Re: More 2nd Amendment court challenges T'ed up

[Billy]

In article <VdWmt.12205$v46....@newsfe13.iad>, benj <be...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:25:53 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
>
> > "The U.S. Supreme Court often clarifies what laws mean. But... when it
> > comes to the Second Amendment, a decision from the high court has
> > created questions and generated litigation about how the right to bear
> > arms relates to bearing arms in public... the Supreme Court’s
> > acknowledging gun ownership as an individual right has invited his
> > organization to litigate for the next 50 years, every gun restriction on
> > the books in the United States."
> >
> > <http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/05/2nd-amendment-fights-video/>
>
> What surprises me is not litigation over various concealed carry laws,
> but the fact that nobody has brought suit against Texas yet for banning
> open carry. That sure seems like an "infringement" on "bearing arms" to
> me. And with open carry there are no side issues of concealment and
> others. It's just a straight-forward "bearing" issue.
>
> Here, they may make your life miserable for open carry, but the law says
> you can. Hence they've headed off these issues.

Some people would consider "Open Carry" intimidation with the only
option being a race to the bottom to see who gets a thermonuclear device
first.

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/>

Welcome to the New America.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg>

[God's Debris]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:58:57 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
wrote:

So it's ok for the cops to intimidate EVERYONE for their entire
shift???? No one is intimidated by open carry except hoplophobes.

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:09:05 -0700, God's Debris <hea...@dead.net>

wrote:

>On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:58:57 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <VdWmt.12205$v46....@newsfe13.iad>, benj <be...@iwaynet.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:25:53 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
>>>
>>> > "The U.S. Supreme Court often clarifies what laws mean. But... when it
>>> > comes to the Second Amendment, a decision from the high court has
>>> > created questions and generated litigation about how the right to bear

>>> > arms relates to bearing arms in public... the Supreme CourtĀ’s

>>> > acknowledging gun ownership as an individual right has invited his
>>> > organization to litigate for the next 50 years, every gun restriction on
>>> > the books in the United States."
>>> >
>>> > <http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/05/2nd-amendment-fights-video/>
>>>
>>> What surprises me is not litigation over various concealed carry laws,
>>> but the fact that nobody has brought suit against Texas yet for banning
>>> open carry. That sure seems like an "infringement" on "bearing arms" to
>>> me. And with open carry there are no side issues of concealment and
>>> others. It's just a straight-forward "bearing" issue.
>>>
>>> Here, they may make your life miserable for open carry, but the law says
>>> you can. Hence they've headed off these issues.
>>
>>Some people would consider "Open Carry" intimidation with the only
>>option being a race to the bottom to see who gets a thermonuclear device
>>first.
>
>So it's ok for the cops to intimidate EVERYONE for their entire
>shift???? No one is intimidated by open carry except hoplophobes.

True enough.


--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal

The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.

They HATE the truth."

[Billy]

In article <0nrop8tojtuf9e801...@4ax.com>,

Yes, Debris, cops do intimidate for their entire shift, and it makes
their job easier. Now, Debris, you've made a simple mistake in logic.
While all hoplophobes (good word by the way) are intimidated by open
carry, not all who are intimidated are hoplophobes. Would you be
intimidated by a drunken, foul-mouthed bigot (nobody in particular
guys), who was doing open carry at your favorite watering hole?

Police, and para-military killings.

Trayvon Martin: unarmed

Kenneth Chamberlain Sr.: unarmed

Oscar Grant: unarmed

Sean Bell: unarmed

Amadou Bailo Diallo: unarmed

Ken Harding: unarmed

Joetavius Stafford: unarmed

Timothy Thomas: unarmed

Kendrec McDade: unarmed

Ramarley Graham: unarmed

Orlando Barlow: unarmed

Niles Meservey: unarmed

Steven Eugene Washington: unarmed

Tyrone Brown: unarmed


Fred Hampton: asleep & unarmed


6 people shot on the Danziger Bridge in
New Orleans by the NOPD. Again, UNARMED

17-year-old James Brissette killed
teenager Jose Holmes Jr. killed
40-year-old Ronald Madison a developmentally disabled man
who would later die from his injuries
Lance Madison shot
James Johnson "J.J." shot

And, Debris, you can add to this list Emma Hernandez and Maggie Carranza
whose blue Toyota Tacoma was turned into a Swiss cheese template by the
L.A.P.D. as the mother and daughter tried to deliver newspapers. They
were totally blind-sided.

If you aren't intimidated, Debris, I suggest that you don't understand
the problem.

