detained,disarmed, and arrested for carrying his rifle

[JamesWN]

>Times have changed a lot since then.

Yeah, apparently some idiots have forgotten how to read... stare

[Pantymime]

While I am for the right to bear arms, and the second amendment. I think publicly displaying your firearm is stupid. It draws too much NEGATIVE ATTENTION to you, AND our constitutional right to bear arms!

Anyone who takes their firearms to "protest" or "Demonstrate" is a ******** hippy and needs to get a damn job. When the police are called, because someone is publicly carrying a firearm, then of of course they are gonna come and see whats up! It's their job. We've a had a few too many shootings lately, and the last thing they are gonna do is NOTHING. So when that happens to a law abiding dumbass, they deserve to get arrested at the very least for wasting county resources, and an officer's time.

If you're gonna carry, go concealed. Makes you less of a jackass, and you can still be armed.

And to those who think our government will never be corrupt, and wont turn on its own people, you obviously don't know who Edward Snowden is, or what he has uncovered. You don't know the wrongdoings of the government lapdog group called "blackwater". Stop being naive.

[JamesWN]

Pantymime

While I am for the right to bear arms, and the second amendment. I think publicly displaying your firearm is stupid. It draws too much NEGATIVE ATTENTION to you, AND our constitutional right to bear arms!

Anyone who takes their firearms to "protest" or "Demonstrate" is a ******** hippy and needs to get a damn job. When the police are called, because someone is publicly carrying a firearm, then of of course they are gonna come and see whats up! It's their job. We've a had a few too many shootings lately, and the last thing they are gonna do is NOTHING. So when that happens to a law abiding dumbass, they deserve to get arrested at the very least for wasting county resources, and an officer's time.

If you're gonna carry, go concealed. Makes you less of a jackass, and you can still be armed.

And to those who think our government will never be corrupt, and wont turn on its own people, you obviously don't know who Edward Snowden is, or what he has uncovered. You don't know the wrongdoings of the government lapdog group called "blackwater". Stop being naive.

Arrested for a legal activity? Yeah, no. If anything they should be checking into the people making the calls if the person wasn't doing anything illegal.

[Pantymime]

You're right. Just annoyed about it so i might say mean or dumb things.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

A Mythic Angel

Old Blue Collar Joe

kiironobara

Old Blue Collar Joe

kiironobara

Malee

Wow you really went reaching for this. He was trespassing in private businesses after being told to leave and was found guilty.

But... but, 2nd Amendment! Freedom! Liberty! 'Merica!

Ya know...usually I'd jump right in and say no, its private business, so they can tell you to GTFO and you have no choice but to GTFO, but...that isn't standing in court any longer, so therefor, if he wants to carry his firearm in there, then if they are open to the public, then ownership should have no right to tell him to get out or to refuse to serve him.
That's by damn discrimination and NO form can or should be tolerated.

He could leave his gun in his car. It is not physically attached to him. No one can leave their race or sexuality elsewhere.

That's a cop out. Either no one can discriminate or anyone can. This pick and choose doesn't work.

Not discrimination. For the safety of my employees and my customers I don't want a potential lunatic, armed in my business. It's my ******** insurance that has to foot the bill if this whack-job goes off and starts shooting. You want a ******** gun, GOOD. You want your ******** gun in my business, then GTFO, or pay for my ******** insurance.

But...someone doesn't want a gay in their business because it's Christian based in biased? Nice double standard.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

God Emperor Baldur

Old Blue Collar Joe

kiironobara

Old Blue Collar Joe

kiironobara

Malee

Wow you really went reaching for this. He was trespassing in private businesses after being told to leave and was found guilty.

But... but, 2nd Amendment! Freedom! Liberty! 'Merica!

Ya know...usually I'd jump right in and say no, its private business, so they can tell you to GTFO and you have no choice but to GTFO, but...that isn't standing in court any longer, so therefor, if he wants to carry his firearm in there, then if they are open to the public, then ownership should have no right to tell him to get out or to refuse to serve him.
That's by damn discrimination and NO form can or should be tolerated.

He could leave his gun in his car. It is not physically attached to him. No one can leave their race or sexuality elsewhere.

That's a cop out. Either no one can discriminate or anyone can. This pick and choose doesn't work.

Somehow I think you care more about one form of discrimination than you do about another.

