Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: It seems illogical

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Why should your right to carry trump my right to take my family out without having to worry about a bunch of whackos who may or may not even know basic firearms safety packing deadly weapons?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    Downriver wrote:
    Why should your right to carry trump my right to take my family out without having to worry about a bunch of whackos who may or may not even know basic firearms safety packing deadly weapons?
    I concur. Your question above is illogical.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Nikki_Black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Saint Francisville, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    Hmm.. I concur as well. His question is illogical. I could come back with any number of witty remarks, but I'll just say, "shoo troll."

  4. #4
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    Downriver wrote:
    Why should your right to carry trump my right to take my family out without having to worry about a bunch of whackos who may or may not even know basic firearms safety packing deadly weapons?
    Probably because my right to carry is an actual, pre-existing right specifically referenced in the Constitution.

    Whereas, your foggy, made-up, hypothetical "right to take your family out" doesn't exist anywhere but in your brainwashed police dependent head.

    If you want to know about the whackos packing deadly weapons, why don't you go down to your local prison and ask those who do so irresponsibly. Asking law abiding citizens who reponsibly choose to potect themselves from these whackos instead of foisting the responsiblity for their personal safety onto another human being with a shiny diskwill probablyonly get you a rational intelligent response.

    You're probably too much of a troll toenjoy rational, intelligent, logical responses. Go mindlessly sell hoplophobia somewhere else. We don't like the taste of it here.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    This is not a troll and you nor the previous poster are answering the question. I own firearms, but I do not see the need to pack when I go to town.

    If you can't provide a reasoned response you simply reinforce the point.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Where does the Constitution grant the right to open carry?

  7. #7
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Downriver wrote:
    ...I do not see the need to pack when I go to town.
    Perhaps there is no need, but it is our right. :celebrate

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Downriver wrote:
    This is not a troll and you nor the previous poster are answering the question. I own firearms, but I do not see the need to pack when I go to town.
    Really? Where do you live that's completely 100% crime-free?

    I'd like to live there.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    I see your point, that you would obviously send a message that you are not a "soft" target. But, nonetheless, it does not seem beyond the realm of possibility that a criminal or the criminally insane, seeing you carrying a firearm, could not simply whack you upside the head and take it from you. Then you have created an armed criminal.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    Folks. The boy isn't going to change his mind no matter what you say. Let him starve for the attention he's craving.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Nikki_Black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Saint Francisville, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    Downriver wrote:
    This is not a troll and you nor the previous poster are answering the question. I own firearms, but I do not see the need to pack when I go to town.
    Really? Where do you live that's completely 100% crime-free?

    I'd like to live there.
    Me too. Also, the Constitution recognizes the right to carry right here:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
    Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    On another point, why do you think that we are wackos for wanting to carry a firearm for personal protection? Whether open or not. Some of us are too young to get a CC permit, like myself. Also, why are you scared of guns? Hmmm? Do you plan on assaulting my family, friends, or me? The only people who should be scared of my weapon are people who plan on harming me and mine. A gun is an inanimate object, it's not gonna take itself out of it's holster and fire wildly in your direction, and I'm not going to make it unless a person or animal threatens my life. I personally don't care if you own guns or not, that's your business. It's not your business if I decide to wear a firearm. If it bothers you, then ignore it. Posting on this board, or coming up to me in person to chastise me or anybody about the gun on our hip is intentionally creating a problem that isn't even real. It's a tool. I'm gonna carry it. Get over it. Go on with your day. Let's hear your witty comeback. Oh, and just to let you know. I am a cop, and I endorse open carry.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Nikki_Black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Saint Francisville, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    Downriver wrote:
    I see your point, that you would obviously send a message that you are not a "soft" target. But, nonetheless, it does not seem beyond the realm of possibility that a criminal or the criminally insane, seeing you carrying a firearm, could not simply whack you upside the head and take it from you. Then you have created an armed criminal.
    "Whack me upside the head?" Seriously? Ever heard of SITUATIONAL AWARENESS? I can guarantee you that 99% of OCers aren't going to let somebody get close enough to club them in the head and take their gun. Even if they did get close enough to me to club me in the head, my wife also has a gun.