[SaPeIsMa]

"God's Debris" <hea...@dead.net> wrote in message
news:0nrop8tojtuf9e801...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:58:57 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <VdWmt.12205$v46....@newsfe13.iad>, benj <be...@iwaynet.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:25:53 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
>>>
>>> > "The U.S. Supreme Court often clarifies what laws mean. But... when it
>>> > comes to the Second Amendment, a decision from the high court has
>>> > created questions and generated litigation about how the right to bear

>>> > arms relates to bearing arms in public... the Supreme CourtÂ’s

>>> > acknowledging gun ownership as an individual right has invited his
>>> > organization to litigate for the next 50 years, every gun restriction
>>> > on
>>> > the books in the United States."
>>> >
>>> > <http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/05/2nd-amendment-fights-video/>
>>>
>>> What surprises me is not litigation over various concealed carry laws,
>>> but the fact that nobody has brought suit against Texas yet for banning
>>> open carry. That sure seems like an "infringement" on "bearing arms" to
>>> me. And with open carry there are no side issues of concealment and
>>> others. It's just a straight-forward "bearing" issue.
>>>
>>> Here, they may make your life miserable for open carry, but the law says
>>> you can. Hence they've headed off these issues.
>>
>>Some people would consider "Open Carry" intimidation with the only
>>option being a race to the bottom to see who gets a thermonuclear device
>>first.
>
> So it's ok for the cops to intimidate EVERYONE for their entire
> shift???? No one is intimidated by open carry except hoplophobes.

But, but, but...
<shift INTO progressive mind-set>
It's just that if a citizen carries, it has to be to intimidate others
What other purpose could they have to be armed ?
After all they have the (armed) and openly carrying police to protect them
<shift OUT OF progressive mind-set>

[Billy]

In article <134pp85o62sobn1be...@4ax.com>,

Arschloch,<Arschloch,@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:09:05 -0700, God's Debris <hea...@dead.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:58:57 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <VdWmt.12205$v46....@newsfe13.iad>, benj <be...@iwaynet.net>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:25:53 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > "The U.S. Supreme Court often clarifies what laws mean. But... when it
> >>> > comes to the Second Amendment, a decision from the high court has
> >>> > created questions and generated litigation about how the right to bear

> >>> > arms relates to bearing arms in public... the Supreme Court’s

> >>> > acknowledging gun ownership as an individual right has invited his
> >>> > organization to litigate for the next 50 years, every gun restriction on
> >>> > the books in the United States."
> >>> >
> >>> > <http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/05/2nd-amendment-fights-video/>
> >>>
> >>> What surprises me is not litigation over various concealed carry laws,
> >>> but the fact that nobody has brought suit against Texas yet for banning
> >>> open carry. That sure seems like an "infringement" on "bearing arms" to
> >>> me. And with open carry there are no side issues of concealment and
> >>> others. It's just a straight-forward "bearing" issue.
> >>>
> >>> Here, they may make your life miserable for open carry, but the law says
> >>> you can. Hence they've headed off these issues.
> >>
> >>Some people would consider "Open Carry" intimidation with the only
> >>option being a race to the bottom to see who gets a thermonuclear device
> >>first.
> >
> >So it's ok for the cops to intimidate EVERYONE for their entire
> >shift???? No one is intimidated by open carry except hoplophobes.
>
> True enough.

Arschloch, doesn't even have a nodding relationship with the truth.
This is a fresh, steaming post from Arschloch's backside. All opinion,
and no facts. Of course, as Dubya's administration put it, if you say it
often enough, and people start to believe it, it is the truth. Like
those WMDs that they found in Iraq, but most would call it double speak.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
It's Arschloch's strength.

>
>
> --
> "You guess the truth hurts?
>
> Really?
>
> "Hurt" aint the word.

And Arschloch did all the parts.

>
> For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
> Sunlight to a vampire.
> Raid� to a cockroach.
> Sheriff Brody to a shark
> Bush to a Liberal

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a
literacy test."
- "The Worst President Ever"
-Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001
<http://theweek.com/article/index/243205/was-george-w-bush-the-worst-pres
ident-ever>

And for the Guardians of Privilege it's like expecting an investment
banker to make money without stealing it from the tax payers.

>
> The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
> up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
> dick as a brake.

Here we go again. What is it with "Baggers", Arschloch? You always
seemed to be fascinated with what's in other people's pants. Don't you
have anything?

>
> They HATE the truth."
>
As you can see, Arschloch, watches Faux News.
<http://voices.yahoo.com/university-maryland-study-shows-watching-fox-new
s-7432098.html>

A post totally devoid of even a hint of a fact.

That's it, Arschloch? That's all you got? Even KaBoom posts more crap
than that to justify a post.

[God's Debris]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:18:10 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>

Lets say it would be intimidating but legal. How is that situation
improved by only letting that guy carry concealed? Are you going to
say that's an improvement in the situation???

