NH: Furious gun owners will open carry to state house

[swer5555]

Open carry advocates are uber-paranoid fools that enjoy scaring people with their display of firearms.

[freakman420]

@swer5555 No they are just too afraid of the penalties to concealed carry so clowns like you don't piss your pants every time you see a citizen with a firearm.

[stewartx5]

Protests are fine, but the gun advocates obviously don't work in the state house and don't seem to give a damn about those who do. If members of the legislature are uncomfortable with guns in the building, it's entirely reasonable for them to eliminate guns within that venue. It's a reasonable infringement which does not (according to the United States Supreme Court) conflict with the Second Amendment.

[70scarrestoguy]

@stewartx5 I'm uncomfortable with State House employees who are uncomfortable around firearms. I think it's entirely reasonable to (by voting) eliminate those state house employees from that venue. You take your reasonable infringement lies & stick them where the sun don't shine. We'll elect new people to office, people who wont try to rob us of our freedoms one little infringement at a time until we've no rights or freedoms left. We wont allow NH to become a Police State like Massachusetts is.

[beEasy2011]

criminals don't follow gun laws... that's why they are criminals

[TheEpoxyExpert]

If GUNS hurt people, SPOONS make people FAT

[keneyed209]

@TheEpoxyExpert that's beautiful

[kylesgrandam]

when was this video made? cuz i think you have a shot of me with my pistol in it.

[TexasPrepper1]

The lady at the beginning is delusional. When will people wake up?

[basspig]

"The holy Individual -- the very raison d'etre of the state -- particularly needs arms and weapons to threaten, attack, and kill potentially evil and tyrannical government agents. The main purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is to slaughter government officials."

rebirthofreason*com slash Forum slash GeneralForum slash 1234*shtml

[BALJIT147]

government doesn't know what it's doing, they never have and never will

[butterflie2484]

Theres more danger and keeps us unprotected. They NEED to get out of NH, they dont belong in the free state.

[Vorash2002]

@caneywaney If you dont like this vid, then shut up and dont comment on it you uneducated prick

[1000hightower]

shes a big pussy

[caneywaney]

How can someone take this Ridley guy serious when he acts like a fool on the intro and ending of the video? Maybe if he acts like a fool while wearing a weapon, we'd all feel safer : )

Get real. If it's your right to carry a firearm, then do it and shut up

[jacobew2000]

They are just using the new Liberal democrat tactic that was used in the Federal House and Senate to keep the healthcare bills out of the public eye. This is the new tactic by these people to hide their illegal and immoral laws from the eye of the American public.

[daddyg321]

Representitives are to represent us and are covered under sovergin immunity when doing so, but when they over step and/or misuse power I believe they are open to legal action, Please check on this for yourselves and all of us.

[SatwaMan]

Your guns a silly children's toys for retards.

[mackler]

Did George Orwell name the Democratic Party?

[wachman]

what these democrats don't get is that, no matter how many laws and regulations you pass it is fundamentally impossible to make sure everyone will follow them. There are always people who won't respect the law and banning guns in certain places just puts the law-abiding ones at a major disadvantage in a life threatening scenario. Do you really want to be a sitting duck waiting to die when the shit hits the fan? They have their hearts in the right place but they're putting people in real danger.

[senses2000]

First they take away your rights. Then your weapons. Then your life. Therefore it is our right to defend ourselves. Therefore, it is our right to have guns. We may not need to carry them, I think it is irrelevant. If they take away your right to carry them on your person, next they'll take away the right to carry them in your car. Eventually you can only carry the gun they give you and they will send you off to war to kill unarmed history lacking citizens. They killed millions in China.

[LIQUIDDEMONS]

1:02

AWESOME!

[redmolotail]

Common sense gun laws don't make sense.

No guns does not equal no danger.

[Watcher3223]

@redmolotail

Actually, there is one common sense gun law.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the Right of the People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[UponGiantsShoulders]

@redmolotail The logic goes, if no guns, no shootings. The question I always like to ask is, "Has the government ever been able to effectively remove contraband from availability?" The facts are there is no way, the availability of banned items is ever present in our society. The failed war on drugs has highlighted this fact. We are not safe when the law abiding are striped of there defensive weapons for this fact.

