Lip services are the key words with MHas. He is a follower and will follow whoever tosses him a scrap that he thinks is tasty at the moment. He has admitted to being a 100% cut and paste person who seems to have very little capacity of original thinking on his own.
open carry
- Thread starter seeley booth
- Start date
Lip services are the key words with MHas. He is a follower and will follow whoever tosses him a scrap that he thinks is tasty at the moment. He has admitted to being a 100% cut and paste person who seems to have very little capacity of original thinking on his own.
mspt_99
New member
Got ya. I followed a Chunk of this thread. I guess not enough to figure out that -new to me -poster behavior.
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using USA Carry mobile app
B
Bikenut
Guest
Please consider the plight of a single mother of 3 kids who works at a crappy low paying job. She is faced with deciding whether to buy food for the table or winter coats for those kids or to pay the government for a permission slip (permit) to carry a gun in order to have the means to protect them from her known to be violent stalker ex husband.
In other words... there are folks out there who cannot afford to pay for that permit like you and I can. Does that make their lives and the lives of their loved ones less important to protect than ours?
There are many young people below the age of 21 (one must be 21 in order to qualify for a concealed carry permit in Michigan) who are considered old enough to go to war and use all kinds of different weaponry like guns, tanks, explosives, but are not considered old enough to qualify for a concealed carry permit. Does that make their lives and the lives of their loved ones less important to protect than ours?
Also there are folks out there who did something stupid in their youth, or even were innocent of the crime they were charged with, but paid their debt to society. Does that make their lives and the lives of their loved ones less important to protect than ours?
And then there are those folks who committed a non violent crime yet their crime is classified as a "felony" making it illegal for them to own or carry a gun. Does that make their lives and the lives of their loved ones less important to protect than ours?
It is the right to defend life... your own and the lives of others....using weapons (click on the blue Link Removed ) that is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Now here is something to consider....gun control making people safer is a bald faced lie because if the folks who want gun control were honest about wanting to make the innocent safe from bad guys with guns they wouldn't be trying to control the guns... they would control the bad guys' ability to access more victims. No victims available equals no harm to victims. Duh!
Gun control doesn't stop bad guys from getting guns and using those guns to hurt innocents. Hell... it doesn't even stop bad guys from hurting innocents with knives, ball bats, rocks, or even fists and feet. What would really protect innocents would be to either kill off the most violent (capitol punishment... a dead bad guy will never hurt anyone ever again) or to lock them up for life. Same thing with violent nuts. So the idea that gun control somehow makes people safe from the violent doesn't have anything to do with protecting innocent people from bad guys with guns but it does have a lot to do with bad guys with guns wanting easy to control disarmed victims.
Who are those bad guys with guns wanting easy to control disarmed victims? They range from robbers to rapists to kidnappers to tyrannical governments. All of them have the desire to control other people... and all of them instinctively understand that an armed person is hard to control because they have the means to fight back.
I'm going to be very blunt....
As for the notion that just because gun control laws don't affect you as long as you can qualify and afford to jump through the hoops? That is a "Hooray for me and sucks to be you." attitude that I am so grateful the people who join the military and fight, some to die and never see another sunrise or drink a cold beer or even have sex (think about the depth of sacrifice there!) ever again just so you and I can sit at our keyboards and talk about what a government infringing upon rights not only really means but why governments infringe upon those rights... especially the right to keep and bear arms.
B
Bikenut
Guest
No... you do NOT have your right to keep and bear arms. You only have the privilege of your government's permission to keep and bear arms. If you had the right itself you would not have to pay the government for that permission slip called a permit.
You mentioned earlier about having the right to eat, sleep, breathe, and excrete... which kinda sums up the right to life. Well... should you have to get mandatory training and a permit to eat? To sleep? To breathe? And to relieve yourself?
If it is a right then you don't have to ask your government for permission. If you have to ask for permission from the government then it isn't a right but is a privilege controlled by... the government.
Bear in mind that when the government controls who is allowed that government also controls who is NOT ALLOWED. All the government need do is to change the criteria (add new restrictive laws) needed to qualify for being allowed in order to eventually make it so only the wealthy powerful elite can meet that criteria effectively making it impossible for commoners to qualify and everyone but the elite ends up NOT ALLOWED.
In other words it is only a matter of time before even you, or your kids, or your grandkids, end up being.............. NOT ALLOWED. The whole idea behind being in control of who is allowed, and who is NOT allowed.... is to be in control.
