The FAL Files  

Go Back   The FAL Files > News & Political Discussion > Politics

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 16, 2019, 18:33   #51
Bawana jim
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17482
Join Date: May 2005
Location: west coast
Posts: 22,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbagump View Post
Personally I don't care for it either. First of all it identifies you as a target to be taken down first and I've never understood what good could possibly come from showing your hand at a poker table before the bets are called. Second of all it's intrinsically less safe unless you are packing in a high-end holster. It seems to me it's more of an attempt to suppress a bad guy through intimidation, which will never work with a real bad guy. Third it tends to scare the straights, and while there is nothing philosophically wrong with that the optics are bad, or at best unhelpful. And with some folks optics are everything.

In short it seems to me that it's an excellent example of the old maxim 'just because you can doesn't mean you should'.
I can't agree with that even though I don't ever open carry in town. Cops carry in the open all the time, would it be less dangerous for them to carry concealed? The only real problem with open carry that I can see is when a civilian has verbal contact with another person while armed. The courts can spin it anyway they want and you have no support as a civilian.

I carry openly in the field and don't feel threatened at all by doing it. Fishing or hiking or just plain rock hunting, I have no fear of someone getting the jump on me. They might shoot me from a distance though.
Bawana jim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 19:40   #52
Tak
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 27291
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: United States, Georgia
Posts: 2,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdb59 View Post
Nice emotional deflect.

You are now presenting a parallel argument used by those in power that want to eliminate your ability to defend yourself.


........................
No, the difference is 1 person has been proven to be a killer and one is just theorized to be a killer.

There's a difference there.

Nothing to do with emotion. It's simple logic.
Tak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 20:01   #53
hkshooter
Mighty Fine!
Silver Contributor
 
hkshooter's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 5391
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 7,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbagump View Post

In short it seems to me that it's an excellent example of the old maxim 'just because you can doesn't mean you should'.
This.

People who open carry and are not LEO or Brinks guards are playing "look at me and big and tough I am and if you don't like it I have to power to kill you so here's a big middle finger". Bottom line. Ain't got shit to do with 2A, smart thinking people conceal, power hungry small man mental cases prefer open carry.

My .02.
__________________
"2A was specifically for, as you note, dealing with what is no longer feasible within the system. This applies to all organs of the state, whether they carry badges, gavels or law degrees."
Mark Graham
hkshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 20:14   #54
tdb59
Are We Awake ?
Bronze Contributor
 
tdb59's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 63177
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: ironsman.com
Posts: 11,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tak View Post
No, the difference is 1 person has been proven to be a killer and one is just theorized to be a killer.

There's a difference there.

Nothing to do with emotion. It's simple logic.
Mule muffins.

What you propose is based on what might happen again, and the fear behind it.

If you know that there will be a repeat occurrence , (A) you are prescient , and ( B ) the person should still be in prison.


..........................
__________________
“The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." - James Madison
........
Drive a rifle, or ride in a railcar
tdb59 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 20:17   #55
Bawana jim
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17482
Join Date: May 2005
Location: west coast
Posts: 22,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkshooter View Post
This.

People who open carry and are not LEO or Brinks guards are playing "look at me and big and tough I am and if you don't like it I have to power to kill you so here's a big middle finger". Bottom line. Ain't got shit to do with 2A, smart thinking people conceal, power hungry small man mental cases prefer open carry.

My .02.
Open carry is part of the right to bear arms isn't it? So are you a smaller man if you carry a rifle or a handgun? I mean you see a problem in the neighborhood and you run out the door after grabbing your gun so is that a small man that does that? He is a much bigger man if he hides his gun?

Why do cops open carry, are they small men? So a cop is just dumb if he doesn't conceal his gun?

My point is that every case of open carry is different. I once met a fellow running a travel trailer court in Arizona that carried open because it was too hot and uncomfortable to carry concealed. Dumb old fart huh.
Bawana jim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 21:16   #56
Mebsuta
Khemi, Stygia
Contributor
 
Mebsuta's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 4143
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Khemi, Stygia
Posts: 11,081
I wish Kroger would stock unfrosted brown sugar cinnamon Pop-Tarts. I might ask and see what happens, but they'll probably just tell me order it for pickup.
__________________
Hai
Mebsuta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 21:18   #57
Right Side Up
Registered
 
Right Side Up's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 43
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,970
Question

If you go in there open carry they might get you some. Show them you're tough, and a man to be reckoned with.
Right Side Up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 21:28   #58
9245
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 80665
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: N/A
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bawana jim View Post
I dunno, maybe a bigger picture might enlighten the thought process How many things do you buy made by the Chinese, do they support your rights?
There is a difference between not supporting and trying to take away.
9245 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 21:34   #59
9245
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 80665
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: N/A
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdb59 View Post
Why ?

Is the option of self defense abrogated in perpetuity ?


......................
To my view, if they are too dangerous to be trusted with weapons they are too dangerous to be out of prison, if you let them out they should have the same rights as everyone else, if not then you are admitting our criminal justice system is a failure and the idea of rehabilitation a joke. While that may be true, we should look at reforming the prison system and looking at sentencing guidelines, not banning guns. Once they are out they are out, they have served their time and should have the same rights as everyone else. And this from someone who is very hardline against criminals and would not trust a convicted felon as far as I could throw them. But rights are rights.
9245 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 21:38   #60
9245
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 80665
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: N/A
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tak View Post
Because they have shown they can't play nice in our society and as a condition of their not being locked away for ever they trade some rights.

Gang member does the usual drive by shooting, hits a couple guys and kills the little neighbor girl.

Some 'celebrity' pushes for them to be released early and some ahole judge agrees.

You want said convict to have his right to walk in and buy a firearm so he can go kill more people?
No but I also don’t want him released, we need to reform the criminal justice system. However once the sentence is served you have to respect their rights, that is the way our system is meant to work, and that means they should be able to have a gun if they want one.
9245 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 21:51   #61
9245
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 80665
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: N/A
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydah View Post
Call me crazy but I have always wondered about people open carrying out in public for seemingly no good reason, and I'm a pro-gun guy. I go in and out of Kroger several times a week armed, but its concealed.

I had a guy come to the house one afternoon wanting permission to hunt. Never saw him before. He got out of his truck in camo and wearing a pistol on his hip. Wasn't even hunting season! Pissed me off coming onto the place armed as he was and didn't know me from Adam. I kicked his ass off the property! Not because he asked to hunt. But because he felt he could do as he pleased and come to my home openly armed. It was my place, and it was my rules. Same for Kroger.
What difference does it being open make, would you have reacted the same way if it was concealed and he printed? Does throwing a shirt over it somehow change the fact that he is armed?

