Restaurant question:

imported post

Are you seriously suggesting a little gun control to prevent more gun control? Oh yes you did already on several occasions. Does too much freedom scare you HankT?

imported post



Do you never tire of strawman arguments, longwatch?

I think not...

imported post

No that was just my opinion of your opinion.

imported post

longwatch wrote:

No that was just my opinion of your opinion.

Click to expand...

Nah, it was a poorly conceived and unpersuasive strawman: "Look, what he says is gun control! And you know how we all feel about gun control!"

Pretty sophomoric, longwatch.

The only gun control I beleive in is having more guns than you. By my last count, I had 3 times as many handguns as you do. You said you had 11. Still got 11?

Only 11?

Why?

Do you believe in gun control?

:monkey:celebrate :monkey:celebrate

imported post

Hank it is gun control, and you want more, don't delude yourself into thinking its not. I know you want to protect your collection and think by selling out you will but thats not a solid plan in the long run.

imported post

longwatch wrote:

Hank it is gun control, and you want more, don't delude yourself into thinking its not. I know you want to protect your collection and think by selling out you will but thats not a solid plan in the long run.

Click to expand...

I see. You still have only 11 then.

Well be careful with them, longwatch. I wouldn't want you to get too out of hand--and own too many handguns. Maybe sell one or two off to build in a safety margin.

A man's got to know his limitiations....:uhoh:

imported post

No the only way one can have to many handguns is if you fall out of a boat and sink. I am no longer going to say how many guns I have except more than last time or maybe not. What the government doesn't know wont hurt me.

imported post

Longwatch, why do you even bother with replies to this ass hat? BTW, if you sell guns, doesn't that mean you have a lot more than 11?

imported post

You only need one to be a gun owner and exercise your right to BEAR arms so I don't know why Hank thinks that gives him more credibility. You would be right about more than 11.

imported post

Yeah, I found that it is hard to strap more than 8 pistols on at once. One is good.

imported post

Back on topic the most I've only ever open carried in a restaurant is 2.

imported post

You mean you don't Blackbeard carry?

imported post

"Maybe it was one guy with six guns?" :lol:

imported post

Don't know about Utah but the Colorado CC permit says "CONCELED WEAPON PERMIT". there is no S on the end of weapon. That means you can carry one only. Why do you need two anyhow? One should be enough.

Colorado slick

imported post

colorado slick wrote:

Why do you need two anyhow? One should be enough.

Click to expand...

Why do you need one anyhow? Why do you carry a spare mag? Why do you have a flashlight on you when it's broad daylight? Why do you need a spare tire? Expecting a flat tonight?

Like it or not, being legal means we don't even need to humor such questions. I just wanted to point out that anti's talk this way, so it's self-depricating to immitate the very behavior used to marginalize or redefine us.

But I'll answer your question. I used to deliver pizzas while armed. When I carried one gun, I had to always favor the other "just in case." With two, you don't have to bother with such thoughts. Present day, I carry one openly and the other concealed. So I get to educate others, but I haven't yet shown any would-be attackers (not that I would expect as many while open carrying) my entire hand just yet. Maybe a person owns two guns and they believe that if they're with them, they can't be stolen without their knowledge and such. Grabbing for a second gun is usually faster than reloading. It's also backup in the event that the first fails to operate.

There are plenty of reasons, many of which I didn't include because it really doesn't matter. Somebody doing something other than what you might is entirely their prerogative. And no, the lack of -s on your license is not a limitation.

imported post

And no, the lack of -s on your license is not a limitation.

Click to expand...

Depends on the state, some of them limit how many weapons you can carry (although it shouldn't be too hard to find out whether or not this is the case in your state).

imported post

colorado slick wrote:

Don't know about Utah but the Colorado CC permit says "CONCELED WEAPON PERMIT". there is no S on the end of weapon. That means you can carry one only. Why do you need two anyhow? One should be enough.

Colorado slick

Click to expand...

Whats up with all the trolls popping up all ofa sudden? His first post and he's making statements like that? :uhoh:

imported post

DreQo wrote:

colorado slick wrote:

Don't know about Utah but the Colorado CC permit says "CONCELED WEAPON PERMIT". there is no S on the end of weapon. That means you can carry one only. Why do you need two anyhow? One should be enough.