[killergames187]

GOOD JOB VOTE THEM OUT!!!

[conspiracy777]

"if nobody has a gun there's no danger" ... yeah lady ... before the invention of a gun no one was ever killed or hurt.

NOT !

[Realizalize]

if moto-club members support open carry

anywhere and confronted me with and on that matter i would support their cause.

also gators fans, i ` d be all yours.

-where were these ppl when black panters tried to confront Ronny Reagan with lawfully carrying guns around D.C. to protest the unlawfull cointelpro program ?

-nada??????? oh i see, just an act of feeling important without wanting , need!ing, knowing shit, just ignorant as usual.

[JoeTravel]

I hope the 20 that voted for it are also no longer in office.

[RationalDischarge]

Hey, Dave; what's that enchantingly gorgeous music at the beginning and end of this video?

[Michaelllllllllll]

AHHHHHH....Get em New Hampshire....take no prisoners.

[p00lman]

These psychotic gun nuts are still at it?

Tell me: why does anyone need a gun in a state house? Why does anyone need to open carry a gun?

Don't give me this shit about "opposing tyranny." There is nothing like that that has happened in this history of our country since its founding. Grow the fuck up, children.

[Pv8man]

maybe not in "Our country" p00lman

but germany? yes

Looks like someone failed world history.

[Pv8man]

said by p00lman

"These psychotic gun nuts are still at it?"

lol, psychotic? Oh yeah, look at how crazy and psychotic we are...trying to defend our bill of rights.

omg, so psychotic we are...better call in the national guard, because p00lman says we are psychotic

[p00lman]

On a purely rational level, why do you need to open carry?

You don't. There is no substantial reason. There is no evidence that open carry will produce a good effect or prevent a bad one.

[limitedgovt999]

Are you also against police open carrying?

[p00lman]

Police are trained to use guns responsibly, are licensed, and their entire profession is to prevent crime and violence. They need to carry a gun for the same reason a plumber needs to carry a tool belt.

What reason do you have to carry a gun? I'm talking about a practical reason, not an ideological one.

[limitedgovt999]

Same reason as the police.

[p00lman]

No, citizens cannot take the law into their own hands.

[limitedgovt999]

If someone tries to harm a family member, you better believe the law will be taken into my own hands.

[p00lman]

Self-defense is acceptable and protected by law.

Revenge isn't. Vengeance is not justice.

[limitedgovt999]

So you agree then? We've finally made some progress with you. If police have a right to open carry and defend themselves so do citizens.

[p00lman]

No, self-defense is a reason to own a gun, not to carry it openly.

[mrethrift]

Citizens can take the law into their own hands at their own risk. We were wrought as a brave country by brave people.

[flowerpt]

@p00lman: in defense of myself, my family, my property and my state.

[p00lman]

That's a reason to own one, not to carry it openly.

[mrethrift]

I know 2 people whose unarmed fathers were killed by police who were trained to use guns responsibly. Some do and some don't.

[p00lman]

But there is a system in place for pollice to be held accountable for neglectful or inappropriate action. For vigilantes, there is only jail.

[mrethrift]

They get counseling and paid days off. That system doesn't work. Our country was founded by vigilantes. Heh, I said our country...I didn't mean to include you...

[p00lman]

If you think that, then you clearly have no idea what a vigilante is.

A vigilante upholds the law. The revolution was started by colonists who defied it.

[mrethrift]

You can't take the slightest bit of loose english. OH LOOK! I didn't capitalize english! Better call the police foolboy! You talk like a bitch!

[p00lman]

You should write a book called American History in Loose English. Chapter 1: Our country was founded by vigilantes. Thomas Jefferson, also known as Batman, was one of the leaders.

[mrethrift]

And you could be my one and only retarded reader. You outdo yourself in feeble mindedness. I'm surprised Korea hasn't sent you back.--exiled for creative ineptness and damaging the reputation of their music scene!

[Peridolin]

Ah the classic progressive "psychotic gun nut" label. That one never gets old does it?

