Today’s MAGA treason- Jan. 6 insurrectionist Chris Alberts confessing while taking the stand today in his own defense at trial that he had a concealed weapon with 25 hollow point bullets when he violently and repeatedly attacked law enforcement at the Capitol. So much for your claims they were unarmed, as if that hadn’t already been proven false time and time again.
Jan. 6 apologist and conspiracy theorist (who, like you, claimed BLM and ANTIFA planned and carried out Jan 6, not Trump and his Trump army trying to “take our country back” with “trial by combat”) David Sumrall who the defense called as their final witness was wholly discredited when he was asked to identify the other violent criminals he knew that were part of what he called peaceful exercise of first amendment rights and he refused saying he wouldn’t “dox” those innocent people (who he claimed were BLM and ANTIFA remember, and now claims were FBI agents) by identifying them to police. D’oh! It all kinda fell apart on him, didn’t it?

Massive breach of procedure. We were taught in concealed carry school that the only person that should touch our concealed weapon in a police situation is the police. You keep your hands visible and NEVER touch the gun, even if the cops tell you to.

The ones that fired should be kicked off the force and banned from law enforcement. They should also get charged for his death and go to jail. This is just as bad as the cop that shot the drunk guy because they had him knee walking towards them and his pants were falling down. Guy reached to pull up his pants and got AR-15'ed to death.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/bail-set-pokemon-shootout-suspect-las-vegas-40938442

From the article:
"Police say Campos demanded items before dawn Monday from several people playing the popular smartphone game that sends players to physical locations to "catch" virtual Pokemon characters.

"One game player who police say had a concealed weapon permit drew his own gun and exchanged fire with Campos. Both were wounded with what police said were not life-threatening injuries."

I'll cover IUD's first. While there is some evidence that the older style copper ParaGard might have a slightly increase in preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, the evidence for the Mirena. Here are two medical journals documenting as such:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4018277
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13625180903519885
If those are too much reading, they are summarized in http://videosift.com/video/Myths-About-IUDs

Remember Google gives personalized search results. No two people get the same results, even when signed out of Google... More details at http://videosift.com/video/There-are-no-regular-results-on-Google-anymore

I'd also agree that there are many things America gets right. Overall it's a good country.

And I think I started out by pointing out it isn't about guns, or just about guns.

Now I'm not sure what you mean assigning attributes to the right. I was pointing out policies that are consistent with the conservative right, Republican platform positions that are not pro-life.

The Death Penalty. This is a typically Republican strong stance position. And has been at various times part of the party's official platform. The Democrat party official position supports the death penalty too, after a DNA testing and post-conviction review. The point isn't wither or not the Death Penalty is right or wrong, I'd personally argue it's wrong, it's the claim of being pro-life while supporting the death penalty. There can be no way to reconcile those two positions.

One needs only to look at how Bush and the present day regime of Republicans in Washington think of handling issues in the Middle East to see what that they support a strong military and an interventionist doctrine (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_War_+_Peace.htm). One of the key factors of the Bush Doctrine is preemptive strikes. While one normally wouldn't cite Wikipedia, I'll let their page on the Bush Doctrine and their references clear things up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine. Heck Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize largely just because he wasn't Bush... sadly he did little to lower US involvement in the Middle East, a situation we should have left alone ages ago. Again the Democrats aren't as peace loving as they should be, and generally the most peace loving people in Congress tend to be Libertarians (who object more to the expense of war than war itself, and love pointing out how the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011 cost more than NASA's entire history to that point, even after adjusting for inflation (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)) and Libertarian leaning Republicans like Ron Paul, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/). Again, war isn't pro-life, it is perhaps one of the most anti-life things one can support short of supporting murder itself.

It's also Republicans, aka the right, that are trying to undo the Affordable Health Care Act, a program that ironically enough is modeled after the ones they tried to pass twice under Bush Sr and once under Clinton as to oppose Democrat plans to push for a Single Payer system. Prior to the passing of Obamacare, the US was spending nearly twice as much on healthcare as a percentage of it's GDP than the next nation, and getting only the 37th best results . Just listen to the crowd at the September 12 2008 Republican debate that chant over and over "let him die" as a solution to a guy who needs medical care but elected not to buy private insurance. These same people are the one's who claim to be pro-life. Affordable health care should be a right, as it is in every civilized nation but the US. Obamacare is far from ideal, but much better than the previous policy of only those with good jobs could afford health care everyone else, die or go bankrupt, driving the costs of healthcare up more. One can't say they are pro-life and oppose affordable healthcare, including for services you don't support such as IUDs (it doesn't matter that I object to our overly huge military budget that is much bigger than the next several nations combined, so it shouldn't matter if some medical services such as IUDs are supported), as quality of life matters as much as being alive.