I rarely open carry, generally I only do it when I am making a political point, or when I am legally required to (in Michigan the “pistol free zones” only apply to concealed carry, if you open carry they do not apply, a separate law covers open carry and it exempts people who have a CPL, thus if you have a CPL but open carry pistol free zones do not apply to you), however I recognize and support the rights of those who open carry all the time. There is a strong argument to support open carry from the tactical perspective, it is a deterrent, it makes for a quicker draw with less possibility of fouling, and you can carry more substantial pistols that would be difficult and/or impractical to conceal carry. There is an equally strong argument for concealed carry, you have the element of surprise and keep a lower profile, personally I choose concealed carry, however it is not my place to judge the tactical decisions of others, if they feel open carry is best for them that more poser to them, that is their business and not mine.
9245 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 21:53   #62
9245
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 80665
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: N/A
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right Side Up View Post
That attitude is why I dont thd idea of open carry. They think they can do anything they want anywhere they want. Its their world and the rest if us just happen to be living in it that's all.
And who decides what they should or should not do? You? What gives you that right? What they do is no business of yours, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone what’s your problem?
9245 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 22:00   #63
Right Side Up
Registered
 
Right Side Up's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 43
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,970
So far, you haven't made an argument that comes close to persuading me that open carry, you know.....displaying the ability to deal out deadly force in an instant..... is preferable to concealed carry.
Right Side Up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 22:02   #64
9245
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 80665
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: N/A
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbagump View Post
Personally I don't care for it either. First of all it identifies you as a target to be taken down first and I've never understood what good could possibly come from showing your hand at a poker table before the bets are called. Second of all it's intrinsically less safe unless you are packing in a high-end holster. It seems to me it's more of an attempt to suppress a bad guy through intimidation, which will never work with a real bad guy. Third it tends to scare the straights, and while there is nothing philosophically wrong with that the optics are bad, or at best unhelpful. And with some folks optics are everything.

In short it seems to me that it's an excellent example of the old maxim 'just because you can doesn't mean you should'.
By that argument police shouldn’t open carry either because everything you just said applies to them too.

I am aware of only one incident where an open carrier was disarmed and he committed multiple errors in terms of being aware if his surroundings, gear, behavior ect. What you are arguing is a very old argument but it just does not happen as often as you think.

Criminals are by nature lazy and cowards, if they see someone armed they generally pick another target and wait for the armed person to leave, it’s the much safer and easier option than risking getting shot. “Intimidation” as you call it is deterrence, and it is one of the primary reasons people open carry. The thought being that they give up the element of surprise but avoid the fight in the first place.
9245 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 22:14   #65
9245
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 80665
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: N/A
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right Side Up View Post
So far, you haven't made an argument that comes close to persuading me that open carry, you know.....displaying the ability to deal out deadly force in an instant..... is preferable to concealed carry.
Then you haven’t been reading.

Personally I prefer concealed carry but the reasoning behind Open Carry is sound and I can see why some would choose it, whether they make a different tactical decision to me is none of my business.

The argument is this, since you seem to not be paying attention:

1. It’s a deterrent, the best way to win a gun fight is to not have one in the first place. “Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities... It is best to win without fighting.” -Sun Tzu, The Art of War

2. Draw speed is increased

3. There is less possibility of the draw being fouled

4. You can carry pistols that would be difficult/impractical to conceal

5. It is more comfortable
9245 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 22:15   #66
G1user
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 6546
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 7,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right Side Up View Post
That attitude is why I dont thd idea of open carry. They think they can do anything they want anywhere they want. Its their world and the rest if us just happen to be living in it that's all.
a concise summary of statist attitude, agent #43.


your precious cops are seven hundred percent more prone to do criminal shit than the good guys that you attempt to disparage,

and you knowing that is what makes you 1. a liar and 2. a gutless coward.


typical POS statist tool.
__________________
"if you cannot trust people with freedom, then how can you trust people with power?" It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war.
G1user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 22:18   #67
G1user
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 6546
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 7,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbagump View Post
Personally I don't care for it either. First of all it identifies you as a target to be taken down first and I've never understood what good could possibly come from showing your hand at a poker table before the bets are called. Second of all it's intrinsically less safe unless you are packing in a high-end holster. It seems to me it's more of an attempt to suppress a bad guy through intimidation, which will never work with a real bad guy. Third it tends to scare the straights, and while there is nothing philosophically wrong with that the optics are bad, or at best unhelpful. And with some folks optics are everything.

In short it seems to me that it's an excellent example of the old maxim 'just because you can doesn't mean you should'.
"shirt on the inside"
vs
"shirt on the outside"


the statists insist that one option defines a "criminal", and the other defines a criminal who has not been caught for "printing" yet.

the official numbers do entirely refute that insane notion by an overwhelming, undeniable margin.

the more options the good guys have, the better for everyone.

the fewer options the good guys have, the worse for everyone, pushed far enough eventually you will get chicago.




full disclosure, as a personal choice, I exercise discrete carry, which means open carry, but with a "fig leaf" super light weight, easy to tear off cover garment no more than just barely enough for the sake of modesty--
but the shirt is most definitely on the inside.
must be because I am a shy guy in public, feel self conscious with the private parts entirely hangin out in the breeze when in public,
I consider this a courtesy on my part, but I do have to pay attention to which direction the wind is blowing at all times as part of the deal.

the phrase "keep it under your hat" applies, YMMV


way I figure when around people where it would be "uncomfortable" to show off your pee pee, then best to keep both your pee pee and the holster covered up, for the sake of modesty.

reason being it is my experience if a chick wants to check out your junk, then they are usually unambitious about communicating that very clearly;
same goes for the defensive firearm, unless it is at the range, or else a really interesting party.
__________________
"if you cannot trust people with freedom, then how can you trust people with power?" It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war.

Last edited by G1user; November 16, 2019 at 22:47.
G1user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 23:15   #68
brunop
Refresh Key Masher
Platinum Contributor
 
brunop's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 17136
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 13,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bawana jim View Post
Feels really good to be able to walk away from arguments. Doesn't take much time away from the net to refresh and enjoy what's important. It is funny that some folks feel your rights stop at their property line. If everyone thought the same way then none of us would have rights at all.

If you are offended or just plain scared of your fellow American exerciseing his second amendment right to bear arms then you have given your rights away and may as well go live in a safe space. Just my opinion
Your rights *do* stop at my property line - just like my rights stop at yours. You do not have the Right to "free speech" or to "Peacably Assemble" on my property. You are not free from "unreasonable search and seizure" on my property. You are not free to "bear arms" on my property. In fact, that's what the word "property" means and what the concept is for.

My property is mine. Rules? Mine. If that weren't true, then we wouldn't be talking about my property.

Don't like my rules? Don't come on my property. It ain't about being scared: it's about my property being subject to my rules. Here's one for you: four Mexicans you've never met carrying rifles on your ranch in southern Arizona. Are you saying they've got "Rights"? Don't make me laugh.
__________________
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: what would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if during periods of mass arrests people had simply not sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, ham- mers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. . . . The Organs [police] would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers . . . and notwithstanding all of Stalin‘s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt." - A. Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago
brunop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16, 2019, 23:56   #69
Right Side Up
Registered
 
Right Side Up's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 43
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9245 View Post
Then you haven’t been reading.

Personally I prefer concealed carry but the reasoning behind Open Carry is sound and I can see why some would choose it, whether they make a different tactical decision to me is none of my business.

The argument is this, since you seem to not be paying attention:

1. It’s a deterrent, the best way to win a gun fight is to not have one in the first place. “Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities... It is best to win without fighting.” -Sun Tzu, The Art of War

2. Draw speed is increased

3. There is less possibility of the draw being fouled

4. You can carry pistols that would be difficult/impractical to conceal

5. It is more comfortable
Youre overthinking things. If you live in "that bad" a neighborhood that you need to gun up to run errands you should seriously consider moving.

If someone wants to rob you they're going to get the drop on you and do it anyway. What good is a holstered gun when there's a man aiming a gun at your head?

Damn I'm glad I donr live in as much fear as some of you do.
Right Side Up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 00:37   #70
G1user
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 6546
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 7,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right Side Up View Post
Youre overthinking things. If you live in "that bad" a neighborhood that you need to gun up to run errands you should seriously consider moving.

If someone wants to rob you they're going to get the drop on you and do it anyway. What good is a holstered gun when there's a man aiming a gun at your head?

Damn I'm glad I donr live in as much fear as some of you do.
that shit is coming from another derp fudd who has never, ever, once carried a handgun in public,
does not know what he does not know, and willfully ignorant as to all the available evidence that exposes his fudd lies, and proud of it.

no measurable distinction between agent #43 and bloomberg every town usa pro gun control lobby groupies.



cops carry guns, for their reasons : us good guys carry our guns, for the same reasons--
emergency
life
saving
equipment.

no fudds need apply.
__________________
"if you cannot trust people with freedom, then how can you trust people with power?" It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war.
G1user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 01:37   #71
Right Side Up
Registered
 
Right Side Up's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 43
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1user View Post

that shit is coming from another derp fudd who has never, ever, once carried a handgun in public,

Don't need to. Have never lived in fear. Ask my friends. I'm 6'1", 260 pounds and lift 6 days a week.

Must suck to be a weakling like you living behind a keyboard.

Wanta shoot me? …...better have a cast flat nose....because a hollow point prolly ain't goin' to penetrate to my vitals.
Right Side Up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 02:07   #72
G1user
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 6546
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 7,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right Side Up View Post
Don't need to. Have never lived in fear. Ask my friends. I'm 6'1", 260 pounds and lift 6 days a week.

Must suck to be a weakling like you living behind a keyboard.

Wanta shoot me? …...better have a cast flat nose....because a hollow point prolly ain't goin' to penetrate to my vitals.
defense noted.

like all fudds, you are worthless and weak, a severe liability to yourself and everyone around you.
__________________
"if you cannot trust people with freedom, then how can you trust people with power?" It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war.
G1user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 06:04   #73
bubbagump
Dinosaur
Silver Contributor
 
bubbagump's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 21705
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Marietta, Georgia
Posts: 12,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bawana jim View Post
I can't agree with that even though I don't ever open carry in town. Cops carry in the open all the time, would it be less dangerous for them to carry concealed? The only real problem with open carry that I can see is when a civilian has verbal contact with another person while armed. The courts can spin it anyway they want and you have no support as a civilian.

I carry openly in the field and don't feel threatened at all by doing it. Fishing or hiking or just plain rock hunting, I have no fear of someone getting the jump on me. They might shoot me from a distance though.
Cops are in an entirely different situation. Part of what they do is to advertise force and intimidate. If open carry works for ya, by all means but I still think it's a bad idea where other folks are around. Too much can go wrong with it and frankly it's just not necessary.
__________________
Urban free range hippies are pushovers. Especially with a D-9 Cat. -L. Haney
If God wanted us to carry Glocks, John Browning would have invented them. -shooter_37
Do or do not. There is no try. -Yoda
bubbagump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 06:05   #74
bubbagump
Dinosaur
Silver Contributor
 
bubbagump's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 21705
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Marietta, Georgia
Posts: 12,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1user View Post
.

the more options the good guys have, the better for everyone.

the fewer options the good guys have, the worse for everyone, pushed far enough eventually you will get chicago.

full disclosure, as a personal choice, I exercise discrete carry, which means open carry, but with a "fig leaf" super light weight, easy to tear off cover garment no more than just barely enough for the sake of modesty--
but the shirt is most definitely on the inside.
must be because I am a shy guy in public, feel self conscious with the private parts entirely hangin out in the breeze when in public,
I consider this a courtesy on my part, but I do have to pay attention to which direction the wind is blowing at all times as part of the deal.

the phrase "keep it under your hat" applies, YMMV

way I figure when around people where it would be "uncomfortable" to show off your pee pee, then best to keep both your pee pee and the holster covered up, for the sake of modesty.

reason being it is my experience if a chick wants to check out your junk, then they are usually unambitious about communicating that very clearly;
same goes for the defensive firearm, unless it is at the range, or else a really interesting party.
^^ Yep. It IS more courteous to folks who just don't want to process the reality of members of the public carrying a gun in close proximity to them. A weakness on their part, not ours of course. But an act of courtesy still. And for reasons stated it's better anyway. And as you say, the more options we have the better for us.
__________________
Urban free range hippies are pushovers. Especially with a D-9 Cat. -L. Haney
If God wanted us to carry Glocks, John Browning would have invented them. -shooter_37
Do or do not. There is no try. -Yoda
bubbagump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 06:14   #75
bubbagump
Dinosaur
Silver Contributor
 
bubbagump's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 21705
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Marietta, Georgia
Posts: 12,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9245 View Post
By that argument police shouldn’t open carry either because everything you just said applies to them too.

I am aware of only one incident where an open carrier was disarmed and he committed multiple errors in terms of being aware if his surroundings, gear, behavior ect. What you are arguing is a very old argument but it just does not happen as often as you think.

Criminals are by nature lazy and cowards, if they see someone armed they generally pick another target and wait for the armed person to leave, it’s the much safer and easier option than risking getting shot. “Intimidation” as you call it is deterrence, and it is one of the primary reasons people open carry. The thought being that they give up the element of surprise but avoid the fight in the first place.
Again, cops are in a different situation, intimidating the public and making a show of force is part of what they do. Although whether this is a good or bad thing is again debatable, and it must be said ordinary beat cops in other parts of the world in fact do not openly carry guns. My personal take is whatever the arguments pro or con, the reality is today they (cops) need to. I do not.
__________________
Urban free range hippies are pushovers. Especially with a D-9 Cat. -L. Haney
If God wanted us to carry Glocks, John Browning would have invented them. -shooter_37
Do or do not. There is no try. -Yoda
bubbagump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 09:27   #76
Whydah
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 74237
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 1,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9245 View Post
What difference does it being open make, would you have reacted the same way if it was concealed and he printed? Does throwing a shirt over it somehow change the fact that he is armed?

I rarely open carry, generally I only do it when I am making a political point, or when I am legally required to (in Michigan the “pistol free zones” only apply to concealed carry, if you open carry they do not apply, a separate law covers open carry and it exempts people who have a CPL, thus if you have a CPL but open carry pistol free zones do not apply to you), however I recognize and support the rights of those who open carry all the time. There is a strong argument to support open carry from the tactical perspective, it is a deterrent, it makes for a quicker draw with less possibility of fouling, and you can carry more substantial pistols that would be difficult and/or impractical to conceal carry. There is an equally strong argument for concealed carry, you have the element of surprise and keep a lower profile, personally I choose concealed carry, however it is not my place to judge the tactical decisions of others, if they feel open carry is best for them that more poser to them, that is their business and not mine.
You must also champion our First Amendment right to free speech. If a street preacher set up on Kroger property and began a loud animated sermon do you think Kroger would be wrong in asking him to leave the property? Rights is rights.... right? If open carry is legal where you live and you want to open carry while out in public in public areas, thats your choice. I don't do it. Thats my choice. But there is also something called private property rights and it is arguably the core concept and principle for all the other individual rights. If I own the property, or lease/rent the property, thereby giving me ownership privileges, I will determine what is allowable on that property. The exercise of your right(s) do not trump my rights. There are certainly times when open carry is recommended, maybe even necessary. But you still will not do it on my property without my permission.
Whydah is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 09:38   #77
hkshooter
Mighty Fine!
Silver Contributor
 
hkshooter's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 5391
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 7,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunop View Post
Your rights *do* stop at my property line - just like my rights stop at yours. You do not have the Right to "free speech" or to "Peacably Assemble" on my property. You are not free from "unreasonable search and seizure" on my property. You are not free to "bear arms" on my property. In fact, that's what the word "property" means and what the concept is for.

My property is mine. Rules? Mine. If that weren't true, then we wouldn't be talking about my property.

Don't like my rules? Don't come on my property. It ain't about being scared: it's about my property being subject to my rules. Here's one for you: four Mexicans you've never met carrying rifles on your ranch in southern Arizona. Are you saying they've got "Rights"? Don't make me laugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydah View Post
You must also champion our First Amendment right to free speech. If a street preacher set up on Kroger property and began a loud animated sermon do you think Kroger would be wrong in asking him to leave the property? Rights is rights.... right? If open carry is legal where you live and you want to open carry while out in public in public areas, thats your choice. I don't do it. Thats my choice. But there is also something called private property rights and it is arguably the core concept and principle for all the other individual rights. If I own the property, or lease/rent the property, thereby giving me ownership privileges, I will determine what is allowable on that property. The exercise of your right(s) do not trump my rights. There are certainly times when open carry is recommended, maybe even necessary. But you still will not do it on my property without my permission.
These right here ^^ are things people tend to forget. Generally, constitutional rights protect the people from the gov't not each other. Kind of like when POTUS issues an exec order. That order only applies to fed gov employees and agencies, not state or local or even individuals.
__________________
"2A was specifically for, as you note, dealing with what is no longer feasible within the system. This applies to all organs of the state, whether they carry badges, gavels or law degrees."
Mark Graham
hkshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 09:59   #78
Bawana jim
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17482
Join Date: May 2005
Location: west coast
Posts: 22,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9245 View Post
There is a difference between not supporting and trying to take away.
In a recent incident the Chinese stopped American free speech over Hong Kong. Nike and the ball teams were forced to comply with communist wishes or lose their Chinese franchise. So basically the teams and Nike were paid to shut up. What gives China this power is American money, every time you buy Chinese goods you work against your own freedoms.

The store fill themselves with goods made by communist and yet folks wonder why the stores act like communist and don't allow our second amendment. You pay to take your own rights away by buying commie goods, do you realize that? Where does a store policy originate, here or china?
Bawana jim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 10:06   #79
Tuhlmann
THAT guy
Contributor
 
Tuhlmann's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 69411
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Here & There, WI
Posts: 2,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right Side Up View Post
Don't need to. Have never lived in fear. Ask my friends. I'm 6'1", 260 pounds and lift 6 days a week.

Must suck to be a weakling like you living behind a keyboard.

Wanta shoot me? …...better have a cast flat nose....because a hollow point prolly ain't goin' to penetrate to my vitals.
Lifting Twinkies & Ho Ho’s? With a BMI of about 34 (obese, according to your numbers) I’d agree with your hard cast lead assessment.

I don’t see many open carry folks in my AO, but when I do they almost universally appear to be the type of person I stay clear of independent of their armed/unarmed status. I also instantly figure at least two, and preferably three different techniques to disarm and immobilize them. I can’t do that with concealed carriers, as long as they don’t have a tell. But, stupid is as stupid does I guess.
__________________
Future Crotchety Ol' Bastard

I’m saying: Think about your contribution to society. Be careful when you get into a business that extracts value. Broaden your idea about what’s enough. And for God’s sake, think about who you are.” - J. Bogle

Last edited by Tuhlmann; November 17, 2019 at 10:20.
Tuhlmann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 10:21   #80
Bawana jim
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17482
Join Date: May 2005
Location: west coast
Posts: 22,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunop View Post
Your rights *do* stop at my property line - just like my rights stop at yours. You do not have the Right to "free speech" or to "Peacably Assemble" on my property. You are not free from "unreasonable search and seizure" on my property. You are not free to "bear arms" on my property. In fact, that's what the word "property" means and what the concept is for.

My property is mine. Rules? Mine. If that weren't true, then we wouldn't be talking about my property.

Don't like my rules? Don't come on my property. It ain't about being scared: it's about my property being subject to my rules. Here's one for you: four Mexicans you've never met carrying rifles on your ranch in southern Arizona. Are you saying they've got "Rights"? Don't make me laugh.
Its all good dude. when you go out armed then any property owner has the right to take your guns because under your rules you can only carry on your own property. Under your rules you can't go into any privately owned business armed no matter what the 2nd says.

Those four mexicans better be able to read no trespassing signs because my ranch would have them everywhere. I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to go out and try to disarm them out in the field. If they are bad a man would get killed quickly trying to take other mens guns. Yet it might be 4 mexican looking kids hunting rabbits with 22 rifles.