As for your rather silly question: It has nothing to do with one's needs, only one's rights.

If you don't exercise your rights, you lose them. It's that simple.

[p00lman]

Provide an example of when such a thing has ever happened.

[Michaelllllllllll]

You are obviously not taking into account the idea that I can carry if I want. Simple as that and you do not get to pick and choose when I can exercise my rights.....But then again I guess you agree with free speech zones? And you love the patriot act because it keeps us safe from Al-Quada? If you know nothing at least look into the Battle of Athens Tennessee. But I guess them folks were just out of line.

[p00lman]

I am asking you to provide either 1. evidence of a beneficial effect of open carrying, or 2. evidence of a prevented negative effect of not open carrying.

You can't say "open carrying has prevented tyranny" because you can't prove what would have happened. You could just as well say "open carrying has prevented dinosaurs from returning" or "open carrying is keeping Jesus from returning."

[Michaelllllllllll]

you are speaking about hypothetical situations.We may never know whether or not some criminal seen and open carry citizen and decided to walk a different course. But the task is not on me to prove anything. We have these in our bill of rights for a reason and it is up to you to make the case for banning guns. I can say now that we would have not won the Revolutionary war had citizens not had guns. So it is to you prove to me how an open carry is bad. I mean no hypothetical situation either.

[p00lman]

No, the argument that "I can do this, therefore I should" is a stupid one. You can eat as much as you want, you can use up as much gasoline as you want, you can go outside and sing for 48 hours straight. That doesn't mean you should.

[Michaelllllllllll]

Well interestingly enough you have failed to help me understand why we should ban open carry. It seems to me you are under the impression that some how we are supposed to operate under the idea that keeping things secret and concealed makes things safe. Criminals conceal their weapons. The government makes secret deals. People who are looking to do good do things in the light. Simply stated people who open carry are less likely to use the weapon than someone whom conceals it.

[p00lman]

"People who are looking to do good do things in the light. Simply stated people who open carry are less likely to use the weapon than someone whom conceals it."

Er, no, that's a completely unsubstantiated statement with no logic or evidence behind it.

And I haven't advocated a ban on open carry, but no one has provided any justification for the immediate beneficial effects of open carry. It's simply local terrorism and nothing more.

[Michaelllllllllll]

I would be curious to find out how many bank robbers had their rifle, handgun whatever it may be concealed prior to committing the crime. I wonder how many store robbers had their weapons concealed. I can tell you right now that cops open carry and they use the weapons less than a criminal that has it concealed. Do you agree or disagree?

[p00lman]

By that logic (regardless of its veracity), are you advocating that citizens open carrying deter criminals just as police do?

The problem there is that citizens are not law enforcers, they're law abiders. Vigilantism is illegal.

[Michaelllllllllll]

So you are saying that a criminal will not rethink his position if he sees and entire lobby of armed Populace? And as far as what I am advocating, the truth is that you are the one making the avocations. My positions stands written into law. You are the radical for supporting overturning these laws. That is why it is on you to some how convince me and any other people under the Unite States Law that this is some how a good or better way to live life or act. I mean we are civilized right?

[p00lman]

Nope, never once said anything about overturning the second amendment. I am opposed to open carry by citizens - because it's unnecessary and just a form of terrorism.

A vigilante is just one bad judgment call away from a criminal.

[Michaelllllllllll]

I wasn't talking about the second amendment. The laws on New Hampshire's book allow for open carry. Arizona also comes to mind. You are wanting to overturn these laws, Right?

[p00lman]

I don't think the law is the problem, I think the problem is people's interpretation of it.

You know, here's something a lot of people don't realize: guns aren't banned in South Korea. It's just that everyone realizes there's no need for them, and that having them would make society more fearful and distrusting.

[Michaelllllllllll]

You are correct about the idea of being armed to the teeth being viewed as distrusting. That is exactly why we don't trust the American "Usurped" government. So let me ask you when it is ok to carry a weapon? And the topic of vigilantism. Would you find it appropriate for a person witnessing a crime to run of to call the police and is that person liable in the death of the victim? Because the truth is the police do nothing to prevent crime. They only serve as a means for justice.