Related to guns however is the Republican stance on stand your ground. Watch Fox News and how they defend the use of guns, or how mass shootings would be avoided if people were carrying concealed weapons and could stop the shooters... again escalating things to a death penalty. Now in the case of a mass shooter, ideally you want to take them down alive, but if death is the only option, then I personally don't object. However stand your ground typically expands to home invasion, where criminals typically aren't looking kill, just rob the place. Here they defend the homeowner's right to shoot to kill (I've been in firearm safety classes, generally the aim is to aim for the center of mass, which will likely result in death, but the odds of making a shot at the legs to impede the crooks is very low, so if you shoot you have to assume it is to kill). This position is contrary to the pro-life stance. All life is equal... which could get into a whole other argument about how they don't value immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, people who just want to improve their lives by moving to what they hope is a better country that will allow for a better opportunity for them and their families, but the Republicans are fighting hard to stop them from improving their lives here just because an accident of birth made them born in another country than the US... heck just look at the way Republicans lined the buses of refugee children fleeing war and gang torn areas of Latin America and they shouted at the children.... children... to go home that nobody wanted them. That isn't a pro-life statement, to tell a child that nobody wants them. The pro-life position would be to want to nurture and protect the children fleeing a dangerous area... We should be moving to a world without borders, as that is the pro-life position, to realize we are all humans, and that we all must share this world, and that we should do all we can to protect one another and this world and all that inhabits it (except mosquitoes, roaches, most parasites, etc... lol)

As to high poverty rates, the Republican policy of trickle down economics helps drive that. Helps spread the ever growing income and wealth gaps in the US. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40% of the US population (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/). Now true, some could argue it isn't trickle down economic that is causing the growing wealth and income gaps, but the correlation is very strong, and one is hard pressed to find any other causative points beyond the rich paying less and less to their workers while taking more and more for themselves while the government eases the tax burden on the rich more and more.

Overall I think it's clear that the people who vote Republican because they are "pro-life" are hypocrites given the party's positions in key issues that aren't pro-life. I'm sure many, especially those on the right would disagree. They'd argue the death penalty is needed to discourage others from killing and therefore protects life, and that preemptive strikes ala the Bush Doctrine keep another 9/11 from happening (although the counter to that is fairly easily that we make more extremist the more we use those strikes). So one's mileage may very. For me, I think they are hypocritical saying they are pro-life if they don't value that life as much as their own after they are born.

While I would LIKE to think that's the case, I do believe that, if it was the law that one has to produce ID in that state/city/county and he refused, he would have at the least been handed a small fine by the judge, because his guilt would be obvious and on camera. EDIT: That's actually how I want judges to behave, leeway on sentencing, but if the law was obviously unequivocally broken, conviction.

I think it's rare that a judge completely throws out a good case just because it's silly, unfortunately. That would put him/her at odds with the police big time. How would the police know if any stop they make will be considered 'frivolous' or 'silly' by whichever judge they happen to get?

According to all I can find on Google, there's no stop and ID law in Virginia, where this happened. They tried to create one in Richmond, Va, but it was thrown out because they had not made a law requiring all people to HAVE ID, so the law was useless and completely unenforceable.
Also, what I can find said that in states where there IS a 'stop and ID' law, the officer must still have a reasonable suspicion you are committing a crime to enact it. (In this case, the empty holster gives reasonable suspicion he has a concealed weapon, which would be another legitimate reason to ask for ID in many states, or at least the concealed weapon permit which would serve the same purpose...but not in Virginia)

We already live in an illusion of safety. Even if Open-carry was world-wide, people still will (and do) conceal weapons regardless.

I would love to rid the world of firearms entirely, but the fact that it is literally impossible due to the proliferation of unlicensed weapons, (something no law can fix), and that I don't trust any government to protect, and not victimize, me (also why I agree with the pro-gun nuts) is the primary reason I feel that way.

Why concealed?

I'd rather not have anyone around me concealing a gun. imo, if you have a gun, it should be visible, so that everyone knows you have it.

To me, concealment only sounds more comforting if you're under the assumption that no one has a gun. No one has one, and the few who do maintain that illusion by hiding theirs. But that's just an illusion, there are people out there who do have guns, so having them hidden is unnerving.

They should have to show their guns so that everyone knows they have them, as that knowledge is reassuring. You now know who has them and those who are hiding them should be arrested for concealing weapons in public, as there should be no reason to conceal a weapon.

Yeah, but this is one of those jackasses who parades around public with a fucking firearm on their hip. I'm honestly not sure which one is the robot in these scenarios.

I completely understand both sides of the pro/anti-gun standpoint. I could make valid arguments for either side, but in the end I'm relatively certain everyone wants to live in safety.

Walking around with your insecurity-compensation-unit out is simply stating "I can't find any other way to make a point than make everyone around me feel incredibly uncomfortable." I would much rather have it that people were allowed to carry concealed weapons.

Hmm, maybe he was let off because he said; "Officer, I have a concealed weapon in the glove box." "oh, ok," says the officer. And, whilst weighing up that information, he was confronted with the; "I'm a bad m/fucker" wallet. It's possible that the cop - when at the back of the car - was thinking hard about the consequences of giving the guy a ticket. What would you have done?

@chilaxe OK now I follow you.

