open carry

[Leader]

Why on earth are you people playing his game?

 

[NotTwoShure]

I know.

Why on earth are you people playing his game?

 

[NavyLCDR]

There's only 2 sides. Restrictions and no restrictions. If you firmly believe no restrictions what so ever that means you think it's ok for a 12 year old autistic child should be able to walk into Walmart buy a gun and ammo, strap up and go off into a heavily populated. If you believe a 12 year old autistic child should not be able to purchase, and carry a loaded firearm then you can't be for 100% "0" restrictions. It's a coin. There are only 2 sides. No grey area.

Being 100% pro restrictions on carrying loaded firearms in public does not mean that you're pro restriction of 100% ban on firearms. I know this all may be tough to comprehend. Try reading this twice. That helps my little sister.

So, what you are telling us is that you think nobody should be allowed to carry loaded firearms in public. Does that mean police officers too? After all, you are more likely to be shot as an innocent bystander by a police officer than Joe Citizen carrying a gun.

 

[MHas]

Not at all. Any American citizen over the age of 18, with no criminal record and has never been committed to a psychiatric hospital should have every "right" to carry a loaded firearm in public. Pistol, long gun, open carry, concealed whatever.

 

[MHas]

People who are required to carry for a job are automatically "allowed" as stated in one of my previous post.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

First off, don't you feel that ones opinion should be subject to change when introduced to new knowledge, facts, stats and other people's thoughts? The more I think about it the more I think you guys are right. There should be no restrictions on who can carry a loaded firearm in public. Everyone should have loaded handguns hanging off their belts. Good guys, bad guys, law enforcement... It'll be just like the Wild West. This worked out great in the 1800s. Secondly, I would say that a person who thinks one shouldn't be entitled to change there point of view and opinion based on new evidence and facts is more ignorant than a person who voiced their opinion, learned new things, heard others opinions and was slightly persuaded to understand the other sides point of view.

Link Removed

 

[CharlesMorrison]

I just think it's crazy that you all think that any man, women or child regardless of age, mental health issues or criminal history should be able to legally purchase a firearm and carry it loaded in a public area with people around. Anyone of you who wants to say something about age, don't waste your time. This whole time every one of you has preached to me "it's your god given right" bla bla bla "any restriction is a violation of my 2nd amendment" bla bla bla...no restrictions!!! Lets round up some children with autism and Down syndrome, arm them with Glocks and set them loose in a heavily populated area. If idea, statement or comment on this forum is "stupid" it's is the fact anyone of you would justify this scenario and tell me "0" restrictions on who can legally purchase and carry loaded firearms in public. I guess all us blue-bellied Yankee scum should expect such idiotic thoughts to come from a culture and heritage who also thought owning slaves was also their "god given right".

Your MDA is showing...
Link Removed

 

[Fallschirmjäger]

By not allowing them to walk into a Walmart, bassproshops or other gun store and purchase a firearm at their will reduces their accessibility to firearms.

Sure, just like it reduces their ability to purchase meth, marijuana, heroin, PCP and other banned substances.


Bless ya heart.

 

[tcox4freedom]

Not at all. Any American citizen over the age of 18, with no criminal record and has never been committed to a psychiatric hospital should have every "right" to carry a loaded firearm in public. Pistol, long gun, open carry, concealed whatever.

What about people that checked themselves into a hospital because of depression, PTSD or something similar; but are OK now?

I just think it's crazy that you all think that any man, women or child regardless of age, mental health issues or criminal history should be able to legally purchase a firearm and carry it loaded in a public area with people around. Anyone of you who wants to say something about age, don't waste your time. This whole time every one of you has preached to me "it's your god given right" bla bla bla "any restriction is a violation of my 2nd amendment" bla bla bla...no restrictions!!! Lets round up some children with autism and Down syndrome, arm them with Glocks and set them loose in a heavily populated area. If idea, statement or comment on this forum is "stupid" it's is the fact anyone of you would justify this scenario and tell me "0" restrictions on who can legally purchase and carry loaded firearms in public. I guess all us blue-bellied Yankee scum should expect such idiotic thoughts to come from a culture and heritage who also thought owning slaves was also their "god given right".

Why are you so prejudiced against people with autism & down syndrome?

Some people with autism or DS are functional adults. I have a cousin who is autistic and I find your BIGOTRY to be highly offensive!


You've already told us that you think people with autism or down syndrome are worth protecting & saving. So, who else in your minuscule liberal mind should not be allowed to defend themselves against the BGs on the streets?

(I know, maybe we should just euthanize people with autism & down syndrome. That way we protect them from living life as a victim.) ​

Maybe while you're playing king dictator you can tell us if these people should or should NOT be able to protect themselves-

• What about people with Cerebral Palsy?
• What about people with MS?
• What about people with chronic pain who have to take RX meds that may cause depression?

Where do you draw the line?

Who decides who else can own & carry a firearm? (people like you?) NO THANKS!

You seem like typical libturd, calling other people out, yet refusing to look at your own shortcomings. I suggest you back away from the keyboard and spend some time looking into the darkness of your own soul.

The only "line" should be the Constitution IMHO. (If you are a free man you can own & bear arms.)


-

 

[MHas]

What about people that checked themselves into a hospital because of depression, PTSD or something similar; but are OK now?





Why are you so prejudiced against people with autism & down syndrome?

Some people with autism or DS are functional adults. I have a cousin who is autistic and I find your BIGOTRY to be highly offensive!


You've already told us that you think people with autism or down syndrome are worth protecting & saving. So, who else in your minuscule liberal mind should not be allowed to defend themselves against the BGs on the streets?

