unhappy lawyer

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

and yet again, some people who claim to be pro 2nd amendment can't stop throwing fellow gun carriers under the bus or cannibalizing them because something happens they can't F'ing agree upon. Thanks for nothing, morons. :banghead:

Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about?

imported post

MetalChris wrote:

DKSuddeth wrote:

and yet again, some people who claim to be pro 2nd amendment can't stop throwing fellow gun carriers under the bus or cannibalizing them because something happens they can't F'ing agree upon. Thanks for nothing, morons. :banghead:

Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about?

Click to expand...

I'm talking about a certain group of people who claim to be 2nd Amendment supporters yet will turn and devour another gun owner/bearer because they don't agree about a specific aspect of that individuals expression or exercise of a right. For example, castigating someone who has an incident with LEOs because they open carried at a childs soccer game or open carried to a polling booth. THAT is what i'm talking about.

imported post

catass wrote:

tito887 wrote:

Then when I brought up that I carry a firearm for both self defense and a form of protest that's when he got really annoyed.

Click to expand...

I don't blame him for getting "really annoyed."

If any of your reasons for carrying a firearm includes, "a form of protest," you should REALLY reconsider. Such an ignorant reason that gives the rest a bad name.

Click to expand...

You are aware you signed up for an account on OPENcarry.org no? Out of curosity, what did you think this website, called OPENcarry.org was going to advocate when you filled out the information to get an account here?

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

MetalChris wrote:

DKSuddeth wrote:

and yet again, some people who claim to be pro 2nd amendment can't stop throwing fellow gun carriers under the bus or cannibalizing them because something happens they can't F'ing agree upon. Thanks for nothing, morons. :banghead:

Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about?

Click to expand...

I'm talking about a certain group of people who claim to be 2nd Amendment supporters yet will turn and devour another gun owner/bearer because they don't agree about a specific aspect of that individuals expression or exercise of a right. For example, castigating someone who has an incident with LEOs because they open carried at a childs soccer game or open carried to a polling booth. THAT is what i'm talking about.

Click to expand...

OK, but I fail to see how that is relevant to this thread...just a random vent?

imported post

MetalChris wrote:

DKSuddeth wrote:
OK, but I fail to see how that is relevant to this thread...just a random vent?

Click to expand...

He's accusing catass of being one of those anti-gun gun owners for not supporting open carry as a 'form of protest.'

imported post

Needed a drink of cool water. Sure is a lot of flaming in here. :shock:

imported post

like_the_roman wrote:

MetalChris wrote:

OK, but I fail to see how that is relevant to this thread...just a random vent?

Click to expand...

He's accusing catass of being one of those anti-gun gun owners for not supporting open carry as a 'form of protest.'

Click to expand...

Mmmkay...the way he wrote it made it look kinda random. Perhaps if everybody could use the "quote" function a lot of misunderstandings could be avoided.

I know, I ask too much.

imported post

There is a basic problem with many lawyers. They don't understand properly written English.

imported post

What gets me is the lawyer said "The SC got it wrong". It doesn't matter what a lawyer thinks! IT IS THE THELAW! I think seat-belt laws are wrong, but its the "LAW" so I ware them. But to bear and posses firearms is a right not a privilege like driving. NO, IFS ands or BUTS. That simple!

imported post

The only problem I have with that is that it states that someone in a wheel chair can't have a firearm. But yeah...back in the day everyone who was able was in the militia...thats how the founders viewed it.

Click to expand...

cite please ?

As I see it when the time comes and you are able to hold a weapon and fire it, you are able bodied.

imported post

Danger!! Danger!!

Toxic Testosterone Spillage in Area! Wear HAZMAT protective suit and wash after exposure!

Danger!! Danger!!

imported post

My dog ate two kittens thenI turned back and said hey how are you doing .then about 3am I went to get a cool drink of soda pop , now if I was there how did that not happen, he said something about something and that was all. We can't climb the hill in a tonka toy my pistol want hold on to the side of the mirror just leave it here. Are you freaking crazy I can't the boys can't play ball without me.don't get hit by a train..

imported post

thnycav wrote:

Just read the Militia act of 1792. That is what the founding fathers defined as a militia.

Also you will see the the members of the Militia had to furnish their own firearm and ammunition.

Click to expand...

See also
US CODE: Title 10311. Militia: composition and classes

imported post

AbNo wrote:

thnycav wrote:

Just read the Militia act of 1792. That is what the founding fathers defined as a militia.

