Bad idea??
- Thread starter Road Toad
- Start date
- Status
CharlesMorrison
Banned
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Axeanda45
Banned
another of the clueless .... I suppose in your mind someone driving a car down the road would be a bad idea because they just might swerve into the other lane........ Dont ANY of you anti-rights idjits have any sense at all?
I am an anti gunner?? News to me. Oh, and If you would pay maybe just a little attention, you would have noticed the ? at the end of "Bad idea?" That means I was asking a question. I love the way you make such brash, and unfounded claims about others, when in reality, you have no clue at all, including my right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH!! Please do us all a huge favor and crawl back under your rock.
Axeanda45
Banned
You ARE an anti-gunner, YOU dont want others to exercise thier 2nd amendment rights in ways YOU dont approve of....
Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
.
You supposed wrong.
.
It goes far beyond "Bad Idea" straight to Fing STUPID! And you support STUPID.
.
Good luck with that.
Axeanda45
Banned
You anti-gunners give such idiotic examples of how maybe, just maybe someone just MIGHT get hurt by the person exercising his RIGHTS so in YOUR INGRINGING MINDS, he shouldnt ever be allowed to exercise them..... So I gave a perfect example of what YOU ANTIGUNNERS EXAMPLES REALLY STAND FOR...... You idjits cannot see what you are really saying/wanting for someone else who exercises his RIGHTS in a way YOU DO NOT APPROVE OF...... and I am NEVER going to shut up and allow you to say it without being challenged and outed on it...
tcox4freedom
New member
Liberal nanny state infiltrators sooner or later will always expose themselves. They just can't help it. (Their egos are just to big for them to hide long.)
They just don't get the fact that a real 2nd Am supporter wouldn't even start a thread like this because a legal gun range in your yard isn't really thread worthy. (Unless you are "Hickok45" or a libtard faker that objects to it.)
We don't care if somebody wants to legally build a range in his yard. We know that even the best range is only as good as the people using it. Anyone can readily buy bullet traps & backdrops online that will stop a well intended shot round. The biggest danger with any range is the person pulling the trigger. So, it really doesn't make a beggars damn difference if a legal range is in someone's front yard, backyard, basement or inside or outside. If somebody wants to endanger others when they shoot they can & the range they are shooting at doesn't matter.
If a range is legal, IT'S LEGAL!
What you, I or anyone else would or would NOT do should even enter into the conversation.
-
More clueless babble. Your pathetic OPINION means nothing.
.
Besides, I have WAY to much ammo and range time to an anti.... ROFLMAO
.
Grow the F up, antigunner... yea right. Its ANTI STUPID NEIGHBOR!
.
smfh
Axeanda45
Banned
Your own words condemning the person with the range in his yard marks you as an anti-rights person, even if you think they do otherwise.... YOU are the one who says that this person shouldnt exercise HIS RIGHTS because you dont like or approve of the way he does it... THAT makes YOU the ANTI-RIGHTS and ANTI-GUNNER here..... If you want people to respect your opinion on RIGHTS, you MUST allow others the RIGHT to exercise their whatever way THEY choose to, even if you do not like it, otherwise you prove you are even worse than leftist liberal gun haters.....
S&W645
NRA Life Member
Even though you called me an anti-gunner, show me the proof. You are so stuck on what you think that you can't even read what people link to or write. It is you who are out of line. There are laws on the book that cover the property area. Don't like it, get them changed. There are rights and there are rights. When two rights conflict, one wins and one loses. As it is, his actions have now put all safe ranges in residential areas also at risk.
This is what was voted on and recorded in the House in Sept, 1789.
This is what was voted on and recorded in the House in Sept, 1789.
It went out to the states as:
In 1791, this is what had been approved.
Again, show me where use of the firearms on private property is mentioned as a right in the Second Amendment for anything but defense of self, others, or state. Want it there, change the Amendment but I wouldn't touch it as written. You'd end up losing more than gaining as true anti-gunners would strip you of the whole. That is the danger of a Constitutional Convention or a new Amendment to change the Second as written. Article 1 has never been approved, Article 2 was finally approved as the 27th Amendment, and Articles 3 to 12 were renumbered as 1st thru 10th Amendments. No one has ever said he didn't have the right to self defense. No one has ever said he didn't have the right to build a range in his yard. But everyone who isn't a rabid runner of the mouth about "Rights" has looked at what the laws are and has seen that his use is not unregulated. And if you had looked at Florida law, you would have seen that a range inside his house was even outside the state's controlling law on firearms in residential areas. But noise is regulated. And so can safety be.
Axeanda45
Banned
And yet MORE PROOF that you dont know an effing thing about RIGHTS....
Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
S&W645
NRA Life Member
Like I said many times before, prove me wrong. All you have is your opinion with nothing to back it up.
Axeanda45
Banned
The Constitution and the BOR back me up you effing moron....
Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
Rhino
New member
Are you really that insistent about insults rather than discussion? No, my argument isn't about feeling. What I'm saying is that whether or not you or I or anyone else considers rights to be an issue in the argument, if others do, and if they successfully interject their own rights based argument into the legal debate, then you simply can't dismiss the argument over rights. If you ignore it, then you lose by default. You may be absolutely 100% correct that their argument is based on feelings rather than on any legal principle whatsoever, but if they present any such argument that gains legs in the legal system, and we've seen it happen countless times, you can't simply ignore the argument. You have to fight it or you lose. So please don't misunderstand my point. Even feelings can screw you over in court if they hire a good lawyer and you're foolish enough to ignore the argument they make, no matter how illogical you feel that argument to be.
.
EDIT: I've been away for awhile, and going back and reading over a few posts I'm guessing you assume I'm being adversarial simply because you're getting a lot of that here. That isn't the case. I think Mr. Carannate is perfectly within his rights to build the range. He probably won't win any neighbor of the year awards though, and I'd be willing to bet it won't be long until St. Petersburg passes an ordinance prohibiting the firing of guns within the city limits, so this may be a self defeating proposition for him. I also absolutely agree there is no right to be without fear, but there will be no end to the number of people who will try to turn fear into an issue of public safety. That kind of distortion is the bread and butter of anti-gunners.
S&W645
NRA Life Member
790.33 is the Statute that sets out the law that St Pete, by state law, cannot write any firearms laws, codes, ordinances. Neither can the county. If they do, it can hit them in the pocketbook at the rate of $5000 plus legal cost per person involved in writing and trying to enforce it. Each time they try to do it. And not on the public's dime. That law was passed only a couple years ago as before, the law had no penalties even though it said they were preempted from doing so. The cities and counties in Florida scrambled to get their firearms laws off of the books once the first lawsuit was filed. They can and have written noise control laws, as has Pinellas County. The State wrote the law on residential area firearms use and safety, 790.15. There is no law on the books saying he can't have a safe quiet range, yet, in his yard. There isn't any laws saying he can't carry his arms loaded on his property for any purpose. There is no law on the books that says he can't use a firearm for self defense inside the city limits.
- Status
