Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: 2A in the following environment

  1. #1
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881

    2A in the following environment

    Most people here follow the 'no gun, no $$s' principle and for good reason. My situation is rather interesting though. I'm Resident Volunteer at a Seattle WA Mission and i'm aware most if not all of them are the same. No weapons allowed. This is kinda where my hardline stance falters a little bit because of the nature of the clientele. Most volunteers have a criminal history as to some of the guests. If as the 2A demands there were no licenses, permits and once offenders had paid their debt to society, they were free to bear arms, how would it work? In the shelters of lesser reputation many of the guests are drug users, are court mandated to see Parole Officers, the works.

    I've placed this here for the widest possible audience but if it's better to move to the Washinton section by all means go ahead. But I don't think this is a state specific issue
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I'd say you have considered it carefully and have made a well informed personal choice.

    We all have our own personal deviations often with personal reasons from our "hard stances".
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I'd say you have considered it carefully and have made a well informed personal choice.

    We all have our own personal deviations often with personal reasons from our "hard stances".
    Amen...
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I'm still confused after reading your post several times.

    [qoute]Most people here follow the 'no gun, no $$s' principle and for good reason. My situation is rather interesting though. I'm Resident Volunteer at a Seattle WA Mission[/quote]

    Then you go into 2A rights for released felons issues.

    If as the 2A demands there were no licenses, permits and once offenders had paid their debt to society, they were free to bear arms, how would it work? In the shelters of lesser reputation many of the guests are drug users, are court mandated to see Parole Officers, the works.
    What does the nature of the crime have to do with their 2A rights if 2A should not be withheld from someone who has paid their debt to society? 2A rights for drug offenders but not for pedophiles?

    Being "[C]ourt mandated to see Parole Officers, the works" indicates they have not yet fully paid their debt to society.

    Then there is what may be arrogance: "[I]n shelters of lesser reputation" - does the one you are at screen, do background checks?

    As for how the whole thing would work? My thought is that it would pretty much depend on the released felon. If they were not committing any more felonies (not just not getting caught and convicted) then it would probably work out wonderfully. But how do you know if any specific released felon has "reformed"? Some suggest a waiting period - 1 year, 5 years, 20 years. And this is predicated on the notion that The People does involve some sort of mutually agreed to social contract and that those who do not subscribe to the contract are not part of The People but some sort of horde who are genitically similar to The People. YMMV.

    So I have come to the restoration of 2A rights for the individual released felon. But then I also support restoring the right to vote and hold public office only on an individual basis, the same as I do for including any person in my circle of friends as opposed to aquaintances or "the rest of humanity".

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    If as the 2A demands there were no licenses, permits and once offenders had paid their debt to society, they were free to bear arms, how would it work?
    It would work EXACTLY the same way it always worked for hundreds of years prior to 1968 (that super special magical year that felons, etc. were required to buy guns on the black market).
    Last edited by OC4me; 03-31-2015 at 03:46 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    -Sorry, double post-
    Last edited by OC4me; 03-30-2015 at 10:25 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    It would work EXACTLY the same way it always worked hundreds of years prior to 1968 (that super special magical year that felons, etc. were required to buy guns on the black market).
    Exactly, a criminal never bothers to obey laws, that is why they are criminals. Gun laws only affect the law abiding.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    It would work EXACTLY the same way it always worked hundreds of years prior to 1968 (that super special magical year that felons, etc. were required to buy guns on the black market).
    +1
    Thank you. I will be borrowing this line from time to time.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Most volunteers have a criminal history as to some of the guests. If as the 2A demands there were no licenses, permits and once offenders had paid their debt to society, they were free to bear arms, how would it work? In the shelters of lesser reputation many of the guests are drug users, are court mandated to see Parole Officers, the works.
    If they are still on probation or parole, then they are not considered "once offenders" who have paid their debt. They are still actively carrying out their sentence, albeit not behind bars.

