PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: President-Elect Bob Noel on September 18, 2016, 02:10:27 PM
-
Something I'm curious about:
In what was does my firearm infringe on your rights?
-
Something I'm curious about:
In what was does my firearm infringe on your rights?
They don't. Legally owned firearms possessed by law abiding citizens are the target of the Democrats as that is the last line of defense against their totalitarian, communist regime. Hillary is a perfect example as is Obama. They are fine with guns if their security detail has them. In fact they wouldn't leave their homes if they didn't have men armed with guns by their side. We can't afford a cadre of armed security. They know that, but don't care about our safety as they want to ban and confiscate our legally owned firearms.
-
Something I'm curious about:
In what was does my firearm infringe on your rights?
Your ownership of a firearm, in and of itself, doesn't infringe on my rights one bit (at least in my opinion).
How you use it and the responsibility you take in its ownership/use, can have a huge impact on the rights of others.
EDIT:
Just as a matter of information, do you believe that this gentleman shows good responsibility in the ownership and use of firearms?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/guns-and-sodas/2016/09/17/805e0db4-79e9-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html
-
Just as a matter of information, do you believe that this gentleman shows good responsibility in the ownership and use of firearms?
The short answer is: No.
-
Your ownership of a firearm, in and of itself, doesn't infringe on my rights one bit (at least in my opinion).
How you use it and the responsibility you take in its ownership/use, can have a huge impact on the rights of others.
EDIT:
Just as a matter of information, do you believe that this gentleman shows good responsibility in the ownership and use of firearms?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/guns-and-sodas/2016/09/17/805e0db4-79e9-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html
The same could be said of many items owned by most people, beginning with but certainly not limited to cars, knives and many household chemicals.
-
Just as a matter of information, do you believe that this gentleman shows good responsibility in the ownership and use of firearms?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/guns-and-sodas/2016/09/17/805e0db4-79e9-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html
That's a BS question. There are people who don't show good conduct or use of their rights all over the place. The prisons are full of them.
-
That's a BS question. There are people who don't show good conduct or use of their rights all over the place. The prisons are full of them.
Not BS at all. Would seem that all the people in this thread agree that ownership of a firearm is not an infringement on anyone else's rights. How that firearm is used, can certainly be an infringement. What we are really talking about is regulating peoples behavior, So... the person in the referenced article certainly is exercising his right, but is that responsible behavior? Those kind of articles get widespread coverage and do nothing to further the case for firearm ownership.
We could have a whole 'nother thread on other people and their good (or bad) conduct. This thread was about firearms.
-
kind of along the line of: what is legal is not necessarily smart or safe. And what is safe isn't necessarily legal.
-
kind of along the line of: what is legal is not necessarily smart or safe. And what is safe isn't necessarily legal.
The guy in the Washpo article is an idiot and puts responsible firearm owners in a very bad light. Washpo purposely picked this guy to advance their anti (legal) gun agenda to further regulate legal open carry of firearms. That is all. 99.999% of gun owners would not bring an AR-15 to Walmart. Conceal carry a handgun? Yes. OC a rifle NO.
-
The guy in the Washpo article is an idiot and puts responsible firearm owners in a very bad light. Washpo purposely picked this guy to advance their anti (legal) gun agenda to further regulate legal open carry of firearms. That is all. 99.999% of gun owners would not bring an AR-15 to Walmart. Conceal carry a handgun? Yes. OC a rifle NO.
With over 10,000,000 gun owners, I'm thinking that the percentage is probably off by an order of magnitude (or two).
-
Something I'm curious about:
In what was does my firearm infringe on your rights?
It doesn't. It's your obligation to be responsible with it but it doesn't infringe on any other person's rights by merely having one.
-
EDIT:
Just as a matter of information, do you believe that this gentleman shows good responsibility in the ownership and use of firearms?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/guns-and-sodas/2016/09/17/805e0db4-79e9-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html
I don't even know where to begin with that article. No, he wasn't irresponsible. If it was legal and permitted by Walmart then he didn't do anything wrong. If you want to make the argument of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" then that's a different story.
I think the Washington Post was more irresponsible for writing a trash hit piece article like this instead and finding someone they knew would make law abiding citizens look bad, especially when they don't frame it in the right context.
-
I wonder if the Washington Post would ever print an article that discusses the numerous times a firearm has been used for self defense (including when no shots are fired)
-
With over 10,000,000 gun owners, I'm thinking that the percentage is probably off by an order of magnitude (or two).
