Regal Cinema's new "security policy"

[soberups]

It is not rhetorical because the scenario you describe has happened in the past and some seem trying to make it happen in areas again.

Now if TOS were gun czar and said all middle age white guys had to give up their guns because statistically they are more likely to be mass shooters, that would be illegal. But having a uniform law fairly applied regardless of how invasive an individual thinks it is not unconstitutional.

But the law isnt uniformly applied.

I can carry a concealed handgun legally in 36 states. But in the state of New Jersey, I am a felon for even having posession of one in the trunk of my car. How is that fair or uniform?

The antis keep crying out for nationwide licensing, more background checks, more fingerprinting, more training, more registration, blah blah blah. OK, so as a gun owner, if I am willing to compromise by agreeing to submit to all that in order to exercise my Constitutional right, what are they willing to compromise on?

The answer is nothing, because their real goal is to make the "right" of gun ownership so expensive and so heavily regulated that only the elite and politically connected can exercise it.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

But the law isnt uniformly applied.

I can carry a concealed handgun legally in 36 states. But in the state of New Jersey, I am a felon for even having posession of one in the trunk of my car. How is that fair or uniform?

The antis keep crying out for nationwide licensing, more background checks, more fingerprinting, more training, more registration, blah blah blah. OK, so as a gun owner, if I am willing to compromise by agreeing to submit to all that in order to exercise my Constitutional right, what are they willing to compromise on?

The answer is nothing, because their real goal is to make the "right" of gun ownership so expensive and so heavily regulated that only the elite and politically connected can exercise it.

On the other side, there are also people who's real goal is to allow anyone to buy and carry any gun without registration or licensing or training.
I'm grateful the NRA nutjobs are battling the anti-gun nutjobs and vice versa.
Sadly, that's the only way we'll get a balanced approach to guns.

 

[bbsam]

But the law isnt uniformly applied.

I can carry a concealed handgun legally in 36 states. But in the state of New Jersey, I am a felon for even having posession of one in the trunk of my car. How is that fair or uniform?

The antis keep crying out for nationwide licensing, more background checks, more fingerprinting, more training, more registration, blah blah blah. OK, so as a gun owner, if I am willing to compromise by agreeing to submit to all that in order to exercise my Constitutional right, what are they willing to compromise on?

The answer is nothing, because their real goal is to make the "right" of gun ownership so expensive and so heavily regulated that only the elite and politically connected can exercise it.

Well now you're arguing against "states rights". Do you really want the same gun laws in every state, city, towns, etc.?

 

[brett636]

Well now you're arguing against "states rights". Do you really want the same gun laws in every state, city, towns, etc.?

Yes when the patchwork of laws that vary from state to state, or even municipality to municipality, can mean the difference between freedom or jail time with a felony record. That's a terrible mark to have on your name when all you did is carry an inanimate object from one place to another.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Yes when the patchwork of laws that vary from state to state, or even municipality to municipality, can mean the difference between freedom or jail time with a felony record. That's a terrible mark to have on your name when all you did is carry an inanimate object from one place to another.

So you're all for states rights unless a state wants to enact laws you personally disagree with. Typical.

 

[bbsam]

Yes when the patchwork of laws that vary from state to state, or even municipality to municipality, can mean the difference between freedom or jail time with a felony record. That's a terrible mark to have on your name when all you did is carry an inanimate object from one place to another.

Then THE gun law will swing wildly on political winds.

 

[soberups]

NYPD's finest fired 84 rounds at a criminal, and hit him once. In the leg. He was a wanted criminal with a stolen gun who used it to shoot a person he robbed, in a city with some of the strictest gun control in the United States. So please....tell me again how we would all be safer if only the police carried guns. Tell me again how calling 911 and cowering like a dog is safer than being armed and able to fight back.
https://api.viglink.com/api/click?f...obbery-suspect-hit-him-once-police/ar-AAdWWsv

 

[soberups]

Well now you're arguing against "states rights". Do you really want the same gun laws in every state, city, towns, etc.?

The antis are the ones who want Federal bans and background checks and licensing in all 50 states.

I want the same 2nd Amendment rights in every state, city, town etc just like I want the same 1st and 4th and 14th amendment rights in every state, city and town.