  10. #10
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark;2134579

    Then there is what may be arrogance: "[I
    n shelters of lesser reputation" - does the one you are at screen, do background checks?
    for Resident Volunteers, yes they do. I had to do one. And this shelter makes you have state ID and pay $5 a night so the guests are mainly working as opposed to a nearby shelter where there is none of that and there are frequent fights and the police practically live there

    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    It would work EXACTLY the same way it always worked for hundreds of years prior to 1968 (that super special magical year that felons, etc. were required to buy guns on the black market).
    what about those who clearly have mental issues but are diagnosed? Sometimes they can act sane, other times you just want to leave them to it. imagine a guy who hears voices with a firearm and one of those voices is threatening or someone high on drugs? I know what I want to believe but i'm trying to get my head around a few things
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    for Resident Volunteers, yes they do. I had to do one. And this shelter makes you have state ID and pay $5 a night so the guests are mainly working as opposed to a nearby shelter where there is none of that and there are frequent fights and the police practically live there



    what about those who clearly have mental issues but are diagnosed? Sometimes they can act sane, other times you just want to leave them to it. imagine a guy who hears voices with a firearm and one of those voices is threatening or someone high on drugs? I know what I want to believe but i'm trying to get my head around a few things
    If someone wants a firearm, they get a firearm, just like illegal drugs. The simple fact is the laws do not work, and give a very false sense of safety.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    If someone wants a firearm, they get a firearm, just like illegal drugs. The simple fact is the laws do not work, and give a very false sense of safety.
    I agree with you, but only in part, with respect to hardened and determined criminals. Laws do deter "softer" and/or less adept criminals, those straddling the fence, simply by putting more barriers in place than they want to cross or have the fortitude to cross.

    What I (and probably everyone) really dislike is having to pay good money for a background check each and every time I buy a firearm even though I have a squeaky-clean record.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    for Resident Volunteers, yes they do. I had to do one. And this shelter makes you have state ID and pay $5 a night so the guests are mainly working as opposed to a nearby shelter where there is none of that and there are frequent fights and the police practically live there



    what about those who clearly have mental issues but are diagnosed? Sometimes they can act sane, other times you just want to leave them to it. imagine a guy who hears voices with a firearm and one of those voices is threatening or someone high on drugs? I know what I want to believe but i'm trying to get my head around a few things
    You have just about proved whatever point I was making.

    Your shelter equates having $5 and a state ID with being law-abiding. Neither you nor anybody else has ever "proved" that possessing those two things is actually an indicator of law-abidingness.

    Does your shelter maintain a list of those with a history of fighting or other disruptie behavior and refuse to admit them even if they have $5 and a state ID? Does your shelter throw out those who demonstrate disruptive behavior? Apparently it is only that up until now someone utilizing the other shelter has not sued them for not remediating a known risk of injury/other harm. Inappropriate/unacceptable behavior ought to have consequences. That may mean having to sleep somewhere other than in a shelter.

    Let me imagine two somewhat similar folks who a) posses as firearm and B) simultaneously are "hearing voices". One understands that the voices, while real for them, should not be allowed to control their behavior. The other (the stereotypical schizophrenic) hears the voices and is unable to control their behavior in response to them. How do I tell them apart? Pretty much the same way I tell a peaceable, law-abiding person from a violent criminal (and remember, possession of a firearm by most schizophrenics is going to be illegal) - by their behavior. If your shelter does not maintain a list of known crazy folks and refuses to admit them (possibly a huge violation of the ADA laws) then the shelter is going to have to deal with them like the rest of us do - wait till something happens and then respond to it. You are not a security guard, and certainly not an armed security guard. Dial 911.

    In your mind exchange your shelter for the fanciest hotel in town - the one that visiting rock stars stay at. Not all rock stars have a history of trashing the place where they stay. The ones that have such a history are pretty well known. But there is no absolute guarantee that some rock star who has never before trashed a room will never do so. Or how about the nice middle-aged gentleman in the obviously expensive suit? Is he the CEO/Charman of the Board of XYZ Corp. or is he some mob hitman in town to carry out a contract? Or is he some guy who brought his wife along on a business trip and has jst reached the limit of how much whining and nagging he is going to take and shoots/strangles/pushes her out the window?

    If your shelter clientele bring firearms with them and never behave inappropriately how wll you even know they have those firearms?

    Quite frankly I see/read you deamonizing the inanimate object. I say that because I know someone can cause as much harm/injury with a ballpoint pen as they can with a firearm. Heck, a sock can be trned into a deadly weapon if you put the right thing in it. Is your shelter goimg to ban ballpoint pens and socks? (Did you know a dog's mouth has less pathogens than are foundin the human mouth? Maybe your shelter ought to tape up mouths so nobody can bite another person?)

    Reductio ad absurdium. You cannot eliminate all risks.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Most people here follow the 'no gun, no $$s' principle and for good reason. My situation is rather interesting though.
    I make a point of respecting others' lawful, peaceful decisions about where not to carry. This is no exception.

