Man shopping with Assault Rifle Strapped to his Back at Utah J.C. Penney

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


yeah my bad 6 is an upside down 9

Originally posted by seabag

The founders clearly said that we, as Americans, have certain unalienable rights. Life (libs protest that and demand CHOICE), Liberty (more than half of this country supports the Patriot Act), the pursuit of happiness (

Wealth redistribution? Gun regulation? Taxes?). Then we get to the 2nd amendment; the right that defends all other rights. Now some want to dumb that down and minimize its effectiveness by artificially limiting our firepower???

NO!! There is no compromise with the 2nd!

edit on 19-1-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

There is no compromise in your eyes, and that is the crux of the issue. Do you feel that people shouldn't have to take a eye exam, pass a written and road test in order to get a drivers license, because when cars were invented there were no drivers license requirements.

Frankly - providing free access to firearms to psychopaths infringes on other people's rights to life, something that you seem to claim to hold dear (based upon your negative view of abortion).

I'm not going to weigh in one way or another on the gun control/open carry debate. However, as several people with more knowledge than me have pointed out, it's obvious from that picture that with the way he is carrying that rifle it is pointing at other people around him. I don't see how that's much different than holding it and pointing it at some innocent bystander. Intent isn't really a variable here. He is posing a risk to the public.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
No one wants to remove all Firearms from anybody, Just the Firearms of Mass Destruction... See , thats called Compromise,

Cool ok name some of these "Firearms of Mass Destruction" you are talking about...

reply to post by Evil_Santa


the laws were fine before berry soetero started talking about assault rifle bans. applications and waiting periods in some places just to get a .22 pistol, and no waiting period but a small form to get an ak-47 in rural areas with no mass shootings. "oh i have a drivers liscense, might as welll have a gun liscense" then a liscense to have one child.

reply to post by Evil_Santa

There is no compromise in your eyes, and that is the crux of the issue. Do you feel that people shouldn't have to take a eye exam, pass a written and road test in order to get a drivers license, because when cars were invented there were no drivers license requirements.

There is no constitutional amendment that ensures the right to drive.

Dumb analogy, sir. Maybe if you were in the same ball park of importance it would have been more impactful.

Frankly - providing free access to firearms to psychopaths infringes on other people's rights to life, something that you seem to claim to hold dear (based upon your negative view of abortion).

Nobody wants psycopaths to have guns. What does that have to do with my high capacity magazines or semi automatic rifles???

Maybe if you spent more time reading the proposed legislation than defending the MSM propaganda you’d think differently?

Originally posted by HeyAHuman
our cause

Our cause?




Our right !

Learn the difference.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Evil_Santa

 

There is no compromise in your eyes, and that is the crux of the issue. Do you feel that people shouldn't have to take a eye exam, pass a written and road test in order to get a drivers license, because when cars were invented there were no drivers license requirements.

There is no constitutional amendment that ensures the right to drive.

Dumb analogy, sir. Maybe if you were in the same ball park of importance it would have been more impactful.

Frankly - providing free access to firearms to psychopaths infringes on other people's rights to life, something that you seem to claim to hold dear (based upon your negative view of abortion).

Nobody wants psycopaths to have guns. What does that have to do with my high capacity magazines or semi automatic rifles???

Maybe if you spent more time reading the proposed legislation than defending the MSM propaganda you’d think differently?

So you're saying that my freedom of speech isn't as important as another persons, or that my opinions aren't as important as another persons? Either way you look at it, you're a dick, and this will be my last reply to you, as you've clearly indicated that a persons status means more to you then their ideas. (Ironically, this is a classic sign of narcissism. Perhaps you wouldn't be able to pass a MMPI exam after all.)

My point is that all rights come with responsibilities. People who are unfit to handle those responsibilities, do not deserve the rights. We already treat felons in this manner.

I have been paying attention to the legislation, and frankly I agree that limiting magazine size and semi-automatic rifles is stupid. Perhaps that's why I'm in here proposing alternatives to what is currently being proposed. Oh - and considering the executive orders that were signed have everything to do with mental health and providing additional information sources for background checks, it would appear that my opinion on handling the situation is more legitimate then your's.

anti gun libtards see a man carrying a battle rifle, haters gonna hate

Originally posted by Evil_Santa

My point is that all rights come with responsibilities. People who are unfit to handle those responsibilities, do not deserve the rights. We already treat felons in this manner.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this point....

