stoneshirt
Sr. Member
Yea,Drive By's with Knives...Good trick.
stoneshirt.
stoneshirt.
Typical of Democrats, bad guys with guns kill good people so lets restrict access to guns for the good guys so they can't protect their selves, if people had been allowed to have firearms at work they could have defended their selves.
When I was working I carried at work, boss knew I carried and did not have an issue with my carrying, in fact he even cleared my carrying with the property manger to carry on property with out being an issue. Under Florida law no gun signs do not carry any weight of law, you can legally walk into any building not forbidden by law with no guns allowed signs as long as you leave if told to do so by property management.
Typical of Democrats, bad guys with guns kill good people so lets restrict access to guns for the good guys so they can't protect their selves, if people had been allowed to have firearms at work they could have defended their selves.
When I was working I carried at work, boss knew I carried and did not have an issue with my carrying, in fact he even cleared my carrying with the property manger to carry on property with out being an issue. Under Florida law no gun signs do not carry any weight of law, you can legally walk into any building not forbidden by law with no guns allowed signs as long as you leave if told to do so by property management.
Yea,Drive By's with Knives...Good trick.
stoneshirt.
One school shooting every hundred years is too many....there will always be too many. Picking a subject that tugs on heart strings doesn't change the fact that most gun owners want the minimize the governments role in deciding when, if, what or how we buy firearms. Period.
The good news for people that want gun control is there are cities (and states) that are heavily involved with controlling firearms. I hear it's utopia.
since the "reply with quote" isn't working, I have to ask.
Did you say, "Oh, that's a big one"? or ""nice gun".
I was under the impression that exposing the weapon is actually called brandishing. That's what the term "concealed" is all about. But hey, why argue semantics, right?
What I've learned so far from this discussion is: No one carries a concealed or unconcealed firearm in public because they are afraid of anything. They carry because they have the right and can also shoot a squirrel for dinner if they feel like it and to protect themselves and theirs from other folks who feel the same way, they've just slipped a cog or two but we don't want to evaluate them due to the infringement that would cause. Do I have that correct?
I've learned that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land but we can leave out the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" thing only applies to 2nd amendment believers. The rest of us have to just grin and bear it, (no pun intended) so ya'll can exercise the right to have unlimited access to those firearms
and our right to go about our daily business without looking for exits and making plans of what to do if someone opens up doesn't mean as much.
Have a great weekend folks. Say "hi" to your friends and neighbors and remember. We live in the greatest country in the world,
well, it looks like another guy with a sword just killed 8 more people in Indiana. Ya think they would have been able to out run him.
While I totally agree that your right to own, carry, buy, possess firearms is awesome I'm reminded of some words of wisdom. I'm not sure who wrote them but they go something like this. "Handguns are made for killing, ain't no good for nothing else and if you like to drink your whiskey, you might even shoot yourself".
or
Everyone is a fine, upstanding model of society......................until they aren't.
I was under the impression that exposing the weapon is actually called brandishing. That's what the term "concealed" is all about. But hey, why argue semantics, right?
What I've learned so far from this discussion is: No one carries a concealed or unconcealed firearm in public because they are afraid of anything. They carry because they have the right and can also shoot a squirrel for dinner if they feel like it and to protect themselves and theirs from other folks who feel the same way, they've just slipped a cog or two but we don't want to evaluate them due to the infringement that would cause. Do I have that correct?
Your "logic" is circular.
The only answer you can envision is more laws - and you oppose more laws, so there's no point in taking a serious look at the problem.
So the problem continues, and more good, innocent people die.
Eventually there will be more laws. Perhaps the Constitution will be amended - it's been improved before. When the law has to step in it often swings too far the other way - it's a crude tool, not a fine, precision instrument.
Good luck to all,
The Old Bookaroo
Your "logic" is circular.
The only answer you can envision is more laws - and you oppose more laws, so there's no point in taking a serious look at the problem.
So the problem continues, and more good, innocent people die.
Eventually there will be more laws. Perhaps the Constitution will be amended - it's been improved before. When the law has to step in it often swings too far the other way - it's a crude tool, not a fine, precision instrument.
Good luck to all,
The Old Bookaroo
davest:
Too many people are busy shouting - they won't hear the voice of reason. As it has in the past, this conversation has degenerated into petty insults and meaningless generalizations. One could respond in kind, of course. But that would require being just like those one doesn't respect. And the ref wears the uniform of one team, so it's folly to expect a fair shake.
A closed mind is about as much use as a closed parachute. You can sit on it and rest your toosh - but it certainly won't save your life. Too many people don't want to run the risk of learning anything new. Heck - most here won't even admit there is a serious problem.
Good luck to all,
The Old Bookaroo
Garscale:
Insults are a poor substitute for facts, reason and logic.
Good luck to all,
The Old Bookaroo