# Gun bans



## Patchouli

http://www.bustle.com/articles/2641...staurantsbut-not-because-of-the-ucsb-shooting 



> Following in the much-praised footsteps of Chipotle, Chiliâs and Sonic Drive-In have now banned guns on their premises, although they both said the timing of their decision had nothing to do with last weekâs rampage in Santa Barbara. Instead, they were motivated for the same reason Chipotle was: a group of guns rightsâ activists decided to take their assault rifles into Sonic and Chiliâs restaurants in a type of pro-gun demonstration that happened to backfire. Epically.
> Earlier this month, pro-gun activists from Open Carry Texas â the same group whose picture showing them sitting with assault rifles at a Texas Chipotle went viral less than two weeks ago â took their military-style weapons to a Sonic and a Chiliâs restaurant. They posted two videos of their visits (during which they were refused service) on YouTube on May 19. Although they removed them soon after,the videos drew the attention of the anti-gun group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, who called on Chiliâs and Sonic to ban firearms at their businesses.
> On Friday, Sonic and Chiliâs joined Chipotle, as well as Starbucks, Wendyâs, Applebees and Jack in the Box, in asking their patrons to leave their guns at home. Said Sonic Vice President of Public Relations Patrick Lenow, according to CNBC: While we historically have relied upon local laws to guide how we address the display of guns at drive-ins, recent actions required we carefully reconsider this approach. Weâve considered the views and desires of our customers and employees that staff the drive-ins across the country. Accordingly, weâre asking that customers refrain from bringing guns onto our patios or into our indoor dining areas. With respect to the storage of guns in vehicles, we ask that our customers continue to honor local laws.​


Let me start by saying I have guns. I use them here on my farm for various purposes including just enjoying collecting and shooting them. I have no problem with guns used appropriately. I don't even have a problem with those who are properly trained and certified carrying the appropriate gun in public. I do have a serious problem with these guys (who I called nutjobs in another thread) who carry long guns of any sort into restaurants and coffee shops and other inappropriate places. They have now caused at least 8 places that I know of to close their doors to anyone carrying a gun. 

How do you feel about this tactic? Do these people represent you?


----------



## JeffreyD

Patchouli said:


> http://www.bustle.com/articles/2641...staurantsbut-not-because-of-the-ucsb-shooting
> 
> Let me start by saying I have guns. I use them here on my farm for various purposes including just enjoying collecting and shooting them. I have no problem with guns used appropriately. I don't even have a problem with those who are properly trained and certified carrying the appropriate gun in public. I do have a serious problem with these guys (who I called nutjobs in another thread) who carry long guns of any sort into restaurants and coffee shops and other inappropriate places. They have now caused at least 8 places that I know of to close their doors to anyone carrying a gun.
> 
> How do you feel about this tactic? Do these people represent you?


I have no problem with them exercising their 2nd amendment rights! No one represents me, but me! Do I agree with them about carrying weapons in public? Sure I do, it's our right to be able to defend ourselves to the best of our ability. Another human cannot take that right away, no matter how much they want to. It can only happen if you let it! People have become sheeple and want someone else to take the responsibility for what ever happens to them, and then complain about it!

If you were the average robber, would you try it with these guy's standing around....no, you wouldn't.


----------



## MO_cows

I think they were stupid to do it, nothing like scaring the gun a phobes at the local burger joint to set your cause back a few years. However, freedom includes the freedom to be stupid. Just like the idiots at Westboro, I don't have any interest in what they have to say, but they have the right to say it.


----------



## Brighton

I like the OP have guns on my farm, but I don't go into the local Subway or Hardware store with my .22 rifle, 30-30 or my Grandpa's old 12 Gauge slung over my back, why because there is no need for it and in my mind what these nutjobs are doing is more harm to the people who legitimately use guns as tools, as I do on this farm, than they are doing good!!

Heck even without the guns I wouldn't want either cubby bubby or skinny hanging pants to carry my groceries out to the truck for me as they don't look like the brightest lights in the socket!

Anna


----------



## FireMaker

These guys violated the first rule of battle. They lost the surprise. I would get the have know knowledge of tactics or
Weapon operations. Often those that can't flaunt. Those that can, don't need to.


----------



## Evons hubby

Just to be honest I am far more concerned about how these wackos dress in public than I am about any weapons they may carry.


----------



## Evons hubby

Brighton said:


> I like the OP have guns on my farm, but I don't go into the local Subway or Hardware store with my .22 rifle, 30-30 or my Grandpa's old 12 Gauge slung over my back, why because there is no need for it and in my mind what these nutjobs are doing is more harm to the people who legitimately use guns as tools, as I do on this farm, than they are doing good!!
> 
> Heck even without the guns I wouldn't want either cubby bubby or skinny hanging pants to carry my groceries out to the truck for me as they don't look like the brightest lights in the socket!
> 
> Anna


well said!


----------



## Patchouli

MO_cows said:


> I think they were stupid to do it, nothing like scaring the gun a phobes at the local burger joint to set your cause back a few years. However, freedom includes the freedom to be stupid. Just like the idiots at Westboro, I don't have any interest in what they have to say, but they have the right to say it.


Yeah this is not about their rights to carry the guns, they absolutely do have the right. It is about what they are doing to other people's rights. They have singlehandedly set their own cause back pretty impressively. The anti-gun groups are thrilled to bits whenever these guys show up because it means lots of pictures and media and a win for their petitions to ban guns. 

Even the NRA came out and said they needed to stop. They didn't stick by it long but they did have a moment of sanity there.


----------



## Cornhusker

I think we should be able to carry a weapon anywhere, any time.
That being said, I think these guys are hurting the cause.
The reason some people are behind gun bans is because they are afraid of guns, and they believe "gun people" are crazy ******** looking for something to shoot.
We spend a lot of time and energy trying to convince gunophobes we are good, stable, normal people, and Booger and Lewis carting EBRs into a diner tends to wipe out some of the good progress we've made.
If you want to make a statement on gun ownership, wear a pistol on your hip.
Scaring old ladies and liberals does nothing to change their minds.


----------



## Glade Runner

Always thought waving your weapon around in public was a bad idea.


----------



## Shoden

Cornhusker said:


> If you want to make a statement on gun ownership, wear a pistol on your hip.


Not legal in Texas to open carry a pistol, which is why they've been using rifles and shotguns at the Texas open carry rallies/events/protests.

I agree with everything else you said though. I would be more sympathetic if the rifles were being properly carried slung over a shoulder or in a scabbard, but posing like they are wouldn't be tolerated in a restaurant with pistols either.


----------



## Oggie

Here's a question that I find interesting. Brandishing a weapon is illegal in Oklahoma.

When does displaying a weapon for the sake of displaying a weapon cross over to "brandishing" a weapon?

I think that there might be a point at which some of these folks might cross that vague, invisible line. 

If the fashion police were doing their job, some of these folks would have already been cited.*


For those not familiar with Sonic restaurants and Oklahoma, rest assured that probably hundreds of firearms pass through these drive-ins every day in the cars and trucks that stop for a burger or shake.


*That's a joke.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

I think most people would agree, these guys are "nutjobs". Personally, if I were sitting in a restaurant and these yoyos walked in, the first time a muzzle came up poor gun handling would be their last mistake. I remember the Luby's massacre in Killeen TX, where nobody but the shooter had a gun. I believe that prompted the CC law in Texas.

Unfortunately, every cause has its fringe element, and these Laurel & Hardy impersonators will become poster boys for those who would brand all gun owners as nutjobs.

These guys are definitely over compensating for something. The little guy? Ok, maybe it's having to walk around with his butt so close to the sidewalk. But the big guy? One can only imagine.


----------



## Fennick

Patchouli said:


> Yeah this is not about their rights to carry the guns, they absolutely do have the right. It is about what they are doing to other people's rights. They have singlehandedly set their own cause back pretty impressively. The anti-gun groups are thrilled to bits whenever these guys show up because it means lots of pictures and media and a win for their petitions to ban guns.
> 
> Even the NRA came out and said they needed to stop. They didn't stick by it long but they did have a moment of sanity there.


On the other hand, maybe pro-gun isn't really their cause and those guys did that expressly for the purpose of getting restaurants and customers all riled up and calling for a ban on guns in public. People like that could be starting a whole new trend of reverse psychology to achieve bans. Dress down to look like a goof, wield guns in a restaurant like a goof then flaunt it all over internet like a goof and hey presto! another restaurant chain puts the kibosh on guns on their premises. Another set back for the gun rights people = goofy goal achieved. It's brilliant. :hysterical:


----------



## watcher

Anyone here ever dealt with someone with a phobia? Do you know how you treat someone who has an irrational fear of something?

You repeatedly expose them to that object and show them nothing bad happens.

When you have people who lose control of bladder and bowels at the mere sight of a firearm you are not going to allay that fear by reenforcing it by showing that firearms are so dangerous that they must be keep under cover to prevent said evil firearms from jumping up and start killing everyone in sight.


----------



## JJ Grandits

These guys are idiots. When you consider the political climate, the media bias, and the impact that insane people have had spreading destruction, these guys are royal friggin' idiots. Yes I believe in the second Amendment, I also believe in freedom of speech, but I don't scream fire in a crowded theatre just to exercise it. Blubber man and smiling stick boy are a prime example of irresponsibility. They need a good slappin'!


----------



## BadFordRanger

As was said, all they did, was give the anti-gunners even more to use against us, and while they do look like idiots, I suspect they aren't gun owners at all.
At the looks of them, I doubt either of them could afford either one of those rifles. 
They look like plants to fuel the anti-gunners! 
JMHO

Ranger


----------



## Cookie2

45 states in the US allow for some kind of open carry - rightfully so. Do business in one of these states - or heaven forbid, live in one of these states - and get all freaked out when you see someone open carry? Then you're just an idiot.


----------



## Danaus29

They don't represent me either and if I happened to see them in one of our local restaurants I would suggest they take a firearms safety course without sleeping through it.


----------



## JJ Grandits

I live in New York and legally I can shoulder a long gun and walk down the street. I would then be hassled by every cop around. Chances are good I'd be arrested, but then released, and I'd have a heck of a time getting my gun back even though I did not break the law.


----------



## plowjockey

Many freak out when the gays march in public, in heir thongs and fairy wings, yet somehow, marching into a Subway brandishing an AR15 is a good idea

Stupidity is everywhere.


----------



## poppy

Cookie2 said:


> 45 states in the US allow for some kind of open carry - rightfully so. Do business in one of these states - or heaven forbid, live in one of these states - and get all freaked out when you see someone open carry? Then you're just an idiot.


Exactly right. Sadly the anti gun crowd has brainwashed much of the country. Even in the local town where I was raised, if I were to walk through town with a shotgun over my shoulder, someone would likely call the cops to check me out. Probably 90% of the people there own at least one gun and carrying a gun through town used to be common and no one even noticed. I've done it many times in my younger days.


----------



## Danaus29

plowjockey said:


> Many freak out when the gays march in public, in heir thongs and fairy wings, yet somehow, marching into a Subway brandishing an AR15 is a good idea
> 
> Stupidity is everywhere.


I saw many people carrying long guns during my latest short trip to Alaska. Didn't freak me out but I did wonder a little if the bears were so bad that people needed to carry in town to protect themselves from the bears. And this was before I read the newspaper telling about "another" bear attack in Anchorage's green belt.


----------



## Patchouli

Oggie said:


> Here's a question that I find interesting. Brandishing a weapon is illegal in Oklahoma.
> 
> When does displaying a weapon for the sake of displaying a weapon cross over to "brandishing" a weapon?
> 
> I think that there might be a point at which some of these folks might cross that vague, invisible line.
> 
> If the fashion police were doing their job, some of these folks would have already been cited.*
> 
> 
> For those not familiar with Sonic restaurants and Oklahoma, rest assured that probably hundreds of firearms pass through these drive-ins every day in the cars and trucks that stop for a burger or shake.
> 
> 
> *That's a joke.


I think to be brandishing a weapon you have to be threatening someone with it? If they waved it around or pointed it at someone I think it would qualify. I always think of Yosemite Sam when I think of brandishing a weapon.


----------



## Patchouli

Cookie2 said:


> 45 states in the US allow for some kind of open carry - rightfully so. Do business in one of these states - or heaven forbid, live in one of these states - and get all freaked out when you see someone open carry? Then you're just an idiot.


The sad thing is all of these stores and restaurants allowed guns previously. They had no problem with CC or even open carry when people were being responsible. It was when they started gathering in large groups with large guns and scaring patrons that they chose to ban guns. 

I don't think the average person would be freaked out to see someone walk up to a counter with a pistol in a holster. It's really all a matter of appropriateness. If I see a few pick-up trucks at my local Sonic with shotguns in the back window during deer season I won't bat an eye. If I see a few yahoos wandering around the parking lot with assault type rifles I am going to be a little worried.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Fennick said:


> On the other hand, maybe pro-gun isn't really their cause and those guys did that expressly for the purpose of getting restaurants and customers all riled up and calling for a ban on guns in public. People like that could be starting a whole new trend of reverse psychology to achieve bans. Dress down to look like a goof, wield guns in a restaurant like a goof then flaunt it all over internet like a goof and hey presto! another restaurant chain puts the kibosh on guns on their premises. Another set back for the gun rights people = goofy goal achieved. It's brilliant. :hysterical:


Wow! Where did my devious gene go? It never occurred to me they could be "double agents". I'll have to remember never to play cards with you.


----------



## Paumon

Fennick said:


> On the other hand, maybe pro-gun isn't really their cause and those guys did that expressly for the purpose of getting restaurants and customers all riled up and calling for a ban on guns in public. People like that could be starting a whole new trend of reverse psychology to achieve bans. Dress down to look like a goof, wield guns in a restaurant like a goof then flaunt it all over internet like a goof and hey presto! another restaurant chain puts the kibosh on guns on their premises. Another set back for the gun rights people = goofy goal achieved. It's brilliant. :hysterical:





BadFordRanger said:


> As was said, all they did, was give the anti-gunners even more to use against us, and while they do look like idiots, I suspect they aren't gun owners at all.
> At the looks of them, I doubt either of them could afford either one of those rifles.
> They look like plants to fuel the anti-gunners!
> JMHO
> 
> Ranger


I think you both could be right. Both of those guys have gone into over-kill to make themselves look weirdly immature and unreal. Right down to the baggy pants and untied shoe laces. 

Take it one step further - maybe some of those restaurant and coffee shop chain corporations have also secretly hired people to pretend they're nutty pro-gunners flashing guns in the restaurants then post it on internet. The corporations would know customers and staff would be frightened so they'd have a plausible excuse for banning all firearms in their establishments and save face at the same time.

Look for more and more of these kinds of incidents to happen. Some of them could be imposters planted and some of them could be real but clueless pro-gun folks who get tricked into brazen over-confidence and follow the imposters lead. Whichever is the case, it will still have the same result.


----------



## gweny

Give the big guy a trench coat and throw in a monkey and it's jay and silent bob! LMAO!


----------



## Oggie

Patchouli said:


> I think to be brandishing a weapon you have to be threatening someone with it? If they waved it around or pointed it at someone I think it would qualify. I always think of Yosemite Sam when I think of brandishing a weapon.



Well, the Oklahoma law says, "It is unlawful to willingly or maliciously disturb the peace and quiet by shooting or brandishing a firearm."

And Merriam Webster says that brandish means:

*1:* to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly 


*2:* to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner

So, I would think that a reasonable (or even an unreasonable) person might interpret folks who make it a point to show off weapons to be pretty close to crossing that line. Depending, of course, on the specific actions and demeanor of those folks holding the military guns of which they are so proud.

I don't think that it would take much of a nudge before someone crossed the line.


----------



## TripleD

poppy said:


> Exactly right. Sadly the anti gun crowd has brainwashed much of the country. Even in the local town where I was raised, if I were to walk through town with a shotgun over my shoulder, someone would likely call the cops to check me out. Probably 90% of the people there own at least one gun and carrying a gun through town used to be common and no one even noticed. I've done it many times in my younger days.


 I think people just need to be educated on it more. I open carry weather permiting and people will stop and ask questions. I had one LEO ask me what law said I could? I told him there wasn't one and that meant I could.


----------



## beowoulf90

Ozarks Tom said:


> Wow! Where did my devious gene go? It never occurred to me they could be "double agents". I'll have to remember never to play cards with you.



If I recall correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't there just a story/case where a anti-gun group planted a loaded pistol in a Target store to create a stir, but it back fired...

These anti American, anti Constitution people are low, very low.. They don't care about Freedom or Liberty and only want to control others.. 

I also just saw an article where one of the former CEO's of an anti-gun group said it was about control and not guns. They believe that they will be on the controlling side of tyranny if/when it happens. So they think it won't truly affect them..


----------



## Win07_351

beowoulf90 said:


> They don't care about Freedom or Liberty and only want to control others..


Seems like kind of a wasted life.


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon said:


> I think you both could be right. Both of those guys have gone into over-kill to make themselves look weirdly immature and unreal. Right down to the baggy pants and untied shoe laces.


While I agree with those posters that it could be a brilliant ploy by anti-gunners, I suspect it is not. Unfortunately, many of the open carry activists I'm familiar with really are that ridiculous.

I wouldn't go into a business with these nutjobs hanging around. If they showed up while I'm there, as soon as their muzzle crosses a human being all bets are off. I'm old, but I'm still a tough SOB and that is one thing I will not tolerate.


----------



## beowoulf90

Win07_351 said:


> Seems like kind of a wasted life.



Yup!

But apparently that is all they have..


----------



## Paumon

beowoulf90 said:


> If I recall correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't there just a story/case where a anti-gun group planted a loaded pistol in a Target store to create a stir, but it back fired...


 
http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/crime/article_cc12920c-f255-11e3-8245-0017a43b2370.html



> A Myrtle Beach man is being sought in connection with a loaded pistol that was left on the shelf in the toy department of a local Target department store, according to Myrtle Beach police.
> 
> The Myrtle Beach Police Department identifies the suspect as David Dennis. He is wanted on a charge of unlawfully carrying of a handgun in connection with the incident.
> 
> According to State Law Enforcement Division records, Dennis was previously charged with armed robbery in October 2013. The robbery charge was dismissed in March, but he pleaded guilty to assault and battery, second degree, according to the Horry County Public Index..........


----------



## Patchouli

I think these are all part of the Texas Open Carry group who seem to love stunts like this. I expect Target will be the next one to ban them. On the one hand I do sympathize with the fact that the law in Texas is an odd one. You can carry long guns openly but not handguns. My guess is that was so hunters wouldn't get in trouble being out in public and this group is exploiting a loophole. I would prefer people with permits carrying handguns openly to the current mess. 

Oh and that boy with the camo hat in the OP must have cousins all over the state. 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/guns-target-open-carry-texas


----------



## TraderBob

http://buzzpo.com/gun-found-target-toy-aisle-triggers-blame-game/

The woman who owns the gun that they didn't name, is Chavonne Moore, and police would like to talk to her as well. So if you see her, let her know.










This is from June 6th http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=1054479


----------



## plowjockey

Danaus29 said:


> I saw many people carrying long guns during my latest short trip to Alaska. Didn't freak me out but I did wonder a little if the bears were so bad that people needed to carry in town to protect themselves from the bears. And this was before I read the newspaper telling about "another" bear attack in Anchorage's green belt.


When the scantily-clad gays, march in the San Francisco pride parades, the locals probably don't worry too much either.


----------



## kasilofhome

Danaus29 said:


> I saw many people carrying long guns during my latest short trip to Alaska. Didn't freak me out but I did wonder a little if the bears were so bad that people needed to carry in town to protect themselves from the bears. And this was before I read the newspaper telling about "another" bear attack in Anchorage's green belt.


Yep, I know personally 3 family's ...ok two were not in a city but none of the following were rural Bush environment area.

3 family went to sleep in locked homes and in the night bears entered each home. One was the mayor's home. One was a pastor in another 3 bears entered and the only one phone was 13 year old. The 13 shot all of the bears. 

A jogger was hurt bad last month, my son's teacher lived thru the surgeries and I doubt she is a member here but she lives with the facial scars. My husband shot the bear I did not see in my blind spot when it was comming from behind the brush ten feet from my kitchen door.

People wear guns all the time here, I require the youth group always s have at least two people armed for all out door events. To me it is no different than checking to see that buses have first aid kits and blankets with them when leaving for road trips. Guns do not scare me when I see then. Maybe if I returned to new York and saw it I might question. Living here high heels on women for daily use cause more questions.


----------



## beowoulf90

Paumon said:


> http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/crime/article_cc12920c-f255-11e3-8245-0017a43b2370.html



Thank you for the correction...


----------



## simi-steading

Well... I was going to say, I'd feel better if the skinny guy took his finger off the trigger in public, BUT, since I notice the bolt is pulled back on his SKS and it's empty.. what's the point??? He's got very un-ergonomic club.


----------



## HDRider

Fennick said:


> On the other hand, maybe pro-gun isn't really their cause and those guys did that expressly for the purpose of getting restaurants and customers all riled up and calling for a ban on guns in public. People like that could be starting a whole new trend of reverse psychology to achieve bans. Dress down to look like a goof, wield guns in a restaurant like a goof then flaunt it all over internet like a goof and hey presto! another restaurant chain puts the kibosh on guns on their premises. Another set back for the gun rights people = goofy goal achieved. It's brilliant. :hysterical:


You my friend, are a strategic thinker.

Ask yourself this, if it was routine to see long guns or visible side arms in every day situations would there been any reaction? It was the shock value because the media as whipped the Seinfeld crowd into a fear filled frenzy.

If you expect to see guns,, no fear. Guns in situations that seem out of place - front page news.


----------



## Twobottom

I feel that the second amendment affirms the right of individuals to keep ( own ) and bear ( carry ) firearms. My thoughts are that either you amend the constitution to change that or you get out of the way and stop infringing on people's right ( which is a crime ).

These restaurants are private businesses and they should have the right to ban guns if they want for the same reason that they can refuse service to gays, minorities and anyone they choose for what ever reason. Those banned people, be they gays, gun owners, minorities or all of the above have the right to boycott those restaurants.


----------



## Twobottom

Still when you think about it, could you imagine the reaction to a restaurant that banned free speech? Or one where you had to consent to warrantless search of your personal effects? The second amendment is recognized by the constitution of the united states as a right, on equal footing to the right of free speech.

Can a shop owner strip you of your rights when you walk into his establishment? I say, if you agree to go into a private establishment then yes. But that also begs the question, if private property does grant those powers...why can't they refuse to serve anyone? How can you have a 'right' to be served in a private establishment?


----------



## Oggie

Have you ever tried to sing karaoke in a restaurant when it's not karaoke night?


----------



## Twobottom

Oggie said:


> Have you ever tried to sing karaoke in a restaurant when it's not karaoke night?


I dont think free speech covers screaming loudly in people's ears. There's definitely a legal precedent to recognizing the difference. Your right to free speech has never been interpreted as a right to scream in my ear. A better example would be a ban on discussing politics in a restaurant, or a ban on discussing religion.

Such a thing would be outrageous, and so should a ban on carrying your firearm. OR we recognize private property rights, which should extend to include your right to deny anybody for any reason.

Right now it makes no sense to allow a ban on one constitutional right based on private property rights, but not extend the private property rights to exclude conditions that are not even protected by the bill of rights. If anything, I would think that those few rights which were so important as to be included in the bill of rights would be held in the highest respect.


----------



## Oggie

Many establishments have rules that forbid certain types of speech. They also forbid the possession of things that are considered within our rights to carry or use in other situations.

And, private clubs are, for the most part, free to discriminate against whomever they like.

But, the public accommodations laws that were enacted on the federal level were deemed necessary to counteract a long history of systemic discrimination against traits that people couldn't just change or leave at home. On the federal level, sexual preference is not a protected class.

And, those laws have been ruled constitutional for decades.


----------



## Danaus29

plowjockey said:


> When the scantily-clad gays, march in the San Francisco pride parades, the locals probably don't worry too much either.


We have gay pride parades here too but ours are better because women are allowed to march topless. I think the first 2 or 3 made headlines but now it's pushed toward the middle and is just a little blurb.
_first sentence said sarcastically and in jest (although women are allowed to go topless) _


----------



## Tabitha

Looks like "The Fonce" shaved his head.
Those two are either idiots, or hirelings, or both. Who does their stupid behavior benefit?


----------



## Patchouli

Twobottom said:


> I feel that the second amendment affirms the right of individuals to keep ( own ) and bear ( carry ) firearms. My thoughts are that either you amend the constitution to change that or you get out of the way and stop infringing on people's right ( which is a crime ).
> 
> These restaurants are private businesses and they should have the right to ban guns if they want for the same reason that they can refuse service to gays, minorities and anyone they choose for what ever reason. Those banned people, be they gays, gun owners, minorities or all of the above have the right to boycott those restaurants.



Glad I don't live in your America!


----------



## Twobottom

Patchouli said:


> Glad I don't live in your America!


Sure. Freedom and property are scary things to a socialist.


----------



## Twobottom

Patchouli said:


> Glad I don't live in your America!


Sure. Freedom and property rights are scary things to a socialist.


----------



## Twobottom

Oggie said:


> But, the public accommodations laws that were enacted on the federal level were deemed necessary to counteract a long history of systemic discrimination against traits that people couldn't just change or leave at home. On the federal level, sexual preference is not a protected class.
> 
> And, those laws have been ruled constitutional for decades.


Oh I don't doubt that there are illogical laws out there, I'm just acknowledging that they are illogical.

You can deny someone service by refusing to allow their constitutional rights within your establishment....but you cannot deny them service based on race, creed, sexual orientation, etc

I find that strange. If anything I would imagine that our constitutional rights would be held in the highest regard. I mean do I have the right to force someone to do business with me? Maybe, but that is very questionable IMO. Do I have the right to keep and bear arms? Absolutely, without question.

As a black or gay person, I have the right to force somebody to do business with me who doesnt want to. But as a gun owner, or a person exercising free speech, I do not have the right to force you to do business with me. So if the bill of rights outline my inalienable rights as an individual, why aren't they as important as a gay man's right to buy a wedding cake?


----------



## Patchouli

Twobottom said:


> Sure. Freedom and property are scary things to a socialist.


Really? I wouldn't know since I am not a socialist. I do prefer to live in a country though where we can all sit at the lunch counter no matter what our race is and where we don't have separate facilities by color and such. I suppose you miss that sort of thing?


----------



## copperkid3

Patchouli said:


> Really? I wouldn't know since I am not a socialist. I do prefer to live in a country though where we can all sit at the lunch counter no matter what our race is and where we don't have separate facilities by color and such.
> * I suppose you miss that sort of thing?*


+ + + + + + +
and have the intestinal fortitude to at least call TwoBottom a racist
out loud, instead of taking the weasily way out and simply infer it!
I saw NOTHING in their posting which would allow a prudent bystander
to reach that conclusion that you've decided to label them with.
When racism is thrown about as a weapon to silence the opposition,
it only proves that the one using it, hasn't much in regards to a good argument to rebut.

Besides, you missed their MAIN point entirely . . . 
which is the really sad part.


And before you start getting all indignant and start with the excuse,

"But they started it . . ." examine your leanings and try to see them

as others do. You have that 'bitter taste' to those who have had dealings

with commies and socialists before. If the shoe pinches . . . take it off -

or try wearing different shoes!


----------



## Twobottom

Patchouli said:


> Really? I wouldn't know since I am not a socialist. I do prefer to live in a country though where we can all sit at the lunch counter no matter what our race is and where we don't have separate facilities by color and such. I suppose you miss that sort of thing?


You would be very surprised to know that I support gay marriage. A gay man was best man at my wedding. The very reason that I support his right to be married is the same reason I support someone else's right to conduct business with whom ever they choose, for whatever reason they choose. If that confuses you, then I think my point probably did go whizzing pretty far over your head.

You don't want a country where we can all "sit down at the lunch counter together". You want a country where you can use the power of government as a weapon to force your morality on others. No different at all from radical Christian fundamentalists.


----------



## Patchouli

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + +
> and have the intestinal fortitude to at least call TwoBottom a racist
> out loud, instead of taking the weasily way out and simply infer it!
> I saw NOTHING in their posting which would allow a prudent bystander
> to reach that conclusion that you've decided to label them with.
> When racism is thrown about as a weapon to silence the opposition,
> it only proves that the one using it, hasn't much in regards to a good argument to rebut.
> 
> Besides, you missed their MAIN point entirely . . .
> which is the really sad part.
> 
> 
> And before you start getting all indignant and start with the excuse,
> 
> "But they started it . . ." examine your leanings and try to see them
> 
> as others do. You have that 'bitter taste' to those who have had dealings
> 
> with commies and socialists before. If the shoe pinches . . . take it off -
> 
> or try wearing different shoes!


This is hilarious. He calls me a socialist which I am not but I am just supposed be okay with that because in your mind since I disagree with you frequently I must be a socialist. 

So I fire back in kind and you get your feelings hurt. I would say the same logic applies does it not?


----------



## Patchouli

Twobottom said:


> You would be very surprised to know that I support gay marriage. A gay man was best man at my wedding. The very reason that I support his right to be married is the same reason I support someone else's right to conduct business with whom ever they choose, for whatever reason they choose. If that confuses you, then I think my point probably did go whizzing pretty far over your head.
> 
> You don't want a country where we can all "sit down at the lunch counter together". You want a country where you can use the power of government as a weapon to force your morality on others. No different at all from radical Christian fundamentalists.


Good for you on the gay marriage, we agree on something. 

So far as the rest goes yes I do really want a country where we can all sit down together at the same lunch counter and you are rapidly becoming offensive here. First you call me a socialist which I am not (you will not find one single post from me anywhere advocating that the government take over ownership of all businesses for the good of the people) then you add insult to injury saying I am a liar and the equivalent of a radical Christian fundamentalist. 

The only morality I am pushing here is that of the founding documents of our very country: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

We are all equal and businesses have to treat us that way.


----------



## watcher

Twobottom said:


> As a black or gay person, I have the right to force somebody to do business with me who doesnt want to. But as a gun owner, or a person exercising free speech, I do not have the right to force you to do business with me. So if the bill of rights outline my inalienable rights as an individual, why aren't they as important as a gay man's right to buy a wedding cake?


If someone else must provide something for you then you have no *right* to it. For it to be otherwise you'd have to violate the rights of that other person.


----------



## Oggie

Twobottom said:


> Oh I don't doubt that there are illogical laws out there, I'm just acknowledging that they are illogical.
> 
> You can deny someone service by refusing to allow their constitutional rights within your establishment....but you cannot deny them service based on race, creed, sexual orientation, etc
> 
> I find that strange. If anything I would imagine that our constitutional rights would be held in the highest regard. I mean do I have the right to force someone to do business with me? Maybe, but that is very questionable IMO. Do I have the right to keep and bear arms? Absolutely, without question.
> 
> As a black or gay person, I have the right to force somebody to do business with me who doesnt want to. But as a gun owner, or a person exercising free speech, I do not have the right to force you to do business with me. So if the bill of rights outline my inalienable rights as an individual, why aren't they as important as a gay man's right to buy a wedding cake?



Gay rights aren't protected under the federal public accommodations laws.

I have the right to not wear a necktie or jacket if I choose not to. However, if I want to get into some restaurants, I have to at the request of the owner.

And, if I am properly attired and allowed to walk into a restaurant that requires a necktie and jacket, the black guy behind me can also walk into the restaurant wearing a necktie and jacket, too (assuming that he is also wearing pants).

At a private club, that might not be the case.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> Really? I wouldn't know since I am not a socialist. I do prefer to live in a country though where we can all sit at the lunch counter no matter what our race is and where we don't have separate facilities by color and such. I suppose you miss that sort of thing?


Its clear you are not a socialist. Based on the fact you want the government to have the power to force you to do something against your beliefs in the name of the good of the nation you are clearly a fascist.


----------



## copperkid3

Patchouli said:


> This is hilarious. He calls me a socialist which I am not but I am just supposed be okay with that because in your mind since I disagree with you frequently I must be a socialist.
> 
> So I fire back in kind and you get your feelings hurt. I would say the same logic applies does it not?


+ + + + + + + + + +
You 'might' then notice, 
that I never called you a socialist -
or a commie for that matter.

Logic is not your forte . . . but I'll admit, you're getting better.

You're right . . . when taken in full context, it is hilarious.


----------



## plowjockey

Twobottom said:


> Still when you think about it, could you imagine the reaction to a restaurant that banned free speech? Or one where you had to consent to warrantless search of your personal effects? The second amendment is recognized by the constitution of the united states as a right, on equal footing to the right of free speech.
> 
> Can a shop owner strip you of your rights when you walk into his establishment? I say, if you agree to go into a private establishment then yes. But that also begs the question, if private property does grant those powers...why can't they refuse to serve anyone? How can you have a 'right' to be served in a private establishment?


 Happens every day.

You can say what you want in a restaurant - quietly and to someone who wants to hear what you have to say. Other wise, if you are too loud, or decide to give an impromptu speech, you will asked to be quieted down, or to leave. 

Nearly every truck terminal, bans firearms and many make you agree to consent, to search your truck, by entering their property.

"right to refuse service" are covered by health laws, or existing anti-discrimination laws


----------



## Patchouli

watcher said:


> Its clear you are not a socialist. Based on the fact you want the government to have the power to force you to do something against your beliefs in the name of the good of the nation you are clearly a fascist.


You guys seriously need to spend a little time with a dictionary before you start tossing around terms. Fascism and Socialism do not mean what you people think they mean. :bored:


----------



## Win07_351

watcher said:


> Its clear you are not a socialist. Based on the fact you want the government to have the power to force you to do something against your beliefs in the name of the good of the nation you are clearly a fascist.


Statist?


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> You guys seriously need to spend a little time with a dictionary before you start tossing around terms. Fascism and Socialism do not mean what you people think they mean. :bored:


In fascism the government owns nothing in the economic system (production, distribution, sales, etc.) but controls it all via laws and/or regulations. 

You think the government should have the power to control who you do or do not sale your privately owned goods to based on laws and/or regulations. If your personal belief system runs counter to these laws and regs you will either be force to violate your belief system or be forced to shut down your business. This makes you a believer in the fascist system of governments therefore a fascist.


----------



## heyrakes

one day will come when you will carry your firearm everywhere you go. just like you seen in the old west movies. or of course if you are the slaves you won't


----------



## Paumon

heyrakes said:


> one day will come when you will carry your firearm everywhere you go. just like you seen in the old west movies. or of course if you are the slaves you won't


What a terrible prediction of anarchy and fearful danger in a future with no peace. I can't imagine what it would be like for everyone to be so paranoid and terrified of evil intentions in everyone and everything else that they will all fear for their lives and need to carry firearms everywhere they go. Surely such a state of affairs can only happen if all society breaks down and each person is at war with every other person.


----------



## kasilofhome

How dramatic one can be over people having guns most people carry knives and we are not out there stabbing b people. It is simple a tool that some carry to be prepared for being of service should a need arrive.. why do some think that violence and hate is the only rational for people being prepare to help. I am also in favor of as many persons who want to carry jumper cables.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> How dramatic one can be over people having guns most people carry knives and we are not out there stabbing b people. It is simple a tool that some carry to be prepared for being of service should a need arrive.. why do some think that violence and hate is the only rational for people being prepare to help. I am also in favor of as many persons who want to carry jumper cables.


Only time I ever had to carry a gun was when I was in the military. Never needed to carry one off the farm in all my life before or since. Don't see a future where I ever will either.


----------



## kasilofhome

That is you in your environment. There are other people in different environments. I live with an environment for which guns are need. While I do not have a suitable gun to carry with out looking like the rifleman carrying a gun too big for me. Most people in my area have a family member who is carrying. I take the time to thank them. 

Anchorage campfire girls can not get fish in game to shoot a tranquilizer at a sow with two cubs who have selected to camp with the girls all week. It is in a gun free zone... The city park. Surrounded by homes by a few hundred feet...It really is a glorified green belt. A vocal group is claiming that there is no problem as the sow just takes their lunches. The kid and leaders know to give them wide birth but come Tranquil the bear and be gratefully no one's been hurt. Continuing the event is stupid. The risk are high that she will attack. The do not want a parent or homeowner taking action .... these people who are expressing how great it has been going due solely do to the bear being friendly and interested are creating a problem by supporting an inaction by f&g which is unheard of in the past where tranquil guns where used and bears moved. But I live in bear country others here might have other reason besides killing humans for carrying guns.


----------



## Patchouli

I don't ever see myself living in Alaska but if I did I probably would carry a gun.


----------



## Paumon

I watched the video on the news of that mother bear and her two cubs playing at the park. They looked so happy playing and tumbling and were totally ignoring all the people that were there watching them. It was on the web news too:

http://news.msn.com/offbeat/alaska-black-bear-cubs-steal-kids-lunch-boxes-1



> ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) â Witnesses say a black bear and two cubs that have been frequenting midtown Anchorage stole several lunch boxes at a children's day camp on the Alaska Pacific University campus.
> 
> Katie Adrian, program manager at the summer program run by Camp Fire USA, tells The Anchorage Daily News the bears wandered onto the school's soccer fields Monday, soon after the campers ate lunch at picnic tables and left behind some snacks. The bears carried a few lunch boxes into the woods and dug in.
> 
> The bears weren't aggressive, and camp staff corralled the kids. After this, she says the campers will eat elsewhere and store their food indoors.
> 
> David Battle of the Alaska Fish and Game Department says there are no plans to remove the bears. He says the agency doesn't consider them a public safety hazard.


----------



## Paumon

Patchouli said:


> I don't ever see myself living in Alaska but if I did I probably would carry a gun.


If I lived in Alaska I'd keep a gun close and handy too. They have waaayy more bears running around in towns up there than what we have where I live, and where I live we really have a lot of black bears running around in towns. Lots of cougars too. Nobody here carries guns nor feels the need for it but I think it would certainly be a good precaution in Alaska because they have so many more bears.


----------



## Tex-

Patchouli said:


> Only time I ever had to carry a gun was when I was in the military. Never needed to carry one off the farm in all my life before or since. Don't see a future where I ever will either.


And I hope you never see a point in the future where you do feel the need to carry a gun. It is an unalienable right guaranteed by the US Constition though and if people feel the need or desire to carry, they should be able to.

These restaraunts and business have the right to set the rules for what happens on their property, but on the same token, if they choose not to serve someone for whatever reason, they should have that option. Our government is not forcing these businesses to adhere to what is granted us by God and guaranteed by the Constitution, but they are forcing business owners into accomodating customers who they do not morally agree with. 

In short, being able to carry a firearm is an unalienable right that is being infringed up by private business. Being gay and wanting a wedding cake is not even mentioned in the US Constition, yet the government is forcing compliance on this issue. If a business owner can reserve the right to not serve someone carrying a firearm, they should also have the right to not serve someone who for any other reason they choose too.

This is not a gray area and it is setting a very bad precedent. Once again, government is infringing upon private property right, but this time, they are allowing the people to screw themselves.


----------



## Shrek

heyrakes said:


> one day will come when you will carry your firearm everywhere you go. just like you seen in the old west movies. or of course if you are the slaves you won't


 I have carried at least two concealed on my person since 1982.


I wonder how many actually consider that many of these sling across their backs open carry pro 2nd Amendment demonstrations are actually anti gunners doing a false flag media op to prop up their lame platforms of increased gun control rather than better almond joy control?


----------



## Tex-

Just for the record though, the two guys in the picture are doing more harm than good for gun rights advocates. They went into this looking to draw attention. It may be illegal in some states, but had they gone into the restaraunt wearing sidearms and not tried so hard to draw the attention of others, there would likely been no fuss at all. They went in with an attitude and demeanor of provoking people, when they should have simply been trying to accustom people to others wearing a firearm. They went in acting exactly like the stereotype the left tries to portray gun owners as. 

Idjits like these two do way more harm than good. I rarely leave the house without a gun and there has been a few times when having that gun has made a tremendous difference. Mostly those instances were in dealing with animals, but one time I had to pull it when a situation became very dangerous for myself and others around me. I would much prefer to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. With all of the meanness going on in this country nowadays, I fail to understand why the majority of people aren't carrying.

An armed society is a polite society.



Tex


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> Only time I ever had to carry a gun was when I was in the military. Never needed to carry one off the farm in all my life before or since. Don't see a future where I ever will either.


I suggest you take off the rose colored glasses and look at the cold hard facts of the economy and the federal government's spending/budget.

The feds are currently borrowing over 40% of every dollar they spend. It already owes so much money to creditors that a lot of people don't think it could EVER pay it off. It can only do this because in the past and currently the world economy needs the US to stay afloat because of the size of its market. IOW, they look at giving the US money as a business expense much like companies spend money for advertising.

But the Asian markets (China, India, South Korea, etc) are QUICKLY reaching the point that the US market will no longer be needed. At that point the ROI on the money they are giving the US will reach the point its not worth spending. They will then stop giving this money to the US and no one else is going to be stupid enough to "loan" money to a nation which they KNOW will not even be able to pay interest on much less the principal. What do you think is going to happen then? 

What are the millions upon millions of people who depend on the government to keep them alive going to do when their checks bounce? Think about it. You have all the federal employees who are now are either facing no paycheck or trying to live off less than 60% of what they were making. You have all the welfare people who are ow facing either no money or making do with less than 60% of what they were getting. Then there's all the states which have been addicted to federal money to keep themselves going what are they going to do when the federal teat runs dry?

Not the same government failure but you should read the history of what happened in Yugoslavia when the government imploded and I think you'll see a mini version of what will happen here.


----------



## Patchouli

Paumon said:


> If I lived in Alaska I'd keep a gun close and handy too. They have waaayy more bears running around in towns up there than what we have where I live, and where I live we really have a lot of black bears running around in towns. Lots of cougars too. Nobody here carries guns nor feels the need for it but I think it would certainly be a good precaution in Alaska because they have so many more bears.



It wasn't so much the bears that were worrying me up there.


----------



## Patchouli

Shrek said:


> I have carried at least two concealed on my person since 1982.
> 
> 
> I wonder how many actually consider that many of these sling across their backs open carry pro 2nd Amendment demonstrations are actually anti gunners doing a false flag media op to prop up their lame platforms of increased gun control rather than better almond joy control?



Unless you are calling Open Carry Texas a false flag group (and I seriously dare you to go to Texas and say that to their face!) then you must not know anything about what is going on in these pictures. These are all card carrying members at organized events. They just had a knock down tangle with the NRA over their campaign. 