[RM V2.0]

"God's Debris" <hea...@dead.net> wrote in message
news:fm6qp8lpq4t7nqvka...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:18:10 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
> wrote:
> Lets say it would be intimidating but legal. How is that situation
> improved by only letting that guy carry concealed? Are you going to
> say that's an improvement in the situation???

Ignorance is bliss?

[Billy]

In article <fm6qp8lpq4t7nqvka...@4ax.com>,

There are enough pressures in life without having to run a gauntlet of
wanna be Rambos with their concealed, or otherwise equalizers.

[SaPeIsMa]

"God's Debris" <hea...@dead.net> wrote in message
news:fm6qp8lpq4t7nqvka...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:18:10 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <0nrop8tojtuf9e801...@4ax.com>,
>> God's Debris <hea...@dead.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:58:57 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <VdWmt.12205$v46....@newsfe13.iad>, benj <be...@iwaynet.net>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:25:53 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > "The U.S. Supreme Court often clarifies what laws mean. But... when
>>> >> > it
>>> >> > comes to the Second Amendment, a decision from the high court has
>>> >> > created questions and generated litigation about how the right to
>>> >> > bear

>>> >> > arms relates to bearing arms in public... the Supreme CourtÂ’s

What "that guy" you babbling about ?

[bbhack]

I read that as, "you haz cc-chl, by license, and oc, by constitution".

Why not cc by constitution????

I could be wrong. It was a hard read.

Maybe we should presume that Texas OC would be by OHL, initially, until
the constitution catches up.

[God's Debris]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:34:55 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>

That's a different issue. To repeat..

[God's Debris]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:55:23 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>"God's Debris" <hea...@dead.net> wrote in message
>news:fm6qp8lpq4t7nqvka...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:18:10 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <0nrop8tojtuf9e801...@4ax.com>,
>>> God's Debris <hea...@dead.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:58:57 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >In article <VdWmt.12205$v46....@newsfe13.iad>, benj <be...@iwaynet.net>
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:25:53 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > "The U.S. Supreme Court often clarifies what laws mean. But... when
>>>> >> > it
>>>> >> > comes to the Second Amendment, a decision from the high court has
>>>> >> > created questions and generated litigation about how the right to
>>>> >> > bear

>>>> >> > arms relates to bearing arms in public... the Supreme Court’s

The guy that was posited, the drunk foul mouthed bigot.

[a425couple]

"Billy" <wild...@withouta.net> wrote in message...

> God's Debris <hea...@dead.net> wrote:

>> Billy <wild...@withouta.net> wrote:

Well Billy, I disagree, but not strongly on that one,
because I've seen that some departments do list just the
officer's presence on their Use of Force Spectrum/Continuum.

So, I'll move to what seems more relevant,
Do you feel intimidated by being in the presence
of a man who clearly appears to be more
physicly fit (combination of size, muscularity, age)
than you?

How intimidated should smaller or older ladies feel
when they are in mixed public?

Do you think they should live in intimidation,
or should they be empowered?

[Billy]

In article <pjqsp8pvacol51vg1...@4ax.com>,

I don't think anyone should be carrying loaded guns in public. Perhaps,
arguments can be made for gem salesmen, or where an occupation entails
risks that can be ameliorated by carrying a side arm. On the other hand,
if public safety has broken down to the point that law enforcement, and
public opinion aren't sufficient to insure personal civil liberties,
then perhaps we should look to see how social engineering could improve
the situation, like a guaranteed education, health care, sanitary
housing, and a job. This approach wouldn't be liked by those who want to
maximize the amount of public money for their own profit (corporate
welfare). Jobs, housing vouchers, and food stamps is where I would
start. I'm sure there are other approaches, but marginalizing a fifth of
our citizens is obviously not working. The disaster that has befallen
us, because of Wall Street, is no less a disaster than Hurricane Sandy,
or the tornado that hit Moore, Oklahoma. It requires a Federal response.
The goal that "We the People of the United States", assumed, in Order to
form a more perfect Union, is to establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity. If we aren't doing that, then we've betrayed the pledge of
our founding fathers to support this Declaration, with a firm reliance
on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other
our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Obviously, this covers more ground than just dealing with the pissy
problem of re-instituting the Wild West.

[Scout]

"Billy" <wild...@withouta.net> wrote in message
news:wildbilly-9278F...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...

So let's see...you think it's ok for someone to carry to protect mere
property but not their lives.

You think it's ok if you're hired for some task, but not if that risk comes
upon you outside of that occupation.

In short, you seem feel self defense should be limited only to those that
can hire someone else to protect them, or if they carry around large amounts
of wealth.

