a very compelling interest and can limit religious gatherings in the face of a public health emergency. I do not have an issue with this.
Ok.
How? More laws?
2 Likes
You should, especially when it specifically targets churches and enforces harsher rules than against non-churches. Why would you single out its ok to target churches, but not mention its OK to limit other places? The right to worship is one of our rights that you earlier said we had. There should be no targeting of religious ceremonies or groups if you aren’t doing it to other groups equally (or at all).
As an example, Nevada set a rule that said casinos and the like were limited to 50% capacity. Sounds reasonable right? Well churches could only have a maximum of 50 people period. Why?
No matter how large the church (some churches can hold hundreds if not thousands at a time), they could only have 50 people max. But a casino, can have 50% capacity. Is there a medical reason why you are less likely to get COVID while playing blackjack vs praying? Both are large open buildings, both can enforce 6ft+ rules, church is for an hour, casinos are as long as you want. If you want to ban singing, ok fine. The case went all the way to the supreme court, where the casino’s won on a 5-4 decision. I’ll quote some dissenting opinion below.
“A public health emergency does not give governors and other public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists,” Justice Alito wrote.
“The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges,” he [Justice Neil M. Gorsuch] wrote. “But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”
Link to a non-conservative news source for more information if you’d like:
There are also instances in NYC of DeBlasio specifically, and Cuomo to a lesser extent targeting the Jewish communities similarly with different harsher COVID rules than businesses. I don’t have those links to hand like I do the SC, but if you are interested I can certainly dig them up.
I would be curious if you had heard of these cases before today?
3 Likes
One thing I liked in Biden’s proposal is the idea of having guns that can only be fired by the owner. One of my fears about going armed is having bad guys overpower me and take my gun. I am largely unable to fight back, that’s why I started carrying. I’d be very interested in a gun that makes that impossible. But widespread implementation of this is a generation away, at least. Nonetheless, I approve of Biden trying to make this a reality.
The thing about government is that it has only a few vehicles for implementing policy. One is laws. Another is executive authority. Another is agency regulations. Another is court action. It is hardly surprising that Biden would want to use the levers of power available to him, they are the levers that he will control.
I think that we all need to continue to educate about the legitimate use of deadly force. And we all must engage with government rather than complaining about what is happening. Let’s show them what good guys with guns look like and how we are committed to protecting the innocent. I think that mindless gun control would fail if we were widely known and understood.
Actually, casinos and churches are not the same. I do know something of both. I was regularly playing casino blackjack from March through August when things got a lot bleaker. I felt almost entirely safe at the casino, as safe as I was anywhere except home. The blackjack tables had been reduced from 6 players to 3. And there were plexiglass dividers between players and between players and dealers. Half the slot machines were disabled so that no player could be close to another. Did churches take similar/corresponding precautions? How to keep distance between parishoners? Did churches figure this out for themselves? My gun range is open but it has very heavy air circulation. Air in the range is recirculated every 90 seconds. Did churches do this?
Since you can’t fight back now they take your gun and a finger (or eye if you go the rental route). Nothing is impossible and locks, or biometric guns, still only keep honest people honest.
2 Likes
I understand, but I think this is a case where well-intentioned legislation would hurt well-meaning citizens while doing little to hinder outlaws.
Take your example. If a couple of baddies overpower and rob you, do you think they’re worried about the law which could punish them for using your firearm against you? They’ve already committed assault and, if they’ve taken your firearm, theft. If they’re willing to commit manslaughter, they’re probably not worried about the firearm law.
Now put yourself in a home invasion scenario (because we carry defense weapons, not assault weapons). You give a firearm registered in your name to your spouse while you check on the kids. The burglar enters your bedroom and your spouse uses the firearm in self defense. Except now your spouse is a criminal, because the firearm was registered in your name.
3 Likes
I think that using a pistol with someone else’s finger or eye is not very practical.
If you’ve followed most (all?) of these exec orders by state, you would know that the rules are passed down without asking anyone in the affected industries for input (see restaurant industry in CA for analogous examples of this). Churches were not given the option, they found out like everyone else when the orders were announced. They asked for the same/similar rules as casinos (and other businesses) and were denied. 50 person limit, no matter how much plexiglass nor social distancing. In this specific example (NV) the churches took it to court and won, the state appealed it and won, then it went to the supreme court where the court said “the state knows better than we do” (see the NYT article).
3 Likes
Believe it or not, guns are not only for self-defense. Shooting is also a hobby. When I go to the range with other people, we enjoy shooting each other’s guns. Why should that be illegal?
7 Likes