Your opinions: Where is it improper to carry?

twoskinsonemanns said:

I don't want this thread to derail. I use leather holsters with no reasonable retention.
I will concede you are right in any scorn you would direct my way for my choice.

Back on topic:

Nude beaches! Seems like an improper place to carry. ESPECIALLY CC! :shocker:

Click to expand...

I use to skinny dip in the stone quarries around Bloomington IN (Indiana University) in the 70s & early 80s and ALWAYS carried in a rolled up towel; and came as close to shooting someone as I ever have there. OH MAN those were the days!!!

twoskinsonemanns said:

I was reading another thread wherein someone stated there are venues in which it is proper to ban firearms.
So I was thinking I would like to hear people's opinions on where it is improper to carry. Also please feel free to specify OC or CC if one or the other both not both would be improper.

I'll go first: physical therapists office. As I had a bit of a mishap several years ago, my gun clattering to the floor during a stretch and leaving my quite red faced.

Click to expand...

Bolded for emphasis.

Venues in which it is proper to ban firearms:
1) Wherever a private citizen decides firearms would prevent his/her enjoyment of his/her PRIVATE property. Whether this will also lead to some thug(s) and/or criminals from visiting and enjoying said private property against the owner's wishes is another matter.
2) See above.
3) See (1) and (2).


Where is it improper to carry (my list):
1) When getting into an MRI machine (the M stands for Magnetic); unless you have one of those super-scary, 3D, Ghost-printed guns that don't use slide rails, firing pins, or AMMUNITION, you may not want to end up stuck to the inside of one such machine.
a) Any other place that requires you to be in very close proximity to large, industrial-sized magnets.

2) While doing Parkour/Freerunning; you may need to roll in such a manner that your 1911 spur hammer and upswept beavertail will leave distinct bruise marks on your favorite skin (the one you wear every day, all year:lol
a) While practicing "Pilates", "Yoga", or playing "Twister".:lol:
b) While doing any other activity which requires flexing/twisting your body into shapes that cause pinching or poking by your sidearm. A change of holster may alleviate the situation.

3) While stepping onto a bathroom scale, unless you know and are able to subtract the weight of the holster, loaded sidearm, and accessories (is it wrong to accessorize? How much is "too much"? :uhoh.


Just a thought, but I think I should add the following to my last will and testament:
"Funeral and related ceremonies should take place in a Freedom-loving area. The following criteria must be met in order for the venue to be considered. "Freedom-loving":
1) Attendees, regardless of occupation, must not be prohibited from carrying their Personal Defensive Tools, also known lovingly by the recently deceased as "sidearms", "guns", "toys", or "boom-sticks".

2) The manner of carry must only be limited in accordance with the Four Rules of Firearm safety. Openly Carried and Discreetly Carried (AKA, "Concealed Carry"), fully-loaded sidearms are welcome, and actually requested of attendees by the recently deceased. Were he not dead, the recently deceased would have insisted on Openly Carrying a firearm at his party, and would likely have chosen to carry his most treasured 1911 in .45 ACP, "cocked and locked".

3) Likewise, the magazine capacity shall not be limited by some arbitrary means. If the magazine fits, you must'a quit trying to bar their entry. :lol:

4) No restrictions shall be imposed on the caloric, carbohydrate, sodium, or sugar content of the refreshments to be served. Vegetables and other "healthy crap", as described by the recently deceased, shall be made available, but will not be the main dish. As the recently deceased loved to say, "Plants are what FOOD eats.":lol:

5) The location shall not prohibit firearm-shaped sculptures or other such decorations; the recently deceased would have probably enjoyed and wished to take a photo both of and WITH said sculpture.


One final addendum (forgive the sappy-ness at the end):
I thought of the funeral thing after reading about some recently-deceased OC activists (died in traffic accident, were enroute to a rally in Virginia, IIRC) whose families requested that attendees not carry firearms to the funeral. Some members here pointed out (and I wholeheartedly agreed) that the deceased would probably have asked attendees to show support and solidarity by bringing their firearms to the event. One last rally, so to speak. And as I type this up, I realize that I'm masking the feelings of dread and sadness that their death brought on, knowing full well that my day will come as well but I hope will be a day for community and visible solidarity. OCing has become an integral part of my life, and though I am not as active as I well may be and should be, I'd like for that to be commemorated by allowing me one final OC meetup with my Brothers before I am laid down in my final resting place.

Piper covered pretty much all my list and Rusty Young Man picked up the snarky ones.

