DescentBB

Isaac, let me address your point about not having a round in the chamber and how you should rack the slide on a semi-auto when you need to use it. So you know I'm not spray painting on a air canvass, I shot on a league for six years and shot in IDPA matches. I had NRA range officers instructing us and police officers shooting with us. At no time did anyone ever suggest not having a round in the chamber. I keep a round in battery and the hammer in the half notch position (half notch position prevents a hammer from being partially pulled back, released and causing the firearm to discharge accidentally). I also don't keep the safety on. Now you may think this is nutty but here's the reason.

In a stress situation, your mind is focused on the threat and is not thinking about much else. You understand you have a gun but your brain is not remembering to rack the slide or remove the safety. All your brain is telling you is that you have to get your gun and shoot. Forgetting to rack the slide or remove the safety is a very bad thing for you to do and could cost you your life.
My view is if the situation is serious enough to draw my handgun, it means I'm going to be using it. To illustrate my point the following is a occurrence where a jeweler had a pistol and tried to use it to save himself from a burglar:

"The man pointed to the counter and blurted out, “How much is that watch?” Says Schram, “He almost asked the question before he looked. I said, 'It’s $500.’ I didn’t even care what it was.” The man turned away. “As he turned, he bent down. I don’t know why, but I knew exactly what he was doing,” says Schram. Knowing that the “customer” was going to draw a weapon, the jeweler pulled out his own gun. “I beat him to the draw. There was only one problem: I forgot to take the safety off. I’m not James Bond. This isn’t something I do all the time.”

Startled, the intruder opened fire. “He didn’t have to worry about a safety; he had a revolver, a Saturday-night special,” Schram says. “Unfortunately, five of his bullets hit me; four in the abdomen and one in the arm.” A sixth bullet struck the wall. No doubt thinking Schram was going to shoot him, the man ran to the door but couldn’t get out; the security system required Schram to buzz him out. “He comes back to me; I get down on the floor under my desk. I have my gun in my hand. I don’t know why it’s not working. I’m thinking, 'I’m gonna die. I just got shot. I’m not dreaming. I have 2-year-old twin girls.’ ”

Instinctively, Schram put his hands out in a defensive posture, not realizing he was still holding his gun. The intruder seized the opportunity. “He just reaches up and takes the gun out of my hands and puts it in his waist,”

So if you want to walk around with your defensive pistol unloaded or on safe, be my guest. Just don't be surprised if your gun doesn't go bang when you need it too.

callmeslick wrote:get back to me when guns are being confiscated, or law-abiding citizens cannot buy a handgun.

If the Dems had their way, they couldn't, Washington DC being a prime example.

ummm, the SCOTUS struck that down long ago.

callmeslick wrote:get back to me when guns are being confiscated, or law-abiding citizens cannot buy a handgun.

slick, you implied that what i cited, that the Dems often use regulation to 'effectively' outlaw things they can't stop by outlawing them outright, was untrue.
So before I move on to your diversion you can support your assertion....or was that yet another in your long string of dishonest statements?

regulation is not outlaw. I can't think of one 'regulated' activity(Dem or GOP sponsored) that becomes impossible. Frankly, the Dems are given to sort of wussie regulations(see current post 2008 banking law) with lots of loopholes. Now, what the GOP tries to do with 'regulations' on abortions or 'regulation' of voting hours, there might be some precedent for regulation become a defacto outlaw. It just doesn't ever seem to work that way in Dem hands, so you all simply have your attributions wrong.

callmeslick wrote:ummm, the SCOTUS struck that down long ago.

Try and get a conceal carry permit there. In short the Dems will try and find a way to regulate you out of your firearm. Like

Put exorbitant taxes on ammo.
Shut down plants that make lead bullets
Try to mandate electronic firearm

If it wasn't for SOCTUS, the Dems would have banned firearms a long time ago. And who knows what might happen in the future when the Supreme Court gets packed with libs. Don't think for a moment the Dems aren't still looking for ways to part evetyone from their guns (and bibles too if they could swing it.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:ummm, the SCOTUS struck that down long ago.

Try and get a conceal carry permit there.

and that is pertinent to owning one, how?

