Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Fox News reports on open carry!

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member fullauto223cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    Now that's what I call fair and balanced.

  3. #3
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    I laughed at the woman who said, "I don't allow guns in my home, so I don't want them here"

    I guess she will never be the victim of a home invasion or a rape, since that would "not be allowed" either.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    AZkopper wrote:
    I laughed at the woman who said, "I don't allow guns in my home, so I don't want them here"

    I guess she will never be the victim of a home invasion or a rape, since that would "not be allowed" either.
    The arrogance. She's certainly free to do whatever she wants on her own property, but to expect her personal views to be followed on someone else's property is nothing short of fascist.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    People should send thank you emails to starbucks for not forcefully disarming us, that we will continue to spend our hard earned money on their products. It does not sound like a big deal, but we send others company's nasty emails for stopping us from open-carrying in their stores. So it would make sense for us to send for them not doing it to us.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  6. #6
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    zack991 wrote:
    People should send thank you emails to starbucks for not forcefully disarming us, that we will continue to spend our hard earned money on their products. It does not sound like a big deal, but we send others company's nasty emails for stopping us from open-carrying in their stores. So it would make sense for us to send for them not doing it to us.
    I did last week and got a nice response thanking me for my opinion.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  7. #7
    Regular Member McLintock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Peculiar,MO
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    I have to say that this woman has not been around guns at all. The only time she sees any guns is on the news. If you do not want guns in your home fine, but to put your want on a business is just wrong. Sounds like this woman needs to go to another coffee shop.
    "Shoot low boys, their ridin' shetland ponies"

  8. #8
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    I was not there but it doesn't look like there were very many Ceasefire people there at all. The video is the same but the angle is different. You look at the local news and the angle makes it look packed. I watch that video and it looks like less than 10 people.
    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  9. #9
    Regular Member Don Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    What amazes me is the mentality of an individual that iscompelled to infringe on other people's rights/freedoms all because it's something they personally disagree or are not comfortable with. Kind of like saying....."I don't like guns, thereforenobody should have them." Absurd!

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran StogieC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    746

    Post imported post

    and Welcome!

  11. #11
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Don Tomas wrote:
    What amazes me is the mentality of an individual that iscompelled to infringe on other people's rights/freedoms all because it's something they personally disagree or are not comfortable with. Kind of like saying....."I don't like guns, thereforenobody should have them." Absurd!
    I agree....but then, again, I don't like people speaking their mind, so everybody shut the....up. I also don't like reporters that write or say things that I don't agree with...so they should quit their jobs. I also don't like people that refuse to incriminate themselves so they should all go to prison. I could go on but the list is endless.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  12. #12
    Regular Member Don Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    Or put another way.....just because I don't share your passion for <fill in the blank> doesn't mean that I want/need or should take away your right to enjoy it. Case in point, I just joined this forum because I'm a gun owner living in CA and recently became aware of the growing debate. I've carried CCW in other states were I had a permit to do so. I have not"Unloaded Open Carried" in CA because I haven't felt the need or compelled to do so. So while I do not personally choose to Open Carry, I enjoy the right that allows me to make that choice. That being said, I find it apalling that the CA state legislator passed AB 1934 which would ban Open Carry should it become law.





  13. #13
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    Diesel-n-Lead wrote:
    The arrogance. She's certainly free to do whatever she wants on her own property, but to expect her personal views to be followed on someone else's property is nothing short of fascist.
    No, it's totalitarian...

    Fascist would be if she owned a company that's business was destroying guns, and she influenced public policy to REQUIRE that all guns be rounded up and destroyed by her company.

    Fascism is the merger of corporate and government powers.

    Totalitarianism is when a government, usually under the rule of a single person, does not recognize any limits on it's own power, and attempts to regulate all aspects of life, public and private.

    She is a totalitarian, not a fascist.

    The last 5 US administrations have been fascist, because they are establishing, through their "revolving door" assignments of corporate bigwhigs to cabinet-level positions where they use their corporate-influenced attitudes to establish public policy and regulations.

    The government now runs or has substantial control of a large portion of the automotive industry in the US, the financial industry, and perhaps in the near future, the oil industry. THAT is fascism...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    Diesel-n-Lead wrote:
    The arrogance. She's certainly free to do whatever she wants on her own property, but to expect her personal views to be followed on someone else's property is nothing short of fascist.
    No, it's totalitarian...

