• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Open carry without a permit....

This will probably get me blackballed, but i choose my fights. And the fact that i have to pay 75 bucks to carry a weapon, doesnt piss me off nearly as much as a whole lot of other things that i have absolutely no control over, permitted or not. But i got kicked off of a thread the other day because of my opinion. So i guess i have to watch what i say. God f*n bless the US and the constitution.
 
WHOOMP, THERE IT IS !

Simple-minded people like you don't need to be cluttering up threads in the "law and order" section with stupid bumper-sticker-worthy comments about "all gun laws are B.S. anyway" -- which is exactly what you meant, and everybody understood you to mean, in your prior comment in this thread.
While it's telling you think the man is "stupid and simple minded" because he doesn't agree with you, The Law and Order section is the perfect area to discuss laws. Even the blatantly idiotic and unconstitutional ones defended by the "intelligent and genius" among us.
 
LOL. The fact a U.S. citizen has to not only pay a tax for the "privileged" but is also subjected to an egregious invasion of his/her privacy, all so he/she can practice the only "right" secured by the additional words "shall NOT be infringed" is not only a disgrace, but is about as "in your face" a reminder that the Republic is dead as you could get. Yet many are all too willing to dance on the grave and celebrate the means of extermination. But hey, if it's "easy enough" to get that permission slip, then I guess that's cool.
What solution can you offer to fix the situation? What are you personally doing to fix it?
 
WHOOMP, THERE IT IS !

Simple-minded people like you don't need to be cluttering up threads in the "law and order" section with stupid bumper-sticker-worthy comments about "all gun laws are B.S. anyway" -- which is exactly what you meant, and everybody understood you to mean, in your prior comment in this thread.
I'm proud of that, and 100% stand behind my comments. Doesn't negate the fact that you made a dishonest comment about what I said. Again, what I believe should be the law, is not the same as saying "**** the law". You said that, not me. So, grow up and own up to it.
 
While it's telling you think the man is "stupid and simple minded" because he doesn't agree with you, The Law and Order section is the perfect area to discuss laws. Even the blatantly idiotic and unconstitutional ones defended by the "intelligent and genius" among us.


It's not "discussing" anything to have a bunch of people invade any discussion of past, current, or future gun laws and say, in effect, "screw the law, it's all bull****, the 2nd Amd. is all we need."

It only takes a few trolls of that type to make this site worthless to intelligent people who actually want to DISCUSS the law in a meaningful way, not just "vote" on it or parrot party-line bumper sticker slogans ("you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers..."
 
It's not "discussing" anything to have a bunch of people invade any discussion of past, current, or future gun laws and say, in effect, "screw the law, it's all bull****, the 2nd Amd. is all we need."

It only takes a few trolls of that type to make this site worthless to intelligent people who actually want to DISCUSS the law in a meaningful way, not just "vote" on it or parrot party-line bumper sticker slogans ("you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers..."
The man never said "screw the law". You can keep trying to pin it on him all you want. He said the laws are unconstitutional. That's called an opinion. You of all people should understand that. What with judges issuing their OPINIONS regarding the law and all....
You've advocated every conceivable restriction on the 2A on these boards, up to and including government mandated training. While it's no surprise you find yourself flabbergasted at those of us who take the 2A at it's literal and clear meaning, it is curious you are so continuously annoyed by what appears to be a recurring revelation for you.

I asked a legal question in the OP. I answered it myself in post #6. The rest can be discussion of the merits of the law being questioned, since as you so aptly pointed out, it is the "law and order" section.

I will grant you,it is a dead horse. The statists rarely change their views.
 
Back
Top Bottom