I am sure you are correct. Yes it is legal to open carry a rifle. However, like the idiots in Starbucks, all it does is create fear, and promote more senseless laws, as politicians feel they need to always "do something". That is why I conceal carry when and if I carry a pistol. It is my business if I am armed or not. Nobody else's.
-
Just as a matter of information, do you believe that this gentleman shows good responsibility in the ownership and use of firearms?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/guns-and-sodas/2016/09/17/805e0db4-79e9-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html
Let's see....
He didn't carry it in a way that he was looking to use it. He didn't have a round in the chamber, unless he stores it with a round there. They didn't mention whether the safety was on or off.
If the safety was on, then I would say he could not have carried it any more responsibly. Is it your opinion that carrying the weapon was irresponsible?
The only problems I saw were the echo chamber fears of those who told each other to be afraid for no reason.
-
I think flaunting rifles, especially AR's, and AK's which I own several of, in public places like Walmart and Starbucks is irresponsible. It is legal, and OK with Walmart regs, but it does create fear in an unknowing public. What do they do? They complain to Walmart, the call the POLICE, and the call their POLITICIANS. This creates ANGST, and politicians, and stores FEEL they need to do something. So what happens? More restrictive laws are passed, more anti gun regs come into being, and our rights are further curtailed.
IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to retaining gun rights which really can't be taken away by government, but they do it daily.
-
Let's see....
He didn't carry it in a way that he was looking to use it. He didn't have a round in the chamber, unless he stores it with a round there. They didn't mention whether the safety was on or off.
The story was silent on whether or not the bolt was closed on an empty chamber.
I'm not particularly fond of relying on the safety even though I've never experienced a failure of the safety.
-
The vast majority of firearm deaths occur to victims who know their assailants. About half are suicides. This is year in and year out, and has been the case for a least a decade. Moreover, the number of firearm fatalities has been around 30K/year for some time. I've seen credible estimates of 300,000,000 firearms in America owned by 100,000,000. Thus the rate at which firearms "go bad" is about 0.01%.
Given these facts I find it hard to get worked up over someone else's firearm ownership. That said, should they change my outlook is likely to change as well. And I won't be alone.
-
The vast majority of firearm deaths occur to victims who know their assailants. About half are suicides. This is year in and year out, and has been the case for a least a decade. Moreover, the number of firearm fatalities has been around 30K/year for some time. I've seen credible estimates of 300,000,000 firearms in America owned by 100,000,000. Thus the rate at which firearms "go bad" is about 0.01%.
The rate upper bound is about 0.01% and only if a firearm is only used once for a fatality. It is far more likely that a firearm is used multiple times in the commision of a homicide.
While we have statistics injected here... Note that the annual number of firearm fatalities has remained relatively flat even while our population has grown and the total number of firearm has signficantly increased (especially those "evil" black guns).
edit: "The vast majority of firearm deaths occur to victims who know their assailants." which is also pretty much true of murders in general. In other words, that is not a particularly useful tidbit of information.
-
The guy in the Washpo article is an idiot and puts responsible firearm owners in a very bad light. Washpo purposely picked this guy to advance their anti (legal) gun agenda to further regulate legal open carry of firearms. That is all. 99.999% of gun owners would not bring an AR-15 to Walmart. Conceal carry a handgun? Yes. OC a rifle NO.
I agree that the percentage of people that would OC a rifle in a store is very low, but not that low. You may be mistakenly believing that almost everyone has some level or rationality about them and has any sort of respect for society. Unfortunately, that just ain't so.
-
I agree that the percentage of people that would OC a rifle in a store is very low, but not that low. You may be mistakenly believing that almost everyone has some level or rationality about them and has any sort of respect for society. Unfortunately, that just ain't so.
yeah, but how many registered democrats have firearms?
-
edit: "The vast majority of firearm deaths occur to victims who know their assailants." which is also pretty much true of murders in general. In other words, that is not a particularly useful tidbit of information.
I disagree. The political narrative is driven by the outliers, where a gunman kills strangers at random. That these are outliers should obviate them from driving the legislative process.
That our political operatives have as little regard for critical thinking and worldview as you is truly a pity.
-
The vast majority of firearm deaths occur to victims who know their assailants. About half are suicides. This is year in and year out, and has been the case for a least a decade. Moreover, the number of firearm fatalities has been around 30K/year for some time. I've seen credible estimates of 300,000,000 firearms in America owned by 100,000,000. Thus the rate at which firearms "go bad" is about 0.01%.
