• Please visit and share your knowledge at our sister communities:
  • If you have not, please join our official Homebrewing Facebook Group!

    Homebrewing Facebook Group

Concealed Carry

Homebrew Talk

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
They used the words they did since they never imagined that the limp-wristed liberal's would try to limit firearm possession of the populace. It was so prevalent at the time that they figured that having the wording as it is would be enough. A bit like a 'less is more' approach.

IMO, adding more limitations on what law abiding citizens can own (above what's already in place) is going too far. It's bad enough they've been adding more and more restrictions over the years. Most people (that are allowed to own firearms) can only have semi-automatic at the most. In order to get something more, you have to apply to the feds to be allowed. They can deny you for pretty much any reason they can think up. It's really disgusting what people in states like MA go through JUST to own ANY firearm. I'm seriously glad to be out of that police state now. :eek: :D


Well, all I can say is that gun-owners are going to have to come up with something a bit more substantial than name-calling (usually starting or ending with the word "liberal" as the epithet) and the same old excuses (i.e. GUNS don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people). If they want to preserve their right of bearing arms for future generations.

But hey, what do I know? As Gunpowder pointed out "I'm what's wrong with this country" ha-ha.
 
And they needed to be armed....hence the Second Amendment.



Why is that? Perhaps because they have radical agendas. You could probably have said the same thing of some state militias in the late 1700s in this land.



For what, may I ask?



You say those things, and then wonder why people look at you funny when you say you own guns. I think gun-owners bring alot of this on themselves.

I don't say those things in public. I'm not crazy, nor stupid. The reasons why militias get the rep they do is from the few fringe groups, or the ones that did have their own agendas and such. There are (or at least were not too long ago) ones that were very quiet and just organized for in case they were needed. Not nut-jobs and the such but ordinary citizens that wanted to be ready should the call go out. Some have even registered with their state/local governments (as an organization) that is ready, and willing, to assist in times of emergency (whatever it may be). But, they don't act unless called upon. To just all of them over the nut-cases is just moronic. How would YOU like to be judged, because you home brew, the same as a moonshiner?

Having normal, law-abiding, citizens armed (and know how to use what they have) is NOT a bad thing. It sickens me when people think it is. Maybe because I grew up around firearms, having safety and respect for them the first things I was taught about them. Then taught how to properly use them (at a range). I would wager that the majority of the anti-gun nuts (face it, they are) have never even picked up a firearm let alone used one. Have never gone to a competition shoot (of any kind) to see what law abiding citizens use them for. Or sat at a table where wild game is being served.

If the government continues to go down the path of restricting firearm ownership of law-abiding citizens then only the outlaws will have them. There's enough cases, every year, where people who own firearms are able to protect themselves from violent criminals. At least in the states that don't make the victim the one getting arrested (instead of the criminal).

IMO, one of the reasons why the government we have actually works (mostly) and has the populations best interest in mind (again, mostly) is due to the fact that we can kick them the F out if we decide to. Unfortunately, most of the population has forgotten about that. It's especially evident when people are elected even though popular vote is against them. It makes people think that the government really doesn't care that much about the citizens and is really all about making itself more powerful, or making more money (for the politicians). I refuse to vote when I don't actually feel any of the candidates are actually worthy of my support. I'm NOT going to vote for the lesser evil, when none are worth my trust.
 
No. It means they learned from history that those unable to fight back are pretty much screwed in situations like that so they wrote protection of the right to bear arms into the Constitution.

You really think that the right to bear arms is the only reason a tyrannical government has not taken over? If so, you really need to revisit your high-school history/government/civics class.

There is no more that needs to be said about it other than SCOTUS has upheld it means an individual right to keep and bear arms is protected.

If you say so....SCOTUS decisions are never overturned. Keep your head in the sand and everything will be OK.
 
Well, all I can say is that gun-owners are going to have to come up with something a bit more substantial than name-calling (usually starting or ending with the word "liberal" as the epithet) and the same old excuses (i.e. GUNS don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people). If they want to preserve their right of bearing arms for future generations.

But hey, what do I know? As Gunpowder pointed out "I'm what's wrong with this country" ha-ha.

Never mind the fact that it really IS 'people kill people' and not some object that does it. People have been finding ways to kill each other for millennia. Taking away the guns just means that they'll go with something else. So instead of fixing the actual issue, they'll cover up the symptom... How would you feel if a doctor did that? You have a broken bone, but instead of setting it and putting on a cast, they just give you pain killers and send you on your way... :eek: :p
 
You really think that the right to bear arms is the only reason a tyrannical government has not taken over? If so, you really need to revisit your high-school history/government/civics class.



If you say so....SCOTUS decisions are never overturned. Keep your head in the sand and everything will be OK.

Argumentum ad hominem gets you no where.
 
Everytime I read one of broadbills comments I actually feel my IQ lowering. I'm here for the beer. I'm going to bow out of this conversation now before this guy drives me to start saying things that will not only cause him permanent psychological damage, but will also likely get me banned from here.
 