    If I were in your situation I would be considering the following:

    Is it legal to carry in the shelter?

    Is a concealed firearm going to provide me with added means of defending myself (either at the shelter or while transiting to/from the shelter), or create additional risks? IE, Can I keep it concealed and retained?

    (OC seems not to be an option if the location has a "no guns" policy.)


    As for felons, mentally ill, etc, I take a very simple stance.

    Any man who cannot be trusted to exercise all of his rights--including RKBA--has no business being released to walk the streets unsupervised.

    I can accept that part of a sentence upon proper conviction is going to be a period of supervised release to gain some confidence behavior has changed and the person intends to live as a peaceable member of society. Supervised release that impairs RKBA should be a modest term that should extend no longer than about 1 year after the imposed prison sentence ends.

    I can also accept that some number of mentally ill persons may need long term supervised release such as to make sure they take medications.

    This all said, the burden should be on the convict/committed person and not on the rest of us. We don't force every homebuyer to go through a background check to make sure they are not prohibited from buying a home next to a school. If the rare, sexual offender is found to living next to a school, he is punished for that violation. (For simplicity we'll ignore this lifetime loss of rights for now.)

    Likewise, if a person cannot legally possess a gun the burden should be on him not to violate that restriction. The burden should not be on the rest of us to prove we are not under any disability, nor to refrain from selling him a gun. If a prohibited person is found with a gun, it is a crime. But I should not have to prove I am not a prohibited person in order to exercise my rights.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Your shelter equates having $5 and a state ID with being law-abiding. Neither you nor anybody else has ever "proved" that possessing those two things is actually an indicator of law-abidingness.

    ...

    Reductio ad absurdium. You cannot eliminate all risks.
    On the flip side, we all understand quite clearly--even if only implicitly--the concept of risk mitigation. Carrying a gun does not eliminate all risks; it does not guarantee the we are going to make it home safely. But in many cases, it greatly improves our odds.

    When it comes to behavior, past conduct tends to be a pretty good predictor of future actions. Not perfect. But pretty good.

    In the absence of knowledge of a specific individual, we all understand the benefit of various warning signs

    Any 18 year old may be less likely to trash a motel room than a specific 40 year old. Ditto any individual without government issued photo-ID, or a credit/debit card. But on average? Besides which, with a debit/credit card in hand and a hold for $500, I have a better chance of getting paid for damage and cleaning than if I accept cash for just the cost of the room each night.

    All possibilities and theories aside, most of us, in most cases, probably have a different reaction to seeing a middle aged man in a suit walking toward us on a dark street than we do if we see several teenagers dressed in baggy pants gangish attire walking toward us.

    And while inanimate objects should not be vilified, I can see certain situations where some special rules may be warranted. A bunch of homeless guys sleeping on cots in a common room, given the proportion of homeless with mental illness and/or criminal history/tendencies is probably one such time. Which rules actually improve safety vs which might have the opposite effect, is probably a separate discussion.

    Bottom line, I know we all have cause to get annoyed with having our rights restricted and needing a permit, or background check, or whatever else someone thinks will keep guns away from bad guys, we should avoid being so reactionary as to discount the statistical risk information that one might gain about an otherwise unknown person based on that person having certain things or not. Put another way, even if background checks to purchase and permits to carry guaranteed a crime free nation, they would still be offensive to our rights.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  16. #16
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Insane, and criminal people with, or without a past history do not follow rules, or laws. Only the law abiding follow those rules, and laws. And seems to me those are not the people we should be concerned with.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  17. #17
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    I make a point of respecting others' lawful, peaceful decisions about where not to carry. This is no exception.

    If I were in your situation I would be considering the following:

    Is it legal to carry in the shelter?

    Is a concealed firearm going to provide me with added means of defending myself (either at the shelter or while transiting to/from the shelter), or create additional risks? IE, Can I keep it concealed and retained?

    (OC seems not to be an option if the location has a "no guns" policy.)



    Charles

    I'm not sure if no gun signs have the force of law here in WA but even if they don't, it doesnt matter whether I OC or CC, I'd still get thrown out for carrying. And in my situation, thats real bad. I would say carrying will almost always make a person safer or give an added means of defending myself. Kinda why anyone with an ounce of sense should carry. Plus we all know it's a right under threat in almost all states
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Then why not make the difference in the punishment for committing a crime without and committing a crime with a firearm? Would not the "softer" and/or less adept criminals be deterred by a law that carried 10 years extra time in the slammer with no parole if a firearm was used to commit the crime equally as much as making it illegal to purchase a firearm and making us all prove our innocence before buying one?
    Because to career criminals (those that have a criminal lifestyle and a criminal mindset*) it's hust a cost of doing business. They expect that they will be locked up at some time. You, on the other hand, value your freedom to pretty much do what you want when you want, and fear "the criminal element", thus strive to stay unincarcerated.

    stay safe.