How very....elitist of you.

[bbhack]

On 05/22/2013 02:23 PM, God's Debris wrote:
>> >Yes, Debris, cops do intimidate for their entire shift, and it makes
>> >their job easier. Now, Debris, you've made a simple mistake in logic.
>> >While all hoplophobes (good word by the way) are intimidated by open
>> >carry, not all who are intimidated are hoplophobes. Would you be
>> >intimidated by a drunken, foul-mouthed bigot (nobody in particular
>> >guys), who was doing open carry at your favorite watering hole?
>> >
> Lets say it would be intimidating but legal. How is that situation
> improved by only letting that guy carry concealed? Are you going to
> say that's an improvement in the situation???
>
>

If you are saying that a drunk person can carry legally, that's just
plain wrong.

Are you saying that if a drunk person can legally OC, he should be able
to CC, and vice versa? None of this is true or makes sense.

[benj]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:57:46 -0700, Billy wrote:

> Obviously, this covers more ground than just dealing with the pissy
> problem of re-instituting the Wild West.

Wild West?

http://www.examiner.com/article/dispelling-the-myth-of-the-wild-west

Truth isn't something you leftards are acquainted with is it?

"wild West" is a clear improvement over socialist policies today.

[Billy]

In article <knmokq$6a1$1...@dont-email.me>,

You appear to not be able to think at all.

[Billy]

In article <Z6Dnt.3677$u_4....@newsfe09.iad>, benj <be...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

So you don't believe in America. I suspected as much.

[Billy]

In article <knmdn...@news6.newsguy.com>,

No.

>
> How intimidated should smaller or older ladies feel
> when they are in mixed public?

None at all.

>
> Do you think they should live in intimidation,
> or should they be empowered?

In a civilized society, it wouldn't be a question.

None of the institutions that we have would be a problem, if they were
based on insuring the domestic Tranquility, providing for the common
defence, and promoting the general Welfare, but that isn't what we have.

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 00:20:08 -0500, bbhack <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 05/22/2013 02:23 PM, God's Debris wrote:
>>> >Yes, Debris, cops do intimidate for their entire shift, and it makes
>>> >their job easier. Now, Debris, you've made a simple mistake in logic.
>>> >While all hoplophobes (good word by the way) are intimidated by open
>>> >carry, not all who are intimidated are hoplophobes. Would you be
>>> >intimidated by a drunken, foul-mouthed bigot (nobody in particular
>>> >guys), who was doing open carry at your favorite watering hole?
>>> >
>> Lets say it would be intimidating but legal. How is that situation
>> improved by only letting that guy carry concealed? Are you going to
>> say that's an improvement in the situation???
>>
>>
>
>If you are saying that a drunk person can carry legally, that's just
>plain wrong.

Actually..there is nothing in the constitution about bearing arms
while intoxicated. And in fact...after work watering holes for cops
off the clock are often filled with drunken, armed, cops. With few
incidents. The history books show that everyone carried..except for
slaves..even in the bars and taverns. A certain amount of common sense
lodged deeply in the individuals pysche kept them from getting too
violent..and if they crossed the line...others would tackle or simply
kill him. Keep in mind..that dueling was either legal or
accepted..and if you were an utter dick..you would be challenged to
either a duel or a bar fight with weapons. Which today..is why
trolls think they are safe. Its been nearly a 100 years since the last
:"official" duel was witnessed. However..they seem to forget that such
things occur daily across America. Most often without
weapons..but..shrug..occasionally with. They open their mouths to the
wrong people at the wrong time and offend the honor of someone who is
willing to put it on the line....and they are suddenly and sharply
brought to a glaring spotlite of reality check.

>
>Are you saying that if a drunk person can legally OC, he should be able
>to CC, and vice versa? None of this is true or makes sense.

Actually...it is true. Now my CCW states in red ink...if this person
is carrying while intoxicated or while under the influence of
drugs..he looses his weapon and CCW until there is a hearing.

I can get just as buzzed as I want here in California..as long as Im
not carrying. Given that I dont drink nor do recreational
pharmacuitcals...thats not an issue. But..."The Right to keep and
Bear arms..shall not be infringed" says nothing about being boozed or
drugged up.

Period. End Program. Full Stop. EnditEnditEndit.

So its clear that no matter what...your right to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed. And throughout most of our history here in
America...if a criminal was convicted and sent to prison..when he was
released..he was given his firearms back, along with whatever ammo he
was captured with...and turned back out. No "felons with arms" laws
whatsoever.

Its also clear that througout our history...bearing arms in taverns
and bars was accepted with no eyebrow raising.

Gunner

>
>
>

--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal

The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.

