Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: "why do you scary carry?"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    was the question i was asked earlier today at rite aid. i was ocing my sig p95, and a customer had quietly walked up to me and asked me that. i told him that i felt it was a good deterrent to crime, and he started preaching about the advantages of carrying concealed incase small children try to come up and grab my gun, and then lectured me on how i could be sued if something happened or something. this was at the rite aid in the kent valley

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Post imported post

    I find it disturbingly ironic that the only times that I have seen the term "scary carry" used, prior to your post, has been by certain members of this board when referring to the peaceable carrying of slung long arms.

    Perhaps this is a case of "chickens coming home to roost." To me, there is no difference between the antis picking and choosing which Constitutional rights are worthy of full and free expression and us doing so among ourselves.

    Just my $0.02.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    What is a sig p95?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    What is a sig p95?
    SIG frame, Ruger slide?
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    Lammo wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    What is a sig p95?
    SIG frame, Ruger slide?
    It's his imaginary gun, that he carried during this imaginary encounter.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Tony, Helmke called he wants you to come back home your tactics are not working.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    tony has two imaginary guns,, he claimed to own a sig, in an early thread,
    then he later was going to buy his first gun, a ruger p95, in a later thread..
    he was worried about the safety while carrying the sig "mexican",
    them came back asking about the loading and operation of a ruger semi auto..

    he shouldnd be fed,, maybe he will study before he comes back to write stupid stuff...
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    1245A Defender wrote:
    tony has two imaginary guns,, he claimed to own a sig, in an early thread,
    then he later was going to buy his first gun, a ruger p95, in a later thread..
    he was worried about the safety while carrying the sig "mexican",
    them came back asking about the loading and operation of a ruger semi auto..

    he shouldnd be fed,, maybe he will study before he comes back to write stupid stuff...
    Well there ya have it. He owns a Sig and a Ruger, so he put them together to form one gun.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Sounds like the Progressive on Sean Hannity extolling the virtues of little cars. When asked what he himself drove, the answer was "a Honda Prius."

    MD

  10. #10
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Tony Santiago wrote:
    was the question i was asked earlier today at rite aid. i was ocing my sig p95, and a customer had quietly walked up to me and asked me that. i told him that i felt it was a good deterrent to crime, and he started preaching about the advantages of carrying concealed incase small children try to come up and grab my gun, and then lectured me on how i could be sued if something happened or something. this was at the rite aid in the kent valley
    First time he didnt post something funny and thought provoking. I dont like him any more.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Tony Santiago wrote:
    was the question i was asked earlier today at rite aid. i was ocing my sig p95, and a customer had quietly walked up to me and asked me that. i told him that i felt it was a good deterrent to crime, and he started preaching about the advantages of carrying concealed incase small children try to come up and grab my gun, and then lectured me on how i could be sued if something happened or something. this was at the rite aid in the kent valley
    Next time a concealed carry advocate asks, tell him open carry is the right and concealed carry is a priveledge. Tell him you open carry to ensure that the right is normalized in Washington, so that Washington can never be converted into a priveledge only state.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #12
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    ManInBlack wrote:
    I find it disturbingly ironic that the only times that I have seen the term "scary carry" used, prior to your post, has been by certain members of this board when referring to the peaceable carrying of slung long arms.

    Perhaps this is a case of "chickens coming home to roost." To me, there is no difference between the antis picking and choosing which Constitutional rights are worthy of full and free expression and us doing so among ourselves.

    Just my $0.02.
    +10 ManInBlack!!
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Next time a concealed carry advocate asks, tell him open carry is the right and concealed carry is a priveledge. Tell him you open carry to ensure that the right is normalized in Washington, so that Washington can never be converted into a priveledge only state.
    This is a dangerous line of reasoning. "Shall not be infringed" does not make an exception for concealed carry. Either we are serious about our rights or we can negotiate rights away like the rest of the putative "shooting enthusiasts" in this country.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    ManInBlack wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    Next time a concealed carry advocate asks, tell him open carry is the right and concealed carry is a priveledge. Tell him you open carry to ensure that the right is normalized in Washington, so that Washington can never be converted into a priveledge only state.
    This is a dangerous line of reasoning. "Shall not be infringed" does not make an exception for concealed carry. Either we are serious about our rights or we can negotiate rights away like the rest of the putative "shooting enthusiasts" in this country.
    Correct. All methods of carry are a right pre existing the Constitution. The Constitution only recognizes that pre existing right.
    Live Free or Die!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    ManInBlack wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    Next time a concealed carry advocate asks, tell him open carry is the right and concealed carry is a priveledge. Tell him you open carry to ensure that the right is normalized in Washington, so that Washington can never be converted into a priveledge only state.
    This is a dangerous line of reasoning. "Shall not be infringed" does not make an exception for concealed carry. Either we are serious about our rights or we can negotiate rights away like the rest of the putative "shooting enthusiasts" in this country.
    Correct. All methods of carry are a right pre existing the Constitution. The Constitution only recognizes that pre existing right.
    But we have to live with the fact that the US Constitution does not apply to the states in this case...Only our state constitution does.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Post imported post

    kito109654 wrote:
    But we have to live with the fact that the US Constitution does not apply to the states in this case...Only our state constitution does.
    What gives you the idea that the federal constitution does not apply to the states? State constitutions and laws (as well as those of the federal government, obviously) must be compatible with the federal constitution; the function of the US Supreme Court is to determine whether laws or rulings are compatible with the federal constitution. In fact, Article I, Section 2 of the Washington constitution explicitly declares that, "The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."

    Furthermore, what about the Washington constitution gives you the idea that it authorizes the regulation of concealed carry? Article I, Section 24:
    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.
    It contains nothing whatsoever relating specifically to CC, or to modes of carry generally.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    ManInBlack wrote:
    kito109654 wrote:
    But we have to live with the fact that the US Constitution does not apply to the states in this case...Only our state constitution does.
    What gives you the idea that the federal constitution does not apply to the states? State constitutions and laws (as well as those of the federal government, obviously) must be compatible with the federal constitution; the function of the US Supreme Court is to determine whether laws or rulings are compatible with the federal constitution. In fact, Article I, Section 2 of the Washington constitution explicitly declares that, "The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."

    Furthermore, what about the Washington constitution gives you the idea that it authorizes the regulation of concealed carry? Article I, Section 24:
    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.
    It contains nothing whatsoever relating specifically to CC, or to modes of carry generally.
    Those lines are nice and pretty but not reality. Many amendments in the Bill of Rights have been routed through the 14th to apply to the states but the 2nd amendment is not one of them.



    You're kidding about the WA constitution right? You must have a CPL to CC in WA or have a loaded weapon in or ona motor vehicle, period.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Post imported post

    kito109654 wrote:
    Those lines are nice and pretty but not reality. Many amendments in the Bill of Rights have been routed through the 14th to apply to the states but the 2nd amendment is not one of them.
    [The 14th Amendment is (in addition to being a complete fraud, although that is a topic for another day) completely unnecessary with respect to the federal constitution being applicable to the states. To follow your convoluted logic, that would mean that nothing in the US Constitution applied to the states until after the Civil War. That is clearly absurd, and US Supreme Court rulings prior to the Civil War demonstrate that was not the case.] -EDIT: I now realize that this paragraph is in error. Thanks to Tawnos for pointing that out.-

    Even if your argument regarding the 14th Amendment were correct, which it is not, the state constitution itself states, in no uncertain terms, that the "right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired." The only authorized exception, allowing government regulation, is the employment of an armed body of men by a private individual, organization, or corporation. Compare this to the Louisiana constitution's RKBA section, which reads, "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person." In Louisiana, the state regulation of concealed carry is explicitly authorized by the constitution. This is not the case in Washington, where both the federal and state constitutions authorize the individual right to bear arms with no exceptions for mode of carry.

    In light of all of this, please explain the relevance of your original comment, to wit:
    "But we have to live with the fact that the US Constitution does not apply to the states in this case...Only our state constitution does."


    kito109654 wrote:
    You're kidding about the WA constitution right? You must have a CPL to CC in WA or have a loaded weapon in or ona motor vehicle, period.
    Just because something is law does not mean that it is constitutional. I would hope that, like mine, your goals include the eventual repeal of all unconstitutional laws regarding the exercise of natural rights. The recent passage of "constitutional carry" in Arizona (no permit required for open or concealed carry, in accordance with the federal and state constitutions) shows that it is possible.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    ManInBlack wrote:
    kito109654 wrote:
    Those lines are nice and pretty but not reality. Many amendments in the Bill of Rights have been routed through the 14th to apply to the states but the 2nd amendment is not one of them.
    The 14th Amendment is (in addition to being a complete fraud, although that is a topic for another day) completely unnecessary with respect to the federal constitution being applicable to the states. To follow your convoluted logic, that would mean that nothing in the US Constitution applied to the states until after the Civil War. That is clearly absurd, and US Supreme Court rulings prior to the Civil War demonstrate that was not the case.

    Even if your argument regarding the 14th Amendment were correct, which it is not, the state constitution itself states, in no uncertain terms, that the "right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired." The only authorized exception, allowing government regulation, is the employment of an armed body of men by a private individual, organization, or corporation. Compare this to the Louisiana constitution's RKBA section, which reads, "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person." In Louisiana, the state regulation of concealed carry is explicitly authorized by the constitution. This is not the case in Washington, where both the federal and state constitutions authorize the individual right to bear arms with no exceptions for mode of carry.

    In light of all of this, please explain the relevance of your original comment, to wit:
    "But we have to live with the fact that the US Constitution does not apply to the states in this case...Only our state constitution does."


    kito109654 wrote:
    You're kidding about the WA constitution right? You must have a CPL to CC in WA or have a loaded weapon in or ona motor vehicle, period.
    Just because something is law does not mean that it is constitutional. I would hope that, like mine, your goals include the eventual repeal of all unconstitutional laws regarding the exercise of natural rights. The recent passage of "constitutional carry" in Arizona (no permit required for open or concealed carry, in accordance with the federal and state constitutions) shows that it is possible.
    Correction: none of the protections of the bill of rights applied to the governments states until after the supreme court specifically incorporated/incorporates them against the states. In fact, the court specifically ruled that the protections were protections of infringement by a federal government, not the states.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

    Your concept of how the constitution works and has worked is fundamentally flawed.

    *edit* in fact, you make a testable assertion - what pre-civil war cases can you point to where the BoR protections were applied against the states?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    Correction: none of the protections of the bill of rights applied to the governments states until after the supreme court specifically incorporated/incorporates them against the states. In fact, the court specifically ruled that the protections were protections of infringement by a federal government, not the states.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

    Your concept of how the constitution works and has worked is fundamentally flawed.

    *edit* in fact, you make a testable assertion - what pre-civil war cases can you point to where the BoR protections were applied against the states?
    Upon review, you are right. I don't know what I was thinking when I typed that paragraph about the 14th Amendment. Scratch that.

    I still maintain that nothing in the Washington state constitution authorizes the regulation of concealed carry, and, in fact, prohibits it through the phrase, "shall not be impaired," which, to my interpretation, is even more restrictive than "shall not be infringed." This is opposed to the constitutions of several other states, Louisiana being the example I used, in which the state government is specifically authorized to regulate concealed carry.

    Thanks for the correction. Curious to hear your thoughts on the state constitutionality of concealed weapons laws.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    ManInBlack wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    Correction: none of the protections of the bill of rights applied to the governments states until after the supreme court specifically incorporated/incorporates them against the states. In fact, the court specifically ruled that the protections were protections of infringement by a federal government, not the states.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

    Your concept of how the constitution works and has worked is fundamentally flawed.

    *edit* in fact, you make a testable assertion - what pre-civil war cases can you point to where the BoR protections were applied against the states?
    Upon review, you are right. I don't know what I was thinking when I typed that paragraph about the 14th Amendment. Scratch that.

    I still maintain that nothing in the Washington state constitution authorizes the regulation of concealed carry, and, in fact, prohibits it through the phrase, "shall not be impaired," which, to my interpretation, is even more restrictive than "shall not be infringed." This is opposed to the constitutions of several other states, Louisiana being the example I used, in which the state government is specifically authorized to regulate concealed carry.

    Thanks for the correction. Curious to hear your thoughts on the state constitutionality of concealed weapons laws.
    Technically, "impaired" is a lesser degree of protection than "infringed", as one can regulate the manner in which something may be done without damaging the fact it may be done. "Infringed" means to violate or break. One can infringe without impairing, but one cannot impair without infringement.

    If, then, we are going to apply the strongest protection/burden of words to the states as being "infringed", one must consider what it means to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. As I read it, the right to keep and bear arms may be directed, but not abolished. I think I'll muse upon that for a while, later. Right now, suffice it to say that there are certainly limitations acceptable under our country's jurisprudence, dating back to Gitlow v. New York, specifying that a particular manner of exercising a right may exceed the protection that right is granted from the government.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  22. #22
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    ...dating back to Gitlow v. New York, specifying that a particular manner of exercising a right may exceed the protection that right is granted from the government.
    You mean the government can censor and stop speech that advocates it's overthrow.

    Gitlow v. New York was important because he wrote a "Left Wing Manifesto" that called for the overthrow of the government at the time, but didn't specify any specific time or means.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    ManInBlack wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    Correction: none of the protections of the bill of rights applied to the governments states until after the supreme court specifically incorporated/incorporates them against the states. In fact, the court specifically ruled that the protections were protections of infringement by a federal government, not the states.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

    Your concept of how the constitution works and has worked is fundamentally flawed.

    *edit* in fact, you make a testable assertion - what pre-civil war cases can you point to where the BoR protections were applied against the states?
    Upon review, you are right. I don't know what I was thinking when I typed that paragraph about the 14th Amendment. Scratch that.

    I still maintain that nothing in the Washington state constitution authorizes the regulation of concealed carry, and, in fact, prohibits it through the phrase, "shall not be impaired," which, to my interpretation, is even more restrictive than "shall not be infringed." This is opposed to the constitutions of several other states, Louisiana being the example I used, in which the state government is specifically authorized to regulate concealed carry.

    Thanks for the correction. Curious to hear your thoughts on the state constitutionality of concealed weapons laws.
    Glad to see that you've read up and are aware of how screwed up the system is. I also think you thought I was arguing something that I wasn't. I am with you in the the laws are not in line with the state constitution; I was simply saying that the actual laws governing the land that we have to live by have little to do with the constitution...clearly we are saying the same thing from slightly different angles.

Posting Permissions

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