Concealed Carrier holds driver at gunpoint after he hits 7 year old

[MikeK]

Cost!? Kiss my ass!!! Paying for your rights now? **** that shit!

Assuming we have a "right" to drive a car, don't we pay a price to do that, too?

We don't have a right to drive a car...

You don't have a constitutional right to drive a car. But in a democracy, if one citizen has a right to drive a car, so does another -- unless some expedient proscription or prohibition exists.

If you disagree, please explain in detail.

 

[MikeK]

I give it lots of thought as to why people feel they have the right to make any of my rights their business....government is never the answer to any of my rights....

The simple answer to what your declaration implies is, social necessity. In highly populated environments it makes sense to be sure armed citizens have some idea of the hows, whys, rights and potential wrongs of carrying lethal weapons.

Its not a social necessity...

It certainly is necessary to be sure that someone who is walking around with a gun under his shirt knows how and why to use it.

 

[Vastator]

Cost!? Kiss my ass!!! Paying for your rights now? **** that shit!

Assuming we have a "right" to drive a car, don't we pay a price to do that, too?

We don't have a right to drive a car...

You don't have a constitutional right to drive a car. But in a democracy, if one citizen has a right to drive a car, so does another -- unless some expedient proscription or prohibition exists.

If you disagree, please explain in detail.

(On public roads of course...)
There is no citizen in the US that has the right to drive a car

 

[Vastator]

I give it lots of thought as to why people feel they have the right to make any of my rights their business....government is never the answer to any of my rights....

The simple answer to what your declaration implies is, social necessity. In highly populated environments it makes sense to be sure armed citizens have some idea of the hows, whys, rights and potential wrongs of carrying lethal weapons.

Its not a social necessity...

It certainly is necessary to be sure that someone who is walking around with a gun under his shirt knows how and why to use it.

No. It isn't...

 

[Vastator]

I give it lots of thought as to why people feel they have the right to make any of my rights their business....government is never the answer to any of my rights....

The simple answer to what your declaration implies is, social necessity. In highly populated environments it makes sense to be sure armed citizens have some idea of the hows, whys, rights and potential wrongs of carrying lethal weapons.

Its not a social necessity...

It certainly is necessary to be sure that someone who is walking around with a gun under his shirt knows how and why to use it.

The only necessity/responsibility lies with the carrier...

 

[2aguy]

Funny how those scenarios never seem to happen no matter how often you guys say they will.......didnt happen in Dallas, or at the Giffords shooting both far higher stress situations.....and your scenario didn't happen then......

What scenarios?

where the armed citizen shoots another armed citizen or gets shot by police.....or traffic stops or burnt dinners turning into murder simply because someone is carrying a gun for self defense...those are the anti gunner talking points...

 

[2aguy]

Cost!? Kiss my ass!!! Paying for your rights now? **** that shit!

Assuming we have a "right" to drive a car, don't we pay a price to do that, too?

You don't have a right to drive a car. That is why there is no issue......

Look....I agree with you about training...people should be as well trained as they can be..........but....you are not taking into account the anti gunners and how they exploit any good faith effort to disarm and harrass normal gun owners......if you put any training requirement on gun ownership they will increase it to the point that only the rich can afford to do it......

 

[2aguy]

I give it lots of thought as to why people feel they have the right to make any of my rights their business....government is never the answer to any of my rights....

The simple answer to what your declaration implies is, social necessity. In highly populated environments it makes sense to be sure armed citizens have some idea of the hows, whys, rights and potential wrongs of carrying lethal weapons.

Its not a social necessity...

It certainly is necessary to be sure that someone who is walking around with a gun under his shirt knows how and why to use it.

The same excuse democrats used to deny blacks the Right to vote and used Poll taxes and literacy tests to do it.......

 

[Vastator]

I give it lots of thought as to why people feel they have the right to make any of my rights their business....government is never the answer to any of my rights....

The simple answer to what your declaration implies is, social necessity. In highly populated environments it makes sense to be sure armed citizens have some idea of the hows, whys, rights and potential wrongs of carrying lethal weapons.

Its not a social necessity...

It certainly is necessary to be sure that someone who is walking around with a gun under his shirt knows how and why to use it.

Is there an epidemic of folks, carrying guns under their shirts, accidentally shooting people?

 

[MikeK]

Sorry, no way...the Euopeans make the test so onerous that only the rich and the connected have the time and the means to study for it.....that is how they keep the little people from owning the hunting shotguns in their clubs that they are allowed to own....

What you're saying would make perfect sense if it did not defy basic logic, which is the fact that if government had to power to arbitrarily impose such a prohibitively difficult test in spite of NRA opposition, for just one example, it would simply use that power to say we may not keep and bear arms under any circumstances. But they can't say that, and for the same reason they can't they could not impose an unnecessarily difficult testing requirement -- or a prohibitive testing fee.

Also, please don't use Europe as a comparison to the U.S. where this issue is concerned.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry, no way...the Euopeans make the test so onerous that only the rich and the connected have the time and the means to study for it.....that is how they keep the little people from owning the hunting shotguns in their clubs that they are allowed to own....