In short the Dems will try and find a way to regulate you out of your firearm. Like

Put exorbitant taxes on ammo.
Shut down plants that make lead bullets
Try to mandate electronic firearm

none of those have ever come remotely close to reality, so we return to the Land of Hallucination and Exaggeration once again.

If it wasn't for SOCTUS, the Dems would have banned firearms a long time ago. And who knows what might happen in the future when the Supreme Court gets packed with libs. Don't think for a moment the Dems aren't still looking for ways to part evetyone from their guns (and bibles too if they could swing it.

most of the current(very freely interpreted) precedent law was established by a court with majority Democratic makeup. Feel free to continue with the fantasy, just don't operate heavy machinery for a few more hours.

slick, you have some very selective logic that you apply, and remarkably it seems to break right down the political partisan line. Just a coincidence I suppose.

For example, if Repubs want to demand a photo ID regulation for voting you see harm in that.

But if Obama and the Dem's put a gun store out of business with 'regulations' we are just paranoid for mentioning it because people can still buy guns.

So remember next time you want to complain about a push for voter photo ID requirements that you are just being paranoid because people can still vote. Get back to us when they can't.

Why is this thread back on top? Necro? Anyway...

woodchip wrote:Isaac, let me address your point about not having a round in the chamber and how you should rack the slide on a semi-auto when you need to use it. So you know I'm not spray painting on a air canvass, I shot on a league for six years and shot in IDPA matches. I had NRA range officers instructing us and police officers shooting with us. At no time did anyone ever suggest not having a round in the chamber. I keep a round in battery and the hammer in the half notch position (half notch position prevents a hammer from being partially pulled back, released and causing the firearm to discharge accidentally). I also don't keep the safety on. Now you may think this is nutty but here's the reason.

.......

So if you want to walk around with your defensive pistol unloaded or on safe, be my guest. Just don't be surprised if your gun doesn't go bang when you need it too.

It's been a while and my opinion has changed. I think if you want to carry with a round in the chamber with the safety off, all you need is a good holster. They have amazing holsters for Glocks and similar guns. They make some really nice IWB holsters that will let you carry your Glock 19 with a round in the chamber, making the holster itself the safety. I like that idea, because I hate safeties on guns and I'll never depend on one. Now, I don't see any reason to buy anything but a revolver, except that I think Glocks and 1911s are fun to shoot. I did just pick up a nice pump-action shotgun, which has a stupid thumb safety on the back. I seriously would like to remove it, because I prefer to rack a round when I'm going to shoot, not when I store the weapon.

callmeslick wrote:get back to me when guns are being confiscated, or law-abiding citizens cannot buy a handgun.

They generally like to restrict where you can carry. Democrat might not be anti-gun, but they sure as hell are anti-conceal carry. You should be allowed to carry anywhere open to the public. Democrats seem to be content on making you leave it at home, as much as possible.

Will Robinson wrote:slick, you have some very selective logic that you apply, and remarkably it seems to break right down the political partisan line. Just a coincidence I suppose.

For example, if Repubs want to demand a photo ID regulation for voting you see harm in that.

right, because it suppresses voting rights.

But if Obama and the Dem's put a gun store out of business with 'regulations' we are just paranoid for mentioning it because people can still buy guns.

when gun stores go out of business, or sales plummet, I'll listen to your argument. Until then, it's just paranoid rambling.

So remember next time you want to complain about a push for voter photo ID requirements that you are just being paranoid because people can still vote. Get back to us when they can't.

further, the harm there has been proven, and even more important, THE ID LAW SOLVES A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN NOT TO EXIST. On the other hand, we have rampant gun violence, with near-daily examples showing that SOME of that violence is due to lax oversight of who is buying weapons.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:slick, you have some very selective logic that you apply, and remarkably it seems to break right down the political partisan line. Just a coincidence I suppose.

For example, if Repubs want to demand a photo ID regulation for voting you see harm in that.

right, because it suppresses voting rights.

And putting gun related retailers on a 'dangerous' business list suppresses the retailers earnings. For an internet based retailer, not being able to process credit cards, effectively puts them out of business. A legal business being shut down through regulation that doesn't even apply to them...but was designed specifically to have that effect! A despicable tactic, brought to you by your party.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:But if Obama and the Dem's put a gun store out of business with 'regulations' we are just paranoid for mentioning it because people can still buy guns.

when gun stores go out of business, or sales plummet, I'll listen to your argument. Until then, it's just paranoid rambling.

