[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m against no-restriction.
I think we can all agree on that.
I know four NRA members who believe the right to carry a rifle and or hand gun in public is guaranteed.[/quote]
Provided they file the paperwork for a permit, so do I.
Would be six if I was an NRA member.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m against no-restriction.
I think we can all agree on that.
I know four NRA members who believe the right to carry a rifle and or hand gun in public is guaranteed.
Five.[/quote]
Six
[quote]tom63 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m against no-restriction.
I think we can all agree on that.
I know four NRA members who believe the right to carry a rifle and or hand gun in public is guaranteed.
Five.
Six
[/quote]
Maybe this could get out of hand but…
Seven.
And I think the absurd prohibitions against things like switchblades and fully-automatic firearms are equally offensive.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
What is so gd difficult about understanding that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”?
If you can’t openly walk around with them you aint a-bearin’ 'em.
"Keep"ing means keeping 'em. "Bear"ing means bearing 'em. This is not Einstein’s theory of relativity.
And don’t get into the whole “that’s referring to the militia/National Guard/armed services” bullshit. That has been thoroughly debunked. That “living document” nonsense needs to be flushed down the sewer. You can’t be intellectually honest and buy that stuff…I mean, bullshit.[/quote]
I believe in “Vermont Carry” also. IMHO there is too much variable for corruption and favoritism in most CCW systems…Florida vs. California/NYC for example, Florida being the most practical “if you must” have a CCW sytem in place, California being the worst (next to maybe NYC) in that CA does not recognize any other states permits, and most counties in CA flat out refuse to issue permits, in contravention to the law (think San Francisco for example, where it it impossible to carry legally because they simply dont like guns there, and have been gettin’ away with this for years, but of course, all the criminals are armed and abuse and kill their unarmed prey with impunity in the Bay Area and Los Angeles area with regularity. The media loves victims, makes good news)…No, Vermont style is where it’s at, Baby…
[quote]Blacksnake wrote:
pushharder wrote:
What is so gd difficult about understanding that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”?
If you can’t openly walk around with them you aint a-bearin’ 'em.
"Keep"ing means keeping 'em. "Bear"ing means bearing 'em. This is not Einstein’s theory of relativity.
And don’t get into the whole “that’s referring to the militia/National Guard/armed services” bullshit. That has been thoroughly debunked. That “living document” nonsense needs to be flushed down the sewer. You can’t be intellectually honest and buy that stuff…I mean, bullshit.
I believe in “Vermont Carry” also. IMHO there is too much variable for corruption and favoritism in most CCW systems…Florida vs. California/NYC for example, Florida being the most practical “if you must” have a CCW sytem in place, California being the worst (next to maybe NYC) in that CA does not recognize any other states permits, and most counties in CA flat out refuse to issue permits, in contravention to the law (think San Francisco for example, where it it impossible to carry legally because they simply dont like guns there, and have been gettin’ away with this for years, but of course, all the criminals are armed and abuse and kill their unarmed prey with impunity in the Bay Area and Los Angeles area with regularity. The media loves victims, makes good news)…No, Vermont style is where it’s at, Baby…
[/quote]
All so true. Pa has a carry system and it’s cheap. 19$ and maybe a few other fees that don’t add up to a lot. It’s for five years and we have reciprocity with a lot of other states, combined with the states that allow Pa., it might be twenty.
[quote]Magnate wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m against no-restriction.
I think we can all agree on that.
I know four NRA members who believe the right to carry a rifle and or hand gun in public is guaranteed.
Provided they file the paperwork for a permit, so do I.
Would be six if I was an NRA member.[/quote]
Does Second Amendment Foundation count? The right to carry is a basic human right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Being mentally ill or a violent felon divests you of the right to carry. In 34 states, all someone has to do is apply for a permit and they’ve got it, unless they are otherwise disqualified.
The bottom line is that most gun crime is committed by a small subset of the population. They (not properly permitted concealed weapon carriers) are the exception, not the rule.
mike
I never knew there were so many people who thought registered felons should be able to walk up and buy a gun and bullets, and brandish them in public without hassle.
