We Don't Need This

[2Awarrior]

Of course as a member of the ruling class she will not face any charges or face the possibility of losing her CCP. If one of us had happened to fire off a round even by accident we would be looking at lots of trouble ahead of us.

DOUBLE roger.

 

[dogshawred]

Living immediately North of this incident will have NO effect on my gun rights, nor will it effect change to Ohio Revised Code negatively regarding citizens rights to bear arms.
~
My problem is with the view of this being an accident. How is negligence an accident, how is stupidity an accident, how is this really an accident?
~
For some reason unexplained, the weapon was being unloaded and before inspecting the chamber for a live round, the trigger was pulled (by accident) while being pointed in a safe direction (unless of course you are on the floor below her office) causing the gun to discharge the round in the chamber. How many accidents does it take to cause a live round to discharge?
~
" Kentucky State Police Sgt. Jason Palmer, who heads the legislative security unit, said there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing and that no charges would be filed." Discharging a firearm is discharging a firearm, does Frankfort, KY have a statute restricting the discharge of a firearm within the city? If it does what make this citizen any different than any other who has violated this statute (if it exists). This citizen not being held to the same standards as the rest of us concerns me more than anything. We should have the same privilege under the law that Combs does, no better, no less. Just as she should have the same privilege under the law as we do, no better, no less.
~
Just another sign of elitist protection by LE, all in the name of an Accident.

 

[BluesStringer]

sorry oh god of usacarry!!! i will recede back into a hiding hole to not provoke any response other than what is 100% kosher with your own thoughts.

Quick! Somebody call a WAAAA-bulance! Taking a second bite at the rotten apple, eh? OK, I'll play....

what i was saying was that my initial post had absolutely nothing to do w/ your own beliefs. you are the one that got butthurt and went into a diatribe about voting for romney/not voting for romney...and no one cares.

No one that counts cares, which is why I don't care what you (or most people) think about what I think. And where do you come up with getting "butthurt" [sic] with anything at all, or that mentioning Romney was any kind of "diatribe?" I was juxtaposing my principled stance against someone who doesn't represent my interests and Demtard voters with no more principles than a flea who consistently vote against their own interests, but more importantly, against my rights. You consistently vote against my rights and you will consistently get an earful every time you question me about holding the opinions I do. Live with it, or follow through with your empty "threat" that you'll just run away instead of facing the music, doesn't matter a wit to me.

outside of guns, i align more with dems.

"Outside of the fact that the party I align with and defend on gun forums has done more to deny the rights of Americans than any other group in American history, I support them completely."

There, fixed.

did that stop me from voting for Paul in the SC primary last term? nope.

And Nero fiddled while Rome burned. No small coincidence that Nero looked to the Christians of Rome as scapegoats for the collapse of the Empire that he purposely caused, just as Demtards are busy as freakin' bees doing today. You think it's any more music to my ears that you deviated from your despicable habit of voting for tyrants who are consistently trying to steal my rights only one time, than Nero's fiddle was to the citizens of Rome? Pffft. You come in here defending Demtards, one of which smuggled a gun into an office building where they're not allowed, a law which she very likely supported and continues to support to this day, then she had a dumbass discharge and all anyone can talk about is how bad it makes the rest of "us" look. Well, guess what, it only even has the potential to make other hypocritical, gun-grabber-supporting Demtards look bad, so I guess I can see why you're so defensive and offended by my having the audacity to state my opinions honestly, without apology, and with the full integrity of the principles that I stand for intact.

take the self-rightous bs elsewhere.

Anybody with the principles of a flea has nary a notion of righteousness. Take your uninformed, unprincipled, gun-grabber-voter, phony indignation somewhere else.

Blues

 

[jhodge83]

Quick! Somebody call a WAAAA-bulance! Taking a second bite at the rotten apple, eh? OK, I'll play....



No one that counts cares, which is why I don't care what you (or most people) think about what I think. And where do you come up with getting "butthurt" [sic] with anything at all, or that mentioning Romney was any kind of "diatribe?" I was juxtaposing my principled stance against someone who doesn't represent my interests and Demtard voters with no more principles than a flea who consistently vote against their own interests, but more importantly, against my rights. You consistently vote against my rights and you will consistently get an earful every time you question me about holding the opinions I do. Live with it, or follow through with your empty "threat" that you'll just run away instead of facing the music, doesn't matter a wit to me.





