Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: MSNBC poll

  1. #1
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  2. #2
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Voted yes!
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    Yes 63.3%

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Silverwood, Michigan
    Posts
    720

    Post imported post

    Voted yes!

  5. #5
    Regular Member malignity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,101

    Post imported post

    Another yes.

    Right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED baby! :celebrate
    All opinions posted on opencarry.org are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of opencarry.org or Michigan Open Carry Inc.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Jackson , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    985

    Post imported post

    another yes



    Its my right to and it doesn't say you can do it. As long as its not around the president.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    YES

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    Yes, 64%

  9. #9
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    Yes, 64%.

    I voted for OC being appropriate at all times, when the person so elects to. I personally would not OC just to "make a statement" about an issue other than OC for Personal Protection.

    The comments are there are quite telling... I believe that those who voted NO would not be able to VOTE without such rights being exercised. They seem to believe that FAIRNESS would rule the day.

    Very childish and naive.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    Some of the comments are just plain ignorant.

    "Oh carrying a gun is a detriment to the safety of the entire crowd..." Yeah? Only if you use it to break the law... otherwise it's no more harmful than a parked vehicle.

    "Oh carrying a gun distracts the Secret Service from doing their job..." It may also distract the bad guy from breaking the law. It's the job of the Secret Service to protect the President... it's a tough job, sure. And not to sound like I don't care about the President's safety (I do), but it's not the SS's job to make things easier for themselves by violating Constitutional freedoms.

    "Oh carrying a gun is an abuse of your rights..." You can never abuse a right... period.

    Bottom line is this: It's Constitutionally protected. 'Nuff said.



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    Nevermind the fact that police officers on the scene are not absolved from liability for doing foolish things with firearms. If police are allowed to carry guns, then by golly, so should we.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    Some of the comments are just plain ignorant.

    "Oh carrying a gun distracts the Secret Service from doing their job..." It may also distract the bad guy from breaking the law. It's the job of the Secret Service to protect the President... it's a tough job, sure. And not to sound like I don't care about the President's safety (I do), but it's not the SS's job to make things easier for themselves by violating Constitutional freedoms.

    In every article I've read where they talk toa rep. from the Secret Service about this issue the rep. has always said it doesn't change their job in the least. The people with firearms are nowhere near the President and aren't even attempting to enter the building. They are outside of the sterile areas and are covered by State/local law and as such the SS doesn'tworry about them.

    Bronson

    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    Ummm duh if I'm showing you I have a gun, isn't it safer for you to be able to see it?

    Seeing my lawfully carried firearm, would seem to put less concern than seeing my concealed firearm.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    Bronson wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    Some of the comments are just plain ignorant.

    "Oh carrying a gun distracts the Secret Service from doing their job..." It may also distract the bad guy from breaking the law. It's the job of the Secret Service to protect the President... it's a tough job, sure. And not to sound like I don't care about the President's safety (I do), but it's not the SS's job to make things easier for themselves by violating Constitutional freedoms.

    In every article I've read where they talk toa rep. from the Secret Service about this issue the rep. has always said it doesn't change their job in the least. The people with firearms are nowhere near the President and aren't even attempting to enter the building. They are outside of the sterile areas and are covered by State/local law and as such the SS doesn'tworry about them.

    Bronson
    Good point. Thanks for clarifying.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    Bronson wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    Some of the comments are just plain ignorant.

    "Oh carrying a gun distracts the Secret Service from doing their job..." It may also distract the bad guy from breaking the law. It's the job of the Secret Service to protect the President... it's a tough job, sure. And not to sound like I don't care about the President's safety (I do), but it's not the SS's job to make things easier for themselves by violating Constitutional freedoms.

    In every article I've read where they talk toa rep. from the Secret Service about this issue the rep. has always said it doesn't change their job in the least. The people with firearms are nowhere near the President and aren't even attempting to enter the building. They are outside of the sterile areas and are covered by State/local law and as such the SS doesn'tworry about them.