You guys make great points. I did some thinking. I do believe that every human, whether a US citizen or not, has the "God given right" to protect themselves against any threat of bodily harm. That "right" has been a part of human existence since the dawn of time. Even cavemen had rocks and spears for not only hunting but self defense. I also agree that my "right to bear arms", in this day and age, is not a right but a privilege given to me by the state of Massachusetts. I do not feel a person should have to be issued a "permission slip" by their state to gain their "right". You guys make great points and arguments when you pull your heads out of your a$$ long enough to write a response that isn't belittling to those that have differnt views other then your own. I completely understand the point that in our "right to bear arms" will be in even more jeopardy as more and more firearm regulations become "accepted" by everyday citizens. You guys are good. You've completely changed my views in only a week of talking with you guys. My wife and I love firearms and would love if our daughter shared our live. I would hate to see such regulations get to the point of a firearms ban in the future that would completely remove my daughter's or her children's "right to bear arms". Bikenut thank you for responding in the manor you do. It's alot easier seeing your point of view when I don't feel personally attacked for asking questions or voicing my opinion. I admit I get defensive but that's human nature.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Trolls don't possess human nature.
It's not that I don't have original thoughts. I was just using as many "facts" as I could to back up my arguments. You guys have shown that you can't control your immaturity when someone, who doesn't view the world exactly as you do, post their opinions. I also found it counter productive to try and put articles from the constitution and Supreme Court rulings into "my own words". I'm really sorry you guys feel that someone, when shown new evidence and "proof" that their previous interpretation of the "law" was "false". How do you guys expect gun-control advocates to see your point of view if you guys don't think people have the "right" to change there point of view after hearing such factual and educated responses on gun-freedoms. Seems to me that you'll never win your "battle" with that type of mind set. I apologize for my ability to see issues from another light. Just don't expect anything related to "gun-rights" vs "gun-control" to change if you guys truly feel someone can't change their views.
We don't expect gun-control advocates to see things from our side. We expect to have to fight them. We have tried to work with, cater to, and "compromise" with the antis for more than 100 years and we have only lost the legal ability to exercise our rights a little bit at a time. We present our case to the legislatures and convince them, which has worked well in WA state for decades until Bloomberg and his billionaire buddies buy a people's initiative and cram it down the throats of the lazy armchair voters who vote for what their TV ads and glassy mailers tell them to vote for. And that is why America should not be a majority rule democracy - because the majority can easily be bought to vote for anything. Don't forget, the majority in this country was against ending slavery. The majority in this country was against allowing women to vote. It's the ability to every blue moon to get the politicians to do the right thing - against what the majority thinks - that has kept this country going thus far. But the incidents of politicians doing the right things are getting farther and farther between and this country is going faster and faster right down the toilet.
Changing legislature starts with changing the people. I can't believe you'd say ("We don't expect gun-control advocates to see things from our side. We expect to have to fight them". Copy/paste). What is your "fight" if not to change the view of the people who are pro gun-control. Looks to me like you'd rather continue cry "victim" then help yourself. I see this with battered women a lot.
From the number of people, who carry everyday in MA. that I have talked to about this recently, are all content with the Class A Large Capacity License to Carry Firearms restrictions.
(Licenses will be refused to a person who:
has ever been adjudicated a youthful offender, or convicted as an adult of: a felony, a misdemeanor for which you could have received a sentence of imprisonment for more than two years (which includes OUI after July 1994), a “violent crime,” a violation of a gun law for which jail time could have been imposed, or a violation of a drug law;
has been confined to a hospital or institution for mental illness, or a person who has been under treatment for or confinement for drug addiction or habitual drunkenness, unless submitted with an affidavit from a physician;
is the subject of a restraining order;
is under 21 years of age;
is the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant in any state or federal jurisdiction.
Copy/paste)
I guess we feel keeping loading firearms, in public, out of the hands of people whole fall under these restrictions is for the "greater good" whether you guys feel it's "unconstitutional" or not. The "greater good" is for the people of state to decide.
I know the Supreme Court has ruled such restrictions do not infringe on your 2nd amendment rights.
In Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894), The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws such as the Texas.
I guess the people of Massachusetts feel the way the souther colonies felt at the start of the revolutionary war. Why should we let a few "injustices" in another part of the country effect our way of life.
The southern colonies took a lot of convincing to join the war. I suggest you change your causes mission objective from being childish, immature A-Holes to respectively changing the minds of your fellow citizens who oppose your cause. This is a new revolution! I suggest you take it a little more serious then posting cartoon characters and jokes.
You can sit there and snicker at each others childish remarks but you'll never win a revolution if you can't convince the people your cause is worthy.
(From the Patriot's perspective, the Loyalists were traitors who would not support the rebel's cause and collaborated with what they thought was an oppressive British government. Whereas from the Loyalist perspective, they were the honorable ones who stood by the Empire and the Crown and considered the American rebels as the traitors to the mother country. Copy/paste)
Gun-control=Loyalist
I know I personally love my country and have faith in my government. So far not 1 law or restriction, federal or state, has removed my ability to carry a loaded firearm on a daily basis.
It's your burden as a "patriot" to convince the "loyalist" that your cause is worthy as they already have to law and government on their side.
Just because I'm open minded to see your point of view and agree with some of your "opinions" doesn't mean I think you're right.
From the number of people, who carry everyday in MA. that I have talked to about this recently, are all content with the Class A Large Capacity License to Carry Firearms restrictions.
(Licenses will be refused to a person who:
has ever been adjudicated a youthful offender, or convicted as an adult of: a felony, a misdemeanor for which you could have received a sentence of imprisonment for more than two years (which includes OUI after July 1994), a “violent crime,” a violation of a gun law for which jail time could have been imposed, or a violation of a drug law;
has been confined to a hospital or institution for mental illness, or a person who has been under treatment for or confinement for drug addiction or habitual drunkenness, unless submitted with an affidavit from a physician;
is the subject of a restraining order;
is under 21 years of age;
is the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant in any state or federal jurisdiction.
Copy/paste)
I guess we feel keeping loading firearms, in public, out of the hands of people whole fall under these restrictions is for the "greater good" whether you guys feel it's "unconstitutional" or not. The "greater good" is for the people of state to decide.
I know the Supreme Court has ruled such restrictions do not infringe on your 2nd amendment rights.
In Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894), The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws such as the Texas.
I guess the people of Massachusetts feel the way the souther colonies felt at the start of the revolutionary war. Why should we let a few "injustices" in another part of the country effect our way of life.
The southern colonies took a lot of convincing to join the war. I suggest you change your causes mission objective from being childish, immature A-Holes to respectively changing the minds of your fellow citizens who oppose your cause. This is a new revolution! I suggest you take it a little more serious then posting cartoon characters and jokes.
You can sit there and snicker at each others childish remarks but you'll never win a revolution if you can't convince the people your cause is worthy.
(From the Patriot's perspective, the Loyalists were traitors who would not support the rebel's cause and collaborated with what they thought was an oppressive British government. Whereas from the Loyalist perspective, they were the honorable ones who stood by the Empire and the Crown and considered the American rebels as the traitors to the mother country. Copy/paste)
Gun-control=Loyalist
I know I personally love my country and have faith in my government. So far not 1 law or restriction, federal or state, has removed my ability to carry a loaded firearm on a daily basis.
It's your burden as a "patriot" to convince the "loyalist" that your cause is worthy as they already have to law and government on their side.
Just because I'm open minded to see your point of view and agree with some of your "opinions" doesn't mean I think you're right.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
#6 on the Brady campaign...is okay with it...smh
Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I can only speak for myself but, your absence would be much more welcomed than your agreement.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
I agree with the Supreme Court ruling
in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
For those who want to carry loaded firearms in public, Licenses will be refused to a person who:
has ever been adjudicated a youthful offender, or convicted as an adult of: a felony, a misdemeanor for which you could have received a sentence of imprisonment for more than two years (which includes OUI after July 1994), a “violent crime,” a violation of a gun law for which jail time could have been imposed, or a violation of a drug law;
has been confined to a hospital or institution for mental illness, or a person who has been under treatment for or confinement for drug addiction or habitual drunkenness, unless submitted with an affidavit from a physician;
is the subject of a restraining order;
is under 21 years of age;
is the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant in any state or federal jurisdiction.