Is it really that hard to admit someone in your particular ideology group might be an idiot? Because every group has their bunch of crazy people. I don't care what the group is there is always that bunch who messes things up for everybody else. 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...texas-long-gun-open-carry-20140604-story.html



> The National Rifle Assn. has learned the hard way not to mess with Texas.
> After chastising some of its Texas supporters for bringing long guns to fast-food outlets to demonstrate their commitment to gun rights, the NRA has been forced to apologize and say its criticism was a mistake.
> 
> Related story: NRA criticizes gun-toting demonstrators at Texas fast-food places Michael Muskal
> 
> 
> During an appearance on an NRA-hosted radio show, Chris Cox, the executive director of the group's lobbying arm, said the original criticism was written by a staffer who was expressing his personal opinion. The statement, posted on the website of the lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, said the gun-toting demonstrations in Texas were counterproductive, scary and âdownright weird.â
> âThe truth is, an alert went out that referred to this type of behavior as 'weird' or somehow not normal, and that was a mistake,â Cox said. âIt shouldn't have happened,â he added, because the NRA âunequivocallyâ supports open carry laws.
> âIt was a poor word choice in an alert that went out,â Cox said. âBut again, the underlying point here is: What is the best tactic to win? That's what we're interested in. We're not interested in distractions. We're not interested in arguing with the national news media over this. We're interested in winning.â
> The original post surprised many, given the NRAâs strong advocacy of gun rights.
> âUsing guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners. That's not the Texas way. And that's certainly not the NRA way,â the post said.
> 
> Open Carry Texas, one of the groups behind the recent demonstrations, had said that if the NRA didn't retract the statement, Open Carry would withdraw its support from the group.


----------



## heyrakes

Paumon said:


> What a terrible prediction of anarchy and fearful danger in a future with no peace. I can't imagine what it would be like for everyone to be so paranoid and terrified of evil intentions in everyone and everything else that they will all fear for their lives and need to carry firearms everywhere they go. Surely such a state of affairs can only happen if all society breaks down and each person is at war with every other person.


no anarchy about it, there will be government. these events have happened on a small scale in very recent times.
if you want to bury your head and be a Fudd that is up to you. 

on the anarchy thing. some of our best times in history have happened in anarchy.


----------



## Patchouli

Tex- said:


> And I hope you never see a point in the future where you do feel the need to carry a gun. It is an unalienable right guaranteed by the US Constition though and if people feel the need or desire to carry, they should be able to.
> 
> These restaraunts and business have the right to set the rules for what happens on their property, but on the same token, if they choose not to serve someone for whatever reason, they should have that option. Our government is not forcing these businesses to adhere to what is granted us by God and guaranteed by the Constitution, but they are forcing business owners into accomodating customers who they do not morally agree with.
> 
> In short, being able to carry a firearm is an unalienable right that is being infringed up by private business. Being gay and wanting a wedding cake is not even mentioned in the US Constition, yet the government is forcing compliance on this issue. If a business owner can reserve the right to not serve someone carrying a firearm, they should also have the right to not serve someone who for any other reason they choose too.
> 
> This is not a gray area and it is setting a very bad precedent. Once again, government is infringing upon private property right, but this time, they are allowing the people to screw themselves.


This is interesting. I am not sure that telling people they can not bring something into your store is the same as refusing service to someone for who they are (race, religion, etc.). Shops and restaurants especially are allowed to set rules on dress and health and safety things like wearing shoes. So saying leave you gun in the car seems to fall more into that area. They aren't saying I won't serve you if you are a gun owner just that you have to leave the gun in the car. You also have to leave your dog.  

It doesn't infringe on your right to own a gun and I don't think the Constitution guarantees us the right to have our gun with us at all times. I'd be curious to know when the first law or just rule banning weapons from a business or area were enacted?


----------



## TripleD

I just dont do business with anyone that has a no gun sign in the window. Its their loss. The only times I am unarmed is in the shower or at the court house. I am responsable for my safety as well as anyone else that may need it before the local LEO arrives.


----------



## Tex-

Patchouli said:


> This is interesting. I am not sure that telling people they can not bring something into your store is the same as refusing service to someone for who they are (race, religion, etc.). Shops and restaurants especially are allowed to set rules on dress and health and safety things like wearing shoes. So saying leave you gun in the car seems to fall more into that area. They aren't saying I won't serve you if you are a gun owner just that you have to leave the gun in the car. You also have to leave your dog.
> 
> It doesn't infringe on your right to own a gun and I don't think the Constitution guarantees us the right to have our gun with us at all times. I'd be curious to know when the first law or just rule banning weapons from a business or area were enacted?


In this case, telling someone they can't bring something into you store or business is even more egregious than say, baking a wedding cake for a gay couple. One is constitutionally guaranteed while the other is not. There are no provisions in the Constitution about being able able to keep and bear dogs either.

And actually, the Second Amendment does guarantee us the right to keep and bear arms at all times. That is a right that shall not be infringed.

"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."



Tex


----------



## Patchouli

Tex- said:


> In this case, telling someone they can't bring something into you store or business is even more egregious than say, baking a wedding cake for a gay couple. One is constitutionally guaranteed while the other is not. There are no provisions in the Constitution about being able able to keep and bear dogs either.
> 
> And actually, the Second Amendment does guarantee us the right to keep and bear arms at all times. That is a right that shall not be infringed.
> 
> "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."
> 
> 
> 
> Tex


I guess if there is great likelihood of your militia being called up while you are at Starbucks you should definitely be allowed to have your gun there.


----------



## Tex-

Patchouli said:


> I guess if there is great likelihood of your militia being called up while you are at Starbucks you should definitely be allowed to have your gun there.


Putting the snarkey and pointless militia reference aside, meanness and evil can strike at any time. It has been proven many times in recent history that criminals prefer to carry out their evil in places where they are most likely to meet the least resistance. Most of the victims in these attacks were just like you and had never had need for protection before. You can bet they rethought that stance afterwards though. 

You should feel very blessed that you have never been a victim, but that does not mean you you are immune to it in the future. We should all accept responsibility for our own safety and not continually call on government or proprietors to protect us from the evil that is alive and well in this world. Our safety and well being should be our own responsibility and noone else's. 

We have the tools at our disposal to protect ourselves and be responsible for our own safety. People today though somehow feel morally superior if they don't actually have to own a gun, yet they insist on having armed representatives of the government instead. The trouble with this line of thought though, is the government is figuring out how to trample on other rights too. Then, we have to ask ourselves, who will protect us from the protectors. 

You don't have to believe me to see the truth in this. You only need to look at the history of the last 10-15 years. People wanted protected and now we have the TSA groping little children and grandparents. People wanted to feel safer and now we have the NDAA and people being labled as domestic terrorists. In the name of safety, we have an explosion of "No Knock" warrants and people getting killed when the authorities go to the wrong house. It is ok for a person's dog to be shot as long as we can feel safe. The NSA is keeping track of every call a person makes and every email they send, but that is ok, as long as the irresponsible can place their own safety on the shoulders of others.

If people would accept the responsibility of their own safety, we would not be in the shape we are in today. Laziness and selfish pursuits are two main contributors that got us where we are. Trying to love and coddle a criminal into doing right are some other contributions that have not worked well either. Chicago and DC have some of the strictest gun control policies in this country, yet they also have some of the highest murder rates. Gun control policies do nothing but make for target rich environments. 

I said it before and will say it again, the guys mentioned in the OP are a couple of idjits who are hurting the cause for gun rights in this country. Rest assured though, there are responsible gun owners out there carrying their sidearms and you will probably never notice them until something bad starts to happen. Responsible gun owners do not stroke their ego or measure their manhood by drawing attention to themselves, they simply go about their business knowing they are prepared.


Tex


----------



## kasilofhome

Paumon said:


> I watched the video on the news of that mother bear and her two cubs playing at the park. They looked so happy playing and tumbling and were totally ignoring all the people that were there watching them. It was on the web news too:
> 
> http://news.msn.com/offbeat/alaska-black-bear-cubs-steal-kids-lunch-boxes-1


As I said no one sees the problem till the kids get harmed. The majority are not happy. The is a strong move...thinking that more bears the merrier. Then when someone is hurt or killed it the fault of the humans. I view anyone thing that this is a safe environment they must fail to know the speed a mad mamma bear can run.


----------



## Patchouli

Let me say first that was not intended as snark just a bit of humor to lighten things up. My snark has more bite.  

I have noticed Gun rights advocates frequently bring up Chicago as the poster child for gun control laws not working. After doing some googling I am not seeing Chicago on the top of violent crime lists by cities. I do see a lot of southern cities where the gun laws are quite liberal like St. Louis, Atlanta and Little Rock. How do you explain that?


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> As I said no one sees the problem till the kids get harmed. The majority are not happy. The is a strong move...thinking that more bears the merrier. Then when someone is hurt or killed it the fault of the humans. I view anyone thing that this is a safe environment they must fail to know the speed a mad mamma bear can run.


You won't get any argument from me on that. It is a university campus in the middle of town and children are having their day camp on the soccer field on the campus grounds. Common sense dictates that momma bear and her two cubs do not belong there in town on the campus grounds, they should be relocated to some place out of town.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

I didn't read all the posts but I would like to make a few points 

first - carry of rifles really wouldn't be happening if there weren't laws about printing in some states or laws that prohibit those under 21 from carrying concealed or laws about open carry of pistols carrying a rifle even a relatively short one with a decent sling is still added work 


much of this is done as a political statement to raise awareness , some of it is very much like the OPEN CARRY movment that did much to win Wisconsin concealed carry 

I think a person should be able to carry open or concealed , a properly holstered pistol is the ideal carry gun it is with you while not in the way and it is safe with the trigger covered and retention to keep the gun in 
I think training is nice but there is no statistical difference in training required vs no training required states 
the same goes for states that are shall issue with a very simple way to get a CCL or states that require no CCL vs states that require extensive training and make the getting of a CCL/CCP as hard as they can to get 

likewise states that allow open carry at age 18 with no training and no license haven't seen any issues with it - it has always been legal here in Wisconsin it wasn't practiced much for a while as some cities had illegal laws prohibiting it and harased law abiding citizens aresting them and falsely charging them with disorderly conduct even after other cities had lost the case and were sued for damages they continued waisting tax payer dollars to promote their Illegal political agenda.

the argument is always the blood will run in the streets yet it never does , yet the same groups continue to repeat the blood will run in the streets warning every time carry is made accessible , expanded or limitations of where you can carry are lifted ,but all we ever see is no problem, while we continualy see places that post , that prohibit that restrict carry, targeted as places to harm people by those criminals that will do others harm. 

I carry daily , 99% of the time you would never know 

stores , well it is up to them if they wish to post , however they are doing themselves a disservice to post , that little placard at the door tells the would be robbers where it is safe to rob 

If I owned a business I would not post, if I did anything it would be to put up a sign with a green hand gun that said "this is a carry friendly business we salute our patrons right to bear arms , Be safe and Carry On"

I think it would be great if society can get to where it is completely normal for mothers and fathers and responsible people to carry openly as OWB are often the most comfortable holsters , and comfort keeps people carrying , and carrying is good 

I was at the hardware store in the next town over and a guy was open carrying , it does not make me uncomfortable at all , he has nothing to hide if he has a pistol on his belt , actually it reminded my I should really make a point to open carry more often 

I do my best to avoid posted businesses and not give them my money and I try to go out of my way to frequent carry friendly businesses

As or the mentally handy capped or unstable or what ever we are calling them now untill the1980s it was common to keep them in asylums by the 1960s it was crippling this country it was the single largest part of the federal budget at one point , then Regan closed much of this down , many point to this as when unstable people started being an issue , but in reality the much larger issue was that millions of Americans were being held without due proccess in prisons by another name for having committed no crime , they were often Ill cared for and miss treated. millions of mentaly challenged , handicaped or just unusual people now lead healthy productive or enriched lives because the asylums were closed. 
Freedom was never free, freedom bears great responsibility and some danger , actually lack of freedom bears greater danger but often promises safety in the great Lie 

what is the danger that unstable people will get ahold of guns , we see that almost no level of extreme gun control or monitoring will of sales will insure public safety form such persons , and honestly even if you could rid the world of guns they would just build bombs 

the choice of a free society is to bear the responsibility of going armed and be the check and balance to unstable people who wish to do others harm or to keep millions of people locked up without due process at a huge expense crippling the goverment , tax payer and economy and to take freedom from the masses, in a false promise of safety and to have still failed to provide any greater safety


----------



## Patchouli

They have had a couple of people accidentally discharge these weapons at these events which I think points towards the need for education before certification. 

This wasn't a rally but it is a good example of stupidity all around: http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/12/28/news/19local_12-28-11.txt#.U6S6w7HbTV4



> CHEYENNE -- A 17-year-old Cheyenne teen was cited Monday after she dropped her purse, causing the gun she was carrying in it to go off in a local coffee shop.
> 
> After the round fired, the girl said, &#8220;I think my purse went off!&#8221;
> 
> According to the Cheyenne Police report about the incident, the girl, whose name is being withheld because she is a juvenile, dropped her purse around 6:45 a.m. Monday while she was at the cash register at Starbucks, 1112 Central Ave.
> 
> Two Cheyenne Police officers were in the coffee shop at the time. Once they heard the gunshot, they drew their pistols and scanned the shop.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-drops-purse-starbucks-shoots-friend-article-1.1343236


> A Florida woman dropped her purse on the ground as she waited for coffee at Starbucks &#8212; and ended up accidentally shooting her best friend in the leg.
> Pamela Beck, 51, from Pinellas Park, is thought to have dropped her bag too hard &#8212; sparking her loaded .25 caliber Titan handgun, which was inside, to fire a shot.
> The bullet hit her buddy Amie Peterson, 38, above the knee.
> Cops were called to the Tyrone Square Mall Starbucks, in St. Petersburg, after the incident on Saturday afternoon.


Now I will be paranoid whenever I go to Starbucks.....


----------



## Tex-

Patchouli said:


> Let me say first that was not intended as snark just a bit of humor to lighten things up. My snark has more bite.


Well, that's good. I'm glad to hear that you have something going for you, because your arguments are lackluster, at best.

I brought up Chicago and DC because of their stringent gun control and nothing more. If you wish to talk about St.Louis, Little Rock and Atlanta though, get ready to hear some more unpleasantness. 


Tex


----------



## Roadking

Local establishment that I stop in once a week suddenly had a "no guns" sticker on their door. Went in, ordered lunch from the owner (320 lb (according to him) biker with more tattoos than I've seen on a marine), and asked him point blank..."Are you trying to lose business, or create false sense of security?" He knows I am armed (concealed carry permit, and we shoot together sometimes).
His response...If the dummies who have been causing me problems recently believe the signs, my problems are over pretty quick...did the sign make you put it back in your truck?"

Just seeing poor logic on a lot of fronts right about now.

Matt


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE

Patchouli said:


> They have had a couple of people accidentally discharge these weapons at these events which I think points towards the need for education before certification.
> 
> This wasn't a rally but it is a good example of stupidity all around: http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/12/28/news/19local_12-28-11.txt#.U6S6w7HbTV4
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-drops-purse-starbucks-shoots-friend-article-1.1343236
> 
> 
> Now I will be paranoid whenever I go to Starbucks.....


and that would be an excellent argument for required training if police the "most highly trained " didn't do the same thing with at equal or greater frequency as the general public 
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downlo...ypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2011.pdf

don't get me wrong I am a firearms educator and I think everyone should get good training , good advise and I wish poor holster designs were scrapped , and that everyone would use a good holster.

but statistically people with little or no training don't go on to have a statistically significant amount more neglegent dischares than highly trained personel working with the best equiptment and annual re-certification.

just as Illegal aliens don't go on to cause statistically greater number of auto accidents for driving with no license , or formal training in how to drive an auto compared to the rest of the public


----------



## kasilofhome

I knoe of no city in Alaska that does not have large animals roaming around. Moose are not nice all the time, nor are lynx or wolves. Not all are in each city and recently in my area where the largest American wild fire is still burning on federal land the bears and such even the caraboo are interacting at a greater rate. Want to see wild live this is your year, just make sure someone is holding.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> They have had a couple of people accidentally discharge these weapons at these events which I think points towards the need for education before certification.
> 
> This wasn't a rally but it is a good example of stupidity all around: http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/12/28/news/19local_12-28-11.txt#.U6S6w7HbTV4
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-drops-purse-starbucks-shoots-friend-article-1.1343236
> 
> 
> Now I will be paranoid whenever I go to Starbucks.....


How about a well trained police officer who shoots HIMSELF in the leg in a class room full of kids?

[YOUTUBE]am-Qdx6vky0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Patchouli

Tex- said:


> Well, that's good. I'm glad to hear that you have something going for you, because your arguments are lackluster, at best.
> 
> I brought up Chicago and DC because of their stringent gun control and nothing more. If you wish to talk about St.Louis, Little Rock and Atlanta though, get ready to hear some more unpleasantness.
> 
> 
> Tex


And making it personal and insulting is a good way of arguing. 

So tell me this unpleasantness. I have a really good guess where you are going to go with it but I will let you lay it out for me.


----------



## Tex-

Patchouli said:


> And making it personal and insulting is a good way of arguing.
> 
> So tell me this unpleasantness. I have a really good guess where you are going to go with it but I will let you lay it out for me.


Quit trying to play the victim. Being that you are are someone who likes to argue and debate, people expect better from you. If my telling you that your arguments are lackluster, that is because they are. You have the internet at the tip of your fingers, use it. 

As far as the unpleasantness that I mentioned goes, one only needs to look at the poverty numbers in those cities. A certain portion of the poverty stricken are the ones responsible for most of the shootings. The same holds true for almost every large city. Do you think we should take guns away from people who live below the poverty line?


Tex


----------



## Roadking

Well, this will be interesting. The former catholic church was purchased by the brother of Kahr Arms...who just broke ground about 20 minutes away. Today at 2, at the church, after services, there is a 2nd amendment rally..."God, Guns and Guts. We have the first 2, how many have the third?" The owner of Kahr will be there.
Curious to see the outcome, and how many open carry at the church.

Matt


----------



## Patchouli

Tex- said:


> Quit trying to play the victim. Being that you are are someone who likes to argue and debate, people expect better from you. If my telling you that your arguments are lackluster, that is because they are. You have the internet at the tip of your fingers, use it.
> 
> As far as the unpleasantness that I mentioned goes, one only needs to look at the poverty numbers in those cities. A certain portion of the poverty stricken are the ones responsible for most of the shootings. The same holds true for almost every large city. Do you think we should take guns away from people who live below the poverty line?
> 
> 
> Tex


Well you surprised me. Poverty stricken was not what I expected, excellent word choice. Every large city has large numbers of poverty stricken people though. So gun control or no gun control really won't make any difference at all will it? Arming all the good people doesn't fix anything anymore than banning guns? Your argument cuts both ways. Disproving gun bans with Chicago also means disproving the good guys with guns argument with Little Rock. 

I would say the prevailing opinion around here seems to be let the poverty stricken annihilate each other if they like so long as they leave us alone so I don't see any push to disarm them working. There are a few around here who would probably open a low cost gun shop to help them along. Personally I think it would be much to some of those neighborhoods benefits if we could create truly gun free zones. It is impossible but it would help them. 


Ultimately though the only true cure would be to get rid of the poverty and the violence it leads to and the people who are pro-guns are almost never for programs to relieve poverty. So I would kick it back to you: how do we improve the poverty situation to make guns and violence less attractive?


----------



## Patchouli

Roadking said:


> Well, this will be interesting. The former catholic church was purchased by the brother of Kahr Arms...who just broke ground about 20 minutes away. Today at 2, at the church, after services, there is a 2nd amendment rally..."God, Guns and Guts. We have the first 2, how many have the third?" The owner of Kahr will be there.
> Curious to see the outcome, and how many open carry at the church.
> 
> Matt


That is one truly lost Church.


----------



## Tex-

By restoring the traditional roles of parenthood, for one. Get government out of the home, would be another. Things have gone too far in the wrong direction though, I can't think of anything that would fix what is seriously messed up. The government tried an experiment in the last half of the 1800's with the indians and now they have it fully implemented in the inner cities today. There is nothing this side of a major reset that will fix all that is wrong.


Tex


----------



## Patchouli

Tex- said:


> By restoring the traditional roles of parenthood, for one. Get government out of the home, would be another. Things have gone too far in the wrong direction though, I can't think of anything that would fix what is seriously messed up. The government tried an experiment in the last half of the 1800's with the indians and now they have it fully implemented in the inner cities today. *There is nothing this side of a major reset that will fix all that is wrong.*
> 
> 
> Tex


We are 100% agreed on that at least.


----------



## paradox

Much discussion about this within my little circle of friends who are all avid shooters. General consensus is this:

Yes they absolutely have the right to carry those guns and we support the 2nd wholeheartedly. 

Their stated goal is to make people realize that not everyone carrying a gun is a madman and it should not make you nervous to see one out in public.

The problem is that their little demonstrations of a hoard of people showing up somewhere with guns have gone over as well as the proverbial turd in a punch bowl.

So if you measure the effect against their goal - EPIC FAIL! So therefore I would have to classify them as idiots who are hurting the cause more than they are helping. They are right on principle - but they are going about it in a very stupid way - and they are actually ramping up the calls for more gun control rather than convincing everyone that most gun owners are perfectly sane and normal humans.


----------



## copperkid3

Patchouli said:


> That is one truly lost Church.


+ + + + + + + + +
OR was that a back-handed ding at the "moonie"
church who happens to own the Kahr Arms company?

Either way . . . tacky.:nono:


----------



## Oggie

Here's a odd coincidence:



> WYANDOTTE &#8212; A wayward projectile shot from a cannon at a gun show traveled nearly two miles and ricocheted off a tree before blasting through Gene and Jeanne Kelley&#8217;s residence.
> 
> It left a 15-inch round hole in their master bedroom, according to the Ottawa County sheriff&#8217;s staff.
> 
> The 105 mm howitzer cannon was listed as a new attraction at the Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot and Trade Show held this past weekend.
> 
> Telephone calls to the event organizer were not returned.
> 
> The two-day event is billed as a family event with a sniper shoot, armored personnel carrier rides and helicopter rides. Proceeds go to the Wyandotte Fire Department, according to the event&#8217;s website.


http://newsok.com/cannon-fire-strikes-oklahoma-couples-home-enters-master-bedroom/article/4952810


Sonic is headquartered in Oklahoma and just about any city of decent size has one at least one of their restaurants.


And Oklahoma has some of the least restrictive gun laws.


I wouldn't really call it a gun "ban" if Sonic tells folks that they aren't allowed to parade around with their weapons on restaurant property.


There has been just about zero backlash against this "ban", here.


----------



## Patchouli

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + + +
> OR was that a back-handed ding at the "moonie"
> church who happens to own the Kahr Arms company?
> 
> Either way . . . tacky.:nono:


This from the Fruit Inspector in Chief? Too funny! I am sorry but any Church who thinks their mission from God involves the following is a very confused one: 



> Well, this will be interesting. The former catholic church was purchased by the brother of Kahr Arms...who just broke ground about 20 minutes away. Today at 2, at the church, after services, there is a 2nd amendment rally..."God, Guns and Guts. We have the first 2, how many have the third?" The owner of Kahr will be there.


Obviously their founder is confusing his business with his Church and Jesus was pretty clear on that wasn't he? That incident with the money changers ring a bell?


----------



## copperkid3

Patchouli said:


> This from the Fruit Inspector in Chief? Too funny! I am sorry but any Church who thinks their mission from God involves the following is a very confused one:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously their founder is confusing his business with his Church and Jesus was pretty clear on that wasn't he? That incident with the money changers ring a bell?


+ + + + + + + + 
point you were trying to make from the limited information provided,
remains a mystery. My take on it, was that the 'building' that was
providing a place to meet for those of the catholic persuation was
being sold. That sometimes happens in older parishes when membership 
numbers dwindle and the dioceses make the hard decision to close down/sell off
buildings that are more costly to maintain. Hopefully you understand that the
 church is the body of believers and is not the same thing, as that which is made of stone, brick or wood. 

And whose founder is confusing his business with his church are you referring to?
Roadking made it quite clear that the guy who bought the "church building",
was the BROTHER of the guy who owns Kahr Arms Co. Really not enough
information provided (or to be found on the web) to actually make a rational 
determination as to whether he shares ties to the Unification Church or not.

So once again . . . your point is lost in the confusion of your own mind.


Normally I'd let your earlier comment slide, but since those of the left have
insisted on maintaining a P.C. world so that no one can be offended by the
sayings of another, it comes down to this . . . that we must insist that you come clean.

If necessary, we might be persuaded to implement & practice some techniques
used during the inquisition, by holding your bare feet to the fire and have you 
"confess" exactly what you meant by claiming "that is one truly lost Church"?


----------



## Patchouli

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + +
> point you were trying to make from the limited information provided,
> remains a mystery. My take on it, was that the 'building' that was
> providing a place to meet for those of the catholic persuation was
> being sold. That sometimes happens in older parishes when membership
> numbers dwindle and the dioceses make the hard decision to close down/sell off buildings that are more costly to maintain. Hopefully you understand that the
> church is the body of believers and is not the same thing, as that which is made of stone, brick or wood.
> 
> And whose founder is confusing his business with his church are you referring to?
> Roadking made it quite clear that the guy who bought the "church building",
> was the BROTHER of the guy who owns Kahr Arms Co. Really not enough
> information provided (or to be found on the web) to actually make a rational determination as to whether he shares ties to the Unification Church or not.
> 
> So once again . . . your point is lost in the confusion of your own mind.


My point is only lost on those who have equated Christianity with their Rights as an American citizen. At some point they swapped their faith in Christ with their faith in their Guns and Guts and the Constitution became their Holy scriptures.


----------



## copperkid3

Patchouli said:


> My point is only lost on those who have equated Christianity with their Rights as an American citizen. At some point they swapped their faith in Christ with their faith in their Guns and Guts and the Constitution became their Holy scriptures.


+ + + + +
is that the 'new' America that is being remade 
into the progressive image of a brave new world . . .
must be entirely free of Christ and His pesky & pertinent christians!

BTW: I've yet to have met one of those 
new-fangled (and so-called) christians you seem fixated on.
What did Obama swap for, when he turned in his koran & prayer rug?
Or did he have to give up anything at all???

God comes first and country second. 
The 1st has enabled me to enjoy the benefits of the 2nd.
Of course in your utopia . . . I seriously doubt either would get top billing.


----------



## heyrakes

Patchouli said:


> My point is only lost on those who have equated Christianity with their Rights as an American citizen. At some point they swapped their faith in Christ with their faith in their Guns and Guts and the Constitution became their Holy scriptures.


Sorry, i am a bit confused by that

i equate my rights given to me by my creator, and enumerated by the constitution.

since Jesus told me to buy a gun for self protection, and told me to obey the laws of man unless those laws contradicts Gods laws. i will obey the 2ndA

especially since it was divine Will, that the constitution and this nation was formed


----------



## Patchouli

heyrakes said:


> Sorry, i am a bit confused by that
> 
> i equate my rights given to me by my creator, and enumerated by the constitution.
> 
> since Jesus told me to buy a gun for self protection, and told me to obey the laws of man unless those laws contradicts Gods laws. i will obey the 2ndA
> 
> especially since it was divine Will, that the constitution and this nation was formed


All right you lost me there. Where exactly did Jesus tell us to go and buy a gun? 

This may shock you but Christians actually don't have rights. Tell you what find me one verse anywhere in the New Testament telling us to stand up for our rights. You won't find it because we are told the opposite. We are told to lay our lives down for others. We are told to put others first. We are told to sell all we have and give it away to the poor. We are told to seek the kingdom of God and leave the world to itself. There is no bill of rights and no constitution in the bible.


----------



## poppy

Danaus29 said:


> We have gay pride parades here too but ours are better because women are allowed to march topless. I think the first 2 or 3 made headlines but now it's pushed toward the middle and is just a little blurb.
> _first sentence said sarcastically and in jest (although women are allowed to go topless) _


What sort of women do you have in Ohio? When it comes to topless women, 2 is the norm around here and I see no reason for it to make headlines. However, 3 would make headlines and I'd like to see a picture.:gaptooth:


----------



## TripleD

Patchouli said:


> All right you lost me there. Where exactly did Jesus tell us to go and buy a gun?
> 
> This may shock you but Christians actually don't have rights. Tell you what find me one verse anywhere in the New Testament telling us to stand up for our rights. You won't find it because we are told the opposite. We are told to lay our lives down for others. We are told to put others first. We are told to sell all we have and give it away to the poor. We are told to seek the kingdom of God and leave the world to itself. There is no bill of rights and no constitution in the bible.


 How about looking up Luke 22:36 !?


----------



## Tricky Grama

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + +
> and have the intestinal fortitude to at least call TwoBottom a racist
> out loud, instead of taking the weasily way out and simply infer it!
> I saw NOTHING in their posting which would allow a prudent bystander
> to reach that conclusion that you've decided to label them with.
> When racism is thrown about as a weapon to silence the opposition,
> it only proves that the one using it, hasn't much in regards to a good argument to rebut.
> 
> Besides, you missed their MAIN point entirely . . .
> which is the really sad part.
> 
> 
> And before you start getting all indignant and start with the excuse,
> 
> "But they started it . . ." examine your leanings and try to see them
> 
> as others do. You have that 'bitter taste' to those who have had dealings
> 
> with commies and socialists before. If the shoe pinches . . . take it off -
> 
> or try wearing different shoes!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Twobottom said:


> You would be very surprised to know that I support gay marriage. A gay man was best man at my wedding. The very reason that I support his right to be married is the same reason I support someone else's right to conduct business with whom ever they choose, for whatever reason they choose. If that confuses you, then I think my point probably did go whizzing pretty far over your head.
> 
> You don't want a country where we can all "sit down at the lunch counter together". You want a country where you can use the power of government as a weapon to force your morality on others. No different at all from radical Christian fundamentalists.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Paumon said:


> What a terrible prediction of anarchy and fearful danger in a future with no peace. I can't imagine what it would be like for everyone to be so paranoid and terrified of evil intentions in everyone and everything else that they will all fear for their lives and need to carry firearms everywhere they go. Surely such a state of affairs can only happen if all society breaks down and each person is at war with every other person.


Well, I cannot foresee a future w/unicorns & pigs flying either.

May I ask you what it is you want in 'gun control'? Do you want to amend/abolish the 2nd amendment? Anything in the bill of rights? Do you want all guns gone? 
I see most progressives want guns gone but tell me how to get them away from the criminals, ya know, the ones committing the crimes w/guns. I see how the progressives can take 'em from us who have the right to keep & bear arms but have not seen the plan to get them from criminals.
Are you in favor of "Gun Free Zone"? Has this worked?
I'm in favor of "In This Facility the Faculty/Workers Are Armed".


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> This is interesting. I am not sure that telling people they can not bring something into your store is the same as refusing service to someone for who they are (race, religion, etc.). Shops and restaurants especially are allowed to set rules on dress and health and safety things like wearing shoes. So saying leave you gun in the car seems to fall more into that area. They aren't saying I won't serve you if you are a gun owner just that you have to leave the gun in the car. You also have to leave your dog.
> 
> It doesn't infringe on your right to own a gun and I don't think the Constitution guarantees us the right to have our gun with us at all times. I'd be curious to know when the first law or just rule banning weapons from a business or area were enacted?


Its kinda funny but our Constitution says nothing about the right to carry a dog. But it does say we have the right to BEAR arms. That doesn't mean leave it in the car.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Tex- said:


> Putting the snarkey and pointless militia reference aside, meanness and evil can strike at any time. It has been proven many times in recent history that criminals prefer to carry out their evil in places where they are most likely to meet the least resistance. Most of the victims in these attacks were just like you and had never had need for protection before. You can bet they rethought that stance afterwards though.
> 
> You should feel very blessed that you have never been a victim, but that does not mean you you are immune to it in the future. We should all accept responsibility for our own safety and not continually call on government or proprietors to protect us from the evil that is alive and well in this world. Our safety and well being should be our own responsibility and noone else's.
> 
> We have the tools at our disposal to protect ourselves and be responsible for our own safety. People today though somehow feel morally superior if they don't actually have to own a gun, yet they insist on having armed representatives of the government instead. The trouble with this line of thought though, is the government is figuring out how to trample on other rights too. Then, we have to ask ourselves, who will protect us from the protectors.
> 
> You don't have to believe me to see the truth in this. You only need to look at the history of the last 10-15 years. People wanted protected and now we have the TSA groping little children and grandparents. People wanted to feel safer and now we have the NDAA and people being labled as domestic terrorists. In the name of safety, we have an explosion of "No Knock" warrants and people getting killed when the authorities go to the wrong house. It is ok for a person's dog to be shot as long as we can feel safe. The NSA is keeping track of every call a person makes and every email they send, but that is ok, as long as the irresponsible can place their own safety on the shoulders of others.
> 
> If people would accept the responsibility of their own safety, we would not be in the shape we are in today. Laziness and selfish pursuits are two main contributors that got us where we are. Trying to love and coddle a criminal into doing right are some other contributions that have not worked well either. Chicago and DC have some of the strictest gun control policies in this country, yet they also have some of the highest murder rates. Gun control policies do nothing but make for target rich environments.
> 
> I said it before and will say it again, the guys mentioned in the OP are a couple of idjits who are hurting the cause for gun rights in this country. Rest assured though, there are responsible gun owners out there carrying their sidearms and you will probably never notice them until something bad starts to happen. Responsible gun owners do not stroke their ego or measure their manhood by drawing attention to themselves, they simply go about their business knowing they are prepared.
> 
> 
> Tex


----------



## Tricky Grama

I thought I already posted this but I posted in the OTHER 'guns are bad' thread...its in reference to the pic in the OP.

In the interest of fairness, here's a little bit of the left showing their grits as badly as the guys in the OP's pic.

http://joemiller.us/2014/06/lib-radi...1406-230980529

&#8220;I guess what I&#8217;ll do if I&#8217;m ever in that situation and I see one of these half-witted yahoos walking in with a weapon, high-caliber rifle like that, I&#8217;ll just put on a berserk act. I will just start screaming Gun! Gun! Gun! Watch out, everybody hit the deck! Guns! Guns! Everybody! And then dial 911 and I will say, shots fired, which will bring every cop within 15 miles. And then the half-wits with the long guns are going to panic and they&#8217;re going to run out of the store and if that rifle isn&#8217;t shouldered properly, the cop is going to take a look at that and put a bullet right in their forehead.&#8221;


----------



## Patchouli

TripleD said:


> How about looking up Luke 22:36 !?


Yeah that one wanders into interesting theological territory doesn't it? 

Luke 22:36 And he said to them, http://www.esvbible.org/Lk9.3;Lk10.4;Mt10.9-10;Mk6.8/âWhen I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?â They said, âNothing.â 36 He said to them, âBut now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that http://www.esvbible.org/Ac1.16;Lk13.33;Mt1.22/this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: http://www.esvbible.org/Is53.12/âAnd he was numbered with the transgressors.â For http://www.esvbible.org/Jn17.4;Jn19.30/what is written about me has its fulfillment.â 38 And they said, âLook, Lord, here are two http://www.esvbible.org/Lk22.49/swords.â And he said to them, http://www.esvbible.org/De3.26;Mk14.41/âIt is enough.â


And a few hours later: Matthew 26:51And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53"Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?â¦


Kind of confusing there eh?


----------



## Paumon

Tricky Grama said:


> Well, I cannot foresee a future w/unicorns & pigs flying either.
> 
> May I ask you what it is you want in 'gun control'? Do you want to amend/abolish the 2nd amendment? Anything in the bill of rights? Do you want all guns gone?
> I see most progressives want guns gone but tell me how to get them away from the criminals, ya know, the ones committing the crimes w/guns. I see how the progressives can take 'em from us who have the right to keep & bear arms but have not seen the plan to get them from criminals.
> Are you in favor of "Gun Free Zone"? Has this worked?
> I'm in favor of "In This Facility the Faculty/Workers Are Armed".


None of the above. Personally what I'd like to see is an end to the gun CULTURE. Not an end to guns, just an end to the culture. An end to the cult of the gun.

I think the gun culture itself is a mental health problem that is so engrained in the society that people refuse to recognize it for what it is. It's a huge cult whose focus of veneration is an instrument designed solely for the purpose of killing. And designed not only solely for killing, but for killing in the lazy coward's way, without effort from a distance. This is the thing that a society have formed a cult and a lifestyle culture around and are capitalizing on. 

The cult of mass production, selling, owning, hoarding, carrying and using of guns. The constant talking and fighting about it, the movies and TV shows, the video games, the forums, magazines, side businesses, gun shows, gun collectors clubs and other associations all devoted to the cult of the gun. 

The gun culture is a societal obsession, it's like a mass hysteria that has millions of people in its grip and their cult motto is _"out of my cold dead hands"._ That culture as a whole is the mental health problem, and the incidental gun violence and mass killings by sick young people with guns who've gone right over the edge of sanity, those happenings and sick young people are an extreme by-product of the overall mental health problem, like unintended collateral damage.

All gun enthusiasts (cult members) caught up in the grip of the cult - the cult of mass production, selling, owning, hoarding, carrying, talking about and using of guns, etc. - all subconsciously know it to be the truth but don't want to acknowledge the truth. They can't admit it because it's a culture and nobody in a culture ever wants to admit that there could be something unstable or unhealthy or dangerous about their culture, even when it's a culture that venerates an instrument of death.

So I don't want to see an end to guns or bans on guns, that will never happen anyway and it's not practical to think along those lines, but I would definitely like to see an end to the cult of the gun. It's causing far too much discord and illness.


----------



## Tex-

Easy there, Paumon. You are starting to sound like a zealot. You see very little advertising for guns on television. Most of that is in magazines that people have to buy. The gun industry isn't making movies or video games. This gun culture you are so hot and bothered about is created in Hollywood and perpetuated by whores such as, Matt Damon and Tom Cruise and others of their ilk. I use the term whores, because eventhough they contribute to gun control, they still make movies using guns in ways most gunowners never would. Why would they make movies perpetuating the use of something they are so against?

YOu are ticked off about alot in your post and you have the right to be, but you are lazy in your blaming. It isn't the gun owners and it isn't even the gun that you should be blaming. In fact, if you were to insert the word, "Car" every place you used, "Gun" in your rant, you would have had a more worthwhile argument. Cars do more damage in this country than guns ever did. We even have a "Car Culture" in this country. 

I am willing to listen to your argument, but I want you to show me why guns are more of a problem than cars. I mean if we are going to start blaming inanimate objects that cannot function on their own, let's start with the most dangerous. If you insist on focusing on the gun culture though, and you don't wish to see the gun go away, as you say, why aren't you ranting about the fact that current and already in place laws are not being adhered to and followed.

We don't need more laws. We just need the ones we have enforced.


Tex


----------



## JeffreyD

These unbalanced, hysterical rants crack me up! ound::goodjob::hysterical:


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> None of the above. Personally what I'd like to see is an end to the gun CULTURE. Not an end to guns, just an end to the culture. An end to the cult of the gun.
> 
> I think the gun culture itself is a mental health problem that is so engrained in the society that people refuse to recognize it for what it is. It's a huge cult whose focus of veneration is an instrument designed solely for the purpose of killing. And designed not only solely for killing, but for killing in the lazy coward's way, without effort from a distance. This is the thing that a society have formed a cult and a lifestyle culture around and are capitalizing on.
> 
> The cult of mass production, selling, owning, hoarding, carrying and using of guns. The constant talking and fighting about it, the movies and TV shows, the video games, the forums, magazines, side businesses, gun shows, gun collectors clubs and other associations all devoted to the cult of the gun.
> 
> The gun culture is a societal obsession, it's like a mass hysteria that has millions of people in its grip and their cult motto is _"out of my cold dead hands"._ That culture as a whole is the mental health problem, and the incidental gun violence and mass killings by sick young people with guns who've gone right over the edge of sanity, those happenings and sick young people are an extreme by-product of the overall mental health problem, like unintended collateral damage.
> 
> All gun enthusiasts (cult members) caught up in the grip of the cult - the cult of mass production, selling, owning, hoarding, carrying, talking about and using of guns, etc. - all subconsciously know it to be the truth but don't want to acknowledge the truth. They can't admit it because it's a culture and nobody in a culture ever wants to admit that there could be something unstable or unhealthy or dangerous about their culture, even when it's a culture that venerates an instrument of death.
> 
> So I don't want to see an end to guns or bans on guns, that will never happen anyway and it's not practical to think along those lines, but I would definitely like to see an end to the cult of the gun. It's causing far too much discord and illness.


What is YOUR solution? I mean a realistic one, that won't infringe on our Constitutional rights!


----------



## Forerunner

"Before _all else, be armed_." - Niccolo Machiavelli


----------



## kasilofhome

And to think I view a gun as a tool to reform a silly task of proving safety. Guns are just tools for a job. I have fire extinguishers not because I want a fire but for safety. 

Why are you so focused on killing. Is that your view of guns.


----------



## JeffreyD

kasilofhome said:


> And to think I view a gun as a tool to reform a silly task of proving safety. Guns are just tools for a job. I have fire extinguishers not because I want a fire but for safety.
> 
> Why are you so focused on killing. Is that your view of guns.


They are just tools, some cannot comprehend that simple concept. Guns feed people. Guns protect people against those who would do us great harm. You can use a gun as a hammer too, there multi purpose!


----------



## kasilofhome

It's the folks who fail to understand that guns are tools for provide safety be that food on the table, stopping a charging animal, or controlling a criminal. 

I have never meet the type of person that paul describes but for Hollywood or character made up by those wishing to take the rights of the people to provide for themselves in safety.

These gun banners are getting scary with their phobia of guns..


----------



## unregistered353870

Paumon has a point. Guns are just tools. I don't know anybody who loves screwdrivers as much some people love guns. I personally like guns, have a lot of them, but they're just another tool. On the other hand, I don't know anybody who hates screwdrivers as much as some people hate guns.


----------



## JeffreyD

jtbrandt said:


> Paumon has a point. Guns are just tools. I don't know anybody who loves screwdrivers as much some people love guns. I personally like guns, have a lot of them, but they're just another tool. On the other hand, I don't know anybody who hates screwdrivers as much as some people hate guns.


I really like ALL tools, I don't think one could ever have too many! Polished wrenches fly out of your hands when they get greasy, but they clean up great and look beautiful! I like tools so much, I make my own! As one who works on cars and motorcycles, and a former Trans Am crew chief, tools have been a huge part of my life! That includes guns too, they are, after all, just a tool! We could use rocks too, but I like to enjoy life and things that make my life easier, are the things I embrace! 

Did ya ever see that cartoon where one caveman says to another "no, no, no, me say PHILLIPS rock"! Cracks me up!


----------



## unregistered353870

I like tools too! Some might say I love them, but that's probably overstating it. I like them for what they can do. Same with guns.


----------



## Forerunner

For those who haven't been privy.....here is why they want the guns.

Has _ABSOLUTELY NOTHING_ to do with "crime" in the streets.

http://www.info-quest.org/documents/stdk7277.html

Disarm, disable, annihilate.


Go for it, do-gooders........