    * - read The Criminal Personality by Samenow and Yokelson.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  19. #19
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,880
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    I'm not sure if no gun signs have the force of law here in WA but even if they don't, it doesnt matter whether I OC or CC, I'd still get thrown out for carrying. And in my situation, thats real bad. I would say carrying will almost always make a person safer or give an added means of defending myself. Kinda why anyone with an ounce of sense should carry. Plus we all know it's a right under threat in almost all states
    RWL, forgive me but the tenor of this post has significantly changed from the original posting you put at the beginning of this thread and i feel might be the original premise of your quest...

    1. what are your fears while at this shelter where you feel YOU need to have a firearm while doing volunteer work at this shelter?
    2. '...always makes a person safer...' against what?
    3. "...give an added means of defending myself.' against what? do you already have something readily available and handy?

    might i reiterate something i am sure you are already aware of: 'normally' personal self defense activities with a firearm is not a close quarters exercise. even LE's, unless caught severely unawares, do not engage in close quarter shooting exercises against JQP. therefore, a firearm would not be used to walk up to someone already upholstered, pulled and held at ready, or pointed at arm's length to quell a disturbance, especially in a possibly crowded shelter.

    additionally, in a shelter, the regulars know who the 'loco' or 'cranky' or 'eccentric' members of the group are and stay away from those individuals. where the problems start is when a 'new resident' doesn't acknowledge or recognize the regular who is shunned and proceeds to instigate an altercation. the key is to recognize who the eccentric members of your shelter are and keep them happy.

    to be candid, you would be better off, especially in your shelter environment scenario, to purchase pepper spray if you wish to defend yourself from random uprisings amongst and from the residents.

    btw, since you indicated you need to accomplish this, then the signs on the door might not care their weight of law...but in your case should be heeded to preclude you having to defend yourself from management as well as possibly judicially.

    ipse

    addendum: pepper spray would afford you sufficient SD to and from your vehicle where your firearm is appropriately stored in a small, bolted to the vehicle safe.
    Last edited by solus; 04-05-2015 at 09:09 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Because to career criminals (those that have a criminal lifestyle and a criminal mindset*) it's hust a cost of doing business.
    I didn't get that NavyLCDR was trying to deter the hardened criminals. I maintain they're significantly outnumbered by lesser criminals, and those criminals often think twice about the consequences of their actions, at least with respect to getting shot.

    Now, that doesn't stop those who actually do go ahead and commit armed crimes. But that's not the question. The question is, "How many were actually deterred?"
    Last edited by since9; 04-18-2015 at 06:33 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    I'm not sure if no gun signs have the force of law here in WA but even if they don't, it doesnt matter whether I OC or CC, I'd still get thrown out for carrying.
    If signs do not carry force of law then you can carry without violating any laws. That means that legal CC could be an option and then question becomes, how do you get thrown out for CCing, if you really conceal? What they don't know, they don't know.

    Of course, I fully understand the decision not to carry even when legal to do so if the risk of discovery and the consequences of violating a private policy are severe enough. Loss of job is a pretty severe consequence for most of us.

    I suspect a lot of us have chosen to abide a private employment policy to avoid job loss even if violation of policy would not be a violation of law.

    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    I would say carrying will almost always make a person safer or give an added means of defending myself. Kinda why anyone with an ounce of sense should carry. Plus we all know it's a right under threat in almost all states
    Sure. I was really wondering whether your situation at the shelter was similar to one of the extreme cases like a prison guard, or someone working in a state mental hospital, where the chances to be overpowered by massive numbers and having the gun taken away outweigh the benefits of having the gun on your person.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  22. #22
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post

    1. what are your fears while at this shelter where you feel YOU need to have a firearm while doing volunteer work at this shelter?
    2. '...always makes a person safer...' against what?
    3. "...give an added means of defending myself.' against what? do you already have something readily available and handy?
    i'm not sure that matters. The point is the carrying of firearms should be the norm in society and I want to do my bit to fight for a right thats being attacked daily
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •