- Jun 18, 2013
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
I dont need to? That's your opinion. It's my opinion that carrying a firearm gives me an equalizer against a criminal with a firearm. And my objective isn't to "help" other people. My main concern is myself and my family who may be with me. Getting involved in a third party situation isn't recommended in CCW training or by lawyers.Because:
1. You don't need to
2. You'd be a far greater danger to other people than you'd be a help
Disingenuous bullshit aside, do you really think the right to bear isn't being restricted? Because I mean deliberately trolling isn't at all clever.How, it just restricts the right to carry to private property
Yes you would be "bearing" and where else would you "keep" ?
I wouldn't restrict people's rights at all - they would still be able to bear and keep - just only on private property (with the property's owner's permission of course if it isn't yours)
And a court would have to decide if it was "constitutional"
It wouldn't destroy anyone's rights, as they could still keep and bear arms
Restricting the 1st Amendment to private property wouldn't really work would it ?
Besides free speech is not a physical item that you carry around with you.
Because you don't want to be in public with gun owners exercising their rights. As long as you're willing to accept the rights of other people then join society, if not stay at home your choice.
I dont need to?
That's your opinion.
It's my opinion that carrying a firearm gives me an equalizer against a criminal with a firearm....
And my objective isn't to "help" other people.
My main concern is myself and my family who may be with me. Getting involved in a third party situation isn't recommended in CCW training or by lawyers.
1: you're afraid to because of what people might think if they found out.
2: you're afraid you'd be a danger to others and yourself.
You and others make your property gun free zones and we will stay away. That is the we that are law abiding.
And in return you don't tell us what we can and can't do.
Disingenuous bullshit aside, do you really think the right to bear isn't being restricted? Because I mean deliberately trolling isn't at all clever.
I want gun owners exercising their rights only on private property.
Why would a gun owner want to exercise bearing arms elsewhere - except for self gratification and the intimidation of others ?
You do not have to show a need to exercise a right, You also can’t deny someone a right simply because it’s what you want. If you you are unwilling to recognize and accept the rights people have and choose to exercise in public spaces, then stay on your private property where you can control the rights you disagree with. It’s so easy even a Rich can do it.
Best Freudian slip ever and a moment of accidental honest on your part.How can you justify a right if there's no need for it ?
Yes you can deny that right - if the majority of the people don't want it, nay - actively oppose it
However, exercising your rights on public property hurts no-one (unless maybe the people on that property also).
Best Freudian slip ever and a moment of accidental honest on your part.
If you’re unable to understand that showing a need is not a requirement to exercise a right and can’t agree on that simple concept of what having a right means and how it works, then there is no need to communicate any more because we have no common ground.
Existing gun owners will no doubt will their guns to their descendants. Considering the fact that guns can last many lifetimes this decrease in guns will take a long long time.This article has it all wrong. They would run a program exactly like the banned machineguns: terminate all transfers to individuals with possible grandfathering of existing guns with registration, all other forms of civilian possession being illegal. And then, nothing. Simply wait for existing gun owners to die of old age and existing guns to wear out or rust.
Nah, liberals are all about control, they just aren't open about it, like you.