[p00lman]

God, so much crap here.

1. How is the government "armed ot the teeth"?

2. How is the government "usurpsed"?

3. It's okay to carry a weapon when there's a legitimate reason to do so, not a vague paranoid ideology.

4. It depends on whether or not the person is capable of stopping the crime. They shouldn't endanger themselves unnecessarily.

5. Your "truth" is bullshit.

6. What's wrong with justice?

[Michaelllllllllll]

Should church goers open carry into their pulpit? And am for the recent Mumbai attack. you should try telling them people that criminals do not target large crowds. Secondly, it is obvious you are having a hard time understanding the world situation. America has defaulted on it credit and is bankrupt. The credit agency( FEDERAL RESERVE) who has loaned the money to the United States is collecting on the collateral that was put up. But you will have a hard time understanding this as well......

[ed2276]

"It's simply local terrorism and nothing more. " With regard to the statement above, II suggest you take note of your own preceding observation:

"...that's a completely unsubstantiated statement with no logic or evidence behind it."

Regards.

[p00lman]

Because I've yet to be given a practical reason for open carry, I can safely assume the following:

1. Open carry is intended for other people to see the bared firearms.

2. The bared firearms are meant to intimidate and dissuade those who would act violently or unjustly.

3. Open carry is therefore equivalent to the threat of violent retaliation. That's not provoking violence, but it's still a threat of violence if circumstances permit.

4. Threats of violence are akin to terrorism.

[Peridolin]

Do you only put on your seatbelt on the days you EXPECT to be in an accident?

Why not wait until there is smoke and THEN put batteries in the smoke detector? It would be cheaper on Batteries, right?

These things have one common theme, BY THEN ITS TOO LATE.

You ask why someone carries? I ask WHY DONT YOU?

If you are ever faced with an armed robber in a bank, or convenience store, or at the mall, do you want the decision of whether or not you live to be up to him?

[p00lman]

Terrible examples.

People do get in accidents.

Fires do burn down houses.

The American government does not turn on its people and become a totalitarian state.

[flowerpt]

@p00lman: at worst, the supermajority of research shows that carrying has little or no impact on crime rates (look at the more guns less crime article on wikipedia, opposition section for references). So, at best you'd like to take away a person's freedom to defend himself with no benefits. That's just a weird power-play and/or supportive of tyranny. If you have evidence to disprove those studies, please show it. P.S. You cannot honestly discount a pervasive family-shame based Asian culture.

[p00lman]

You mixed up your "at best/worst" examples.

I haven't advocated removing the second amendment, but I am asking for rational justification for open carry.

I have no idea what you're referring to with "family-shame based Asian culture."

[flowerpt]

@p00lman: wait, so you're for concealed carry but against open carry? Is this for reasons of fashion or do arms cause you fear? If the latter, you should get out and use some.

In Asian culture, the misdeeds of a person do not only affect them, they have strong repercussions on the family. Bringing shame to the family has been described by sociologists as a major reason for the low crime rate in many Asian countries. I got the impression that you were trying to ascribe that to a lack of arms.

[p00lman]

I oppose gun proliferation, but self-defense is at least a valid argument for the pro-gun side.

But there is nothing valid about open carry. It exist for one purpose: to scare and intimidate others. It's local terrorism.

[flowerpt]

Ah, so there we go - guns scare you and you wish to remove that fear. Seeing open carrying makes me feel more safe. I think if you familiarized yourself with guns you'd feel the same way. My feelings aren't any more valid than yours, but mine come from the stance of experience. If you take the time to learn about guns (your obligation under the Constitution) and you still feel afraid, then you're a contentious objector and that's valid. But to complain from ignorance isn't defensible.

[p00lman]

Let me pose an example. I'm not accusing you of being racist, but let's pretend you found members of a certain race, country, or ethnicity threatening (no, I'm not talking about myself - I'm trying to create a scenario that might be valid from your perspective).

Would you still feel safe seeing a group of such people open carrying in your neighborhood?