Colorado slick

Click to expand...

Whats up with all the trolls popping up all ofa sudden? His first post and he's making statements like that? :uhoh:

Click to expand...

This reminds me of HankT's new Categorical Ruling for Brand New Posters to the Forum:

If the first post by a newcomer has content that is congruent with the consensus of the group, he is welcomed, heralded as a cool guy, and encouraged to contribute more of his fine wisdom to the group.

If the first post by a newcomer has content which any of us disagrees with, is critical or questioningof any our positions, or which we look askance at, then he is a dirty rotten anti, MMM, Brady Bunch loving no-good troll.

Simple. Keeps things in perspective quite nicely...

All hail the big H:

Homophily!

imported post

HankT wrote:

longwatch wrote:

HankT wrote:

longwatch wrote:

Firstly who said gun control was supposed to make sense?
Second, in practice, the 'insane' allowing of permitless people to OC has caused no measurable crimewave that I've noticed. Care to elaborate Hank?

Click to expand...

If you don't understand what I said, then there isn't much hope for you, longwatch.

It's very simple: There is a mismatch between legal requirements for OC vs. CC.

Certain guys whoare unqualified to get a CC could legally walk down the street OCing.

Doesn't make sense. Which is mostly to say, it's inconsistent.

I would definitelyadvocate for making it consistent. It would be a good structural change. Either remove the need for a background check for CC or add the background check for OC.

Simple. Either one would be a coherent basis for regulation.

I certainly don't trust some 18 year old goofball who is walking around with a gun on his hip just to be cool and impress his friends. Let him wait until he is 21.

Click to expand...

I understood you completely hank I just wanted to see you advocate gun control once again. Thanks for playing.

Click to expand...

Oh, drat! Your powerful intellect tricked me!

But, oh wise one, if you look in there and read all the words, you will see that I endorse equallyremoving a "gun control" check: the CC background check.



Now, my question for you longwatch:

1. Do you support the legality of a person who OCs (any age) who would not be qualified to pass a background check for CC?

2. If yes, why?

3. Do you support the reduction of the age for a CC permit to 18?

Click to expand...

Vermont and Alaska allow CC and OC without backround checks and blood doesn't run in their streets. I favor no restrictions of any kind because the second amendment doesn't allow it, at least in theory.

imported post

massltca wrote:

HankT wrote:

longwatch wrote:

HankT wrote:

longwatch wrote:

Firstly who said gun control was supposed to make sense?
Second, in practice, the 'insane' allowing of permitless people to OC has caused no measurable crimewave that I've noticed. Care to elaborate Hank?

Click to expand...

If you don't understand what I said, then there isn't much hope for you, longwatch.

It's very simple: There is a mismatch between legal requirements for OC vs. CC.

Certain guys whoare unqualified to get a CC could legally walk down the street OCing.

Doesn't make sense. Which is mostly to say, it's inconsistent.

I would definitelyadvocate for making it consistent. It would be a good structural change. Either remove the need for a background check for CC or add the background check for OC.

Simple. Either one would be a coherent basis for regulation.

I certainly don't trust some 18 year old goofball who is walking around with a gun on his hip just to be cool and impress his friends. Let him wait until he is 21.

Click to expand...

I understood you completely hank I just wanted to see you advocate gun control once again. Thanks for playing.

Click to expand...

Oh, drat! Your powerful intellect tricked me!

But, oh wise one, if you look in there and read all the words, you will see that I endorse equallyremoving a "gun control" check: the CC background check.



Now, my question for you longwatch:

1. Do you support the legality of a person who OCs (any age) who would not be qualified to pass a background check for CC?

2. If yes, why?

3. Do you support the reduction of the age for a CC permit to 18?

Click to expand...

Vermont and Alaska allow CC and OC without backround checks and blood doesn't run in their streets. I favor no restrictions of any kind because the second amendment doesn't allow it, at least in theory.

Click to expand...

Not in practice. And really not in theory either. Reasonable regulation of gun carrying is well accepted by, I think, almost all legal experts. (Where the line is is subject to different views and dispute.)

If you take the position that no restrictions of any kind are possible you automatically lose the argument. Suchapremise is fatally flawed.