AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Gun carry law poll Part 1

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.

Should it be allowed?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The nation is fairly even split in total numbers as to political party lines. So no matter who gets elected about half the population won't like that person.




They do that too...after you submit the 'Request For Impromptu Meeting (form 397-gov)' with attached letters of reference in triplicate, and you and your 27 closest living relatives have been thoroughly vetted by the secret service. Then it's tweet those selfies time!
There is a huge difference between not liking someone and threatening their lives. No point to my post other to just point that out. Sometimes I feel the severity of violent threats is ignored these days. It shouldn't be
 
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." ~ Japan during World War 2. The fact that the rest of the world thinks we're a bunch of gun-crazed nutjobs works out in our favor, geopolitically. Also, if you were to muster every gun owner in America, you'd have the largest army of any nation.

The quote is bogus, for what it's worth, but I guess that's not really the point.
 
i voted no, because I hate US gun culture, and I'll never understand it.
Voted no, for the same reason. But I understand US gun culture, from both sides.

Talking with a friend in the UK after one of the mass shootings last year, I asked him his opinion on our gun laws. He said he thought we had it dead wrong. At this point, I am inclined to agree with him.

My views on this have fluctuated a lot over the last few years. As it stands now, I don't think there should be a right to own a gun (of any kind); I think it ought to be a privilege, highly regulated and taxed. I think anyone caught owning a gun without the governments permission ought to do crack time.

I don't believe owning a gun is liberty. I don't believe owning a gun prevents tyranny. I used to.
 
Voted no, for the same reason. But I understand US gun culture, from both sides.

Talking with a friend in the UK after one of the mass shootings last year, I asked him his opinion on our gun laws. He said he thought we had it dead wrong. At this point, I am inclined to agree with him.

My views on this have fluctuated a lot over the last few years. As it stands now, I don't think there should be a right to own a gun (of any kind); I think it ought to be a privilege, highly regulated and taxed. I think anyone caught owning a gun without the governments permission ought to do crack time.

I don't believe owning a gun is liberty. I don't believe owning a gun prevents tyranny. I used to.
Agreed and seconded down to every last detail.

I also firmly believe the majority of people shouting about the second amendment have zero idea what it's actual purpose was.
 
I also firmly believe the majority of people shouting about the second amendment have zero idea what it's actual purpose was.

Not sure about other states but I know in mine that was specifically addressed. Back before the supreme court confirmed it was a right of everyone there was the whole issue of what 'militia' meant. So to preemptively override a possible bad decision by the supreme court, the state made it law that 'every able bodied person' in this entire state is a member of the State Militia.

As a result, state citizens here have the right to keep firearms no matter what your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoTxBob
You and most of the rest of the world.

Wouldn't use the word 'hate' mind you, but I'll never get my head round it. It's one of those things that make us think America is crazy.

See, I understand this. There are a lot of crazy mofos here. But this country was founded on crazy thinking at crazy times. The "not trust government," so we arm ourselves and complaining about taxes (no matter what good they do) is kinda big mainly because this country was created by not trusting a government and taxes (no offense to England, but they could have been a little nicer and maybe we'd be less crazy?). Guns kind of got us where we are. Guns and taxes are huge topics here (I think we have issues, personally :)). And the thing is is that it never gets less crazy. This country is a big clusterfuck of an evolution from mistakes made and learned from.

For instance, just recently, the American public was informed that American football causes brain damage (Who would have thunk it? Guys headbutting themselves for sport--what could possibly go wrong?); we've also started legalizing weed --which is amazing because soooo many people got busted and are doing jail time for holding this substance; homosexual marriage/homosexuality--we might not have been the first country to acknowledge the lifestyle of the people involved, but we made it a bigggg issue after shaming peoples so much over the years. This gun stuff is just par for the course in the crazy American dialogue.

One might say: "You all need to grow up!" but, it's almost like idiots rule and every struggle is trying to get over those humps they create--you know, finding a common ground (that no one will like). Clusterfuck :)

Without getting too snarky, I can see where people think we are crazy: Yeah, America is crazy. We don't really know what the fuck we are doing. We are just figuring it out as we go along (probably like everyone else, but more so sloppily).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
Not sure about other states but I know in mine that was specifically addressed. Back before the supreme court confirmed it was a right of everyone there was the whole issue of what 'militia' meant. So to preemptively override a possible bad decision by the supreme court, the state made it law that 'every able bodied person' in this entire state is a member of the State Militia.

