Cooley's AR-15 Airport OC Leads to Fed Bill to Ban BOTH OC and CC at Airports

Fallschirjmäger · Jun 23, 2015

nonameisgood said:
Awfully disingenuous to ask that. We didn't suggest he needed or should have needed a permit. The suggestion was that there is a time and a place for discretion. A more proper first amendment analogy would have been to say "would you view his actions inappropriate if he had gone to the airport and began loudly orating on abortion (or pick another topic which upsets a number of people)?" Maybe people think he is crazy or dangerous, but he was only exercising his rights, right? Maybe he is asked to quiet down or leave. It's public property. He isn't really breaking a law, but he is being a bit of a nuisance. We wouldn't all just to support his obnoxious behavior. But neither would we be advocating to make it illegal but a lot of people would Same thing here.

See, here's the funny thing about your position; it's a non sequitur. While both carrying a long gun and "loudly orating on abortion" are examples of protected speech, only one can be defined as a nuisance because it assaults the ears and one has no choice but to listen even if turned away.

That's why doing so at the airport is illegal, and carrying a legal firearm isn't.

rightwinglibertarian · Jun 23, 2015

skidmark said:
If you want to do in-your-face for the sake of in-your-face be prepared for the long road it may take you to get back to where you were when you started.

I've done in-your-face when it was starting from ground zero. There was really nothing to lose and any gain was just that - a gain.

I've seen folks do in-your-face when there was as much or more to lose as to gain. Nature and society do not favor increases.

I understand that you say it is a right that "shall not be infringed". Sadly, the truth is that the right has already been infringed. I wish it were not so, but it is. I honestly cannot think of any right in the BoR that has not been infringed and the odds of getting back to the starting point are so small as to be meaningless.

If you can explain to me how a long gun is better than a handgun for carrying around in case you need a firearm for defense of self/family/innocent others (not specific scenarios but just "just in case") I'll rethink my position and give strong consideration to supporting your viewpoint.

stay safe.

long gun carry is by usually not allowed unless thats the only mode of carry allowed. However I will say this. Carry how you like as long as it is safe. If it's in your face and you get push-back, escalate and continue process until the resistance is no more. It's the only real way of defeating those who refuse to respect constitutional rights. Take an inch and you'll lose a mile

nonameisgood · Jun 23, 2015

WalkingWolf said:
That is why you should only pray in a church, never in public.:uhoh:

That's what the good book says anyway.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nonameisgood · Jun 23, 2015

rightwinglibertarian said:
long gun carry is by usually not allowed unless thats the only mode of carry allowed. ...

Where would you get that idea?
I'm advocating discretion in choosing how and when to make a statement, not restricting things like this. But antis of all kinds point to people being a nuisance and say "there ought to be a law". It is a nanny state reaction to matters of opinion, and it is usually PC run amok, but it is a fact of life.

After laughing about Congressman Johnson with some family last night, I think I may change my position. Anything which encourage that guy to do or say something silly is always worth it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

twoskinsonemanns · Jun 23, 2015

twoskinsonemanns said:
Long gun OCers are bad. Mmmkay?

Grapeshot said:
Surely you are not talking about not following the Forum Rules on OCDO and being able to exchange opnions w/o being insulted........even if tempered with emoticons.

Did my statement violate the rules? My apologies. I try not to do that but mainly count on your divine shears to cut away my infringements.

rightwinglibertarian · Jun 24, 2015

nonameisgood said:
Where would you get that idea?
I'm advocating discretion in choosing how and when to make a statement, not restricting things like this. But antis of all kinds point to people being a nuisance and say "there ought to be a law". It is a nanny state reaction to matters of opinion, and it is usually PC run amok, but it is a fact of life.

After laughing about Congressman Johnson with some family last night, I think I may change my position. Anything which encourage that guy to do or say something silly is always worth it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry I was unclear. On the forum it's not allowed unless that was the only legal way to carry as was in the case of Texas. Personally I believe the Constitution allows carry of any firearm in any state with no restrictions but no one is actually insane enough to take that literally and defend our rights. Thats just ridiculous

solus · Jun 24, 2015

Bernymac said:
Yes those "in your face" antics are the reason why we get stricter gun control laws...keep exercising those rights and it will be taken...:shocker::banghead::dude:

It didn't work in Texas, it didn't work for the LGBT community and it will not work here! :cuss:

actually, berny as mentioned previously, the LGBT community has been extremely successful using their national campaign(s) and local grassroots efforts in obtaining statutory changes, both federally and at the state level, over the last 45 years. again as previously mentioned...all without their own amendment to hang their bonnets on!!

ipse

ATM · Jun 24, 2015

solus said:
actually, berny as mentioned previously, the LGBT community has been extremely successful using their national campaign(s) and local grassroots efforts in obtaining statutory changes, both federally and at the state level, over the last 45 years. again as previously mentioned...all without their own amendment to hang their bonnets on!!

ipse

I think you missed the sarcasm of the entire post.

FreeInAZ · Jun 24, 2015

atm said:
i think you missed the sarcasm of the entire post.

^^^^
That

Fallschirjmäger · Jun 24, 2015

Some people read Gulliver's Travels and only find an amusing story without realizing the satire beneath.

Freedom1Man · Jul 3, 2015

Fallschirmjäger said:
Some people read Gulliver's Travels and only find an amusing story without realizing the satire beneath.

When I was first made aware of this story, I was rather young and did not understand what satire is.

After I began to understand satire, the story took on a whole new meaning, as did many other aspects of life.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Ezek · Jul 3, 2015

nonameisgood said:
That's what the good book says anyway.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

actually.. it doesn't it says you are to witness to the infidels, but that is a whole different topic.

anything progress on this bill or can we all take a deep breath now?

Fallschirjmäger · Jul 4, 2015

Ezek said:
...anything progress on this bill or can we all take a deep breath now?

There never was any progress on that bill to begin with. Aside from his constituency, everyone is aware of who and what The Right Honourable Representative from the Great State of Georgia, Hank Johnson is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dP_IzmgW0s
[video=youtube;8dP_IzmgW0s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dP_IzmgW0s[/video]

Cooley's AR-15 Airport OC Leads to Fed Bill to Ban BOTH OC and CC at Airports

Fallschirjmäger

Active member

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member

nonameisgood

Regular Member

nonameisgood

Regular Member

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member

solus

Regular Member

ATM

Campaign Veteran

FreeInAZ

Regular Member

Fallschirjmäger

Active member

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

Ezek

Regular Member

Fallschirjmäger

Active member