Given these facts I find it hard to get worked up over someone else's firearm ownership. That said, should they change my outlook is likely to change as well. And I won't be alone.
"Firearm Fatalities?" The firearm can not, and does not act on its own. They are human caused fatalities using a firearm as the tool instead of a knife, car, screwdriver, rope, tall building, bath tub, swimming pool, set of stairs, etc.
-
"Firearm Fatalities?" The firearm can not, and does not act on its own. They are human caused fatalities using a firearm as the tool instead of a knife, car, screwdriver, rope, tall building, bath tub, swimming pool, set of stairs, etc.
This is little more than silliness. The function of a firearm is to kill things, people included. You can't drive one to the store, or carve up a steak with it.
-
This is little more than silliness. The function of a firearm is to kill things, people included.
Good grief. Talk about "silliness"
The function of a firearm is to send a projectile downrange.
Until you can grasp that, you will continue to demonstrate your ignorance.
-
Hmmm, the function of a knife is to kill things, people included too. Should we ban them?
-
When are pressure cookers going to be banned?
-
This is little more than silliness. The function of a firearm is to kill things, people included. You can't drive one to the store, or carve up a steak with it.
Well... for military firearms I'd agree. For civilian firearms, no that's not the case.
-
They don't. Legally owned firearms possessed by law abiding citizens are the target of the Democrats as that is the last line of defense against their totalitarian, communist regime. Hillary is a perfect example as is Obama. They are fine with guns if their security detail has them. In fact they wouldn't leave their homes if they didn't have men armed with guns by their side. We can't afford a cadre of armed security. They know that, but don't care about our safety as they want to ban and confiscate our legally owned firearms.
Now now, Hillary, Obama et al are not "ordinary Americans," the term used by Chris Wallace yesterday when discussing Trump's statement that Hillary's security detail should be disarmed.
They are elite royalty, and should be treated as such.
So SILENCE!!!!! Turn in your guns, you peasant, and cease speaking ill of our royalty, lest you have your tongue cut out.
-
I think flaunting rifles, especially AR's, and AK's which I own several of, in public places like Walmart and Starbucks is irresponsible. It is legal, and OK with Walmart regs, but it does create fear in an unknowing public. What do they do? They complain to Walmart, the call the POLICE, and the call their POLITICIANS. This creates ANGST, and politicians, and stores FEEL they need to do something. So what happens? More restrictive laws are passed, more anti gun regs come into being, and our rights are further curtailed.
IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to retaining gun rights which really can't be taken away by government, but they do it daily.
I agree with this! As someone else posted... what is legal isn't necessarily right. It is a matter of perception, I believe there are a lot of people whose only idea of firearm use is what they have seen in the movies/TV/media. Unfortunately, the way firearms are portrayed in the media is vastly different than real life. Flaunting arms in public does a major disservice to those millions of gun owners who use them responsibly.
-
With over 10,000,000 gun owners, I'm thinking that the percentage is probably off by an order of magnitude (or two).
Speaking of order of magnitude, I believe there are in excess of 100 million, not 10 million gun owners. Over 1/3 of Americans own a firearm.
-
Let's see....
He didn't carry it in a way that he was looking to use it. He didn't have a round in the chamber, unless he stores it with a round there. They didn't mention whether the safety was on or off.
If the safety was on, then I would say he could not have carried it any more responsibly. Is it your opinion that carrying the weapon was irresponsible?
The only problems I saw were the echo chamber fears of those who told each other to be afraid for no reason.
Whether or not a round is in the chamber is irrelevant. In fact, I would argue that if he's carrying for the purposes of self defense, he should have a round in the chamber so that it's ready when he needs to use it. The safety should be on until he's ready to use it and there are numerous drills you can go through which you practice going from the low ready to being on target while simultaneously taking the safety off. This is true of both hand guns and rifles.
-
I think flaunting rifles, especially AR's, and AK's which I own several of, in public places like Walmart and Starbucks is irresponsible. It is legal, and OK with Walmart regs, but it does create fear in an unknowing public. What do they do? They complain to Walmart, the call the POLICE, and the call their POLITICIANS. This creates ANGST, and politicians, and stores FEEL they need to do something. So what happens? More restrictive laws are passed, more anti gun regs come into being, and our rights are further curtailed.
IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to retaining gun rights which really can't be taken away by government, but they do it daily.
So he shouldn't open carry a rifle (which is completely legal) because it might make others feel a certain way which might lead to the police being called and/or might lead to politicians getting involved? Sounds like the left has won already if we're going down that road.
I would argue that people become familiar with the laws in their state and if it's legal to not be concerned about it so long as the person isn't holding or using the weapon in a manner which is threatening. Having a rifle slung on your back is hardly threatening and only shows the ignorance of others.
How one chooses to carry is up to them as long as it's legal.
-
So he shouldn't open carry a rifle (which is completely legal) because it might make others feel a certain way which might lead to the police being called and/or might lead to politicians getting involved? Sounds like the left has won already if we're going down that road.
I would argue that people become familiar with the laws in their state and if it's legal to not be concerned about it so long as the person isn't holding or using the weapon in a manner which is threatening. Having a rifle slung on your back is hardly threatening and only shows the ignorance of others.
How one chooses to carry is up to them as long as it's legal.
I agree, but it's bad optics these days. Personally, if a guy walked into a store with a long gun slung over his shoulder I'd tell the wife to wait in the car and I'd be giving him a big hairy eyeball. This is why we have "concealment" as an option, and states that outlaw such are infringing, big time. I don't know why NRA doesn't have states constantly in court.
-
I think flaunting rifles, especially AR's, and AK's which I own several of, in public places like Walmart and Starbucks is irresponsible. It is legal, and OK with Walmart regs, but it does create fear in an unknowing public. What do they do? They complain to Walmart, the call the POLICE, and the call their POLITICIANS. This creates ANGST, and politicians, and stores FEEL they need to do something. So what happens? More restrictive laws are passed, more anti gun regs come into being, and our rights are further curtailed.
IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to retaining gun rights which really can't be taken away by government, but they do it daily.
Do I understand your logic correctly? That in order to maintain the right to open carry a rifle, one must not open carry a rifle?
I think you have this backwards.
-
So he shouldn't open carry a rifle (which is completely legal) because it might make others feel a certain way which might lead to the police being called and/or might lead to politicians getting involved? Sounds like the left has won already if we're going down that road.
I would argue that people become familiar with the laws in their state and if it's legal to not be concerned about it so long as the person isn't holding or using the weapon in a manner which is threatening. Having a rifle slung on your back is hardly threatening and only shows the ignorance of others.
How one chooses to carry is up to them as long as it's legal.
Hey, it doesn't bother me, but it does bother a LOT OF PEOPLE that can have a negative effect on our 2A rights. What does carrying an AR into Walmart accomplish? Is it needed for self defense? I would argue my concealed 9MM is more effective, as a shooter doesn't know I have it, and won't target me first. A guy with an AR will be their first target.
Yes, the LEFT has won in many respects. Carrying an AR into Walmart won't help roll back their wins.
-
I agree, but it's bad optics these days. Personally, if a guy walked into a store with a long gun slung over his shoulder I'd tell the wife to wait in the car and I'd be giving him a big hairy eyeball. This is why we have "concealment" as an option, and states that outlaw such are infringing, big time. I don't know why NRA doesn't have states constantly in court.
If not slung over his shoulder, how would you prefer that he carry his rifle?
Or are you revealing something about you?
-
I agree, but it's bad optics these days. Personally, if a guy walked into a store with a long gun slung over his shoulder I'd tell the wife to wait in the car and I'd be giving him a big hairy eyeball. This is why we have "concealment" as an option, and states that outlaw such are infringing, big time. I don't know why NRA doesn't have states constantly in court.
I don't care how it looks as long as it's legal. That sounds like an education problem for the other person. If someone walks into a store with a rifle slung over their shoulder in the back, I really don't think that's a big deal. If someone comes into a store with the rifle at the low ready, I'll probably decide to leave. Possessing the weapon itself isn't the issue, the position that it's in is what leads to bad optics.
-
Do I understand your logic correctly? That in order to maintain the right to open carry a rifle, one must not open carry a rifle?
I think you have this backwards.
Carrying a rifle openly, and responsibly is not done in places where unknowing people can, and will move to further curtail your rights on every level, not just open carry either. I have no problem with open carrying a handgun IN A HOLSTER. Rifles don't have holsters, and many people wrongly, but simply panic at the sight of an uncovered rifle. It isn't right, but it is reality.
-
Hey, it doesn't bother me, but it does bother a LOT OF PEOPLE that can have a negative effect on our 2A rights. What does carrying an AR into Walmart accomplish? Is it needed for self defense? I would argue my concealed 9MM is more effective, as a shooter doesn't know I have it, and won't target me first. A guy with an AR will be their first target.