As a result, state citizens here have the right to keep firearms no matter what your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Cool beans, doesn't change my statement though.

And actually, I take back my cool beans and replace them with "I don't think that's cool" beans. Warm beans? Pinto beans?

"It's cool if you don't understand it's original purpose, we've made it so you don't have too!" errrrr... that's unsettling to me.

This is not intended to start an argument as obviously you love guns and I'm probably not in your same boat. I own two guns, I know how to use them and I keep them in my home for personal protection. I am however in no way a supporter of our current system and I think we need a major overhaul.
 
Last edited:
Well, at least it would mean that there would be professional videographers on hand to capture U.S. citizens and cops shooting each other, which I suppose is the whole point of setting up this shooting match. There's really only so much you can do with an iPhone.
 
Partially off topic, but if you're going to carry, why on earth would you carry open? It's just a giant target. if someone wants to start something, take out the guy with the gun first.
 
Solely my opinion regarding the current state of gun violence in America along with existing laws:

Political rallies should be no different than any other place or event where law abiding citizens are legally allowed to carry.

Wherever there is a so-called gun free zone... there should also be sufficient numbers of professionally trained armed security to deal with any shooter(s) that choose not follow the law.

Overhauling or adding to our current gun laws isn't necessary, but it would be a great start to enforce existing laws.

The way we deal with and treat our mentally ill is far more of a priority the way I see things.

.02
 
Solely my opinion regarding the current state of gun violence in America along with existing laws:

Political rallies should be no different than any other place or event where law abiding citizens are legally allowed to carry.

Wherever there is a so-called gun free zone... there should also be sufficient numbers of professionally trained armed security to deal with any shooter(s) that choose not follow the law.

Well, in the case under discussion, just like at the GOP convention that's also been discussed in this context, there will be a whole bunch of Secret Service agents and other security personnel. It's precisely the Secret Service who object to random attendees bringing in firearms for operational reasons, not some gun-hating anti-2nd-Amendment crusaders.
 
So, I want to hijack this thread while still keeping it on-topic (I'm really good at this shit, trust me)

What do people think about the government denying those with medical marijuana the right to possess guns? Personally, I see it as a 2nd Amendment, but I'm Libertarian like that.
 
  • Wat?!
Reactions: TacoBelle
So, I want to hijack this thread while still keeping it on-topic (I'm really good at this shit, trust me)

What do people think about the government denying those with medical marijuana the right to possess guns? Personally, I see it as a 2nd Amendment, but I'm Libertarian like that.

Which government is doing this?
 
Which government is doing this?

Pretty sure it's part of the federal background check. Fuckin feds. Colorado, just the same, which we're very gun friendly. Hell, you can legally shoot someone here under the right conditions (Make My Day Law). Still not as gun-friendly as Utah though, who talks shit to us about the high-compacity ban.

We (Colorado) has some laws that can bypass that, which is legal as it bypasses the background check, as it's in good faith, but kind of a gray area [I think] with federal regulation.

States Rights should trump federal regulation, anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LuckySmiles
Voted no because open and conceal carry is craziness imo. I'd be terrified to live in a place that allowed everyone to walk around with guns on them.

So, I want to hijack this thread while still keeping it on-topic (I'm really good at this shit, trust me)

What do people think about the government denying those with medical marijuana the right to possess guns? Personally, I see it as a 2nd Amendment, but I'm Libertarian like that.

I'm fine with most things that keep guns away from people including this. Not because I'm against marijuana (its not my thing but have at it) just hate guns. I also never understood the whole owning a gun is a right thing, seems ridiculous to me.
 
Pretty sure it's part of the federal background check. Fuckin feds. Colorado, just the same, which we're very gun friendly. Hell, you can legally shoot someone here under the right conditions (Make My Day Law). Still not as gun-friendly as Utah though, who talks shit to us about the high-compacity ban.

We (Colorado) has some laws that can bypass that, which is legal as it bypasses the background check, as it's in good faith, but kind of a gray area [I think] with federal regulation.

States Rights should trump federal regulation, anyway.

It's been a while since I've had to fill out the paperwork, and I don't know if the forms vary state to state, but I've never seen a question regarding medical marijuana. There's definitely one or two on there about illegal substances or narcotics, but medical marijuana wouldn't qualify as either of those.
 