Not what I said. Either all are cool or none are. This picking and choosing is hypocritical. (I personally believe that an individual business owner (NOT a chain) should have the right to NOT do business with anyone they wish. Publicly traded stock business shouldn't be allowed to.

[kiironobara]

Old Blue Collar Joe

God Emperor Baldur

Old Blue Collar Joe

kiironobara

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ya know...usually I'd jump right in and say no, its private business, so they can tell you to GTFO and you have no choice but to GTFO, but...that isn't standing in court any longer, so therefor, if he wants to carry his firearm in there, then if they are open to the public, then ownership should have no right to tell him to get out or to refuse to serve him.
That's by damn discrimination and NO form can or should be tolerated.

He could leave his gun in his car. It is not physically attached to him. No one can leave their race or sexuality elsewhere.

That's a cop out. Either no one can discriminate or anyone can. This pick and choose doesn't work.

Somehow I think you care more about one form of discrimination than you do about another.

Not what I said. Either all are cool or none are. This picking and choosing is hypocritical. (I personally believe that an individual business owner (NOT a chain) should have the right to NOT do business with anyone they wish. Publicly traded stock business shouldn't be allowed to.

Not when you're comparing apples and okra, Joe.

[kiironobara]

Old Blue Collar Joe

A Mythic Angel

Old Blue Collar Joe

kiironobara

Old Blue Collar Joe

Ya know...usually I'd jump right in and say no, its private business, so they can tell you to GTFO and you have no choice but to GTFO, but...that isn't standing in court any longer, so therefor, if he wants to carry his firearm in there, then if they are open to the public, then ownership should have no right to tell him to get out or to refuse to serve him.
That's by damn discrimination and NO form can or should be tolerated.

He could leave his gun in his car. It is not physically attached to him. No one can leave their race or sexuality elsewhere.

That's a cop out. Either no one can discriminate or anyone can. This pick and choose doesn't work.

Not discrimination. For the safety of my employees and my customers I don't want a potential lunatic, armed in my business. It's my ******** insurance that has to foot the bill if this whack-job goes off and starts shooting. You want a ******** gun, GOOD. You want your ******** gun in my business, then GTFO, or pay for my ******** insurance.

But...someone doesn't want a gay in their business because it's Christian based in biased? Nice double standard.

You completely ignored the insurance issue, and are thus failing to even consider the other side. Telling people not to open-carry their guns is not an issue of discrimination, as guns are not an innate trait of the people who wish to carry them.

[PanDah K]

Keltoi Samurai

PanDah K

Was he preparing to fight the British?

The only purpose for writing the second amendment was for securing the militias from disbanding since they were a large portion of the fighting forces against the British. We are no longer under British rule, so the second amendment should be invalid, in my opinion.

If the goal was to fight the British, and only to fight the British, then why was there no sunset clause on the 2nd Amendment? Why no references to times of war? More specifically, why give the People the right to keep and bear arms, instead of, say, "the right of the States to form and keep militias," if the goal was to keep the militias around?

Because back then we didn't have an army to provide weapons. The members of the militias used their own guns and weapons. After the revolutionary war we didn't have a "real Government" or an army, so we had to keep the militias active until we eventually to our act together.

As to why it is still a thing I do not know. But just because something is law does not justify it. In Saudi Arabia, homosexual "acts and behaviors" are, by law, punishable by death. Because it is the law do you find it justifiable?

[Keltoi Samurai]

PanDah K

Keltoi Samurai

PanDah K

Was he preparing to fight the British?

The only purpose for writing the second amendment was for securing the militias from disbanding since they were a large portion of the fighting forces against the British. We are no longer under British rule, so the second amendment should be invalid, in my opinion.

If the goal was to fight the British, and only to fight the British, then why was there no sunset clause on the 2nd Amendment? Why no references to times of war? More specifically, why give the People the right to keep and bear arms, instead of, say, "the right of the States to form and keep militias," if the goal was to keep the militias around?

Because back then we didn't have an army to provide weapons. The members of the militias used their own guns and weapons. After the revolutionary war we didn't have a "real Government" or an army, so we had to keep the militias active until we eventually to our act together.

As to why it is still a thing I do not know. But just because something is law does not justify it. In Saudi Arabia, homosexual "acts and behaviors" are, by law, punishable by death. Because it is the law do you find it justifiable?

But "the right for the States to form and keep militias" would accomplish the goal of keeping the militias from being disarmed, so why did those idiots give the right to keep and bear arms to the People when there were so much more obvious ways to achieve the goal of keeping the militias armed?

