Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So far I predict the serial rapist to survive the night. Give the third if you remember eventually

 Frazzled wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Many states allow stores to post signs prohibiting different types of carry. For quite a few of those states the standard "gun-busters" sign won't do. It has to be a specific sign, specific size, with specific language. If you decide to enter one of those places that is posted in accordance to the law you are breaking the law. Any store in any state can ask you to leave for any reason though, and if you refuse you can be charged with trespassing.

Some freedom loving people get upset when other people use their freedom though...

Here is the thing, Freedom isnt true freedom. True Freedom in Anarchy.

Spoken like a college boy indoctrinated in all the hep cat left wing bs that a California college offers.
No. Thats not what freedom is.

I dont believe that no.. Im just making a joke. Freedom in america is an interesting concept. We obviously are not free to do anything, like Own Nuclear Weapons or A Sacrifice. So what is freedom?

Personally, I don't havea problem with open carry, however, I feel that some of these demonstrations are doing more harm than good to the pro gun movement. In fact, I strongly suspect that some of the more extreme cases might very likely be coming from the antigun left just to discredit the gun legit open carry activists. It's really screwed up. And I don't see it getting any better any time soon. One thing is certain, people have finally hand enough of this over reaching government and started to stand up to it, look at the protesters who stopped the buses full of illegal immigrants, the EPA and bundy ranch/ militias, and now the open carry rallies. As long as cool heads prevail I am all for it. I do think that if this was 20 years ago with Janet Reno being in charge the bundy ranch would have turned into an all out war with a blood bath on both sides.

Just had to bring up Waco into this

I dont believe that no.. Im just making a joke. Freedom in america is an interesting concept. We obviously are not free to do anything, like Own Nuclear Weapons or A Sacrifice. So what is freedom?

Going through an S curve, then leaning in and winding out the throttle on your bike as you come out of it until the engine screams.
-Freedom.

Waking up the next day and not having to pay for that full body cast.
-Canadian Health Care.

Praying that your kids never do that.
-Parenting.

 Frazzled wrote:

I dont believe that no.. Im just making a joke. Freedom in america is an interesting concept. We obviously are not free to do anything, like Own Nuclear Weapons or A Sacrifice. So what is freedom?

Going through an S curve, then leaning in and winding out the throttle on your bike as you come out of it until the engine screams.
-Freedom.

Waking up the next day and not having to pay for that full body cast.
-Canadian Health Care.

Praying that your kids never do that.
-Parenting.

Wait. Canadian Health Care is ration. So two leg cast, strapped to a back board, and splinted arms with broom handles and duck tape. Head is held within a table vice

 Jihadin wrote:
So far I predict the serial rapist to survive the night. Give the third if you remember eventually

Oh I remember now. It was about a family of pedophiles that raises their kids for the purge.
Like I said, he thought it should have been a dark movie that disturbs. He said "It should show what happens when all restrainst are gone for even a miniscule night"
He said the most disturbing would be "The Next day" In which everyone would be shown to be living a normal life. The Rapist a teacher, The guy who killed the clerk a Mailman and the family ushering their kids to school

Raven911 wrote:
Personally, I don't havea problem with open carry, however, I feel that some of these demonstrations are doing more harm than good to the pro gun movement. In fact, I strongly suspect that some of the more extreme cases might very likely be coming from the antigun left just to discredit the gun legit open carry activists. ... ...

It actually is irrelevant to public opinion who is doing the open carry. If open carry scares the average citizen they won't care about the party affiliation of the open carrier.

True. It matters though if anti gun false flaggers are doing it.

No it doesn't.

If the law allows people to wander around "insert local department store/amusement park/shopping mall" with a military style assault rifle, scaring the yummy mummies, it is irrelevant if the people who point that out by doing it are pro or anti doing it.

 d-usa wrote:
It's a problem that will fix itself:

Guys can old carry and look threatening because it's the law.
Somebody else can shoot them because they looked threatening because it's the law.
Rinse, repeat, problem solved.