I started to post earlier but, you know, wife-feelings-etc, so by the time I got back and refreshed it had been covered.

Nightmare said:

... Water is juust about a thousand times as dense as air.

Click to expand...

I've met people who about a thousand times as dense as myself.

Where is it improper to carry?
Places where the gun introduces excess, added risk without some offsetting benefit. I put commercial aircraft on this list - 9/11 would not have happened if people had any idea what was planned, and a gun would not have been needed to stop it. You have to be prepared to do whatever it takes to survive, but a hole in the windscreen of a jumbo jet doesn't bode well for control of the aircraft. Top this with the new problem of impenetrable cockpit doors and we have a real problem, but I digress.

Where people go knowing there will be strong emotional events (European soccer, anyone?) Texas prohibits carry at college or pro sporting events. I have mixed emotion about this, but the solution is probably to grow up and not get so invested in something that doesn't really involve the spectators. People probably get just as drunk and emotional watching the game at Hooters and that is a legal-to-carry venue here.

Where people go to get f'ed up. I think bars are fine, but dance clubs less so. But this implies that people are incapable of self control. Maybe just make it clear that you shouldn't be getting your drink on if you have your gun on.

Hospitals are full of desperate people, but those determined to do harm will do so. My concern is for those who receive very bad news and overreact.

Texas just passed campus carry, and I have mixed feelings about students having guns in dorm rooms. I hope the schools have strong rules for storage in dorms and do a good amount of education about locking them up while not carrying. I know I had lots of folks wandering in and out of my room, in various stages of inebriation. And lots of pranks. Some people just have no limits on the idiotic stuff they do - not just the carriers but those around them. And you don't get to pick dorm roommates many places, so caution is needed.

I think the best plan in most cases is peer pressure and education. There are people who will carry everywhere, just like they chew with their mouths open or cuss like sailors in front of elementary-age children. A wink and a nod is useful when a bawdy proposal is too rough - CC may be useful when not wanting to offend those who could simply make a rule to exclude all carry. Not our job to evangelize and change minds of those who have no interest in our "cause." Some people don't like seeing two men kiss. Similarly, open carrying a gun where it is not welcome is discourteous. Polite society goes both ways. Just my way of saying that I think moderation is good.

It is probably best to not carry a firearm into a venue where toy guns or paint guns are being used. Someone accidentally drops a real gun and another player picks it up thinking it is part of the game.

Best to not carry loaded guns if you are partaking in martial arts, edged weapon, or hand-to-hand training. Best to unload when in a gun training course unless it is known hot range.

Open carry at a gun show presents issues because we all like to try holsters, cases, and handle guns. While trouble can be easily avoided, you've all seen the guys at a show that simply don't get the "don't point a gun at anything, treat it as it is loaded, etc." and sweep everyone, even pulling triggers on guns they haven't checked. It's not so much the carriers that have me concerned with this.

That's a start. And much of it is a personal preference, but that is kind of what you asked about. I am not really advocating laws about these things.

nonameisgood said:

I've met people who about a thousand times as dense as myself.

Where is it improper to carry?
Places where the gun introduces excess, added risk without some offsetting benefit. I put commercial aircraft on this list - 9/11 would not have happened if people had any idea what was planned, and a gun would not have been needed to stop it. You have to be prepared to do whatever it takes to survive, but a hole in the windscreen of a jumbo jet doesn't bode well for control of the aircraft. Top this with the new problem of impenetrable cockpit doors and we have a real problem, but I digress.

Click to expand...

But isn't it now illegal to carry on an airplane? (Yes, I'm old enough to remember when it was not.)

Where people go knowing there will be strong emotional events (European soccer, anyone?) Texas prohibits carry at college or pro sporting events. I have mixed emotion about this, but the solution is probably to grow up and not get so invested in something that doesn't really involve the spectators.

Click to expand...

Aren't those places covered by laws? Impropriety has nothing to do with violating the law.
People probably get just as drunk and emotional watching the game at Hooters and that is a legal-to-carry venue here.

Where people go to get f'ed up. I think bars are fine, but dance clubs less so. But this implies that people are incapable of self control. Maybe just make it clear that you shouldn't be getting your drink on if you have your gun on.

Click to expand...

By Jove, I think he's got it. Again it's not a question of being improper. It's about not being stupid.

Hospitals are full of desperate people, but those determined to do harm will do so. My concern is for those who receive very bad news and overreact.

Click to expand...