Everytime I read one of broadbills comments I actually feel my IQ lowering. I'm here for the beer. I'm going to bow out of this conversation now before this guy drives me to start saying things that will not only cause him permanent psychological damage, but will also likely get me banned from here.

I think I'll join you... :D





'night biotches!!!
 
Argumentum ad hominem gets you no where.

I wasn't putting forth an argument. I didn't mean to call you any names, other than it might behoove gun-owners to take a step back and look at how an outsider sees a situation instead of "doubling down" on the idea that gun ownership is an unalienable right.
 
Everytime I read one of broadbills comments I actually feel my IQ lowering. I'm here for the beer. I'm going to bow out of this conversation now before this guy drives me to start saying things that will not only cause him permanent psychological damage, but will also likely get me banned from here.


Have a Good New Years!
 
Never mind the fact that it really IS 'people kill people' and not some object that does it. People have been finding ways to kill each other for millennia. Taking away the guns just means that they'll go with something else. So instead of fixing the actual issue, they'll cover up the symptom... How would you feel if a doctor did that? You have a broken bone, but instead of setting it and putting on a cast, they just give you pain killers and send you on your way... :eek: :p


I guess you can go on with the same old NRA-sponsored lines; unfortunately I don't think anybody is buying those lines anymore.

Newhook was caused by a man with a assault rifle.....telling the average non-gun owner that you know more about guns than them and that is still OK for you to own an assault rifle (because you aren't crazy, right?) might not be enough.
 
I'm going to bow out of this conversation now before this guy drives me to start saying things that will not only cause him permanent psychological damage, but will also likely get me banned from here.

BTW....LOL at this. permanent psychological damage? You are a big scary internet tough guy eh? Let me get my blankie:D
 
My right to own and bear arms is just that, my right. Don't tread on me. Trying to find ways to blame the metal object is ridiculous. Spoons made me fat? My pencil spells wrong? These are basic arguments because they work. People are dumb stupid animals, but the individual can be learned from and educated.
 
Does anyone know how many of the recent killers involved in these types of tragic incidents had a conceal carry and or had the gun legally? I am guessing not many if any.. Enough said. If those non gun owners believe they are right then more power to all of you but just do not try to take others rights because of your beliefs.
 
I need to get off my butt and get my concealed carry permit.
Washington is a shall issue States so it's not a big deal other than missing some work to go down and get fingerprinted.

One of the nice fringe benefits of getting the concealed weapons permit is not having a waiting period when you pick up a handgun.
Just last week I had to make an extra trip into the city to pick up a new toy.
With the concealed weapons permit I could have saved the trip and at 10 miles per gallon I could have saved about $50 in gas.
This is my new toy.


ForumRunner_20121231_223355.jpg

The little brother to a very good carry piece.
 
Does anyone know how many of the recent killers involved in these types of tragic incidents had a conceal carry and or had the gun legally? I am guessing not many if any.. Enough said. If those non gun owners believe they are right then more power to all of you but just do not try to take others rights because of your beliefs.

Each situation is different, but I believe the Virginia tech shooter legally owned his guns, the Sandyhook guy don't legally own (but his mom did), and the Fort Hood killer legally owned the gun he used...so you might want to review that assumption of yours.

This just out of Southern Maine: Drunk landlord shoots a couple of his tenants over a parking dispute (yep, parking).

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Pak-scheduled-for-1-pm-court-appearance.html

Shooter legally owned his gun too. Quote: "Beaupre said Pak does not have a concealed-weapons permit, but noted that while he was at home, he would not have needed one to carry a gun."
 
broadbill said:
Each situation is different, but I believe the Virginia tech shooter legally owned his guns, the Sandyhook guy don't legally own (but his mom did), and the Fort Hood killer legally owned the gun he used...so you might want to review that assumption of yours.

This just out of Southern Maine: Drunk landlord shoots a couple of his tenants over a parking dispute (yep, parking).

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Pak-scheduled-for-1-pm-court-appearance.html

Shooter legally owned his gun too. Quote: "Beaupre said Pak does not have a concealed-weapons permit, but noted that while he was at home, he would not have needed one to carry a gun."

We should probably outlaw alcohol as well then.
More people die because of alcohol then shootings.

"He wouldn't have needed one". Maybe he should have.
 
Holy Lack of Oversight,how did this political debate develop outside the Debate Forum? You Premium Supporters who participate in the Debate Forum (Golddiggie) know better- for others who may not know, the forum rules are that political topics like gun control are off limits except in the Debate Forum.

The general tone of this thread shows why we have this rule - many of the posters here seemed unable or unwilling to treat those who disagreed with them with respect. In the Debate Forum, there are enough serious members truly interested in debate and policy dialogue to keep things at a reasonably civil level.

So please no more political posts outside the debate forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top