    Bronson
    Good point. Thanks for clarifying.
    Don't forget, theSecret Service hasaccess to the best lawyers.

    And, they have that experience last year with Mountain Jack OCing in the park. They've had time to get all their ducks in a row since then.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    Bronson wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    Some of the comments are just plain ignorant.

    "Oh carrying a gun distracts the Secret Service from doing their job..." It may also distract the bad guy from breaking the law. It's the job of the Secret Service to protect the President... it's a tough job, sure. And not to sound like I don't care about the President's safety (I do), but it's not the SS's job to make things easier for themselves by violating Constitutional freedoms.

    In every article I've read where they talk toa rep. from the Secret Service about this issue the rep. has always said it doesn't change their job in the least. The people with firearms are nowhere near the President and aren't even attempting to enter the building. They are outside of the sterile areas and are covered by State/local law and as such the SS doesn'tworry about them.

    Bronson
    Good point. Thanks for clarifying.
    Don't forget, theSecret Service hasaccess to the best lawyers.

    And, they have that experience last year with Mountain Jack OCing in the park. They've had time to get all their ducks in a row since then.
    Citizen, IIRC, the Secret Service had their ducks in a row. It was alocal PD that was the problem.

  17. #17
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Yep the SS never said anything to him it was the Local Yocals that got their panties in a wad!
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Midland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    I voted no because you never know when a gun is going to spontaneously jump out of the holster while the owner isn't looking and sneak off to wreck havoc across the county.

    Just kidding, I voted "yes" as well. A Constitutional right remains a Constitutional right even when the One is present.

    A point about the assassin comment. If a guy is going to assassinate the president, do we really think that he is going to be giving himself away before he has the chance to accomplish his plan? I think not. The media comes up with to many straw man arguments to remain credible with those who think for themselves.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    Post imported post

    66.1% Yes!
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  20. #20
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    Bronson wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    Some of the comments are just plain ignorant.

    "Oh carrying a gun distracts the Secret Service from doing their job..." It may also distract the bad guy from breaking the law. It's the job of the Secret Service to protect the President... it's a tough job, sure. And not to sound like I don't care about the President's safety (I do), but it's not the SS's job to make things easier for themselves by violating Constitutional freedoms.

    In every article I've read where they talk toa rep. from the Secret Service about this issue the rep. has always said it doesn't change their job in the least. The people with firearms are nowhere near the President and aren't even attempting to enter the building. They are outside of the sterile areas and are covered by State/local law and as such the SS doesn'tworry about them.

    Bronson
    Good point. Thanks for clarifying.
    Don't forget, theSecret Service hasaccess to the best lawyers.

    And, they have that experience last year with Mountain Jack OCing in the park. They've had time to get all their ducks in a row since then.
    Citizen, IIRC, the Secret Service had their ducks in a row. It was alocal PD that was the problem.
    It was actual the state police that filled charges.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    And, they have that experience last year with Mountain Jack OCing in the park. They've had time to get all their ducks in a row since then.
    I'm unfamiliar with this... what's the story there?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    emptypockets wrote:
    I voted no because you never know when a gun is going to spontaneously jump out of the holster while the owner isn't looking and sneak off to wreck havoc across the county.

    Just kidding, I voted "yes" as well. A Constitutional right remains a Constitutional right even when the One is present.

    A point about the assassin comment. If a guy is going to assassinate the president, do we really think that he is going to be giving himself away before he has the chance to accomplish his plan? I think not. The media comes up with to many straw man arguments to remain credible with those who think for themselves.
    +1

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    SNIP Citizen, IIRC, the Secret Service had their ducks in a row. It was alocal PD that was the problem.
    Yes. I was not trying to imply that they mishandled MtnJack's situation. Only that it was an event from which they had time to learn, look into the legal angles, and so forth.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

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