Do you remember a women shot a fellow over by Jefferson Oregon because he came on her property carrying a gun? Under Oregon law if you shoot a deer you must retrieve it so the guy went over her fence to get a deer he shot on the other side and it jumped over. She shot him in the back for following the laws. Yet he was armed on her property. Are you going to shoot em brunop if you find an armed man on your property?
Bawana jim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 10:32   #81
Bawana jim
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17482
Join Date: May 2005
Location: west coast
Posts: 22,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbagump View Post
Cops are in an entirely different situation. Part of what they do is to advertise force and intimidate. If open carry works for ya, by all means but I still think it's a bad idea where other folks are around. Too much can go wrong with it and frankly it's just not necessary.
We have open carry here in my state. I used to open carry when the ccw permit process limited you to one gun on the permit. I liked being able during hunting season to strap on my big 357 and ride my bike out hunting. Never got stopped in those days as Oregon was a hunting community. You come in after a morning hunt and stop by a business to eat and you wore your gun and camo clothes from hunting. Nobody ever even paid attention. This was pre kali mass immigration into the state.

Just saying there is a time and place for open carry. If you are in fear for your life then it's probably better to hide your weapon and hope you are fast enough getting out out before those you fear kill you. If you just want to carry your hunting gun with you because you don't want the thieves to steal it then you should be allowed to. Yet go into a store wearing a gun and camo gear could be a death sentence now days.
Bawana jim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 10:55   #82
Whydah
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 74237
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 1,696
"Do you remember a women shot a fellow over by Jefferson Oregon because he came on her property carrying a gun? Under Oregon law if you shoot a deer you must retrieve it so the guy went over her fence to get a deer he shot on the other side and it jumped over. She shot him in the back for following the laws. Yet he was armed on her property. Are you going to shoot em brunop if you find an armed man on your property?"

The way the law is applied in my state is that 1. The hunter wanting to retrieve his deer after the deer goes and dies on another's property must first seek permission from the property owner BEFORE entering the property. 2. The hunter MAY NOT BE ARMED while retrieving his deer on another's property without permission of the property owner. Don't know why the hunter was shot. That's an entirely different issue.

Why are you not as upset over court houses and similar government buildings prohibiting the open or concealed carry of firearms? As a taxpayer you helped pay for those. Its public property and yet they are denying you your Second Amendment rights! Whether private or corporate owned, there is nothing about a retailer that belongs to you. They have the right of determining what is allowed on their property whether its requiring you to wear shoes and a shirt, no pets, or open display of firearms. Your right is to patronize them or not.
Whydah is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 11:12   #83
G1user
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 6546
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 7,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bawana jim View Post
...when you go out armed then any property owner has the right to take your guns because ....
no.

stealing a firearm is a felony in all 50 states, and rightly so, people tend to get dead over that shit.
__________________
"if you cannot trust people with freedom, then how can you trust people with power?" It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war.
G1user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 11:19   #84
G1user
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 6546
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 7,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bawana jim View Post
...If you are in fear for your life then it's probably better to hide your weapon and hope you are fast enough getting out out before those you fear kill you...
by using the key legal phrase "weapon" you are necessarily making admission (aka "confession") as to your intent--

that intent that you just admitted to comes with criminal liability in pretty much all 50 states last i checked.

words matter.




us good guys do not somehow magically transform into homicidal maniacs because ther shirt is on the inside instead of outside.

all the numbers on that are undeniable.
more guns is less crime.




shirt on the inside vs shirt on the outside is a choice.
__________________
"if you cannot trust people with freedom, then how can you trust people with power?" It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war.
G1user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 12:02   #85
Bawana jim
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17482
Join Date: May 2005
Location: west coast
Posts: 22,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydah View Post
"Do you remember a women shot a fellow over by Jefferson Oregon because he came on her property carrying a gun? Under Oregon law if you shoot a deer you must retrieve it so the guy went over her fence to get a deer he shot on the other side and it jumped over. She shot him in the back for following the laws. Yet he was armed on her property. Are you going to shoot em brunop if you find an armed man on your property?"

The way the law is applied in my state is that 1. The hunter wanting to retrieve his deer after the deer goes and dies on another's property must first seek permission from the property owner BEFORE entering the property. 2. The hunter MAY NOT BE ARMED while retrieving his deer on another's property without permission of the property owner. Don't know why the hunter was shot. That's an entirely different issue.

Why are you not as upset over court houses and similar government buildings prohibiting the open or concealed carry of firearms? As a taxpayer you helped pay for those. Its public property and yet they are denying you your Second Amendment rights! Whether private or corporate owned, there is nothing about a retailer that belongs to you. They have the right of determining what is allowed on their property whether its requiring you to wear shoes and a shirt, no pets, or open display of firearms. Your right is to patronize them or not.
Here in Oregon even if you have paid the contract off you don't own your property as the state holds a possible tax lean against all private property. When folks quit recognizing your rights to carry then you have no rights. A business that denies your right chooses to be without your business and that's their freedom of choice. Get woke and go broke.

Yet a business doesn't have the right to discriminate, you can't say who is allowed on your public establishment but you can determine a dress code I guess.
Bawana jim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 12:06   #86
Bawana jim
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17482
Join Date: May 2005
Location: west coast
Posts: 22,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1user View Post
by using the key legal phrase "weapon" you are necessarily making admission (aka "confession") as to your intent--

that intent that you just admitted to comes with criminal liability in pretty much all 50 states last i checked.

words matter.




us good guys do not somehow magically transform into homicidal maniacs because ther shirt is on the inside instead of outside.

all the numbers on that are undeniable.
more guns is less crime.




shirt on the inside vs shirt on the outside is a choice.
A CCW is a weapon so if if you obtained one from the law then you have the legal right to carry a concealed weapon. Doesn't matter if it's seen as a weapon from then on because it's carried in a legal manner approved by the authorities. Hiding a weapon without legal approval shows intent if you are carrying it.
Bawana jim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 12:32   #87
G1user
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 6546
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 7,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bawana jim View Post
A CCW is a weapon so if if you obtained one from the law then you have the legal right to carry a concealed weapon. Doesn't matter if it's seen as a weapon from then on because it's carried in a legal manner approved by the authorities. Hiding a weapon without legal approval shows intent if you are carrying it.
good little slave, massah done trained you well.

you may now lick the boot again, nice and clean.



these presumptive fudd arguments you present are well known,
and have all been systematically refuted, on the grounds that all these presumptions are exactly 180 degrees off course from the truth, on each and every issue.


counter argument:

please present your evidence of any kind that supports your argument,

you can't, because you have no evidence, because there is no evidence, no criminal act, no victim, and no criminal intent,
pure speculative presumption on your part, not with standing, a legal fiction,
now overwhelmingly refuted by the official numbers, which do not lie.

your presumptions fail at the slightest scrutiny.

in your particular instance, by your statement you accept the presumptions made, therefore you have waived all your rights.

you waiving your rights does not authorize you to waive mine for me, thanks but no thanks.
__________________
"if you cannot trust people with freedom, then how can you trust people with power?" It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war.

Last edited by G1user; November 17, 2019 at 12:40.
G1user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 12:48   #88
Bawana jim
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17482
Join Date: May 2005
Location: west coast
Posts: 22,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1user View Post
good little slave, massah done trained you well.

you may now lick the boot again, nice and clean.



these presumptive arguments you present are well known,
and have all been systematically refuted, on the grounds that all these presumptions are exactly 180 degrees off course from the truth, on each and every issue.


counter argument:

please present your evidence of any kind that supports your argument,

you can't, because you have no evidence, because there is no evidence, no criminal act, and no criminal intent,
pure speculative presumption on your part, not with standing,
overwhelmingly refuted by the official numbers, which do not lie.

Let's see now, I got my CCW at the age of 21 and I am 67 now. That's 46 years of legally carrying a gun concealed in my state. I have been asked one time if I was carrying by law enforcement in my state and my reply was affirmative so I have been known to carry a gun. At no time in those 46 years have the police or any law enforcement confronted me about my weapon. In fact they approved NFA weapons in many calibers and I packed them around the state.

At one point I was out shooting my UZI near a town called Lapine Oregon and a state cop pulled up to see what was going on. I told him I was having fun with my full auto and asked if he wanted to shoot it some. He said he didn't have time but it looked like fun. He didn't ask to see papers of ownership but did say to clean up the targets before you leave.

Now sir, give me the criminal intent of the state you so hate. 46 years and not one time has the state stood in my way of where I wanted to go with a gun. Yes they have regulations about court houses and such but I avoid those places so it doesn't matter if they don't want me to carry a gun there.
Bawana jim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 13:15   #89
9245
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 80665
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: N/A
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right Side Up View Post
Don't need to. Have never lived in fear. Ask my friends. I'm 6'1", 260 pounds and lift 6 days a week.

Must suck to be a weakling like you living behind a keyboard.

Wanta shoot me? …...better have a cast flat nose....because a hollow point prolly ain't goin' to penetrate to my vitals.
Lol either your a troll or incredibly stupid. I don’t care how many muscles you have they are not enough to stop bullets, that was completely retarded.

You have also dropped your mask, you are not against open carry you are against all carry.
9245 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 13:34   #90
brunop
Refresh Key Masher
Platinum Contributor
 
brunop's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 17136
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 13,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bawana jim View Post
In a recent incident the Chinese stopped American free speech over Hong Kong. Nike and the ball teams were forced to comply with communist wishes or lose their Chinese franchise. So basically the teams and Nike were paid to shut up. What gives China this power is American money, every time you buy Chinese goods you work against your own freedoms.

The store fill themselves with goods made by communist and yet folks wonder why the stores act like communist and don't allow our second amendment. You pay to take your own rights away by buying commie goods, do you realize that? Where does a store policy originate, here or china?
Chinese didn't "stop[ped]" American free speech over Hong Kong. Chinese said that they'd quit paying money and broadcasting television shows if it weren't retracted. The NBA crapped themselves and told the GM to retract or get fired. If the Americans had had any balls, they'd have doubled down and told the Chinese to pound sand. They didn't because they CHOSE money over letting owners / GMs say what they want about freedom and types of government.
__________________
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: what would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if during periods of mass arrests people had simply not sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, ham- mers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. . . . The Organs [police] would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers . . . and notwithstanding all of Stalin‘s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt." - A. Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago
brunop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 13:39   #91
Bawana jim
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17482
Join Date: May 2005
Location: west coast
Posts: 22,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunop View Post
Chinese didn't "stop[ped]" American free speech over Hong Kong. Chinese said that they'd quit paying money and broadcasting television shows if it weren't retracted. The NBA crapped themselves and told the GM to retract or get fired. If the Americans had had any balls, they'd have doubled down and told the Chinese to pound sand. They didn't because they CHOSE money over letting owners / GMs say what they want about freedom and types of government.
Its the power of money, same as America it's the golden rule. He who has the gold rules. The commies took over the NBA with shoe contracts and television rights, what will they do to take your gun rights?
Bawana jim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 13:40   #92
Right Side Up
Registered
 
Right Side Up's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 43
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9245 View Post
Lol either your a troll or incredibly stupid. I don’t care how many muscles you have they are not enough to stop bullets, that was completely retarded.

You have also dropped your mask, you are not against open carry you are against all carry.
Kiss my ass. You want to open carry? Do it! I dont care! Just dont tell me Kroger is wrong for asking you not to intimidate its other customers.
Right Side Up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 13:54   #93
brunop
Refresh Key Masher
Platinum Contributor
 
brunop's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 17136
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 13,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bawana jim View Post
Its all good dude. when you go out armed then any property owner has the right to take your guns because under your rules you can only carry on your own property. Under your rules you can't go into any privately owned business armed no matter what the 2nd says.

Those four mexicans better be able to read no trespassing signs because my ranch would have them everywhere. I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to go out and try to disarm them out in the field. If they are bad a man would get killed quickly trying to take other mens guns. Yet it might be 4 mexican looking kids hunting rabbits with 22 rifles.

Do you remember a women shot a fellow over by Jefferson Oregon because he came on her property carrying a gun? Under Oregon law if you shoot a deer you must retrieve it so the guy went over her fence to get a deer he shot on the other side and it jumped over. She shot him in the back for following the laws. Yet he was armed on her property. Are you going to shoot em brunop if you find an armed man on your property?
Jim - you're literally making stuff up out of thin air. Here are some examples:

1. "... when you go out armed then any property owner has the right to take your guns ...".

Um, no. And I didn't say that. No property owner has the "right" to "take" my guns - and saying that's what I said is stupid as well as wrong. What the property owner has the Right to do is to: a) keep me off his property in the first place (or were you saying that I can show myself into your house uninvited? Yeah - that's what I thought...), and b) make rules about what is allowed on his property. Because it's his. So he (property owner) isn't "taking" my guns: he's saying stay out, and if you want to come on, you don't get to bring guns. You have a CHOICE in the matter, because you can either come on his property without the gun, or you can NOT GO ON his property. There is nothing about the property owner "taking" guns - or having the "right" to do so.

2. "... because under your rules you can only carry on your own property."

Um, no. And I didn't say that. Public spaces aren't owned by any private person (that's what "public" means...). You can carry your guns on your property, which includes your car, as well as anywhere else you go that is a public space.

News flash: if it is someone else's property, they have the RIGHT to tell you to stay out. That's literally what "property" means. It's theirs. It's their RIGHT. Don't like it? Quit going there. Quit spending money there. Pretty simple - but you have a choice in the matter.

3. "... Under your rules you can't go into any privately owned business armed no matter what the 2nd says."

Um, they aren't MY rules. It's called the Constitution. It's the law of the land. It protects (get a load of this...) life, liberty, and personal property. Want an example? The First Amendment states that you can worship how you like, and meet with (Peaceably Assemble) with whomever you want. You can also speak your mind.

The Third Amendment states that the Feds can't put people in your house. Know why? Because it's YOURS.

Fourth Amendment states that you are to be free from "unreasonable search and seizure" of your property. Know why? Because it's yours.