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
anti gun libtards see a man carrying a battle rifle, haters gonna hate

Quoting this so the mods can see your political trolling.

reply to post by Evil_Santa


whoopdy doo

reply to post by mbkennel

Does your means of self-preservation include lethal chemical weaponry, for instance?

would that include the Oleanders that grow wild in yard ??
or maybe the ant poison on the shelf or perhaps the draino under the counter ??
or just the mercury i could dip a dart into before blowing it elsewhere ??

Does the Constitution protect the right of prisoners to have firearms while incarcerated?

since i don't believe there is such a thing as a stupid question ... no, Constitutional protections of the 2nd are not afforded to prisoners while incarcerated.
heck, Constitutional protections of the 2nd aren't automatically reinstated, either.

Given the current climate of fear over there, I'm amazed police/security/another armed citizen didn't blow him away on sight!

reply to post by squarehead666


yeah everyone seemed kind of cool about it.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Honor93

and why would you think he was doing anything nefarious ?
he was just walking by in a non-threatening manner, correct ?

ever heard of innocent until proven guilty ?

Every "spree killer" was innocent , Till they started shooting.
And I'm not sure how anyone can walk in a "threatening manner"?

were they now ?
SH followed a criminal act first ... thief/murder
NY firemen were subjected to a convicted killer
DC sniper was paedophile
Aurora appears to be a psyche-managed lunatic who seemingly predicted his confinement

so ... please, tell us again how law-abiding citizens are or should be responsible for the acts of CRIMINALS ??

should you choose to learn about body language, you will.

reply to post by winofiend


We don't know your mental state of health.
You may be in the news tomorrow.

reply to post by Evil_Santa

So you're saying that my freedom of speech isn't as important as another persons, or that my opinions aren't as important as another persons?

I’m not trying to deny you anything…that’s your role.

Either way you look at it, you're a dick, and this will be my last reply to you, as you've clearly indicated that a persons status means more to you then their ideas. (Ironically, this is a classic sign of narcissism. Perhaps you wouldn't be able to pass a MMPI exam after all.)

That wasn’t nice! Nobody likes a sore loser.

My point is that all rights come with responsibilities. People who are unfit to handle those responsibilities, do not deserve the rights. We already treat felons in this manner.

And I already said that’s understood. What does that have to do with the proposed violation of my rights? You seem to dodge that question often.

I have been paying attention to the legislation, and frankly I agree that limiting magazine size and semi-automatic rifles is stupid. Perhaps that's why I'm in here proposing alternatives to what is currently being proposed.

Oh - and considering the executive orders that were signed have everything to do with mental health and providing additional information sources for background checks, it would appear that my opinion on handling the situation is more legitimate then your's.

Any agreement with the current proposals is an assault against our 2nd amendment because its all smoke and mirrors. These sugar-coated feel-good talking points from Obama and the MSM that you’re lapping down are a ploy to cover the real agenda. You can try and justify these draconian regulations all you’d like but the rest of us see it for what it is.

reply to post by Evil_Santa

which signed Executive Orders ??
any chance you'd link those please ?

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Honor93

and why would you think he was doing anything nefarious ?
he was just walking by in a non-threatening manner, correct ?

ever heard of innocent until proven guilty ?

Every "spree killer" was innocent , Till they started shooting.
And I'm not sure how anyone can walk in a "threatening manner"?

were they now ?
SH followed a criminal act first ... thief/murder
NY firemen were subjected to a convicted killer
DC sniper was paedophile
Aurora appears to be a psyche-managed lunatic who seemingly predicted his confinement

so ... please, tell us again how law-abiding citizens are or should be responsible for the acts of CRIMINALS ??

should you choose to learn about body language, you will.

And this is why I say that people who wish to own firearms need to go through the MMPI

en.wikipedia.org...

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is one of the most frequently used personality tests in mental health. The test is used by trained professionals to assist in identifying personality structure and psychopathology. Among its many uses, it is perhaps best known as the personality test that is used in conjunction with Secret and Top Secret security clearances required for many positions within United States federal agencies that incur an extensive responsibility for life and property, such as the Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Aviation Administration.

Pass this and you're golden to own any firearm you wish. Score a high deviation from normal standards and you're blocked. If you fail the exam, seek medical treatment, are considered "cured" after awhile, retake the test and go get your firearms.

Before someone argues that you can't cure sociopaths/psychopaths, go look through my post history as i've posted studies that show it is possible in multiple areas.