----------



## Paumon

Tex- said:


> Easy there, Paumon. *You are starting to sound like a zealot.* You see very little advertising for guns on television. Most of that is in magazines that people have to buy. The gun industry isn't making movies or video games. This gun culture you are so hot and bothered about is created in Hollywood and perpetuated by whores such as, Matt Damon and Tom Cruise and others of their ilk. I use the term whores, because eventhough they contribute to gun control, they still make movies using guns in ways most gunowners never would. Why would they make movies perpetuating the use of something they are so against?
> 
> YOu are ticked off about alot in your post and you have the right to be, but you are lazy in your blaming. *It isn't the gun owners and it isn't even the gun that you should be blaming.* In fact, if you were to insert the word, "Car" every place you used, "Gun" in your rant, you would have had a more worthwhile argument. Cars do more damage in this country than guns ever did. *We even have a "Car Culture" in this country*.
> 
> I am willing to listen to your argument, but I want you to show me why guns are more of a problem than cars. I mean *if we are going to start blaming inanimate objects that cannot function on their own, let's start with the most dangerous.* If you insist on focusing on the gun culture though, and you don't wish to see the gun go away, as you say, why aren't you ranting about the fact that current and already in place laws are not being adhered to and followed.
> 
> We don't need more laws. We just need the ones we have enforced.
> 
> 
> Tex


I'll try to address some of your comments. First of all you say I'm starting to sound like a zealot. As a gun owner myself I don't think I sound like a zealot. A real zealot would rant on about other things besides the cult, like how guns are nothing but powerful phallic symbols for people who secretly feel impotent. Or about how people who are gun enthusiasts are insecure people with inferiority complexes and use guns to give them a sense of superiority over others. Or that all gun owners keep guns because they're all cowards who are terrified of their environment, their society and their governments. I don't believe any of that nonsense but I've heard a lot of that nonsense from zealots, just like I've heard all the same lame old rhetoric over and over again about guns only being tools to protect people's rights. I really want to hear something better than that as a reason for there being a gun cult.

You say that "It isn't the gun owners and it isn't even the gun that you should be blaming" but I never blamed owners or guns in my above comments - I talked about the gun cult and its influence on society and economy to the extent that it has become an unacknowledged mental illness that's causing divisiveness in society. Sure there are car and motorcycle cultures, there are also drug cultures, celebrity cultures, music cultures, fashion cultures, diet cultures, gardening cultures, foodie cultures, kitchenware cultures (think of the cast iron ware culture !!!!), the social media culture - and while some of those cultures may cause mental stress or even unintended deaths none of those cultures are focused on venerating or glorifying a tool that was designed for the sole purpose of killing. If a gun is only a tool then it doesn't need to be so important to people that they will have a motto like _"out of my cold dead hands"_. 

Now, if you are going to say "_if we are going to start blaming inanimate objects that cannot function on their own, let's start with the most dangerous"_ then I'll give that due consideration but first I'd like to know what those most dangerous inanimate killing tools are and whether or not they were designed solely for killing and if there are debilitating cults formed around them. Because guns and the gun culture that venerates guns to the death is the only one I can think of that fits into that category.


----------



## Paumon

Forerunner said:


> For those who haven't been privy.....here is why they want the guns.
> 
> Has _ABSOLUTELY NOTHING_ to do with "crime" in the streets.
> 
> http://www.info-quest.org/documents/stdk7277.html
> 
> Disarm, disable, annihilate.
> 
> 
> Go for it, do-gooders........


Where can I get me one of them there nuclear weapons for myself? Do they come with holsters too? Tell me quick where I can get one before the world government comes to take away all citizens rights to carry nukes and disarms all citizens of their personal nukes.


----------



## kasilofhome

Personally though I like rare meat I think that it is just wroung to fail to humanly kill the animal prior to butchering the animal. I firmly believe that the vast number of guns in the hands of private citizens have never killed a human. I also believe that the majority of gun owner ever shot to kill a human. Guns in the hand of the private population shoot targets and animals. The gun tools seem to be used correctly to do the job. Trust men chefs cherish their knives because they are so important for the tasks that need to be done.


----------



## Forerunner

Paumon said:


> Where can I get me one of them there nuclear weapons for myself? Do they come with holsters too? Tell me quick where I can get one before the world government comes to take away all citizens rights to carry nukes and disarms all citizens of their personal nukes.


What a beautiful illustration of wholesale absurdity to desperately support a fool's perspective.


----------



## beowoulf90

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Those who claim to support the 2A in one breath and then add a "but" in the next breath, Don't believe in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Oh they claim to support it, but it seems they want to change it to their view(s) and not the way it is written..

To those who betray their forefathers and our Constitution, I say shame on you..

Now if you try to force me to betray my forefathers and the Constitution their will be problems..

Oh you may very well accomplish your socialist/communist goals and get my firearms..

BUT you will never get my knowledge or stop it..I'm a trained gunsmith and can build my own. I'm a draftsman(old school) / CADD Operator (New school) and have "blueprinted" certain pieces..

You want to make me a criminal for using my Constitutional Right(s) then go for it..

But be prepared to kill me.. 

Yes I know you have no problem with that, thus becoming what you say you hate..

Ah yes the fools circle.....

My only question is why are there so many fools?


----------



## Forerunner

*waves hand in the air enthusiastically*

I got it! I got it !


"The ultimate consequence of protecting men (and obviously women) from the results of their own folly is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer


----------



## Tricky Grama

Tex- said:


> Easy there, Paumon. You are starting to sound like a zealot. You see very little advertising for guns on television. Most of that is in magazines that people have to buy. The gun industry isn't making movies or video games. This gun culture you are so hot and bothered about is created in Hollywood and perpetuated by whores such as, Matt Damon and Tom Cruise and others of their ilk. I use the term whores, because eventhough they contribute to gun control, they still make movies using guns in ways most gunowners never would. Why would they make movies perpetuating the use of something they are so against?
> 
> YOu are ticked off about alot in your post and you have the right to be, but you are lazy in your blaming. It isn't the gun owners and it isn't even the gun that you should be blaming. In fact, if you were to insert the word, "Car" every place you used, "Gun" in your rant, you would have had a more worthwhile argument. Cars do more damage in this country than guns ever did. We even have a "Car Culture" in this country.
> 
> I am willing to listen to your argument, but I want you to show me why guns are more of a problem than cars. I mean if we are going to start blaming inanimate objects that cannot function on their own, let's start with the most dangerous. If you insist on focusing on the gun culture though, and you don't wish to see the gun go away, as you say, why aren't you ranting about the fact that current and already in place laws are not being adhered to and followed.
> 
> We don't need more laws. We just need the ones we have enforced.
> 
> 
> Tex


IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/topazfarm/smilies/postoftheday.png[/IMG]

This is supposed to be the Post Of the Day Award!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Forerunner said:


> What a beautiful illustration of wholesale absurdity to desperately support a fool's perspective.


POTDA
Or century...


----------



## Paumon

Thanks kiddoes. I knew I could depend on you to spontaneously rise to the occasion. Y'all each in your own ways just proved my point about the gun cult being so engrained that people entrenched in it will defend the cult at the expense of mind and life and without stopping to think about what it was you were really saying.

beowoulf90 especially, I loved the melodramatic '_out of my cold dead hands'_ routine 
".... _bluster bluster I'm a gunsmith bluster bluster I'm a draftsman bluster bluster *be prepared to kill me*...bluster bluster RAH RAH RAH!!...."_ and FR loved it too - that was just too, too precious.

Rah Rah! :indif:


----------



## unregistered41671

Rah Rah Rah, Sis Boom Bang, kick em in the butt blue steel!!! Yeay, go team go!!!!!


----------



## MJsLady

The only sonics here are drive ins... what are they gonna do search my truck?

Don't go to chilis anyway, always get sick there (same with tgifridays)

I don't believe in showboating/announcing/drawing attention to anything I do. I just quietly go about my business and don't mind other peoples. 

Seems to me there would be a lot less aggravation if more folks did that.


----------



## Paumon

MJsLady said:


> The only sonics here are drive ins... what are they gonna do search my truck?
> 
> Don't go to chilis anyway, always get sick there (same with tgifridays)
> 
> *I don't believe in showboating/announcing/drawing attention to anything I do. I just quietly go about my business and don't mind other peoples. *
> 
> *Seems to me there would be a lot less aggravation if more folks did that*.


And *that* deserves this


----------



## beowoulf90

Paumon said:


> Thanks kiddoes. I knew I could depend on you to spontaneously rise to the occasion. Y'all each in your own ways just proved my point about the gun cult being so engrained that people entrenched in it will defend the cult at the expense of mind and life and without stopping to think about what it was you were really saying.
> 
> beowoulf90 especially, I loved the melodramatic '_out of my cold dead hands'_ routine
> ".... _bluster bluster I'm a gunsmith bluster bluster I'm a draftsman bluster bluster *be prepared to kill me*...bluster bluster RAH RAH RAH!!...."_ and FR loved it too - that was just too, too precious.
> 
> Rah Rah! :indif:



You think that is gun culture?

Then you would be wrong!

That is Freedom and Liberty..

Just look at our Constitution. (I've attached a link to it so you can read it yourself) 
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

And our Bill of Rights (Again I've attached a link so you can read it)
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

I do understand that some have no Values and wouldn't fight for anything. It's all about them and preserving themselves only to allow their kids to live in slavery..

Which side do you stand on?

Freedom, Liberty, Honor

OR

Slavery, Cowardice


----------



## beowoulf90

MJsLady said:


> The only sonics here are drive ins... what are they gonna do search my truck?
> 
> Don't go to chilis anyway, always get sick there (same with tgifridays)
> 
> I don't believe in showboating/announcing/drawing attention to anything I do. I just quietly go about my business and don't mind other peoples.
> 
> Seems to me there would be a lot less aggravation if more folks did that.



You would be correct, IF some would keep their hands off our Rights..

Some of us wouldn't have to defend them so much and would be allowed to relax.. But history has taught me that if you relax those who would do you harm/wrong will take advantage of that..

Look at all the times that legal law abiding gun owners have lost a portion of their 2A rights.

1932
1968 (note this gun ban even says a Felon doesn't have to register his illegal guns because it would be a violation of his 5A Rights..yea do the research) 
1986
1996
and so on..

So with all those "attacks" on legal law abiding gun owners, how do you expect them to remain silent and not fight back?

But it seems some aren't minding their own business and continue to go after our 2A and gun owners..


----------



## Tricky Grama

Paumon said:


> Thanks kiddoes. I knew I could depend on you to spontaneously rise to the occasion. Y'all each in your own ways just proved my point about the gun cult being so engrained that people entrenched in it will defend the cult at the expense of mind and life and without stopping to think about what it was you were really saying.
> 
> beowoulf90 especially, I loved the melodramatic '_out of my cold dead hands'_ routine
> ".... _bluster bluster I'm a gunsmith bluster bluster I'm a draftsman bluster bluster *be prepared to kill me*...bluster bluster RAH RAH RAH!!...."_ and FR loved it too - that was just too, too precious.
> 
> Rah Rah! :indif:


I really don't know why we argrue w/Canadians about this. 
Is it jealousy on their part?
I'm lookin' into this 'cult', this rabid gun frenzy you speak of b/c I do not see it-even here in TX. Only when foreigners like you try to tell us what our Constitution should be about, then I see a sort of 'cult-like' syndrome...call us patriotic instead. Ok.

From now on I'm going to treat any Canadian, French, Spanish, any foreign gun thread at all the same way: NO response.


----------



## Patchouli

Forerunner said:


> What a beautiful illustration of wholesale absurdity to desperately support a fool's perspective.


Actually it is an excellent illustration of the utter absurdity of the fool's perspective that their guns have any possible hope of defending them against the government. There is nothing that is more hilarious to me than this concept some have of them burrowing down in their bunkers with their assault rifles. The military will never come in range of them. It will be a rocket launched from over the hill or dropped by a drone. Bye bye rebels, guns and bunkers. 

We lost any hope of making a stand with guns against a truly tyrannical government about 100 years ago. But I am sure it makes you sleep better at night to dream of your little stockpile of guns and ammo.


----------



## unregistered41671

Tricky Grama said:


> I really don't know why we argrue w/Canadians about this.
> Is it jealousy on their part?
> I'm lookin' into this 'cult', this rabid gun frenzy you speak of b/c I do not see it-even here in TX. Only when foreigners like you try to tell us what our Constitution should be about, then I see a sort of 'cult-like' syndrome...call us patriotic instead. Ok.
> 
> From now on I'm going to treat any Canadian, French, Spanish, any foreign gun thread at all the same way: NO response.


TG, I really think that they really are jealous and would like to bring us down to what they have or don't have. There is no cult or rabid gun frenzy here in GA either.


----------



## Patchouli

Possum Belly said:


> TG, I really think that they really are jealous and would like to bring us down to what they have or don't have. There is no cult or rabid gun frenzy here in GA either.


ound: I think you may want to rethink that stance on Georgia. 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/georgia-expands-guns-in-public-places-1404090667



> ATLANTAâBars, houses of worship, and other public establishments are wrestling with what to do about a new law in Georgia that starting on Tuesday dramatically will expand gun-permit holders' right to carry weapons where people congregate.
> The law allows licensed gun owners to bring weapons to bars and houses of worship, unless forbidden by proprietors. Legally-owned guns also are allowed in unrestricted areas of airports and government buildings, and may be carried at schools and in colleges if permitted by officials.
> Several other states allow guns in bars or churches, but Georgia's "Safe Carry Protection Act," which passed the state legislature overwhelmingly earlier this year, is unusual in that it expanded gun rights in multiple places with one omnibus law.
> Some establishments say they will allow guns, worried that prohibiting them will discourage customers. Others are posting signs banning weapons, concerned that patrons will be afraid or that they could be held liable if violence erupts.
> Cappy Taylor, owner of Zeppelin's, a pub and grill in Clayton, Ga., said for her it is simple: alcohol and firearms don't mix. She plans to post a sign before Tuesday barring guns from her establishment. "You will not be bringing a gun in here," she said.
> Cary Wiggins, an attorney who represents bars and night clubs in the Atlanta area, said he has advised clients to post signs banning weapons to protect businesses from liability if violence occurs.
> In a letter to his clergy, Rev. Scott Anson Benhase, the Savannah-based Episcopal bishop of Georgia, wrote, "firearms of any kind have no place in any of our church buildings."


----------



## unregistered41671

Patchouli said:


> ound: I think you may want to rethink that stance on Georgia.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/articles/georgia-expands-guns-in-public-places-1404090667



ound:I think *you* need to rethink that stance on GA.ound:

All that new law means is that people in GA can carry in more places in order to protect themselves and their families. We are getting back some of the freedoms that had been lost or given up by us. That is all. I am proud to live in Ga.


----------



## Patchouli

Possum Belly said:


> ound:I think *you* need to rethink that stance on GA.ound:
> 
> All that new law means is that people in GA can carry in more places in order to protect themselves and their families. We are getting back some of the freedoms that had been lost or given up by us. That is all. I am proud to live in Ga.


Yes well most people have enough common sense to say bars and guns are a really bad mix and Churches and guns are wildly inappropriate. So I would say you have wandered into gun worshiping cult territory in Georgia.


----------



## unregistered41671

My daddy told me not to try and argue with fools. He said that I would start to act and look like one if I did the same.


----------



## Patchouli

Possum Belly said:


> My daddy told me not to try and argue with fools.


Ah conservatives, can't win the argument so you call names and run away. I call that a win for me.


----------



## MJsLady

> You would be correct, IF some would keep their hands off our Rights..
> 
> Some of us wouldn't have to defend them so much and would be allowed to relax.. But history has taught me that if you relax those who would do you harm/wrong will take advantage of that..


The beauty of my statement is though no one ever knows what I am capable of or how serious I would be about defending myself/family/home

Never advertise what you have, that just gives folks a target.


----------



## unregistered41671

Patchouli said:


> Ah conservatives, can't win the argument so you call names and run away. I call that a win for me.


If that is what you want is to be the winner, then you win!!!
I am just going to take my ole daddy's good advice.


----------



## JeffreyD

Patchouli said:


> Ah conservatives, can't win the argument so you call names and run away. I call that a win for me.


:hysterical::hysterical:ound: Yeah, right!!!!


----------



## beowoulf90

MJsLady said:


> The beauty of my statement is though no one ever knows what I am capable of or how serious I would be about defending myself/family/home
> 
> Never advertise what you have, that just gives folks a target.



While I understand your statement, some one has to stand up and be know and fight back.. Otherwise they get their socialism/communism and we lose our Rights. 

Doing nothing and not speaking out only means that they get to violate our Rights by default..

I used to be just like you in this regard, but then watched as we lost more of our Rights and saw that no one was speaking out..

So I now speak out about these violations of our Rights and Constitution. Yes I have become a target by traitorous anti-Americans, and others who would love to destroy our Constitution.. So be it..


----------



## beowoulf90

Patchouli said:


> Ah conservatives, can't win the argument so you call names and run away. I call that a win for me.



Shakes head in disgust...

You didn't win anything, you still live in a Socialist Country and you apparently don't like America's Constitution and Bill of Rights..

Even so, you won't change my mind or the fact that our Constitution and our Bill of Rights gives us Freedoms that some in the world will never know or understand..

They still think they are happy in a Socialist, Communist (pick your poison) regime.

The difference is I am an American and know and understand Freedom and Liberty. I also know that there is a price for such pleasures and if need be will pay that price..

I signed that blank check many years ago,
(oh on a side note even trained with the Canadian Military and earned my Canadian Jump wings at Petawawa, Feb '79).

You still think it is a gun culture, yet it isn't.. It is a Freedom and Liberty culture. Or better yet the defense of Freedom and Liberty..

It seems that there are many who despise Americans and their Freedoms and they are always trying to take those Freedoms from us. 
They use many tactics, and are very covert about who they are. But the one thing is they are experts in convincing the sheep that others aren't "paying their fair share", and a multitude of other emotional tag lines..

Or saying it's "for the children" or "we hate woman", or "we want to starve seniors"

Yup, all the typical carp and if that doesn't work, they play the race card..


Well guess what I'm fighting for Freedom and Liberty against all foreign and domestic threats.. 

You think it's about guns..:rotfl:

It's so much more than that.....


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> Actually it is an excellent illustration of the utter absurdity of the fool's perspective that their guns have any possible hope of defending them against the government. There is nothing that is more hilarious to me than this concept some have of them burrowing down in their bunkers with their assault rifles. The military will never come in range of them. It will be a rocket launched from over the hill or dropped by a drone. Bye bye rebels, guns and bunkers.
> 
> We lost any hope of making a stand with guns against a truly tyrannical government about 100 years ago. But I am sure it makes you sleep better at night to dream of your little stockpile of guns and ammo.


I really hope it makes you sleep better to trash our Constitution.
At least read it b/4 making ignorant statements.
"The military" is not who would come after folks w/guns. Try to see the diff. If not, try to leave us alone.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> Yes well most people have enough common sense to say bars and guns are a really bad mix and Churches and guns are wildly inappropriate. So I would say you have wandered into gun worshiping cult territory in Georgia.


Again, unless you live there, unless you see 1st hand, it is prolly better if you'd refrain from deciding the laws in GA or any other state/city you have no say in.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> Ah conservatives, can't win the argument so you call names and run away. I call that a win for me.


If you think its a win...if you think all your nit picking is a win...if you think you can continue to rag on gun owners especially where YOU don't live, fine, you win.

You have yet to tell us what you really want? Change the Constitution? Take all guns away? Amend the Constitution? And how is it that you think taking guns away from us will get them from those who are committing the crimes? HOW? Sounds to me like the typical lib rant...you don't like folks who bear arms.


----------



## Forerunner

Patchouli has openly admitted shame for our having fought, and won, the Revolution.

Paumon has no dog in the hunt.

"Nuff said.


----------



## Jim-mi

Face it . . . there can be no intelligent discussion with some/most of these known liberal idiots whose whole life seems to be to come on HT and stir the pot with stupidity.
They have drunk the Kool-aid for so long that no amount of logic will alter their liberal stupor....... 

Probably good examples of who to use the ignore button on............


----------



## Paumon

> Paumon has no dog in the hunt.


When Americans who are defenders of the cult and don't have an adequate excuse for the reason for it becoming a cult they will counter with nationalistic insults, standard issue bigotry, and statements like "Canadians don't have a dog in this fight".

I have news for you. Canadians have as big a dog in the fight as Americans do. Just like so many of you feel you have a reason to be alarmed when diseases or illegals with diseases come creeping across your border into your country, all Canadians have a dog in the fight against the creeping contagion of the American gun cult mentality crossing the border into Canada and infecting our young people with that mental illness.

Here is one of the reasons why. June 4, 2014 - a 24 year old goes all pseudo-commando multiple cop killer on a deadly rampage through a quiet residential Moncton neighbourhood shooting cops heads off. Nice young man until 3 years ago when he got infected through social media by the "_cause_" of American radical gun cultists with the American "_anti-gun-grabber, anti-government, anti-authority, right-to-bear-arms-at-all-times-anywhere-in-public_" mentality. As long as your cultists on your side of the line are encouraging and trying to infect and indoctrinate our young people into the cult then every Canadian has a dog in the fight and you can't stop us from speaking out against it.

No thanks, we don't need this:


----------



## Oggie

There are no Sonic drive ins in Canada.

That's probably because many folks around here go there for a milkshake, slushy or other frozen treat on a hot day.

In Canada, those sorts of things would probably be considered to be room temperature.


----------



## Tricky Grama

OK, here's another tidbit to rile up the masses.

http://joemiller.us/2014/07/targete...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-d82562c3a9-230980529

So the question needs to be asked. If gun control is meant to keep us safe, why hasn&#8217;t it worked? And if gun control works, shouldn&#8217;t the violent crime rates, and those specifically relating to guns, plunge? It seems that our lawmakers are intelligent enough to understand these statistics. So why don&#8217;t they?

In 1938, the Nazi regime enacted The German Weapons Act. These were some of the stipulations.

&#8226; All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check

&#8226; It gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.

&#8226; The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.

Can't remember is this was already posted...sigh...such a long thread...


----------



## Oggie

In another odd coincidence, during World War II Japan had a model of fighter airplane called the "Zero."

And Nazi gun laws have about zero in common with gun laws in Oklahoma.


----------



## kasilofhome

Paumon said:


> When Americans who are defenders of the cult and don't have an adequate excuse for the reason for it becoming a cult they will counter with nationalistic insults, standard issue bigotry, and statements like "Canadians don't have a dog in this fight".
> 
> I have news for you. Canadians have as big a dog in the fight as Americans do. Just like so many of you feel you have a reason to be alarmed when diseases or illegals with diseases come creeping across your border into your country, all Canadians have a dog in the fight against the creeping contagion of the American gun cult mentality crossing the border into Canada and infecting our young people with that mental illness.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one of the reasons why. June 4, 2014 - a 24 year old goes all pseudo-commando multiple cop killer on a deadly rampage through a quiet residential Moncton neighbourhood shooting cops heads off. Nice young man until 3 years ago when he got infected through social media by the "_cause_" of American radical gun cultists with the American "_anti-gun-grabber, anti-government, anti-authority, right-to-bear-arms-at-all-times-anywhere-in-public_" mentality. As long as your cultists on your side of the line are encouraging and trying to infect and indoctrinate our young people into the cult then every Canadian has a dog in the fight and you can't stop us from speaking out against it.
> 
> No thanks, we don't need this:


So you now are useing non PC wording. Cult is very offensive. Sinking to the gutter.


----------



## Paumon

Tricky Grama said:


> So the question needs to be asked. If gun control is meant to keep us safe, why hasn&#8217;t it worked?.......


Because you dont have gun control. You've never had gun control.



Tricky Grama said:


> In 1938, the Nazi regime enacted The German Weapons Act. These were some of the stipulations......


It's the same old, same old rhetoric. :hand: Can't you come up with something better than that?




kasilofhome said:


> So you now are useing non PC wording. Cult is very offensive. Sinking to the gutter.


There's nothing non-PC about the word cult. Maybe you don't know what the words cult and culture mean. Look them up for the definitions. Besides which I don't believe in all of that PC nonsense that you people want to fall back on as a last resort when you don't have a better line of defense against imaginary insults.

You think the word "cult" is offensive. You're offended because you know it's the truth and the truth is what really offends you. Well cry me a river and sue me. I think violence is more offensive. I think people murdering other people with ease is much more offensive. I think condoning people who want to publicly display threats of violence and murder against others is offensive.

:hand:


----------



## JeffreyD

If one could say that guns are a culture, then so is gardening! Food kills people. Hundreds of thousands of kids are hospitalized every year because of food and it costs society tens of billions of dollars! Whats the answer? Pseudo intellectuals would have us believe that they have all the answers, when in fact their just parroting the same old regurgitated argument by trying to suggest that there is some underlying physiological disorder with a hobbyist who's hobby is guns! That's nuts! (sarc)


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Because you dont have gun control. You've never had gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same old, same old rhetoric. :hand: Can't you come up with something better than that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing non-PC about the word cult. Maybe you don't know what the words cult and culture mean. Look them up for the definitions. Besides which I don't believe in all of that PC nonsense that you people want to fall back on as a last resort when you don't have a better line of defense against imaginary insults.
> 
> You think the word "cult" is offensive. You're offended because you know it's the truth and the truth is what really offends you. Well cry me a river and sue me. I think violence is more offensive. I think people murdering other people with ease is much more offensive. I think condoning people who want to publicly display threats of violence and murder against others is offensive.
> 
> :hand:


I have excellent gun control! America also has thousands of laws pertaining to "gun control". Your just mad that you can't have everything your way. To bad, learn to live with disappointment! Guns protect us and put food on the table.....cars don't, yet they kill far more people than guns do! Why aren't you railing against them? Because they don't fit your agenda, which is crystal clear. I'm just not willing to be a victim, being one is the choice you make.

Bottom line.....I will never give up my guns to anybody, anywhere, anytime,.......EVER! And there's absolutely nothing, I mean nothing, you can do about it! I can live with that!


----------



## calliesue

When you look what groups like ISIS can do to a mostly unarmed population, that is enough of a reason for me to want to have the means to protect myself and my family.
I know someone is going to say," that is happening in a third world country".
Seeing reports of a soldier beheaded in London by terrorist makes me think third world violence is closer then some think. So I will keep right to bear arms. Thank you.


----------



## Oggie

Paumon said:


> :hand:
> 
> :hand:





I forgot to wish you a Happy Canada Day!


----------



## Paumon

Thanks Oggie. :thumb:


----------



## kasilofhome

The culture of the frog is one swallowed by the snake who lied to the frog when the snake pledged to protect the frog..... Frogs never learn not to trust. Thus the bow to they to the queen.


----------



## Seth

To anyone for gun control:

Why are you for infringing on my right to own a firearm? I have never used a firearm to harm anyone, threaten anyone, or even annoy anyone. Why do you believe that your right trumps mine? Seth


----------



## Paumon

Seth said:


> To anyone for gun control:
> 
> *Why are you for infringing on my right to own a firearm?* I have never used a firearm to harm anyone, threaten anyone, or even annoy anyone. Why do you believe that your right trumps mine? Seth


Who said anything about infringing on the right to own a firearm?


----------



## Seth

Paumon said:


> Who said anything about infringing on the right to own a firearm?



Kinda the central theme to a lot of gun control advocates. The majority of the advocates I've seen and come into contact with want an eventual firearm abolishment. YMMV Seth


----------



## Seth

Let me rephrase, If I want something, can afford it, and it causes no harm to anyone else, why do others believe they should be able to trump my right to do as I please?


----------



## kasilofhome

Oh we silly Americans misunderstood your point of view on guns in the hands of Americans per the bill o rights. To be a cult of killers waiting to draw blood. As if we have to have your approval to own and carry them legally.


----------



## Paumon

Seth said:


> Kinda the central theme to a lot of gun control advocates. *The majority of the advocates I've seen and come into contact with want an eventual firearm abolishment.* YMMV Seth


Okay. I'm sorry to hear that. It seems like a lot of folks down there tend to go from one extreme to another with no happy medium in between for everyone to agree on. It would be so good if everyone could find that happy medium that all could agree on. I really appreciate the firearms policies we have here, they are quite stable and reasonable policies that the vast majority are in agreement with and nobody is pushing for more controls or for firearms abolishment. The majority of households here have firearms and it would not be practical by any stretch of the imagination to abolish firearms. It would be unthinkable.


----------



## kasilofhome

We are happy and choose to live in our country 
With are gun rights do like it move to Canada.


----------



## JJ Grandits

The problem with happy mediums is that for some reason it always seems to involve me giving up some of my rights. If anyone can find a happy medium that expands my rights I'll go for it. My happy medium involves teaching firearm safety in grade school and having a firearm proficiency requirement in High School. That seems like a medium that would make me happy.


----------



## kasilofhome

Hey as for all Canadians being for your country's gun laws during the flood when homed were entered and guns removed it proved to many in America why our gun rights are better than yours where gun owners shut up smile and nod to talk like yours while hiding guns and preying for no more floods.


----------



## Paumon

kasilofhome said:


> Hey as for all Canadians being for your country's gun laws during the flood when homed were entered and guns removed it proved to many in America why our gun rights are better than yours where gun owners shut up smile and nod to talk like yours while hiding guns and preying for no more floods.


I really wish you'd get a clue and get your facts straight about things before you go spouting off such nonsense.

A town flash flooded. The people had to evacuate suddenly and abandon their flooded homes and possessions. Thieves started breaking in and robbing visible firearms out of the flooded homes. Police then took boats and went into the homes and collected up and tagged all the remaining visible firearms and put them into storage for safekeeping for their owners. The owners of the firearms all went and got all their firearms returned to them after the flood receded and they were able to return to their homes to clean up the mess. No problems. Everybody happy except for the would be thieves and the unfortunate few gun owners who were robbed by the thieves before the police stepped in. End of story.


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> I really wish you'd get a clue and get your facts straight about things before you go spouting off such nonsense.
> 
> A town flash flooded. The people had to evacuate suddenly and abandon their flooded homes and possessions. Thieves started breaking in and robbing visible firearms out of the flooded homes. Police then took boats and went into the homes and collected up and tagged all the remaining visible firearms and put them into storage for safekeeping for their owners. The owners of the firearms all went and got all their firearms returned to them after the flood receded and they were able to return to their homes to clean up the mess. No problems. Everybody happy except for the would be thieves and the unfortunate few gun owners who were robbed by the thieves before the police stepped in. End of story.


So, no "illegal" guns were seized? No one was prosecuted for them? Just curious! !


----------



## kasilofhome

Sorry but your story is different from the sources I posted from news sites in your country. That is when we Americans with our lack laws were pointed out by you creating and aiding Canadian criminals. Sorry but bfacts are facts the sun paper had the stories.


----------



## kasilofhome

The flood was used as the Canadian government as a gun grab.


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> So, no "illegal" guns were seized? No one was prosecuted for them? Just curious! !


Nope. Everyone who had their guns "rescued" by the RCMP got their guns back without any problems and no guns of any type were held back or questioned.

You know what really annoys me is that when that flooding event happened last year Kasi had the facts explained to her very fully by several Canadians on this board. There were no Canadians worried about it or concerned that the flooded homeowners wouldn't get their firearms back. She was told what was happening and why it was happening and yet she wouldn't accept the truth of it and still persists in trying to make it into something else, some kind of corruption that is not true and never happened. How do you deal with somebody that has such a huge hate on for another nation that they will say things like that?  I don't understand that kind of mindset.

Like this quote below. This is so far-fetched and hateful, it just boggles my mind that people can tell mistruths like this, and other people will believe it because they want to believe it just like the teller of the tall tale wants to believe it.



kasilofhome said:


> The flood was used as the Canadian government as a gun grab.


----------



## kasilofhome

Sorry you are forgetting that only those who met with your government s demands of proof for only the guns that they would Allow were returned. Sure was handy that the mounties raided the homes before the thieves could be thieves.. Precrime prevention.


----------



## Paumon




----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Nope. Everyone who had their guns "rescued" by the RCMP got their guns back without any problems and no guns of any type were held back or questioned.
> 
> You know what really annoys me is that when that flooding event happened last year Kasi had the facts explained to her very fully by several Canadians on this board. There were no Canadians worried about it or concerned that the flooded homeowners wouldn't get their firearms back. She was told what was happening and why it was happening and yet she wouldn't accept the truth of it and still persists in trying to make it into something else, some kind of corruption that is not true and never happened. How do you deal with somebody that has such a huge hate on for another nation that they will say things like that?  I don't understand that kind of mindset.
> 
> Like this quote below. This is so far-fetched and hateful, it just boggles my mind that people can tell mistruths like this, and other people will believe it because they want to believe it just like the teller of the tall tale wants to believe it.


I can't answer that! A Google search gave me a lot of decent links for reference. 500,000 rounds of ammo! Go Canada!!!!! It seems everyone in that little enclave was armed! A lot of the gun owners took them for safe keeping and it appears that the RCMP were more than accommodating! Some said they were upset because doors were kicked down, but only when guns were visible. Seems reasonable enough, maybe! I don't know what the crime stats are for that area, so I reserve judgement! I DO know that i wouldn't lock them in the basement if there's a flood!! To me, I think that the RCMP went out of their way to secure these weapons and get them back to their right full owners! Unfortunately, I don't see that type of thing happen here. Law enforcement here get to keep what they seize, they love the war on drugs because it nets them millions or even billions of dollars! 

I feel some of our fears stem from the government agents killing people to keep them from their weapons. Google New Orleans killer cops, to see what I mean. Plus, almost everyday law enforcement somewhere kills innocent bystanders or folks they think committed a crime. Just a few days ago, a swat team fired tear gas into a presumed drug house. One canister landed in a crib with a sleeping child in it. Needless to say the result is very disturbing! What are us citizens to do when this is how we're treated by our own law enforcement? The LAPD used to have "to protect and to serve" on their patrol cars and it was their motto. They don't use it anymore.......i wonder why?


----------



## kasilofhome

It was not so peachy ....per the sun.


----------



## Paumon

Jeffrey, thank you for checking out the facts for yourself and seeing the truth of it. I really appreciate it that you confirmed it for me. 

We like our RCMP here - for the most part they are upright and trustworthy, very respectful of citizens rights and the citizens appreciate them and their efforts at peace-keeping. When that young man I posted the picture of above killed those RCMP officers in his vile sneak attack last month (they were young men themselves with wives and babies) this whole nation mourned their loss and those killings sparked the 2nd biggest manhunt and the biggest RCMP funeral that has ever happened in the history of the nation. 

And yes, I saw the pictures of the injuries to that baby who had the flash-bang land on his pillow in his crib and explode in his face. The injuries to that poor little tyke are absolutely horrific and I hope the law enforcement agencies responsible for that will be required to pay for all of his medical care and more. I do understand why people would be fearful of police forces that do things like that.


----------



## Tricky Grama

kasilofhome said:


> The culture of the frog is one swallowed by the snake who lied to the frog when the snake pledged to protect the frog..... Frogs never learn not to trust. Thus the bow to they to the queen.


Do you have "Frog Insurance"???


----------



## Tricky Grama

JJ Grandits said:


> The problem with happy mediums is that for some reason it always seems to involve me giving up some of my rights. If anyone can find a happy medium that expands my rights I'll go for it. My happy medium involves teaching firearm safety in grade school and having a firearm proficiency requirement in High School. That seems like a medium that would make me happy.


Do they still teach firearm safety in the scouts? I hope so, my sons learned there.

We still haven't really heard what gun control folks want...I think its something along the lines of keeping them locked up in a safe in your own home-unloaded- never to be taken out...except maybe for hunting...if you are so inclined to be so horrible to animals instead of buying meat in the grocery store where no animals are harmed.
.


----------



## Forerunner

Those advocating that the law-abiding be grossly restricted in, if not outright denied their liberty to possess and carry arms.......are openly lusting for broad-scope genocide at the hands of an out of control police state, as history has clearly exemplified time and time and time again.

The powers know the statistics. Only the simple minded and the malignant cling to the notion that state-mandated gun control is about preventing crime or violence.

So, who are the real murderers, or worse, those so warped in their character and so cowardly in their person that they champion the killing of helpless humanity by a heavily-armed STATE monopoly that will do it in their stead ?


----------



## unregistered358967

Tricky Grama said:


> Do they still teach firearm safety in the scouts? I hope so, my sons learned there.
> 
> .


They have a rifle shooting badge. My son went through a firearm safety course but it was at a private range. He's in trap shooting. :rock:


----------



## kasilofhome

Search gun grab &Canada&flood check out the links there how locked homes had doors busted down after the evacuation of the local homes.....remember the claim was to prevent thief.....
Really seems like Canada has as much false news as we do.


----------



## Fennick

Your concern for Canada and Canadian rights is touching albeit poorly informed.

One can always find false news if they go looking for it and want to believe it.


----------



## kasilofhome

I will not pretend to care about Canada choices as I know it is not my place as an American yet when Canadians try to change my country to what laws they have I will show what I see is wrong with their choices for us. Now, there are many stories about that flood in which victims of the floods were pillaged by the Mounties who felt the need to break down doors locked to .....insure that guns were locked. What is odd about that. Sorry no government is with out candles but when people are silent and the government controls or successfully has wooed the media those in the media that stand firm are dismissed. 

A grab for guns happened in Canada and if that fact bothers you take it up with Canada not me if you are Canadian. Closing your eyes is a choice for those who fear their government.


----------



## Tex-

Patchouli said:


> Well you surprised me. Poverty stricken was not what I expected, excellent word choice. Every large city has large numbers of poverty stricken people though. So gun control or no gun control really won't make any difference at all will it? Arming all the good people doesn't fix anything anymore than banning guns? Your argument cuts both ways. Disproving gun bans with Chicago also means disproving the good guys with guns argument with Little Rock.


For the most part, in the areas of these cities where gun violence is most prevalent, it is bad guys shooting at other bad guys. In recent months though, there has been urging from TPTB for the good people in these bad areas to get their conceal carry permits and to act as their own first responders simply because police do not usually get there in time to do any good. Detroit and their police chief is a very good example of this.

When there are good guys with guns, the tables usually turn in favor of justice. This is not always the case, but good guys with guns are a definite deterrent. It is not honest though, to bring in the 'good guys with guns' argument when discussing areas where gun violence is usually between two different factions of bad guys.

http://news.yahoo.com/veteran-concealed-carry-permit-shoots-back-chicago-gunman-031804649.html

Here is a link talking about a good guy who definitely made a difference. There are many more around the net if a person were to take a minute or two. Myself, I enjoy reading about the old veterans who are dismissed by much younger punks while in the process of commiting crimes. Those old guys sure know how to pull a hat trick.

There is a major problem with gun violence in the bigger cities and the problem rests mostly on the shoulders of younger men and boys who have been taught there are no consequences for their terroristic and criminal behavior. Lots of single mothers have no desire for their children to be raised in a war zone, but they do not have the ability to stop it. If a few more of these mothers had atleast some rudimentry training and a good firearm, they could help eliminate some of the problem. Most of the thugs causing the trouble are beyond rehabilitation and when they terrorize innocent people, they are well beyond getting any sympathy from me when they are given what is due them.

These thugs have no respect for the law and will continue doing what they do even if guns are deemed illegal. Chicago and Washington DC are good examples of this as it has only been recently that good people were allowed to excersize their Second Amendment rights. Remove the firearms restrictions in these areas and make it easier for good people to protect themselves and many of the problems will cease to exist. As it stands now, the police show up in time to write a report and take statements. They rarely show up in time to protect innocent people. By lessening the firearms restrictions, atleast there will be some hope that the criminal is the one being toted off to the hospital or morgue rather than an innocent victim.

Sometimes the answer to violence, is more violence, and the more violence dished out by good people will lead to less violence perpetrated by the criminals. If this were not true, cops would not carry guns themselves.



Tex


----------



## JJ Grandits

With no disrespect to Canadians, (love your beer), Canada and the US are close neighbors that are worlds apart.
For many of us our Constitution is written in stone. It is the ultimate law of the land and is not up to the whims of any political group. It says that my RIGHT to be armed shall not be infringed. That's good enough for me and tens of millions of other Americans. If someone don't like it, Im sorry. Certain ideological beliefs can not properly function in a society with tens of millions of armed citizens. If that is your ideology you have a right to that opinion. I will even defend your right to that opinion. Now if your opinion involves taking aways my rights, the rights I truly believe that were given to me by a higher power, I will do everything I can to make sure it sucks to be you. I will not surrender my rights as an excuse for someones failed social experiment. History has shown again and again what a corrupt government will do with a population incapable of defending itself. Our elitist politicians know history and have chosen their path. Sadly for them our next revolution will have the same outcome experienced after the French revolution. Being an elitist will have it's price. hopefully the Constitutional rule of law will prevail and avoid that possibility.


----------



## Tricky Grama

JJ Grandits said:


> With no disrespect to Canadians, (love your beer), Canada and the US are close neighbors that are worlds apart.
> For many of us our Constitution is written in stone. It is the ultimate law of the land and is not up to the whims of any political group. It says that my RIGHT to be armed shall not be infringed. That's good enough for me and tens of millions of other Americans. If someone don't like it, Im sorry. Certain ideological beliefs can not properly function in a society with tens of millions of armed citizens. If that is your ideology you have a right to that opinion. I will even defend your right to that opinion. Now if your opinion involves taking aways my rights, the rights I truly believe that were given to me by a higher power, I will do everything I can to make sure it sucks to be you. I will not surrender my rights as an excuse for someones failed social experiment. History has shown again and again what a corrupt government will do with a population incapable of defending itself. Our elitist politicians know history and have chosen their path. Sadly for them our next revolution will have the same outcome experienced after the French revolution. Being an elitist will have it's price. hopefully the Constitutional rule of law will prevail and avoid that possibility.












Some wise words from the 'gunculture'.


----------



## beowoulf90

What some see as a "gun culture" some of us see as a "Constitution culture"

I'll defend their Right to Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Right to keep and bear Arms, Your Right not to have to house soldiers, Your Right to be secure in your own home and papers, Your Right not to be a witness against yourself.

Shall I continue? I think most will get the point..

It's not a gun culture, it is about Freedom and Liberty! Something most people of the world will not understand and never will.. But then again they desire servitude and as such get it. They would rather give up Freedom and Liberty for security, thus getting neither..

To those people, it sucks to be you.. I on the other hand know and understand Freedom and Liberty and will do what ever it takes to make sure that I can hand down that Freedom and Liberty to my children. If some don't like that.. TOO BAD! you may go cower in a corner, but I won't...I won't hide from your threats of force.. I won't hide from the tyranny you propose. I will fight you using what ever means I have..

So to those who wish to take my Rights away from me, especially my 2A Right, please step forward and try your best.. But be fore-warned, I don't walk alone. I am one of many. Yes I may die, but Freedom and Liberty will live on. There are true Patriots who will see to it..

III%


----------



## michael ark

The only thing that matters is the last sentence . (With respect to the storage of guns in vehicles, we ask that our customers continue to honor local laws.) So if local law says i can carry concealed or other . I have that right but they would rather i keep a low profile when doing it.Don't look like twiggy and jumbo.


----------



## Evons hubby

Seth said:


> Let me rephrase, If I want something, can afford it, and it causes no harm to anyone else, why do others believe they should be able to trump my right to do as I please?


Meddlers have always felt they had a right to interfere in other peoples business. It is the nature of the beast.


----------



## kasilofhome

Just as in court some people have standing and others not. Only Americans have standing on issues about our constitutional and laws. I say this as allowing outsiders a say is akin to allowing terrorists control.