It actually doesnt work like that. You shoot someone because you think they look threatening will land you in jail.

WTH is "old carry" anyway?

Western?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No it doesn't.

If the law allows people to wander around "insert local department store/amusement park/shopping mall" with a military style assault rifle, scaring the yummy mummies, it is irrelevant if the people who point that out by doing it are pro or anti doing it.

Define "military style assault rifle" please.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No it doesn't.

If the law allows people to wander around "insert local department store/amusement park/shopping mall" with a military style assault rifle, scaring the yummy mummies, it is irrelevant if the people who point that out by doing it are pro or anti doing it.

Define "military style assault rifle" please.

 Jihadin wrote:
Western?

Nah, they had them holstered/slung in those days. Only an idiot would carry a heavy arm all day without some form of retention/weight distribution. Even a cord would do.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No it doesn't.

If the law allows people to wander around "insert local department store/amusement park/shopping mall" with a military style assault rifle, scaring the yummy mummies, it is irrelevant if the people who point that out by doing it are pro or anti doing it.

It matters if the crew doing it wants to pass said legislation, when before them it was never an issue in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No it doesn't.

If the law allows people to wander around "insert local department store/amusement park/shopping mall" with a military style assault rifle, scaring the yummy mummies, it is irrelevant if the people who point that out by doing it are pro or anti doing it.

Define "military style assault rifle" please.

Airsoft guns. Alternatively, Martini Henry rifles.

Waist band carry?
Ankle holster consider old carry?
Shoulder Holster?
Clip on revolver/pistol?
Hold Out Pistol?


Pistol/revolver on a two or three point harness?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No it doesn't.

If the law allows people to wander around "insert local department store/amusement park/shopping mall" with a military style assault rifle, scaring the yummy mummies, it is irrelevant if the people who point that out by doing it are pro or anti doing it.

It matters if the crew doing it wants to pass said legislation, when before them it was never an issue in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No it doesn't.

If the law allows people to wander around "insert local department store/amusement park/shopping mall" with a military style assault rifle, scaring the yummy mummies, it is irrelevant if the people who point that out by doing it are pro or anti doing it.

Define "military style assault rifle" please.

Airsoft guns.

Well of course, how could I miss that!

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No it doesn't.

If the law allows people to wander around "insert local department store/amusement park/shopping mall" with a military style assault rifle, scaring the yummy mummies, it is irrelevant if the people who point that out by doing it are pro or anti doing it.

Define "military style assault rifle" please.

To democrats "I know it when I see it" kinda nonsense

 Jihadin wrote:
Waist band carry?
Ankle holster consider old carry?
Shoulder Holster?
Clip on revolver/pistol?
Hold Out Pistol?


Pistol/revolver on a two or three point harness?

Maybe....

But is any of that considered "threatening" enough to get someones panties in a twist to the point that they think it merits shooting the person committing the fashion faux pas?

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No it doesn't.

If the law allows people to wander around "insert local department store/amusement park/shopping mall" with a military style assault rifle, scaring the yummy mummies, it is irrelevant if the people who point that out by doing it are pro or anti doing it.

Define "military style assault rifle" please.

Irrelevant. The yummie mummies will define it for themselves.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No it doesn't.

If the law allows people to wander around "insert local department store/amusement park/shopping mall" with a military style assault rifle, scaring the yummy mummies, it is irrelevant if the people who point that out by doing it are pro or anti doing it.

Define "military style assault rifle" please.

Irrelevant. The yummie mummies will define it for themselves.

Irrelevant.

Wow, wish I could give that as the answer whenever Im faced with a question I have NO ability or hope to answer correctly.

Thanks for the tip.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No it doesn't.

If the law allows people to wander around "insert local department store/amusement park/shopping mall" with a military style assault rifle, scaring the yummy mummies, it is irrelevant if the people who point that out by doing it are pro or anti doing it.