Yes, the LEFT has won in many respects. Carrying an AR into Walmart won't help roll back their wins.
Again, this sounds like an educational issue. The NRA (and other groups) needs to be informing and educating people. Instead we are telling people to not open carry for fear it may upset someone.
I'm not saying I would carry a rifle into Walmart, but if it's legal and isn't against Walmart policy, then who cares? The flip side to that is he has to accept the risk that he's making himself a bigger target.
-
Again, this sounds like an educational issue. The NRA (and other groups) needs to be informing and educating people. Instead we are telling people to not open carry for fear it may upset someone.
I'm not saying I would carry a rifle into Walmart, but if it's legal and isn't against Walmart policy, then who cares? The flip side to that is he has to accept the risk that he's making himself a bigger target.
Totally agree.
-
Again, this sounds like an educational issue. The NRA (and other groups) needs to be informing and educating people. Instead we are telling people to not open carry for fear it may upset someone.
I'm not saying I would carry a rifle into Walmart, but if it's legal and isn't against Walmart policy, then who cares? The flip side to that is he has to accept the risk that he's making himself a bigger target.
I don't think Anthony is suggesting that we ban open carry of a rifle. I think he's simply saying that there are many things that are legal that aren't "smart" and don't advance your issue. Advocating open carry of a rifle in Wal-Mart might be one of those instances. Educating enough of the general public to avoid folks being uneasy seeing someone carrying a rifle in Wal-Mart is a tall order and not likely to come to fruition.
-
I don't think Anthony is suggesting that we ban open carry of a rifle. I think he's simply saying that there are many things that are legal that aren't "smart" and don't advance your issue. Advocating open carry of a rifle in Wal-Mart might be one of those instances. Educating enough of the general public to avoid folks being uneasy seeing someone carrying a rifle in Wal-Mart is a tall order and not likely to come to fruition.
Yes, that's pretty much it. Thanks. The media, Democrats, education, and our government has succeeded in demonizing legally owned and carried firearms for nearly the past 50 years. Carrying what many think is an "Assault Rifle", total misnomer by the way, is a shock to many that have been indoctrinated into thinking "all guns are bad, and dangerous by themselves".
An AR-15 is nothing more than a semi automatic rifle like all others, except it is black or camo patterned and looks "scary" to some.
-
Yes, that's pretty much it. Thanks. The media, Democrats, education, and our government has succeeded in demonizing legally owned and carried firearms for nearly the past 50 years. Carrying what many think is an "Assault Rifle", total misnomer by the way, is a shock to many that have been indoctrinated into thinking "all guns are bad, and dangerous by themselves".
An AR-15 is nothing more than a semi automatic rifle like all others, except it is black or camo patterned and looks "scary" to some.
This reminded me of a stunt Steven Crowder did where he was trying to get people to sign a petition for "common sense gun reform". He was saying that nobody needs a "fully semi-automatic assault rifle". :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqJ_4YhYMhE
-
I don't think Anthony is suggesting that we ban open carry of a rifle. I think he's simply saying that there are many things that are legal that aren't "smart" and don't advance your issue. Advocating open carry of a rifle in Wal-Mart might be one of those instances. Educating enough of the general public to avoid folks being uneasy seeing someone carrying a rifle in Wal-Mart is a tall order and not likely to come to fruition.
I for one would never carry a weapon, rifle or handgun, concealed or not, into Walmart. On the few occasions I go there, I see so many people who's absence would improve the gene pool and the economy. I wouldn't want to be tempted.
I also want to add that I sort of agree with Steingar in one respect. Most handguns and some rifles and shotguns are designed, and often purchased with the intent that if necessary, they can efficiently kill or seriously injure someone. But isn't that the point of self defense? And if the 2A is designed to help us resist a tyrannical government, we will need weapons that can kill. Putting a bunch of holes in the center of a target is not going to dissuade anyone from anything. When I used to hunt I usually only need one or two rounds. And the second one was only if I got a bad shot off the first time. The only time I would even carry more than 3 shells with me is if I were quail hunting, in which case I took a couple of boxes, and usually brought home a couple dozen quail. But that was with a shotgun. I wasn't good enough to use a rifle for bird hunting. But I did use a .22 rifle for squirrel hunting. But bird shot and .22 shorts are not much good for self defense.
-
This is little more than silliness. The function of a firearm is to kill things, people included. You can't drive one to the store, or carve up a steak with it.
Another brilliantly provided lecture about the stupidity of the progressive agenda, provided by our resident academic progressive.