/shrug/
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I never knew there were so many people who thought registered felons should be able to walk up and buy a gun and bullets, and brandish them in public without hassle.
/shrug/[/quote]
Yes, thats exactly what everyone is saying in this thread.
[quote]Defekt wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I never knew there were so many people who thought registered felons should be able to walk up and buy a gun and bullets, and brandish them in public without hassle.
/shrug/
Yes, thats exactly what everyone is saying in this thread. [/quote]
“Felon” is a hyperbolic that can be abused depending upon the context, particularly in the firearms debate. These days, having a stinkin’ vial of test Cyp and a bottle of D-Bol can make you a “felon”, just like back in the 1920’s having a Beer in the wrong place could do the same.
Being a violent criminal sociopathic misfit menace to society willing to carry a firearm with the intention of comitting crime and depredations upon the general public is several orders of magnitude different from some schmoe who’s package of marijuana brownies or AAS got him busted by Postal Inspectors and the DEA or, for example, tarring a law-abiding CCW holding citizen with the same brush.
So please stop with the bait and switch the arguments to make it look like pro-rights individuals are in love with violent “real” criminals, when the intent is to defend against such scum: that, Sir, is an intellectually dishonest line of argument…
[quote]Defekt wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I never knew there were so many people who thought registered felons should be able to walk up and buy a gun and bullets, and brandish them in public without hassle.
/shrug/
Yes, thats exactly what everyone is saying in this thread. [/quote]
I was clarifying exaclty what was meant by “unrestricted ownership”.
These are four guys who think now released murderers have every right to own a pistol and brandish it in public.
Just warning everyone who exactly they were associating with when they said 5, 6, 7, and 8.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I was clarifying exaclty what was meant by “unrestricted ownership”.
These are four guys who think now released murderers have every right to own a pistol and brandish it in public.
[/quote]
Then you need to go have a conversation with those four guys. Everyone here has already done everything they can to set you straight. You refuse to listen, or you can’t read, either way this conversation has gotten pointless.
…I make a reference to four red-neck morons and you assume I’m associating them with everyone here.
I like the gun laws just the way they are now. I don’t want any less or any more restriction.
I’d just like to see weapons manufacturers take a bigger fall when they’ve been selling guns in bulk to guys who don’t have a license to sell them.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Defekt wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I never knew there were so many people who thought registered felons should be able to walk up and buy a gun and bullets, and brandish them in public without hassle.
/shrug/
Yes, thats exactly what everyone is saying in this thread.
I was clarifying exaclty what was meant by “unrestricted ownership”.
These are four guys who think now released murderers have every right to own a pistol and brandish it in public.
Just warning everyone who exactly they were associating with when they said 5, 6, 7, and 8.[/quote]
If we cannot trust a person to be a responsible citizen, should he be out of prison in the first place? We’ve had folks who were 3/5 of a person before and it didn’t work out so well.
mike
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I like the gun laws just the way they are now. I don’t want any less or any more restriction.
[/quote]
Really? So you think that it’s okay to throw a man in prison because his AK-47 has a foreign made disconnector or buttstock, causing him to have too many foreign made parts in it? You think it’s okay to send a man to federal fuck me in the ass prison because his double barreled shotgun malfunctioned and fired both barrels with one trigger pull, causing him to have an unregistered “machine gun”? Do you think it’s okay that here in Idaho a man had his wife shot by an FBI sniper while breastfeeding her child because he didn’t pay a $300 tax stamp on a shotgun that was 1" too short? I recommend you take a look at current firearms legislation before assuming it’s okay.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Do you think it’s okay that here in Idaho a man had his wife shot by an FBI sniper while breastfeeding her child because he didn’t pay a $300 tax stamp on a shotgun that was 1" too short?
mike[/quote]
Can you elaborate or link to a news story? Not calling bullshit, just wanting to read more.