(I know, maybe we should just euthanize people with autism & down syndrome. That way we protect them from living life as a victim.) ​

Maybe while you're playing king dictator you can tell us if these people should or should NOT be able to protect themselves-

• What about people with Cerebral Palsy?
• What about people with MS?
• What about people with chronic pain who have to take RX meds that may cause depression?

Where do you draw the line?

Who decides who else can own & carry a firearm? (people like you?) NO THANKS!

You seem like typical libturd, calling other people out, yet refusing to look at your own shortcomings. I suggest you back away from the keyboard and spend some time looking into the darkness of your own soul.

The only "line" should be the Constitution IMHO. (If you are a free man you can own & bear arms.)


-

I'm pretty sure I specifically said " involuntary commitments " in a previous post. it's all spelled out for you in MA. State law. I'm sure you're smart enough to google it. Maybe not. The chief of police of the town you reside in determines wether or not a person is "allowed" to carry a loaded firearm in public. Once again it's all written in MA. State law. Anyone that has a question about my how I feel a state should issue a LTC. Look up the MA. Process. I agree with it 100% and base all my post, thoughts, feelings, on this topic, on the way MA. laws are written. Save your time and read it yourselves. That way when I miss a detail you won't need to waste your time and mine.

 

[Firefighterchen]

The chief of police of the town you reside in determines wether or not a person is "allowed" to carry a loaded firearm in public.

...

I agree with it 100% and base all my post, thoughts, feelings, on this topic, on the way MA. laws are written.

More of your "not strict gun laws." wow...

Don't bite the hand that feeds you...

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Inglorious Basterd]

Can we all hug now?

 

[maybejim]

I'm pretty sure I specifically said " involuntary commitments " in a previous post. it's all spelled out for you in MA. State law. I'm sure you're smart enough to google it. Maybe not. The chief of police of the town you reside in determines wether or not a person is "allowed" to carry a loaded firearm in public. Once again it's all written in MA. State law. Anyone that has a question about my how I feel a state should issue a LTC. Look up the MA. Process. I agree with it 100% and base all my post, thoughts, feelings, on this topic, on the way MA. laws are written. Save your time and read it yourselves. That way when I miss a detail you won't need to waste your time and mine.

No state should "issue a LTC" (or CCW or whatever they call it). All states should follow the Constitution with Constitutional carry. It has worked well in Vermont.

 

[Firefighterchen]

No state should "issue a LTC" (or CCW or whatever they call it). All states should follow the Constitution with Constitutional carry. It has worked well in Vermont.

There were hundreds of Washingtonians who burned their permits at the last rally.

 

[MHas]

Make that 98% I disagree with the ban on open carry of long guns and the states definition of an assault weapon. Other then that the officials that were elected by the people have done a good job writing the gun laws and restriction in the best interest of the general public and have made public safety a priority. Hey, who doesn't want to live like a cowboy in the 1800s where everyone carried a gun. (Even tho there where plenty of towns back then that found this to be a problem and banned firearms in city limits). I guess us Yankees can only see the big picture and don't have tunnel vision on the small picture. I 100% can see where you guys are coming from but in this day and age your "opinion" doesn't fit modern society's best interest. I'm just glad the law agrees with me and you guys can type your opinions till your fingers falls off but it won't change anything where I live. For those people who think convicted rapist, robbers, other criminals and people that are unfit to carry a loaded firearm legally in public keep voting for it. For those of you in states who already have laws allowing people without a license to carry loaded firearms in public, what are you complaining about. The majority of the people in your state must agree with you. What works for one state may not work for another state. That's the beautiful thing about our government. I'm about as right wing as you can get but I guess I agree with the liberal hippie d*** sucks in MA. When it comes to the gun laws in my state.

 

[MHas]

I guess all these "strict" gun laws in MA. Don't bother me because I have been issued the highest level LTC you can get. I can carry open/concealed anywhere I want in this state. Including bars and resteraunts that serve alcohol. Maybe the criminals have a problem with laws.

 

[maybejim]

All these liberals think they live in a "special" state where they need "special" laws to be safe. Since their states citizens are predominately liberal maybe they are correct. Of course it would be more to the point to make the laws just apply to the liberals who can't seem to handle freedom and liberty. Why penalize normal people for the problems of the abnormal?

 

[BluesStringer]

I'm about as right wing as you can get but I guess I agree with the liberal hippie d*** sucks in MA. When it comes to the gun laws in my state.

As far as acceptance of opinions that vary widely between folks on a gun forum, that right there is pretty much a deal-breaker. Enjoy your solitude.

Blues

 

[Firefighterchen]

Make that 98% I disagree with the ban on open carry of long guns and the states definition of an assault weapon. Other then that the officials that were elected by the people have done a good job writing the gun laws and restriction in the best interest of the general public and have made public safety a priority. Hey, who doesn't want to live like a cowboy in the 1800s where everyone carried a gun. (Even tho there where plenty of towns back then that found this to be a problem and banned firearms in city limits). I guess us Yankees can only see the big picture and don't have tunnel vision on the small picture. I 100% can see where you guys are coming from but in this day and age your "opinion" doesn't fit modern society's best interest. I'm just glad the law agrees with me and you guys can type your opinions till your fingers falls off but it won't change anything where I live. For those people who think convicted rapist, robbers, other criminals and people that are unfit to carry a loaded firearm legally in public keep voting for it. For those of you in states who already have laws allowing people without a license to carry loaded firearms in public, what are you complaining about. The majority of the people in your state must agree with you. What works for one state may not work for another state. That's the beautiful thing about our government. I'm about as right wing as you can get but I guess I agree with the liberal hippie d*** sucks in MA. When it comes to the gun laws in my state.

What a communist.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[MHas]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.