That Second Amendment? It does NOT say that you can "bear arms" in someone else's house or store or farm. It says that the Feds can't infringe on your Right to bear arms. That's what ALL the constitution is about - limiting the Federal government as related to individual Rights.

It says nothing about what private property owners can do with their land, buildings, and houses. Know why? Because it's THEIRS.


They aren't MY rules - it's literally the law of the land since 1789. Read it, maybe?
__________________
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: what would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if during periods of mass arrests people had simply not sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, ham- mers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. . . . The Organs [police] would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers . . . and notwithstanding all of Stalin‘s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt." - A. Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago
brunop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 14:05   #94
brunop
Refresh Key Masher
Platinum Contributor
 
brunop's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 17136
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 13,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bawana jim View Post
Its the power of money, same as America it's the golden rule. He who has the gold rules. The commies took over the NBA with shoe contracts and television rights, what will they do to take your gun rights?
The NBA is not "taken over" by China. It *may* be taken over by Commies - so I won't argue that because I don't actually know. But buying people's silence is not against the law: you have the same ability as the Chinese do in their business relationships to give money to people you like and/or want to do business with, or to abstain from giving money to people you don't like. It's a choice. Problem is that the NBA is full of craven douchenozzles who want Chin money more than they want to take a stand for the people of Hong Kong - or the United States of America.

What will they do to take away my gun rights? IDK, but I know this: I don't give the NBA one red cent. No games, no subscriptions, no advertising dollars, nothing. And I don't give a damn if the whole thing falls apart - just like the NFL is doing.

And I conceal carry wherever I want - including places where I'm not welcome with a gun. But I have a choice here, too. I don't give my money to Fred Meyers. I don't give my money to Starbucks. I don't give my money to Nestle or UniLever or WalMart.

And I'm not turning them in, so I doubt the Chinese are going to have a lot to say about U.S. gun rights. That's going to come down to the same thing it always came down to: "The Constitution means what strong men with guns say it means."

In other words, we're all going to have to put up or shut up.
__________________
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: what would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if during periods of mass arrests people had simply not sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, ham- mers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. . . . The Organs [police] would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers . . . and notwithstanding all of Stalin‘s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt." - A. Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago
brunop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 14:09   #95
brunop
Refresh Key Masher
Platinum Contributor
 
brunop's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 17136
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 13,888
Best thing to do with Kroger?

Hundreds of thousands of people writing them letters and telling them to go pound sand. Grocery business is a small-margin business, and volume / sell-through is very tightly considered.

10% reduction in customers = doom. But people are going to have to actually do something: otherwise we're telling them that they can do whatever they want, and we'll run our mouths and then do nothing.
__________________
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: what would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if during periods of mass arrests people had simply not sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, ham- mers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. . . . The Organs [police] would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers . . . and notwithstanding all of Stalin‘s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt." - A. Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago
brunop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 14:40   #96
Bawana jim
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17482
Join Date: May 2005
Location: west coast
Posts: 22,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunop View Post
The NBA is not "taken over" by China. It *may* be taken over by Commies - so I won't argue that because I don't actually know. But buying people's silence is not against the law: you have the same ability as the Chinese do in their business relationships to give money to people you like and/or want to do business with, or to abstain from giving money to people you don't like. It's a choice. Problem is that the NBA is full of craven douchenozzles who want Chin money more than they want to take a stand for the people of Hong Kong - or the United States of America.

What will they do to take away my gun rights? IDK, but I know this: I don't give the NBA one red cent. No games, no subscriptions, no advertising dollars, nothing. And I don't give a damn if the whole thing falls apart - just like the NFL is doing.

And I conceal carry wherever I want - including places where I'm not welcome with a gun. But I have a choice here, too. I don't give my money to Fred Meyers. I don't give my money to Starbucks. I don't give my money to Nestle or UniLever or WalMart.

And I'm not turning them in, so I doubt the Chinese are going to have a lot to say about U.S. gun rights. That's going to come down to the same thing it always came down to: "The Constitution means what strong men with guns say it means."

In other words, we're all going to have to put up or shut up.
Let's see now, I hear number figures in the billions of dollars that go to buy Chinese communist goods. America's supply train for decades has come from Chinese Communist. Wallyworld, Costco or let's do it this way, who doesn't stock their shelves full of Chinese Communist goods? So when a store tells you that you can't carry a gun on their property is it store policy or Chinese Communist telling them to follow that policy or else?

Who fills the Kroger stores with goods to sell? What makes an American company take a stand against the constitution? Simply saying the Chinese Communist have infiltrated our lives far more than folks realize and we paid their way in.
Bawana jim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 15:03   #97
Bawana jim
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17482
Join Date: May 2005
Location: west coast
Posts: 22,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunop View Post
Jim - you're literally making stuff up out of thin air. Here are some examples:

1. "... when you go out armed then any property owner has the right to take your guns ...".

Um, no. And I didn't say that. No property owner has the "right" to "take" my guns - and saying that's what I said is stupid as well as wrong. What the property owner has the Right to do is to: a) keep me off his property in the first place (or were you saying that I can show myself into your house uninvited? Yeah - that's what I thought...), and b) make rules about what is allowed on his property. Because it's his. So he (property owner) isn't "taking" my guns: he's saying stay out, and if you want to come on, you don't get to bring guns. You have a CHOICE in the matter, because you can either come on his property without the gun, or you can NOT GO ON his property. There is nothing about the property owner "taking" guns - or having the "right" to do so.

2. "... because under your rules you can only carry on your own property."

Um, no. And I didn't say that. Public spaces aren't owned by any private person (that's what "public" means...). You can carry your guns on your property, which includes your car, as well as anywhere else you go that is a public space.

News flash: if it is someone else's property, they have the RIGHT to tell you to stay out. That's literally what "property" means. It's theirs. It's their RIGHT. Don't like it? Quit going there. Quit spending money there. Pretty simple - but you have a choice in the matter.

3. "... Under your rules you can't go into any privately owned business armed no matter what the 2nd says."

Um, they aren't MY rules. It's called the Constitution. It's the law of the land. It protects (get a load of this...) life, liberty, and personal property. Want an example? The First Amendment states that you can worship how you like, and meet with (Peaceably Assemble) with whomever you want. You can also speak your mind.

The Third Amendment states that the Feds can't put people in your house. Know why? Because it's YOURS.

Fourth Amendment states that you are to be free from "unreasonable search and seizure" of your property. Know why? Because it's yours.

That Second Amendment? It does NOT say that you can "bear arms" in someone else's house or store or farm. It says that the Feds can't infringe on your Right to bear arms. That's what ALL the constitution is about - limiting the Federal government as related to individual Rights.

It says nothing about what private property owners can do with their land, buildings, and houses. Know why? Because it's THEIRS.