This one post summarizes my 100% stand on "gun- control." No more no less. I'm not pro firearms bans or strict radical laws and regulations. I feel these few reasonable restriction are no more unconstitutional then a prison system. If you're a law abiding citizen then enjoy your rights and freedoms. If you're an "ex-criminal" or "nut job", keep your guns at home. Are there any of these restrictions you find "horrible, strict and unreasonable"? Please be specific.
in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
For those who want to carry loaded firearms in public, Licenses will be refused to a person who:
has ever been adjudicated a youthful offender, or convicted as an adult of: a felony, a misdemeanor for which you could have received a sentence of imprisonment for more than two years (which includes OUI after July 1994), a “violent crime,” a violation of a gun law for which jail time could have been imposed, or a violation of a drug law;
has been confined to a hospital or institution for mental illness, or a person who has been under treatment for or confinement for drug addiction or habitual drunkenness, unless submitted with an affidavit from a physician;
is the subject of a restraining order;
is under 21 years of age;
is the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant in any state or federal jurisdiction.
This one post summarizes my 100% stand on "gun- control." No more no less. I'm not pro firearms bans or strict radical laws and regulations. I feel these few reasonable restriction are no more unconstitutional then a prison system. If you're a law abiding citizen then enjoy your rights and freedoms. If you're an "ex-criminal" or "nut job", keep your guns at home. Are there any of these restrictions you find "horrible, strict and unreasonable"? Please be specific.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
FYI... Copy and paste is fun but please provide cites and or links for your source material.
Thanxs!
Universal background checks and other gun control bills have come up in the WA legislature year after year and have been defeated. Legislators will listen to facts and things like budget expenditure vs. benefit or law enforcement resource utilization. We can influence a legislator's vote with letter writing, strong lobbying, and rallies at the Capitol. In addition you only have to reach the small number of legislators in the legislature and there can even be hearings to address them all at the same time as a group. The minority can win the votes of the legislature simply by being right. Influencing the people means TV ads, Radio ads, mailers and appealing to their emotions or taking advantage of their ignorance. Instead of reaching out to a handful of legislators, you have to reach out to hundreds of thousands of voters.
Because the legislators knew better than to pass more useless gun control laws and refused to do so, the gun control billionaires had to resort to the TV ads, Radio ads and mailers that appealed to the emotions of hundreds of thousands of voters and took advantage of their ignorance. That's how they got the Universal Background Check Initiative (I-594) to pass. The majority of active working law enforcement officers were against the Universal Background Check Initiative because they knew that it wasn't going to do a single thing to reduce crime by doing background checks on people who volunteered to comply with the new law. In fact, now the time they spend doing these background checks takes away from their ability to actually go out catch criminals. Did the voters care about that? Nope. Because the TV ads and glossy mailers showed a battered woman saying I-594 would prevent it.
On the same ballot was an Initiative that requires the state to spend $4.7 BILLION through 2019 to reduce public school class size. Again, voters passed it (narrowly), for the fuzzy feeling of reducing class sizes in public schools. Hmmm.....just where is the 4.7 BILLION DOLLARS going to come from? The voters expect the state government to just plant a money orchard and pick it off the trees, apparently. When the legislators raise the property taxes to pay for the law that the general public wrote and passed, they will scream to high heaven. Oh well.....
And that is why #1 we have to fight our fight in the legislature, because we can actually reach the legislators with common sense backed by facts and opinions of the people they will listen to like the rank and file law enforcement officers. #2 that's why the ability for the general public to draft and pass laws from start to finish needs to be abolished. The general public will act out of emotion with no real idea exactly how the laws they think up will or can be enforced nor where the money/resources to do so are going to come from.
Changing public opinion isn't going to happen unless you have the resources to pay the media to pump your message into the brains (over and over again over a long period of time) of Bubba Joe or Jane sitting in their easy chair believing whatever they see on the TV, hear on the radio, or read in the newspaper if they still have the capability to read.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
1. Anything that has to do with jail time, once served, Rights restored.
2. Mental illness, if safe to be out of hospital, Rights shall not be infringed.
3. Addiction, if safe to be in public, Rights shall not be infringed. (I personally know 2 recovering alcoholics at work who own more guns each than most lgs, sober for 4 years together, they carry everyday).
4. Under 21, if they can join the military, Rights shall not be infringed.
When you try to reason with unreasonable people, you will always lose. You will lose here, and you've all ready at home with gun control.
Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
You guys get your wish. I'm gone. I'll let you in on a secrete. I'm actually a writer for the Boston Globe. I'm doing a story on "Homegrown Extremest". It's thanks to my assistant Maggy I found this forum. My editor say to stop the research and start writing. You guys have been great. Don't worry the only personal info I'm allowed to use is your username and the state you're from. You can look for the article in the 2/22 edition of the Globe. Thanks for making asses out of yourselves. You people did not paint a good picture of "gun enthusiast".
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Link Removed
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 1
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.