They HATE the truth."

[Gunner Asch]

Chicago alone in 2012..had more homicides that did the "Old West" in a
decade.

The Left simply ignores this and trots along eyes wide shut.

[God's Debris]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:53:38 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>

You were pinned to the wall, right between the eyes. You're position
is that I shouldn't be allowed to carry a loaded gun to protect
myself. But it would be ok for me to hire someone who's a guard (an
occupation that entails risks that can be ameliorated by carrying a
side arm.) who carries a gun. And just as you said, if I'm carrying
gems it's ok to have a gun to protect that PROPERTY, but if I don't
have the gems it's not ok for me to merely want to protect my life.
You're a typical illogical liberal.

[God's Debris]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 00:20:08 -0500, bbhack <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

I didn't make the setup, the other poster did. He said he didn't like
the idea of the drunk open carrying and that only concealed should be
allowed. I asked him how forcing a drunk to conceal a weapon he
otherwise would display makes those around the drunk any better off.
The response was crickets. No, I'd prefer drunks not to have guns,
but that was not what the OP asked about.

[God's Debris]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:01:30 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
wrote:

Here's your problem. You premise that in a perfect world, guns for
defense would never be needed. From that you make the leap to the
idea that if we get rid of all guns we create the perfect world. Sorry
but it things don't work that way.

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 00:47:13 -0700, God's Debris <hea...@dead.net>

>>> >> >> >> >> > arms relates to bearing arms in public... the Supreme CourtÂ's

Simply put poo Bubba Billy in the killfile and be done with it. He is
a typical nonthinking emotion driven utterly stupid far leftwing
extremist fringe kook mental case with delusions of superiority and
the abilities of a garden slug.

Shrug

Gunner

[Billy]

In article <jj6up8prraob5muoq...@4ax.com>,

God's Debris <hea...@dead.net> wrote:

(snip)

> >> > I don't think anyone should be carrying loaded guns in public. Perhaps,
> >> > arguments can be made for gem salesmen, or where an occupation entails
> >> > risks that can be ameliorated by carrying a side arm.
> >>
> >> So let's see...you think it's ok for someone to carry to protect mere
> >> property but not their lives.
> >>
> >> You think it's ok if you're hired for some task, but not if that risk
> >> comes
> >> upon you outside of that occupation.
> >>
> >> In short, you seem feel self defense should be limited only to those that
> >> can hire someone else to protect them, or if they carry around large
> >> amounts
> >> of wealth.
> >>
> >> How very....elitist of you.

I use facts too ;O)

> >>
> >>
> >
> >You appear to not be able to think at all.
>
> You were pinned to the wall, right between the eyes. You're position
> is that I shouldn't be allowed to carry a loaded gun to protect
> myself. But it would be ok for me to hire someone who's a guard (an
> occupation that entails risks that can be ameliorated by carrying a
> side arm.) who carries a gun. And just as you said, if I'm carrying
> gems it's ok to have a gun to protect that PROPERTY, but if I don't
> have the gems it's not ok for me to merely want to protect my life.
> You're a typical illogical liberal.

What I said, Bozo, is "Perhaps, arguments can be made for gem salesmen,

or where an occupation entails risks that can be ameliorated by carrying

a side arm." This is an argument that would be settled a legal process.
If a person could convince the authorities that they have a "convincing
need" for a weapon, perhaps they could be given a "limited" waiver for
certain periods when it was justified. It is totally different when any
yah-hoo with $50 bucks can go packing at their own whim. I went on to
explain that if the peace was so fragile, we should look at the laws,
and amend, augment, or delete as necessary, to see if we couldn't find a
way to restore the peace.

You can crawl back under rock now, and dream your Rambo dreams of
re-instituting the Wild West.

You're dismissed, clown.

[RD Sandman]

bbhack <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote in news:dMCnt.10295$MQ7.6724
@newsfe18.iad:

> On 05/22/2013 02:23 PM, God's Debris wrote:
>>> >Yes, Debris, cops do intimidate for their entire shift, and it makes
>>> >their job easier. Now, Debris, you've made a simple mistake in
logic.
>>> >While all hoplophobes (good word by the way) are intimidated by open
>>> >carry, not all who are intimidated are hoplophobes. Would you be
>>> >intimidated by a drunken, foul-mouthed bigot (nobody in particular
>>> >guys), who was doing open carry at your favorite watering hole?
>>> >
>> Lets say it would be intimidating but legal. How is that situation
>> improved by only letting that guy carry concealed? Are you going to
>> say that's an improvement in the situation???
>>
>>
>
> If you are saying that a drunk person can carry legally, that's just
> plain wrong.

While true, cops do it rather often. Does that mean I think that a CCW
carrier should be able to do it? Nope.....but then I don't think the cop
should either.

In my state, one cannot legally go into any establishment that serves
alcohol while carrying a firearm unless one has a CCW permit. Then they
can legally carry inside that establishment but cannot partake of the
booze. That is one advantage of having a permit. It means that I, for
example, can go with family or friends into a restaurant that serves
alcohol and partake of the food there. It is ONE reason why I renew my
permit although I am not legally required to have one in order to carry
concealed.

.
> Are you saying that if a drunk person can legally OC, he should be able
> to CC, and vice versa? None of this is true or makes sense.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.

[benj]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:54:38 -0700, Billy wrote:

> In article <Z6Dnt.3677$u_4....@newsfe09.iad>, benj <be...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:

>> Wild West?
>>
>> http://www.examiner.com/article/dispelling-the-myth-of-the-wild-west
>>
>> Truth isn't something you leftards are acquainted with is it?
>>
>> "wild West" is a clear improvement over socialist policies today.

> So you don't believe in America. I suspected as much.

Are you high? This statement doesn't even make sense.

As usual you attempt to cover your lies with obfuscation.

Your assignment is to read the constitution and report on the socialist
policies you find in there. And then report back to us on the socialist
welfare state that existed in the "Wild West".

Idiot.

[RD Sandman]

Billy <wild...@withouta.net> wrote in
news:wildbilly-DE5BF...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net:

IOW, you feel that one's right to self defense should only count if he is
carrying valuables or for some other reason he must convince a third
party of his need is fine. Wow, that sure makes that decision objective.

It is
> totally different when any yah-hoo with $50 bucks can go packing at
> their own whim.

Only in four states is that true where they can legally carry on a whim.
In most of the states, a CCW is required to carry concealed. There is a
separate background check (often with a fingerprint card), some training
and a range session before that license is issued.

I went on to explain that if the peace was so fragile,
> we should look at the laws, and amend, augment, or delete as
> necessary, to see if we couldn't find a way to restore the peace.

Hmmmm, interesting how those street goblins make sure that they are
following those laws.

> You can crawl back under rock now, and dream your Rambo dreams of
> re-instituting the Wild West.

I don't carry to re-institute the Wild West although that is where I
live. I don't carry to reduce crime statistice nationally or in my
state. I carry to have one more option that someone else my not have and
to reduce violent crime in my immediate vicinity. So far.....so good.

[Scout]

"Billy" <wild...@withouta.net> wrote in message

news:wildbilly-49215...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...

And you seem unable to refute my observation.

[Scout]

"Billy" <wild...@withouta.net> wrote in message

news:wildbilly-DE5BF...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...

IOW, you confirm your stance that self defense should be limited only to
those who can hire others to protect them, or who carry around great wealth.

We still see that you have no consideration for the lives of the average
person.

If that isn't the definition of elitism then I would like to know what you
call it.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1CA7BFF2...@216.196.121.131...

> bbhack <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote in news:dMCnt.10295$MQ7.6724
> @newsfe18.iad:
>
>> On 05/22/2013 02:23 PM, God's Debris wrote:
>>>> >Yes, Debris, cops do intimidate for their entire shift, and it makes
>>>> >their job easier. Now, Debris, you've made a simple mistake in
> logic.
>>>> >While all hoplophobes (good word by the way) are intimidated by open
>>>> >carry, not all who are intimidated are hoplophobes. Would you be
>>>> >intimidated by a drunken, foul-mouthed bigot (nobody in particular
>>>> >guys), who was doing open carry at your favorite watering hole?
>>>> >
>>> Lets say it would be intimidating but legal. How is that situation
>>> improved by only letting that guy carry concealed? Are you going to
>>> say that's an improvement in the situation???
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you are saying that a drunk person can carry legally, that's just
>> plain wrong.
>
> While true, cops do it rather often. Does that mean I think that a CCW
> carrier should be able to do it? Nope.....but then I don't think the cop
> should either.
>
> In my state, one cannot legally go into any establishment that serves
> alcohol while carrying a firearm unless one has a CCW permit.

Actually until recently my State was the exact opposite you couldn't carry
into a bar concealed but you could openly.

As in your state you couldn't consume any alcohol while carrying.

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: More 2nd Amendment court challenges T'ed up

Group: talk.politics.guns Date: Thu, May 23, 2013, 10:54pm (EDT-3) From:
wild...@withouta.net (Billy)

In article <Z6Dnt.3677$u_4....@newsfe09.iad>, benj <be...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:57:46 -0700, Billy wrote:
Obviously, this covers more ground than just dealing with the pissy
problem of re-instituting the Wild West.
Wild West?
http://www.examiner.com/article/dispelling-the-myth-of-the-wild-west
Truth isn't something you leftards are acquainted with is it?
"wild West" is a clear improvement over socialist policies today.
So you don't believe in America. I suspected as much.