Over-react how? Kill themself? Kill the doctor/nurse bringing the bad news? As you say, those that are determined to do harm, no matter how suddenly that decision is made, will find ways to do so. It's improper for people to behave both illegally and rudely like that.

Texas just passed campus carry, and I have mixed feelings about students having guns in dorm rooms. I hope the schools have strong rules for storage in dorms and do a good amount of education about locking them up while not carrying. I know I had lots of folks wandering in and out of my room, in various stages of inebriation. And lots of pranks. Some people just have no limits on the idiotic stuff they do - not just the carriers but those around them. And you don't get to pick dorm roommates many places, so caution is needed.

Click to expand...

Oh, dear sweet shivering Shiva!! College students who are 21 or older are too irresponsible/dumb/incompetent to properly secure their firearms and control both who come into their room an the behavior of those that do come in. But 18 year olds are fully competent to vote. :banghead::banghead:

I think the best plan in most cases is peer pressure and education. There are people who will carry everywhere, just like they chew with their mouths open or cuss like sailors in front of elementary-age children. A wink and a nod is useful when a bawdy proposal is too rough - CC may be useful when not wanting to offend those who could simply make a rule to exclude all carry. Not our job to evangelize and change minds of those who have no interest in our "cause." Some people don't like seeing two men kiss. Similarly, open carrying a gun where it is not welcome is discourteous. Polite society goes both ways. Just my way of saying that I think moderation is good.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but it sure sounds more like "Besides complying with existing laws (until we can change/repeal the onerous/stupid ones) we need to care more about the FEELINGZ of others."

It is probably best to not carry a firearm into a venue where toy guns or paint guns are being used. Someone accidentally drops a real gun and another player picks it up thinking it is part of the game.

Click to expand...

Why would they accidentally drop their real gun? And if they did, why don't they know it right away and regain control of it? Walking around I use a Level 1 holster. Back when I could run and jump I wore a Level 2 when I knew or expected to be doing those things. It's called personal responsibility.

Best to not carry loaded guns if you are partaking in martial arts, edged weapon, or hand-to-hand training.

Click to expand...

OK, I'll agree on no carrying loaded firearms but only because use of firearms is itself a martial art, and it is my firm conviction that unless you are training to perfect form the option to switch from close-quarter combat to combat at a distance is disadvantaging the trainee. Someone comes and sucker punches me I want as many options as possible that do not involve going hand to hand. Running away is one option; when there is no safe retreat possible shooting becomes another option.

Best to unload when in a gun training course unless it is known hot range.

Click to expand...

I consider cold ranges to be insulting - with the exception of those going through first-time gun handling and gun safety training. Once you get past that you have a responsibility to behave safely. I'm torn between being kicked out for the rest of the day and total banning for those who behave unsafely.

Open carry at a gun show presents issues because we all like to try holsters, cases, and handle guns. While trouble can be easily avoided, you've all seen the guys at a show that simply don't get the "don't point a gun at anything, treat it as it is loaded, etc." and sweep everyone, even pulling triggers on guns they haven't checked. It's not so much the carriers that have me concerned with this.

Click to expand...

But why is it improper for me to carry because some yahoo who does not know better, or does not care, behaves inappropriately and/or dangerously? Group punishment never did sit well with me. (Yes I know the promoter is going to do everything to reduce the threat of liability. That does not bother me as much as someone who suggests we all need to be restrained because a few might behave inappropriately.

That's a start. And much of it is a personal preference, but that is kind of what you asked about. I am not really advocating laws about these things.

Click to expand...

Nor do you appear willing to see the difference between behaving inappropriately needing to be controlled and claiming that carrying is improper because of what some people might do when they behave inappropriately.

stay safe.

Personally, I don't feel as though there are any places where it is 'improper' to carry, concealed or openly. My reasoning is, properness does not dictate where, and how, I exercise my rights, and liberties. Properness has already claimed much from our sacred rights, liberties, and happy pursuits; Can't drop the F-bomb in a public place amongst people, because it's often considered, and charged, as disorderly conduct, and rude speech by more-than-most communities, towns, and cities alike. Can't flip-off a cop who is being a D-bag to you, because it's improper and disrespectful. Don't want to offend someone by wearing a gray rebel 'kepi' hat during black history month. Don't wear a chick-fil-a shirt durign a LGBT pride parade, because it's improper, and offensive! Women can't go around town with no shirt or bra on, because it's considered improper, yet a guy with a shirt on who is obscenely obese and has bigger man-breasts than a california stripper, is considered proper. It's improper to express a lack of religious belief around people who have a profound religious belief. Don't go to a federal monument of the tomb of hte unknown soldier, and talk to your family and friends, it's improper and a soldier who pledged their life to defend your rights, will tell you to shut up.