As for "no real government," well . . . Where in the world are you getting that?

And for the law in Saudi Arabia, I don't see how the laws of a foreign nation have any bearing on the US Constitution. For the record, no, I don't see that as moral. Also for the record, no, it bears no relevance to the discussion at hand.

[PanDah K]

Keltoi Samurai

PanDah K

Keltoi Samurai

PanDah K

Was he preparing to fight the British?

The only purpose for writing the second amendment was for securing the militias from disbanding since they were a large portion of the fighting forces against the British. We are no longer under British rule, so the second amendment should be invalid, in my opinion.

If the goal was to fight the British, and only to fight the British, then why was there no sunset clause on the 2nd Amendment? Why no references to times of war? More specifically, why give the People the right to keep and bear arms, instead of, say, "the right of the States to form and keep militias," if the goal was to keep the militias around?

Because back then we didn't have an army to provide weapons. The members of the militias used their own guns and weapons. After the revolutionary war we didn't have a "real Government" or an army, so we had to keep the militias active until we eventually to our act together.

As to why it is still a thing I do not know. But just because something is law does not justify it. In Saudi Arabia, homosexual "acts and behaviors" are, by law, punishable by death. Because it is the law do you find it justifiable?

But "the right for the States to form and keep militias" would accomplish the goal of keeping the militias from being disarmed, so why did those idiots give the right to keep and bear arms to the People when there were so much more obvious ways to achieve the goal of keeping the militias armed?

As for "no real government," well . . . Where in the world are you getting that?

And for the law in Saudi Arabia, I don't see how the laws of a foreign nation have any bearing on the US Constitution. For the record, no, I don't see that as moral. Also for the record, no, it bears no relevance to the discussion at hand.

Allow me to spell it all out for you.

First, I only know what I was taught in high school so I can't go into any extensive details as to why they decided to word the 2nd amendment the way they did. Nor would it matter because either way it would give people the right to carry firearms. My guess is that they didn't want to keep the militias active for very long after winning the way.

Second, after winning the war against the British, we didn't have a Government. We had a small group of men who held a leadership role in the revolution.

Third, I was simply presenting a rhetorical question to help give you another perspective to the situation. Allow me to explain it to you. You believe carrying guns for no purpose other than to carry a gun is justified because it is law that we are allowed to do as such. With that same kind of thinking in mind, it would make sense that the Saudi Arabian law is also justified by you because it is the law. Since you disagree with that statement, you indirectly agree that the "right to bear arms" is not justified simply because it is a law.

[Keltoi Samurai]

PanDah K

Keltoi Samurai

PanDah K

Keltoi Samurai

PanDah K

Was he preparing to fight the British?

The only purpose for writing the second amendment was for securing the militias from disbanding since they were a large portion of the fighting forces against the British. We are no longer under British rule, so the second amendment should be invalid, in my opinion.

If the goal was to fight the British, and only to fight the British, then why was there no sunset clause on the 2nd Amendment? Why no references to times of war? More specifically, why give the People the right to keep and bear arms, instead of, say, "the right of the States to form and keep militias," if the goal was to keep the militias around?

Because back then we didn't have an army to provide weapons. The members of the militias used their own guns and weapons. After the revolutionary war we didn't have a "real Government" or an army, so we had to keep the militias active until we eventually to our act together.

As to why it is still a thing I do not know. But just because something is law does not justify it. In Saudi Arabia, homosexual "acts and behaviors" are, by law, punishable by death. Because it is the law do you find it justifiable?

But "the right for the States to form and keep militias" would accomplish the goal of keeping the militias from being disarmed, so why did those idiots give the right to keep and bear arms to the People when there were so much more obvious ways to achieve the goal of keeping the militias armed?

As for "no real government," well . . . Where in the world are you getting that?

And for the law in Saudi Arabia, I don't see how the laws of a foreign nation have any bearing on the US Constitution. For the record, no, I don't see that as moral. Also for the record, no, it bears no relevance to the discussion at hand.

Allow me to spell it all out for you.

First, I only know what I was taught in high school so I can't go into any extensive details as to why they decided to word the 2nd amendment the way they did. Nor would it matter because either way it would give people the right to carry firearms. My guess is that they didn't want to keep the militias active for very long after winning the way.

Second, after winning the war against the British, we didn't have a Government. We had a small group of men who held a leadership role in the revolution.