===================

In the "Wild West" people left their homes unlocked, as burgularies were
unheard of.

Unescorted women could walk down the streets unafraid, because rape was
unheard of.

There were occasional shootings on Satirday nights when drunken young
men were in town to whoop it up, but exclude that and the murder rate
was effectively zero, even in allegedly lawless towns like Tombstone and
Deadwood.

The crime rate in these towns even then was several orders of magnitude
lower than Chicago or Los Angeles today.
-----------------------------------

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/>

==================

A chain-smoking professional student who made some bad friends among the
Palestinain muzzies; they told her where to sit to stop an Israeli
bulldozer from uncovering their smuggling tunnels. They knew the dozer
driver couldn't see her, and they cheered when she was crushed.
------------------------------

Welcome to the New America.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg>

--
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."--

Frank Zappa--

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:knoiml$k03$1...@dont-email.me:

Mine does not allow open carry in a bar in either case. Open carry is
available virtually everywhere else in the state but not in bars.

> As in your state you couldn't consume any alcohol while carrying.

Although I imagine that some do. I know I drank a beer once while
carrying but since it was concealed no one but me knew it. Well, the
owner did also since you got 10% off your order if you had a permit.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA1CA8E04A...@216.196.121.131...

He probably suspected, but just because you have a permit doesn't mean
you're carrying.

However I bet he would cut you off after the first or possibly the 2nd until
you told him you weren't carrying.

Maybe it was his way of making sure the permit carriers weren't over
indulging without being nasty about it?

:-)

[Gunner Asch]

Po widdle Billy Willy..like every Leftwinger...when confronted with
the Truth...starts spinning in circles...hands over his/her ears and
spittle flying...screams " I cant hear yoooooou!"

So simply killfile the dumb bitch and be done with it.

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:27:23 -0400, "Scout"

>>> >> >> >> >> > CourtÂ's

Widdle Billy Willy is as stupid as a bag of rancid onions.

[Gunner Asch]

Billy Willy is a Leftard...which part of their universal mental health
issues...is the belief that somehow....their ideas are better than
normal peoples. Its part of their Godhead complex.

[God's Debris]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:02:02 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
wrote:

You wish. You are a typical sniveling liberal who thinks all good
flows from obsequious obedience to the whims of gvt and gvt
bureaucrats. People like you are beneath contempt.

[God's Debris]

Also, we should not forget, when these laws were passed the
limp-wristed liberals predicted a blood-bath, as they always do when
citizens are restored some of the supposedly inalienable freedoms the
gvt has taken away. Yet as we have seen time after time after time,
guns in the hands of honest citizens never result in any bloodbaths.
CCW holders rates of "mistakes" with firearms is actually lower then
the rate of mistakes by "highly trained" police officers.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:knop9d$mlt$1...@dont-email.me:

That's true, but once the permit is seen, some folks pay a lot attention
looking for printing.

> However I bet he would cut you off after the first or possibly the 2nd
> until you told him you weren't carrying.
>
> Maybe it was his way of making sure the permit carriers weren't over
> indulging without being nasty about it?
>
>:-)

Could be.

[RD Sandman]

God's Debris <hea...@dead.net> wrote in
news:pbtvp8hb1ql5msmca...@4ax.com:

One reason for that is that the CCW holder is on the scene when it first
unfolds so he knows who the bad guys and the "good guys" are. The cop
has to sort it all out in just a few quick seconds so it is more likely
that mistakes will occur.

A scenario in one of my classes is that you are passing an alleyway when
you hear sounds of a scuffle. What you find is one man beating another
with a 2X4.

At this point, you have three options:

Call 911
Get involved
Keep walking

You choose to get involved since the person being beaten is losing badly.
You yell at the attacker to stop. He keeps whaling away.
You draw your weapon and repeat the order to stop. He ignores you and
keeps whaling away. You shoot the man with the 2X4 stopping the action.
Good shoot?

Then you find out that the person with the 2X4 had just witnessed the
other man (the one being beaten) sexually molesting the first man's 6
year old daughter. The man with the 2X4 had chased him to this point.
Still a good shoot?

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 19:02:21 -0500, RD Sandman

Yes..it is still a good shoot.

Until the Great Cull...the rights of the accused are protected.