----------



## Patchouli

Forerunner said:


> Patchouli has openly admitted shame for our having fought, and won, the Revolution.
> 
> Paumon has no dog in the hunt.
> 
> "Nuff said.


And that's a lie. Sorry to see that from you of all people. I said that I feel that the Revolution was not biblical and that we should have waited and got our independence in a better and more Christian way. That's not shame that was just a debate on what scripture says about how Christians are supposed to behave in regards to the government.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> So you now are useing non PC wording. Cult is very offensive. Sinking to the gutter.


:hystericalaumon is sinking in the gutter. After all the mean, nasty, insulting and name calling posts in this thread attacking Liberals on everything under the sun it's Paumon's labeling some gun owner's obsession with guns a cult that finally earns a remark from you on how low this place has sunk.


----------



## kasilofhome

Patch. We come back you seemed to disappear after your comments about conservatives and welfare comments. You were concerned about missing comments from conservatives. I hope it was resolved for you.


----------



## Patchouli

Paumon said:


> Okay. I'm sorry to hear that. It seems like a lot of folks down there tend to go from one extreme to another with no happy medium in between for everyone to agree on. It would be so good if everyone could find that happy medium that all could agree on. I really appreciate the firearms policies we have here, they are quite stable and reasonable policies that the vast majority are in agreement with and nobody is pushing for more controls or for firearms abolishment. The majority of households here have firearms and it would not be practical by any stretch of the imagination to abolish firearms. It would be unthinkable.


I have no idea who Seth has been in contact with but I don't know of anyone here who wants all guns abolished. I think that is just the stuff that people like the NRA puts out as scare tactics. They just want them used in appropriate places.


----------



## FourDeuce

"I don't know of anyone here who wants all guns abolished." Then you should listen to the people who SAY they want all guns abolished. Hint: They are not members of the NRA.
"I think that is just the stuff that people like the NRA puts out as scare tactics." Yeah, the NRA needs to stop having people say things like that. I'm not sure how the NRA gets people to say things like that, though. You think they pay people to do it?:hrm:


----------



## Patchouli

FourDeuce said:


> "I don't know of anyone here who wants all guns abolished." Then you should listen to the people who SAY they want all guns abolished. Hint: They are not members of the NRA.
> "I think that is just the stuff that people like the NRA puts out as scare tactics." Yeah, the NRA needs to stop having people say things like that. I'm not sure how the NRA gets people to say things like that, though. You think they pay people to do it?:hrm:


I think like all political groups they spin things to say what they want it to say. It's not too hard to cherry pick of few words out of a speech and make it look like something it never was in the first place.


----------



## Patchouli

Back to the OP once again these people who go too far carrying inappropriate types of guns into inappropriate places have got another store to ban guns altogether. This thread was never about gun control or anything like that it was about a certain small ignorant part of the gun rights movement actually hurting the movement and getting guns banned instead.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/target-asks-customers-to-keep-guns-out-of-stores-1404311690



> Target's interim CEO, John Mulligan, in a memo posted on the chain's website Wednesday, said: "This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create."
> The Open Carry Texas group began toting rifles through Target stores&#8212;and other establishments&#8212;in its effort to make carrying large firearms in public appear normal. The group's founder didn't return requests for comment Wednesday, but the group posted on its Facebook page that it "regrets" Target's decision, although it would comply with the chain's request.


----------



## kasilofhome

Private property rights allow for this. Just as some households allow shoes in there house and some don't. Just like caretakers should have the right not to make cakes for some patrons and not for others due to moral beliefs. Stores are not my property I respect them enough to set the rules. I choose where I shop.

But when the government takes over private property rights we have problems.


----------



## Nevada

Patchouli said:


> Back to the OP once again these people who go too far carrying inappropriate types of guns into inappropriate places have got another store to ban guns altogether.


How are we supposed to know if a person who is carrying openly has good intentions? We don't usually see open carry, so it's reasonable to assume that the person is carrying a gun for a reason. Without asking, it's not readily apparent if it's a good or bad reason, or even if he just plain crazy.


----------



## Patchouli

Nevada said:


> How are we supposed to know if a person who is carrying openly has good intentions? We don't usually see open carry, so it's reasonable to assume that the person is carrying a gun for a reason. Without asking, it's not readily apparent if it's a good or bad reason, or even if he just plain crazy.


All the ones I have seen in the pictures so far at these rallies appear to qualify for just plain crazy. I wouldn't bat an eye at someone with a handgun in a holster but you trot in with your AK strapped across your chest and I am heading for the door.


----------



## kasilofhome

Some may run but I going to ask how that gun handles what it cost. And thank them kindly but heck I left New York and learned that having your tools handy and in good shape and keeping up on your skills simply makes one better able to use the properly. Then again with so many carrying in my neck of the woods we have a polite community.


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> Then again with so many carrying in my neck of the woods we have a polite community.


I suppose that if you know everyone who's carrying it's different, but it's reasonable to feel threatened to see someone you don't know carrying in a setting that you don't understand.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> Some may run but I going to ask how that gun handles what it cost. And thank them kindly but heck I left New York and learned that having your tools handy and in good shape and keeping up on your skills simply makes one better able to use the properly. Then again with so many carrying in my neck of the woods we have a polite community.


That would have been a bad idea for say the movie goers in Colorado or the people at the grocery store when Gabby Giffords was doing a meet and greet.


----------



## kasilofhome

Nevada said:


> I suppose that if you know everyone who's carrying it's different, but it's reasonable to feel threatened to see someone you don't know carrying in a setting that you don't understand.


One can learn to be understanding and tolerance


----------



## kasilofhome

Patchouli said:


> That would have been a bad idea for say the movie goers in Colorado or the people at the grocery store when Gabby Giffords was doing a meet and greet.


And the people who die belted in a car that sinks into the water. And the people who die drownng in a tub, and the people who die ...
. People everyone of us will dies how and when well ....I trust my God.


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> One can learn to be understanding and tolerance


Seriously? Be tolerant of people carrying openly? George Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force because he felt threatened, and Martin wasn't carrying at all.

Since when do you advocate understanding and tolerance in situations where someone feels threatened?


----------



## kasilofhome

News flash Zimmerman was past suspicion of trevon he felt the impact of the beat which is the reason George is not in jail.

Yes, tolerance and knowledge is a good thing to promote.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> And that's a lie. Sorry to see that from you of all people. I said that I feel that the Revolution was not biblical and that we should have waited and got our independence in a better and more Christian way. That's not shame that was just a debate on what scripture says about how Christians are supposed to behave in regards to the government.


Well, you dern near proved Forerunner right, there...


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> I have no idea who Seth has been in contact with but I don't know of anyone here who wants all guns abolished. I think that is just the stuff that people like the NRA puts out as scare tactics. They just want them used in appropriate places.


BWhahaha!
"Appropriate places"...decided by whom?

Here's another quote: "...SHALL NOT be infringed..."


----------



## Nevada

Tricky Grama said:


> Here's another quote: "...SHALL NOT be infringed..."


Our speech & privacy rights weren't supposed to be infringed either, but we accept reasonable exceptions to those rights.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Our speech & privacy rights weren't supposed to be infringed either, but we accept reasonable exceptions to those rights.


Only slaves do!


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> And the people who die belted in a car that sinks into the water. And the people who die drownng in a tub, and the people who die ...
> . People everyone of us will dies how and when well ....I trust my God.


Well yes we are all going to die but I am not going to go standing on the train tracks anytime soon.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Since when do you advocate understanding and tolerance in situations where someone feels threatened?


I have no control over how you or any one else "feels".... some folks may feel threatened just because a guy is extra large.... but until some dangerous action is directed at you there is no realistic reason to feel threatened. Now if you have done something to irritate an overly large gentleman or someone openly carrying.... you may very well have a valid reason to feel threatened. The mere possession of a weapon is no reason whatsoever to feel threatened.


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> And the people who die belted in a car that sinks into the water. And the people who die drownng in a tub, and the people who die ...
> . People everyone of us will dies how and when well ....I trust my God.


Then what do you need a gun for? Just let the bad guys shoot you and trust in God. After all, you're going to die eventually anyhow.


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> All the ones I have seen in the pictures so far at these rallies appear to qualify for just plain crazy. I wouldn't bat an eye at someone with a handgun in a holster but you trot in with your AK strapped across your chest and I am heading for the door.


Well there we have it... some of us apparently have the ability to diagnose mental illness simply by observation of someones physical appearance. I have to ask what gives them away? the eyes are too close together? or maybe their earlobes are shaped funny?


----------



## JJ Grandits

The unibrow and webbed fingers. Trust me. Nothing good comes from someone with a unibrow and webbed fingers.


----------



## Nevada

JJ Grandits said:


> The unibrow and webbed fingers. Trust me. Nothing good comes from someone with a unibrow and webbed fingers.


This topic has certainly become democratic. What happened to shoot first and ask questions later?


----------



## JJ Grandits

Laugh now...................Till your daughter brings one home.


----------



## kasilofhome

Nevada said:


> Then what do you need a gun for? Just let the bad guys shoot you and trust in God. After all, you're going to die eventually anyhow.


As a mom and as a member of a polite community I thank those who are willing and ABLE to protect the weak from evil. Cops are to hard to carry around.

Well if ever there is another threat to my life being around gun otter I hope will save me AGAIN and still thank God cause that us faith that he wants Around another day. If not my boy knows to say goodbye to you all.


----------



## Mistoftime

No one is probably more pro gun than me. I grew up with guns on a farm in the Appalachians. Our guns were part of the tools we used in our everyday life. Everyone always carried smaller hand guns for their safety and protection against whatever. There was never a gaudy display of fire power with over modified weapons, as shown in the above photos. Most everyone who grew up with guns as part of their culture, as I did, would never carry long guns into an establishment just for the sake of it. It's rude, unnecessary, showing a lack of common sense and tact. Law abiding citizens should be allowed their 2nd amendment rights throughout the U.S. but this does not take into consideration of those who lack the good sense and ability to own and use firearms sensibly and discreetly. It's the same way as one who decides to drive intoxicated or misuse a legal prescription. Regardless of Liberal views, we do have idiots among us..... :doh:


----------



## Patchouli

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well there we have it... some of us apparently have the ability to diagnose mental illness simply by observation of someones physical appearance. I have to ask what gives them away? the eyes are too close together? or maybe their earlobes are shaped funny?


No the big fat assault rifle carried into an inappropriate place. Most people are smart enough to know that is not normal.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Kind of looks like a staged event from the "Anti's". The one part of the story everyone ignores, in spite of the bad taste, nobody got hurt. Except for a stupid photo it's a non story. You take a photo of someone protesting for abortion rights and you know that babies are going to be killed.


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> No the big fat assault rifle carried into an inappropriate place. Most people are smart enough to know that is not normal.


And what in your mind is "an inappropriate place"? Is there some place in particular that you feel is perfectly safe from some mental case going off the deep end and you may need to defend yourself or others? Just because most people have gotten used to the illusion that our police will protect them doesnt mean we are safe. I am fully aware that the majority of people in our country are fools. Doesnt mean they are right.


----------



## FourDeuce

Patchouli said:


> No the big fat assault rifle carried into an inappropriate place. Most people are smart enough to know that is not normal.


I've never heard of a "big fat assault rifle". Who makes that one? :nanner:


----------



## unregistered41671

Evidently they don't even know what an assault rifle is, or is not. Like the media, they like to use that term, even if it is incorrect.


----------



## FourDeuce

Patchouli said:


> I think like all political groups they spin things to say what they want it to say. It's not too hard to cherry pick of few words out of a speech and make it look like something it never was in the first place.


I've never heard a political group say they want to ban all guns, but I have heard plenty of gun-fearing people say it. No cherry-picking is needed when a person says they want to ban all guns(at least I don't need to cherry-pick it). I guess if you don't want to hear what THEY say, you can cherry-pick to avoid it, but I prefer to just listen to what people tell me.


----------



## Patchouli

Possum Belly said:


> Evidently they don't even know what an assault rifle is, or is not. Like the media, they like to use that term, even if it is incorrect.



No my years in the military left me completely ignorant as to what an assault rifle is...... :bored:

Try again.

Maybe you can tell me what these are?


----------



## JeffreyD

Patchouli said:


> No my years in the military left me completely ignorant as to what an assault rifle is...... :bored:
> 
> Try again.


If you think that these guys were carrying assault rifles, I really would have to question your military service. Would you really go into battle with one? I don't think your superiors would even be allowed to obtain weapons such as these.


----------



## Paumon

Patchouli said:


> No my years in the military left me completely ignorant as to what an assault rifle is...... :bored:
> 
> Try again.
> 
> *Maybe you can tell me what these are?*


Raises hand, :goodjob: eagerly jumps up and down :bouncy: and yells "Me .... me can tell you!" 

"It's a case of food, a pretty girl and 2 hulking bullies intimidating the girl with their big black bully sticks!"

Do I get a gold star? :cute:


----------



## Twobottom

Paumon said:


> Raises hand, :goodjob: eagerly jumps up and down :bouncy: and yells "Me .... me can tell you!"
> 
> "It's a case of food, a pretty girl and 2 hulking bullies intimidating the girl with their big black bully sticks!"
> 
> Do I get a gold star? :cute:


Would you be concerned if those two bullies with the "big black bully sticks" that are so interesting to you were wearing blue costumes? Is it just government agents that should have weapons, and the rest of us should be disarmed and at their mercy? This seems very naive and ignorant of history, you might want to look up the term "democide", to see just how many people are estimated to be killed by their own governments. Hint; It's in the hundreds of millions.

You don't trust people with freedom but you would entrust a very small elite group of people with almost complete power over the rest of us. I think this quote sums it up;

"If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So itâs not that you are anti-gun. Youâll need the policeâs guns to take away other peopleâs guns. So youâre very Pro-Gun, *you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuousâ¦) should be allowed to have guns*. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions." _ Stefan Molyneux


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And what in your mind is "an inappropriate place"? Is there some place in particular that you feel is perfectly safe from some mental case going off the deep end and you may need to defend yourself or others? Just because most people have gotten used to the illusion that our police will protect them doesnt mean we are safe. I am fully aware that the majority of people in our country are fools. Doesnt mean they are right.


I already asked, they're not going to answer, just obfuscate. Won't answer what kind of gun restrictions they want either.
Don't want to read the 2nd amendment either w/o adding their interpretation about not applying to us citizens.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Twobottom said:


> Would you be concerned if those two bullies with the "big black bully sticks" that are so interesting to you were wearing blue costumes? Is it just government agents that should have weapons, and the rest of us should be disarmed and at their mercy? This seems very naive and ignorant of history, you might want to look up the term "democide", to see just how many people are estimated to be killed by their own governments. Hint; It's in the hundreds of millions.
> 
> You don't trust people with freedom but you would entrust a very small elite group of people with almost complete power over the rest of us. I think this quote sums it up;
> 
> "If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So itâs not that you are anti-gun. Youâll need the policeâs guns to take away other peopleâs guns. So youâre very Pro-Gun, *you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuousâ¦) should be allowed to have guns*. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions." _ Stefan Molyneux


----------



## beowoulf90

Patchouli said:


> No my years in the military left me completely ignorant as to what an assault rifle is...... :bored:
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Maybe you can tell me what these are?



:rotfl:

They are semi automatics that look like something else they appear to be an AK and an AR. For all we know they could be .22's

But I do understand some people are afraid of looks and make false judgements on the appearance of something. Just like the racist 0bama saying his white grandmother would cross the street if she saw 2 black men coming towards her.. It shows his racism because of appearances.
Yes it shows his racism, because he is the one that told the "story" and adding the remarks as to the reason (presumed) his grandmother was crossing the street.

So just like others who hate because of appearances it seems that those who claim to be the most tolerant are actually the very ones who judge others on appearances..

Oh and if you would carry one of those in the military, then you were carrying "faulty" equipment, because military AK's, or one of it variants and an M4/M16 or one of it's variants are full automatic capable. Those in the picture are more than likely not full auto capable..

But if you ask me we Americans should be allowed to own & carry anything the Military uses without paying their $200 tax and 9 month waiting period.

But then again I'm called a hater and racist by those who hate and are racist on appearances..


----------



## JJ Grandits

I don't think the girl is intimidated. The only ones who would be intimidated would be the gang banger or illegal alien who wants to rob the place. Not to mention the bleeding heart anti freedom liberals who talk about things they have no knowledge of.


----------



## unregistered41671

Possum Belly said:


> Evidently they don't even know what an assault rifle is, or is not. Like the media, they like to use that term, even if it is incorrect.





Patchouli said:


> No my years in the military left me completely ignorant as to what an assault rifle is...... :bored:
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Maybe you can tell me what these are?


The rifle on the left is a type of AR-15 *semi*-automatic and the one on the right is an AK-47 Semi-automatic *look alike* that have some cosmetic features to make them look like "assault rifles". 
I do know that they are *not* "assault rifles". I would hope that with your "years in the military" would have taught you that they are nothing but two guys with '*semi-automatic*' that may have some of the cosmetic features of a real military "assault rifle'. Maybe you need to watch the very informative video that I will post below teaching the differences between *assault rifles* and *semi-automatic rifles* since you must have failed to learn these basics in the military. I will post some other links as well for people that can't watch video. 

[YOUTUBE]yATeti5GmI8[/YOUTUBE]

Here is a link to some real "assault rifles". Look at the prices in the link below and tell me if you really believe the two pictured above are carrying "assault rifles". You know that they are *not* "assault rifles" but you choose to use that term to promote fear and to further your leftist, liberal, progressive anti-gun agenda. 
http://www.shootersdepot.com/sd_automatics.html


http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/semi-auto.cfm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...he-definitions-and-how-the-term-is-demonized/
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/assault-weapons-overview.aspx
http://washingtonexaminer.com/media...ns-and-semiautomatic-firearms/article/2516156


----------



## Evons hubby

JJ Grandits said:


> I don't think the girl is intimidated. The only ones who would be intimidated would be the gang banger or illegal alien who wants to rob the place. Not to mention the bleeding heart anti freedom liberals who talk about things they have no knowledge of.


Yeppers, the girl appears to be smiling.... not the normal expression one would expect from someone who was being intimidated by bullies. I also dont think the guys are the bully type either, its not like they are carrying those weapons in a threatening manner.... they are simply slung over shoulders in a tote about position... not in an attack mode. Would people freak out if this were a couple carpenters shopping for a snack with hammers in a tool belt?


----------



## kasilofhome

A couple stopping to pick up some grub prior to hunting 
Logic for my statement

Girl scanning food
It is a food case
Pants missing dirt stains and appear as if they are too clean to have been trampling thru stuff that gets one boots dirty.

Oh see how relax the clerk girl is ...busy working to help them.

The two people are relaxed and the guns are being carried in a proper,safe NON THREATENING MANNER.

There also is a flag / banner 
Maybe they are not hunting maybe the might be an event in there town where we show support for gun rights.


In our boughs
borough.... happens to be the size of the state of PENNSYLVANIA when people published information about the event and the local leaders openly carry rifles,guns etc and March from the town halls to a local gatherings spots to show their guns to people who want to learn about guns so that they do not get misinformation about guns from outside media.

Rather than leave guns of that size locked in a car a gun owner will have it on them just like that because ... they are being very responsible. Less of chance of being stolen and falling into bad hands.

Please not that saint Obama hired Eric holder and he, Eric is one bad butt gun runner supporter. This administration seems to have strong ties to Mexico this is not the first dance with them.


----------



## kasilofhome

A couple stopping to pick up some grub prior to hunting 
Logic for my statement

Girl scanning food
It is a food case
Pants missing dirt stains and appear as if they are too clean to have been trampling thru stuff that gets one boots dirty.

Oh see how relax the clerk girl is ...busy working to help them.

The two people are relaxed and the guns are being carried in a proper,safe NON THREATENING MANNER.

There also is a flag / banner 
Maybe they are not hunting maybe the might be an event in there town where we show support for gun rights.


In our boughs
borough.... happens to be the size of the state of PENNSYLVANIA when people published information about the event and the local leaders openly carry rifles,guns etc and March from the town halls to a local gatherings spots to show their guns to people who want to learn about guns so that they do not get misinformation about guns from outside media.

Rather than leave guns of that size locked in a car a gun owner will have it on them just like that because ... they are being very responsible. Less of chance of being stolen and falling into bad hands.

Please not that saint Obama hired Eric holder and he, Eric is one bad butt gun runner supporter. This administration seems to have strong ties to Mexico this is not the first dance with them.


----------



## Patchouli

beowoulf90 said:


> :rotfl:
> 
> They are semi automatics that look like something else they appear to be an AK and an AR. For all we know they could be .22's
> 
> But I do understand some people are afraid of looks and make false judgements on the appearance of something. Just like the racist 0bama saying his white grandmother would cross the street if she saw 2 black men coming towards her.. It shows his racism because of appearances.
> Yes it shows his racism, because he is the one that told the "story" and adding the remarks as to the reason (presumed) his grandmother was crossing the street.
> 
> So just like others who hate because of appearances it seems that those who claim to be the most tolerant are actually the very ones who judge others on appearances..
> 
> Oh and if you would carry one of those in the military, then you were carrying "faulty" equipment, because military AK's, or one of it variants and an M4/M16 or one of it's variants are full automatic capable. Those in the picture are more than likely not full auto capable..
> 
> But if you ask me we Americans should be allowed to own & carry anything the Military uses without paying their $200 tax and 9 month waiting period.
> 
> But then again I'm called a hater and racist by those who hate and are racist on appearances..


That is the silliest quibble I have ever seen here. They look like an AK and an AR but you know they could be pretend or something..... Ooh maybe they are really movie props! Maybe they are made of Legos! Maybe they are just imaginary...... :spinsmiley:


And you know there is no way you can modify a semi-auto into an auto now is there? Oh but that is illegal and nobody ever does that. 

I carried an M-16. I bet you never carried one at all nor did JefferyD since your responses were so utterly laughable. Obviously you 2 are working under some esoteric definition of assault rifle. And you have no idea what the military carried or carries.


----------



## JeffreyD

Patchouli said:


> That is the silliest quibble I have ever seen here. They look like an AK and an AR but you know they could be pretend or something..... Ooh maybe they are really movie props! Maybe they are made of Legos! Maybe they are just imaginary...... :spinsmiley:
> 
> 
> And you know there is no way you can modify a semi-auto into an auto now is there? Oh but that is illegal and nobody ever does that.
> 
> I carried an M-16. I bet you never carried one at all nor did JefferyD since your responses were so utterly laughable. Obviously you 2 are working under some esoteric definition of assault rifle. And you have no idea what the military carried or carries.


********************
Not worth the effort!


----------



## Tricky Grama

And 'bout to go to page 10 w/o any answers on what they want. Or do they just want an amendment repealed?


----------



## unregistered353870

Patchouli said:


> That is the silliest quibble I have ever seen here. They look like an AK and an AR but you know they could be pretend or something..... Ooh maybe they are really movie props! Maybe they are made of Legos! Maybe they are just imaginary...... :spinsmiley:
> 
> 
> And you know there is no way you can modify a semi-auto into an auto now is there? Oh but that is illegal and nobody ever does that.
> 
> I carried an M-16. I bet you never carried one at all nor did JefferyD since your responses were so utterly laughable. Obviously you 2 are working under some esoteric definition of assault rifle. And you have no idea what the military carried or carries.


It's not really an esoteric definition...it's pretty commonly accepted that an assault rifle is select fire...the legal definition is pure bull since it's mostly cosmetic. I highly doubt people who illegally modify their rifles are going to go intentionally attract attention to themselves with said rifles. They know it's very likely the police are going to show up at some point during their "demonstration" and the penalties would be severe.


----------



## greg273

Those idiots carrying semi-auto rifles into grocery stores ought to be very careful... some people might feel threatened by someone waving a rifle in their face and decide to shoot them. If those folks want to 'play army' by waltzing around town with rifles, there are plenty of places in this world where they can go do it for real. Nah, they'd rather sit back in the good old USA and badmouth the laws, complain about the government 'taking away their guns' whilst walking down the aisle of a supermarket with a rifle.


----------



## kasilofhome

I think it odd that some folks claim to be Americans yet could never take a true oath of office because the could not defend the constitution. It is written plainly. Explained in full as to why listens hold the power and why guns are the last lifeboat for freedom. The seated leaders know that once the people are rid of guns all rights can be attacked. I am an American and a gun is just a tool. 

Many people with little more than emotions fear guns. Other people's phobias are not my problem .......There is help for them but they .....maybe some poster here would have to take the first step and learn the value of SELF PROTECTION. Guns are a tool and knowledge is a skill. There is no room for fear when personal rights and freedom is on the table. 

Having the tool and knowledge often means that no future actions are needed, which is why it is a right.....not a wish.


----------



## Patchouli

jtbrandt said:


> It's not really an esoteric definition...it's pretty commonly accepted that an assault rifle is select fire...the legal definition is pure bull since it's mostly cosmetic. I highly doubt people who illegally modify their rifles are going to go intentionally attract attention to themselves with said rifles. They know it's very likely the police are going to show up at some point during their "demonstration" and the penalties would be severe.



Good points. I am not so sure about them not taking a modified gun out in public just because some of these guys don't look like the sharpest tools in the shed. And honestly it is perfectly legal if a little expensive to add one of the bump fire triggers. Tac Con had theirs approved by the ATF. You could do a lot more damage with theirs than you could with a true auto because it gives you a control edge.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> Those idiots carrying semi-auto rifles into grocery stores ought to be very careful... some people might feel threatened by someone waving a rifle in their face and decide to shoot them. If those folks want to 'play army' by waltzing around town with rifles, there are plenty of places in this world where they can go do it for real. Nah, they'd rather sit back in the good old USA and badmouth the laws, complain about the government 'taking away their guns' whilst walking down the aisle of a supermarket with a rifle.


Shoot, have not heard of anyone 'waving a rifle in someone's face", got a link? (whoops, sorry about the pun.  )

I actually can see this happening, tho- some idiot leftie will call the cops & when they arrive, yell "He's got a gun he's shooting!". (posted a few pages back)

&#8220;I guess what I&#8217;ll do if I&#8217;m ever in that situation and I see one of these half-witted yahoos walking in with a weapon, high-caliber rifle like that, I&#8217;ll just put on a berserk act. I will just start screaming Gun! Gun! Gun! Watch out, everybody hit the deck! Guns! Guns! Everybody! And then dial 911 and I will say, shots fired, which will bring every cop within 15 miles. And then the half-wits with the long guns are going to panic and they&#8217;re going to run out of the store and if that rifle isn&#8217;t shouldered properly, the cop is going to take a look at that and put a bullet right in their forehead.&#8221;

http://joemiller.us/2014/06/lib-radi...1406-230980529


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> Shoot, have not heard of anyone 'waving a rifle in someone's face", got a link? (whoops, sorry about the pun.  )
> 
> I actually can see this happening, tho- some idiot leftie will call the cops & when they arrive, yell "He's got a gun he's shooting!". (posted a few pages back)


 I never mentioned anything about calling the cops.


----------



## kasilofhome

Uh she was quoting part of a link that she provided.

There are folks who are so scared of that that IS their plan should the ever see a gun the on a non government person in public. Some anti gun people are so controlling that an effort by anti gun radicals to lie and make up a story about a harmless legally gun toting person. 

Really anti American intolerant persons seem so misguided in in such a plan. Think if persons scared of fires were shell bent on ridding this nation of matches and lighters.


----------



## greg273

I bet you still have all your guns. I know I do. Wow, 6 years of Obama and his jackbooted thugs, and I still have all my guns, who'd have thunk it? Better drum up some more fear, gun sales have slacked off a bit lately.


----------



## kasilofhome

Well, since you mentioned the ever vacationing boy wonder and thugs I could mention the actions that he set in motion with escalating gun running in Mexico and in middle east have led to the deaths of Americans. Seem just carrying a phone and a pen can cause problems in the wrong hands.


----------



## greg273

kasilofhome said:


> Well, since you mentioned the ever vacationing boy wonder and thugs I could mention the actions that he set in motion with escalating gun running in Mexico and in middle east have led to the deaths of Americans. Seem just carrying a phone and a pen can cause problems in the wrong hands.


 You still have all your guns, correct?


----------



## kasilofhome

No sold two for fire wood last winter to meet my quota for heat needs. I could still have them if I wanted to get the heating assistance but duck hunting for my husband is over. I want a small 22 of my own to kill farm animals. But waiting to see if 22 will be in stores to replace when needed.


----------



## Tricky Grama

How about the CT folks? Maybe that lib RI, too?


----------



## kasilofhome

Now, the friends in New york maybe you missed the news.


----------



## unregistered41671

greg273 said:


> You still have all your guns, correct?


For now.


----------



## unregistered353870

Patchouli said:


> Good points. I am not so sure about them not taking a modified gun out in public just because some of these guys don't look like the sharpest tools in the shed. And honestly it is perfectly legal if a little expensive to add one of the bump fire triggers. Tac Con had theirs approved by the ATF. You could do a lot more damage with theirs than you could with a true auto because it gives you a control edge.


Yeah, but even if they have those trigger things they're still skipping the whole "shooting people" thing. I am not a fan of most of these demonstrators, as the ones we see on the news usually seem like caricatures, but I'm not too concerned about them hurting someone intentionally.


----------



## beowoulf90

Patchouli said:


> That is the silliest quibble I have ever seen here. They look like an AK and an AR but you know they could be pretend or something..... Ooh maybe they are really movie props! Maybe they are made of Legos! Maybe they are just imaginary...... :spinsmiley:
> 
> 
> And you know there is no way you can modify a semi-auto into an auto now is there? Oh but that is illegal and nobody ever does that.
> 
> I carried an M-16. I bet you never carried one at all nor did JefferyD since your responses were so utterly laughable. Obviously you 2 are working under some esoteric definition of assault rifle. And you have no idea what the military carried or carries.


Really, you want to go that route and try to insult me..Is that the basis of your anti gun stance? 

Now I'm laughing.. It shows that you truly haven't a clue, that you have to insinuate that I'm lying about my military service.

But that is fine.. 

You seem to be claiming to be the expert that you can tell me by the photo if they are semi or full auto. 

Yes they could be breaking the law or they could be licensed to carry/own a full auto.. But you "automatically" assume they are violating the law, just by looking at a picture.

Yes I automatically assume that they are carrying an AR and an AK both in Semi auto. I don't automatically assume they are violating the law just because they are carrying firearms..

Oh, on a side note we are using the legal definition of an Automatic Rifle that the US Government established in 1986 used to ban further importation of automatic Rifles.. Passed by the Dem controlled House and Senate and signed into law by President Reagan. But it seems that you and the liberal anti gun, anti American, anti Freedom media want to change that term/meaning to include all semi auto firearms as well. Thus the term assault weapon. Then you try to confuse the issue by saying assault Rifle instead of assault weapon.. I've seen other scum play this game before and the only ones who fall for it are the slaves, sheep..


----------



## beowoulf90

JeffreyD said:


> ********************
> Not worth the effort!



Sorry I had to :spinsmiley:

It's too much fun.


----------



## Cornhusker

beowoulf90 said:


> .. I've seen other scum play this game before and the only ones who fall for it are the slaves, sheep..


You forgot the gullible and the stupid


----------



## Cornhusker

kasilofhome said:


> Now, the friends in New york maybe you missed the news.


It probably hasn't been on MSNBC yet


----------



## beowoulf90

Cornhusker said:


> You forgot the gullible and the stupid



I apologize for the omission.


----------



## kasilofhome

I dare anti gun people to open this up read it and check the footnotes out before dismissing it
/
Http://www.americangunfact.com


----------



## unregistered41671

kasilofhome said:


> I dare anti gun people to open this up read it and check the footnotes out before dismissing it
> /
> Http://www.americangunfact.com



The above link does not work, it needs to be 

www.americangunfacts.com


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> You still have all your guns, correct?


As a matter of fact...no! We've had to turn in many weapons that our lovely state has deemed illegal. Even cops have had to turn in their own weapons to satisfy the law!

So the answer is no, I don't have my guns any longer due to a democratically controlled state that despises the Constitution, especially the 2nd amendment.


----------



## kasilofhome

Thanks for the fix.


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> As a matter of fact...no! We've had to turn in many weapons that our lovely state has deemed illegal. Even cops have had to turn in their own weapons to satisfy the law!
> 
> So the answer is no, I don't have my guns any longer due to a democratically controlled state that despises the Constitution, especially the 2nd amendment.


 Really? You just lined up and handed over your weapons? Interesting. Was living in California more important to you than your second Amendment rights?


----------



## poppy

greg273 said:


> Really? You just lined up and handed over your weapons? Interesting. Was living in California more important to you than your second Amendment rights?


The point is, who is trying to take guns and succeeding in some places? Sure can't blame it on the republicans and yet you still support the dems. Our own governor is proposing a semi auto ban here in Illinois. I'll wager you will vote for him. It won't pass but it shows how the dems are constantly trying to chip away at gun rights.


----------



## kasilofhome

greg273 said:


> Really? You just lined up and handed over your weapons? Interesting. Was living in California more important to you than your second Amendment rights?


Yet you fear the legal responsible gun owners how own quality guns that are black (colorist). The to the man who did the right thing in his state you mock him. I believe that moving as a business owner is not so easy.

Sorry for you but remember it's not like anyone had gun taken..... Yep folks who have no real understanding of reality out their screwing falsehood.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Going into pg 11 w/NO answer from the gun infringement crowd...
WHAT IS IT YOU WANT!?!?!?
Change the amendment or ignore it?


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Those idiots carrying semi-auto rifles into grocery stores ought to be very careful... some people might feel threatened by someone waving a rifle in their face and decide to shoot them. If those folks want to 'play army' by waltzing around town with rifles, there are plenty of places in this world where they can go do it for real. Nah, they'd rather sit back in the good old USA and badmouth the laws, complain about the government 'taking away their guns' whilst walking down the aisle of a supermarket with a rifle.


I must have been looking at the wrong photos... I didnt see anyone waving any guns around in anyones faces. As to badmouthing laws.... I do understand when the people who grant our government their powers get a bit upset when that same government breaks the rules and passes illegal laws... yeppers, someone needs to complain about that sort of thing.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Going into pg 11 w/NO answer from the gun infringement crowd...
> WHAT IS IT YOU WANT!?!?!?
> Change the amendment or ignore it?


Taking a guess here I would say they want everyone to get rid of their firearms. That way we can all live in peace and play in the meadow with the unicorns. This plan does have a small flaw however.... it does not take into consideration that people are people and there are those who are not going to play nice.


----------



## greg273

kasilofhome said:


> Yet you fear the legal responsible gun owners how own quality guns that are black (colorist). The to the man who did the right thing in his state you mock him. I believe that moving as a business owner is not so easy.
> 
> Sorry for you but remember it's not like anyone had gun taken..... Yep folks who have no real understanding of reality out their screwing falsehood.


 Il try and translate your incoherent statement... no, I don't fear legal responsible gun owners. I am one, and most everyone I know is. But how do I know the clown walking into the grocery store with a semi-auto rifle is a 'legal, responsible, gun owner'?? To me, its not responsible to take a semi-auto rifle into a grocery store. There is no reason for it, other than to draw attention to yourself. Publicity stunts like that don't do anyone any good, and may end up getting someone shot for no reason. Do I want to 'ban' such behavior? No, I just wish people would use a little more sense. 
And I am still waiting for JeffD to confirm he actually handed over weapons, for all I know it could be bluster trying to make a point. I find it hard to believe someone would hand over a thousand dollar rifle to the state rather than just keeping it quietly hidden, or selling it to someone out-of state.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Il try and translate your incoherent statement... no, I don't fear legal responsible gun owners. I am one, and most everyone I know is. But how do I know the clown walking into the grocery store with a semi-auto rifle is a 'legal, responsible, gun owner'?? To me, its not responsible to take a semi-auto rifle into a grocery store. There is no reason for it, other than to draw attention to yourself. Publicity stunts like that don't do anyone any good, and may end up getting someone shot for no reason. Do I want to 'ban' such behavior? No, I just wish people would use a little more sense.
> And I am still waiting for JeffD to confirm he actually handed over weapons, for all I know it could be bluster trying to make a point. I find it hard to believe someone would hand over a thousand dollar rifle to the state rather than just keeping it quietly hidden, or selling it to someone out-of state.


I did actually turn in a Browning type III 22 semi-automatic rifle that my dad gave me as a present 45 years ago. It held more than 10 rounds in the buttstock. I saw the law coming and prepared for it by moving most of what I have to another state. I didn't think the 22 would be an issue, but when my neighbor who was a cop (he quit) was told that even though the state told him his personal AR's were ok, they were not! Still, hundreds of thousands of gun owners have been made felons over night by the righteous liberals who know what's best for everyone! 

So, yeah, I did turn in a gun because if I got caught with it.......20 year prison term....for a 22! 

What happened in Connecticut? Open your eyes!

Eta: I also moved the bulk of my manufacturing plant to Arizona. I'm keeping my houses in California so I can continue to vote here!


----------



## Oggie

Just because this thread began with folks bringing guns to restaurants.

And because it doesn't really deserve its own thread.

I'll call it "Don't bring a BB gun to a taco fight":



> SPRINGFIELD, Mass. &#8211; Police say a Massachusetts Taco Bell employee used a BB gun to shoot a customer who was enraged when no one came to the drive-thru window to take his order.
> 
> 
> Twenty-six-year-old Steven Noska is scheduled to be arraigned Tuesday on charges including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
> 
> 
> Police tell The Republican newspaper in Springfield that it started at 4 a.m. Sunday when the customer approached the still-open drive-thru. After banging on the window and getting no response, he got out of his car and banged on the locked door.
> 
> 
> Police say the two fought and that Noska then went to his car, got the BB gun and shot the customer several times.
> 
> 
> Police say the customer bit Noska on the arm.



From: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/15/taco-bell-employee-shot-customer-with-bb-police-say/


----------



## Patchouli

beowoulf90 said:


> Really, you want to go that route and try to insult me..Is that the basis of your anti gun stance?
> 
> Now I'm laughing.. It shows that you truly haven't a clue, that you have to insinuate that I'm lying about my military service.
> 
> But that is fine..
> 
> You seem to be claiming to be the expert that you can tell me by the photo if they are semi or full auto.
> 
> Yes they could be breaking the law or they could be licensed to carry/own a full auto.. But you "automatically" assume they are violating the law, just by looking at a picture.
> 
> Yes I automatically assume that they are carrying an AR and an AK both in Semi auto. I don't automatically assume they are violating the law just because they are carrying firearms..
> 
> Oh, on a side note we are using the legal definition of an Automatic Rifle that the US Government established in 1986 used to ban further importation of automatic Rifles.. Passed by the Dem controlled House and Senate and signed into law by President Reagan. But it seems that you and the liberal anti gun, anti American, anti Freedom media want to change that term/meaning to include all semi auto firearms as well. Thus the term assault weapon. Then you try to confuse the issue by saying assault Rifle instead of assault weapon.. I've seen other scum play this game before and the only ones who fall for it are the slaves, sheep..


First I was not aware that you served in the military. My bad. I wasn't disparaging your claim, I was unaware of it.

Second you guys claimed to know what they were and that they were semi-auto or maybe just 22s mocked up to look like something else. My only point was that it isn't that hard to convert it to an auto or something closely approximating one. And I don't claim anything else. All that matters is what they look like on the surface because the thread is not about what is legal to carry it is about how carrying certain things scares the public. 

You have obviously missed the entire point of the thread since you are so busy having a rant about the Second amendment and your lost rights you missed that we are talking about the fact that people like this are causing you to lose them.


----------



## Patchouli

Oggie said:


> Just because this thread began with folks bringing guns to restaurants.
> 
> And because it doesn't really deserve its own thread.
> 
> I'll call it "Don't bring a BB gun to a taco fight":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/15/taco-bell-employee-shot-customer-with-bb-police-say/


That's why you don't go to Taco Bell at 4 am. (Cue somebody ranting about their right to go to Taco Bell anytime they durn well please.....)


----------



## kasilofhome

No ....Many of us see that you can't read or understand the constitution. That though you own and use guns you believe that guns in the hand that are not your hands ....and look scary should be banned from PRIVATE people. Did you see that in England where guns laws are so restricted violent folks have shifted to kitchen knives and now some there want to ban long bladed kitchen knives. Since Cain and Abel people have murdered and harmed others.

Let's look at the fact that man is still an animal. Bears kill other bears. Chickens kill other chickens. I believe that for the most part man is still more likely to avoid violence than other animals.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Here's a little of thread drift for ya.

In Ft Worth, the 1st class to ARM marshalls in public schools just began. 80 hr course.
Tell us TX doesn't know how to do it!!


----------



## beowoulf90

Patchouli said:


> First I was not aware that you served in the military. My bad. I wasn't disparaging your claim, I was unaware of it.
> 
> Second you guys claimed to know what they were and that they were semi-auto or maybe just 22s mocked up to look like something else. My only point was that it isn't that hard to convert it to an auto or something closely approximating one. And I don't claim anything else. All that matters is what they look like on the surface because the thread is not about what is legal to carry it is about how carrying certain things scares the public.
> 
> You have obviously missed the entire point of the thread since you are so busy having a rant about the Second amendment and your lost rights you missed that we are talking about the fact that people like this are causing you to lose them.



No people like you are the reason we are losing our Rights. You would give our Rights up with out a fight, "for the children", "for security" etc pick an excuse..
You assume that these weapons are full auto. All I've said is you can't tell from the picture. Either way what does it matter if they are full auto or not? It doesn't! what matters is their actions. The picture I've seen has them slung across their backs, in a non-threatening carry position while ordering coffee. If they were wearing masks and had them in their hands, then I might consider them threatening.. But as it stands they are not a threat at the moment. Also remember that some of us are carrying a firearm everyday. I've been lucky, I've only ever drawn my sidearm on 3 occasions and fired on one of those occasions. One was an attempted robbery, one was an attempted beating and the one I fired was a "jacklighting" (poaching at 3am), I fired once their spot light saw me and they refused to leave my property. No they didn't accidentally wander onto the property. They purposely left the road and drove between the barn and the garage to shoot deer between the House and the barn, aiming into the house. Thankfully the walls are 20 inches thick, made of stone.

Actions speak louder than words..
The actions of the two in the picture show no sign of criminal activity..


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> You have obviously missed the entire point of the thread since you are so busy having a rant about the Second amendment and your lost rights you missed that we are talking about the fact that people like this are causing you to lose them.


If you are implying that folks who carry legal weapons in public are the ones causing more gun control laws.... thats just silly. Its the woosies who are afraid of guns that are causing us to lose our rights.