And when asking for an ID at the voting booth makes voter turnout plummet I'll listen to yours....

Will Robinson wrote:And when asking for an ID at the voting booth makes voter turnout plummet I'll listen to yours....

it has, within certain demographics(elderly, rural poor, hispanic) when it has been utilized. So, I assume you are now paying attention(fat chance, huh?).

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And when asking for an ID at the voting booth makes voter turnout plummet I'll listen to yours....

it has, within certain demographics(elderly, rural poor, hispanic) when it has been utilized. So, I assume you are now paying attention(fat chance, huh?).

Prove it! You constantly proclaim cause and effect that is discovered to be false. As in a lie.
So the burden is on you to overcome your reputation for boldly lying and prove voting turnout has plummeted from photo ID requirements.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And when asking for an ID at the voting booth makes voter turnout plummet I'll listen to yours....

it has, within certain demographics(elderly, rural poor, hispanic) when it has been utilized. So, I assume you are now paying attention(fat chance, huh?).

Prove it! You constantly proclaim cause and effect that is discovered to be false. As in a lie.
So the burden is on you to overcome your reputation for boldly lying and prove voting turnout has plummeted from photo ID requirements.

We'll see once we've gone through a few election cycles, especially in a presidential election. Most of these voter ID laws are still fairly new and were put in since past the last major election. I'm guessing we'll see a drop in voting numbers by seniors and minorities.

"Ansolabehere (2007) used this data to demonstrate that exclusions from voting are exceptionally rare. Twenty-two respondents out of the 36,421person sample said voter-ID
requirements prevented them from voting."

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/defa ... t%20al.pdf

If you read the the file you will see a far greater number don't vote simply because they are too lazy to do so. Spending time on arguing the merits of voter ID problems would be better spent motivating people to vote.

You know, if the jeweler had spent time training himself with his weapon that would not have happened. A safety makes good sense as does keeping a round in the pipe. Anyone that is going to carry should holster and fire their weapon repeatedly until it becomes second nature. 99% of the time the safety is going to be easier and faster to disengage than pulling the hammer back.

Not even people got gun because gun is very dangerous cause u can kill people. you can use gun to protect your self.


____________
custom automatic knives

Will Robinson wrote:And when asking for an ID at the voting booth makes voter turnout plummet I'll listen to yours....

Oooopsie!

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/05 ... aw/371302/

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And when asking for an ID at the voting booth makes voter turnout plummet I'll listen to yours....

Oooopsie!

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/05 ... aw/371302/

See, it wasn't designed to stop black people. It was designed to make all voters show ID...completely non-racial regulation...equal opportunity. It worked, and no one missed the opportunity to vote.
In fact most places will let you vote without the ID and hold your vote as provisional until you can return to show the ID just like when they cant find your name on the roster etc.

Will Robinson wrote: See, it wasn't designed to stop black people. It was designed to make all voters show ID...completely non-racial regulation...equal opportunity. It worked, and no one missed the opportunity to vote.
In fact most places will let you vote without the ID and hold your vote as provisional until you can return to show the ID just like when they cant find your name on the roster etc.

equal opportunity sounds good until you realize that the people who passed it had extensive data showing it would over-supress votes in demographics that don't vote for them: i.e-minorities, older people(older minorities most of all) and students. That same party has been getting killed by student voting, in many recent cycles. So, while the brouhaha tends to center on minorities, the GOP is really aiming the guns at students/younger voters first, and if the rounds catch some older minority voters, or rural black folks, all the better.

Students couldn't get a voter ID?

slick post that "data" that they have to supports your position because Woody posted a pretty thorough study that says you are full of crap.

And, yea ST, Students with trouble getting ID cards'?!?! Lol!

slick is accustomed to preaching to the kool-aid drinking choir.

I only scanned the article, but they only say that they fail to reject the null hypothesis that increasing voting requirements doesn't affect turnout. This doesn't mean that they confirmed it. Their method may just lack statistical power. If they wanted to confirm the hypothesis that voting turnout doesn't have a certain effect, they could (e.g.) do two one-sided hypothesis tests.