[flowerpt]

So, if I had an irrational fear would that justify restricting others' freedom? If you're talking about a gang or something, then, sure there's a law enforcement problem, but ordinary citizens with a different melanocyte density than me? If I were afraid of them anyway, at least I'd know what they were carrying. If they're an actual threat to me and they're concealed carrying then I have no basis on which to make any rational judgements (like maybe run like hell). But this is a movie plot.

[p00lman]

I'm not talking about restriction.

You said open carry makes you feel safe. I'm trying to present a scenario where you don't feel safe about open carry.

Although i like how you bring up "irrational fear," since you're the person who talked about "a weird power-play and supportive of tyranny."

[flowerpt]

I'm not advocating using force to make anybody do anything, just letting people be free to do what they feel will best protect themselves and their families. Ask yourself this ...  pretend you're a mugger. Are you more likely to accost somebody who is open carrying or concealed carrying?

[p00lman]

Honesty? Assuming I'm a mugger who knows how to mug people (because I myself don't know how to mug people), I'd go for the open carry guy, because I'd feel a lot safer when I get the drop on him and disarm him from the getgo.

[Michaelllllllllll]

That is exactly it. The conceal carry individual gets the drop on the open carry individual. It would be exactly the same with or without a gun. So long as more people are there with guns even though the criminal got the drop on the one individual he could not get the drop on the rest of the armed populace. If no one is armed....well I am sure you get the picture.

[p00lman]

No, you've lost track of the discussion. The argument is about whether there is any good reason for open carry.

You've just agreed with me that open carry makes individuals more vulnerable, which is a strike against it.

Furthermore, you say that a criminal wouldn't get the drop on multiple armed people, but why would a criminal go after multiple people to begin with, armed or not? That's a terrible example.

[Michaelllllllllll]

He gets the drop on either one person or all people. You missed my point. And you reiterated my point that a criminal will not do something seeing an armed populace. So you just invalidated you entire post from the previous. I also ask, do you agree with how these legislators went about passing this legislation in secret?

[p00lman]

Your hypothetical situation makes no sense. Why would a criminal try to attack a large group of people over a lone individual?.

[Michaelllllllllll]

You also agree with me that a criminal will not attach a large armed populace. This can be summed up in a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto:"Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass." This is proof that guns deter even large armies from invading. So just drop you illegitimate argument and stop being radical and wishing to overturn our long standing state laws. If you knew anything about history you would understand. Did you attend public school?

[p00lman]

Wow, you think having a gun is keeping invaders away. You're more out of touch with reality than I thought.

[Michaelllllllllll]

I was simply citing a quote to back up my fundamental belief that guns force a criminal or invader which ever the case may be to think twice before acting. That has been my argument since the get go. And you are ignorant to believe hat cops prevent murders. Cite case where cops prevented murder.

[p00lman]

This entire discussion has been about OPEN CARRY, not gun ownership.

What justification is there for open carry?

[Michaelllllllllll]

So my reason for open carry is that it deters people from doing criminal acts which you agreed with me on recently"but why would a criminal go after multiple people to begin with" and then you say armed or not but lets be honest criminals never go after someone they think will give them a hard time. So the truth is that you have not given any reason what so ever as to why overturning these laws is a good idea.

[p00lman]

If a criminal would never go after someone they think will give them a hard time, then open carry is useless and futile.

And as Ridley's videos claim, open carry isn't about deterring criminals - it's about intimidating authorities. That's just terrorism.

[Michaelllllllllll]

Well at least we know your true feelings. Even though you have failed in proving anything and with your most recent attempt to disseminate that somehow people carrying guns is a bad thing. But then again it "Intimidates" you and is an act of Terrorism. It is obvious t me know that open debate with you is a no win situation due to the massive effect that the government propaganda has had on you. I still don't think you understand what a police officers role is either. They do not prevent crime.

[Dewdaahman]

The commitee that passed this violation of the NH Constitution's 2nd Amendment has neither the authority nor the ability to enforce this "infringement" of our RIGHT, unless they want a good ole shootout on the front lawn of the Capitol.. they best undo this treasonous act or face citizen's arrests, which we have a right to do.. and, if the police fail to uphold the arrest then arrest the police dept and put them in their own cells..