The question of what is, and is not, proper, has been used to dictate what a man/women of free will, can and cannot do, from a civil, to a legal standpoint. So, in short, I have no care, or concern, for what is or is not 'proper', insofar as my choice and style of carrying and exercising, of my rights and freedoms. I drop F-bombs in public places, flip the bird to a D-bag cop, wear a rebel flag on my shirt during black history month, [even if I disagree with Chik-fil-a] wear a chick-fil-a shirt at a LGBT pride parade, and carry as if I don't care about what people say or think.

Isn't it about time we stop caring about what is or isn't proper, and just exercise our freedoms, and rights?

DrakeZ07 said:

Personally, I don't feel as though there are any places where it is 'improper' to carry, concealed or openly. My reasoning is, properness does not dictate where, and how, I exercise my rights, and liberties. Properness has already claimed much from our sacred rights, liberties, and happy pursuits; Can't drop the F-bomb in a public place amongst people, because it's often considered, and charged, as disorderly conduct, and rude speech by more-than-most communities, towns, and cities alike. Can't flip-off a cop who is being a D-bag to you, because it's improper and disrespectful. Don't want to offend someone by wearing a gray rebel 'kepi' hat during black history month. Don't wear a chick-fil-a shirt durign a LGBT pride parade, because it's improper, and offensive! Women can't go around town with no shirt or bra on, because it's considered improper, yet a guy with a shirt on who is obscenely obese and has bigger man-breasts than a california stripper, is considered proper. It's improper to express a lack of religious belief around people who have a profound religious belief. Don't go to a federal monument of the tomb of hte unknown soldier, and talk to your family and friends, it's improper and a soldier who pledged their life to defend your rights, will tell you to shut up.

The question of what is, and is not, proper, has been used to dictate what a man/women of free will, can and cannot do, from a civil, to a legal standpoint. So, in short, I have no care, or concern, for what is or is not 'proper', insofar as my choice and style of carrying and exercising, of my rights and freedoms. I drop F-bombs in public places, flip the bird to a D-bag cop, wear a rebel flag on my shirt during black history month, [even if I disagree with Chik-fil-a] wear a chick-fil-a shirt at a LGBT pride parade, and carry as if I don't care about what people say or think.

Isn't it about time we stop caring about what is or isn't proper, and just exercise our freedoms, and rights?

Click to expand...

This is true in a lot of ways. And in principle, I agree with much of what you said. But there is a difference between enumerated rights and human rights.

Is it your right to come tell my wife to "F $&# off" just because you have freedom of speech? Sure, maybe. But don't be surprised when you wake up from a knockout or she shows you what pepper spray tastes like.

While I think your point is a completely valid one, I think it's also important to remember that while things should not be regulated because of being "improper," it doesn't mean that it's a wise choice participate in xyz action.

For example, I think it is well within an individual's rights to drink themselves into a coma. I certainly don't think it is "proper" and would not choose to do this myself.

Otoh- again....I wouldn't stop someone else from doing it(legally). I'd just shake my head at them and hope they make a better personal choice.

J_dazzle23 said:

.

Is it your right to come tell my wife to "F $&# off" just because you have freedom of speech? Sure, maybe. But don't be surprised when you wake up from a knockout or she shows you what pepper spray tastes like.

.

Click to expand...

You would physically assault me, or condone your wife assaulting me, because of words? I'm willing to bet those words will not be defended as "fighting words".

I hope you reconsider your predisposition and get your wife to do the same.

Even in the days of dueling, slapping the offender across the face was not necessary. Throwing your glove on the ground was sufficient it you wanted to be dramatic. Saying the conduct is offensive and that you desire to meet the offender on the field of honor was the easiest way.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/rulesofdueling.html

http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/liberi/wildRose/fiore.html

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duello You will need to translate this from the Italian.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

You would physically assault me, or condone your wife assaulting me, because of words? I'm willing to bet those words will not be defended as "fighting words".

I hope you reconsider your predisposition and get your wife to do the same.