  13. #13
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Downriver wrote:
    Where does the Constitution grant the right to open carry?
    Same place where one might find the right to conceal carry. Nowhere. The Bill of Rights uses the word "bear" which meant, "to carry on or about the person".

    BTW, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grant any rights at all. The Bill of rights recognizes rights which already exist and which belong to the People. Governments cannot grant rights; only power, authority, and privilege.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  14. #14
    Regular Member Nikki_Black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Saint Francisville, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    TheMrMitch wrote:
    Folks. The boy isn't going to change his mind no matter what you say. Let him starve for the attention he's craving.
    I know, I just like a good debate. Even if I can't win

  15. #15
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    You are certainly welcome to take a decision to carry or not to carry a defensive arm when out and about in the public arena. That is your choice to take. However, you cannot expect, demand, or restrict another's right to carry a firearm which they have deemed appropriate for their defense.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  16. #16
    Regular Member elixin77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenville, NC, ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    My rights are protected by the constitution, both US and NC. I am legally part of the militia (between 17 and 49 years of age), and I also don't feel like being at the whim of a criminal.

    Thats reason for me right there.
    Taurus PT1911 .45 ACP. Carried in condition 1, with a total of 25 rounds.

    Vice President of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, ECU Chapter

  17. #17
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Downriver wrote:
    Where does the Constitution grant the right to open carry?
    Does the word 'bear arms' ring a bell? SCJ Ruth Bader Ginsburg (of all people) wrote this 'opinion' as a result of the Heller case.:

    Bearing Arms: “Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

    Secondly... your entire premise that tha Constitution grants you anything is wrong. The Constitution grants nothing...but is a set of enumerated recognition of pre-existing rights. In regard to the 2A:

    "The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed.": SCJ A. Scalia 2008


    Regarding 'rights'... I wrote this for my sister-in-law who is a high school teacher:

    Rights

    "All free people are born with certain inalienable rights. Such rights would exist in the presence of Government or none. Government does not have rights. Government has ‘authority’. Authority of government is derived from the people (the governed) and is not separate and autonomous.

    Government does not grant Rights. Government can only recognize the legitimacy of a right, codify and enumerate them; protect and defend them (or) deny them. Rights (as codified and enumerated by the U.S. Constitution) become the basis for ‘The Law of the Land’. From this body of laws, all other laws are compared.

    Government cannot grant ‘Rights’. Rights are not to be confused with ‘Permit’, ‘License’, ‘Privilege’ or ’Allowance’ or other contrivance. Rights cannot be ’purchased’ nor can government extract fees for the free exercise thereof. Rights are inherent and eternal w/o interference, infringement, impairment or regulation when exercised responsibly by the individual. The free exercise of a Right requires personal responsibility and moderation.

    Absolute denial of a right in a free society is tyranny."

    Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

    “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

    An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

    “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

    An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

    Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

     Rule by such governments headed by absolute monarchs, oligarchs or dictators do not recognize individual rights and often deny them as 'they alone' control and determine such liberties as the people may enjoy or not. Such governments abrogate personal responsibility to the authority of the State.

    'Open Carry' is historically the preferred mode of bearing arms. Concealed carry (not that long ago) was considered 'sneaky'... to put it simply. The government contrivance of 'permit' (CCW/CWP et al) is to conceal... not to carry. The right to carry (bear arms) in many states is restricted to concealment alone. This is an actual infringement upon the free exercise of the right while not denying it altogether.

    The Arizona Constitution is identical in wording to many state constitutions and has been in effect since ratification in 1912. AZC Sec 2 Art 26: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."

    Concealed permits were not in existance in Arizonauntil 1994. The right to bear arms was never questioned. You do not state your location, but I suspect you live in a historically prohibitive state.

    Do you take your family on the highways surrpounded by persons of unknown mental states...competency or intent... operating 4,000 lbs of glass, steel and rubber at 60 fps or better? Of course you do...




