Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Guns Now Allowed in Upper Arlington Parks

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Guns Now Allowed in Upper Arlington Parks

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 117 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1014248
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Um wow… your homoerotica art aside

    Hey, you brought up penises. Not my game, but whatever makes you happy.

    Might not want to get guns and penises mixed up though.

    Or maybe you do; not my business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home and if that’s the sort of thing you and your partner(s) are into, knock yourself out.

    #1014250

    gramarye
    Participant

    I enjoy the warped logic that says that those concerned about guns only have a case after something bad happens. Here I thought this was about preventing something in some Wild West style gunslinging. But it does beg the question… if there haven’t been any incidents, how necessary were guns in parks in the first place?

    “Necessary?”

    If you have done nothing wrong, why is the Sixth Amendment “necessary?”

    If you have nothing to hide, why is the Fourth Amendment “necessary?”

    I haven’t committed any crimes lately (to the best of my knowledge, anyway), but I still defend the rights of criminal defendants.

    Why should it be the burden of the gun owner to prove the necessity for his gun any more than it is the burden of the believer to prove the necessity of his religion, the speaker to prove the necessity of his speech, or the criminal defendant to prove the necessity of his right to an attorney, a speedy and public trial by jury, the identity of his accuser, and witnesses on his behalf? These restrictions did not advance public safety and served simply to burden law-abiding gun owners and exclude them from enjoyment of public spaces equal to that enjoyed by other members of the public. Therefore, it was perfectly justified (and indeed, was the only just course of action) for the state to nullify their enforceability and for UA to officially remove them from its books.

    #1014253

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <DIV class=d4p-bbt-quote-title>jbcmh81 wrote:</DIV>
    <P>I enjoy the warped logic that says that those concerned about guns only have a case after something bad happens. Here I thought this was about preventing something in some Wild West style gunslinging. But it does beg the question… if there haven’t been any incidents, how necessary were guns in parks in the first place?</P>

    <P>“Necessary?”</P>
    <P>If you have done nothing wrong, why is the Sixth Amendment “necessary?”</P>
    <P>If you have nothing to hide, why is the Fourth Amendment “necessary?”</P>
    <P>I haven’t committed any crimes lately (to the best of my knowledge, anyway), but I still defend the rights of criminal defendants.</P>
    <P>Why should it be the burden of the gun owner to prove the necessity for his gun any more than it is the burden of the believer to prove the necessity of his religion, the speaker to prove the necessity of his speech, or the criminal defendant to prove the necessity of his right to an attorney, a speedy and public trial by jury, the identity of his accuser, and witnesses on his behalf? These restrictions did not advance public safety and served simply to burden law-abiding gun owners and exclude them from enjoyment of public spaces equal to that enjoyed by other members of the public. Therefore, it was perfectly justified (and indeed, was the only just course of action) for the state to nullify their enforceability and for UA to officially remove them from its books.</P>

    I’m really uninterested in you trying to use the Fourth/Sixth Amendments to justify personal paranoia of perpetual danger and a bastardization of the 2nd. This is a perfect example of being consumed by a belief on a problem that doesn’t exist. I understand UA is not responsible for this, that’s not the issue. My critique is not even with the 2nd. It’s with the underlying belief by gun owners that they are literally in danger at every second and in every location that they must carry deadly weapons to function rationally and with peace of mind.

    #1014254
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Why should it be the burden of the gun owner to prove the necessity for his gun any more than it is the burden of the believer to prove the necessity of his religion, the speaker to prove the necessity of his speech, or the criminal defendant to prove the necessity of his right to an attorney, a speedy and public trial by jury, the identity of his accuser, and witnesses on his behalf? These restrictions did not advance public safety and served simply to burden law-abiding gun owners and exclude them from enjoyment of public spaces equal to that enjoyed by other members of the public. Therefore, it was perfectly justified (and indeed, was the only just course of action) for the state to nullify their enforceability and for UA to officially remove them from its books.

    Hear, hear.

