BluesStringer
Les Brers
Sorry, you're just wrong on the facts. It wasn't the legal carrying of any long guns that has "resulted" in businesses banning weapons in their establishments. The demonstrations had been going on without a hitch for about a year before the Chipotle thing blew up. You say it was the carriers that blew it up, but the fact is, it was Moms Demand Action who inserted themselves at the corporate level to put pressure on the stores in TX that never had a problem with the demos at the local level. You're blaming the victims of a well-planned and well-funded propaganda campaign, and as such, there is no clear distinction between your position and those propaganda-spreading Mommies, so you coming here and accepting their lies as fact while telling us all you've done and spent to uphold the 2A rings hollow over here. You don't support the 2A by accepting the propaganda of anti-2A activists against gun rights activists who have acted perfectly legally, sought and received permission for every entry they made into the businesses they patronized as a way of saying thanks for supporting them in their efforts, when all that was going on for many months with no problems between demonstrators, customers or store managements. You're being manipulated by a bunch of neophyte anti-gun-rights freakin' soccer moms, and misstating what happened by blaming it all on law-abiding pro-gun-activists just because you don't like the way they go about making their case for common sense laws in TX. If you're going to side with the Mommies, you're going to be connected at the hip with them on this forum every time you allow them to get away with being the impetus for all this and blame it on the gun owners who are actually doing something besides kickin' back on the sofa with their feet up on the coffee table and sending their money to the N R A so they can say they're "doing something!"
Good grief, how much slower could we go? The unconstitutional National Firearms Act has been around since 1934 and only been strengthened by subsequent unconstitutional legislation. It was 2008 before the Supreme Court gathered the testicular fortitude to even take a case that would inevitably lead to ruling on the individual right vs. the phony collective right meme. How much slower do you want us to go? Should we really make the really really strong push after every gun in America has been registered and all transfers require permissions from ATF?
I actually love it when someone compares me to Rambo (maybe Charles does too, I don't know). It shows how little the person doing the comparisons knows about who the character in the movie really was. He wanted no trouble. He went hungry trying to avoid trouble, but the local goons wouldn't let him leave. He went through the indignity of being arrested for nothing without hurting anybody. It wasn't until the big, fat, dumb cop started trying to choke him out with a billy club, after first hosing him down with a freakin' fire hose, that he defended himself and still just tried to get away and head for the woods without hurting anybody. That whole first movie was him trying to get away from trouble and the powers that be just refusing to let him, from beginning to end.
Now, if you are saying that you're comparing the TX OC'ers to the real Rambo character, I can agree with that. They are in the right. They have the law on their side. No one has been harmed by them, and the new, influential powers that be, the Mommies, just won't leave them alone! Even though like the real Rambo character, they have the means with which to defend themselves that they have refrained from even talking about bringing to bear!
Your metaphors really need some work, and your knowledge of the facts do too.
Utter nonsense. You said "full auto weapon" like it would be illegal to carry even if legally owned. Now you're mixing it up knowing ahead of time that full autos aren't illegal to carry everywhere, but include weapons that are both illegal to own and/or carry under any circumstances. There's an implied assumption of abiding by the law when a law-abiding citizen says he'll carry what he wants (that's legal) wherever he wants (that's legal). Now you're trying to equate carrying of weapons that you don't approve of being carried in public with criminality. Oh, but you "fully support the 2A," right? The guys and gals in TX haven't done one illegal thing, but you (wrongly) equate them with what you perceive a movie character to be, which is some bloodthirsty, wanton killer. Oh, but you "fully support the 2A," right?
Pffft.
Later Mommie Olinb.
Blues