[SSILENTNATION]

Of course, I'm sure you won't be there to do any of this. .

[Dewdaahman]

"this" will have to be organized at the local level and w/the help of the Sheriff's Dept we can remove these people.. by the way, the commitee that passed this rule is the same commitee that decides whether to wash the floors 2 times a week or 8 times a month, who does the landscaping, etc.. they're laughin' at us..

[Deoptics8]

So any "rule" passed by the committee that violates the constitution cannot be enforced by the security/ LEO's. They should be made aware that what they did violates the state constitution and is void. I would give the committee fair warning and make sure what they are doing violates their oath.

[homeagent]

It seems, every time authoritarians try a gun ban it backfires (no punn intended) in there face. Which is detrimental to their agenda. Which shows how childish and stupid there really are. Breaking rules to go against the will of the people and they call them selves democrats?!

[RunsWitGuns]

god bless you people praise god

[CreamyGoodnessX]

> Which god?

[JosiahsBackpack]

And normal people will then become outlaws by refusing to give up their right.

[p00lman]

And normal people will be able to leave in peace and without fear of violent nutbags.

[JosiahsBackpack]

Sorry but I for one believe that the nature of some people will always be negative and that others have the right to defend themselves from these people who wish to hurt and take. Removing guns from the equation will not change this. Looking at history tells us that there were murders and robbers way before the invention of the gun.

[p00lman]

History didn't have home security systems and phones to dial a police force that can arrive within minutes.

Sorry, but any comparisons to history are just really futile.

[JosiahsBackpack]

ROFL, oh yes.

When seconds count, police are only minutes away.

Due to the court decision that police officers are not under obligation to protect me, I will pass on relying on them to do just that and will continue to decide to protect myself and my family.

[p00lman]

You are entitled to protect yourself.

But I see no benefit in allowing open carry.

[mrethrift]

You don't need to see the benefit of it. You can benefit from it even if you are blind to the benefits.

[alex3914]

Good Job and people think that if no one had guns there would be no danger. That woman is like a child. It's an impossible dream she has.

There would be danger.....because you can't control people's thoughts. It's impossible....there would always be criminals with guns for a long time...and of course law abiding citizens must have their guns too....let's prevent 20 person massacres please and thank you.

[JosiahsBackpack]

Here is my question to these people:

"So before guns were invented, there were no murders?"

[p00lman]

More like society has evolved and become more enlightened. Look at Japan and South Korea: the public doesn't own guns, and there is very little violent crime, the people are free and have wealth, and their economies are doing well.

Open your fucking eyes.

[Pv8man]

said by p00lman

"look at Japan and South Korea: the public doesn't own guns, and there is very little violent crime"

yeah, and japan has a law that punishes workers that the Japanese government considers Overweight .

and if I were in South Korea, I would want to have a firearm right about now.

How could you say South Korea is better without guns with Kim in the North always threatening south korea and positioning it's artillery and troops to do so?

[p00lman]

Seoul is one of the safest countries in the world. Ask any South Korean if they feel threatened by the North.

Or you could just ignore the wisdom of someone who actually knows what he's talking about and continue to believe your own paranoia.

[Pv8man]

Oh ok, so you have personally talked with people in south korea?

explain exactly what makes them so safe???

Since you know so much about South Korea apparently, enlighten us.

[p00lman]

Basically, North Korea has threatened violence for over 50 years and failed to live up to that threat. No one takes the country seriously anymore. Politicians do, only to the extent that, well, they have to. But the average Korean just rolls their eyes when the North has something new to declare.

South Koreans frequently go on tours to North Korean provinces that have been made available over the last decade. One woman was shot, only because she stupidly got lost and crossed a boundary.

[SSILENTNATION]

He lives there - I think he gets a pass on how things work there.

[EdMan2012]

@p00lman

You're right, North Korea isn't a threat to South Korea b/c of the U.S. presence. Perhaps we should leave that region and see what happens. We shouldn't even be there anyways.

[p00lman]

The US is gradually pulling out. The plan by the end of 2010 is to no longer have any bases in Seoul. I'm sure NK would be thrilled for the US to be gone, because they consider the US to be the main obstruction between negotiations with South Korea.

[limitedgovt999]

Poolman, honestly, guys like you are the reason we need to open carry. The incremental infringement of our rights by people like you will one day lead to a govt that oppresses its people. Seems you have failed to notice the cyclical nature of history and oppressive governments.

I'm glad to hear that S. Korea and Japan are utopia. In the US we have real people living here -some kind, some evil. Maybe one day we'll also figure out how to obtain utopia. Until then I'll trust my gun.

[p00lman]

So Koreans and Japanese aren't "real people"? That's a racist comment if there ever was one.

[limitedgovt999]

When someone tells me there is hardly any violence somewhere I must assume that the citizens have been taken over by peaceful robots and that real people no longer live there.

This is somewhat strange considering most robots are evil and so one would expect some violence. But anyhow, if you say there are real people there and there is no violence I'll go ahead and believe you this time.

[p00lman]

You should visit and see for yourself. Not only is it safe here, but people are generally friendly to foreigners and those with different backgrounds.

There is violence - especially more in the rural areas - but nowhere near the level of violent crime as in the US. The nice thing is that the cities are the safest areas, which isn't true in the US. I have never felt unsafe in Seoul or Tokyo, even walking around alone late at night.

[Michaelllllllllll]

There are more historical instances of crime being low in civilizations where the people are allowed to "Keep and Bear Arms" as the opposite. As a matter fact it is also good to note that only in free societies are you allowed to carry weapons to begin with......or am I wrong about that?

[p00lman]

Yep, you're wrong about that. As I already said, Japan and South Korea are free societies, and have much lower cases of violence than the US. I can point you to statistics if you'd like.

[Michaelllllllllll]

Saudi Arabia ranks better than Japan on murder per capita. So I wonder if the reason Japan has such low numbers is because of the Lithium in the water supply? Some people just enjoy their slavery more....

My source for the murder stat is Nation Master they seem to line up with other results.

[p00lman]

Hate to tell you, but Japan is a free society - and not just free, but terribly more advanced and progressive than the US.

[mrethrift]

You are cordially invited to stay in Korea! Become a Korean citizen. Shut the fuck up!

[p00lman]

I wouldn't mind staying longer, but I don't see what that has to do with my freedom of self-expression, regardless of my citizenship.

[mrethrift]

Stay forever.

[disturbedone5009]

Not too long ago someone used a knive in a Japanses subway to kill 7 people.... yeah besides the Japanese are much more respectful people than the majority of most countries.

[p00lman]

An exception does not a trend make.

[Michaelllllllllll]

And it is also obvious you have trouble stringing your thoughts together to form complete arguments. You have contradicted yourself numerous times. So you can live in your fantasy world where you piss your pants every time you see a gun. For me, I will continue to support the rights of people to make good decision's and I will also support the right of you to say you misguided things. Good Day

[p00lman]

Show me a contradiction I made.

[Michaelllllllllll]

Wise Up.

[p00lman]

Ah, so you can claim I made a contradiction but can't actually point one out. Thanks for exposing yourself to be full of shit.

[disturbedone5009]

Also didn't a radical group release a nerve agent on the Japanese subway?

[p00lman]

Again, exceptions only help prove the rule.

[disturbedone5009]

Guns in the hands of responsible people help prevent crime. The areas with more legal guns per capita have less crime and are safer. The places that are the most violent ban handguns out right to the people or they must be disassembled and locked up at home.

[Colortiniz]

I see a lot of videos about 'open carry'. What's the policy on 'concealed carry'?

[chewbaca1989]

@Colortiniz

Open carry is ancient and hearkens back to the Magna Carta, 1215.

Dastardly folks conceal, free men, law abiding, can carry anywhere in any state * except in gun free zones, made by the FEDS).

[homeagent]

Exellent comment chewbaca1989, 5* to you !!

[campsteveo]

As we say in the south, from my cold, dead hands...

[lynette1953]

wonderful, i plan to start my own open carry group.