• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Fox News reports on open carry!

AZkopper

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
675
Location
Prescott, Arizona, USA
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.
 

Diesel-n-Lead

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
82
Location
, California, USA
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.
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
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.
 

McLintock

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
87
Location
NW Wisconsin
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.
 

gsx1138

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
882
Location
Bremerton, Washington, United States
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.
 

Don Tomas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
104
Location
, ,
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!
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 

Don Tomas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
104
Location
, ,
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.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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...
 

Diesel-n-Lead

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
82
Location
, California, USA
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.
 

Don Tomas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
104
Location
, ,
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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
 
Top