There, fixed.



And Nero fiddled while Rome burned. No small coincidence that Nero looked to the Christians of Rome as scapegoats for the collapse of the Empire that he purposely caused, just as Demtards are busy as freakin' bees doing today. You think it's any more music to my ears that you deviated from your despicable habit of voting for tyrants who are consistently trying to steal my rights only one time, than Nero's fiddle was to the citizens of Rome? Pffft. You come in here defending Demtards, one of which smuggled a gun into an office building where they're not allowed, a law which she very likely supported and continues to support to this day, then she had a dumbass discharge and all anyone can talk about is how bad it makes the rest of "us" look. Well, guess what, it only even has the potential to make other hypocritical, gun-grabber-supporting Demtards look bad, so I guess I can see why you're so defensive and offended by my having the audacity to state my opinions honestly, without apology, and with the full integrity of the principles that I stand for intact.



Anybody with the principles of a flea has nary a notion of righteousness. Take your uninformed, unprincipled, gun-grabber-voter, phony indignation somewhere else.

Blues

everything said goes towards BOTH current main parties. either one you vote for is a vote against someone else's beliefs/rights.

it has nothing to do with what you think, but your self-rightous belief that anyone that has a spec of belief against what you say is outright wrong...sound familiar? i dont think you are wrong, i just dont have the same belief. all i did was post a simple response to question something that did not represent my interests....also sound familiar? i'm all for a live and let live guideline to law making and rights, but it'll never happen.

this is a general statement on the current US situation (so you know the difference)...this my way or this highway/hard ass/one line of thinking bs is what's tearing everything apart in this country. people are too hooked on biased cable news propaganda and no one is willing to step up and have some give and take to reach agreements. once again....BOTH parties. it's just like a relationship. if there is constant taking and no reciprocity, it's not going to work. no party party will ever be 100% agreed upon by the masses, so there is no one size fits all fix to the issues.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

There is no "give and take" as far as my Constitutional Rights are concerned.
We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.
My Rights are not up for debate and if you or anyone else thinks they are... It won't end well for you.
My Rights do not get "voted on".

See, in a Democracy, if enough people "vote" to take your property, you lose. They can take your property, even against your will.

In a Constitutional Republic, 99.9 percent "vote" to "take" my property but guess what? They can't because my Rights are my own as is my property.
You and all the rest of America can decide to give up your rights. In a Constitutional Republic, it has no effect on me. My Rights remain mine, intact and complete.


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[jhodge83]

There is no "give and take" as far as my Constitutional Rights are concerned.
We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.
My Rights are not up for debate and if you or anyone else thinks they are... It won't end well for you.
My Rights do not get "voted on".

See, in a Democracy, if enough people "vote" to take your property, you lose. They can take your property, even against your will.

In a Constitutional Republic, 99.9 percent "vote" to "take" my property but guess what? They can't because my Rights are my own as is my property.
You and all the rest of America can decide to give up your rights. In a Constitutional Republic, it has no effect on me. My Rights remain mine, intact and complete.


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

the rights i was talking about in the post before are ones outside of constitution/BoR. i agree that nothing in those documents should not be up for grabs.

 

[BluesStringer]

everything said goes towards BOTH current main parties. either one you vote for is a vote against someone else's beliefs/rights.

There is a huge difference between the words "beliefs" and "rights." They don't work in the above sentence as the same thought. I would never vote against your rights, or anybody else's, which is precisely what I was trying to say by reminding you that I refused to vote for Romney even though most of my ideological contemporaries on this very board gave me grief for it. Voting for him would have been voting against the right to life. Voting for him would have been voting against everybody's gun rights. You can believe anything you damn well please, but your right to believe a certain way does not give you any right to trample on my rights, and me believing you're wrong about anything doesn't trample on your rights to continue to believe it in any way, shape, manner or form.

it has nothing to do with what you think...

Umm...what I think has everything to do with what I post here, the fact that you can't handle the truth of what I think notwithstanding.

....but your self-rightous belief that anyone that has a spec of belief against what you say is outright wrong...sound familiar?

