Armed American Radio

imported post

This topic is quickly becoming uninteresting.

I approve of (don't advocate) 'restraint' when it comes to a private business requesting compromise. (That's me)

I do not approve of or advocate 'restraint' when dealing with our rights in terms of the government. (That's Ted)

What is so difficult to understand about this? Using KimberGuy as an example - Ted believes that he shouldn't be carrying that way - Period. I believe that he shouldn't be carrying that way IN PONDEROSA, IF THEY DON'T WANT HIM TO. (Although the way that they made that fact apparent leaves a lot to be desired - that is a topic for a different thread)

imported post

PilotPTK wrote:

This topic is quickly becoming uninteresting.

I approve of (don't advocate) 'restraint' when it comes to a private business requesting compromise. (That's me)

I do not approve of or advocate 'restraint' when dealing with our rights in terms of the government. (That's Ted)

What is so difficult to understand about this? Using KimberGuy as an example - Ted believes that he shouldn't be carrying that way - Period. I believe that he shouldn't be carrying that way IN PONDEROSA, IF THEY DON'T WANT HIM TO. (Although the way that they made that fact apparent leaves a lot to be desired - that is a topic for a different thread)

Click to expand...

So if someone doesn't exhibit your acceptable restraint, you disapprove?

So you're the one who's approval/disapproval we seek?

imported post

I'm ignoring this thread now. You don't even make sense.

I suggested my opinion on carry was not relevant. I suggested that your level of restraint and tolerance was up to you. My 'approval' is necessary for one person - me. The only 'approval' that you should seek is your own.

If you choose to tread on property owners rights, that is your decision. I choose not to. What other people choose to do is up to them. I will abide by a property owners rules if they are satisfactory to me, and if they are not, I will not be present on their property - simple.

imported post

PilotPTK wrote:

You don't believe that telling people how they may keep or bear arms is infringing? What if the only legal way to carry a gun was to strap it to your forehead - would you then find it infringing? Or how about if you were forced to only carry a certain make, model and caliber of gun - now is it infringing?

I don't understand how you don't understand. Our rights to "keep" and "bear" arms is either infringed upon, or it isn't. there is no middle ground.

Ben

Click to expand...

You're changing the subject. Back when the constitution was written, open carry, including I suppose on your forehead if you wanted to be a goof ball, was legal. That kept things well regulated, as in you'd know who was armed and trustworthy, because they'd have nothing to hide. Only the low class criminals would conceal, because they'd have a need to hide their guns.

Back then, no electronic systems existed to register criminals or do background checks. Felons were hung, and honest men were kept honest by carrying openly. If you can't understand why this system worked then same as it does now, I don't think there is anything I can do to explain it to you better.

I am not quite sure how you figured it merited to bring up types of weapons. As far back as I can remember, I have never, ever in my life claimed the second amendment was specific to the types of weapons you can carry.