Also you will see the the members of the Militia had to furnish their own firearm and ammunition.

Click to expand...

See also
US CODE: Title 10311. Militia: composition and classes

Click to expand...

WHAT does this have to do with anUNHAPPY LAWYER. Attention defficit disorder ADD

stick to the post!!! you're on another subject. HELLO!!

imported post

Well, if you want to be a jerk, let's go back to the OP.....

tito887 wrote:

He started telling me how the SC got it wrong and there is no individual right to bear arms, and that theres that little problem of, "a well regulated milita."

Click to expand...

Both the Militia Act and §311 specifically mention "unorganized militia".

Happy now? :quirky

imported post

If ever in Washington and you have need of a lawyer to protect your 2A rights, you want to contact:

Randy W. Loun
Firm: Loun & Tyner
Address: 509-4th Street Suite 6
Bremerton, WA 98337-1401
Phone: (360) 377-7678

imported post

M1Gunr wrote:

The only problem I have with that is that it states that someone in a wheel chair can't have a firearm. But yeah...back in the day everyone who was able was in the militia...thats how the founders viewed it.

Click to expand...

cite please ?

As I see it when the time comes and you are able to hold a weapon and fire it, you are able bodied.

Click to expand...

thats just my point...YOU see it that way, but some panty waist gun grabbin kool-aid drinker might not see it that way and say if you are in a wheel chair than you are not able bodied and as such are denied carrying a firearm. THEN that same gun grabbing kook will turn around and state that since the law discriminates against physically handicapped people that it violates civil rights legitslation and as such must be done away with for everyone.

Now, sane people would say reword the law so able bodied was altered to include everyone but the gun grabbin crazies would argue that its all ready a poisoned well and they will try this bull end around to erode our 2nd Amendment rights.

Thats all I was sayin.

imported post

I'm new hear but after reading this thread am awfully confused.



I can't figure out what was being protested by carrying. It can't be protesting that you can't carry, that you can't own etc. because you obviously can or you wouldn't be.



When I think of protest I think of standing up agains a wrong and not necessarily a potential future wrong that may or may not occur.



Comparing the type of protest stated with the lawyer to that of Martin Luther King Jr. or any other great member of US citizenry that fought to correct an injustice is simply wrong. I don't see a lot of people fighting for get gun rights. Heller was an example however most of us have gun rights and while we are fighting to keep them carrying in protest is IMO lame. Carrying for protection is fine.

imported post

redhawk wrote:

I'm new hear but after reading this thread am awfully confused.



I can't figure out what was being protested by carrying. It can't be protesting that you can't carry, that you can't own etc. because you obviously can or you wouldn't be.



When I think of protest I think of standing up agains a wrong and not necessarily a potential future wrong that may or may not occur.



Comparing the type of protest stated with the lawyer to that of Martin Luther King Jr. or any other great member of US citizenry that fought to correct an injustice is simply wrong. I don't see a lot of people fighting for get gun rights. Heller was an example however most of us have gun rights and while we are fighting to keep them carrying in protest is IMO lame. Carrying for protection is fine.

Click to expand...

Not for not but Im a little confused about your incorrect spellings and poor grammar. That being said, the protest comes with the fact that MLK could walk down the street, Rosa Parks could ride on the bus etc. but the harrassment and indignity shown toward them was unacceptable and as such had to be protested.

In cases such as mine, Mtn Jack, soccer mom, Pa Patriot, Gnbrotz and others, even though we have the freedom of carrying the injustice that is levied upon us by some in law enforcement, politicians and others is something that must be stood up against.

And as for future wrongs that you are unwilling to fight against, I quote Ronald Reagan by saying: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

In other words, either you move forward or you are moved back. I guess you won't raise a fuss until after they take your gun from you, eh Redhawk?

imported post

Prophet wrote:

That being said, the protest comes with the fact that MLK could walk down the street, Rosa Parks could ride on the bus etc. but the harrassment and indignity shown toward them was unacceptable and as such had to be protested.

In cases such as mine, Mtn Jack, soccer mom, Pa Patriot, Gnbrotz and others, even though we have the freedom of carrying the injustice that is levied upon us by some in law enforcement, politicians and others is something that must be stood up against.

And as for future wrongs that you are unwilling to fight against, I quote Ronald Reagan by saying: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

In other words, either you move forward or you are moved back. I guess you won't raise a fuss until after they take your gun from you, eh Redhawk?

Click to expand...

Well said Prophet...