5 off duty cops were at Ventura bar shooting...all unarmed.

Actually, police officers in the state of California have valid carry permits. They are in fact required to get a carry permit in order to become a police officer. My uncle is a retired LA country police officer, his carry permit is still valid, he carries everywhere he goes.

Furthermore, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act establishes that law enforcement and qualified retired or separated law enforcement officers be allowed to carry a concealed firearm, regardless of state or local laws. This does not however overrule a private property owner's authority to prohibit the carrying of firearms within the jurisdiction of their own establishment.

The claim you are making is simply not true, only the property owner, or the gun free zones established under federal law would have the authority to prohibit qualified police officers from carrying a concealed weapon.

 

Nope.

 

We already have laws which forbid criminals from using guns, I guess they don't obey the law.

 

not if there are laws against it or that it is another gun free zone death trap

 

Those rules already exist.
1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded
2. Never point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to shoot
4. Keep the weapon on safe until you intend to fire.

 

The Left ruins everything, and they are doing a bang up job of screwing up society in order to change it to their liking. That has all sorts of perhaps unintended consequences one being people are less civil towards others and have less value of people's lives.

 

Destruction of the family as the basic unit in society

Social media

Too many psychiatric medications prescribed instead of fixing underlying problems

Probably a lot more than that, but that’s what I’ve got so far.

 

The second amendment played no part in the decision to commit mass murder. It is not a legal defense for the commission of illegal acts. The second amendment is no more fault in this case, than the first amendment is at fault for bullying that leads someone to committing suicide.

 

Absolutely, well said.

 

I was always taught to keep my alcohol and my firearms separate.

Rightly or wrongly you face a lot of criminal and civil liability as an armed individual, and if you were partying and intoxicated at the time of a justified shooting it's going to land you in hot water.

If you were going there to enjoy the music and not drink I don't see why not. Respect the property rights of others. All we need as gun owners is to have property rights respected, you have no idea how overjoyed I'd be if my private residences in my country could set their own policy on concealed carry. Not a chance.

I think we can risk taking the RKBA by implication so heavily that we start to infringe on the rights of others. Calls to make all adult men have a rifle for defense of the homeland is another example where RKBA enthusiasts go too far.

 

Although the Supreme Court has ruled that this right applies to individuals, not merely to collective militias as mentioned in the text of the amendment ("A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."), this decision is still questionable and disputed ... because why the hack then the hint of "well regulated militia" inside?

Anyway ... Even the Supreme has also held that the government may regulate or place some limits on the manufacture, ownership and sale of firearms or other weapons.
The problem now is that just about every attempt by any US government and even State governments to make such regulations and interventions meets with massive resistance from the "pro gunners" and since they (unfortunately) have a strong lobby, nothing happens at the end and everything stays as always with unchanged old situation.

As previously told by me ... I give a crap on such shooting issues as now and make only a shrug ... and for me the complete US situation and thinking is simply rediculous.
When a 18 year old person is allowed to buy a legal arm, to become soldier and serve whatever type of weapons, go to wars and maybe kill enemies or even being wounded or killed ... but the same 18 year old person is not allowed to go into a bar in Downtown to drink a Whisky, because not age 21 ... them I can only laugh about US hypocrisy and stupidity.

 

I trust an 18 year olds judgement with a gun a hell of a lot more than an 18 year olds judgement while drunk.

Guns are not going anywhere in America, nor should they. Ultimately, they are our ultimate insurance against the government when they go full retard, which they havnt yet. Until then, they protect our family and friends from those who would harm them. When police show up, as well intentioned as they may be, it is often far to late. Self defense is an individual responsibility.

 

You trust a half kid armed with a gun more than a half kid who is drunken ... interesting thing I must say! If both is combined, I will accept, but this way, I can only laugh...
And yes ... you as the self declared biggest and best democracy with the best legal state are so deeply mistrusting your own state and governemnt and their executive organs ... o yes ... they are all so evil that it i necessary to be armed and prepared to fight the next revolutionary war / civil war against your evil govenrment. I know...

 

Was the public of the united states purchasing and using firearms for private purposes before Heller was ruled on?

Except they did not state such. Certainly not in the manner being suggested on the part of yourself and others.

Short of a total prohibition on handgun ownership, what could have been implemented in the state of California that is not already in place, that would have prevented this incident from occurring?

Is an individual eighteen years of age legally considered an adult, or are they not?

 

Sure, of course they did ... but what is your intention here / what doo you want to mark out?
The point was and is, what the hint of "regulated militia" means in the amendment!

Sorry ... they did, please read the case again!

This is exactly the mistake that Pro Gunners make in their arguments!

Point 1
It is not about abolishing the general right to guns and prohibiting the possession of a gun ... it is about controlling the legal access to guns in the interests of the whole society in a way that is adequate and effective so that no unwanted person has legal access to guns can create.

Point 2
This goes hand in hand with combating the illegal procurement of guns and illegal gun market, because without it, point 1 is superfluous!

Point 3
Anyone who believes that there is 100% protection is wrong, and no one will say that ... just because there's never 100% protection for anything ... no matter what!
It's about drastically minimizing the probability and the danger!
Look ... if someone tries to break into my house in my country, then it is possible, but very unlikely, that he also has a gun and that is due to our sharp gun laws and that these laws are applied sharply!
It's been around you, it's probable that the bastard has a gun breaking into the house, right? Do you wonder why?

In my country clear yes ... in your country not, only with restriction, or why can he only drink a Whisky with age 21 because not adault enough ... but adault enough to have a gun = a potential deadly weapon!

 

If you have a gun and nobody else does you do indeed become a "sudden Superman".

 

Interesting thing about snowflakes is that they assume everyone is like them.

 

guns are so fear they make them out to be the boogie man and as they are unstoppable?

 

Are you very young?

Are you truly that naive?

Criminals can always get guns......and knives......and hatchets and clubs and nun-chucks and........

Get the picture?

The gun in the holster of the woman or senior citizen is the only thing between them and mayhem.

 

The right wingers want to live in the stone age because they are afraid of evolving to a better society for people and thus do their part to polarize those with whom they don't agree with.

 

But the argument tends to be that having guns there prevents casualties. But now what when the shooter is combat tested? Obviously in a bar, drink and guns don't mix so if you had a handful of sober guys with guns, I dread to think what would happen with people dashing about in a gunfight. It's a bit of a predicament.

 

"The Spartanburg Herald-Journal reported that Jody Ray Thompson, 32, was arrested on four counts of attempted murder after investigators said he opened fired in the crowded Playoffz nightclub in Spartanburg County, S.C. Deputies said three people were shot before a man with a legal concealed weapons permit fired back using his own handgun, striking Thompson in the leg."

No innocent deaths. Shooter stopped.

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/deputies-man-opens-fire-in-sc-bar-draws-return-fire

 

Nah, I will take my chances. And hopefully I don't get winged by some armed idiot who has watched too much Walker, Texas Ranger.

 

With a Carry Permit you are barred from carrying while drinking alcohol. This is a felony. This is probably why none of the police were carrying. I am sure they would at a minimum have been fired if it was found out.

 

California law prevent people from operating cars and guns while intoxicated?

are those bad laws and we should change them?