    Fascist would be if she owned a company that's business was destroying guns, and she influenced public policy to REQUIRE that all guns be rounded up and destroyed by her company.

    Fascism is the merger of corporate and government powers.

    Totalitarianism is when a government, usually under the rule of a single person, does not recognize any limits on it's own power, and attempts to regulate all aspects of life, public and private.

    She is a totalitarian, not a fascist.

    The last 5 US administrations have been fascist, because they are establishing, through their "revolving door" assignments of corporate bigwhigs to cabinet-level positions where they use their corporate-influenced attitudes to establish public policy and regulations.

    The government now runs or has substantial control of a large portion of the automotive industry in the US, the financial industry, and perhaps in the near future, the oil industry. THAT is fascism...
    Not trying to pick a fight, but Merriam-Webster's definition of fascist is:

    "1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
    2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control."

    Call it fascist, totalitarian, or even "progressive" if you like. Whatever you want to call it the behavior of the California legislature contradicts the spirit of liberty our founding fathers sought to guarantee us and the text of the constitution, which they carefully worded to that end.

    I hold no hope that Schwarzenegger will veto the steaming pile of crap the legislature just passed. My only hope is that the supreme court's decision in the McDonald case will be favorable and nullify AB1934.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Don Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    Diesel-n-Lead wrote:
    Dreamer wrote:
    Diesel-n-Lead wrote:
    The arrogance. She's certainly free to do whatever she wants on her own property, but to expect her personal views to be followed on someone else's property is nothing short of fascist.
    No, it's totalitarian...

    Fascist would be if she owned a company that's business was destroying guns, and she influenced public policy to REQUIRE that all guns be rounded up and destroyed by her company.

    Fascism is the merger of corporate and government powers.

    Totalitarianism is when a government, usually under the rule of a single person, does not recognize any limits on it's own power, and attempts to regulate all aspects of life, public and private.

    She is a totalitarian, not a fascist.

    The last 5 US administrations have been fascist, because they are establishing, through their "revolving door" assignments of corporate bigwhigs to cabinet-level positions where they use their corporate-influenced attitudes to establish public policy and regulations.

    The government now runs or has substantial control of a large portion of the automotive industry in the US, the financial industry, and perhaps in the near future, the oil industry. THAT is fascism...
    Not trying to pick a fight, but Merriam-Webster's definition of fascist is:

    "1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
    2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control."

    Call it fascist, totalitarian, or even "progressive" if you like. Whatever you want to call it the behavior of the California legislature contradicts the spirit of liberty our founding fathers sought to guarantee us and the text of the constitution, which they carefully worded to that end.

    I hold no hope that Schwarzenegger will veto the steaming pile of crap the legislature just passed. My only hope is that the supreme court's decision in the McDonald case will be favorable and nullify AB1934.
    I couldn't agree more.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Diesel-n-Lead wrote:
    Dreamer wrote:
    Diesel-n-Lead wrote:
    The arrogance. She's certainly free to do whatever she wants on her own property, but to expect her personal views to be followed on someone else's property is nothing short of fascist.
    No, it's totalitarian...

    Fascist would be if she owned a company that's business was destroying guns, and she influenced public policy to REQUIRE that all guns be rounded up and destroyed by her company.

    Fascism is the merger of corporate and government powers.

    Totalitarianism is when a government, usually under the rule of a single person, does not recognize any limits on it's own power, and attempts to regulate all aspects of life, public and private.

    She is a totalitarian, not a fascist.

    The last 5 US administrations have been fascist, because they are establishing, through their "revolving door" assignments of corporate bigwhigs to cabinet-level positions where they use their corporate-influenced attitudes to establish public policy and regulations.

    The government now runs or has substantial control of a large portion of the automotive industry in the US, the financial industry, and perhaps in the near future, the oil industry. THAT is fascism...
    Not trying to pick a fight, but Merriam-Webster's definition of fascist is:

    "1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
    2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control."

    Call it fascist, totalitarian, or even "progressive" if you like. Whatever you want to call it the behavior of the California legislature contradicts the spirit of liberty our founding fathers sought to guarantee us and the text of the constitution, which they carefully worded to that end.

    I hold no hope that Schwarzenegger will veto the steaming pile of crap the legislature just passed. My only hope is that the supreme court's decision in the McDonald case will be favorable and nullify AB1934.
    +1

Posting Permissions

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