Third, I was simply presenting a rhetorical question to help give you another perspective to the situation. Allow me to explain it to you. You believe carrying guns for no purpose other than to carry a gun is justified because it is law that we are allowed to do as such. With that same kind of thinking in mind, it would make sense that the Saudi Arabian law is also justified by you because it is the law. Since you disagree with that statement, you indirectly agree that the "right to bear arms" is not justified simply because it is a law.

I've stated before that, if we believe the 2nd Amendment is wrong, then there's a process to modify or remove it.

That process is not "pass a law that violates it."

So, if you feel that it's not justifiable, then try and change it the right way.

[PanDah K]

Keltoi Samurai

PanDah K

Keltoi Samurai

PanDah K

Keltoi Samurai

PanDah K

Was he preparing to fight the British?

The only purpose for writing the second amendment was for securing the militias from disbanding since they were a large portion of the fighting forces against the British. We are no longer under British rule, so the second amendment should be invalid, in my opinion.

If the goal was to fight the British, and only to fight the British, then why was there no sunset clause on the 2nd Amendment? Why no references to times of war? More specifically, why give the People the right to keep and bear arms, instead of, say, "the right of the States to form and keep militias," if the goal was to keep the militias around?

Because back then we didn't have an army to provide weapons. The members of the militias used their own guns and weapons. After the revolutionary war we didn't have a "real Government" or an army, so we had to keep the militias active until we eventually to our act together.

As to why it is still a thing I do not know. But just because something is law does not justify it. In Saudi Arabia, homosexual "acts and behaviors" are, by law, punishable by death. Because it is the law do you find it justifiable?

But "the right for the States to form and keep militias" would accomplish the goal of keeping the militias from being disarmed, so why did those idiots give the right to keep and bear arms to the People when there were so much more obvious ways to achieve the goal of keeping the militias armed?

As for "no real government," well . . . Where in the world are you getting that?

And for the law in Saudi Arabia, I don't see how the laws of a foreign nation have any bearing on the US Constitution. For the record, no, I don't see that as moral. Also for the record, no, it bears no relevance to the discussion at hand.

Allow me to spell it all out for you.

First, I only know what I was taught in high school so I can't go into any extensive details as to why they decided to word the 2nd amendment the way they did. Nor would it matter because either way it would give people the right to carry firearms. My guess is that they didn't want to keep the militias active for very long after winning the way.

Second, after winning the war against the British, we didn't have a Government. We had a small group of men who held a leadership role in the revolution.

Third, I was simply presenting a rhetorical question to help give you another perspective to the situation. Allow me to explain it to you. You believe carrying guns for no purpose other than to carry a gun is justified because it is law that we are allowed to do as such. With that same kind of thinking in mind, it would make sense that the Saudi Arabian law is also justified by you because it is the law. Since you disagree with that statement, you indirectly agree that the "right to bear arms" is not justified simply because it is a law.

I've stated before that, if we believe the 2nd Amendment is wrong, then there's a process to modify or remove it.

That process is not "pass a law that violates it."

So, if you feel that it's not justifiable, then try and change it the right way.

Here the kicker...

Wait for it...

The suspense must be killing you...






I CAN'T!

As much as it makes no sense to me why a man would need to carry a rifle walking down a public road, there is nothing I can do about it as I am but one person. There are groups of politicians who want to regulate gun control and i'm absolutely cheating them on, but with me lacking resources all I can do it sarcastically share my opinion on the internet like the rest of you. I'm aware it changes nothing, not even the perspective of any of you reading this, but I do it anyway. Merely out of boredom.

[Keltoi Samurai]

PanDah K

Keltoi Samurai

PanDah K

Keltoi Samurai

PanDah K

Because back then we didn't have an army to provide weapons. The members of the militias used their own guns and weapons. After the revolutionary war we didn't have a "real Government" or an army, so we had to keep the militias active until we eventually to our act together.

As to why it is still a thing I do not know. But just because something is law does not justify it. In Saudi Arabia, homosexual "acts and behaviors" are, by law, punishable by death. Because it is the law do you find it justifiable?

But "the right for the States to form and keep militias" would accomplish the goal of keeping the militias from being disarmed, so why did those idiots give the right to keep and bear arms to the People when there were so much more obvious ways to achieve the goal of keeping the militias armed?

As for "no real government," well . . . Where in the world are you getting that?