They aren't MY rules - it's literally the law of the land since 1789. Read it, maybe?
I am not going to pound out an answer to this, I know where you stand and I won't waste time here trying to change your mind. I post my opinion and put behind it stories of life. Before Oregon became kalifornicated people pretty much shared their property rights when it came to hunting. You shot a deer and it jumped the fence onto another's property and the owner would congratulate you on getting your deer and help you get it through the fence.

Once the kalifornicators got in with their property rights as law then Oregon changed to California. They didn't want to share the land or the game and before long they didn't like guns around. The constitution meant nothing to these commies from kali and still doesnt. If they find a way they will confiscate our guns. It starts with property rights, the constitution means nothing on my property.

If the rest of property owners thought the same way then it would be tough to leave the house carrying a gun. No guns allowed means the entire property so park on the street if there is parking. You want to shop then carry your groceries across the lot in the rain because no guns allowed even in cars parked on the property.As a property owner you say you have that right.

Can you search people to see if they follow your rules? I see a time of metal detectors headed our way because property rights will set the rules in public domain. So how will you carry your gun when they put up metal detectors or have a guard scan you with a hand metal detector? Property rights will give them this right from what you say. Yet when it gets to the point you can't buy from a store to feed your family if you wear a gun then do you kill for your rights over their property rights. Or order commie goods delivered off the net.

Edited to add, how will you carry your gun in church if the church uses hand scanners to see if you follow their rules?

Last edited by Bawana jim; November 17, 2019 at 15:08.
Bawana jim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 15:10   #98
ftierson
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 13827
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 16,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunop View Post
Jim - you're literally making stuff up out of thin air. Here are some examples:

1. "... when you go out armed then any property owner has the right to take your guns ...".

Um, no. And I didn't say that. No property owner has the "right" to "take" my guns - and saying that's what I said is stupid as well as wrong. What the property owner has the Right to do is to: a) keep me off his property in the first place (or were you saying that I can show myself into your house uninvited? Yeah - that's what I thought...), and b) make rules about what is allowed on his property. Because it's his. So he (property owner) isn't "taking" my guns: he's saying stay out, and if you want to come on, you don't get to bring guns. You have a CHOICE in the matter, because you can either come on his property without the gun, or you can NOT GO ON his property. There is nothing about the property owner "taking" guns - or having the "right" to do so.

2. "... because under your rules you can only carry on your own property."

Um, no. And I didn't say that. Public spaces aren't owned by any private person (that's what "public" means...). You can carry your guns on your property, which includes your car, as well as anywhere else you go that is a public space.

News flash: if it is someone else's property, they have the RIGHT to tell you to stay out. That's literally what "property" means. It's theirs. It's their RIGHT. Don't like it? Quit going there. Quit spending money there. Pretty simple - but you have a choice in the matter.

3. "... Under your rules you can't go into any privately owned business armed no matter what the 2nd says."

Um, they aren't MY rules. It's called the Constitution. It's the law of the land. It protects (get a load of this...) life, liberty, and personal property. Want an example? The First Amendment states that you can worship how you like, and meet with (Peaceably Assemble) with whomever you want. You can also speak your mind.

The Third Amendment states that the Feds can't put people in your house. Know why? Because it's YOURS.

Fourth Amendment states that you are to be free from "unreasonable search and seizure" of your property. Know why? Because it's yours.

That Second Amendment? It does NOT say that you can "bear arms" in someone else's house or store or farm. It says that the Feds can't infringe on your Right to bear arms. That's what ALL the constitution is about - limiting the Federal government as related to individual Rights.

It says nothing about what private property owners can do with their land, buildings, and houses. Know why? Because it's THEIRS.


They aren't MY rules - it's literally the law of the land since 1789. Read it, maybe?
Well, it's supposed to be...

We all know where that's gone...

Forrest
ftierson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 18:52   #99
Tak
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 27291
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: United States, Georgia
Posts: 2,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdb59 View Post
Mule muffins.

What you propose is based on what might happen again, and the fear behind it.

If you know that there will be a repeat occurrence , (A) you are prescient , and ( B ) the person should still be in prison.


..........................
We have to deal in reality here. the reality is there is no political will to lock up violent offenders permanently. Fundamentally I agree with your point that someone so violent and dangerous she not be let out. But the reality is,they're going to be let out. So your theoretical argument becomes moot in the real world.

So, the reality is, 'we' try to keep them from being able to easily commit more violent crimes again. 'We' do this by prohibiting them from legally buying weapons and being to legally possess them.

IT does not take clairvoyance to see that most violent criminals will continue to commit violence again once out of prison, it just takes simple statistical analysis.
Tak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17, 2019, 18:58   #100
brunop
Refresh Key Masher
Platinum Contributor
 
brunop's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 17136
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 13,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bawana jim View Post

Once the kalifornicators got in with their property rights as law ...

Um, Jim? Property rights ARE law - not because Commies from California made it so.

All you have to do is ask yourself if you have the right to keep people from gathering on your front lawn with loud music and food and blankets and garbage. Of course you do. Guess what? You can also keep them from bringing guns to your front lawn, too.

Guess what else? The guy that owns the restaurant? He gets to decide that, too, for his property. Don't like it? Don't spend money with that guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bawana Jim
The constitution meant nothing to these commies from kali and still doesnt. If they find a way they will confiscate our guns. It starts with property rights, the constitution means nothing on my property.
Jim - you need to know that the Constitution was literally made to limit the Federal Government - not you as a citizen or as an individual. You do NOT have to allow people to gather on your lawn or in your living room. Get it? They don't have any rights protected in the Constitution on YOUR PROPERTY. And the bottom line is that you know this - you wouldn't let anyone just walk on your property and do what they thought they had a "Right" to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bawana Jim
If the rest of property owners thought the same way then it would be tough to leave the house carrying a gun. No guns allowed means the entire property so park on the street if there is parking. You want to shop then carry your groceries across the lot in the rain because no guns allowed even in cars parked on the property.As a property owner you say you have that right.
1. I have that right. So do you. You don't let people gather in your living room. So you just want the laws applied the way you like them.

2. It's hard? Yep. You have to vote with your feet and your wallet. Don't like it? You have to let the people have the same rights you reserve for yourself - or you are a hypocrite.

3. You can order food (not Commie food....) off the net - just like anything else. Or you could find places that think like you do and give them your money.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bawana Jim
Edited to add, how will you carry your gun in church if the church uses hand scanners to see if you follow their rules?
Good question. Maybe I'll volunteer to be one of the people that are "approved" to carry and be a protector of the flock. Maybe I'll kiss it off and let the other guys do it.

In the end, the people who own the property get to make the rules about their property - just like you get to make the rules at your house.

If you start breaking down private property law, you are the Commie. Literally - that's what Commies do: take private property away.
__________________
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: what would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if during periods of mass arrests people had simply not sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, ham- mers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. . . . The Organs [police] would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers . . . and notwithstanding all of Stalin‘s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt." - A. Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago

Last edited by brunop; November 17, 2019 at 19:10.
brunop is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:59.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2019 The FAL Files