It's been a while since I've had to fill out the paperwork, and I don't know if the forms vary state to state, but I've never seen a question regarding medical marijuana. There's definitely one or two on there about illegal substances or narcotics, but medical marijuana wouldn't qualify as either of those.

It's that question. And yes it is. That is a federal form, not a state one. And in the eyes of the federal government marijuana is illegal. So on the form if you answer no you are lying.
 
Pretty sure it's part of the federal background check. Fuckin feds. Colorado, just the same, which we're very gun friendly. Hell, you can legally shoot someone here under the right conditions (Make My Day Law). Still not as gun-friendly as Utah though, who talks shit to us about the high-compacity ban.

We (Colorado) has some laws that can bypass that, which is legal as it bypasses the background check, as it's in good faith, but kind of a gray area [I think] with federal regulation.

States Rights should trump federal regulation, anyway.

It's silly. If there was real reason for it, by the same logic, MMJ users should have their drivers license taken away as well...
The federal and state laws conflict and it's all about money IMO.
Although there are gun permit issues with SSRI's as well, which makes more sense to me, especially since it seems to be linked with every mass shooting in America in recent history.

Illegal guns seem easier to get in America than legal ones. I don't see how the laws make any difference in respect to crime. I think the issues are mishandled to put it lightly.
 
http://crime-punishment.yoexpert.co...n-sales-ban-that-prohibits-medical-37481.html

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has declared war on the Second Amendment as it pertains to card-carrying medical marijuana users, stating in a recent letter to all U.S. firearms merchants that it is illegal to sell firearms to the card holders.

The announcement has medical marijuana users up in arms, so to speak, but it remains to be seen whether their complaints will be heard in the halls of justice. A long-standing problem with settling legal issues that can and do arise since the wave of state-level marijuana legalization began is that federal law will always trump state law if there is in fact a law in conflict - as there is with marijuana legalization.

States may legalize marijuana and establish protections for its citizens with regard to the law at the state level, but there are no protections at the federal level, and the U.S. Department of Justice can direct U.S. State Attorneys to take action. This can cause a great deal of confusion when crafting (and abiding by) the new laws, especially when it comes to the ATF gun sales ban.

The letter sent to merchants provided no real guidance on enforcement or punishment, which is a recurring problem when the federal government attempts to short circuit states' efforts to regulate marijuana sales. It provided no details as to whether prospective firearms purchasers have to disclose they are card holders, or even if merchants are required to ask their customers to disclose this information.



http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/24...juana-patient-denied-concealed-pistol-license

RICHLAND, WA - A Richland medical marijuana patient recently applied for a Concealed Pistol License, but was denied by police.

Medical marijuana is legal under Washington state law, but the federal government won't make an exception for that when it comes to getting a Concealed Pistol License.

Richland police sent the medical marijuana patient a letter stating that federal law prohibits anyone who uses a controlled substance from "shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition."

And even if marijuana is legal here, it's still illegal at the federal level.

When anyone applies for a concealed weapons permit with Richland police, they have to follow these federal restrictions.



http://www.coloradoindependent.com/157396/guns-marijuana-colorado

If you’ve recently moved to Colorado — or just to a different county in Colorado — there might come a time when an employee of your local sheriff’s office gives you an ultimatum: Smoke pot or carry a gun.

Of course, that’s only if you’re trying to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Depending on what county you live in, a question on the application asks if you use marijuana. If you say ‘yes’ on certain applications, then no concealed handgun permit for you.

Laurie Thomas, coordinator for the concealed handgun permitting program at the El Paso County sheriff’s office, puts it bluntly.

“They either want to smoke marijuana or have a concealed weapons permit,” she says of those who apply. “Common sense. You have to have one or the other. You can’t do both.”

In Colorado, it’s the county sheriff who decides whether to issue, deny, or revoke concealed handgun permits.

Last year, a Colorado group called Guns for Everyone tried unsuccessfully to gather enough signatures for a ballot initiative that would change the application process so lawful users of marijuana could obtain concealed carry permits. Two firearms instructors whose students kept asking about the marijuana issue launched the proposal. They’re currently working on how best to tackle the topic again this year.

“In Colorado the law states that you cannot be an illegal user of any narcotics under state and federal law,” says Issac Chase, a Colorado Springs firearms instructor and a co-founder of Guns for Everyone. “The goal of our campaign was to get rid of that language that said federal law.”