And for the law in Saudi Arabia, I don't see how the laws of a foreign nation have any bearing on the US Constitution. For the record, no, I don't see that as moral. Also for the record, no, it bears no relevance to the discussion at hand.

Allow me to spell it all out for you.

First, I only know what I was taught in high school so I can't go into any extensive details as to why they decided to word the 2nd amendment the way they did. Nor would it matter because either way it would give people the right to carry firearms. My guess is that they didn't want to keep the militias active for very long after winning the way.

Second, after winning the war against the British, we didn't have a Government. We had a small group of men who held a leadership role in the revolution.

Third, I was simply presenting a rhetorical question to help give you another perspective to the situation. Allow me to explain it to you. You believe carrying guns for no purpose other than to carry a gun is justified because it is law that we are allowed to do as such. With that same kind of thinking in mind, it would make sense that the Saudi Arabian law is also justified by you because it is the law. Since you disagree with that statement, you indirectly agree that the "right to bear arms" is not justified simply because it is a law.

I've stated before that, if we believe the 2nd Amendment is wrong, then there's a process to modify or remove it.

That process is not "pass a law that violates it."

So, if you feel that it's not justifiable, then try and change it the right way.

Here the kicker...

Wait for it...

The suspense must be killing you...






I CAN'T!

As much as it makes no sense to me why a man would need to carry a rifle walking down a public road, there is nothing I can do about it as I am but one person. There are groups of politicians who want to regulate gun control and i'm absolutely cheating them on, but with me lacking resources all I can do it sarcastically share my opinion on the internet like the rest of you. I'm aware it changes nothing, not even the perspective of any of you reading this, but I do it anyway. Merely out of boredom.

So you'll push for unconstitutional laws, but not for a constitutional amendment to make those laws unnecessary?

[PanDah K]

Keltoi Samurai

PanDah K

Keltoi Samurai

PanDah K

Keltoi Samurai

PanDah K

Because back then we didn't have an army to provide weapons. The members of the militias used their own guns and weapons. After the revolutionary war we didn't have a "real Government" or an army, so we had to keep the militias active until we eventually to our act together.

As to why it is still a thing I do not know. But just because something is law does not justify it. In Saudi Arabia, homosexual "acts and behaviors" are, by law, punishable by death. Because it is the law do you find it justifiable?

But "the right for the States to form and keep militias" would accomplish the goal of keeping the militias from being disarmed, so why did those idiots give the right to keep and bear arms to the People when there were so much more obvious ways to achieve the goal of keeping the militias armed?

As for "no real government," well . . . Where in the world are you getting that?

And for the law in Saudi Arabia, I don't see how the laws of a foreign nation have any bearing on the US Constitution. For the record, no, I don't see that as moral. Also for the record, no, it bears no relevance to the discussion at hand.

Allow me to spell it all out for you.

First, I only know what I was taught in high school so I can't go into any extensive details as to why they decided to word the 2nd amendment the way they did. Nor would it matter because either way it would give people the right to carry firearms. My guess is that they didn't want to keep the militias active for very long after winning the way.

Second, after winning the war against the British, we didn't have a Government. We had a small group of men who held a leadership role in the revolution.

Third, I was simply presenting a rhetorical question to help give you another perspective to the situation. Allow me to explain it to you. You believe carrying guns for no purpose other than to carry a gun is justified because it is law that we are allowed to do as such. With that same kind of thinking in mind, it would make sense that the Saudi Arabian law is also justified by you because it is the law. Since you disagree with that statement, you indirectly agree that the "right to bear arms" is not justified simply because it is a law.

I've stated before that, if we believe the 2nd Amendment is wrong, then there's a process to modify or remove it.

That process is not "pass a law that violates it."

So, if you feel that it's not justifiable, then try and change it the right way.

Here the kicker...

Wait for it...

The suspense must be killing you...






I CAN'T!

As much as it makes no sense to me why a man would need to carry a rifle walking down a public road, there is nothing I can do about it as I am but one person. There are groups of politicians who want to regulate gun control and i'm absolutely cheating them on, but with me lacking resources all I can do it sarcastically share my opinion on the internet like the rest of you. I'm aware it changes nothing, not even the perspective of any of you reading this, but I do it anyway. Merely out of boredom.

So you'll push for unconstitutional laws, but not for a constitutional amendment to make those laws unnecessary?

What unconstitutional law am I pushing again?