Even in the days of dueling, slapping the offender across the face was not necessary. Throwing your glove on the ground was sufficient it you wanted to be dramatic. Saying the conduct is offensive and that you desire to meet the offender on the field of honor was the easiest way.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/rulesofdueling.html

http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/liberi/wildRose/fiore.html

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duello You will need to translate this from the Italian.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Sorry- this was hyperbole mixed with an example of what someone in general public MAY react like. Not myself personally. Sorry for the confusion. I'm a very laid back 6'5", 250 lbs and I lift weights 6x a week. Throw in open carry and it's pretty rare I have people mouth off to me

But let's go there anyway. Many times, those "words" are typically used in an aggressive manner with very distinct body language. I've seen a throw down happen and somebody get their butt kicked for acting that way towards someone's significant other, and I'd say they had it coming to them, even though SA dictates I personally would have avoided the situation.

J_dazzle23 said:

This is true in a lot of ways. And in principle, I agree with much of what you said. But there is a difference between enumerated rights and human rights.
.

Click to expand...

Because rights cannot be enumerated.

sudden valley gunner said:

Because rights cannot be enumerated.

Click to expand...

Meaning they cannot be named one by one?

I'm talking about rights that were specifically addressed in the BOR.

J_dazzle23 said:

Meaning they cannot be named one by one?

I'm talking about rights that were specifically addressed in the BOR.

Click to expand...

They cannot be enumerated or numbered in the sense that the enumeration of some disparages others.

If that is the case then there is no difference between numbered rights and human rights. Our right to wear a blue shirt and comb our hair how we please comes from and is essentially the same as the right to bear arms. They are property rights.

sudden valley gunner said:

They cannot be enumerated or numbered in the sense that the enumeration of some disparages others.

If that is the case then there is no difference between numbered rights and human rights. Our right to wear a blue shirt and comb our hair how we please comes from and is essentially the same as the right to bear arms. They are property rights.

Click to expand...

Ahhh I gotcha.

I guess there is always a void between what is and what should be. :/

J_dazzle23 said:

Ahhh I gotcha.

I guess there is always a void between what is and what should be. :/

Click to expand...

I rather see rights as an is. What should not be is the infringements of them. I do get your point though it is not how the government behaves (which is unconstitutional) and what many believe to be.

It is one of the few things Hamilton was correct about in arguing against a bill of rights, that many then would interpret labeling some as a presumption that those not labeled give the government authority to restrict.

I believe that is pretty much why the 9th was written. To assure that wouldn't happen.

sudden valley gunner said:

I rather see rights as an is. What should not be is the infringements of them. I do get your point though it is not how the government behaves (which is unconstitutional) and what many believe to be.

It is one of the few things Hamilton was correct about in arguing against a bill of rights, that many then would interpret labeling some as a presumption that those not labeled give the government authority to restrict.

I believe that is pretty much why the 9th was written. To assure that wouldn't happen.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

J_dazzle23 said:

Sorry- this was hyperbole mixed with an example of what someone in general public MAY react like. Not myself personally. Sorry for the confusion. I'm a very laid back 6'5", 250 lbs and I lift weights 6x a week. Throw in open carry and it's pretty rare I have people mouth off to me

But let's go there anyway. Many times, those "words" are typically used in an aggressive manner with very distinct body language. I've seen a throw down happen and somebody get their butt kicked for acting that way towards someone's significant other, and I'd say they had it coming to them, even though SA dictates I personally would have avoided the situation.

Click to expand...

Then you should have said it was hyperbole. As written, in context, those were your words expressing behaviors you and your wife would engage in. "Is it your right to come tell my wife [not "some guy's wife but your wife] to "F $&# off" just because you have freedom of speech? Sure, maybe. But don't be surprised when you wake up from a knockout [thrown by who? you? Your wife? Some guy just sitting there minding his business watching/listening?] or she [your wife? If not her, who?] shows you what pepper spray tastes like."


As for what "someone in the general public may react like" - it appears you are again saying you support the behavior ("I'd say they had it coming to them").

Then there is "[T]hrow in open carry and it's pretty rare I have people mouth off to me". How come it's the presence of the handgun that keeps people from mouthing off to you, as big as you say you are? I would have thought that being laid back would be enough to keep you out of situations where someone would mouth off to you, not your size or your handgun.

So maybe we should add "anywhere you have an attitude" to the list of places it would be improper to carry.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Then you should have said it was hyperbole.

Click to expand...

Thanks for repeating my clarification of that post. I think I got this point across.

skidmark said:

As written, in context, those were your words expressing behaviors you and your wife would engage in. "Is it your right to come tell my wife [not "some guy's wife but your wife] to "F $&# off" just because you have freedom of speech? Sure, maybe. But don't be surprised when you wake up from a knockout [thrown by who? you? Your wife? Some guy just sitting there minding his business watching/listening?] or she [your wife? If not her, who?] shows you what pepper spray tastes like."