Woah, woah Jeff250, settle down. Facts are not welcome in this forum.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Students couldn't get a voter ID?

students often move, and have many of the needed papers at their home locale(out of state). For whatever reason, it has been shown that voter ID laws lower the percentage of students voting. To bolster this, most 'photo ID' laws make a point of disallowing STUDENT PHOTO ID.

Will Robinson wrote:slick post that "data" that they have to supports your position because Woody posted a pretty thorough study that says you are full of crap.

as noted by Jeff, it does no such thing. I don't have the studies, but the PA GOP admitted that such had been conducted, in a court hearing a few years back.

And, yea ST, Students with trouble getting ID cards'?!?! Lol!

North Carolina, Texas and Georgia specifically BANNED the use of school photo ID.

slick is accustomed to preaching to the kool-aid drinking choir.

no, Slick lives in the real world, not the hate-filled fantasy land that you find comfy.

The study Woody linked to does a whole lot more to disprove your claims than your proclamation does to prove them acurate. In spite of the high opinion you have of yourself many of us have seen you try to pass off false statements as being supported by fact... So a little evidence would be nice.

But since you cited "data" that was used to support your claims why don't you simply share it with us to prove me wrong?
You did actually see this "data" you cited...right?

Jeff250 wrote:I only scanned the article, but they only say that they fail to reject the null hypothesis that increasing voting requirements doesn't affect turnout. This doesn't mean that they confirmed it. Their method may just lack statistical power. If they wanted to confirm the hypothesis that voting turnout doesn't have a certain effect, they could (e.g.) do two one-sided hypothesis tests.

They said what they have found so far is the voter ID laws "have not had a significant impact on voter turnout". That is contrary to what slick claims to be found in "data" that he cited, data that I'm betting either doesn't exist or is rhetoric on some lefty blog that confirms his partisan bias therefore it 'must be' true.

After reading the whole thing I came to the conclusion that there is no evidence that shows what slick claims to be true and it is yet to be seen if results will trend toward supporting his claims.
Considering the partisan nature of the claims he makes on a regular basis I think the reality will never result in the outcomes as he says he already has proof of.

Easy solution: slick shares some actual evidence to prove it.

Helpful hint: Find the argument from other side of the law suit that Woody's link is from and maybe he will actually have something. Although I believe Woody's source prevailed in the case so maybe he still won't have any data....

Vision, here's a helpful hint for you: just because slick says something doesn't make it true. And if he uses insults to defend it when challenged he is most likely lying.

Will Robinson wrote:They said what they have found so far is the voter ID laws "have not had a significant impact on voter turnout". That is contrary to what slick claims to be found in "data" that he cited, data that I'm betting either doesn't exist or is rhetoric on some lefty blog that confirms his partisan bias therefore it 'must be' true.

so far is the critical part, because, as was patiently pointed out to you, most all of the laws got squelched before the last election. Thus, 'so far' means that very little has been enacted.

Please, note the speech made by the sponsor of the bill around voter ID in PA. He clearly states that the goal of the act is to enable greater GOP success. It's easily found on google.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:They said what they have found so far is the voter ID laws "have not had a significant impact on voter turnout". That is contrary to what slick claims to be found in "data" that he cited, data that I'm betting either doesn't exist or is rhetoric on some lefty blog that confirms his partisan bias therefore it 'must be' true.

so far is the critical part, because, as was patiently pointed out to you, most all of the laws got squelched before the last election. Thus, 'so far' means that very little has been enacted.

Please, note the speech made by the sponsor of the bill around voter ID in PA. He clearly states that the goal of the act is to enable greater GOP success. It's easily found on google.

How can what might happen have any effect on what you claim to be able to prove has happened?
Show me the substance behind the claims you made instead of changing your position to what might happen.

Or, let's just use your own benchmark, your own criteria for justifying consideration for the claim:
'when democrat turnout plummets, I'll listen to your argument. Until then, it's just paranoid rambling.'

Will Robinson wrote: How can what might happen have any effect on what you claim to be able to prove has happened?
Show me the substance behind the claims you made instead of changing your position to what might happen.