The FUNCTION of a firearm is whatever it was manufactured to do.
Hunting, Personal protection, Ego enhancement, Exercise of Constitutional Right, COLLECTING, Shooting for sport, Personal enjoyment.
To lie about the function of a firearm the way our professional progressive has chosen to do is ignorant and idiotic.
-
This is little more than silliness. The function of a firearm is to kill things, people included. You can't drive one to the store, or carve up a steak with it.
Ahhhh, NO. The FUNCTION of a firearm is anything the PERSON wants it to do. Target shoot, hunt, collect, and yes defend themselves from physical threats and an oppressive government. The firearm is a tool, it can not operate by itself. Why blame the tool, and take accountability, and responsibility away from the individual?
Firearms are used safely every day for sport, and for self defense, and when used for self defense the goal is to STOP THE THREAT, not KILL. You need some education Michael. Maybe I can get some of my Ebonics only reading friends to help you.
-
Carrying a rifle openly, and responsibly is not done in places where unknowing people can, and will move to further curtail your rights on every level, not just open carry either. I have no problem with open carrying a handgun IN A HOLSTER. Rifles don't have holsters, and many people wrongly, but simply panic at the sight of an uncovered rifle. It isn't right, but it is reality.
But did I hear you correctly, because I think I heard it again. You are saying that the only way to keep the right to carry is not to carry. Isn't that not being able to?
People who panic will panic over less than a rifle. Nothing is going to happen to them and they might relax the next time. They do not get a safe space if I want to carry a rifle.
-
But did I hear you correctly, because I think I heard it again. You are saying that the only way to keep the right to carry is not to carry. Isn't that not being able to?
People who panic will panic over less than a rifle. Nothing is going to happen to them and they might relax the next time. They do not get a safe space if I want to carry a rifle.
I think it does more harm than good to our cause of retaining our 2A rights. We are one Supreme Court justice away from the 2A becoming a collective, military/police only right. Meaning our guns will be largely banned, and confiscated like Australia, UK, etc. We all know public opinion affects these decisions as do the politicians that represent these bliss ninnies that are ignorant about guns, natural human rights and the 2A.
What I am saying is PICK YOUR BATTLES, and be smart about it. A lot of life is perception. So to answer your question, YES, that is what I believe. Talk to me when Hillary packs the court with far left, radical anti 2A Justices. More Ginsbergs, Kagans, and Sotomayors.
-
I think it does more harm than good to our cause of retaining our 2A rights. We are one Supreme Court justice away from the 2A becoming a collective, military/police only right. Meaning our guns will be largely banned, and confiscated like Australia, UK, etc. We all know public opinion affects these decisions as do the politicians that represent these bliss ninnies that are ignorant about guns, natural human rights and the 2A.
What I am saying is PICK YOUR BATTLES, and be smart about it. A lot of life is perception. So to answer your question, YES, that is what I believe. Talk to me when Hillary packs the court with far left, radical anti 2A Justices. More Ginsbergs, Kagans, and Sotomayors.
Sage advice.
-
If not slung over his shoulder, how would you prefer that he carry his rifle?
Or are you revealing something about you?
what are you implying?
-
what are you implying?
That you are giving up our rights by not exercising them. If the norm becomes that you cannot carry a rifle then the law becomes that you cannot do it. In NC, there is a common law established through judicial ruling called "going armed in terror of the public" which states that I cannot walk down the street with a rifle. It isn't hypothetical.
And we are just a supreme court justice away from losing the entire bill of rights anyway.
-
Ahhhh, NO. The FUNCTION of a firearm is anything the PERSON wants it to do. Target shoot, hunt, collect, and yes defend themselves from physical threats and an oppressive government. The firearm is a tool, it can not operate by itself. Why blame the tool, and take accountability, and responsibility away from the individual?
Firearms are used safely every day for sport, and for self defense, and when used for self defense the goal is to STOP THE THREAT, not KILL. You need some education Michael. Maybe I can get some of my Ebonics only reading friends to help you.
Yes, a firearm is a tool to be used as the user sees fit.
But like all tools, you choose the correct one for the job.
I wouldn't use a gun to pound a nail and I wouldn't use a hammer to stop an intruder, although you may be able to do either with either. A gun is better for stopping intruders than most any other tool.
But I see nothing wrong with that. I always try to select the best tool for the job. That doesn't mean that if I want to stop intruders that I am going to use that tool for robbing liquor stores. If I do, that is on me, not on the gun.