Of course it sounds familiar! What good is principle if no belief underpins it? What is a principle once its been compromised? Here, let me answer that for you....Are you ready? It's nothing, that's what it is, and people who don't think that which goes against their principles is wrong have no belief in their "principles" to begin with. This is very elementary philosophy that I'm espousing. It's neither complicated, nor wrong simply by virtue of going against what you claim to believe in, which itself is a questionable claim because you've already admitted that you consistently vote for those who go against what you believe concerning gun rights. Instead of trying to find something that I've said that fits within any real, logical definition of the phrase "self-righteous," perhaps you should be trying to find where you left your own principles, if you ever had any to begin with, that is.

i dont think you are wrong, i just dont have the same belief.

Another clear demonstration that you don't have enough principled belief to call something counter to it "wrong."

And are you saying that you don't think it's wrong that the Democrat Party has been the unquestionable driving force behind the most restrictive gun control measures in this country? Is that the same "belief" that we don't share?

Methinks you've lost your train of thought about what's being discussed here.

all i did was post a simple response to question something that did not represent my interests....also sound familiar? that was directed back at ya...

Oh look Honey, there's a Demtard failing at trying to hoist me on my own petard! What are you talking about that I have said anything against your interests???? You're a gun owner, right? You claimed earlier to be a gun "advocate," right? I stand four-square in favor of your gun rights, while at the same time speaking out against the despotic tyrants who would take your guns away from you in a heartbeat if you let 'em. And you vote for those same tyrants!!!! I have spoken out only for your rights, which one might interpret as speaking up for your interests and not against them, if one had a lick of sense, that is.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

it's just like a relationship.

Really? "Just" like a relationship? Fine, then just like a relationship, if my wife were a Demtard, gun-grabber-voting, baby-killer-bail-out-Federal-Reserve-quantatative-easing-gay-marriage-supporting, establishment freakin' hack, she wouldn't be my wife.

See how that works? If you had any principle in your life, you'd divorce the party that seeks to tyrannize you.....and me, which is exactly what I've done twice now - once when I got my first wake-up call to the hypocrisy of being a gun-rights-advocating Democrat (age 19), and next when I woke up to the utter phoniness and power-hungry despotism of the Republican Party (age 57). As long as you're still voting for people whom you yourself describe as counter to your rights, you will only get candidates and legislators who work counter to your rights. WAKE UP ALREADY!!!!

Blues

 

[jhodge83]

there are many other things outside of gun rights that i take into consideration. my thought process doesnt end at one issue and neither should anyone else's.

and just to touch on suppression of rights, what do you think your stance on "gay marriage supporting" is? it's suppressing a right that you have b/c you dont agree with the other person. that is a human right. dont like gay marriage, dont get gay married. dont like weed, dont buy weed. dont like electric cars, dont buy an electric car. the same SHOULD apply for guns...dont like them, dont buy one. i always hear that one around here and it's true. live and let live...

i'm here b/c i care about gun rights, reading peer information on particular firearms, and reading about laws that are anti/pro gun to deal with accordingly.

 

[Paul_of_TX]

there are many other things outside of gun rights that i take into consideration. my thought process doesnt end at one issue and neither should anyone else's.

and just to touch on suppression of rights, what do you think your stance on "gay marriage supporting" is? it's suppressing a right that you have b/c you dont agree with the other person. that is a human right. dont like gay marriage, dont get gay married. dont like weed, dont buy weed. dont like electric cars, dont buy an electric car. the same SHOULD apply for guns...dont like them, dont buy one. i always hear that one around here and it's true. live and let live...

i'm here b/c i care about gun rights, reading peer information on particular firearms, and reading about laws that are anti/pro gun to deal with accordingly.

Gays have the same rights that I do. I am not permitted to marry a man just because I am not gay. The rule applies equally to all of us and some states have defined marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years and that it is between a man and a woman. They can marry a woman if they choose to do so. I as a straight guy I do not get any more rights as far as marriage goes than they do.