I never said a damn thing about it having happened yet. This will essentially be the first cycle where the GOP has voter supression laws in place. Not just ID, out and out supression, like curtaiing early voting, restricting the window for verification of provisionals, elimination of Sunday voting, moving polling places far away from college campuses, etc.

Or, let's just use your own benchmark, your own criteria for justifying consideration for the claim:
'when democrat turnout plummets, I'll listen to your argument. Until then, it's just paranoid rambling.'

well, I'll cede to your expertise. If anyone should understand paranoid rambling........

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: How can what might happen have any effect on what you claim to be able to prove has happened?
Show me the substance behind the claims you made instead of changing your position to what might happen.

I never said a damn thing about it having happened yet. ...

No?

callmeslick wrote:it has, within certain demographics(elderly, rural poor, hispanic) when it has been utilized. So, I assume you are now paying attention(fat chance, huh?).

I guess you are selectively paying attention...as usual.

Will Robinson wrote:They said what they have found so far is the voter ID laws "have not had a significant impact on voter turnout".

All my PDF reader can find that sounds like that is where they say "we suggest that these laws have not had a significant impact on voting" (emphasis mine). In statistics, that's about as weak of a claim as you can make.

Jeff250 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:They said what they have found so far is the voter ID laws "have not had a significant impact on voter turnout".

All my PDF reader can find that sounds like that is where they say "we suggest that these laws have not had a significant impact on voting" (emphasis mine). In statistics, that's about as weak of a claim as you can make.

Ok, is their suggestion based on their actually compiling data weaker, or stronger than slick saying it does impact voting and citing events that he then claimed he didn't cite and changed his position to one of predicting the future?

Seems to me the proponents of ID laws have done their best to make the case from actual events and slick has once again reached up his rear end to pull out some 'data'.

I certainly don't know how it will impact things but then I'm not claiming to know either. And I certainly don't believe slick, who claimed he knew how it had happened in the past before he then said he didn't know but is somehow sure it will because some people hope it will.

the only real trials were during some elections last year(2013). I haven't seen the data compliled, but was relying on local reports from reliable(to me) sourcing. The data will come out, and we'll see. For what it's worth, the Dems and several large churches are pushing real hard to overcome the bias, so maybe it will end up as negligible. My whole point was the intent, and THAT was clearly to stife voting. Folks were caught on camera admitting so.

Will, I could just as well spin the article the other way and say that we should interpret the article's failure to show that additional voter requirements hasn't affected turnout as a sign that it actually has. But it's best to just interpret a non-result as a non-result.

I think the problem with this question is that even staunch supporters of additional voter requirements won't claim that absolutely no one will be unfairly disenfranchised. And I think that even staunch opponents of additional voter requirements won't say that the number of people unfairly disenfranchised from voting is more than, maybe, a few percentage points. But I suspect it's very difficult to statistically tell those two versions of events apart.

I think the more relevant questions here are of a different nature anyways. How does the evidence for voter disenfranchisement compare to evidence of voter fraud? Is it fair to impose additional requirements that are more difficult for some demographics to meet than others?

I would be much less suspicious of these additional requirements if they had grandfathered in anyone who was already registered to vote and placed any additional requirements in the voter registration process itself that everyone would have to complete to vote.

Sounds very reasonable to me Jeff. But then I don't think either voter fraud or voter ID requirements being too strict have anything but a minor negative impact on the quality of representation we get from the overall process compared to other, much bigger flaws in the process.

One of those flaws, a self inflicted variety, is what I raised the example of voter ID for in the first place which was to highlight the hypocrisy in slicks retort that unless lots and lots of people are denied their rights of equal protection then there needs to be no discussion of the problem. As long as it is the type of voter who doesn't vote his way being denied....otherwise the mere possibility of any abuse warrants all sorts of action!

That kind of 'partisan approved selective ethics' is becoming far too ingrained into pop culture, which is really the ultimate bully pulpit. A truly undeserved advantage for either party to enjoy. It is giving us the worst of the worst under the guise of 'progressive' change.

It’s “not” ok to require photo ID because it hits one demographic more than another, but it “is” ok to use taxpayer funds to provide services that help one demographic over another?

I thought this was a thread about guns.