The group wasn’t able to get enough Coloradans to sign their petition in time, though. This year they’re hoping to perhaps find a supportive lawmaker who might be interested in taking up their cause. Gun bills have lately been on the agenda for Republicans in the state Senate.

Chase says he gets plenty of questions from students in his firearms training classes about how Colorado’s laws on marijuana intersect with gun ownership. A common question is whether someone who has a medical marijuana card, commonly known as a ‘red card’, can lawfully own a firearm or obtain a concealed weapons permit here.

In Colorado, buying a gun or getting a concealed carry permit requires a background check. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation uses a system called InstaCheck and runs information through the National Instant Criminal Background Check system, or NICS. The bureau also runs background checks for county sheriff’s offices for those applying for concealed weapons permits.

“CBI InstaCheck does not access medical marijuana information for its background check process as the NICS state point of contact,” CBI spokeswoman Susan Medina told The Colorado Independent.

But then there’s the question about whether marijuana users in Colorado, where pot is legal, are even allowed to own a gun. The feds say they aren’t.

When buying a gun, purchasers have to fill out a form from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, which asks, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana…or any other controlled substance?”

That’s federal paperwork, and marijuana is illegal under federal law. But it’s legal in Colorado, so some pot-smoking Coloradans who buy guns here might be doing so under the interpretation that they’re not “unlawful” users.

The feds don’t see it that way.

“Under federal law marijuana is still a controlled substance, meaning that people who are marijuana users are not able to lawfully possess a firearm regardless of the state laws,” says Lisa Meiman, a spokesperson for the ATF’s Denver field division. She says in 2011 the ATF sent a letter to all licensed gun dealers reminding them that it’s still unlawful to sell firearms to anyone they have a reason to believe does drugs.

“If you are a user or addicted to a controlled substance such as marijuana, even with a medical license, even if it’s legal in the state to use recreationally, you are not permitted to own a firearm,” Meiman says.

Edgar Antillon, a firearms instructor and co-founder of the Guns for Everyone group, says he thinks some marijuana users in Colorado probably answer ‘no’ on the ATF form thinking since pot is legal in Colorado they’re covered.
 
and can I rant totally off topic on a soapbox for two more seconds in the gun thread lol. I do believe people should be allowed them for protection especially with the prevalence of illegal firearms out there. And what I'd like to see people spend 5 minutes worrying/lobbying about instead that I never hear about as much as all these clusterfucks of getting nowhere, is the 911 system in america since the change to cell phones.

If you get trapped at gun point one county over from where your phone's area code is... and miraculously able to dial 911.. good fucking luck to them figuring out how to help. About 10 years ago, my car engine blew up on the highway hours from where I lived and fuck me for 10 minutes trying to figure out with the operator where the hell I was and what department I needed to be calling about my car flames on the side of a major highway.
The situation does not seem much improved 10 years later, and it seems like the easiest/most important thing to fix for emergency responses. Maybe we could worry about that first.. Until then... guns for all! lol.
 
Last edited:
By easy I mean in comparison to getting guns off the streets. More money and jobs should be being funneled into it.

I've read this story before, it's disgusting.

What I think is the problem here is the gap between expectations and technological capability. It's not like this was a thing that worked awesome in grandma's day, but got screwed up these newfangled phones that are made in China. Location detection was not what cellphones were intended for, and there is a large portion of the population that resent and are opposed to cellphones being able to provide location information at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JerryBoBerry
What I think is the problem here is the gap between expectations and technological capability. It's not like this was a thing that worked awesome in grandma's day, but got screwed up these newfangled phones that are made in China. Location detection was not what cellphones were intended for, and there is a large portion of the population that resent and are opposed to cellphones being able to provide location information at all.
I've seen on my local news there is a gun that looks like a cell phone. WTF?
 
I've seen on my local news there is a gun that looks like a cell phone. WTF?

If someone actually defended themselves or others using that thing, or even used it for nefarious purposes, I think it would have to make the news world wide. This is like "Get Smart"/"James Bond" technology (in all ways). The odds of someone buying a cell phone gun and using it to protect themselves or create a crime have got to be along the lines of winning the lottery. Can you imagine the confusion when robbing someone with a gun that looks like a cell phone? And can you imagine a guy with a cell phone gun trying to stop a crime?


I kind of see it as similar to when one-hitters started sprouting up on belt buckles.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.