  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    Downriver wrote:
    This is not a troll and you nor the previous poster are answering the question. I own firearms, but I do not see the need to pack when I go to town.

    If you can't provide a reasoned response you simply reinforce the point.
    A reasoned response is generally reserved for a reasonable question. Your question is is illogical because your premise is illogical for the following reasons.

    1. You don't have a right to be free from worry. To worry or not is achoice you make. Your choice to worry does not trump the right to keep and bear arms.

    2. Law abiding citizens aren't generally "whackos." In fact "whackos" will carry guns regardless of the laws that are passed so even if we all left our guns home, your family would still have to worry about the "whackos."

    3. Ignorance of firearm safety doesn't make a person a "whacko."

    Your question shows that youdon't have the understanding of anyone who is familiar with firearms. You may well own some firearms but your question shows that that you are most likely the very ignorant person you profess to worry about.

    In short, according to the standard of your originalquestion, you are a "whacko" ... or a troll.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Reading your posts leads me to believe you are delusional, that somehow you think you and even your wife are somehow to "situationally aware" to be a victim. That is total BS, and if you indeed think that, then you have no business carrying a firearm and most definitely no business as an LEO, which I doubt.

    If I ever feel the need to pack, it will because of people like you.



  20. #20
    Regular Member Nikki_Black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Saint Francisville, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    JT wrote:
    Downriver wrote:
    This is not a troll and you nor the previous poster are answering the question. I own firearms, but I do not see the need to pack when I go to town.

    If you can't provide a reasoned response you simply reinforce the point.
    A reasoned response is generally reserved for a reasonable question.* Your question is is illogical because your premise is illogical for the following reasons.

    1.* You don't have a right* to be free from worry.* To worry or not is a*choice you make.* Your choice to worry does not trump the right to keep and bear arms.

    2.* Law abiding citizens aren't generally "whackos."* In fact "whackos" will carry guns regardless of the laws that are passed so even if we all left our guns home, your family would still have to worry about the "whackos."

    3.* Ignorance of firearm safety doesn't make a person a "whacko."

    Your question shows that you*don't have the understanding of anyone who is familiar with firearms.* You may well own some firearms but your question shows that that you are most likely the very ignorant person you profess to worry about.

    In short, according to the standard of your original*question, you are a "whacko" ... or a troll.
    Both, more than likely. :P

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    Downriver wrote:
    If I ever feel the need to pack, it will because of people like you.
    Generally, the ones that feel the need to pack to deal with law abiding citizens are criminals.

    You say that you aren't a troll but you haven't given a single reasoned response to any of the responses youhave received.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Downriver wrote:
    Reading your posts leads me to believe you are delusional, that somehow you think you and even your wife are somehow to "situationally aware" to be a victim. That is total BS, and if you indeed think that, then you have no business carrying a firearm and most definitely no business as an LEO, which I doubt.

    If I ever feel the need to pack, it will because of people like you.

    'Pack'? People carry... 'packing' is for luggage. Reading 'your' posts leads me to believe you are an ignorant sort and prefer to remain so. There is no verifiable incident in the entire country of an (LAC) open carrier being 'attacked' and his weapon taken. Not one... anywhere... Ever! The only person having delusions here is you. You are indeed a troll. Oh... btw... I'm a former LEO as well as retired military. Doubt what you will. I open carry daily. G'bye!



  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Co., ,
    Posts
    138

    Post imported post

    "Packing" is a term used by gangbangers, are you a gang member?

  24. #24
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    Downriver wrote:
    Reading your posts leads me to believe you are delusional, that somehow you think you and even your wife are somehow to "situationally aware" to be a victim. That is total BS, and if you indeed think that, then you have no business carrying a firearm and most definitely no business as an LEO, which I doubt.

    If I ever feel the need to pack, it will because of people like you.

    Thank you for returning for reasoned discourse. I will retract my previous comment about trolling as you seem to be willing to discuss (however illogically) the caryying of firearms.

    Speaking of logic, if your premise is to make any sense whatsoever, please inform me the resoning why your very argument applies to law enforcement.