    #1014255

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <DIV class=d4p-bbt-quote-title>jbcmh81 wrote:</DIV>
    <P>Um wow… your homoerotica art aside</P>

    <P>Hey, you brought up penises. Not my game, but whatever makes you happy.</P>
    <P>Might not want to get guns and penises mixed up though. </P>
    <P>Or maybe you do; not my business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home and if that’s the sort of thing you and your partner(s) are into, knock yourself out.</P>

    Out of the two of us, I didn’t have gay Smurf porn cached in my pictures folder ready for instant posting. Just sayin. Whatever makes you happy :)

    #1014257
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Out of the two of us, I didn’t have gay Smurf porn cached in my pictures folder ready for instant posting. Just sayin. Whatever makes you happy :)

    I let the internet cache all my photos. They do great backups.

    Besides, nothing wrong with liking what you like. Free country and all; you don’t have to justify anything. You can confuse firearms and penises to your… erm… heart’s content.

    Gram schooled you on that above.

    #1014266

    Alex Silbajoris
    Participant

    Wow I go away for a while and you all rush off half-cocked.

    Gram, if you’re going to talk about the seond amendment being so fundamental, what about its clause about a well-ordered militia? Is that represented by every next (ETA, permitted) person who carries deadly force, with unknown competence or temper or intent?

    As for the penises, I read the 1996 Griggs use plan, and one Appendix is a long collection of park police reports going back to the 1970s; back then the park restrooms were the hotbeds of “activity” that the police were watching, including “suspect vehicles” – no honeysuckle to hide behind yet back then.

    #1014267

    jackoh
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    I enjoy the warped logic that says that those concerned about guns only have a case after something bad happens. Here I thought this was about preventing something in some Wild West style gunslinging. But it does beg the question… if there haven’t been any incidents, how necessary were guns in parks in the first place?

    “Necessary?”

    If you have done nothing wrong, why is the Sixth Amendment “necessary?”

    If you have nothing to hide, why is the Fourth Amendment “necessary?”

    I haven’t committed any crimes lately (to the best of my knowledge, anyway), but I still defend the rights of criminal defendants.

    Why should it be the burden of the gun owner to prove the necessity for his gun any more than it is the burden of the believer to prove the necessity of his religion, the speaker to prove the necessity of his speech, or the criminal defendant to prove the necessity of his right to an attorney, a speedy and public trial by jury, the identity of his accuser, and witnesses on his behalf? These restrictions did not advance public safety and served simply to burden law-abiding gun owners and exclude them from enjoyment of public spaces equal to that enjoyed by other members of the public. Therefore, it was perfectly justified (and indeed, was the only just course of action) for the state to nullify their enforceability and for UA to officially remove them from its books.

    This is absolutely correct. The burden for justifying being in possession of a firearm is negated by the second amendment. The guarantee to all citizen of the right “to keep and bear arms” is quite clear, and no one should have to make a case to exercise that right. But, in fact, the laws in the land do impose that burden and accede to to a government selected and privileged class the exercise of that constitutionally guaranteed right. The fact that the supposed integrity of concealed permit holders is used to allay the concerns of those opposed to these laws is, quite frankly, offensive. Those persons have been granted a government issued imprimatur to exercise a right that is guaranteed to all citizens, not just to those that the government approves. But the argument is that there is no need to worry about being in the presence of those carrying these weapons because they have been approved to do so by the government. That, in and of itself, makes a mockery of the second amendment and, quite frankly, of anything in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution itself. If the laws are written to permit guns in the possession of citizens to be carried into any particular venues, those laws cannot be written to apply only to a privileged class of citizens. And the argument that there is no need to worry about what may happen in these venues because those who are in possession of weapons in these venues have been vetted, approved and certified to do so by government authorities is a justification of statutory authorization based not on the law of the land but on the basis of simple expediency. One would think that those who put themselves forward as defenders of the provisions of the Constitution would be better than that. They are not, they expose themselves to be merely political hacks.

    #1014446

    Schoolboy
    Participant

    I enjoy the warped logic that says that those concerned about guns only have a case after something bad happens. Here I thought this was about preventing something in some Wild West style gunslinging. But it does beg the question… if there haven’t been any incidents, how necessary were guns in parks in the first place?

