-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
MSNBC poll
- Thread starter Bronson
- Start date
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
Voted yes!
Voted yes!
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
Yes 63.3%
Yes 63.3%
warlockmatized
Regular Member
imported post
Voted yes!
Voted yes!
malignity
Regular Member
imported post
Another yes.
Right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED baby! :celebrate
Another yes.
Right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED baby! :celebrate
cabman1
Regular Member
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.
another yes
Its my right to and it doesn't say you can do it. As long as its not around the president.
LFB
Regular Member
imported post
YES
YES
CoonDog
Regular Member
imported post
Yes, 64%
Yes, 64%
PDinDetroit
Regular Member
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.
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.
Veritas
Regular Member
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.
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.
Veritas
Regular Member
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.
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.
Bronson
Regular Member
imported post
Veritas wrote:
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
Veritas wrote:
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
LFB
Regular Member
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.
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.
Veritas
Regular Member
imported post
Bronson wrote:
Bronson wrote:
Good point. Thanks for clarifying.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Veritas wrote:
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.
Veritas wrote:
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.
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Citizen, IIRC, the Secret Service had their ducks in a row. It was alocal PD that was the problem.
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
Yep the SS never said anything to him it was the Local Yocals that got their panties in a wad!
Yep the SS never said anything to him it was the Local Yocals that got their panties in a wad!
emptypockets
Regular Member
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.
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.
lapeer20m
Regular Member
imported post
66.1% Yes!
66.1% Yes!
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
SpringerXDacp wrote:
SpringerXDacp wrote:
It was actual the state police that filled charges.