 

[jhodge83]

Gays have the same rights that I do. I am not permitted to marry a man just because I am not gay. The rule applies equally to all of us and some states have defined marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years and that it is between a man and a woman. They can marry a woman if they choose to do so. I as a straight guy I do not get any more rights as far as marriage goes than they do.

also used to trade livestock for arranged marriages, not be able to marry outside of your race, have multiple wives, sell your children into slavery, beat your wife, stone people for working on a Sunday, etc etc...doesn't mean they were right. if two consenting adults choose to get married they should be able to. doesnt matter if they are the same sex.

so in the aspect of being able to marry another consenting adult whom they love and want to be with, as straight people can all day, they cannot and that shows the rights arent equal.

 

[BluesStringer]

there are many other things outside of gun rights that i take into consideration. my thought process doesnt end at one issue and neither should anyone else's.

So telling others what they should or shouldn't think is supportive of their rights? You are highly confused.

and just to touch on suppression of rights, what do you think your stance on "gay marriage supporting" is?

I know what it is - it's an expression of faith in the Holy Word of God Almighty.

it's suppressing a right that you have b/c you dont agree with the other person.

Utter and complete bunk. I suppress nothing by believing God's Word, especially since God's Word was plenty enough reason for the entire planet to not recognize gay "rights" over the last 8,000 years or so before Demtards and progressives from both parties got a hold of the education system in this country and started twisting the minds of our young. Maybe you're a product of such indoctrination, I don't know, but you're buckin' 8,000 years of human history in any case, and I'm stickin' with what I know is natural, right, and good for society. Not even the government can "suppress" a "right" that has never-before been recognized as such in the history of man.

that is a human right. dont like gay marriage, dont get gay married. dont like weed, dont buy weed. dont like electric cars, dont buy an electric car. the same SHOULD apply for guns...dont like them, dont buy one. i always hear that one around here and it's true. live and let live...

Good grief, you just refuse to get it. I can take this from a secular perspective, or Biblically, but the plain fact is that there is no legal "right" to marriage articulated for anybody, gay or straight, in the Constitution. The other plain fact is that the institution of marriage in this country derives solely from the Bible, not from secular law. Only in the last 20 or 30 years has anyone even ever tried to twist the word "marriage" to fit within a secular definition, and another plain fact is that it has nothing to do with "rights," it has to do with first, twisting the definition in enough peoples' minds to, second, use it as a political weapon to win power and authority over The People who, before the twisting started, were bound by their faith to not submit to man's authority if it went against their faith's doctrines. Marriage is not a "right" of anybody, it's a religious sacrament, a giving of self and obedience to God. In short, your support for gay "marriage" is nothing more than you allowing yourself to be a freakin' pawn in authoritarians' war on the freedoms codified into law, and recognized as deriving from our Creator ("God" in any other expression of the concept), by our Constitution.

So yippee! You've been fooled into thinking you're advocating for someone's "rights," when all you're really doing is volunteering to be a pawn in a war you neither believe in or even know is being waged!

i'm here b/c i care about gun rights, reading peer information on particular firearms, and reading about laws that are anti/pro gun to deal with accordingly.

And by "accordingly" do you mean that you voted for Obama in the general election after Paul lost the primary? Which pro-gun Republicans did you vote for in your Congressional Delegation? Or which anti-gun Demtards did you vote against?

Talk is cheap. Voting can be an expression of one's principles, but unfortunately in most cases, it is a demonstration of one's lack of principle. Which is it for you?

Blues

 

[jhodge83]

Here we go with the bible lectures. Go ahead and think what you want, stereotype how you want, and judge everyone how you want. I'll continue to do my things my own way as well.

 

[BluesStringer]

Here we go with the bible lectures. Go ahead and think what you want, stereotype how you want, and judge everyone how you want. I'll continue to do my things my own way as well.

Which you absolutely should do (see that - it's an affirmation, an agreement that you should do what you claim to believe, rather than how you use the word to tell others that they should think or act other than what their conscience compels them to think/do). But while you're doing things your way, don't come here chiding me or others for taking note that you claim to support gun rights while consistently voting for politicians who actively oppose them. You can't support that which you vote against. And you also can't support "rights" that don't exist and never have, regardless of your antipathy for those who follow the Word, which is the source of the American meaning of the word "marriage."

Blues

 

[Firefighterchen]

Yup...this article definitely reminds me...of how stupid permits are...and politicians.

 

[maestromsv]

I wonder if she skipped out on the Hunter Safety Course or local gun class.

Sent from my XT1049 using Tapatalk