    First, I was merely pointing out that both the title topic is not at all accurate.
    Second, your statement of some “wild west” scenerio playing out at a park is exactly why topics like these are so idiotic and childish.
    For one, that hasn’t happened in 7 years and isn’t going to happen in the next 7 either.

    If you want my opinion, which you don’t, is that I don’t want guns in any public space either.

    Posting a topic about preventing guns in parks 7 YEARS AFTER THE FACT is too little too late to do anything about it.

    Sorry, but this thread is pointless and will only entertain the “it’s my right!!!” vs the “OMG a gun!!!” type of posters.

    #1014449

    kit444
    Participant

    Sorry, but this thread is pointless and will only entertain the “it’s my right!!!” vs the “OMG a gun!!!” type of posters.

    So pointless you decided to comment on it and bring it back to the top of the messageboard.

    #1014484

    gramarye
    Participant

    My critique is not even with the 2nd. It’s with the underlying belief by gun owners that they are literally in danger at every second and in every location that they must carry deadly weapons to function rationally and with peace of mind.

    Why is that any different from the belief among non-owners that all gun owners (particularly those who do go through the legal requirements of licensing and permitting) are paranoid, pathological lunatics about to open fire on families in parks? Particularly when the objective evidence, while imperfect, shows precisely the opposite?

    In truth, most gun owners (and particularly most legal CCW permit holders) are not consumed by the belief that they are in constant danger at all times and places, nor do they believe that carrying a weapon is essential for them to function rationally and with peace of mind. That’s just your caricature of them.

    And while you may consider the First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment parallels to be meaningless and handwave them away, I don’t.

    #1014485
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    You’re right, I spend very little time worrying about irrational non-owners…mostly because they don’t have guns.

    #1014492

    gramarye
    Participant

    They might have massive, savage, terrifying attack dogs that need to be leashed, though. :-P

    #1014494

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <DIV class=d4p-bbt-quote-title>jbcmh81 wrote:</DIV>
    <P>Out of the two of us, I didn’t have gay Smurf porn cached in my pictures folder ready for instant posting. Just sayin. Whatever makes you happy :) </P>

    <P>I let the internet cache all my photos. They do great backups. </P>
    <P>Besides, nothing wrong with liking what you like. Free country and all; you don’t have to justify anything. You can confuse firearms and penises to your… erm… heart’s content.</P>
    <P>Gram schooled you on that above.</P>

    I’m sure you think so, considering your greatest contribution to the thread was cartoon porn.

    #1014520

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    First, I was merely pointing out that both the title topic is not at all accurate.<BR>Second, your statement of some “wild west” scenerio playing out at a park is exactly why topics like these are so idiotic and childish.<BR>For one, that hasn’t happened in 7 years and isn’t going to happen in the next 7 either.

    I didn’t suggest it was going to actually happen, I was suggesting that seems to be the expectation of some for the reasoning behind needing guns in parks. My question was what was the incidence of park violence before 2007 vs now? No one even attempted to answer that, and I don’t think it’s any real secret why. Gram suggested that asking for any justification for carrying firearms is in itself a violation of the 2nd Amendment, which would be interesting considering that other constitutional rights also have limits.

    <P>If you want my opinion, which you don’t, is that I don’t want guns in any public space either. </P>
    <P>Posting a topic about preventing guns in parks 7 YEARS AFTER THE FACT is too little too late to do anything about it. </P>

    That’s silly, though. People can’t discuss a topic the comes back into the news, and more importantly, what time limit is there on petitioning a change, whether locally, state or at the federal limit? Can you provide the statute of limitations on those?

    <P>Sorry, but this thread is pointless and will only entertain the “it’s my right!!!” vs the “OMG a gun!!!” type of posters.

    Yet here you are, contributing to it.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 117 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

The Columbus Coffee Festival Returns!

The 6th Annual Columbus Coffee Festival returns on Saturday September 25th and Sunday September 26th!

CLICK HERE FOR TICKETS & INFORMATION