Imagine going to New Jersey and being arrested and charged with a felony for having a Bible in your car. Fortunately, that isn't something one has to worry about because the First Amendment protects our rights to the freedom of religion and freedom of the press. But if you substitute a gun for that Bible....a gun that you are allowed to own (and even carry concealed in 36 other states)...you are committing a felony the moment you cross the New Jersey state line.

I'm trying to be reasonable here. The anti's want "common sense" background checks and licensing in all 50 states. OK, maybe I'm willing to compromise there, but "common sense" and compromise need to work both ways. If they want to treat guns like cars, fine. My drivers license is recognized in all 50 states. My license plates and car registration are valid in all 50 states. Why shouldn't my concealed carry license also be valid in all 50 states? Its what they want, right?

 

[bbsam]

The antis are the ones who want Federal bans and background checks and licensing in all 50 states.

I want the same 2nd Amendment rights in every state, city, town etc just like I want the same 1st and 4th and 14th amendment rights in every state, city and town.

Imagine going to New Jersey and being arrested and charged with a felony for having a Bible in your car. Fortunately, that isn't something one has to worry about because the First Amendment protects our rights to the freedom of religion and freedom of the press. But if you substitute a gun for that Bible....a gun that you are allowed to own (and even carry concealed in 36 other states)...you are committing a felony the moment you cross the New Jersey state line.

I'm trying to be reasonable here. The anti's want "common sense" background checks and licensing in all 50 states. OK, maybe I'm willing to compromise there, but "common sense" and compromise need to work both ways. If they want to treat guns like cars, fine. My drivers license is recognized in all 50 states. My license plates and car registration are valid in all 50 states. Why shouldn't my concealed carry license also be valid in all 50 states? Its what they want, right?

I don't have a problem with that. But the standards would need to be fairly strict. I mean. CC in upstate Vermont is different than downtown Chicago. But if training and standards can be brought to fruition, why not? Are we talking a national registry for CC? I think that's fairly reasonable.

 

[bbsam]

NYPD's finest fired 84 rounds at a criminal, and hit him once. In the leg. He was a wanted criminal with a stolen gun who used it to shoot a person he robbed, in a city with some of the strictest gun control in the United States. So please....tell me again how we would all be safer if only the police carried guns. Tell me again how calling 911 and cowering like a dog is safer than being armed and able to fight back.
https://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_144146600532911&key=c9246c98dde50798bb7df61a96d69abf&libId=ie77l6ik01001se7000DAg30wpri4&loc=https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/cops-fire-84-shots-at-robbery-suspect-hit-him-once-police.204856/&v=1&out=http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cops-fire-84-shots-at-robbery-suspect-hit-him-once-police/ar-AAdWWsv&ref=https://www.northwestfirearms.com/forums/legal-political.24/&title=Cops fire 84 shots at robbery suspect, hit him once: police | Northwest Firearms&txt=http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...obbery-suspect-hit-him-once-police/ar-AAdWWsv

So if a 10 CC people joined in the firefight, all would have been over with a single well placed shot? C'mon, sober. That's ridiculous.

 

[soberups]

So if a 10 CC people joined in the firefight, all would have been over with a single well placed shot? C'mon, sober. That's ridiculous.

The liberal mantra has always been that only the police should carry guns, that private citizens do not have the training to defend themselves with guns, and that "gun free zones" keep us all safe from the bad guys.

My point in posting this was to illustrate that the police are merely human and that issuance of a badge does not automatically confer upon its wearer a superior skill with firearms. Call me crazy, but I prefer to rely upon my own resources for protection rather than calling 911 and cowering in a corner, and I am not naïve enough to think that being in a "gun free zone" somehow makes me safer.

 

[bbsam]

The liberal mantra has always been that only the police should carry guns, that private citizens do not have the training to defend themselves with guns, and that "gun free zones" keep us all safe from the bad guys.

My point in posting this was to illustrate that the police are merely human and that issuance of a badge does not automatically confer upon its wearer a superior skill with firearms. Call me crazy, but I prefer to rely upon my own resources for protection rather than calling 911 and cowering in a corner, and I am not naïve enough to think that being in a "gun free zone" somehow makes me safer.

You've been suckered. You claim "liberal mantra" and will probably quote NRA "grades" but it's that side that insists that all gun laws are an "infringement". I have never heard Joe Biden, Ed Rendell, Bill Clinton, Jim Webb, or any of a great deal of other "liberals" make the statements you hang on them. You might get such from a Pelosi or a Sanders here or there, but it's a small crowd and occasionally they pander to a small portion of the electorate.