What you're saying would make perfect sense if it did not defy basic logic, which is the fact that if government had to power to arbitrarily impose such a prohibitively difficult test in spite of NRA opposition, for just one example, it would simply use that power to say we may not keep and bear arms under any circumstances. But they can't say that, and for the same reason they can't they could not impose an unnecessarily difficult testing requirement -- or a prohibitive testing fee.

Also, please don't use Europe as a comparison to the U.S. where this issue is concerned.

Did you see the story of the woman in New Jersey that I posted last night....she has a legal carry permit and had guns unloaded and locked in her trunk....the New Jersey trooper arrested her because he claimed she had a single bullet on the floor of her back seat...she is now facing a life ruining legal process.......anti gunners cannot be trusted.....

Did you see the Missoula, Mississipi universal background law that I posted about...another mess that targets normal, law abiding gun owners....sorry...no way do you allow anti gunners to have that much control....

 

[2aguy]

Sorry, no way...the Euopeans make the test so onerous that only the rich and the connected have the time and the means to study for it.....that is how they keep the little people from owning the hunting shotguns in their clubs that they are allowed to own....

What you're saying would make perfect sense if it did not defy basic logic, which is the fact that if government had to power to arbitrarily impose such a prohibitively difficult test in spite of NRA opposition, for just one example, it would simply use that power to say we may not keep and bear arms under any circumstances. But they can't say that, and for the same reason they can't they could not impose an unnecessarily difficult testing requirement -- or a prohibitive testing fee.

Also, please don't use Europe as a comparison to the U.S. where this issue is concerned.

You yourself posted about trying to get a gun permit in New Jersey and New York...seriously, they can't make it impossible? Even John Stossel couldn't get a permit.......and you post about those two states....? Now try that on a national level...with what you want to mandate....

 

[2aguy]

Sorry, no way...the Euopeans make the test so onerous that only the rich and the connected have the time and the means to study for it.....that is how they keep the little people from owning the hunting shotguns in their clubs that they are allowed to own....

What you're saying would make perfect sense if it did not defy basic logic, which is the fact that if government had to power to arbitrarily impose such a prohibitively difficult test in spite of NRA opposition, for just one example, it would simply use that power to say we may not keep and bear arms under any circumstances. But they can't say that, and for the same reason they can't they could not impose an unnecessarily difficult testing requirement -- or a prohibitive testing fee.

Also, please don't use Europe as a comparison to the U.S. where this issue is concerned.

I will use Europe because all the anti gunners use Europe and Australia and Japan to show what they want here....

 

[2aguy]

Sorry, no way...the Euopeans make the test so onerous that only the rich and the connected have the time and the means to study for it.....that is how they keep the little people from owning the hunting shotguns in their clubs that they are allowed to own....

What you're saying would make perfect sense if it did not defy basic logic, which is the fact that if government had to power to arbitrarily impose such a prohibitively difficult test in spite of NRA opposition, for just one example, it would simply use that power to say we may not keep and bear arms under any circumstances. But they can't say that, and for the same reason they can't they could not impose an unnecessarily difficult testing requirement -- or a prohibitive testing fee.

Also, please don't use Europe as a comparison to the U.S. where this issue is concerned.

How has NRA opposition made it easier to get gun permits in New Jersey, New York and California.....made it easier?

 

[OnePercenter]

Unless it's because the drug deal went bad.

Correct, as I said, a licensed carrier cannot use a firearm in the commission of a crime.

So an unlicensed carrier can use a firearm in the commission of a crime?

 

[2aguy]

Unless it's because the drug deal went bad.

Correct, as I said, a licensed carrier cannot use a firearm in the commission of a crime.

So an unlicensed carrier can use a firearm in the commission of a crime?

90% of the gun murderers are felons with long histories of crime and violence...they are unlicensed.....licensing does nothing to stop criminals...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So an unlicensed carrier can use a firearm in the commission of a crime?

I really have no idea what your point is here. Nobody can use a firearm in the commission of a crime and you should know that.

 

[2aguy]

So an unlicensed carrier can use a firearm in the commission of a crime?

I really have no idea what your point is here. Nobody can use a firearm in the commission of a crime and you should know that.

He is a lefty....he is lucky to be able to dress and feed himself.....

 

[owebo]

I give it lots of thought as to why people feel they have the right to make any of my rights their business....government is never the answer to any of my rights....

The simple answer to what your declaration implies is, social necessity. In highly populated environments it makes sense to be sure armed citizens have some idea of the hows, whys, rights and potential wrongs of carrying lethal weapons.

It actually makes no sense at all....the idea that somehow you feel empowered to even think about my rights is terrifying....

Your use of emotions tells me you have an agenda.....so, that allows me to understand what you perceive to be a sly approach to the topic....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He is a lefty....he is lucky to be able to dress and feed himself.....

And figures if they can get enough Democrats to take leadership of this country, the government will do that for him.