----------



## Tricky Grama

beowoulf90 said:


> No people like you are the reason we are losing our Rights. You would give our Rights up with out a fight, "for the children", "for security" etc pick an excuse..
> You assume that these weapons are full auto. All I've said is you can't tell from the picture. Either way what does it matter if they are full auto or not? It doesn't! what matters is their actions. The picture I've seen has them slung across their backs, in a non-threatening carry position while ordering coffee. If they were wearing masks and had them in their hands, then I might consider them threatening.. But as it stands they are not a threat at the moment. Also remember that some of us are carrying a firearm everyday. I've been lucky, I've only ever drawn my sidearm on 3 occasions and fired on one of those occasions. One was an attempted robbery, one was an attempted beating and the one I fired was a "jacklighting" (poaching at 3am), I fired once their spot light saw me and they refused to leave my property. No they didn't accidentally wander onto the property. They purposely left the road and drove between the barn and the garage to shoot deer between the House and the barn, aiming into the house. Thankfully the walls are 20 inches thick, made of stone.
> 
> Actions speak louder than words..
> The actions of the two in the picture show no sign of criminal activity..


----------



## greg273

beowoulf90 said:


> Actions speak louder than words..
> The actions of the two in the picture show no sign of criminal activity..


 No criminal activity at the time the pic was snapped, just stupid activity. I've been to enough gun shows to be used to seeing hordes of civilians walking around with guns... that to me is not the issue. A gun show is a perfectly normal place to have a gun, a coffee shop or a grocery store is not. What exactly is the point, other than to draw attention to yourself? They certainly did that. I just hope they don't do something stupid. I was always taught to respect firearms for the potentially lethal tool that they are, and to me its not part of responsible, respectful behavior to walk into a place full of unarmed people toting a rifle as if prepped for guerilla warfare. You may feel differently, and may enjoy parading around with a rifle, showing it off for the world, essentially saying to your fellow citizens, 'Hey look at me, I can kill you in about 2 seconds if I so choose!'. YOU may be a perfectly sane, rational, responsible gun owner, but how do I know that? I guess I have to just HOPE you are, or maybe start toting my own rifle into the grocery store for 'protection' from the gun nuts!


----------



## beowoulf90

greg273 said:


> No criminal activity at the time the pic was snapped, just stupid activity. I've been to enough gun shows to be used to seeing hordes of civilians walking around with guns... that to me is not the issue. A gun show is a perfectly normal place to have a gun, a coffee shop or a grocery store is not. What exactly is the point, other than to draw attention to yourself? They certainly did that. I just hope they don't do something stupid. I was always taught to respect firearms for the potentially lethal tool that they are, and to me its not part of responsible, respectful behavior to walk into a place full of unarmed people toting a rifle as if prepped for guerilla warfare. You may feel differently, and may enjoy parading around with a rifle, showing it off for the world, essentially saying to your fellow citizens, 'Hey look at me, I can kill you in about 2 seconds if I so choose!'. YOU may be a perfectly sane, rational, responsible gun owner, but how do I know that? I guess I have to just HOPE you are, or maybe start toting my own rifle into the grocery store for 'protection' from the gun nuts!


So because you are afraid of "what they might do" you think it should be illegal for them to have their rifles with them.. They have violated no law, yet you want them charged or want a law to stop them from carrying their rifles or to disarm them.. 

I can only assume you want them arrested on a "pre-crime" because they MIGHT be bad people and want to do harm.. Well how do I know that YOU aren't a criminal who just wants to have unarmed victims, so YOU can rob, murder, rape them?

I don't, so that means I should be able to be armed,by what ever means I have available to me for my and my family's protection..

So since we are now using assumptions of a "pre-crime" I think you should be arrested, because you might actually do something..


Do you see how absurd that is?
You put your fears on others and expect them to submit to your fears. But I'll bet you don't like it when I put my fears on you and want you arrested.

To bad if you don't like what they are doing, they have committed no crime. Just like I don't like those who wear their pants "jail sex" style, but since they haven't committed a crime I can't do anything about it, nor would I, because it is their choice. 

Now if either group commits a crime, that is a different matter.

Also If you want to carry your rifle because you don't trust them with theirs, then you become no better then they are (to others like you) even though you haven't committed a crime. I can say go for it, you won't get any complaints from me.. In fact I will more than likely laugh at you for doing exactly what you claim to hate/despise/not like. But that is typical of those with a liberal slant..

They want to remove guns from people (citizens) with guns by using people(Government) with guns. Thus leaving only dishonorable people (Government) with guns..

Don't think the police and the Government are dishonorable, then explain why the Durham, NC Police were making false 911 calls and then hanging up, just so they could "legally" enter a home without a warrant..


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> No criminal activity at the time the pic was snapped, just stupid activity. I've been to enough gun shows to be used to seeing hordes of civilians walking around with guns... that to me is not the issue. A gun show is a perfectly normal place to have a gun, a coffee shop or a grocery store is not. What exactly is the point, other than to draw attention to yourself? They certainly did that. I just hope they don't do something stupid. I was always taught to respect firearms for the potentially lethal tool that they are, and to me its not part of responsible, respectful behavior to walk into a place full of unarmed people toting a rifle as if prepped for guerilla warfare. You may feel differently, and may enjoy parading around with a rifle, showing it off for the world, essentially saying to your fellow citizens, 'Hey look at me, I can kill you in about 2 seconds if I so choose!'. YOU may be a perfectly sane, rational, responsible gun owner, but how do I know that? I guess I have to just HOPE you are, or maybe start toting my own rifle into the grocery store for 'protection' from the gun nuts!


So your issue is with "seeing" guns being carried in a grocery store not so much that there are guns in the store. It might surprise you to know just how many guns are being carried into our local grocery stores... of course they are not visible, having been legally concealed in purses or shopping bags. I happen to know personally several ladies who have CC permits and use them regularly. I guess you need to hope one of those gun nuts doesnt decide to go on a rampage and shoot you over that last can of beans.


----------



## greg273

beowoulf90 said:


> So because you are afraid of "what they might do" you think it should be illegal for them to have their rifles with them.. They have violated no law, yet you want them charged or want a law to stop them from carrying their rifles or to disarm them..


 How do you make that leap?? That I want guns banned?? Never said anything about that. I just find it stupid and irresponsible to walk into a grocery store with a semi-auto rifle in a time of relative peace.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So your issue is with "seeing" guns being carried in a grocery store not so much that there are guns in the store. It might surprise you to know just how many guns are being carried into our local grocery stores... of course they are not visible, having been legally concealed in purses or shopping bags. I happen to know personally several ladies who have CC permits and use them regularly. I guess you need to hope one of those gun nuts doesnt decide to go on a rampage and shoot you over that last can of beans.


 You want to carry a pistol for personal protection, thats your business. You start waving a rifle in my face and it becomes an issue. Some folks don't like that.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> You want to carry a pistol for personal protection, thats your business. You start waving a rifle in my face and it becomes an issue. Some folks don't like that.


ok, I gotta ask.... who is waving a rifle in anyones face?


----------



## TripleD

greg273 said:


> You want to carry a pistol for personal protection, thats your business. You start waving a rifle in my face and it becomes an issue. Some folks don't like that.


 Ok I gotta ask too . Do you carry a pistol for your personal protection ?


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> ok, I gotta ask.... who is waving a rifle in anyones face?


 Hopefully no one. These clowns walking around grocery stores with rifles come dangerously close... are there rifles pointed away from people at all times? How about if they bend down to tie their shoe? How about when they get out of their vehicle? Is the barrel pointed towards anyone at anytime? Hopefully not. If so, then pal there is a problem.


----------



## greg273

TripleD said:


> Ok I gotta ask too . Do you carry a pistol for your personal protection ?


 Depends on where I am. Why do you ask?


----------



## DEKE01

Nevada said:


> Our speech & privacy rights weren't supposed to be infringed either, but we accept reasonable exceptions to those rights.


Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Who is this we of which you speak? 

I accept limitations on my rights when they will infringe other's rights.


----------



## TripleD

greg273 said:


> Depends on where I am. Why do you ask?


 Just asking if you only do at home or out in the real world ? What these CLOWNS as you call them are doing it legally. I never knew until 6yrs ago I was supposed to get a permit to carry concealed. If a lady friend hadnt asked me to go to the class with her to help her out. I opened up my jacket and showed her mine. I had carried for over 20yrs not knowing.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Hopefully no one. These clowns walking around grocery stores with rifles come dangerously close... are there rifles pointed away from people at all times? How about if they bend down to tie their shoe? How about when they get out of their vehicle? Is the barrel pointed towards anyone at anytime? Hopefully not. If so, then pal there is a problem.


rifles are much less likely to be pointed at someone accidentally than pistols. Since you seem to have no problem with concealed carry of pistols, and rifles are theoretically much safer I fail to see what has your knickers in a knot over a couple guys carrying a couple rifles in a safe and responsible (and legal) manner. :shrug:


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> No criminal activity at the time the pic was snapped, just stupid activity. I've been to enough gun shows to be used to seeing hordes of civilians walking around with guns... that to me is not the issue. A gun show is a perfectly normal place to have a gun, a coffee shop or a grocery store is not. What exactly is the point, other than to draw attention to yourself? They certainly did that. I just hope they don't do something stupid. I was always taught to respect firearms for the potentially lethal tool that they are, and to me its not part of responsible, respectful behavior to walk into a place full of unarmed people toting a rifle as if prepped for guerilla warfare. You may feel differently, and may enjoy parading around with a rifle, showing it off for the world, essentially saying to your fellow citizens, 'Hey look at me, I can kill you in about 2 seconds if I so choose!'. YOU may be a perfectly sane, rational, responsible gun owner, but how do I know that? I guess I have to just HOPE you are, or maybe start toting my own rifle into the grocery store for 'protection' from the gun nuts!


I've lived in rural Indiana (30 years ago so it may have changed), Virginia, and Florida. It is not unusual to see men armed with rifles of all sorts sitting down in a diner or coffee shop. They go hunting, they get hungry, they walk out of the woods and get their coffee and doughnut. 

I don't know why you fear those guys so much. I guarantee that I can draw my concealed semi-auto hand gun and fire more shots dead on target in a coffee shop way faster than those guys can get ARs and AKs off their back and aimed accurately. Put 50 yards between us and I'll prefer the rifles. Put one yard between us and I'll prefer my knife.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> rifles are much less likely to be pointed at someone accidentally than pistols. Since you seem to have no problem with concealed carry of pistols, and rifles are theoretically much safer I fail to see what has your knickers in a knot over a couple guys carrying a couple rifles in a safe and responsible (and legal) manner. :shrug:


 Sure, it may be legal. Doesn't mean its a good idea, and they are still just grandstanding. They want attention, they got it.


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> I've lived in rural Indiana (30 years ago so it may have changed), Virginia, and Florida. It is not unusual to see men armed with rifles of all sorts sitting down in a diner or coffee shop. They go hunting, they get hungry, they walk out of the woods and get their coffee and doughnut.


 Big difference between what you describe as 'going hunting then getting coffee' and parading around with your rifle just because you want to draw attention to yourself. One is a practical necessity, the other is just meaningless posturing.


----------



## kasilofhome

Look when a person owners a gun they have the duty to be responceabl with it. Leaving guns in a rig even locked means that the bad guys can get them. Small guns are easy to hide in a rig. But a rifle normally you hunt in pairs for safety is harder.


Look at Christmas time folks are warned about crooks stealing from rigs. Hotels warn guest that items in their cars are not protected. That leaving valuables in rigs is not safe.


So hunts sling the rifle over the shoulder in a non threatening way and some turn that responsible act into waving it in their face.... liar false reporting making up fact to be a
VICTIM cause victims are pitiful and and they need to be cared for. 

Just because someone wants to be a victim and manipulates facts to act the victim does not mean we have to catered to any phony victim. 

Grow up face your fear ....other people having guns. Personally I wonder what goes thru the mind of a person who distorts proper carrying of a firearm for waving it in my face..


----------



## kasilofhome

You do not want to accept others have rights that end only when they harm you or you rights. You act as if you are MORE equal than a legally carrying a gun. Wake up call you are not special. We all have equal rights. Stop the power grab people like Jeff should not have to loses rights and family history cause you are scared.


----------



## greg273

kasilofhome said:


> Grow up face your fear ....other people having guns. Personally I wonder what goes thru the mind of a person who distorts proper carrying of a firearm for waving it in my face..


Hey parade your guns around for the world to see, if its legal its legal. Just don't be surprised when you draw the WRONG kind of attention. And it better be properly carried, some folks might not appreciate it otherwise. Can't blame them either.


----------



## TripleD

greg273 said:


> Hey parade your guns around for the world to see, if its legal its legal. Just don't be surprised when you draw the WRONG kind of attention. And it better be properly carried, some folks might not appreciate it otherwise. Can't blame them either.


 On the other hand you wouldn't believe the number of times people have tried to let me in front of them in line. They say something like go ahead officer. Were they scared or just being nice ?


----------



## kasilofhome

Open carry is the law here it is no biggie. Having come from New York it was a shock but in a week it is no big deal. I see it all the time. I see folk hitch hiking with guns, in the stores want eating places no big deal.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Big difference between what you describe as 'going hunting then getting coffee' and parading around with your rifle just because you want to draw attention to yourself. One is a practical necessity, the other is just meaningless posturing.


No the posturing has meaning and how can you tell which is which?


----------



## unregistered353870

I just wish the people who did this would put themselves together a little better. Fat slobs in sweatpants make us look bad.


----------



## beowoulf90

greg273 said:


> How do you make that leap?? That I want guns banned?? Never said anything about that. I just find it stupid and irresponsible to walk into a grocery store with a semi-auto rifle in a time of relative peace.



You would be correct You never said you wanted to ban guns..

But you do agree to give up your Rights incrementally, by pushing to stop these folks from carrying open. Thus it is "banning" on an installment plan.

I just find it stupid and irresponsible for anyone who owns a firearm to call for sanctions that prohibit the Right to carry a firearm..

That action shows that they truly don't care about Freedom or our Rights. They only care about a false perception that is trumped up by those who want to ban guns..


----------



## beowoulf90

Edited, it's already been said by others above.


----------



## Tricky Grama

beowoulf90 said:


> You would be correct You never said you wanted to ban guns..
> 
> But you do agree to give up your Rights incrementally, by pushing to stop these folks from carrying open. Thus it is "banning" on an installment plan.
> 
> I just find it stupid and irresponsible for anyone who owns a firearm to call for sanctions that prohibit the Right to carry a firearm..
> 
> That action shows that they truly don't care about Freedom or our Rights. They only care about a false perception that is trumped up by those who want to ban guns..


I'm just wondering what happened the last...60 yrs? Or is it a dif b/w rural & city?
B/c when I was a child & saw someone w/rifle or shotgun, I was not afraid. Why would a grown man be afraid...Greg?


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm just wondering what happened the last...60 yrs? Or is it a dif b/w rural & city?
> B/c when I was a child & saw someone w/rifle or shotgun, I was not afraid. Why would a grown man be afraid...Greg?





beowoulf90 said:


> You would be correct You never said you wanted to ban guns..
> 
> But you do agree to give up your Rights incrementally, by pushing to stop these folks from carrying open. Thus it is "banning" on an installment plan.
> 
> I just find it stupid and irresponsible for anyone who owns a firearm to call for sanctions that prohibit the Right to carry a firearm..
> 
> That action shows that they truly don't care about Freedom or our Rights. They only care about a false perception that is trumped up by those who want to ban guns..


 Again, where did I say anything about banning guns? Never said anything of the sort. You guys really like to project your prejudices and assumptions on other folks. I just think its stupid and unnecessary to go into a coffee shop with a rifle for the sole purpose of drawing attention to oneself.
And what you call 'fear', I call being situationally aware. You can bet I keep a closer eye on someone openly brandishing a weapon. Thats just the smart thing to do.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Again, where did I say anything about banning guns? Never said anything of the sort. You guys really like to project your prejudices and assumptions on other folks. I just think its stupid and unnecessary to go into a coffee shop with a rifle for the sole purpose of drawing attention to oneself.
> And what you call 'fear', I call being situationally aware. You can bet I keep a closer eye on someone openly brandishing a weapon. Thats just the smart thing to do.


The folks in the photos did not do it solely to draw attention to themselves, right or wrong, they did it to draw attention to the 2A. 

Also, check the definition of brandishing. They were not brandishing. Brandishing involves waving or displaying a gun in a threatening manner. And the threat is not defined the way liberals define it, merely displaying a holstered or shouldered gun.


----------



## Patchouli

beowoulf90 said:


> No people like you are the reason we are losing our Rights. You would give our Rights up with out a fight, "for the children", "for security" etc pick an excuse..
> You assume that these weapons are full auto. All I've said is you can't tell from the picture. Either way what does it matter if they are full auto or not? It doesn't! what matters is their actions. The picture I've seen has them slung across their backs, in a non-threatening carry position while ordering coffee. If they were wearing masks and had them in their hands, then I might consider them threatening.. But as it stands they are not a threat at the moment. Also remember that some of us are carrying a firearm everyday. I've been lucky, I've only ever drawn my sidearm on 3 occasions and fired on one of those occasions. One was an attempted robbery, one was an attempted beating and the one I fired was a "jacklighting" (poaching at 3am), I fired once their spot light saw me and they refused to leave my property. No they didn't accidentally wander onto the property. They purposely left the road and drove between the barn and the garage to shoot deer between the House and the barn, aiming into the house. Thankfully the walls are 20 inches thick, made of stone.
> 
> Actions speak louder than words..
> The actions of the two in the picture show no sign of criminal activity..



I am sorry when exactly did I say we should give up our guns? You have obviously not only missed the entire point of this thread you also haven't the faintest idea what my position is on guns. Just keep ranting away on your soapbox while your fellow gun enthusiasts lose your rights for you while you whine about all of those evil Liberals. :bored:


----------



## Patchouli

greg273 said:


> Again, where did I say anything about banning guns? Never said anything of the sort. You guys really like to project your prejudices and assumptions on other folks. I just think its stupid and unnecessary to go into a coffee shop with a rifle for the sole purpose of drawing attention to oneself.
> And what you call 'fear', I call being situationally aware. You can bet I keep a closer eye on someone openly brandishing a weapon. Thats just the smart thing to do.


Exactly! In the end it all a matter of what is appropriate. Anything that is off like that should trigger your awareness and make you nervous. A handgun in a holster for protection is perfectly appropriate. A long gun of any sort in a city coffee shop is never appropriate. There is no useful, obvious purpose to carrying one in there.


----------



## DEKE01

Patchouli said:


> A long gun of any sort in a city coffee shop is never appropriate. There is no useful, obvious purpose to carrying one in there.


wrong. As stated previously, in three states I have seen hunters take a mid morning break and walk out of the woods and into a diner. No one cared because it was rural America where people understand these sorts of things.


----------



## unregistered353870

I don't like other people deciding what is appropriate for me. I don't like the way a lot of these demonstrators operate, but that kind of talk about what is appropriate just gives me a bad feeling and pushes me the other way.

For what it's worth, if someone is shooting at me, I think a rifle would be much more appropriate to defend myself than a handgun. Less convenient, for sure, which is why I don't carry a rifle everywhere I go, but a rifle is far superior in pretty much every way besides convenience. I think it's Clint Smith that says the purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to your rifle.


----------



## kasilofhome

Patchouli said:


> Exactly! In the end it all a matter of what is appropriate. Anything that is off like that should trigger your awareness and make you nervous. A handgun in a holster for protection is perfectly appropriate. A long gun of any sort in a city coffee shop is never appropriate. There is no useful, obvious purpose to carrying one in there.


In America the constitution does matter. Are you a legal American?I pledge allegiance to the flag And to the republic for which it stands.......in taking your stand on guns I hope if you are a legal American you think twice about what you are pledging to. As honor matters. You have stated that you served in the military are you honouring your oath.

It is appropriate to carry a gun where legal.....this is America. The land of the brave.


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> Exactly! In the end it all a matter of what is appropriate. Anything that is off like that should trigger your awareness and make you nervous. A handgun in a holster for protection is perfectly appropriate.* A long gun of any sort in a city coffee shop is never appropriate.* There is no useful, obvious purpose to carrying one in there.


This sounds like a personal opinion to me.... In my world it would read slightly different... "A long gun of any sort in a city coffee shop is never inappropriate." 

as to the obvious purpose of carrying a long gun into the coffee shop? Thats just plain old being a responsible gun owner.... would you prefer I leave it leaned up against the wall outside where bad guys could steal it?


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> Again, where did I say anything about banning guns? Never said anything of the sort. You guys really like to project your prejudices and assumptions on other folks. I just think its stupid and unnecessary to go into a coffee shop with a rifle for the sole purpose of drawing attention to oneself.
> And what you call 'fear', I call being situationally aware. You can bet I keep a closer eye on someone openly brandishing a weapon. Thats just the smart thing to do.


I saw the definition of 'brandishing a weapon' & I tend to agree w/you on keeping and eye on someone who's 'brandishing a weapon'.
My question then is what happened in the last several decades to make it 'brandishing' to carry a rifle?
Was it just the little KS town I lived in? Is it b/c those in the op look looney? Sloppy? Happy?
The title of the thread is "Gun Bans" so naturally I thought we'd be discussing that.
So, I guess after 12 pages we still don't know what the left wants: guns gone; not to have to see 'em; repeal of 2nd amendment; what?


----------



## arabian knight

Course Obama just loved to ban guns he has done it again through his Pen~!


----------



## beowoulf90

Patchouli said:


> I am sorry when exactly did I say we should give up our guns? You have obviously not only missed the entire point of this thread you also haven't the faintest idea what my position is on guns. Just keep ranting away on your soapbox while your fellow gun enthusiasts lose your rights for you while you whine about all of those evil Liberals. :bored:



While I'm ranting away on my soap box, those like you do nothing but support those taking our guns away.. You support their excuses "it's for the children" "it's for your safety" etc..

You may not like my ranting on the 2A, but it's better than sitting in a closet cowering and doing nothing to stop them.

Oh you do realize as of yesterday, the anti-American president just discretely banned the importation of the semiautomatic rifles, AK's and Saiga's. All by executive order.

Not voted on by the House or Senate.. So now we have semiauto rifles on the banned list.

These criminals will do what ever it takes, be it legal or not..


----------



## beowoulf90

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm just wondering what happened the last...60 yrs? Or is it a dif b/w rural & city?
> B/c when I was a child & saw someone w/rifle or shotgun, I was not afraid. Why would a grown man be afraid...Greg?



I can't answer that question(s). We used to have them in the gun rack in the truck when we went to school. We had a rifle team at school. 
Even went small game hunting after school in the fields behind the school.

I suspect that too many have become sheep and don't think for themselves anymore. They have now been trained by the media that guns are bad. Even a picture of a gun can be a "crime" if you are in some locations.

Just like sheep they have been herded into a standard/typical response. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong..

I don't understand this herd mentality, which relies on others to take care of the herd.. 

Makes no sense to me..


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> So, I guess after 12 pages we still don't know what the left wants: guns gone; not to have to see 'em; repeal of 2nd amendment; what?


As near as I can figure it they want all of us to keep our guns, (preferably singleshot) they just want us to be sure they are unloaded at all times, and have trigger locks installed, and kept in a locked basement in a failsafe sort of gun vault so no one can access them. They also seem to like the idea of having your name address, the deed to your home and the right to take your firstborn child in the event that you want to actually purchase any form of firearm or ammunition. They seem to fine with the 2nd amendment as long as we all use their definition of it instead of what the words say. I dont understand which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they are having so much trouble understanding. :shrug:


----------



## kasilofhome

Now, during the election cycle when people were anti Obama we were mocked that he was not going to take our gun rights away. I can't link things with this kindle node but there were many who gave out assurances that no none was out to get our guns. Election time is here if you want to keep your guns be very careful and personal ask and record the answer of those who o will have to vote on any and all gun bills. Check up on all incumbents voting record for their final

Vote on all Gunn bills they infringed on your rights they have no rights to lead. If they did not vote it is a trick to keep their record clean prior to an election so vote them out as well. If you hear someone running and the support hunting issues wake-up that is code to restrict guns out side of hunting and sports. Do not be fooled. Do not trust them. Check them out. Post blunt questions on their Facebook. Challenge their ads on Twitter if they speak of hunting and sport gun rights. In going public sheep walk up.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont understand which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they are having so much trouble understanding. :shrug:


 You left out a big part of that amendment, as usual. And here is a big shock to you folks who think that amendment means no gun laws can be passed... that aint the way it works. Hasn't been since the earliest days of the Union. 
Sorry to burst your faux-patriot bubble, but you'd best do some research on Constitutional law.


----------



## greg273

beowoulf90 said:


> I can't answer that question(s). We used to have them in the gun rack in the truck when we went to school. We had a rifle team at school.
> Even went small game hunting after school in the fields behind the school.
> 
> I suspect that too many have become sheep and don't think for themselves anymore. They have now been trained by the media that guns are bad. Even a picture of a gun can be a "crime" if you are in some locations.
> 
> Just like sheep they have been herded into a standard/typical response. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong..
> 
> I don't understand this herd mentality, which relies on others to take care of the herd..
> 
> Makes no sense to me..


 Your own strawman makes no sense to you? Sounds like a personal problem. Still waiting for you to show one instance where anyone in this thread has called for banning guns. Perhaps you can restrict your rebuttals to things people have ACTUALLY said, not what your imagination thinks they said.


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> wrong. As stated previously, in three states I have seen hunters take a mid morning break and walk out of the woods and into a diner. No one cared because it was rural America where people understand these sorts of things.


 In the OP, it was not 'hunters walking out the woods', it was people walking into an urban business with rifles for no other reason than to draw attention to themselves and their rifles. Although, who knows, maybe there were some Al-queda or Tories in there that needed shot. But I doubt it. Just a couple of yahoos with fancy rifles grandstanding.


----------



## kasilofhome

Duh when you restrict any gun that gun is illegal,banned to use, possess, infringed. It is you were is not grasping what restriction does. I could tell a friend that the are obese when I see them or I could tell them they have changed a bit. One is harsh one is diplomatic. The facts are the same. Restrict is a softer way that flies over the head of many that the are banning. Think about what restrictions on water mean in many areas.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> You left out a big part of that amendment, as usual. And here is a big shock to you folks who think that amendment means no gun laws can be passed... that aint the way it works. Hasn't been since the earliest days of the Union.
> Sorry to burst your faux-patriot bubble, but you'd best do some research on Constitutional law.


Yes, I left out the statement of purpose... which really has NOTHING to do with the meaning or intent of the amendment. (ok, it does pretty much clarify the type of arms being discussed... that being anything used by our military) I am also well aware that various creative interpretations have been used by Constitutional lawyers over the years in order to twist its obvious meanings. It doesnt make it right. All it does is make the Constitution meaningless.

I have no problem with the passage of "gun laws", as long as said law does not infringe upon my right to own any firearm or other weapon I want. Limiting size or types of weapons, requiring permits of any kind, are indeed infringements.


----------



## kasilofhome

Maybe some are just plain jealous of those that can illegally
Own such guns, maybe some realise that those with guns are not targets for crimes they wish to do. Maybe some feel inferior around people who can provide for themselves and not need to rely on others.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes, I left out the statement of purpose... which really has NOTHING to do with the meaning or intent of the amendment. (ok, it does pretty much clarify the type of arms being discussed... that being anything used by our military) I am also well aware that various creative interpretations have been used by Constitutional lawyers over the years in order to twist its obvious meanings. It doesnt make it right. All it does is make the Constitution meaningless.
> 
> I have no problem with the passage of "gun laws", as long as said law does not infringe upon my right to own any firearm or other weapon I want. Limiting size or types of weapons, requiring permits of any kind, are indeed infringements.


 So you think you have a 'right' to own a tactical nuclear recoilless rifle? I mean, who knows, those might be some mighty big squirrels you're hunting.
And lets bust this myth now, the first part of the 2nd Amendment says nothing about owning equivelent weapons to the military. Lol you've got some creative interpretations there.


----------



## TripleD

Greg how about just getting to the point of what kind of guns You think the public should be ALLOWED to own ?


----------



## Patchouli

DEKE01 said:


> wrong. As stated previously, in three states I have seen hunters take a mid morning break and walk out of the woods and into a diner. No one cared because it was rural America where people understand these sorts of things.


I did say CITY coffee shop not rural?


----------



## Patchouli

jtbrandt said:


> I don't like other people deciding what is appropriate for me. I don't like the way a lot of these demonstrators operate, but that kind of talk about what is appropriate just gives me a bad feeling and pushes me the other way.
> 
> For what it's worth, if someone is shooting at me, I think a rifle would be much more appropriate to defend myself than a handgun. Less convenient, for sure, which is why I don't carry a rifle everywhere I go, but a rifle is far superior in pretty much every way besides convenience. I think it's Clint Smith that says the purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to your rifle.


If you are in a coffee shop and the bad guy is right in front of you a rifle strapped across your back is not what you want. You want a hand gun you can pop right out of your holster.


----------



## kasilofhome

What your perception of what a city is is just your imagination. Many see city and think busses, and cement and asphalt but that is a false perception. Those 3 bears I talked about in the city of anchorage having lunch with the campfire girls some just saw it as a cute photo opportunity. It made the news cause many only think of a local government that is set up under charters to be a city must fit their mental picture of what a city is. It varies by state as to what powers are held for villages and towns and cities and county's and boughs. 

So many cities do have a great deal of wildlife. 

Using the word city as a limitation for gun rights is microscopic in knowledge.


----------



## kasilofhome

Oh I warn people that the bears would be a problem....... mamma bear was shot as she was a mamma bear in the wrong place. No decision about the two cubs ... that is all that will make the news , it is tourist time and killing the cubs will be reported, later.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> What your perception of what a city is is just your imagination. Many see city and think busses, and cement and asphalt but that is a false perception. Those 3 bears I talked about in the city of anchorage having lunch with the campfire girls some just saw it as a cute photo opportunity. It made the news cause many only think of a local government that is set up under charters to be a city must fit their mental picture of what a city is. It varies by state as to what powers are held for villages and towns and cities and county's and boughs.
> 
> So many cities do have a great deal of wildlife.
> 
> Using the word city as a limitation for gun rights is microscopic in knowledge.


The pictures of people we are talking about are not in the middle of nowhere Alaska. They are in big cities in Texas. No wildlife roaming the streets down there. Your concept of city does not apply to the vast majority of America.


----------



## kasilofhome

No, my governmental knowledge based in facts form my understanding as to what 
A city truly is. Find me wrong.

Each type of jurisdiction has certain powers an rights and obligations. There are limitations in enforcement powers, and financing avenues. There are rights grand and or transformed from the state when incorporating into the different types of local governments.


----------



## kasilofhome

Oh I live in Kansas for years ...dodge city to be clearer and we had guns in the hands of students in dorms and in cars.... no bad gun action taken but we did have a bomb threat.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As near as I can figure it they want all of us to keep our guns, (preferably singleshot) they just want us to be sure they are unloaded at all times, and have trigger locks installed, and kept in a locked basement in a failsafe sort of gun vault so no one can access them. They also seem to like the idea of having your name address, the deed to your home and the right to take your firstborn child in the event that you want to actually purchase any form of firearm or ammunition. They seem to fine with the 2nd amendment as long as we all use their definition of it instead of what the words say. I dont understand which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they are having so much trouble understanding. :shrug:


I think you're pretty much dead on.
(Whoops, sorry.)
I'm wondering how having locked up unloaded guns in a trained person's office who was in charge of safety at Sandy Hook school.
How?
How will I protect myself the NEXT time a guy breaks my window in the back door, sticking his arm in to find the dead bolt if my gun is unloaded & locked in a safe?


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> Your own strawman makes no sense to you? Sounds like a personal problem. Still waiting for you to show one instance where anyone in this thread has called for banning guns. Perhaps you can restrict your rebuttals to things people have ACTUALLY said, not what your imagination thinks they said.


Well, we are left to guess b/c none of you who we suspect are telling us. What is the title of the thread, anyway?
What is it you want? No one will say.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> In the OP, it was not 'hunters walking out the woods', it was people walking into an urban business with rifles for no other reason than to draw attention to themselves and their rifles. Although, who knows, maybe there were some Al-queda or Tories in there that needed shot. But I doubt it. Just a couple of yahoos with fancy rifles grandstanding.


So you want to ban those 2 from having guns? Or anyone who wants to walk into a coffee shop?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> I did say CITY coffee shop not rural?


Are you saying you'd ban guns from city coffee shops?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> If you are in a coffee shop and the bad guy is right in front of you a rifle strapped across your back is not what you want. You want a hand gun you can pop right out of your holster.


Betcha the rifle in his ribs would be just as good.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> The pictures of people we are talking about are not in the middle of nowhere Alaska. They are in big cities in Texas. No wildlife roaming the streets down there. Your concept of city does not apply to the vast majority of America.


They just hussled a possum family out of the restaurant w/in walking distance of me...


----------



## DEKE01

Patchouli said:


> I did say CITY coffee shop not rural?


Same thing happened in Northern VA, suburban DC. A bunch of hunters went to a diner of some sort. Police called. Cop made threats. Calls made to cop HQ. Cop is informed of the law, that open carry is legal in VA. Since diner mgmt did not object there was no issue. Cop sent away and hunters allowed to finish their meals.


----------



## unregistered41671

Tricky Grama said:


> They just hussled a possum family out of the restaurant w/in walking distance of me...


Man, that is a bummer. I say equal rights for possums too. I hate being discriminated against. What a bunch of anti possum racists.


----------



## edcopp

There is nothing in my constitution that even allows a gun ban. That stuff is all just made up.


----------



## kasilofhome

So they who want control over guns of some kind do not seem to know much about guns or constitutional rights, or what defines local government. They seems stuck on images not facts and they get scared. Sorry but your feelings are under your control. Barney time is over grown ups have to deal with life. Want to live where there are gun bands look at moving to England. A lot more per cap violence than us and it increased after gun control to the point where other excuses for the increase just did not pan out.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> You left out a big part of that amendment, as usual. And here is a big shock to you folks who think that amendment means no gun laws can be passed... that aint the way it works. Hasn't been since the earliest days of the Union.
> Sorry to burst your faux-patriot bubble, but you'd best do some research on Constitutional law.


The entire text of the 2A as ratified: "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."

Please explain how the words about militia in any way mean that the rights of the people can be infringed.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> So you think you have a 'right' to own a tactical nuclear recoilless rifle? *I mean, who knows, those might be some mighty big squirrels you're hunting.*
> And lets bust this myth now, the first part of the 2nd Amendment says nothing about owning equivelent weapons to the military. Lol you've got some creative interpretations there.


the first part of the second amendment refers directly to the military... I think the word they used was "militia" which at the time was our military. 

Our second amendment right to keep and bear arms has NOTHING to do with squirrels, or bears, or deer or quail.... it has everything to do with the right to defend and protect ourselves from governments... foreign or domestic.


----------



## unregistered353870

Patchouli said:


> If you are in a coffee shop and the bad guy is right in front of you a rifle strapped across your back is not what you want. You want a hand gun you can pop right out of your holster.


That's why both is better. The pistol can be used while you put distance and cover between yourself and bad guy. Then it's rifle time...but it's not real practical for most people to carry both. I rarely carry even a pistol because it's a pain. I should, but....


----------



## unregistered353870

Tricky Grama said:


> Betcha the rifle in his ribs would be just as good.


IMO, the rifle in the ribs is better...although if you're not shooting immediately you should be moving away, out of range of the bad guy's hands. That applies to any close up confrontation where you have to use a firearm. It's a little counter-intuitive to think a long gun is better in close quarters, but it's a lot easier to lose control of a handgun than a rifle. Handguns serve their purpose too, it is just a more limited purpose.


----------



## Tricky Grama

13 pages. 
I think we've answered the ? of how those 2 in the op look...what else? Seems we've answered all ?s but the 2-3 who want infringements won't say...


----------



## DEKE01

jtbrandt said:


> IMO, the rifle in the ribs is better...although if you're not shooting immediately you should be moving away, out of range of the bad guy's hands. That applies to any close up confrontation where you have to use a firearm. It's a little counter-intuitive to think a long gun is better in close quarters, but it's a lot easier to lose control of a handgun than a rifle. Handguns serve their purpose too, it is just a more limited purpose.


I have to disagree. A long gun is much worse in close quarters. I am about as far from being a Rambo as Nancy Pelosi, but the one time I had an idiot pointing a double barreled shot gun at me, I was able to step inside the distance of the barrel and disarm him. 

He, a construction worker, was way stronger, taller, bigger, heavier than me, but he had been drinking. I stepped inside his range, wrapped a foot behind his and pushed. If he had a handgun, he could have still fired at me on his way down. After he hit the ground, I was able to twist the gun out of his hands, took several steps to gain some distance, then broke open the barrel and saw that it was unloaded. I have no idea what I would have done if it had been loaded. 

At that time, I had no training in hand to hand combat and my knowledge of guns was limited to cleaning the antique shot guns my father collected. Then as now, I had weak, arthritic hands incapable of much power. So it was no special knowledge or training, just desperation, that allowed me to win that encounter.


----------



## DEKE01

Tricky Grama said:


> 13 pages.
> I think we've answered the ? of how those 2 in the op look...what else? Seems we've answered all ?s but the 2-3 who want infringements won't say...


I'm going to have to differ with you. I am for a gun band.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5hP0G-7zaM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5hP0G-7zaM[/ame]


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Our second amendment right to keep and bear arms has NOTHING to do with squirrels, or bears, or deer or quail.... it has everything to do with the right to defend and protect ourselves from governments... foreign or domestic.


 Agreed. Now do you believe it is within your Constitutionally specified rights to own a nuclear recoilless rifle? I mean they have such a small yield, they can really only destroy a few square miles. Surely the Framers would find it no problem to have everyone armed with such weapons, right? 
Again, there is NOTHING in the 2nd Amn. that says anything about the citizens owning equivelent weapons to the military. That is something YOU apparently made up. 
One can still arm themselves with any number of high powered rifles. Banning weapons with the ability to kill scores of people at once is WELL within the purview of the government. This is still a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. You being denied a rocket launcher or small tactical nuke does not mean you have been 'disarmed', or stopped from keeping and bearing arms.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Agreed. Now do you believe it is within your Constitutionally specified rights to own a nuclear recoilless rifle? I mean they have such a small yield, they can really only destroy a few square miles. Surely the Framers would find it no problem to have everyone armed with such weapons, right?
> Again, there is NOTHING in the 2nd Amn. that says anything about the citizens owning equivelent weapons to the military. That is something YOU apparently made up.
> One can still arm themselves with any number of high powered rifles. Banning weapons with the ability to kill scores of people at once is WELL within the purview of the government. This is still a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. You being denied a rocket launcher or small tactical nuke does not mean you have been 'disarmed', or stopped from keeping and bearing arms.


A citizen can have any weapon of their choice. Period. Remember, the citizens were better armed than the military and the police until the government got involved. ...why? Because their afraid of us! It's that simple!


----------



## kasilofhome

In our founders day the bought cannons. Fact not fiction. Your are seeking to do the old joke .....Man man asks a person (got to be pc I don't want to wear the label of being a sexist) if the would join him for a million in cash the the person says yes so the man asks about if it was only 2.50 dollars ....the person asked gets angry claiming high morals the man states the what the are has been confimed by accepting a million to go out now the are just negotiating.


I will not negotiate with terrorists of the constitution.


----------



## unregistered353870

DEKE01 said:


> I have to disagree. A long gun is much worse in close quarters. I am about as far from being a Rambo as Nancy Pelosi, but the one time I had an idiot pointing a double barreled shot gun at me, I was able to step inside the distance of the barrel and disarm him.
> 
> He, a construction worker, was way stronger, taller, bigger, heavier than me, but he had been drinking. I stepped inside his range, wrapped a foot behind his and pushed. If he had a handgun, he could have still fired at me on his way down. After he hit the ground, I was able to twist the gun out of his hands, took several steps to gain some distance, then broke open the barrel and saw that it was unloaded. I have no idea what I would have done if it had been loaded.
> 
> At that time, I had no training in hand to hand combat and my knowledge of guns was limited to cleaning the antique shot guns my father collected. Then as now, I had weak, arthritic hands incapable of much power. So it was no special knowledge or training, just desperation, that allowed me to win that encounter.


If you're face to face within arms reach, yes, the long gun can be a problem, especially if you're not prepared to USE it. That guy probably could have shot you (if his gun had been loaded) before you stepped in, but he didn't. He gave you a chance to disarm him. That isn't something someone using a weapon in self-defense should do. It wasn't just your desperation that saved you...it was also the luck of having a stupid drunk opponent.

There is kind of a dichotomy of sorts, though. If someone is brandishing a gun at me up close but not shooting, I too would prefer to go against a long gun because of the leverage advantage for deflecting the muzzle end and twisting it out of his hands. But if I'm the one with the gun, it's a different story because if I can help it he won't have the chance to get his hands on it...especially if I'm behind him. In case he does get it away from me, a handgun makes a good "hail Mary" backup.

Either way, the most important thing if there is time is to create space (and ideally concealment and cover) between him and you, with a handgun or a long gun. That gives a little more time to react to anything he might do. And once you create even a little space, the long gun becomes far superior in every way...again, only if you're prepared to USE it.

All that being said, I have never been in a close quarters armed fight, so I could be very wrong about how it works out in the real world. Everything I know is just training from people who have been there, done that.


----------



## arabian knight

greg273 said:


> Agreed. Now do you believe it is within your Constitutionally specified rights to own a nuclear recoilless rifle? I mean they have such a small yield, they can really only destroy a few square miles. Surely the Framers would find it no problem to have everyone armed with such weapons, right?
> Again, there is NOTHING in the 2nd Amn. that says anything about the citizens owning equivelent weapons to the military. That is something YOU apparently made up.
> One can still arm themselves with any number of high powered rifles. Banning weapons with the ability to kill scores of people at once is WELL within the purview of the government. This is still a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. You being denied a rocket launcher or small tactical nuke does not mean you have been 'disarmed', or stopped from keeping and bearing arms.


 We are NOT talking about nor have ever talked about some leftist thing as trying to own a nuclear Weapon.~!
This IS however about Obama Banning Guns, Get it. Guns and he sure can use that pen of his and BAN imported models. And He has Just Done THAT. GUNS are now being Banned which is against the Constitution about GUNS not ownership shall not be Infringed, and BANNING them from Import IS a Gun Ban, plain and Simple and to the point, and easy to understand.


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> In our founders day the bought cannons. Fact not fiction.


I don't know what the city would say if I parked a howitzer in my driveway...


----------



## kasilofhome

Nevada said:


> I don't know what the city would say if I parked a howitzer in my driveway...


Not my problem. My rights would not be impacted.


----------



## greg273

kasilofhome said:


> In our founders day the bought cannons. Fact not fiction. Your are seeking to do the old joke .....Man man asks a person (got to be pc I don't want to wear the label of being a sexist) if the would join him for a million in cash the the person says yes so the man asks about if it was only 2.50 dollars ....the person asked gets angry claiming high morals the man states the what the are has been confimed by accepting a million to go out now the are just negotiating.
> 
> 
> I will not negotiate with terrorists of the constitution.


 Not sure what the bulk of your post is about, but it sounds like your beef is with some Supreme Court judges who have interpreted the constitution to mean not everyone gets a nuke. Sorry pal go form your own nation where every has a nuke and let us know how it works out.


----------



## HDRider

greg273 said:


> You still have all your guns, correct?


Not because of 0bama, but because others have fought his anti-gun agenda.