[God's Debris]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 19:02:21 -0500, RD Sandman

Easy call. It's a good shoot legally. Will the shooter feel bad
later? Probably.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n550q85a055nvldnq...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 19:02:21 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>God's Debris <hea...@dead.net> wrote in
>>news:pbtvp8hb1ql5msmca...@4ax.com:

>>One reason for that is that the CCW holder is on the scene when it first
>>unfolds so he knows who the bad guys and the "good guys" are. The cop
>>has to sort it all out in just a few quick seconds so it is more likely
>>that mistakes will occur.
>>
>>A scenario in one of my classes is that you are passing an alleyway when
>>you hear sounds of a scuffle. What you find is one man beating another
>>with a 2X4.
>>
>>At this point, you have three options:
>>
>>Call 911
>>Get involved
>>Keep walking
>>
>>You choose to get involved since the person being beaten is losing badly.
>>You yell at the attacker to stop. He keeps whaling away.
>>You draw your weapon and repeat the order to stop. He ignores you and
>>keeps whaling away. You shoot the man with the 2X4 stopping the action.
>>Good shoot?
>>
>>Then you find out that the person with the 2X4 had just witnessed the
>>other man (the one being beaten) sexually molesting the first man's 6
>>year old daughter. The man with the 2X4 had chased him to this point.
>>Still a good shoot?
>
> Yes..it is still a good shoot.
>

Indeed it is
The very notion that seeing your 6 year-old being molested justifies beating
up someone is nonsense.

The whacker would be justified to whack at the molester to stop the
molestation.
At that point he loses the right to use force
Continuing to do so is assault and a criminal act - NO MATTER what triggered
it.
So you show up and stop the assault using deadly force, is justified and
legal.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA1CAAD641...@216.196.121.131...

Technically, yes.

His actions may be understandable, but are still illegal assault.

Find a better example.

[RD Sandman]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:n550q85a055nvldnq...@4ax.com:

Yes, assumption of innocence with the "innocent" third party. At this
point you had no evidence of wrongdoing.

[RD Sandman]

God's Debris <hea...@dead.net> wrote in

news:dfp0q8lq389cpr9mr...@4ax.com:

Yep, but you'd be surprised how many people change their minds when they
read the last paragraph and realize they just shot the girl's father.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:knqj4p$7qe$1...@dont-email.me:

The father of the little girl, yes. The CCW carrier performed a legal
and understandable shooting.

> Find a better example.

Why? It is intended to make potential CCW holders think.....not
everything is as it first appears. It also a situation that places the
CCW holder in the same position as the cop just arriving on a scene and
having to sort it all out in a very few seconds.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 14:34:19 -0500, RD Sandman

Even if the entire crowd had seen the guy molesting the child...it
still would have been proper to stop the victims father...if necessary
by shooting him.

Even if YOU had seen the molestation.

Its up to you and whatever supreme being you hold holy if you do what
is "legally proper" and stop the guy with the 2x4..or morally proper
and simply turn your back on the scene and walk away.

Gunner

[RD Sandman]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:m152q85qr63eh3fl8...@4ax.com:

It would be very hard to walk away when you don't know the story and who
is who.

[Gunner Asch]

You missed it...

" Even if YOU had seen the molestation."

[RD Sandman]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:juc2q81av3b7jjmq2...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:50:58 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Even if YOU had seen the molestation.
>>>
>>> Its up to you and whatever supreme being you hold holy if you do what
>>> is "legally proper" and stop the guy with the 2x4..or morally proper
>>> and simply turn your back on the scene and walk away.
>>
>>It would be very hard to walk away when you don't know the story and
who
>>is who.
>
> You missed it...
>
> " Even if YOU had seen the molestation."

I didn't miss it. That option wasn't in the original scenario. So, I
guess we could say you missed it since you modified the scenario. ;)

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 18:08:59 -0500, RD Sandman

<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:juc2q81av3b7jjmq2...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:50:58 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Even if YOU had seen the molestation.
>>>>
>>>> Its up to you and whatever supreme being you hold holy if you do what
>>>> is "legally proper" and stop the guy with the 2x4..or morally proper
>>>> and simply turn your back on the scene and walk away.
>>>
>>>It would be very hard to walk away when you don't know the story and
>who
>>>is who.
>>
>> You missed it...
>>
>> " Even if YOU had seen the molestation."
>
>I didn't miss it. That option wasn't in the original scenario. So, I
>guess we could say you missed it since you modified the scenario. ;)

Flat lined your brain last night? You really need to watch that. Its
starting to show in your posts.

[Mike Smith]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:45:55 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Not true. If I had seen the molestation, I would have advised (and
helped) the father to hog-tie the perp and transport him into the
nearest National Forest, where we could be free to do some serious
torturing before we killed him and fed him to the wild hogs.

Mike Smith

[Gunner Asch]

As I stated..its up to you.