 

[soberups]

I don't have a problem with that. But the standards would need to be fairly strict. I mean. CC in upstate Vermont is different than downtown Chicago. But if training and standards can be brought to fruition, why not? Are we talking a national registry for CC? I think that's fairly reasonable.

How is it different? Gun safety is gun safety, and situational awareness is situational awareness regardless of your location. I would not be opposed to high standards, but they would have to be fair and realistic standards that were created by people with actual knowledge and training about guns. And the cost of the licensing should either be free or minimal. The right to self-defense should not only belong to the wealthy and privileged elite. This is my biggest problem with Michael Bloomberg; he campaigns to deny gun rights to the unwashed masses, yet he has used his wealth and political connections to secure New York and New Jersey gun permits for his personal bodyguards that are impossible for the normal person to obtain. Even worse, he owns a residence in Bermuda, which is part of the UK and where guns are prohibited, making the entire island a "gun free zone". Even the police don't routinely carry guns, yet Bloomberg has obtained permission for his bodyguards to be armed. If "gun free zones" are good enough for the rest of us, why not for him?

 

[bbsam]

How is it different? Gun safety is gun safety, and situational awareness is situational awareness regardless of your location. I would not be opposed to high standards, but they would have to be fair and realistic standards that were created by people with actual knowledge and training about guns. And the cost of the licensing should either be free or minimal. The right to self-defense should not only belong to the wealthy and privileged elite. This is my biggest problem with Michael Bloomberg; he campaigns to deny gun rights to the unwashed masses, yet he has used his wealth and political connections to secure New York and New Jersey gun permits for his personal bodyguards that are impossible for the normal person to obtain. Even worse, he owns a residence in Bermuda, which is part of the UK and where guns are prohibited, making the entire island a "gun free zone". Even the police don't routinely carry guns, yet Bloomberg has obtained permission for his bodyguards to be armed. If "gun free zones" are good enough for the rest of us, why not for him?

I think the training should be free and provided by the National Guard.

Yes, gun safety is gun safety everywhere and if the training is rigorous and thorough, why not?

 

[soberups]

You've been suckered. You claim "liberal mantra" and will probably quote NRA "grades" but it's that side that insists that all gun laws are an "infringement". I have never heard Joe Biden, Ed Rendell, Bill Clinton, Jim Webb, or any of a great deal of other "liberals" make the statements you hang on them. You might get such from a Pelosi or a Sanders here or there, but it's a small crowd and occasionally they pander to a small portion of the electorate.

What is their voting record on nationwide reciprocity for carry permits?

You are the one who seemed to advocate a "states rights" approach to gun laws, yet the names you mention are all on record as supporting federal bans on guns and federal laws requiring licensing and background checks and waiting periods. You cant have it both ways.....

 

[soberups]

I think the training should be free and provided by the National Guard.

Yes, gun safety is gun safety everywhere and if the training is rigorous and thorough, why not?

Actually, the NRA was a gun training and safety organization long before it became a political lobbying group. From a competency standpoint, it would be far better equipped than the National Guard to teach defensive handgun skills.

 

[bbsam]

What is their voting record on nationwide reciprocity for carry permits?

You are the one who seemed to advocate a "states rights" approach to gun laws, yet the names you mention are all on record as supporting federal bans on guns and federal laws requiring licensing and background checks and waiting periods. You cant have it both ways.....

Listen to yourself. You're hung up on the reciprocity. If someone is against that, you insist that their "liberal anti gun". No. Find another way. You'll never get where you want to by calling names.

 

[bbsam]

Actually, the NRA was a gun training and safety organization long before it became a political lobbying group. From a competency standpoint, it would be far better equipped than the National Guard to teach defensive handgun skills.

Maybe before they became a lobbying group. They've tarnished their reputation.

 

[oldngray]

Maybe before they became a lobbying group. They've tarnished their reputation.

You confuse the NRA with NRA-ILA. Two separate organizations.

 

[MrFedEx]

So you're all for states rights unless a state wants to enact laws you personally disagree with. Typical.

They don't get this. Don't you understand? Jesus wants all of us to have a gun and to use them to shoot gays and blacks.