    After all, why do they feel the "need" to openly carry their firearms? If carrying a gun is so bad and evil, why do you allow the police to do so? Shouldn't those upstanding members of law enforcement not display those scary handguns? After all, they're only required to shoot a couple of rounds at a still paper target once every year or so. What makes them as qualified to operate such a deadly weapon as I, a twice ranked Missouri State IDPA competitor and graduate of several highly esteemed firearms academies? I mean, since they are only required to pop a few rounds downrange every year, whereas I, an avid enthusiast, put several hundred into the ten ring every week, how can you support letting these unskilled and less trained carry such deadly weapons around for all to see?

    Is it the shiny metal disk that suddenly makes their lives worthy of potecting themselves? So, does this mean if I polish up a hunk of chrome and pin it to my chest, my life is suddenly more valuable? Enough to warrant self protection instead of relying on someone who isn't even here?

    Answer this oh master of reasoned discourse:

    What does the "feeling" of safety have to do with anything? I can name 32 people right now who "felt" perfectly safe walking into a classroom at Virginia Tech. I wonder, as they walked into their classrooms that morning, how many of them do you think "felt" safe? You'd probably agree with me that they wouldn't feel like they needed a handgun that morning, right? How did this feeling of safety help them out in any way as Suenh Hui Cho put lead bullets into their heads one by one? What about Dr. Susanna Hupp? Remember her? You know. The law abiding citizen who legally carried a firearm to Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen Texas? Thanks to laws passed to appease you hoplophobes, she willingly left her firearm in her vehicle according to Texas Sate law. Too bad. Minutes after entering she was greeted by George Hennard firing bullets into both of her parents heads while she was left defenseless. Thanks to folks like you scared of law abiding citizens. Tell me:

    Why didn't George Hennard obey the law? Last time I checked, MURDERING PEOPLE WAS AGAINST THE LAW. Hennard didn't seem to concerned with that one, did he? Why would he be concerned with the one requiring him to disarm? Dr. Hupp obeyed it.

    Think any of those folks in Luby's FELT like they needed a gun before walking in? Evidently, like you, they felt unsafe with all those law abiding citizens carrying guns. So they made it against the law to carry into a restaurant. Good thing they disarmed all those who willingly followed the law. I'm sure they "felt" much safer knowing that peaceful folks like Dr. Hupp were unarmed. Tell me:

    How exactly do you think they felt as George Hennard pointed his pistols at them and started putting bullets in their heads? How'd that feeling of safety work out for them?

    Now. Maybe you're a good ESP practitioner. Maybe you're clairvoiant. Maybe you can tell me the actual place of the next mass shooting. So far, I'm a little foggy about where these happen. (You anti's always carp about where I don't need my gun. Well, since you're so clairvoiant, please inform me where I will need it.)
    If I ever feel the need to pack, it will because of people like you.



    Who? We law abiding citizens like Dr. Hupp? I'm afraid of folks like George Hennard who could care less about your felings. Evidently, you believe in disarming peaceful folks Like Dr. Hupp. (We see how effective this is against criminals like Cho and Hennard.)

    Who are you calling delusional? Hey, I'm not the one who thinks they can sit around unarmed and, when a dangerous situation happens, use a phone to call folks who aren't even thereto bring guns and save me before the thing I'm calling them about happens.

    Yeah. This makes sense.

    BTW: If you are so afraid of folks with guns, why would you call folks with guns to save you from folks with guns?

    Wouldn't it be simpler to just carry a gun of your own?

    Oh.....I see. No shiny metal disk. This makes sense, huh?

    Who's delusional?

  25. #25
    Regular Member Nikki_Black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Saint Francisville, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    Downriver wrote:
    Reading your posts leads me to believe you are delusional, that somehow you think you and even your wife are somehow to "situationally aware" to be a victim. That is total BS, and if you indeed think that, then you have no business carrying a firearm and most definitely no business as an LEO, which I doubt.

    If I ever feel the need to pack, it will because of people like you.

    Hey mods? Do we have to be polite to the trolls too?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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