Click to expand...

Like I already said, I wrote a follow up post giving you context that this was not an example that would specifically be me. I wrote it in first person for no pointed reason other than to use as example.

skidmark said:

As for what "someone in the general public may react like" - it appears you are again saying you support the behavior ("I'd say they had it coming to them").

Click to expand...

We are talking about rights, not personal opinions on behavior. I certainly don't think you support someone verbally intimidating another person.

skidmark said:

Then there is "[T]hrow in open carry and it's pretty rare I have people mouth off to me". How come it's the presence of the handgun that keeps people from mouthing off to you, as big as you say you are?

Click to expand...

For the same reason open carry deters crime.

skidmark said:

I would have thought that being laid back would be enough to keep you out of situations where someone would mouth off to you, not your size or your handgun.

Click to expand...

I'm sure being laid back has its perks. From the original poster (drake)that I quoted' last thread he started as he stood in line in a "laid back" manner at a fast food joint, it seems as though "being laid back" didn't keep people from mouthing off to him, though...or open carry, for that matter.

skidmark said:

So maybe we should add "anywhere you have an attitude" to the list of places it would be improper to carry.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Maybe people shouldn't have an attitude in general. But if they do, that's their right. Until it starts to infringe mine.

J_dazzle23 said:

We are talking about rights, not personal opinions on behavior. I certainly don't think you support someone verbally intimidating another person.

Click to expand...

How much money would you like to lose betting on that? I'm all for intimidating politicians, jackbooted thugs, and most folks employed in publik skools, as well as some others. Especially as regards definition #2, but at times #3 is used to try and keep them from doing something/stop them from doing something. You know, like telling a politician you will not vote for them if/unless __.

verb (used with object), intimidated, intimidating.
1.
to make timid; fill with fear.
2.
to overawe or cow, as through the force of personality or by superior display of wealth, talent, etc.
3.
to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear:
to intimidate a voter into staying away from the polls.

Click to expand...

Maybe people shouldn't have an attitude in general. But if they do, that's their right. Until it starts to infringe mine.

Click to expand...

You have a right to have an attitude? Doesn't that infringe on the other person's right to feel safe?

(I admit to having an attitude. More likely a bunch of them that I switch between. I probably even have an attitude when I'm sleeping.) Sadly we think of "having an attitude" in a negative way.

The phrase "check your attitude" used to mean something besides leaving it in the cloakroom.

stay safe.

sudden valley gunner said:

I rather see rights as an is. What should not be is the infringements of them. I do get your point though it is not how the government behaves (which is unconstitutional) and what many believe to be.

It is one of the few things Hamilton was correct about in arguing against a bill of rights, that many then would interpret labeling some as a presumption that those not labeled give the government authority to restrict.

I believe that is pretty much why the 9th was written. To assure that wouldn't happen.

Click to expand...

+1

Regarding Hamilton, yeah, that was one of the few things he got right. But, I've concluded he was using it to deceive. He was a scummy monarchist working for money interests. He also wrote that liberty was written on the soul of men. Meanwhile, he went on to urge George Washington to sign the bill establishing the first central bank, something the constitution omits as a power of congress. Washington signed. It took a mighty effort on the part of Andrew Jackson to pry loose the grasping fingers of the central bankers. It lasted until 1913 when the next central bank--the Federal Reserve--was established. I've pretty much concluded anything pro-liberty that Hamilton said or wrote was intended to lull people. I definitely take anything he wrote with a large bucket of salt.

Citizen said:

+1

Regarding Hamilton, yeah, that was one of the few things he got right. But, I've concluded he was using it to deceive. He was a scummy monarchist working for money interests. He also wrote that liberty was written on the soul of men. Meanwhile, he went on to urge George Washington to sign the bill establishing the first central bank, something the constitution omits as a power of congress. Washington signed. It took a mighty effort on the part of Andrew Jackson to pry loose the grasping fingers of the central bankers. It lasted until 1913 when the next central bank--the Federal Reserve--was established. I've pretty much concluded anything pro-liberty that Hamilton said or wrote was intended to lull people. I definitely take anything he wrote with a large bucket of salt.

Click to expand...

+1 Someone may aptly describe the engineering, make up and cost of maintenance on this bridge I will sell you.....doesn't mean you'll actually take possession of the bridge or that someone ever intended you do so.