----------



## kasilofhome

No, you are SIMPLY trying to find a weak link in where constitution gun right owned are willing to bend. I accept it as it was written .... shall not be infringed.


----------



## greg273

arabian knight said:


> We are NOT talking about nor have ever talked about some leftist thing as trying to own a nuclear Weapon.~!
> This IS however about Obama Banning Guns, Get it. Guns and he sure can use that pen of his and BAN imported models. And He has Just Done THAT. GUNS are now being Banned which is against the Constitution about GUNS not ownership shall not be Infringed, and BANNING them from Import IS a Gun Ban, plain and Simple and to the point, and easy to understand.


 Sanctions on Russia. You can't buy a NEW Kalashnikov. You can buy a used one. And its nothing that can't be reversed in a moments time. 

As far as the nuke thing goes, its relevant. If you argue you can legally keep and bear whatever arms you want, then you should be fighting for the right to keep a nuke. Why are you not? Perhaps you recognize some weapons are too powerful? Why Arabian Knight? Why do you hate the Constitution so much?? : )


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> This is still a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. You being denied a rocket launcher or small tactical nuke does not mean you have been 'disarmed', or stopped from keeping and bearing arms.


And here, more clearly than anything, in all caps, demonstrates the absurdity of the liberal, anti-gun position. Do you want to hear about THE PEOPLE?

In 8 instances, the constitution uses the phrase "the people"

1. Preamble - "*We the People* of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,..."

2. Article 1 - Section 2 - "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members *chosen every second Year by the People* of the several States,..."

3. Amendment I - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or* the right of the people* peaceably to assemble, ..."

4. Amendment 2 - "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."*

5. Amendment 4 - "*The right of the people to be secure in their persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."

6. Amendment 9 - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by *the people*."

7. Amendment 10 - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or* to the people.*"

8. Amendment 17 - "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *elected by the people *thereof, for six years"

In all cases, "the people" clearly means individuals, citizens of the USA. So when the CONS says the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed, why do you think the Gov't can legally infringe the people's rights? 

You may be perfectly correct that THE PEOPLE should not be allowed to have nukes, but that is not what the law of the land states. When signed, arms meant anything and everything the military could have. Are you suggesting the gov't should ignore the constitution in this case? What about other times and circumstances the gov't may deem it appropriate to ignore the law that dictates its behavior? Should the 1A say we have a right to free speech as long as it does not inconvenience the gov't? 

If you are arguing that the CONS should be changed, OK. I think there are changes that should be made as well, like requiring a balanced budget and penalties for politicians who vote for unconstitutional laws. But the gov't OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, should follow the law of the land all the time, without exception.


----------



## kasilofhome

To each his own dream arms .... just like everyone that wants to eat meat might not want to eat the liver. 

So you are SIMPLY stating that if one eats meat and demands the right to eat meat they must eat every animal on earth. No. Those that want the nukes will stand up .... as usual gun owners have limited uses for a nuke and so there has not been a Hugh demand for them since none of us are radicals but very rational and view guns as a tool. We do not seem to be seeking out a chance to use one as a weapon to attack but to protect if needed and we are being prepared.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> I don't know what the city would say if I parked a howitzer in my driveway...


My friend has several tanks and an odd assortment of artillery in his driveway and nobody complains!


----------



## kasilofhome

Talk about curb appeal.


----------



## arabian knight

Here is how fun it is to OWN a fully auto Machine Gun.

This video is really neat and it is just s Small sample of the Fully Automatic Machine guns that are owned by LAW Abiding Citizens of the USA.

And as a side note I have this DVD it is really a cool video to watch. I bought it at the factory that did this video in the AZ. desert. By Dillion Precision in Scottsdale, AZ., they make reloading equipment. 

[YOUTUBE]?v=A0CKq0xRu2k[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> My friend has several tanks and an odd assortment of artillery in his driveway and nobody complains!


 Let him start firing off rounds of artillery and see who complains. 'Disturbing the peace' is a still against the law in most places.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Let him start firing off rounds of artillery and see who complains. 'Disturbing the peace' is a still against the law in most places.


What is the point of your comment? 

You understand everyone has rights and my rights do not extend to disturbing your quiet enjoyment of your rights?


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> When signed, arms meant anything and everything the military could have.


 Has anyone in the judicial branch, the ones ACTUALLY entrusted with interpreting the consitution, ever held that position? I've yet to hear that very liberal interpretation. Do you want to adhere to the second Amendment as originally envisioned by the framers? Get a flintlock and join the militia. But good luck getting a judge to recognize your supposed 'right' to own a nuke.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Has anyone in the judicial branch, the ones ACTUALLY entrusted with interpreting the consitution, ever held that position? I've yet to hear that very liberal interpretation. Do you want to adhere to the second Amendment as originally envisioned by the framers? Get a flintlock and join the militia. But good luck getting a judge to recognize your supposed 'right' to own a nuke.


There is a long history of the gov't ignoring plain language of the constitution. Are you saying you're fine with that?


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> A citizen can have any weapon of their choice. Period. Remember, the citizens were better armed than the military and the police until the government got involved. ...why? Because their afraid of us! It's that simple!


 According to who? You're interpretation of the Constitution? lol sorry but you'd be overruled by the ones CONSTITUTIONALLY mandated to interpret the laws and ensure they conform with reasonable and rational interpretations of the USSC. Heres a tip, get appointed to the Supreme Court, or elected to Congress, and you can run on a platform of nukes for all. Best of luck. 
I think some here have forgotten that I am no supporter of the 'assault weapon ban'...I am fully aware the 2ndAm. is there as the ultimate line of defense against tyranny... and a disarmed population is as good as enslaved. Thankfully we are still an armed population. If the time comes where our own government is so tyrannical there is no choice but to take up arms, there are plenty out there, and I am sure the Chinese would be more than happy to flood the nation with all manner of weaponry in order to help a potential US revolution along.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> According to who? You're interpretation of the Constitution? lol sorry but you'd be overruled by the ones CONSTITUTIONALLY mandated to interpret the laws and ensure they conform with reasonable and rational interpretations of the USSC. Heres a tip, get appointed to the Supreme Court, or elected to Congress, and you can run on a platform of nukes for all. Best of luck.
> I think some here have forgotten that I am no supporter of the 'assault weapon ban'...I am fully aware the 2ndAm. is there as the ultimate line of defense against tyranny... and a disarmed population is as good as enslaved. Thankfully we are still an armed population. If the time comes where our own government is so tyrannical there is no choice but to take up arms, there are plenty out there, and I am sure the Chinese would be more than happy to flood the nation with all manner of weaponry in order to help a potential US revolution along.


I cannot help it if the supreme court over the years has subverted and perverted the meaning of the Constitution. I can build any kind of weapon or weapon system i want.....legally! The day WILL come when we will find out the reality of the government's poor judgement. Until then, your free to you own opinions as am I!


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Has anyone in the judicial branch, the ones ACTUALLY entrusted with interpreting the consitution, ever held that position?


Yes. About the 1939 Miller case, one of the presiding Justices, Hugo Black, said this, "Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute. "

This means that THE PEOPLE have a right to the types of arms that a well regulated (meaning highly trained) militia (Army) are allowed to have - absolutely. The restraint on the gov't is absolute. 

Next question.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> According to who? You're interpretation of the Constitution? lol sorry but you'd be overruled by the ones CONSTITUTIONALLY mandated to interpret the laws and ensure they conform with reasonable and rational interpretations of the USSC. Heres a tip, get appointed to the Supreme Court, or elected to Congress, and you can run on a platform of nukes for all. Best of luck.
> I think some here have forgotten that I am no supporter of the 'assault weapon ban'...I am fully aware the 2ndAm. is there as the ultimate line of defense against tyranny... and a disarmed population is as good as enslaved. Thankfully we are still an armed population. If the time comes where our own government is so tyrannical there is no choice but to take up arms, there are plenty out there, and I am sure the Chinese would be more than happy to flood the nation with all manner of weaponry in order to help a potential US revolution along.


Just thinking....got ANY supreme court cases to support your position? I'd like to see them!


----------



## kasilofhome

DEKE01 said:


> What is the point of your comment?
> 
> You understand everyone has rights and my rights do not extend to disturbing your quiet enjoyment of your rights?


No they do not get the point of the boundary of rights some are so used to the "feelings" issue that if they might be offended the precrime solders must stop a person from even thinking of anything that might offend them. That is total freedom for those professional victims. Some simply "feel" more special.

I know I am not seeking to harm anyone but I wish to be prepared to handle siduations that are realistically possible for me to encounter. I know that in my travels and events that what I needed varied. Since I can only discern what I need I accept that others know best what tools they need. 

In New York I had AAA for my car. It made sense now I live differently and I carry equipment I most likely need. 

Why should it be any different for protection needs. 

I do not believe I should make life decisions for you. I do not believe that the government is walking in my shoes and knows better than myself what I need.


----------



## TripleD

TripleD said:


> Greg how about just getting to the point of what kind of guns You think the public should be ALLOWED to own ?


 I hate quoting myself but all I heard was cricketts on this !!!


----------



## Tricky Grama

TripleD said:


> I hate quoting myself but all I heard was cricketts on this !!!


Yup, & my ? about just what DO THEY WANT!?
14 pages & no answer...maybe they read the Constitution?


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Not sure what the bulk of your post is about, but it sounds like your beef is with some Supreme Court judges who have interpreted the constitution to mean not everyone gets a nuke. Sorry pal go form your own nation where every has a nuke and let us know how it works out.


I live in just such a nation.... where everyone is guaranteed the right to own any type weapons they can dream up, build or afford to buy. This is how its working out.... Supreme Court judges have opted to over rule the supreme law of the land.... they have decided that the citizens would be too dangerous to the government if they were allowed to have weaponry equal to that of the government so the citizenry is currently being disarmed, one type of weapon at a time. Heavy artillery, explosives, rapid fire fully automatic firearms, rockets, grenades.... the list goes on and on when it comes to weapons our government is afraid to let its people own.


----------



## DEKE01

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup, & my ? about just what DO THEY WANT!?
> 14 pages & no answer...maybe they read the Constitution?


While we are re-asking questions that have yet to be answered, I would like to know if greg wants the SCOTUS to ignore the plain language of the 2A or does he prefer that the Country amend the CONS.


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> I can build any kind of weapon or weapon system i want.....legally!


 You keep saying that, put it into practice and let us know how it works out.
And i find this an odd statement coming from someone who claims to have handed over a perfectly good .22 to the state rather than just sell it or give it away to someone out of state.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Heavy artillery, explosives, rapid fire fully automatic firearms, rockets, grenades.... the list goes on and on when it comes to weapons our government is afraid to let its people own.


 Actually 'the people' still own those things. If things go south, and revolution happens, a good portion of that hardware is just as likely to be turned AGAINST the state. This is not hard to understand. This big scary 'government' is actually composed of INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS who can choose sides just as well as you or I .


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I live in just such a nation.... where everyone is guaranteed the right to own any type weapons they can dream up, build or afford to buy. This is how its working out.... Supreme Court judges have opted to over rule the supreme law of the land.


 I don't know why you keep saying that, you're interpretation of that one simple sentence does not conform with the interpretation of those ACTUALLY entrusted with that task.
When you get appointed to the Supreme Court, you can make those decisions and overrule them.


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> While we are re-asking questions that have yet to be answered, I would like to know if greg wants the SCOTUS to ignore the plain language of the 2A or does he prefer that the Country amend the CONS.


 Any militias you know of issued tactical nukes? How about strategic ones? Denying your right to a nuclear recoilless rifle does not impair your ability to keep and bear arms. And how about the 'well regulated' part? That is why permits are issued for explosives and automatic weapons. You cannot expect to simply possess whatever you want without regulation. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA does not mean you get whatever you want with no restrictions.


----------



## TripleD

He came and went and I feel so left out !:sob:


----------



## farmrbrown

Perfect example of what I said about SCOTUS justices not being able to read plain English.
This lie about the "well regulated militia" being the subject of the right to bear arms is repeated so often that people actually believe that's the way the 2nd Amendment reads.

The militia is mentioned as necessary, then the words "the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If the militia was the only group that had that right, it would have been written that way, but it wasn't. 
That is such a simple and inescapable fact that no amount of interpretation and diversion can change the clear meaning to those of us who know.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Any militias you know of issued tactical nukes? How about strategic ones? Denying your right to a nuclear recoilless rifle does not impair your ability to keep and bear arms. And how about the 'well regulated' part? That is why permits are issued for explosives and automatic weapons. You cannot expect to simply possess whatever you want without regulation. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA does not mean you get whatever you want with no restrictions.


Yes and yes, there are militias issued nukes. This article explains why the Nat Guard is = to militia.

http://prospect.org/article/well-regulated-militia
_Few Americans know that we have two armies and that both are acknowledged by the United States Constitution. One is the military that we know best, the regulars: the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy, joined later in history by the Marines and the Air Force. The other, originally known as the militia, is now called the National Guard._

This article shows that the Air Nat Guard has been certified to do nuke missions. http://www.ang.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123359158
_8/8/2013 - WHITEMAN Air Force Base, Mo -- The Air National Guard celebrated a historic milestone this week as the 131st Bomb Wing, the nation's only Guard unit to fly and maintain the B-2 Spirit, was certified to conduct the nuclear mission upon completion of their Initial Nuclear Surety Inspection. _

This link shows that Air Nat Guard provides a support role to the Air Force Nuke Weapons Center. http://www.kirtland.af.mil/units/ 


And this: Missouri Air Guard Wing Goes Nuclear http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/news/missouri-air-guard-wing-goes-nuclear
http://www.kirtland.af.mil/units/ 

As to the well regulated part, liberals seem to have a short memory. The definition of well regulated in 1783 was: http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htmhttp://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
_The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter.* It referred to the property of something being in proper working order.* Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. *Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.*_

"Well-regulated" in the constitution has absolutely nothing to do with why permits are required for explosives and auto weapons. 

You are right in one small way, "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA does not mean you get whatever you want with no restrictions." It is the part that says, "*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" is what means that I get whatever I want with no restrictions. 

Keep teeing them up and I'll keep hitting them out of the park. This is fun. 

I'll tell you again since it didn't seem to sink in, I'm not advocating everyone own a nuke, only that the framers did not anticipate such a thing. If you don't like the CONS as is, change it, but don't subvert it. Because once the plain language is rendered meaningless by people like you and Ginsberg, none of our rights will have the protections afforded by the CONS.


----------



## greg273

Sounds like 'the people' in the militia are doing just fine. Try and take one of those nukes home and see what happens. If you think you're 'hitting them out of the park', that must be one extremely small park. Putting one mans interpretation of 'well regulated' is meaningless, ask 10 people and you'll get ten different answers. The only answer that matters , Constitutionally, are those given by those duly appointed or elected to take on that task.


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> It is the part that says, "*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" is what means that I get whatever I want with no restrictions.


 You would be incorrect. As I said, try and take one of those nukes off base. You can write us from Leavenworth and whine about how your 'rights' are being violated.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Sounds like 'the people' in the militia are doing just fine. Try and take one of those nukes home and see what happens. If you think you're 'hitting them out of the park', that must be one extremely small park. Putting one mans interpretation of 'well regulated' is meaningless, ask 10 people and you'll get ten different answers. The only answer that matters , Constitutionally, are those given by those duly appointed or elected to take on that task.


What a sec...didn't you say earlier that this was a gov't OF THE PEOPLE? Have you already changed that position? 

If the plain language of the framers has no meaning, the CONS has no meaning. Doesn't that bother you just a little?


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> You would be incorrect. As I said, try and take one of those nukes off base. You can write us from Leavenworth and whine about how your 'rights' are being violated.


If the debate is what can the gov't get away with, I agree. If the debate is about the plain language of the CONS, which is what any freedom loving person should care about, you are quite wrong. 

Like many liberals, you shift the debate each and every time logic and the CONS goes denies you what you want. Stand for something or you stand for nothing.


----------



## kasilofhome

Maybe you we too young and can't remember the 70s there was this guy named bill he bombed and killed a lot of people because he wanted to change the government of the United States.

He is a free man today. Obama did not have any trouble giving that man power. They are good friends. You have shown support for Obama. So.....

Now, you are scared of what we here personally who understand we simple believe after read many supporting doc of the time that arms are not specially defined as to leave all options need on the table.

In the words of the president Obama. "If they bring a knife to the fight, we we bring a gun"

We want the quality of tools needed to live are lives and to be productive. What those tools may be changes as due are situation. Our position is legal and moral.


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> If the debate is about the plain language of the CONS, which is what any freedom loving person should care about, you are quite wrong.



No, it is you who is incorrect, in your belief that the USSC grants you 'unlimited freedom'. Where does the USSC address nuclear weapons? Of course it doesn't. The interpretation of that original text is left up to appointed judges and elected officials in current times, as per the original text. You find one that thinks its cool for you to keep a nuke in your garage.


----------



## kasilofhome

My rights came from my creator. That is per my faith and backed by the founding fathers. We were warn that men in power might not have our personal best interest in mind. Which is what they left us the personal right to tools to do a job.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> You keep saying that, put it into practice and let us know how it works out.
> And i find this an odd statement coming from someone who claims to have handed over a perfectly good .22 to the state rather than just sell it or give it away to someone out of state.


I have! I built a nitrogen powered mini gun! I have a machine shop so it's not a problem. Laws pertaining to self manufactured weapons made in state, few! I had to turn in the 22 because I didn't build it! I couldn't take it across state lines or sell it here in California. I had no choice other than to become a felon!


----------



## JeffreyD

kasilofhome said:


> my rights came from my creator. That is per my faith and backed by the founding fathers. We were warn that men in power might not have our personal best interest in mind. Which is what they left us the personal right to tools to do a job.


^^^^^^^ exactly ^^^^^^^^


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> No, it is you who is incorrect, in your belief that the USSC grants you 'unlimited freedom'. Where does the USSC address nuclear weapons? Of course it doesn't. The interpretation of that original text is left up to appointed judges and elected officials in current times, as per the original text. You find one that thinks its cool for you to keep a nuke in your garage.


When you are wrong as often as you are, it is understandable that you would lose track, but I already posted info about a Justice that said the 2A right was "absolute." 

And I am not wrong about the current interpretation of the SCOTUS. I agree they do not allow for personal nukes or at least we can agree if faced with a ruling, they would choose to infringe. That you don't understand that after all these exchanges is somewhat baffling. 

The issue is why doesn't it bother you that they can take a phrase, "shall not be infringed" and then infringe? The issue you keep dodging with all this silly nuke discussion is not if citizens should have nukes, but what in the CONS gives the gov't the right to limit private nukes. Remember, the CONS clearly states that if the Fed gov't has not been granted a power in the CONS, then that power is reserved to the states or THE PEOPLE. 

Here's a question for you; I can guess but don't know for sure. Has there ever been a gov't that went from less freedom to substantially more freedom without being forced with violence of some sort? And it's corollary, has there ever been a gov't that did not, over time, restrict more and more of the citizen's freedoms? I can't name one, but surely in the history of man and the many, many gov'ts that have come and gone, there are a few examples.


----------



## greg273

kasilofhome said:


> My rights came from my creator. That is per my faith and backed by the founding fathers. We were warn that men in power might not have our personal best interest in mind. Which is what they left us the personal right to tools to do a job.


 The USSC also gives the Feds the power to deal with insurrections. Perhaps airing your grievences at the ballot box is a more prudent course of action at this point. 
You're still not going to get permission to have a nuke, I don't care where you claim your rights are from. Sorry. Such tyrants the government is!


----------



## Cornhusker

Obamaco is trying to buy, steal, regulate and legislate our rights away.
Time to get rid of the thieves and scoundrels and elect some honest people to represent us
Throw Obama, Holder, Bloomberg etc in prison and let em rot


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> I don't know why you keep saying that, you're interpretation of that one simple sentence does not conform with the interpretation of those ACTUALLY entrusted with that task.
> When you get appointed to the Supreme Court, you can make those decisions and overrule them.


It makes little difference who does the "interpreting"... that sentence is indeed simple, and requires no interpretation.... it means exactly what it says. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no interpreting to it. Its a simple, clear and concise statement. any sixth grader can tell you exactly what it means. If the supreme court interprets it to mean anything other that what it says, the court is simply wrong and any resulting rulings are indeed unconstitutional and therefor illegal. (our Constitution is the highest law of our land) Not saying that our government doesnt do a lot of things illegally.... they do, on a regular basis. All I am saying is that they arent supposed to ever do it. Someday, after this nation crumbles as a result, maybe we can start over and next time actually obey the laws we impose upon ourselves.


----------



## kasilofhome

Have I even asked for one.. I personal do not need that tool. I do not expect to. You are the one talking nukes. You seem to do that to find out were people have set the limit. You are out of your league. I really really want a small 22 pistol to harvest goats. Since it will take quite a bit of time to save for one it is laughable that a nuke is in my future. 
Remember just because one has a right does not mean they must exercise that right. Even if it was law full I will not do pot. I can go years with out booze and then just have one beer or glass of wine. I can have sex with any willing party but I choose not to. See, I live by my standard and I allow others to deal with their lives. My rights come with the responsibly not to harm your rights. You seem to want extra rights and you are not alone.
Why are you so violent?.


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> When you are wrong as often as you are, it is understandable that you would lose track, but I already posted info about a Justice that said the 2A right was "absolute."
> .


 There have been numerous cases since then that have ruled differently. Lewis v. US, Printz v US, DC v. Heller... 
The point is the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. You have shown numerous examples of that in trying (and failing) to make your case that owning a nuke is a protected right under the USSC. It is not, and no amount of flag-waving or disparaging the patriotism of your fellow citizens is going to change that.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> The USSC also gives the Feds the power to deal with insurrections. Perhaps airing your grievences at the ballot box is a more prudent course of action at this point.
> You're still not going to get permission to have a nuke, I don't care where you claim your rights are from. Sorry. Such tyrants the government is!


I don't need "permission" to own any weapon! It's a natural right! To bad if it offends you!

Where are those SC cases that explicitly state no nukes?


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> You would be incorrect. As I said, try and take one of those nukes off base. You can write us from Leavenworth and whine about how your 'rights' are being violated.


And now we are getting to the meat of the matter.... we are not supposed to have to whine from behind prison walls about how our own government is violating our God given rights... those rights are supposed to be GUARANTEED by our government... not INFRINGED upon by our government. That was the purpose of the bill of rights in particular and the Constitution in general.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> There have been numerous cases since then that have ruled differently. Lewis v. US, Printz v US, DC v. Heller...
> The point is the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. You have shown numerous examples of that in trying (and failing) to make your case that owning a nuke is a protected right under the USSC. It is not, and no amount of flag-waving or disparaging the patriotism of your fellow citizens is going to change that.


See, that's your problem, you think the Constitution is a living document. The 2nd amendment is so clear even a 5 year old understands it! It makes no difference what a man's law says, the people didn't vote on it, it was decided by the government who has a tremendous fear of its citizens, so of course they will make and enforce laws of their own choosing, in total disregard of our Constitution.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It makes little difference who does the "interpreting"... that sentence is indeed simple, and requires no interpretation.... it means exactly what it says. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no interpreting to it.


 If you want to comform to the original intent, get a flintlock and join the militia. Otherwise, you will have to admit that the 2nd Amendment is indeed open to interpretation by those appointed with that task. Perhaps you believe biological weapons are protected as well. How about chemical weapons? 
Given the arsenals already possessed by many Americans, I would say we are in no danger of being a disarmed nation, although constant vigilance is obviously required.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> If you want to comform to the original intent, get a flintlock and join the militia. Otherwise, you will have to admit that the 2nd Amendment is indeed open to interpretation by those appointed with that task. Perhaps you believe biological weapons are protected as well. How about chemical weapons?
> Given the arsenals already possessed by many Americans, I would say we are in no danger of being a disarmed nation, although constant vigilance is obviously required.


I have news for you my friend..... if the supreme court for whatever reason rules tomorrow that the law of gravity can no longer be enforced..... I am still not going to step off any tall buildings. God granted me the right to defend myself and my country using whatever means necessary... not the supreme court. 

Let me ask you this.... are you in favor of limiting our government to the use of flintlocks in our defense? Of course not.... you are not even in favor of limiting them to the powers carefully and clearly spelled out in our Constitution.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And now we are getting to the meat of the matter.... we are not supposed to have to whine from behind prison walls about how our own government is violating our God given rights.


 And if you try and take a nuke off an Air Force or National Guard base, you will be imprisoned, as per the laws of the land. What is the problem with that? You think YOUR right to possess whatever destructive device you want trumps the rights of others to live in peace?


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> And if you try and take a nuke off an Air Force or National Guard base, you will be imprisoned, as per the *illegal* laws of the land. What is the problem with that? You think YOUR right to possess whatever destructive device you want trumps the rights of others to live in peace?


Who said anything about denying others their right to live in peace? 
*my insert to correct your statement*

Ok, I will agree that if I were to steal weapons from a military base I would be in violation of legal laws and should be locked up... but if I obtain said weapons legally, either through building them myself or purchasing them.... and wound up in prison, that would be entirely based on my violation of illegal laws.


----------



## kasilofhome

Well John Hancock bought cannonS note the s. He is my son's great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great grand father. So I happen to have a done a bit of studying as to his life. You might not know it bit many of the weapons were purchased by firm. They had more than flint ..... what happen to the education in the years that history was learned. You sir got a rather limited set of knowledge.


----------



## kasilofhome

[Greg read 


QUOTE=kasilofhome;7154582]Have I even asked for one.. I personal do not need that tool. I do not expect to. You are the one talking nukes. You seem to do that to find out were people have set the limit. You are out of your league. I really really want a small 22 pistol to harvest goats. Since it will take quite a bit of time to save for one it is laughable that a nuke is in my future. 
Remember just because one has a right does not mean they must exercise that right. Even if it was law full I will not do pot. I can go years with out booze and then just have one beer or glass of wine. I can have sex with any willing party but I choose not to. See, I live by my standard and I allow others to deal with their lives. My rights come with the responsibly not to harm your rights. You seem to want extra rights and you are not alone.
Why are you so violent?.[/QUOTE]


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Who said anything about denying others their right to live in peace?
> *my insert to correct your statement*


 Obviously you think you are entitled to weapons that can destroy cities at your whim. That would certainly infringe upon their right to live in peace, would it not?


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> There have been numerous cases since then that have ruled differently. Lewis v. US, Printz v US, DC v. Heller...
> The point is the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. You have shown numerous examples of that in trying (and failing) to make your case that owning a nuke is a protected right under the USSC. It is not, and no amount of flag-waving or disparaging the patriotism of your fellow citizens is going to change that.


OK, I want you to be clear so that I don't misconstrue your feelings. The debate is about the meaning of, "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."

Do you think 2A only applies to militias?

or, Do you think "the people" means the gov't?

or, Do you think "keep" means "shall not keep"?

or, Do you think "bear" means an animal?

or, Do you think "arms" which included every weapon known to man in the days 2A was written, means "only those arms the gov't shall decide is allowable," and that the framers were too stupid to say "flintlock rifles, pistols, and other weapons that a man can hold in one hand?" 

or, Do you think "shall not infringe" means "can infringe as the gov't sees fit"?

or, Do you think the gov't can ignore any part of the constitution it so desires if the gov't deems it in the best interest of the gov't? 

Yes, yes, yes. As you keep saying, the SCOTUS is appointed to interpret the CONS. We know that. But in your opinion, what is the basis by which SCOTUS can do the opposite of what is plainly written in the CONS?


----------



## kasilofhome

If you own a car do you know that you .....with your logic..... are promoting kill people via driving over them in crowds.

Having tools come with responsibility. 

We, have constantly expressed in writing that we respect others rights but no one has the right never to be offended, or scared. Feeling are your personal issues.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Obviously you think you are entitled to weapons that can destroy cities at your whim. That would certainly infringe upon their right to live in peace, would it not?


Nope, as long as a city dont mess with me or mine, they are free to live however they wish.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Obviously you think you are entitled to weapons that can destroy cities at your whim. That would certainly infringe upon their right to live in peace, would it not?


Absolutely wrong. You show a fundamental misunderstanding of rights which is sadly a common problem among liberals and MSNBC hosts. You not liking my rights does not infringe upon your rights. If my gun makes you uncomfortable, that is your problem, but I have not violated your rights unless I have come on your property or threaten you or shoot at you. This is an important distinction. The howitzer in the driveway does not infringe on the rights of others. Firing my howitzer at a city does infringe on the rights of others. See the difference?


----------



## farmrbrown

The nuclear bomb example would be a fun debate on the legalities however as a matter of practicality, the laws of physics make it nearly irrelevant in regards to the average Joe, and thus irrelevant as a red herring.:indif:

As long as you didn't steal it or buy it on the black market (IOW made it yourself) simple possession isn't necessarily illegal.
Threatening to harm someone with it and disturb an otherwise peaceful neighborhood with said device, IS a criminal offense according to USC statutes.

Of course since the radius of destruction is so large, having one without a delivery system like a Mach II jet or an advanced rocket, renders it an impressive, yet useless weapon of choice, LOL.

Large caliber cannons are a much better item for a serious debate on this subject of militia vs. public rights of possession.
But be forewarned, many of us have already done the legal research and know a false statement when it is presented.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> And if you try and take a nuke off an Air Force or National Guard base, you will be imprisoned, as per the laws of the land. What is the problem with that? You think YOUR right to possess whatever destructive device you want trumps the rights of others to live in peace?


Again, you make it too easy. He would be stealing gov't property if he tries to take that nuke. No one has a right to steal from the gov't or other citizens. 

And 'living in peace" does not include the freedom to take the rights of others no matter how much you may dislike the way they exercise their rights.


----------



## Evons hubby

DEKE01 said:


> Absolutely wrong. You show a fundamental misunderstanding of rights which is sadly a common problem among liberals and MSNBC hosts. You not liking my rights does not infringe upon your rights. If my gun makes you uncomfortable, that is your problem, but I have not violated your rights unless I have come on your property or threaten you or shoot at you. This is an important distinction. The howitzer in the driveway does not infringe on the rights of others. Firing my howitzer at a city does infringe on the rights of others. See the difference?


BINGO!! give the man a cigar!


----------



## greg273

The 2nd Amendment is clearly designed to make sure the population remains armed and able to defend themselves. It is a long leap of logic to assume that means you have the 'right' to destroy cities on a whim with nukes or 'whatever you want'.


----------



## Forerunner

greg273 said:


> It is a long leap of logic to assume that means you have the 'right' to destroy cities on a whim with nukes or 'whatever you want'.


Funny how that sentiment does not apply to governments.......

That said, Americans are (were?) guaranteed the right to at least match the capability of their oppressors.

That was wisdom.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> If you want to comform to the original intent, get a flintlock and join the militia. Otherwise, you will have to admit that the 2nd Amendment is indeed open to interpretation by those appointed with that task. Perhaps you believe biological weapons are protected as well. How about chemical weapons?
> Given the arsenals already possessed by many Americans, I would say we are in no danger of being a disarmed nation, although constant vigilance is obviously required.


And the first amendment would need to throw back to quill pens, and parchment paper. No computers, cell phones, printers, modern paper and toner, interweb, etc.....Those things that anti-Constitutional folks use to communicate should be banned too!

All weapons should be allowed, politicians are afraid of the citizenry, hence the laws against us carrying fire arms, it's the only reason for these absurd laws!


----------



## kasilofhome

Does anyone care to explain how starwar defence saved lives .....there is a reason to hold tools to do a job...... and sometimes...often times never have to use the tool. Simply have the ability is enough to deal with a situation respectfully.


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> Absolutely wrong. You show a fundamental misunderstanding of rights which is sadly a common problem among liberals and MSNBC hosts. You not liking my rights does not infringe upon your rights. If my gun makes you uncomfortable, that is your problem, but I have not violated your rights unless I have come on your property or threaten you or shoot at you. This is an important distinction. The howitzer in the driveway does not infringe on the rights of others. Firing my howitzer at a city does infringe on the rights of others. See the difference?


 Lol! Take it up with the Courts and your local sheriff. By the way, i have no problem with you owning a howitzer. Or an automatic weapon. I draw the line at CBN, so it seems there we will have to depart company on the original intent of the founding fathers. 
And please, don't give me the line about 'its legal until you use it'. You having a nuke, whether you use it or not, would most certainly interfere with the rights of other to live in peace, by the mere threat of annihilation you will have placed upon their heads, and their inability to defend themselves. 
You're free to do it, giving your God given rights of freewill, just don't expect 'WE THE PEOPLE' won't react in a negative fashion.


----------



## kasilofhome

You sir are looking for acts of aggression by gun right advocates where none exist. You talk so much about killing humans and destruction that you cause me to wonder about your personal abilities.


----------



## farmrbrown

DEKE01 said:


> Absolutely wrong. You show a fundamental misunderstanding of rights which is sadly a common problem among liberals and MSNBC hosts. You not liking my rights does not infringe upon your rights. If my gun makes you uncomfortable, that is your problem, but I have not violated your rights unless I have come on your property or threaten you or shoot at you. This is an important distinction. The howitzer in the driveway does not infringe on the rights of others. Firing my howitzer at a city does infringe on the rights of others. See the difference?


I'll tell ya something else I've learned about people. It isn't always that they don't know or don't understand, it's that they _don't care._
I used to think that with enough logic, reason and facts, you could make someone change their mind about certain fundamental issues, like personal freedom. But that's usually not the case.

I firmly believe most folks have the intelligence to dissect an English sentence into its various parts and identify the subject and its key descriptions.
I think most have the ability to identify two different words and look up their definitions.
And I think a fair amount know enough American history to know the basic foundations for the Bill of Rights and why it was written with such a dominant role for the rights of "the people" and a submissive role for all rights of the government over those people, essentially saying there are none except those we agree to let the government have over us.

I think most people actually already know this, but those among us that feel there are some that are more equal than others, to paraphrase Animal Farm
:croc: would like to take away freedoms that make us all more or less equal.
The 2nd Amendment is a perfect example of such a right.
Hard to dominate anyone when everyone is well armed, isn't it?


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Lol! Take it up with the Courts and your local sheriff. By the way, i have no problem with you owning a howitzer. Or an automatic weapon. I draw the line at CBN, so it seems there we will have to depart company on the original intent of the founding fathers.
> And please, don't give me the line about 'its legal until you use it'. *You having a nuke, whether you use it or not, would most certainly interfere with the rights of other to live in peace, by the mere threat of annihilation you will have placed upon their heads, and their inability to defend themselves. *
> You're free to do it, giving your God given rights of freewill, just don't expect 'WE THE PEOPLE' won't react in a negative fashion.


Again you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of rights. How you feel about how I exercise my rights does not mean I have violated your rights unless I actually do something like shoot at you or trespass on your property. I can kill you no more dead with a nuke than I can kill you dead with a handgun; the amount of your deadness does not vary. You have no more ability to defend yourself from one or the other when that are accurately fired. Even if you feel strongly, even if it makes you quake with fear, even if you surround yourself with a bunch of like minded wussies...I mean people, your feelings do not trump the rights of others unless they actually do something illegal. 

The Skokie Nazis are a good demonstration of this. They made lots of folks, including me, feel bad that such a vile opinion was still held in the US. But they retained their right to be offensive, and I'm glad of that. 

I understand you are not arguing against handguns, but there are those of your ilk who are so intimidated by me with a holstered handgun that they think it violates their rights. The Bloomberg crowd and Mayors Against Illegal Guns fits that description. Can we at least agree that how others feel about my holstered handgun does not violate their rights? If we agree to that, at what point do feelings become more important than rights. If I have a weapon that can kill 2 people? 10 people? 1000? 1M? 

Again, I'm not arguing that people having nukes is a good idea, only that the CONS did not anticipate it and does not address it. Remember the word "nuance" that liberals like to use. This is a nuanced position. If the CONS is wrong or silent on an important issue, change the CONS, don't ignore it.


----------



## DEKE01

farmrbrown said:


> I'll tell ya something else I've learned about people. It isn't always that they don't know or don't understand, it's that they _don't care._
> I used to think that with enough logic, reason and facts, you could make someone change their mind about certain fundamental issues, like personal freedom. But that's usually not the case.


You're right and no matter how many times I beat my head against the wall, I have a hard time accepting that logic and reason to some is far less important than "feelings".


----------



## kasilofhome

Greg....why do you think that your feelings supperceed anyone's rights.


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> You're right and no matter how many times I beat my head against the wall, I have a hard time accepting that logic and reason to some is far less important than "feelings".


 You should try using some of that 'logic and reason'. You've already admitted 'nukes for all' is a bad idea, yet continue to defend the notion based on your narrow interpretation of what the founding fathers meant in the 1780s. Your view has been overruled time and again, its as simple as that, by the duly elected and appointed representatives of the people.


----------



## unregistered353870

JeffreyD said:


> I don't need "permission" to own any weapon! It's a natural right!


This is the very essence of the subject. I don't bother arguing court cases or any of that because no court gave me my rights. It doesn't matter what the supreme court says. It doesn't even matter what the second amendment says. It doesn't matter what the founders said or meant. Rights are not granted by government.


----------



## greg273

jtbrandt said:


> This is the very essence of the subject. I don't bother arguing court cases or any of that because no court gave me my rights. It doesn't matter what the supreme court says. It doesn't even matter what the second amendment says. It doesn't matter what the founders said or meant. Rights are not granted by government.


 Ultimately, the only right is force. You're free to do whatever you want, whenever you want, as long as you are willing to face the reaction. 
But i thought we were talking about laws.


----------



## unregistered353870

greg273 said:


> Ultimately, the only right is force. You're free to do whatever you want, whenever you want, as long as you are willing to face the reaction.
> But i thought we were talking about laws.


We're talking about lots of things. The thread was originally about store polcies, but that was many pages ago.

But you are wrong. Just because some entity has the strength to force something upon people does not make that thing right. I hate to be cliche and take everything back to Hitler and the Holocaust, so I'll just mention that and let you guess what my point is.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> You should try using some of that 'logic and reason'. You've already admitted 'nukes for all' is a bad idea, yet continue to defend the notion based on your narrow interpretation of what the founding fathers meant in the 1780s. Your view has been overruled time and again, its as simple as that, by the duly elected and appointed representatives of the people.



Hmmm...why do you keep dodging the Qs I pose to you about how you justify your position? Do you think we should ignore the plain language of the CONS, as the SCOTUS has repeatedly done, or do you think we should change the CONS? If you think the SCOTUS is right, which you have said over and over, please explain in your own words why "shall not infringe" means "may infringe". Why are you afraid to put your logic and reason out there?


----------



## DEKE01

jtbrandt said:


> We're talking about lots of things. The thread was originally about store polcies, but that was many pages ago.
> 
> But you are wrong. Just because some entity has the strength to force something upon people does not make that thing right. I hate to be cliche and take everything back to Hitler and the Holocaust, so I'll just mention that and let you guess what my point is.


Hey, Hitler was pro gun control as well. That's twice greg agrees with Hitler.


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> Hmmm...why do you keep dodging the Qs I pose to you about how you justify your position? Do you think we should ignore the plain language of the CONS, as the SCOTUS has repeatedly done, or do you think we should change the CONS? If you think the SCOTUS is right, which you have said over and over, please explain in your own words why "shall not infringe" means "may infringe". Why are you afraid to put your logic and reason out there?


 'Logic and reason' apparently means something very different to you than it does to me. I pretty much lost interest in answering your questions when you uttered such ludicrous statements as 'nukes and handguns are equivalent'. And 'nukes are ok until I use them'. That right there is false, being that possession of something implies the right to use it. That is per the writings of Thomas Jefferson, whom you apparently think you have on speed dial. Its pretty clear I am dealing with someone who has thrown reason and logic out the window. 
You go ahead and test your theories about Constitutional law in the real world and see what happens.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> 'Logic and reason' apparently means something very different to you than it does to me. I pretty much lost interest in answering your questions when you uttered such ludicrous statements as 'nukes and handguns are equivalent'. And 'nukes are ok until I use them'. That right there is false, being that possession of something implies the right to use it. That is per the writings of Thomas Jefferson, whom you apparently think you have on speed dial. Its pretty clear I am dealing with someone who has thrown reason and logic out the window.
> You go ahead and test your theories about Constitutional law in the real world and see what happens.


Why don't you post the actual statements made by Jefferson? I have tested my theories and have been told to be a servant or go to jail, under laws made by a man, against natural law, who did not have my best interest in mind! That's why I turned in a 22! A 22, think about that!

I've noticed that liberal progressives use terms like "absurd" " ludicrous", that they fear their losing the argument, especially when they say "I've pretty much lost interest"! It's a simple fact.....your wrong and dug a hole that you can never escape from. We've asked for cites and all we get is more parroting rhetoric opinion.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> 'Logic and reason' apparently means something very different to you than it does to me.


That is abundantly clear. 

But one of us is willing to put out their logic and reasoning, in a step by step basis and the other chooses not to for some reason, preferring to use vague references and misstatements. I might have gotten something wrong somewhere and would appreciate if you would find my error. 

But it's OK, you have your feelings and that is good enough for you, I understand. I just don't understand why you aren't willing to admit your opinion is based on feelings, fear of man when he is a mere citizen but faith in man when he acts in the name of gov't, rather than on the CONS, logic, and reason.


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> I've noticed that liberal progressives use terms like "absurd" " ludicrous", that they fear their losing the argument, especially when they say "I've pretty much lost interest"! It's a simple fact.....your wrong and dug a hole that you can never escape from. We've asked for cites and all we get is more parroting rhetoric opinion.


 I use the terms ludicrous and absurd when someone claims handguns and nukes are equivalent. 
Sorry you lost your .22. That also falls under the category of ludicrous. I have never supported any of the 'assault rifle' bans. What a waste of a perfectly good gun. 
As far as TJ's writings on possession and use, here ya go. A treatise on why owning a nuke is not a 'right', and why the gun nuts still think it is despite all logic and reason to the contrary. From FreeRepublic, no less so it should be right up the Rightwingers alley. 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/668387/posts


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> I use the terms ludicrous and absurd when someone claims handguns and nukes are equivalent.
> Sorry you lost your .22. That also falls under the category of ludicrous. I have never supported any of the 'assault rifle' bans. What a waste of a perfectly good gun.
> As far as TJ's writings on possession and use, here ya go. A treatise on why owning a nuke is not a 'right', and why the gun nuts still think it is despite all logic and reason to the contrary. From FreeRepublic, no less so it should be right up the Rightwingers alley.
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/668387/posts


Interesting read! How about actual quotes from Jefferson, and not a blog from someone that agrees with your opinions! 

It was a good gun and I miss it! Sentimental it was, but a felon I did not want to be, even tho it was not of my making! I hold a grudge against those who seek to impinge on my rights!

Still waiting for those links to the SC rulings!


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> I might have gotten something wrong somewhere and would appreciate if you would find my error.


 Error? Try 'errors'.
Citing old case law when you know darn well it has been overruled for decades is one thing. 
Assuming the definitions you set for the language of the USSC are the correct and only ones. 
Then there is the insanely illogical premise that a nuke and handgun are equivalent. How about sarin? Mustard gas? weaponized Anthrax? How about fertilizer bombs? Radiological bombs? Do those fall under the purview of the 2nd Amendment also?


----------



## unregistered353870

greg273 said:


> Then there is the insanely illogical premise that a nuke and handgun are equivalent. How about sarin? Mustard gas? weaponized Anthrax? How about fertilizer bombs? Radiological bombs? Do those fall under the purview of the 2nd Amendment also?


I have been in and out of the thread, so I may have missed an answer to this, but which types of guns do you believe the average citizen should be allowed to own? Are there guns that you believe we should not be allowed to own? I'm only talking guns, not NBC weapons or any of that stuff.


----------



## Cornhusker

jtbrandt said:


> I have been in and out of the thread, so I may have missed an answer to this, but which types of guns do you believe the average citizen should be allowed to own? Are there guns that you believe we should not be allowed to own? I'm only talking guns, not NBC weapons or any of that stuff.


The lefties like what the Fuehrer tells them to like and allow what he tells them to allow


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> Error? Try 'errors'.
> Citing old case law when you know darn well it has been overruled for decades is one thing.
> Assuming the definitions you set for the language of the USSC are the correct and only ones.
> Then there is the insanely illogical premise that a nuke and handgun are equivalent. How about sarin? Mustard gas? weaponized Anthrax? How about fertilizer bombs? Radiological bombs? Do those fall under the purview of the 2nd Amendment also?



Perhaps, since the term "arms" is not specifically defined.
But there _IS_ room for some common sense to be interjected here.
Two points.

1) The reason most of us will never own a nuke/chemical/biological weapon is for the same reason that most of the laws discourage it even if it is possible to posses one legally.
They are totally impractical for self defense.

Think about the majority of the situations where a weapon would be useful and rarely,if ever, would it involve indiscriminate killing of large numbers of people.....women, children and whoever happened to be home at the time.:run:

2) There is a premise that is often overlooked when rights are discussed.
Just because you have the right doesn't mean you have to use it.
Like a firearm, you'd rather it never come out and be fired, but that doesn't mean it should be taken away from you.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Error? Try 'errors'.
> Citing old case law when you know darn well it has been overruled for decades is one thing.
> Assuming the definitions you set for the language of the USSC are the correct and only ones.
> Then there is the insanely illogical premise that a nuke and handgun are equivalent. How about sarin? Mustard gas? weaponized Anthrax? How about fertilizer bombs? Radiological bombs? Do those fall under the purview of the 2nd Amendment also?


citing old, over ruled case law? in what context? I may be forgetting one but I believe I have only cited the 1939 Miller case when you wanted to know if a justice had ever held that 2A is absolute. You asked a Q and I answered it. Go figger. I did not cite the particulars of the case as relevant, pro or con, to our conversation, but only that a justice said 2A is absolute. 

If you have alternative definitions for the plain language of the CONS as written, when written, please offer it up. But also remember...

1. it was you who misunderstood what well-regulated means. 
2. It was you who misunderstands what "shall not be infringed" means. 
3. You were the one mistaken as to what a militia means and that they are not nuke capable. 
4. You are the one mistaken to what "gov't of the people" means. 
5. You were the one mistaken when you imply that my right to something means that I can legally take it from someone else or the gov't. 
6. It was you who was incorrect when you imply "the USSC grants" rights. Not even the CONS grants rights, it merely acknowledges some of our rights, which is a fundamental and common liberal misunderstanding of rights. 
7. It was you who think we have made up the interpretation that 2A acknowledges that the people have the right to military grade weapons, when there are written interpretations from before any of us were born by at least one Supreme Justice , by the framers themselves, and by the actions of some of the framers who bought and sold military grade weapons as testament that we didn't think of it first.
8. It is you that is wrong that, "The USSC also gives the Feds the power to deal with insurrections." ALL POWERS of the Fed gov't are given to it by THE PEOPLE within the text of the CONS. 
9. It is you that misunderstands that how you feel about me exercising a right is justification to revoke my right. 
10. You are mistaken...again...that I have equated atom bombs and handguns. I equated the amount of dead they can make you and nothing more. 

All that is just from the last couple of pages. But other than that, you're doing just fine. Please carry on. Tell us once again that the SCOTUS is on your side and I'll agree again that they are. 

And I am still waiting on your logic as to why "shall not be infringed" means "can be infringed".


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> I use the terms ludicrous and absurd when someone claims handguns and nukes are equivalent.
> Sorry you lost your .22. That also falls under the category of ludicrous. I have never supported any of the 'assault rifle' bans. What a waste of a perfectly good gun.
> As far as TJ's writings on possession and use, here ya go. A treatise on why owning a nuke is not a 'right', and why the gun nuts still think it is despite all logic and reason to the contrary. From FreeRepublic, no less so it should be right up the Rightwingers alley.
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/668387/posts


Interesting.... did you happen to read TJ's actual comments? Or did you just capitalize on the comments made by the author of this article?


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Then there is the insanely illogical premise that a nuke and handgun are equivalent.


A hand gun can kill you.... a nuke can kill you.... that sounds pretty equivalent to me. Either way you are going to be dead if you irritate your opponent to the point that he/she opts to use either weapon.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> You having a nuke, whether you use it or not, would most certainly interfere with the rights of other to live in peace, by the mere threat of annihilation you will have placed upon their heads, and their inability to defend themselves.


Again you state that owning a weapon is the same as threatening someone with it. Strange logic you have there. My neighbors have no reason to feel threatened by my possession of weapons..... unless of course they threaten me or mine first. Do you think Canadians, Brits or the average Aussie feel threatened by the fact that our government possesses nukes?


----------



## littlejoe

How did we let someone guide us into a debate about whether we should own WMD? These arguments are irrelevant, but that's just my thinking. The initial leaning of the earlier posts were about our continual loss of rights to bear small arms. For sure I'd question in my mind the two guys pictured. But, they have exactly the same rights I do!

The government continually is trying to take away/diminish this basic right, because they know they cannot enslave an armed citizenry! And they're doing a pretty dang good job already!

I don't care what anyone says, who touts the "they'll just hit you with a missile". They cannot do it! There is not enough LEO or military to stop a small percentage of a nationwide movement, but they're trying to, before it happens. And undoubtedly. many of such would join a righteous movement. And it gains by the day!

I don't want to see it happen in that fashion! But our constitutional laws are disregarded daily. They would take our GUARANTEED right of protection/anti tyranny away, while insuring they are surrounded by more than what we have, at our expense!!! You've gotta pay them taxes, boy! 

Undoubtedly the goal of the present adm is disarmament, and it has been building that way as well, thru other administrations. The elite, continually want more control of the masses. It has happened throughout the history of the world!

We can change it!!! Get out and vote! Encourage others, present them with facts. I wouldn't waste much breath arguing with people for the sake of arguing. It's good to let your viewpoints be heard, but some just don't want to hear, and change the direction without answering your questions. It has happened here. No?

I've taken a couple evenings scanning posts on this thread, since I hold the 2A in high regard. Without it, we can't maintain others! There is no doubt what guidelines we were given by our forbearers. I've read it and am amazed by their foresight! They had been thru it, and history tends to be replicable.


----------



## Tricky Grama

DEKE01 said:


> Yes and yes, there are militias issued nukes. This article explains why the Nat Guard is = to militia.
> 
> http://prospect.org/article/well-regulated-militia
> _Few Americans know that we have two armies and that both are acknowledged by the United States Constitution. One is the military that we know best, the regulars: the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy, joined later in history by the Marines and the Air Force. The other, originally known as the militia, is now called the National Guard._
> 
> This article shows that the Air Nat Guard has been certified to do nuke missions. http://www.ang.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123359158
> _8/8/2013 - WHITEMAN Air Force Base, Mo -- The Air National Guard celebrated a historic milestone this week as the 131st Bomb Wing, the nation's only Guard unit to fly and maintain the B-2 Spirit, was certified to conduct the nuclear mission upon completion of their Initial Nuclear Surety Inspection. _
> 
> This link shows that Air Nat Guard provides a support role to the Air Force Nuke Weapons Center. http://www.kirtland.af.mil/units/
> 
> 
> And this: Missouri Air Guard Wing Goes Nuclear http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/news/missouri-air-guard-wing-goes-nuclear
> http://www.kirtland.af.mil/units/
> 
> As to the well regulated part, liberals seem to have a short memory. The definition of well regulated in 1783 was: http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htmhttp://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> _The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter.* It referred to the property of something being in proper working order.* Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. *Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.*_
> 
> "Well-regulated" in the constitution has absolutely nothing to do with why permits are required for explosives and auto weapons.
> 
> You are right in one small way, "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA does not mean you get whatever you want with no restrictions." It is the part that says, "*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" is what means that I get whatever I want with no restrictions.
> 
> Keep teeing them up and I'll keep hitting them out of the park. This is fun.
> 
> I'll tell you again since it didn't seem to sink in, I'm not advocating everyone own a nuke, only that the framers did not anticipate such a thing. If you don't like the CONS as is, change it, but don't subvert it. Because once the plain language is rendered meaningless by people like you and Ginsberg, none of our rights will have the protections afforded by the CONS.


Great post, so let's summerize. 


We have here a couple or 3 folks who obviously do not believe in the Constitution. They want it interpreted differently or changed. They do not want us to have guns, or perhaps only the guns THEY deem 'appropriate', since they've used that term...
I think we're done here.

Those couple, or 3 folks can go live somewhere else where there's lots of gun restrictions. OR just lock up their own guns w/o ammo, look at 'em now & then.
Leave us the heck alone.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> Obviously you think you are entitled to weapons that can destroy cities at your whim. That would certainly infringe upon their right to live in peace, would it not?


Being entitled? Do you see that bombing a city may well be against the law? What are you advocating here?
Gheesh, talk about going off the deep end!
We've talking about bearing arms. NOT killing a city w/'em!
Clearly you do not understand the 2nd A.
No use typing anymore.


----------



## Tricky Grama

DEKE01 said:


> Absolutely wrong. You show a fundamental misunderstanding of rights which is sadly a common problem among liberals and MSNBC hosts. You not liking my rights does not infringe upon your rights. If my gun makes you uncomfortable, that is your problem, but I have not violated your rights unless I have come on your property or threaten you or shoot at you. This is an important distinction. The howitzer in the driveway does not infringe on the rights of others. Firing my howitzer at a city does infringe on the rights of others. See the difference?












You have to wonder about the lib's mentality. 
Enmasse they think things like: "Other POTUSs did way more EOs than Obama." 
Or, why get upset over Obama being friends w/Bill Ayers? Obama was only about 8 yrs old when Ayers bombed, how could he have anything to do w/it?"
Or, "Hobby Lobby is taking away women's right to reproduce".
BWHAhaha!


----------



## Tricky Grama

jtbrandt said:


> This is the very essence of the subject. I don't bother arguing court cases or any of that because no court gave me my rights. It doesn't matter what the supreme court says. It doesn't even matter what the second amendment says. It doesn't matter what the founders said or meant. Rights are not granted by government.


----------



## Cornhusker

Tricky Grama said:


> Being entitled? Do you see that bombing a city may well be against the law? What are you advocating here?
> Gheesh, talk about going off the deep end!
> We've talking about bearing arms. NOT killing a city w/'em!
> Clearly you do not understand the 2nd A.
> No use typing anymore.


When they can't win a discussion or even contribute, they go off on flights of fancy, just like their idiot king taught them to do.


----------



## Cornhusker

Tricky Grama said:


> You have to wonder about the lib's mentality.
> Enmasse they think things like: "Other POTUSs did way more EOs than Obama."
> Or, why get upset over Obama being friends w/Bill Ayers? Obama was only about 8 yrs old when Ayers bombed, how could he have anything to do w/it?"
> Or, "Hobby Lobby is taking away women's right to reproduce".
> BWHAhaha!


Lies are a way of life for the left, it's all they have...well, that and people stupid enough to believe them


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> citing old, over ruled case law? in what context? I may be forgetting one but I believe I have only cited the 1939 Miller case when you wanted to know if a justice had ever held that 2A is absolute. You asked a Q and I answered it. Go figger. I did not cite the particulars of the case as relevant, pro or con, to our conversation, but only that a justice said 2A is absolute.
> 
> If you have alternative definitions for the plain language of the CONS as written, when written, please offer it up. But also remember...
> 
> 1. it was you who misunderstood what well-regulated means.
> 2. It was you who misunderstands what "shall not be infringed" means.
> 3. You were the one mistaken as to what a militia means and that they are not nuke capable.
> 4. You are the one mistaken to what "gov't of the people" means.
> 5. You were the one mistaken when you imply that my right to something means that I can legally take it from someone else or the gov't.
> 6. It was you who was incorrect when you imply "the USSC grants" rights. Not even the CONS grants rights, it merely acknowledges some of our rights, which is a fundamental and common liberal misunderstanding of rights.
> 7. It was you who think we have made up the interpretation that 2A acknowledges that the people have the right to military grade weapons, when there are written interpretations from before any of us were born by at least one Supreme Justice , by the framers themselves, and by the actions of some of the framers who bought and sold military grade weapons as testament that we didn't think of it first.
> 8. It is you that is wrong that, "The USSC also gives the Feds the power to deal with insurrections." ALL POWERS of the Fed gov't are given to it by THE PEOPLE within the text of the CONS.
> 9. It is you that misunderstands that how you feel about me exercising a right is justification to revoke my right.
> 10. You are mistaken...again...that I have equated atom bombs and handguns. I equated the amount of dead they can make you and nothing more.
> 
> All that is just from the last couple of pages. But other than that, you're doing just fine. Please carry on. Tell us once again that the SCOTUS is on your side and I'll agree again that they are.
> 
> And I am still waiting on your logic as to why "shall not be infringed" means "can be infringed".


 Military grade weapons would include Chem, Bio and Nukes. So unless you are prepared to say those are covered under the 2nd Amendment, you will have admitted the 2nd Amendment is not 'absolute'. 
And I am still not buying that 'well regulated's only meaning is well functioning. That is NOT the only meaning, it ALSO means regulated as in RULES and REGULATIONS handed down by officers. You apparently want the second part of the amendment, but want to water down the first part to suit YOUR personal wishes. That would be fine, if you were in any position to do so , as authorized by the USC. Are you? 
As far as infringement, if you are denied the nuke that you think is covered, your right to keep and bear arms has NOT been 'infringed'... considering you are still keeping and bearing arms, just not the ultimate killing tool. 
(a few times in my replies I did write 'USSC', when I really meant USC as in United States Constitution.)
Back to the 'absolute' thing... Do you agree felons should own weapons? Murderers? Rapists? How about convicts in prison?


----------



## Nevada

DEKE01 said:


> And I am still waiting on your logic as to why "shall not be infringed" means "can be infringed".


The Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to say that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. They have consistently held that states can require registration, require licensing for concealed carry, prohibit ownership of certain types of firearms, prohibit firearm ownership by certain people, and prohibit firearms to be carried in certain locations. That's a lot of infringement for a right that shall not be infringed.


----------



## kasilofhome

You fail to answer questions yet you ramble on and on. A conversation requires dialog try answering some of our questions. England can always use another person who would rather guns so limited that the Bobbie are not armed. 

Phobias such as you have visualized thru your unique ability to see a couple of people in a simple deli buying food safely and properly carrying guns into waving..... brandishing..... threatening display. 

Your fears run deep .


QUOTE=greg273;7155702]Military grade weapons would include Chem, Bio and Nukes. So unless you are prepared to say those are covered under the 2nd Amendment, you will have admitted the 2nd Amendment is not 'absolute'. 
And I am still not buying that 'well regulated's only meaning is well functioning. That is NOT the only meaning, it ALSO means regulated as in RULES and REGULATIONS handed down by officers. You apparently want the second part of the amendment, but want to water down the first part to suit YOUR personal wishes. That would be fine, if you were in any position to do so , as authorized by the USC. Are you? 
As far as infringement, if you are denied the nuke that you think is covered, your right to keep and bear arms has NOT been 'infringed'... considering you are still keeping and bearing arms, just not the ultimate killing tool. 
(a few times in my replies I did write 'USSC', when I really meant USC as in United States Constitution.)
Back to the 'absolute' thing... Do you agree felons should own weapons? Murderers? Rapists? How about convicts in prison?[/QUOTE]


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> The Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to say that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. They have consistently held that states can require registration, require licensing for concealed carry, prohibit ownership of certain types of firearms, prohibit firearm ownership by certain people, and prohibit firearms to be carried in certain locations. That's a lot of infringement for a right that shall not be infringed.


Your right it is! It shows how much our government cares about the Constitution! A man cannot take away natural rights, yet they try constantly, to convince us its in our best interest. It's not, and never has been! The people have historically had better weapons than the military, until man made laws changed that! It just shows that the SC can be influenced by corrupt politicians who are afraid of us citizens. ...that is the only reason to limit our weapon selection.


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> The Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to say that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. They have consistently held that states can require registration, require licensing for concealed carry, prohibit ownership of certain types of firearms, prohibit firearm ownership by certain people, and prohibit firearms to be carried in certain locations. That's a lot of infringement for a right that shall not be infringed.


Isn't it funny that the one right we have that requires registration, permits and permission is the very right that dictators and corrupt governments fear most?
That should tell you something about the left in this country.
Like Obama, the democrat politicians are all for sale and not an honest American in their ranks.
All it takes is people too lazy and stupid to seek the truth for them to gain power.


----------



## Cornhusker

JeffreyD said:


> Your right it is! It shows how much our government cares about the Constitution! A man cannot take away natural rights, yet they try constantly, to convince us its in our best interest. It's not, and never has been! The people have historically had better weapons than the military, until man made laws changed that! It just shows that the SC can be influenced by corrupt politicians who are afraid of us citizens. ...that is the only reason to limit our weapon selection.


Leaders don't disarm their own people
Tyrants, thieves and democrats do.


----------



## beowoulf90

greg273 said:


> Your own strawman makes no sense to you? Sounds like a personal problem. Still waiting for you to show one instance where anyone in this thread has called for banning guns. Perhaps you can restrict your rebuttals to things people have ACTUALLY said, not what your imagination thinks they said.



So you think your words to place "restrictions" aren't bans..

Then you want to resort to trying to insult me.. 

Fine by me..

Go for it, again it shows that you don't care for the truth and only want others to give up their rights.

As to gun being banned, the Assault Rifle was banned from further importation in 1986, and as of last week 0bama just basically banned the further importation of AK's and Saiga rifles and shotguns with an EO. Like it or not. How this latest "restriction" will turn out is yet to be seen, but it still is a ban. 



But of course there never is a ban. It's word as a "restriction"


----------



## Patchouli

jtbrandt said:


> That's why both is better. The pistol can be used while you put distance and cover between yourself and bad guy. Then it's rifle time...but it's not real practical for most people to carry both. I rarely carry even a pistol because it's a pain. I should, but....


I have to say I hope we are never in the same coffee shop.  I like you and all but I would prefer not to have any Hollywood style shoot outs in my local Starbucks.


----------



## Patchouli

HDRider said:


> Not because of 0bama, but because others have fought his anti-gun agenda.


Talk about drinking the Koolaid.  There is no anti-gun agenda. It is a farce dreamed up by conspiracy whackos and whipped up by gun and ammo companies. Do you have any idea how much their sales have sky rocketed since Obama has been in office due to people freaking out over losing their guns and buying up everything they can get their hands on?


----------



## unregistered353870

Patchouli said:


> I have to say I hope we are never in the same coffee shop.  I like you and all but I would prefer not to have any Hollywood style shoot outs in my local Starbucks.


Don't worry...I stay far away from Starbucks...and I rarely even carry. I'm old enough that being murdered won't be the worst way to die. Hopefully I'll never regret not being able to save someone else, though. I initially trained in these tactics to be a cop and help protect people after I retired from the Navy, but I quickly learned that's not what being a cop is really about. Sorry, major digression....


----------



## unregistered353870

Patchouli said:


> Talk about drinking the Koolaid.  There is no anti-gun agenda. It is a farce dreamed up by conspiracy whackos and whipped up by gun and ammo companies. Do you have any idea how much their sales have sky rocketed since Obama has been in office due to people freaking out over losing their guns and buying up everything they can get their hands on?


There is certainly an anti-gun agenda. You can argue whether Obama has been effective in implementing it, but it's definitely there. As many far right "whackos" as there are here, there are just as many far left whackos who really do want to get all guns out of all private hands.


----------



## Cornhusker

Patchouli said:


> Talk about drinking the Koolaid.  There is no anti-gun agenda. It is a farce dreamed up by conspiracy whackos and whipped up by gun and ammo companies. Do you have any idea how much their sales have sky rocketed since Obama has been in office due to people freaking out over losing their guns and buying up everything they can get their hands on?


You are kidding right?


----------



## kasilofhome

Patchouli said:


> Talk about drinking the Koolaid.  There is no anti-gun agenda. It is a farce dreamed up by conspiracy whackos and whipped up by gun and ammo companies. Do you have any idea how much their sales have sky rocketed since Obama has been in office due to people freaking out over losing their guns and buying up everything they can get their hands on?




This shows a lack of knowledge of the issue and facts. Or. A willingness to distances oneself from the truth.

We have heard this during the election of Obama. It is a lie.

Think Bloomberg. 

Now, was your oath when you joined the military different from the one I heard when my brother took it June 25, 1979.


----------



## DEKE01

Patchouli said:


> Talk about drinking the Koolaid.  There is no anti-gun agenda. It is a farce dreamed up by conspiracy whackos and whipped up by gun and ammo companies. Do you have any idea how much their sales have sky rocketed since Obama has been in office due to people freaking out over losing their guns and buying up everything they can get their hands on?


What does skyrocketing sales prove AFA whether or not there is an anti-gun agenda? This is another of the many logic errors from the left. Sales can skyrocket from real or imagined issues, so it is meaningless as a determinant. 

I suggest you change your location to Fantasy Land is you relaly think there is no anti-gun agenda in America. From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAIG

Mayors Against Illegal Guns is misnamed. As Wiki reports, their agenda includes an assault weapons and high capacity mag ban. MAIG's definition of both of those terms is most likely dubious, but I could not find their site. Maybe they don't want anyone to see what they stand for. MAIG favors the unconstitutional (violates due process) Terrorist Watch List that prevents anyone on the list from purchasing a gun. That list is mostly suspects, not convicts, so there is no due process for the loss of a right.


----------



## Evons hubby

If there is no antigun agenda.... then why all the various forms of new gun laws being proposed? Yes, they are often struck down later, but there has been a rash of them ever since the fraidy cats started pushing their agenda back in the sixties. When I grew up there were no such things as registration forms and waiting periods etc. If one wanted to buy a gun there was but one requirement.... cash in fist. Concealed carry permits were unheard of. In those days our Constitution was on display and it seemed to be permit enough for everyone.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> Talk about drinking the Koolaid.  There is no anti-gun agenda. It is a farce dreamed up by conspiracy whackos and whipped up by gun and ammo companies. Do you have any idea how much their sales have sky rocketed since Obama has been in office due to people freaking out over losing their guns and buying up everything they can get their hands on?


Better tell Bloomberg b/c he just donated a ton of $$ to one anti-gun group. As well as threw millions at a CO anti-gun group that tried to prevent those re-call elections from going the way of the people.

Qh, but I suppose those groups have kool aid parties on their agenda instead of gun restrictions.

We know how gun sales have skyrockted. We started threads about it some time back.


----------



## HDRider

greg273 said:


> Sanctions on Russia. You can't buy a NEW Kalashnikov. You can buy a used one. And its nothing that can't be reversed in a moments time.
> 
> As far as the nuke thing goes, its relevant. If you argue you can legally keep and bear whatever arms you want, then you should be *fighting for the right to keep a nuke*. Why are you not? Perhaps you recognize some weapons are too powerful? Why Arabian Knight? Why do you hate the Constitution so much?? : )


This is the most absurd argument ever made.


----------



## Tricky Grama

kasilofhome said:


> This shows a lack of knowledge of the issue and facts. Or. A willingness to distances oneself from the truth.
> 
> We have heard this during the election of Obama. It is a lie.
> 
> Think Bloomberg.
> 
> Now, was your oath when you joined the military different from the one I heard when my brother took it June 25, 1979.


The other thing it tells me, along w/all the other argue-able stuff some of our lib friends say & don't know (the "docs cut off feet" argueing comes to mind) It makes me wonder why we have these discussions w/those w/no cred.
It makes me wonder if they STILL watch only MSNBC. After that rating-killing blunder on the downed plane, I'd think they're really at 2 viewers.


----------



## HDRider

Patchouli said:


> Talk about drinking the Koolaid.  There is no anti-gun agenda. It is a farce dreamed up by conspiracy whackos and whipped up by gun and ammo companies. Do you have any idea how much their sales have sky rocketed since Obama has been in office due to people freaking out over losing their guns and buying up everything they can get their hands on?


I know you can read, so I am not sure where you fail to connect the dots. It is as plain as anything..

Pages in category "Gun control advocacy groups in the United States"
The following 17 pages are in this category, out of 17 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

A
American Bar Association
American Hunters and Shooters Association
Americans for Responsible Solutions
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
B
Brady Campaign
C
Children's Defense Fund
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
F
Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence
J
Joyce Foundation
L
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
League of Women Voters
M
Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Moms Demand Action
N
National Gun Victims Action Council
P
Physicians for Social Responsibility
S
Stop Handgun Violence
V
Violence Policy Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gun_control_advocacy_groups_in_the_United_States

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor are for more gun control.

Almost half of Congress is for more gun control.
http://projects.propublica.org/guns/#nra

Pat - You all wet...


----------



## greg273

HDRider said:


> This is the most absurd argument ever made.


 Not as absurd as thinking the 2nd Amendment protects a 'right' to own Chem, Bio, or Nuke weapons, as some of our posters here ridiculously believe. 
And sure, there is an anti-gun agenda, but its pretty small, about 1% of American think all guns should be banned, according to a recent poll.

http://www.isidewith.com/poll/3507538


----------



## greg273

kasilofhome said:


> You fail to answer questions yet you ramble on and on. A conversation requires dialog try answering some of our questions. England can always use another person who would rather guns so limited that the Bobbie are not armed.
> 
> Phobias such as you have visualized thru your unique ability to see a couple of people in a simple deli buying food safely and properly carrying guns into waving..... brandishing..... threatening display.
> 
> Your fears run deep .


 Being aware is not fear. Those two goofs pictured in the OP look like would get confused going through a revolving door. Keeping an eye on them while they are toting their weapons in a coffee shop sounds like a pretty smart thing to do. 
Maybe its YOU that is afraid? I know if I was living in Alaska, I'd darn sure be packing at least a pistol, given the amount of large and dangerous wildlife up there. I can see where not having a gun would be unsettling in that circumstance.


----------



## kasilofhome

And..........you can not change what infringe means. Where are you finding these people out getting chem, bio, and nuke weapons...... 



Islamist, friends of Obama played around with things of this ilk, really sick puppies. 

One does not have to act on every right .....failure to act on what God allows is not a sin. 

You are using very faulty arguments. You have lost. We know our rights and yet we are not violent. We are not conforming to your will. You may have grown up getting what you want when you want but you can not take or twist you arguments to take what is a right from our creator. You might find this insulting but you are just equal to us ....you have the same rights as we do. I hate to break that news to you. These gun rights are for you too... I prey you never need them but you have a right to protect yourself.


----------



## kasilofhome

I am smart enough to know my limits and to make sure ...by my choice to travel in the woods with at least one proficient hunter. It is wise to know reality and to prepare for that. It is foolish to react to let phobias center your life.


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> It is foolish to react to let phobias center your life.


Like Obamaphobia?


----------



## arabian knight

AT least THAT IS something to FEAR. Obama Fear him like no other. Maybe right behind hi is Harry Reid. Both are horrible for Americans and the USA in general.


----------



## kasilofhome

Nevada said:


> Like Obamaphobia?


Start a thread and please explain that.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Like Obamaphobia?


Or Bushphobia! Or conservaphobia! !


----------



## littlejoe

greg273 said:


> Being aware is not fear. Those two goofs pictured in the OP look like would get confused going through a revolving door. Keeping an eye on them while they are toting their weapons in a coffee shop sounds like a pretty smart thing to do.
> Maybe its YOU that is afraid? I know if I was living in Alaska, I'd darn sure be packing at least a pistol, given the amount of large and dangerous wildlife up there. I can see where not having a gun would be unsettling in that circumstance.


 So...you wish to strip away rights, based on how a person looks? You said it! 

You don't even have an argument!


----------



## greg273

kasilofhome said:


> And..........you can not change what infringe means.


 Try taking a gun into the county courthouse and see what happens. You can have a conversation with the sheriff over the meaning of 'infringement'.


----------



## greg273

littlejoe said:


> So...you wish to strip away rights, based on how a person looks? You said it!


 Nope.


----------



## kasilofhome

greg273 said:


> Try taking a gun into the county courthouse and see what happens. You can have a conversation with the sheriff over the meaning of 'infringement'.


As a responsible person I do not need a law or a regulation to exact good citzenship. 

Hey, add airport to your list or places with signs that say no guns.


I personal do not own any courthouse, thus since it is held in common and maybe due to the bombings and violence that courthouses took in the 70s taking guns are banned. I do know that guns are allowed on the grounds as walking to a courthouse in celebration of gun rights is not unheard of.

We are respectful and understand that rights come with responcablits.


----------



## kasilofhome

The type of charter of my locality precludes an enforcement of the jurisdiction nature of a sheriff. As I mention there are different rights and responsibility for different types of local government.

Our local government is limited to providing

Schools
Garbage
And 
Roads

We work darn hard to limit the growth of government. The state provides troopers
We citizens developed services areas and we tax ourselves for things beyond what the government is allowed. We own our own hospital as a service area.


----------



## kasilofhome

Jber...Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson 

Soldier in training on base while doing a drill.......mauled by bear...in critical condition 3rd mauling in five days....

Note base is not in the wilderness. Think anchorage....no gun for the the soldier. Got to keep the men safe. ...here's a thought arm the military.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Patchouli said:


> Talk about drinking the Koolaid.  There is no anti-gun agenda. It is a farce dreamed up by conspiracy whackos and whipped up by gun and ammo companies. Do you have any idea how much their sales have sky rocketed since Obama has been in office due to people freaking out over losing their guns and buying up everything they can get their hands on?


Please explain NY SAFE act.


----------



## greg273

kasilofhome said:


> As a responsible person I do not need a law or a regulation to exact good citzenship.
> 
> Hey, add airport to your list or places with signs that say no guns.
> 
> 
> I personal do not own any courthouse, thus since it is held in common and maybe due to the bombings and violence that courthouses took in the 70s taking guns are banned. I do know that guns are allowed on the grounds as walking to a courthouse in celebration of gun rights is not unheard of.
> 
> We are respectful and understand that rights come with responcablits.


 So if a private business had a sign that said 'NO FIREARMS', would you respect that property owners wishes?


----------



## AngusLover

Never mind  Read my answer.


----------



## kasilofhome

greg273 said:


> So if a private business had a sign that said 'NO FIREARMS', would you respect that property owners wishes?


Already stated. Read the post of mine that you quoted.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> So if a private business had a sign that said 'NO FIREARMS', would you respect that property owners wishes?


I would!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Just a quick ?...why is everyone answering all the ?s when ours do NOT get answered?
What do they want?


----------



## TripleD

Tricky Grama said:


> Just a quick ?...why is everyone answering all the ?s when ours do NOT get answered?
> What do they want?


 He never answered mine about what kind of guns HE thinks we should be ALLOWED to own ? I did ask twice !


----------



## beowoulf90

TripleD said:


> He never answered mine about what kind of guns HE thinks we should be ALLOWED to own ? I did ask twice !



And let me add another question;

What is your goal?

These questions need answered by the anti 2A folks..
If you say "but" after reciting the 2A, you are anti 2A..

I think those who want to impose more restrictions on us gun owners should also have to face the same restrictions on their 1A Rights.. Then maybe they would see the truth behind their actions..


----------



## Pops2

I contend that anti gun whackos are doing it to create animosity.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Try taking a gun into the county courthouse and see what happens. You can have a conversation with the sheriff over the meaning of 'infringement'.


I and most of the rest of us are well aware that our rights are indeed being infringed upon by the powers that be. The fact that it happens does NOT change the fact that our 2nd amendment rights are quite clear and specific. The first phrase of the 2nd spells out what rights are being discussed and why these rights should never be infringed upon, and the second phrase clearly states that the government is to never infringe upon them. 

Now, that being said, if the citizens of the several states all agree that these rights are no longer needed for some reason they should exercise another right spelled out in our Constitution.... that would be article five. Its a simple process that the founders used when they felt the need, why not just amend the Constitution legally instead of constantly attempting to redefine its original language?


----------



## JJ Grandits

Tricky Grama said:


> Just a quick ?...why is everyone answering all the ?s when ours do NOT get answered?
> What do they want?


They want to dominate the discussion. Only their opinion matters and our questions do not deserve answers. They are schooling us poor dumb hicks in the proper way of thinking. At least they think so. To everyone else they are merely a pompous rectal orfices flapping their lips. A typical liberal method of debate is to continue spouting the same rhetoric over and over until those they are debating get frustrated and give up. That is when, In their minds, they declare victory.


----------



## JJ Grandits

By the way, don't confuse federal infringment with State or local law. The Federal government can not infringe your rights to own arms. Your State constitution dictates the laws a State may pass. People have more control over State governments and local governments then they do the Federal government. If you do not like the gun laws of one State and can not get them changed you can move to another State. The laws in NY are extremely restrictive. It can take up to two years to gain the "right" to even own a handgun. That's own, not carry. Semi automatic rifles have to be registered with the State. When the owner dies the firearm has to be turned over to the State Police without recompense for its value. Part of the SAFE act also requires a background check to purchase ammunition. You have to list the make, model, and serial number of the firearm you intend to use it in. There have been arbitrary confiscation of firearms by the State as a form of "testing the waters". So please, stop the "Nobody wants to take away all your guns" lying garbage. You embarrass yourselves.


----------



## Cornhusker

greg273 said:


> Not as absurd as thinking the 2nd Amendment protects a 'right' to own Chem, Bio, or Nuke weapons, as some of our posters here ridiculously believe.
> And sure, there is an anti-gun agenda, but its pretty small, about 1% of American think all guns should be banned, according to a recent poll.
> 
> http://www.isidewith.com/poll/3507538


As long as Obama thinks he's Der fuhrer, we are not safe, our rights are for sale and our country is at risk.


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> Like Obamaphobia?





kasilofhome said:


> Start a thread and please explain that.


It's the opposite of Obamaphelia, or more commonly known as Obamatardation


----------



## Cornhusker

kasilofhome said:


> Jber...Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson
> 
> Soldier in training on base while doing a drill.......mauled by bear...in critical condition 3rd mauling in five days....
> 
> Note base is not in the wilderness. Think anchorage....no gun for the the soldier. Got to keep the men safe. ...here's a thought arm the military.


That would frighten weak little liberals


----------



## Cornhusker

JJ Grandits said:


> Please explain NY SAFE act.


I bet you get ignored


----------



## Cornhusker

Tricky Grama said:


> Just a quick ?...why is everyone answering all the ?s when ours do NOT get answered?
> What do they want?





TripleD said:


> He never answered mine about what kind of guns HE thinks we should be ALLOWED to own ? I did ask twice !


They are caught in a lie, they won't answer


----------



## Tricky Grama

JJ Grandits said:


> By the way, don't confuse federal infringment with State or local law. The Federal government can not infringe your rights to own arms. Your State constitution dictates the laws a State may pass. People have more control over State governments and local governments then they do the Federal government. If you do not like the gun laws of one State and can not get them changed you can move to another State. The laws in NY are extremely restrictive. It can take up to two years to gain the "right" to even own a handgun. That's own, not carry. Semi automatic rifles have to be registered with the State. When the owner dies the firearm has to be turned over to the State Police without recompense for its value. Part of the SAFE act also requires a background check to purchase ammunition. You have to list the make, model, and serial number of the firearm you intend to use it in. There have been arbitrary confiscation of firearms by the State as a form of "testing the waters". So please, stop the "Nobody wants to take away all your guns" lying garbage. You embarrass yourselves.












Much tnx, JJ for that info, I knew NY had passed the 'safe' act but didn't pay a lot of attention, b/c we're 'freer' here in TX...gads, think there will be a lot of folks moving? I DO remember that Idiot saying if you have conservative values, we don't want you here...wow.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Cornhusker said:


> They are caught in a lie, they won't answer


Corny, ya got that right!
How about the post about us being paranoid about nothing b/c there's no such thing as anti-gun,its a "conspiracy jacked up by whackos"?? Us whackos have the facts, libs have the Idiotincharge to tell them what they can do.
BWahaha, haven't seen a rebuttal after all the proof...just like usual.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I and most of the rest of us are well aware that our rights are indeed being infringed upon by the powers that be. The fact that it happens does NOT change the fact that our 2nd amendment rights are quite clear and specific. The first phrase of the 2nd spells out what rights are being discussed and why these rights should never be infringed upon, and the second phrase clearly states that the government is to never infringe upon them.


 
So is the courthouse infringing upon your supposed rights by not allowing you to tote a firearm? What about convicts in prison? Should they be allowed weapons as well? 
If you believe these things, you are more than welcome to contact your representatives and tell them to change them. Don't expect much support, but you're free to try. While you're at it, tell them you want your right to carry a nuke into the courthouse as well. 
YOUR interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (doing what you want when you want) obviously does not conform with the interpretations handed down by the Supreme Court, and until you get appointed to the SC, their interpretation is the law.
But hey, do what you want. Just be aware of the consequences of your actions.


----------



## greg273

JJ Grandits said:


> So please, stop the "Nobody wants to take away all your guns" lying garbage. You embarrass yourselves.


 Of course there are some who want to take away your guns, last I checked it was about 1% of Americans. Fortunately, they are a miniscule minority. About as influential as those who think they have free reign to do whatever they want whenever they want. The founding fathers were no anarchists.


----------



## greg273

TripleD said:


> He never answered mine about what kind of guns HE thinks we should be ALLOWED to own ? I did ask twice !


 I answered that many pages back, when I said I draw the line at Chem, Bio, and Nukes, weapons that can kill thousands indiscriminately. Some folks wouldn't even concede that. You want a machine gun? Go for it. No argument from me. Now you want to carry that into a stadium full of people? Im not gonna support that, and if local authorities aren't having it, I am not going to argue with them over that. 
If the time comes where a machine gun in a stadium is necessary, no law to the contrary is going to matter.


----------



## TripleD

Thats all I needed to hear. Thanks.........


----------



## Tricky Grama

So is NY in that 1%...Rhode Island? CT?


----------



## kasilofhome

See the fact the that via states rights Bloomberg is funding the removal of guns nationally state by state. The history of Colorado is being brushed aside and how Bloomberg money cost some sold out political people their job.

Plus this is international site. Some foreign nationals having been raised via a school, and cultural need to have passive people they buy into weak news as that is their normalcy. 

I never really studied Canada till recently. I grew up and lived a good share of my live near the peace bridge. Canada... was like a cousin. In listening to a poster here I wanted to understand what happened so I did some reading...


I found it interesting how children are raised for indoctrination..... shocking... more of a warning on common core.

Well don't trust me. . 
.
Http://www.everyculture.com/BoCo/Canada.htmt#b

Freedom is not for mentally slaves. Herd mentality limits freedom for the alpha. External control is need and that replaces personal responsibility, personal goals and accomplishments. 

It is San to see people who wish to be lead and worse to see the green eye persons who want to rule with alpha power.


----------



## kasilofhome

Greg...We know self control. Gun rights people who believe in the constitution are not the villains or the boogie men of your dreams. They are the reminents of past hero's and men of honor standing guard to protect us from oppression. None are so blind as those who shut their minds to the reality of person in love with power.


----------



## Vash

greg273 said:


> So is the courthouse infringing upon your supposed rights by not allowing you to tote a firearm? *What about convicts in prison? *Should they be allowed weapons as well?
> If you believe these things, you are more than welcome to contact your representatives and tell them to change them. Don't expect much support, but you're free to try. While you're at it, tell them you want your right to carry a nuke into the courthouse as well.
> YOUR interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (doing what you want when you want) obviously does not conform with the interpretations handed down by the Supreme Court, and until you get appointed to the SC, their interpretation is the law.
> But hey, do what you want. Just be aware of the consequences of your actions.


Are you kidding me? Seriously? A prisoner? Someone who has LOST THEIR RIGHTS because they broke the law? Seriously??

Is that the extent of your argument? It's not an infringement if the person LOST THEIR RIGHTS when they commit a crime.

Also Nukes? SERIOUSLY!? Please tell me where and how I can get one of those and I will personally appeal Congress to allow me to keep and bear it. Also, when was the last time a US Citizen used a nuke for ANYTHING legal or otherwise. Go ahead, I'll wait. :facepalm:

I also don't understand why it so difficult to understand "...shall _NOT_ be infringed."


----------



## greg273

Vash said:


> I also don't understand why it so difficult to understand "...shall _NOT_ be infringed."


 How about those in mental wards? Apparently you are ok with infringement of certain peoples rights. Either that or you recognize there are certain instances where guns will not be lawfully allowed. 
Besides, the 2nd amendment is a lot more than that little fragment of a sentence you apparently think is the whole thing.


----------



## kasilofhome

How about infants .... or people in comas ....or...... people on death row.
deathrow.





Come on for your points to be worth respecting they need to be respectable.


----------



## greg273

kasilofhome said:


> Come on for your points to be worth respecting they need to be respectable.


 Exactly! Which is why I ignored so many of your rambling, accusatory posts. When you actually started having a conversation, I responded in kind.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> How about those in mental wards? Apparently you are ok with infringement of certain peoples rights. Either that or you recognize there are certain instances where guns will not be lawfully allowed.
> Besides, the 2nd amendment is a lot more than that little fragment of a sentence you apparently think is the whole thing.


Yes, I am pretty sure everyone is aware that some citizens should never have their rights restored to them.... there are those who are simply not competent enough to bear arms, or to roam the streets freely and be able to enjoy the freedoms that the rest of our "normal" citizens enjoy. This however does not change the meaning nor the intent of our Constitution. It simply means that criminals and mentally deficient people do not get to enjoy all the same freedoms that normal, rational citizens do. Which part of the 2nd amendment do you seem to think overrides its last phrase?


----------



## kasilofhome

Some people give up rights by choices the make in life. That in now way takes away the rights of others.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes, I am pretty sure everyone is aware that some citizens should never have their rights restored to them.... there are those who are simply not competent enough to bear arms, or to roam the streets freely and be able to enjoy the freedoms that the rest of our "normal" citizens enjoy.


 Yeah, so you admit the 2nd is far from 'absolute'. You are admitting that in certain circumstances, certain citizens will not be allowed to carry weapons. Admitting that fact does not make you a slave, an anti-gunner, a nazi, a coward, or any of that other nonsense. It means you are a realist. 

Now back to the OP, if a business says 'NO FIREARMS ALLOWED',and you walk in with a weapon, they can ask you to leave their property. Its as simple as that. They are not 'infringing on your rights'.... Refusing to leave someones property when they ask you is called trespassing.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Yeah, so you admit the 2nd is far from 'absolute'. You are admitting that in certain circumstances, certain citizens will not be allowed to carry weapons. Admitting that fact does not make you a slave, an anti-gunner, a nazi, a coward, or any of that other nonsense. It means you are a realist.
> 
> Now back to the OP, if a business says 'NO FIREARMS ALLOWED',and you walk in with a weapon, they can ask you to leave their property. Its as simple as that. They are not 'infringing on your rights'.... Refusing to leave someones property when they ask you is called trespassing.


I stated no such thing as the second amendment is not absolute... it is absolute. 

If a business owner says no firearms, that is his right, but I dont recall hearing anything about that during these discussions. This thread seems to have evolved into a discussion about second amendment rights, and how our government seems to be ignoring the second amendment.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I stated no such thing as the second amendment is not absolute... it is absolute.


 Whatever your definitions, if you try and carry into a courthouse, you probably won't get far, unless youre licensed. Sounds far from an absolute right to carry 'whatever I want, wherever I want' as you contended earlier.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If a business owner says no firearms, that is his right, but I dont recall hearing anything about that during these discussions.


 You probably don't recall that because it was like 17 pages ago! : ) 

Its all related, though...


----------



## kasilofhome

Greg my rights end when I try to trump your rights 

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT AND YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT

YOUR RIGHTS END WHEN YOU TRUMP THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.. 


See constitution is very truly tolerant. Tolerant in libs world is I trump you now bow to my will. 

Constitutionalist do not bow. History shows us that they withstood hardships to include death so that Greg can say what he wants. No matter how faulty his stand is it is his and he is passionate with it and he is at the same time wrong. 

Being right does not mean that fools in power will not change the nation but the can not take the rights our creator gave us. Our rights maybe blocked by the government but though blocked they are still ours.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Whatever your definitions, if you try and carry into a courthouse, you probably won't get far, unless youre licensed. Sounds far from an absolute right to carry 'whatever I want, wherever I want' as you contended earlier.


As I pointed out to you quite a bit earlier.... I am well aware that our rights are being infringed.... what puzzles me is that you (and others) seem to be perfectly ok with it. :shrug:


----------



## JJ Grandits

JJ Grandits said:


> They want to dominate the discussion. Only their opinion matters and our questions do not deserve answers. They are schooling us poor dumb hicks in the proper way of thinking. At least they think so. To everyone else they are merely a pompous rectal orfices flapping their lips. A typical liberal method of debate is to continue spouting the same rhetoric over and over until those they are debating get frustrated and give up. That is when, In their minds, they declare victory.


Why would you say that?


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Military grade weapons would include Chem, Bio and Nukes. So unless you are prepared to say those are covered under the 2nd Amendment, you will have admitted the 2nd Amendment is not 'absolute'.
> And I am still not buying that 'well regulated's only meaning is well functioning. That is NOT the only meaning, it ALSO means regulated as in RULES and REGULATIONS handed down by officers. You apparently want the second part of the amendment, but want to water down the first part to suit YOUR personal wishes. That would be fine, if you were in any position to do so , as authorized by the USC. Are you?
> As far as infringement, if you are denied the nuke that you think is covered, your right to keep and bear arms has NOT been 'infringed'... considering you are still keeping and bearing arms, just not the ultimate killing tool.
> (a few times in my replies I did write 'USSC', when I really meant USC as in United States Constitution.)
> Back to the 'absolute' thing... Do you agree felons should own weapons? Murderers? Rapists? How about convicts in prison?


I'm prepared to say that the framers did not contemplate either NBC the TV network or NBC the weapons, or the Empire's Death Star. The SCOTUS does not get to rewrite the CONS when something new comes along, they can only apply what is there. It is up to Congress and the people to amend the CONS per the CONS specified method. 

You don't buy the meaning of well-regulated...I offered evidence, where is yours? But really, it does not matter. No matter what the words are about militias, even if we accept your interpretation, the CONS says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And as I have established above, as have a majority of SC justices, 2A is an individual right. 

Your lack of logic on what it means to infringe is scary. Would you say you had free speech if you were allowed to talk about gardening but not the unconstitutional acts of the president? INFRINGE - read it, learn it, study it. Denying some weapons but not others is an infringement. 

Do I think felons should be able to have guns...maybe. Rightly, some felons have their 2A rights restored after serving their sentence, it depends on the crime and how much time has passed. Certainly, felons in prison or probation should have their 2A rights infringed. And once again you demonstrate a lack of understanding and knowledge of the CONS. It is not a long document. Read it, get to know it. This time it is 5A that applies.

The 5th Amendment: *No person shall *be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor *be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law*; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Felons could not be jailed without the 5th Amendment, which gives the state the ability to deprive a citizen of their right to liberty as long as due process is followed. Passing a law that deprives everyone of a right is not due process, but a fair trial is due process. Like your life and liberty, you can not legally have your 2A rights infringed without due process. 

Next.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Try taking a gun into the county courthouse and see what happens. You can have a conversation with the sheriff over the meaning of 'infringement'.


So is your argument similar to Nixon's when he said, "if the president does it, then it is not illegal"? But you believe if the gov't does it, it is not unconstitutional?

As many times as gov't actions have been ruled unconstitutional, why would you believe that? 

Like with the NBC comments, you are confusing reasonable with constitutional. It is reasonable that NBC be limited to the gov't, but that doesn't mean that the framers figured that out 200 years before their invention. So don't ignore the constitution or pretend it says something it does not, amend the constitution to what you think is reasonable.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> So if a private business had a sign that said 'NO FIREARMS', would you respect that property owners wishes?


Yep, and I would gladly take my business elsewhere. Like I won't go in a Target any longer.


----------



## DEKE01

JJ Grandits said:


> By the way, don't confuse federal infringment with State or local law. The Federal government can not infringe your rights to own arms. Your State constitution dictates the laws a State may pass. People have more control over State governments and local governments then they do the Federal government. If you do not like the gun laws of one State and can not get them changed you can move to another State. The laws in NY are extremely restrictive. It can take up to two years to gain the "right" to even own a handgun. That's own, not carry. Semi automatic rifles have to be registered with the State. When the owner dies the firearm has to be turned over to the State Police without recompense for its value. Part of the SAFE act also requires a background check to purchase ammunition. You have to list the make, model, and serial number of the firearm you intend to use it in. There have been arbitrary confiscation of firearms by the State as a form of "testing the waters". So please, stop the "Nobody wants to take away all your guns" lying garbage. You embarrass yourselves.


I predict much of SAFE will be overturned by SCOTUS. In McDonald v Chicago, SCOTUS made clear that the due process clause of 14A means that 2A rights may not be infringed by state and local gov'ts. If you are correct that when an owner dies, the state takes his property without compensation, that is a violation of 5A due process rights.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> How about those in mental wards? Apparently you are ok with infringement of certain peoples rights. Either that or you recognize there are certain instances where guns will not be lawfully allowed.
> Besides, the 2nd amendment is a lot more than that little fragment of a sentence you apparently think is the whole thing.


OK, diagram that sentence for us and tell us what you think it really means. I'll wait.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Yeah, so you admit the 2nd is far from 'absolute'. You are admitting that in certain circumstances, certain citizens will not be allowed to carry weapons. Admitting that fact does not make you a slave, an anti-gunner, a nazi, a coward, or any of that other nonsense. It means you are a realist.
> 
> Now back to the OP, if a business says 'NO FIREARMS ALLOWED',and you walk in with a weapon, they can ask you to leave their property. Its as simple as that. They are not 'infringing on your rights'.... Refusing to leave someones property when they ask you is called trespassing.


2A is absolute until such time as the gov't uses 5A and due process to limit your rights. What is so hard to understand about that?


----------



## beowoulf90

JJ Grandits said:


> By the way, don't confuse federal infringment with State or local law. The Federal government can not infringe your rights to own arms. Your State constitution dictates the laws a State may pass. People have more control over State governments and local governments then they do the Federal government. If you do not like the gun laws of one State and can not get them changed you can move to another State. The laws in NY are extremely restrictive. It can take up to two years to gain the "right" to even own a handgun. That's own, not carry. Semi automatic rifles have to be registered with the State. When the owner dies the firearm has to be turned over to the State Police without recompense for its value. Part of the SAFE act also requires a background check to purchase ammunition. You have to list the make, model, and serial number of the firearm you intend to use it in. There have been arbitrary confiscation of firearms by the State as a form of "testing the waters". So please, stop the "Nobody wants to take away all your guns" lying garbage. You embarrass yourselves.



IF you look at PA's Constitution you will find the following;

Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1 Section 21 "The Right of the Citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned"

Take note that it doesn't limit as to where you can defend yourself or the State, even though places like Philadelphia think otherwise. They were just handed their rears and the courts just ruled that they can't change State law.


----------



## Cornhusker

Nebraska is the same way, even though some of the cities tried to ban guns


> All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, *and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof*. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
> Neb. Const. art. I, sec. 1 (1875);
> Amended 1988, Initiative Measure No. 403.


----------



## Tricky Grama

DEKE01 said:


> I'm prepared to say that the framers did not contemplate either NBC the TV network or NBC the weapons, or the Empire's Death Star. The SCOTUS does not get to rewrite the CONS when something new comes along, they can only apply what is there. It is up to Congress and the people to amend the CONS per the CONS specified method.
> 
> You don't buy the meaning of well-regulated...I offered evidence, where is yours? But really, it does not matter. No matter what the words are about militias, even if we accept your interpretation, the CONS says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And as I have established above, as have a majority of SC justices, 2A is an individual right.
> 
> Your lack of logic on what it means to infringe is scary. Would you say you had free speech if you were allowed to talk about gardening but not the unconstitutional acts of the president? INFRINGE - read it, learn it, study it. Denying some weapons but not others is an infringement.
> 
> Do I think felons should be able to have guns...maybe. Rightly, some felons have their 2A rights restored after serving their sentence, it depends on the crime and how much time has passed. Certainly, felons in prison or probation should have their 2A rights infringed. And once again you demonstrate a lack of understanding and knowledge of the CONS. It is not a long document. Read it, get to know it. This time it is 5A that applies.
> 
> The 5th Amendment: *No person shall *be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor *be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law*; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Felons could not be jailed without the 5th Amendment, which gives the state the ability to deprive a citizen of their right to liberty as long as due process is followed. Passing a law that deprives everyone of a right is not due process, but a fair trial is due process. Like your life and liberty, you can not legally have your 2A rights infringed without due process.
> 
> Next.


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> 2A is absolute until such time as the gov't uses 5A and due process to limit your rights. What is so hard to understand about that?


You can argue it all you want, there are places where you will NOT be allowed to carry a weapon. The 'due process' has already occurred. What is so hard to understand about that? 
So call it 'absolute' in principle, but it is NOT that way in practice. Try and carry a weapon into the courthouse and see what happens. 
You're free to interpret the 2nd Amendment as you see fit, don't expect those actually in position to enforce it to agree with you!


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> You can argue it all you want, there are places where you will NOT be allowed to carry a weapon. The 'due process' has already occurred. What is so hard to understand about that?
> So call it 'absolute' in principle, but it is NOT that way in practice. Try and carry a weapon into the courthouse and see what happens.
> You're free to interpret the 2nd Amendment as you see fit, don't expect those actually in position to enforce it to agree with you!


across the board infringement is NOT due process. You know that and I know that. Of course its not absolute in practice..... thats because our rights have been infringed! If our rights were not being infringed upon we could carry our guns into any courthouse we wanted to without fear of losing them or being incarcerated, which for some reason you seem to be ok with it! I fail to understand why you are not outraged by our governments usurpation of powers not granted to them, and strictly prohibited to them by the Constitution itself. Would you feel the same if you were accused of a serious crime, and denied the right to a trial? it would be ok with you to just have the accuser give their side of the story and you end up locked up for years? no lawyer, no bail, no jury..... ??? When some of us are denied our rights without due process..... nobodys rights are safe.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> across the board infringement is NOT due process. You know that and I know that. Of course its not absolute in practice..... thats because our rights have been infringed! If our rights were not being infringed upon we could carry our guns into any courthouse we wanted to without fear of losing them or being incarcerated.


 So say you, not the courts. I know, its tough living under such an oppressive , tyrannical regime who would restrict your ability to shoot at judges, but thats the way it is pal.
http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Courthou...px?cat=Firearms+in+Courthouses+and+Courtrooms


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> So say you, not the courts. I know, its tough living under such an oppressive , tyrannical regime who would restrict your ability to shoot at judges, but thats the way it is pal.
> http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Courthou...px?cat=Firearms+in+Courthouses+and+Courtrooms


Who said anything about shooting at judges? That would not only be justifiably illegal but also dangerous.... you might miss and hit an innocent bystander!


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Who said anything about shooting at judges?


 Why play word games? Why else ban guns in a courthouse? Just to trample your rights? Just to 'oppress' you?


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Why play word games? Why else ban guns in a courthouse? Just to trample your rights? Just to 'oppress' you?


Good point..... why ban guns in courthouses? It keeps the judges safe when they send you to prison for umpteen years without granting you your right to a jury trial, your right to an attorney to defend yourself, or any of your other rights. Its all about controlling the people instead of allowing the people to maintain control of government. Ever notice its the courts who are destroying out Constitutional protections.... not the people. Have you seen so much as ONE amendment regarding the peoples right to keep and bear arms after the 2nd amendment was passed and duly ratified??? nope.... thats all being done by judges issuing court rulings.


----------



## Evons hubby

Oh, one other minor point.... anyone who is in favor of denying me any of my God given rights.... especially ones spelled out in our Constitution is not in my group of "pals".


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Good point..... why ban guns in courthouses? It keeps the judges safe when they send you to prison for umpteen years without granting you your right to a jury trial, your right to an attorney to defend yourself, or any of your other rights.


 Yeah, nothing like adding a murder charge to whatever else you were in court for.


----------



## unregistered353870

I've carried a gun into a courthouse several times...never even thought about it. I wonder if I'm a felon.


----------



## greg273

jtbrandt said:


> I've carried a gun into a courthouse several times...never even thought about it. I wonder if I'm a felon.


 WHo knows, the laws vary from state to state. The county courthouse here has a sheriff at the door and a metal-detector, yours may not.
Looks like Montana frowns upon guns in state and local government buildings...



> Under Montana law, a license to carry a handgun is not valid in any of the following places or circumstances, whether it is issued by Montana, or a person is carrying pursuant to a reciprocity between his or her state of license and Montana:
> 
> 
> While under the influence of an intoxicating substance
> [http://Ez.com/glbs97]
> The portions of a building used for state or local government office


http://www.gunlawsbystate.com/#!/states/montana-gun-laws/criminal-provisions/


----------



## unregistered353870

I also don't have a license to carry...maybe I found a loophole....


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Yeah, nothing like adding a murder charge to whatever else you were in court for.


I find it interesting that you somehow equate the possession of a fire arm with a premeditated intention of using it to commit a crime. Self defense or defense of others is NOT a criminal offense. At least not yet.... but I am sure this too will change given time. I dont know how old you are, but when I was growing up we waited for someone to actually commit a crime before we judged them guilty of anything.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> You can argue it all you want, there are places where you will NOT be allowed to carry a weapon. The 'due process' has already occurred. What is so hard to understand about that?
> So call it 'absolute' in principle, but it is NOT that way in practice. Try and carry a weapon into the courthouse and see what happens.
> You're free to interpret the 2nd Amendment as you see fit, don't expect those actually in position to enforce it to agree with you!


What is hard to understand is that due process requires a legal proceeding according to the established procedures of the USA and that a judge rule that you have violated a law before you can be deprived of life, liberty, or property. That is what the CONS says is the proper procedure. Passing a law that deprives everyone of a right is not due process. What is so hard to understand about that? 

And I fully understand that those in a position to enforce 2A do not agree with me. The mayors of DC and Chicago for years imposed illegal, unconstitutional laws on their citizens. SCOTUS has now slapped them down and in both cases, instead of complying with the constitution, the mayors are trying to subvert the constitution again to deprive their respective citizens of a constitutional right. Petty tyrants, all. 

I don't understand why you keep pointing out instances where our rights are being infringed as somehow proof that it is constitutionally authorized. We agree the gov't will limit our rights in certain places, we are still waiting on you to tell us how it is constitutional.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain why the words about militia in 2A somehow means 2A rights may be infringed.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Why play word games? Why else ban guns in a courthouse? Just to trample your rights? Just to 'oppress' you?


how about there have been instances in court houses where defendants were attacked by friends and family of an aggrieved party. Why are bailiffs in courtrooms armed with guns? For the defense of self and others. That is the same reason I would be armed in a court room. 

Perhaps you need to look deep inside and ask yourself why the only reason you can come up with to be armed is to murder a judge.


----------



## beowoulf90

greg273 said:


> So say you, not the courts. I know, its tough living under such an oppressive , tyrannical regime who would restrict your ability to shoot at judges, but thats the way it is pal.
> http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Courthou...px?cat=Firearms+in+Courthouses+and+Courtrooms



Who said anything about shooting at Judges or anyone else in a court room?

No one!

You automatically seem to think/assume that those who carry a firearm are out to shoot someone. Well that isn't the case for most people. They are carrying a firearm to protect themselves and others.

But then I guess you won't mind if I automatically think/assume you are a pedophile because you looked at some teenage girl walking down the street..
I figure if you are allowed to assume a crime that hasn't happened, then I can do the same to you.. 
Funny how that works.. You want to project your assumptions on others, but I bet you don't like it if I project my assumptions on you...

Oh and what's stopping the Judge from being armed?


----------



## MJsLady

My older brother insists that the only folks allowed to keep arms are those duly registered in a state regulated militia...

I would argue the point with him but it is useless to try.


----------



## beowoulf90

MJsLady said:


> My older brother insists that the only folks allowed to keep arms are those duly registered in a state regulated militia...
> 
> I would argue the point with him but it is useless to try.



Then I can assume he thinks only the Press should have Freedom of Speech?

Just a debating point..


----------



## goatgranny

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I find it interesting that you somehow equate the possession of a fire arm with a premeditated intention of using it to commit a crime. Self defense or defense of others is NOT a criminal offense. At least not yet.... but I am sure this too will change given time. I dont know how old you are, but when I was growing up we waited for someone to actually commit a crime before we judged them guilty of anything.


I agree with you Yvonne's hubby, we are born with 'rights' like the right to self defense, no government can take those rights away although tyrants do try... truly liberated people will not stand for it. Funny how some 'people' think that 'people' can't govern themselves so they elect 'people' to govern them(oxymoron methinks)


----------



## Cornhusker

MJsLady said:


> My older brother insists that the only folks allowed to keep arms are those duly registered in a state regulated militia...
> 
> I would argue the point with him but it is useless to try.


You can't argue with an uninformed person who merely parrots the talking points of the leftist rights grabbers.


----------



## DEKE01

Cornhusker said:


> You can't argue with an uninformed person who merely parrots the talking points of the leftist rights grabbers.


yes you can, we've been doing it for 29 pages so far. :nanner:


----------



## kasilofhome

Anyone notice how violent the mind frame is with some gun haters.

The constant talk about killing and shooting people I find it to toss a few red flags.


----------



## Cornhusker

kasilofhome said:


> Anyone notice how violent the mind frame is with some gun haters.
> 
> The constant talk about killing and shooting people I find it to toss a few red flags.


When violence comes, it's always from the self righteous left


----------



## farmrbrown

MJsLady said:


> My older brother insists that the only folks allowed to keep arms are those duly registered in a state regulated militia...
> 
> I would argue the point with him but it is useless to try.





beowoulf90 said:


> Then I can assume he thinks only the Press should have Freedom of Speech?
> 
> Just a debating point..



Excellent point, although as the previous post indicates, as obvious as the Bill of Rights is written, there are some that refuse to concede it.

As bad as it sounds, I've concluded that it isn't about a misunderstanding, but an underlying threat that goes to the heart of the matter.

The 2nd amendment is probably the single most important one of the whole document. Without it, all others have no real enforceability.
So those that seek to dominate and control know the only way to success is to crack, erode and eventually eliminate that fundamental right.
It isn't that they don't know what it says and means, the anger comes from the fact that they DO know.


----------



## beowoulf90

farmrbrown said:


> Excellent point, although as the previous post indicates, as obvious as the Bill of Rights is written, there are some that refuse to concede it.
> 
> As bad as it sounds, I've concluded that it isn't about a misunderstanding, but an underlying threat that goes to the heart of the matter.
> 
> The 2nd amendment is probably the single most important one of the whole document. Without it, all others have no real enforceability.
> So those that seek to dominate and control know the only way to success is to crack, erode and eventually eliminate that fundamental right.
> It isn't that they don't know what it says and means, the anger comes from the fact that they DO know.


While I agree with what you said above, it is about CONTROL of the people.

My only question is:
Why would an average citizen promote/push for their own loss of Freedom?
They have nothing to gain from giving up their own Freedom & Liberty. They gain no power or control.

Is it a mental issue? 
Is it just a herd mentality?
Are they criminals that want a safer work environment?
Are they Government employees (See above)
Are they that afraid of life that they need to have someone else in control? 

I'm thinking it is the latter. It seems that most anti gun people are afraid of their own shadow and automatically presume guilt of others.


----------



## kasilofhome

beowoulf90 said:


> While I agree with what you said above, it is about CONTROL of the people.
> 
> My only question is:
> Why would an average citizen promote/push for their own loss of Freedom?
> They have nothing to gain from giving up their own Freedom & Liberty. They gain no power or control.
> 
> Is it a mental issue?
> Is it just a herd mentality?
> Are they criminals that want a safer work environment?
> Are they Government employees (See above)
> Are they that afraid of life that they need to have someone else in control?
> 
> I'm thinking it is the latter. It seems that most anti gun people are afraid of their own shadow and automatically presume guilt of others.


You worked that so well.....


Here tricky tricky..... we need an award.
Not because of participating but for achieving.


----------



## Tricky Grama

kasilofhome said:


> You worked that so well.....
> 
> 
> Here tricky tricky..... we need an award.
> Not because of participating but for achieving.


Ok-a 'like' was not enuf?


----------



## Tricky Grama

beowoulf90 said:


> While I agree with what you said above, it is about CONTROL of the people.
> 
> My only question is:
> Why would an average citizen promote/push for their own loss of Freedom?
> They have nothing to gain from giving up their own Freedom & Liberty. They gain no power or control.
> 
> Is it a mental issue?
> Is it just a herd mentality?
> Are they criminals that want a safer work environment?
> Are they Government employees (See above)
> Are they that afraid of life that they need to have someone else in control?
> 
> I'm thinking it is the latter. It seems that most anti gun people are afraid of their own shadow and automatically presume guilt of others.


----------



## kasilofhome

Not when the post just might be the best understanding of why anti gun folk resort to outrageous violent reason that that guns are evil that leave my jaw on the ground.

Hey score one for the gun toting doc in Derbyshire Penn. Proved a doctor can save lives in more ways than one. And as usual the mental case problem was solved quick and on target.


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> And I fully understand that those in a position to enforce 2A do not agree with me.


 Yeah, we noticed. You could have just admitted that 20 pages ago.


----------



## greg273

beowoulf90 said:


> You automatically seem to think/assume that those who carry a firearm are out to shoot someone. Well that isn't the case for most people. They are carrying a firearm to protect themselves and others.


 Never said any such thing. 
If you scroll back, which you probably won't, I started off by saying rifles in the coffee shops and grocery stores was a bad idea, in my humble opinion. Not once did I say anything about 'banning guns' or any of the other nonsense you started projecting. Try reading and responding to the actual posts, not your imaginary version.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Never said any such thing.
> If you scroll back, which you probably won't, I started off by saying rifles in the coffee shops and grocery stores was a bad idea, in my humble opinion. Not once did I say anything about 'banning guns' or any of the other nonsense you started projecting. Try reading and responding to the actual posts, not your imaginary version.


try reading the actual constitution, not your imaginary version. 

How you coming with that explanation of how militias subject to lots of regulations somehow cancels out "shall not" and replaces it with "may" in the following, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> try reading the actual constitution, not your imaginary version.
> 
> How you coming with that explanation of how militias subject to lots of regulations somehow cancels out "shall not" and replaces it with "may" in the following, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


 If there are regulations involved with the militia, then it would stand to reason that you are not granted carte blanche to do what you want, when you want. Why have regulations if not to regulate? Now you want me to believe 'well regulated' means ONLY 'well run'?? Ok, now what kind of effective 'well run' fighting force exists without rules AND regulations? 
DC vs. Heller once again confirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms, what exactly are you advocating for? Let me guess, to do whatever you want, whenever you want'. Sorry, but you're still not carrying a weapon into the courthouse, or into a private business against the owners permission. 'Trespassing' and 'Disturbing the peace' are still against the law in most every jurisdiction.


----------



## kasilofhome

greg273 said:


> If there are regulations involved with the militia, then it would stand to reason that you are not granted carte blanche to do what you want, when you want. Why have regulations if not to regulate? Now you want me to believe 'well regulated' means ONLY 'well run'?? Ok, now what kind of effective 'well run' fighting force exists without rules AND regulations?
> DC vs. Heller once again confirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms, what exactly are you advocating for? Let me guess, to do whatever you want, whenever you want'. Sorry, but you're still not carrying a weapon into the courthouse, or into a private business against the owners permission. 'Trespassing' and 'Disturbing the peace' are still against the law in most every jurisdiction.


Have you read our replays to you? WE RESPECT THAT OUR RIGHTS END WHEN THEY TAKE SOMEONE ELSE RIGHT AWAY. 

IF THE BALL IS NOT MINE I CAN'T CALL THE GAME. PRIVATE PROPRTY RIGHTS INCLUDES GUN OR NO GUN OWNER CALLS
[COLOR="rgb(244, 1[INDENT][COLOR="rgb(244, 164, 96)"][/INDENT]64, 96)"][/COLOR][/COLOR]
Same line that a business owner not the government should select smoking or no smoking or what denies they give employees, or what wage the play , or if they want to bake a cake.


Next. Just as cool, hot, gay,straight, square are word used for years one in reading list should take the time to seek the meaning of word at the time the literature meant when written verses assuming the means are the same as the time it is being read.

To save you time it meant ....The intent on the writers has been confirmed to mean........drum roll please. [COLOR="DarkOrange"[COLOR="SandyBrown"][/COLOR][/COLOR]


WELL TRAINED..NOT SIZE OR TYPE OF EQUIPMENT NOT QUANITY

JUST WELL TRAINED.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> If there are regulations involved with the militia, then it would stand to reason that you are not granted carte blanche to do what you want, when you want. Why have regulations if not to regulate? Now you want me to believe 'well regulated' means ONLY 'well run'?? Ok, now what kind of effective 'well run' fighting force exists without rules AND regulations?
> DC vs. Heller once again confirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms, what exactly are you advocating for? Let me guess, to do whatever you want, whenever you want'. Sorry, but you're still not carrying a weapon into the courthouse, or into a private business against the owners permission. 'Trespassing' and 'Disturbing the peace' are still against the law in most every jurisdiction.


So let me see if I understand you...

You believe that "it stands to reason" that if the gov't can write rules and regulations for the militia, which it is given authority to command, then private citizens not subject to that command can have their gun rights limited even though the constitution clearly says, "shall not be infringed?" 

Does that make sense to you? If it does, please connect the dots and explain it to me. 

Why do you suppose the framers wrote "shall not be infringed" if that is not what they meant? Why not write something along the lines of, "the gov't shall retain the authority to limit the types, numbers, and sizes of weapons the people may have"? 

Does it also "stand to reason" that a citizen's political speech and religion rights can also be limited since the militia can be regulated? 

And why do you believe that within the Bill of Rights, which is focused only on expanding the rights of citizens, that the framers choose to place one item that limits rights? 

You have my attention. If you are logical and persuasive, you might just change my mind.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Yeah, we noticed. You could have just admitted that 20 pages ago.


I was not participating in the thread 20 pages ago. I acknowledged TPTB infringe on our rights throughout this thread, and specifically did so in msg 412. 

If you are so desperate to hang your hat on a win after being proven wrong so many times, I'm sure all the pro 2A folks on this thread will agree with you that TPTB have routinely infringed on our gun rights. :smack 

Once again, you show how much you miss the point. What we have been discussing is what someone should believe when they read, "shall not be infringed." You consistently have shown that you do not care about the constitution and individual rights by choosing to interpret that as "will be infringed by the gov't."

That makes you one of the swine in Animal Farm. If you haven't read that story, I suggest you do so.


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> Once again, you show how much you miss the point. What we have been discussing is what someone should believe when they read, "shall not be infringed."


 You keep acting as if that small sentence fragment is the whole of the Amendment. You cannot separate the pieces... there are no periods in that amendment, it is one sentence... You can argue what it means,as people have done for hundreds of years,but ultimately the ones charged with interpreting it have ruled it is not as permissive as you would like it to be. 
Having said that, I am fully aware the 2nd Amendment was put in place to make sure the population remained armed, and I will agree there have been egregious 'INFRINGEMENTS' on MANY of our rights as laid out in the Constitution... But has this government disarmed you? 
As far as 'Animal Farm', I don't need to re-read it, I have seen firsthand that communism does not work in the real world. Nice dig at calling me a commie elitist though, I expect nothing less from the far-right kooks. 
By the way, the founding fathers weren't anarchists.


----------



## farmrbrown

beowoulf90 said:


> While I agree with what you said above, it is about CONTROL of the people.
> 
> My only question is:
> *Why would an average citizen promote/push for their own loss of Freedom?
> They have nothing to gain from giving up their own Freedom & Liberty. They gain no power or control.*
> 
> Is it a mental issue?
> Is it just a herd mentality?
> Are they criminals that want a safer work environment?
> Are they Government employees (See above)
> Are they that afraid of life that they need to have someone else in control?
> 
> I'm thinking it is the latter. It seems that most anti gun people are afraid of their own shadow and automatically presume guilt of others.




If I had to choose just one that would cover the most people, I'd agree it's the last one - fear.
It seems to be one of the top motivations in the world, along with lust (not necessarily the sexual kind).
In their minds, they already have given up control or lost it somehow.
Rather than assert or regain control of their own lives, they would just as soon see others in the same predicament they are in.

It doesn't make much sense to some of us, our minds don't work that way, and you'll rarely ever hear someone come right out and admit it. Aesop had a tale called Misery loves company that shows how old it is. The times I've heard it admitted was when I was just listening to a story about so-and-so losing a cherished possession or privilege and now having to live "like the rest of us".


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> You keep acting as if that small sentence fragment is the whole of the Amendment. You cannot separate the pieces... there are no periods in that amendment, it is one sentence... You can argue what it means,as people have done for hundreds of years,but ultimately the ones charged with interpreting it have ruled it is not as permissive as you would like it to be.
> Having said that, I am fully aware the 2nd Amendment was put in place to make sure the population remained armed, and I will agree there have been egregious 'INFRINGEMENTS' on MANY of our rights as laid out in the Constitution... But has this government disarmed you?
> As far as 'Animal Farm', I don't need to re-read it, I have seen firsthand that communism does not work in the real world. Nice dig at calling me a commie elitist though, I expect nothing less from the far-right kooks.
> By the way, the founding fathers weren't anarchists.


See, this is why you have such a problem creating a logical argument and not understanding one when you see it. I didn't call you a commie, I was only comparing the gov't double speak aspect...unless all double speakers who think "shall not" means "may" are commies. Since you are far from being alone in the libs-are-double-speakers-dept, the odds are not all of your ilk are commies. 

So why do you think the framers used "shall not"? Were they just a bunch of dumb hicks who didn't know the meaning of the words? And why don't you explain why the first part of the sentence makes the second part null and void? Don't just give me, "it stands to reason," diagram it for me. I think the only reason why you have not, is because you can't. No one can. 

Here's the way I read it, in my own words...

Because the gov't needs a highly trained militia, the people of this country will always have the right to own and carry weapons and the gov't shall not limit this right. 

Your version, at least as it seems to me...

Because the gov't needs a militia, a militia which will be subject to many rules and laws, the people of this country may be allowed to own some guns but not others as the gov't deems appropriate. 

I'm not trying to twist your words, I'm making a sincere effort to understand how you get from your understanding of the first phrase to somehow make the second phrase the opposite from what it says. 

In answer to your question (see I try to answer at least most of your Qs), yes the gov't has disarmed me, repeatedly. I carry concealed almost everywhere, almost all the time. The exceptions are the shower, the pool, and where I would be breaking a law. When I drove into Cali a couple of years ago, with an Cali illegal 19 round mag, I disassembled everything, hid the parts, got thru their checkpoint, and then Fedexed it home when I got to the next town. This past Wednesday, when I was in DC to meet Newt Gingrich at the Heritage foundation, I left the gun at home rather than break the DC laws. I was disarmed and placed at a distinct disadvantage should I have had to defend myself in what is a crime riddled part of DC. When I go to Maryland or New Jersey to play poker (I'm a semi -pro) I leave the gun at home because they will not issue me a CCW or honor my VA or FL permits. My rights have been infringed.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> By the way, the founding fathers weren't anarchists.


Well obviously not, since they created a gov't via the constitution. Why did you bring this up? Do you think I'm an anarchist? Do you think law abiding, armed citizens create anarchy? 

By the way, the founding fathers were not Martians either. I recognize their Martian-ness is irrelevant to the convo, but I thought it might be a game you wanted to play where we toss out irrelevancies.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Hey, Michele Obama says the founding fathers were not born here! Suppose she thinks they're martians?


----------



## Cornhusker

Tricky Grama said:


> Hey, Michele Obama says the founding fathers were not born here! Suppose she thinks their martians?


She left out the part where Barry is not a founding father despite what his moron fan club thinks


----------



## greg273

DEKE01 said:


> In answer to your question (see I try to answer at least most of your Qs), yes the gov't has disarmed me, repeatedly. I carry concealed almost everywhere, almost all the time. The exceptions are the shower, the pool, and where I would be breaking a law. When I drove into Cali a couple of years ago, with an Cali illegal 19 round mag, I disassembled everything, hid the parts, got thru their checkpoint, and then Fedexed it home when I got to the next town. This past Wednesday, when I was in DC to meet Newt Gingrich at the Heritage foundation, I left the gun at home rather than break the DC laws. I was disarmed and placed at a distinct disadvantage should I have had to defend myself in what is a crime riddled part of DC. When I go to Maryland or New Jersey to play poker (I'm a semi -pro) I leave the gun at home because they will not issue me a CCW or honor my VA or FL permits. My rights have been infringed.


 You disarmed yourself, plain and simple.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> You disarmed yourself, plain and simple.


Really?

The laws had nothing to do with it?
The talk about anarchists is now a little hypocritical, is it not?

You obey the law, you did it to yourself.
You refuse to disarm by breaking the law and you are now an anarchist.
The perfect no win situation that the gun control crowd likes to see.


----------



## Tricky Grama

DEKE01 said:


> So let me see if I understand you...
> 
> You believe that "it stands to reason" that if the gov't can write rules and regulations for the militia, which it is given authority to command, then private citizens not subject to that command can have their gun rights limited even though the constitution clearly says, "shall not be infringed?"
> 
> Does that make sense to you? If it does, please connect the dots and explain it to me.
> 
> Why do you suppose the framers wrote "shall not be infringed" if that is not what they meant? Why not write something along the lines of, "the gov't shall retain the authority to limit the types, numbers, and sizes of weapons the people may have"?
> 
> Does it also "stand to reason" that a citizen's political speech and religion rights can also be limited since the militia can be regulated?
> 
> And why do you believe that within the Bill of Rights, which is focused only on expanding the rights of citizens, that the framers choose to place one item that limits rights?
> 
> You have my attention. If you are logical and persuasive, you might just change my mind.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> Really?
> 
> The laws had nothing to do with it?
> The talk about anarchists is now a little hypocritical, is it not?
> 
> You obey the law, you did it to yourself.
> You refuse to disarm by breaking the law and you are now an anarchist.
> The perfect no win situation that the gun control crowd likes to see.


 Did the government come and take his guns away?


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> Did the government come and take his guns away?


Not yet.
When that day comes, all the questions, debates, and theories will be useless......
Those that know this, know about the camel's nose. Those in favor of waiting until the Nazis are at the door are part of the enemy's camp.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> You disarmed yourself, plain and simple.


So women who choose rape over being shot and/or beaten are having consensual sex?

So when you ask if the gov't has disarmed me, you mean only in the most narrow sense of the phrase where a gov't official holds me and takes my gun from me?


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> Not yet.
> When that day comes, all the questions, debates, and theories will be useless......
> Those that know this, know about the camel's nose. Those in favor of waiting until the Nazis are at the door are part of the enemy's camp.


 And when that day comes, all the gun laws will be irrelevant. Saying you cant take your pistol to a Newt Gingrich convention or into a stadium is a far cry from a 'disarmed population'.


----------



## farmrbrown

No, it's actually only a faint whisper away.
As I said before, those who want us to drop our guard are in the enemy's camp.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> You keep acting as if that small sentence fragment is the whole of the Amendment. You cannot separate the pieces... there are no periods in that amendment, it is one sentence... You can argue what it means,as people have done for hundreds of years,but ultimately the ones charged with interpreting it have ruled it is not as permissive as you would like it to be.
> Having said that, I am fully aware the 2nd Amendment was put in place to make sure the population remained armed, and I will agree there have been egregious 'INFRINGEMENTS' on MANY of our rights as laid out in the Constitution... But has this government disarmed you?
> As far as 'Animal Farm', I don't need to re-read it, I have seen firsthand that communism does not work in the real world. Nice dig at calling me a commie elitist though, I expect nothing less from the far-right kooks.
> By the way, the founding fathers weren't anarchists.


AMENDMENT II

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.

Ok, There is the amendment in its entirety. Please explain to me which part undermines my interpretation that the peoples rights to keep and bear military type weapons are not to be infringed upon.

To me the first clause defines exactly what kind of weapons are being discussed, (the kind needed and used by any well armed militia) the second clause states WHY they are necessary (to maintain a free country) and the third clause clarifies that the people have this right, (to possess and carry any of said weapons) and the fourth clause distinctly and clearly states that right is NOT TO BE INFRINGED. (infringement means to interfere with)

What am I missing here?

Oh, and YES this government has disarmed us. As far back as the 1920s fully automatic weapons were taken from us.... because the government didnt like the public having the same firepower they had.


----------



## kasilofhome

Look there may come a time when Greg sees the light. He see this as an emotional issue.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> To me the first clause defines exactly what kind of weapons are being discussed, (the kind needed and used by any well armed militia) the second clause states WHY they are necessary (to maintain a free country) and the third clause clarifies that the people have this right, (to possess and carry any of said weapons) and the fourth clause distinctly and clearly states that right is NOT TO BE INFRINGED. (infringement means to interfere with)


 You have your interpretation, the Supreme Court has theirs. 
The 'any weapon anytime anyplace for anyone right' you think that Amendment grants you has been overruled time and time again. If the framers intended there would never be any regulation of firearms, they would have said it plainly and not tied that right to a 'well regulated militia'. 
As far as you being 'disarmed', I am going to guess that if someone tried to break into your house, despite what you have claimed here, they would find a fully armed individual.


----------



## kasilofhome

greg273 said:


> You have your interpretation, the Supreme Court has theirs.
> The 'any weapon anytime anyplace for anyone right' you think that Amendment grants you has been overruled time and time again. Ifthe framers intended there would never be any regulation of firearms, they would have said it plainly and not tied that right to a 'well regulated militia'.
> As far as you being 'disarmed', I am going to guess that if someone tried to break into your house, despite what you have claimed here, they would find a fully armed individual.




We have the founding fathers words... they were clear .... you just can accept that... 



I can not stand by and do nothing when your false claims may distort the belief of innocent people looking for facts. A lie not called on will become truth to others in time if not exposed.


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> You have your interpretation, the Supreme Court has theirs.
> The 'any weapon anytime anyplace for anyone right' you think that Amendment grants you has been overruled time and time again. If the framers intended there would never be any regulation of firearms, they would have said it plainly and not tied that right to a 'well regulated militia'.
> As far as you being 'disarmed', I am going to guess that if someone tried to break into your house, despite what you have claimed here, they would find a fully armed individual.


You are making that it up that the 2A right is tied to the militia. Any 6th grader can see that the words about militia do not negate the very plainly written words, "Shall not be infringed". The supremes have repeatedly said the right that shall not be infringed is not tied to the militia, that it is an individual right. 

And while you're asking why didn't the framers make it more plain, why did they not say gun rights will be subject to the laws written by fed and/or state law? That's what you are saying the 2A means, why didn't they say it? Why did they say just the opposite?

Why won't you give us, in your own words, a clear and logical meaning of the 2A? You seem so certain of its meaning but you can't put it into words?


----------



## kasilofhome

Maybe some need to win and they are trapped with a loosing hand and still betting the family farm cause to be wrong is harder than changing.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> As far as you being 'disarmed', I am going to guess that if someone tried to break into your house, despite what you have claimed here, they would find a fully armed individual.


Nope.... they would find a partially armed individual.... with only those weapons that the usurpers of power allow me to legally own. They would not find anything close to a fully armed citizen. No automatic weapons, no grenades, no rocket launchers, not even a measly flame thrower or box of dynamite. My collection of "arms" is pretty much useless for any honest to goodness defense against even our local constabulary much less an invasion by some rogue government... be they foreign or domestic. 
For all the good my arms would do in the event of an emergency I might as well figure on going duck hunting.... or maybe a nice wabbit!


----------



## Tricky Grama

DEKE01 said:


> So women who choose rape over being shot and/or beaten are having consensual sex?
> 
> So when you ask if the gov't has disarmed me, you mean only in the most narrow sense of the phrase where a gov't official holds me and takes my gun from me?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Another win for the good guys. DC ban is struck down.

http://joemiller.us/2014/07/judge-s...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-fbbee4b4de-230980529


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Another win for the good guys. DC ban is struck down.
> 
> http://joemiller.us/2014/07/judge-s...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-fbbee4b4de-230980529


I just love a story with a happy ending!


----------



## DEKE01

Tricky Grama said:


> Another win for the good guys. DC ban is struck down.
> 
> http://joemiller.us/2014/07/judge-s...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-fbbee4b4de-230980529


When not on the farm, I live in the DC suburbs, so I've followed the DC gun control debate for a long time. When the DC local pols put in place their revised gun control laws following Heller, they knew what they were doing was unconstitutional and would be over turned. But they also knew that they would be able to get away with violating the constitution for years and that there would be no personal penalty. Chicago did the same thing after McDonald. 

If I violate a law, the gov't fines or imprisons me. If politicians violate the supreme law of the land...nothing...no penalty. It costs pro-constitution groups time and money to fight unconstitutional laws. It costs the taxpayers money to fight what the gov't knows is a losing battle instead of applying those funds to a more beneficial purpose. It infringes upon the freedoms of citizens for years. It is a lose/lose for everyone. It is time those pols went to jail and forever lost the right to hold office...but I know I'm spitting in the wind. That sort of thing would require a constitutional amendment and the pols are never going to require good gov't from themselves.


----------