Define "military style assault rifle" please.

To democrats "I know it when I see it" kinda nonsense

Like that "barrel shroud thing that goes up"?

Reminds me of this conversation:
Q: why so many Chicago gun death?
A: because Indiana guns stores...
Q: why so few Indiana gun deaths?
A: Chicago bought all their guns...

Raven911 wrote:
Personally, I don't havea problem with open carry, however, I feel that some of these demonstrations are doing more harm than good to the pro gun movement. In fact, I strongly suspect that some of the more extreme cases might very likely be coming from the antigun left just to discredit the gun legit open carry activists. It's really screwed up. And I don't see it getting any better any time soon. One thing is certain, people have finally hand enough of this over reaching government and started to stand up to it, look at the protesters who stopped the buses full of illegal immigrants, the EPA and bundy ranch/ militias, and now the open carry rallies. As long as cool heads prevail I am all for it. I do think that if this was 20 years ago with Janet Reno being in charge the bundy ranch would have turned into an all out war with a blood bath on both sides.

People are tired of the government following the law so this will end like the siege of a cultist?

This is why we can't have nice things...

 d-usa wrote:

Raven911 wrote:
Personally, I don't havea problem with open carry, however, I feel that some of these demonstrations are doing more harm than good to the pro gun movement. In fact, I strongly suspect that some of the more extreme cases might very likely be coming from the antigun left just to discredit the gun legit open carry activists. It's really screwed up. And I don't see it getting any better any time soon. One thing is certain, people have finally hand enough of this over reaching government and started to stand up to it, look at the protesters who stopped the buses full of illegal immigrants, the EPA and bundy ranch/ militias, and now the open carry rallies. As long as cool heads prevail I am all for it. I do think that if this was 20 years ago with Janet Reno being in charge the bundy ranch would have turned into an all out war with a blood bath on both sides.

People are tired of the government following the law so this will end like the siege of a cultist?

This is why we can't have nice things...

Whoah, mind blown!!!

This government is following the law? When did it decide to start?

Sometime before other people used logic I guess.

Man, it's like if you do one bad thing, suddenly everything you do is bad.

 d-usa wrote:

Raven911 wrote:
Personally, I don't havea problem with open carry, however, I feel that some of these demonstrations are doing more harm than good to the pro gun movement. In fact, I strongly suspect that some of the more extreme cases might very likely be coming from the antigun left just to discredit the gun legit open carry activists. It's really screwed up. And I don't see it getting any better any time soon. One thing is certain, people have finally hand enough of this over reaching government and started to stand up to it, look at the protesters who stopped the buses full of illegal immigrants, the EPA and bundy ranch/ militias, and now the open carry rallies. As long as cool heads prevail I am all for it. I do think that if this was 20 years ago with Janet Reno being in charge the bundy ranch would have turned into an all out war with a blood bath on both sides.

People are tired of the government following the law so this will end like the siege of a cultist?

This is why we can't have nice things...

No, people are tired of the government not enforcing the law when it should, ignoring the law when it shouldn't, and making it up as they go when ever they want.

FDA raiding farms for selling raw milk
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/?page=all

Gibson guitars raided for using wrong wood
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2011/09/13/gibson-guitar-raid-a-fox-case-study/181273

These are two of the more whacked out examples of government sticking it's damn nose where it doesn't belong. In recent news you have the IRS targeting conservative groups, spying, refusal to secure the southern border and threats to prosecute the states that are trying to do it themselves, increasing debt, the list goes on and on. Just look at the Supreme Court shooting down several of this administrations laws. They know that it's crossing the line.

Two more examples of people violating the law and the government following it. The outrage! The humanity! It's all Breitbart News up in here!

 d-usa wrote:
Two more examples of people violating the law and the government following it. The outrage! The humanity! It's all Breitbart News up in here!

What was the crime that Gibson was accused of???