When one person's rights affect another, then there has to be limitations. This is the reason businesses can post 30.06/30.07 signs...
And it's the reason those persons should be responsible for the safety of those persons having to give up rights to shop in their store.
Heavygunner8 seems to me to be a Camel. He's got his nose in a snit and cramed under the tent. Sometimes I think LTC holders want to be somebody special. Way back when, if a policeman was acting in this manner he was said to have a 'John Wayne' syndrome. Everybody got it, but the good ones go over themselves and grew into good officers. It was not more training that cured the guys, it was an attitude adjustment. The second amendment exists and Constitutional carry should be nationwide. Back in the 1980's it was said 80% of police fired rounds missed. Even though training taught us that then and now that we must be responsible for every bullet and where it ended up. Making everyone very aware of that is sobering training.
That's pretty condescending. The people you are replying to don't need sense to be talked into them. They are quite rational and have pointed out several times over that the concerns you have voiced have not materialized in any of the states where con-carry has already been implemented.I suppose this is the wrong place to talk sense into some of y'all. Regardless, I know which side I'm standing on regarding this bill.
Again, your facts are simply wrong.If you've bothered to read this long thread, I've already refered to why there is a lack of statistics. The chance of something like defending yourself with a firearm is already low enough, then narrow that down to the states that have CC, and you dont have an adequate sample size anymore. Common sense dictates a person should at least know the state's gun laws and show a basic ability to operate a firearm before allowing him/her to carry one in public in proximity to other law abiding citizens.
At what point did safety become a right? If anything, that logic contradicts the Benjamin Franklin quote fishingsetx posted.
And once again, it's hypocritical for so many to be demanding their rights when they are denying Heavygunner8 his...
Alright, I'm probably gonna get chewed out for this, but how is that email not accurate? I mean, do you really want random people to start carrying guns without at least having a basic knowledge of the laws regarding firearms and self defense? Or have a passable ability to shoot accurately?
Tell us how you KNOW folks do not have a basic knowledge of the laws regardiing firearms?
How have HG8s rights been denied?
Serious question, maybe a missed a post somewhere.
Tell us how you KNOW folks do not have a basic knowledge of the laws regardiing firearms?
He has a right to his opinion, protected by the First Amendment, and he shouldn't be criticized for having one nor should others try to suppress it!
It hurts me to see you fail so much in one post MMM.He has a right to his opinion, protected by the First Amendment, and he shouldn't be criticized for having one nor should others try to suppress it!
It hurts me to see you fail so much in one post MMM.
Welcome to the list.Snowflake alert!
Welcome to the list.
I can't tell if you're trolling, or just didn't read his first post in the thread. You know, the one where he ASKED three questions.He has a right to his opinion, protected by the First Amendment, and he shouldn't be criticized for having one nor should others try to suppress it!
When you state your opinion on a forum it is open to responses. You know, other people's opinions. Technically this is a private forum and there's no more "free" speech here than in someone's home.
I can't tell if you're trolling, or just didn't read his first post in the thread. You know, the one where he ASKED three questions.
- "how is that email not accurate?"
- "do you really want random people to start carrying guns without at least having a basic knowledge of the laws regarding firearms and self defense?"
- "Or have a passable ability to shoot accurately?"
Not to mention that his second and third questions are loaded - with all the condescending bullcrap typically found in anti-gun rags.
My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is right to own guns, allowing any random, possibly unqualified person to carry one in public where my family and I might be isn't part of that. My opinions certainly are mine, and in this case, somebody else's different interpretation can put my and those around me's lives at risk. If it doesn't affect me, I don't give a rat's ass about it, but in case it certainly does.