When you evaluate something like the "average level" of muslims in denmark and compare with those in the US, you have to account for the selection process that happens before they even decide to come here or there. It's much easier to get into Denmark, even considering the somewhat draconic immigration policies, than it is to get into the US. The US, at least used to, import people of high academic standing and somewhat accomplished people, which heightens that average level. And in general, since you are not close to muslim countries, it's simply more costly for any given family to get over there in the first place, which already, naturally if you will, selects higher level people to move over there.


The weapons issue does depend on numbers, but you must be careful not to look too shortsighted at them.

If people have ready access to concealed carry weapons, it would be easier for "bad guys" to get these weapons as well - just because there would be more guns in circulation. Guns can be stolen too, sold, lost etc.

If everyone has a gun on them, to take it to an extreme, some people would be made quite nervous by it, and they might even accidentally shoot someone if they thought they needed to defend themselves - everywhere would become like a slum, where you have to be super careful about going about your business.

If you carry a weapon, proper training is pretty important. The video above has the situation quite biased against the amateurs, but still they do show how little they can handle their weapons and the situation. It's not just a point and click interface as the games would have you believe.

Bar fights would/could end poorly.

Road rage incidents would/could end poorly.

Random people, say in protest rallies, would have an opportunity to shoot at people they disagreed with (imagine anti-nazi protests, people fucking hate those guys).

Bad incidents with cops might leave you with a cop down or you down, since the cops have to be even more careful since they're on the fringe of "dangerous territory" already - if everyone has guns, being a cop just got waay more dangerous.

My point is that you can't simply look at how many concealed weapons are used in robberies, violent crimes etc now, because there are indirect sources as well.


I don't want to remove weapons alltogether, I just want them better regulated, better controller and limited where they are not needed. In a civilized society, they are not needed.

@bobknight33

Jan. 21 2012, St. Charles Illinois; A gun owner with a concealed carry permit accidentally shoots a man through the chest after a night fundraiser at St. Patrick Catholic Church.

May 24 2011, Orlando Florida; A concealed weapon accidentally discharges in the lobby of a restaurant injuring 4 people injured, including a 4 year old boy and the gun owner. The owner had a concealed weapon permit.

November 9, 2012; Colorado University - a woman accidentally shoots a co-worker on the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical campus. The woman, who has a concealed carry permit, told police she bought the gun because of neighborhood concerns and recent campus thefts.

July 7 2009, Tampa Florida; While squatting down to use the toilet, the handgun of a woman with a concealed weapon permit falls out of her holster, hits the ground and discharges, shooting the woman sitting in the next stall.

January 24 2012, Dallas Texas; A 23 year old with a concealed carry permit accidentally drops his weapon while in line at a Walmart, injuring himself and 3 others, including 2 young children, when the weapon discharges.

We can do this all day. That's 1 google search and a few minutes of copy pasta.

Hypothetical:
Lets say a few people started carrying weapons at schools and wherever.
Some random kid comes in and starts shooting.
One of the kids with concealed weapons manage to stay calm, get cover, and unholster their gun. He tries to get in a shot, and in doing so, another innocent kid with a gun sees him and mistakes him for another gunman as well. This kid then shoots the other kid. Repeat until everybody with guns are dead.

Why does everybody seem to know that they immediately can assess the situation well enough to not kill other innocent people that are also trying to save the situation?

It is a fantasy. It might occasionally come true, due to luck, circumstances or whatever, but that doesn't mean that should be the go-to method.
Guns should be used for hunting. Fully automatic weapons have nothing to do with hunting, and should be banned. Permit should require checkups at a shooting range.

Run. Hide. Call 911. Don't carry guns!

Sheesh.. Can't believe we're having this discussion..

If I own an empty gun case, should I be charged for carrying an concealed weapon?
Even if I don't own a gun? Should the police be sent to my door search my house?

Agreed with most of everything said here and I'd add :

• In any confrontation on the street start off thinking your opponent has a concealed weapon : keep your distance as much as possible
• If distance is closed in, immediately evaluate improvised weapons and protection (leather jacket wrapped around forearm, stick, sand, ...) before things get ugly and tunnel vision kicks in.
• The aim is to get the upper hand with accessories of your own and anything will do to hit, blind, surprise, distract...
• All this with one objective : a clean line of escape.

Oh and about having a knife of your own all the time .... you do realize that means you're going to kill someone ? Either that or someone else will kill you with it. No bringing it out just for show.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:


If Trayvon had been the one holding the gun when police arrived..
Best believe he'd have been sitting in cell facing 1st degree murder charges on February 27th or 28th.


He'd probably have about 40 bullet holes in him.
>> ^Yogi:


Although they're pretty stupid, I don't think they're that stupid. They didn't write the law in such a way, and there's other things to consider. He's not going to just walk, it's going to be an interesting trial and it may mean the death of this stupid bill.


Well that's the point of laws. Solid rules you follow no matter what so everyone knows the deal. Unfortunately I dont speak legalese. But a sound law is intelligible to the common man and widely understood. The 'public' version of this law is 'if you are scared for your life you can pull a concealed weapon and murder the other guy first'.
So it seems like either civil society or the common understanding of law is history down there. Be interesting to see which.