NRA feeling optimistic

[Nihilo]

If you come across an enemy on your way to a target, you can take that enemy out without alerting your target further up.
That's what I was saying, and so you didn't get what I was saying :thumb:

So like a 30-calibre rifle, chambered with subsonic rounds, with a can on it? Rifle cans are plentiful in Finland. Finnish hunters like them.

Not to anyone who knows how to argue it. If you come off as a paranoid nut

You do.

Resisting tyranny is, at first, about protection from corrupt law enforcement and political dissidents. Only in military forces getting involved does it become something so mighty as waging a civil war- and when a person goes immediately to that extreme argument it's easy for a leftist idiot to mock it- that's what they do. They're merely mockers.

The trope of resisting tyranny is already known to the left. There's no way to sneak up on them with that one, they're already looking for that one.

 

[Nihilo]

While I think I know where you were going with this post, plain and simply put: Owning a baseball bat isn't a God-given Constitutional Right, owning a firearm is.

Owning and carrying firearms is.

 

[Nick M]

Nah.
Needs to fit in my purse.

It's called constitutional carry. California should be forced to follow the laws.

 

[Tambora]

It's called constitutional carry. California should be forced to follow the laws.

#3

 

[Nihilo]

#3

:thumb:

 

[Nihilo]

every dubious armed person I've ever come across isn't carrying a 'mouse pistol'

Of course not. It's statistical. This is anecdotal evidence.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

While I think I know where you were going with this post, plain and simply put: Owning a baseball bat isn't a God-given Constitutional Right, owning a firearm is.

Owning and carrying firearms is.

It depends on where that carrying is being done, as property rights come before constitutional rights. Do you need me to explain that concept that the Founding Fathers held so dearly to you more?

 

[Nihilo]

property rights come before constitutional rights

Property rights where that "property" is one's own self, sure.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
It depends on where that carrying is being done, as property rights come before constitutional rights. Do you need me to explain that concept that the Founding Fathers held so dearly to you more?

Property rights where that "property" is one's own self, sure.

I see you need further explanation.

Let's say I walk into your family owned restaurant and while sitting at my table, I pull out my 9mm from my shoulder holster and start cleaning it. After that I pull the snub nose 38 from my ankle holster and do the same. The family at the next table with 3 small children feel a wee bit threatened, as it's unusual conduct in a place where people go to satisfy their hunger. They tell the manager and he asks me, the gun toting patron, to leave.

Property rights overrule certain constitutional rights (speech, religion and bearing arms are 3 that come to mind).

 

[Nihilo]

NRA...frauds like Donald Trump.

All he has to do is follow his hand and nominate a pro-RKBA judge. He's made it very easy for everybody.

 

[Nihilo]

Let's say I walk into your family owned restaurant and while sitting at my table, I pull out my 9mm from my shoulder holster and start cleaning it. After that I pull the snub nose 38 from my ankle holster and do the same. The family at the next table with 3 small children feel a wee bit threatened, as it's unusual conduct in a place where people go to satisfy their hunger. They tell the manager and he asks me, the gun toting patron, to leave.

Property rights overrule certain constitutional rights (speech, religion and bearing arms are 3 that come to mind).

Should people who ignore the restaurateur's posted (signage) wishes, that their patrons only patronize while unarmed, be arrested if found out? I say no. You? The restaurateur has the right to post the signs. Does the patron have the right to ignore the signs? I say yes. You? Do you believe they should be arrested and charged with a crime? Yes or no.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Let's say I walk into your family owned restaurant and while sitting at my table, I pull out my 9mm from my shoulder holster and start cleaning it. After that I pull the snub nose 38 from my ankle holster and do the same. The family at the next table with 3 small children feel a wee bit threatened, as it's unusual conduct in a place where people go to satisfy their hunger. They tell the manager and he asks me, the gun toting patron, to leave.

Property rights overrule certain constitutional rights (speech, religion and bearing arms are 3 that come to mind).

Should people who ignore the restaurateur's posted (signage) wishes, that their patrons only patronize while unarmed, be arrested if found out? I say no. You?

If a patron, who has been invited as a guest to dine at said establishment, violates any of the owner's wishes (i.e. property rights) then the owner would have the right to ask the gun toting patron to leave. If he refused, he could be arrested for criminal trespass.

Do you believe that a patron should tell a private property owner what he or she is going to do in their place of business, even if it goes against the policy of the business?

The restaurateur has the right to post the signs. Does the patron have the right to ignore the signs? I say yes. You? Do you believe they should be arrested and charged with a crime? Yes or no.

Do you also believe that a Muslim should be able walk into a Christian church and throw a prayer rug down in the aisle while the preacher is giving his sermon? (i.e. freedom of religion).

Do you believe that a theater owner shouldn't be able to tell two patrons who are talking loud and keeping others from enjoying the movie to quiet down and if they don't, ask them to leave? (i.e. freedom of speech).

Perhaps your beloved Constitutional Right has a higher priority than other Constitutional Rights?

Check out the Founding Fathers quotes on property rights, they took the subject serious.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=1099

 

[Nick M]

It depends on where that carrying is being done, as property rights come before constitutional rights.

Nope. You can ask anybody to leave for any reason. At no point is a person required to disarm, according to the Constitution. But you being a butt-head liberal don't understand the difference.

 

[Foxfire]

I'm not as optimistic. This article talks about some targets for the NRA. I agree with national CCW reciprocity (same thing as drivers license reciprocity), and loosing the restrictions on silencers (more technically suppressors). Not mentioned in the article, is overturning the federal ban on civilian ownership of modern machine guns, which I don't believe the NRA wants to touch with a 10-foot pole, but I personally would prefer it. I'd also like to see the NRA push for a serious ban on "mouse guns" (handguns that easily fit in your pocket), which are used disproportionately in armed crimes and suicides, and are more likely to be involved in negligent discharges, especially by children.

I have to say that it's quite refreshing to me to see that a number of my...not so conservative...friends have taken an entirely new interest in gun ownership. Even some who have heretofore been rather vocal in the direction of firearm restrictions.

One question that I would ask the Trump administration to clarify is;

If "CCW is a right and not a privilege", then why does one need a permit in the first place?

 

[Nick M]

If "CCW is a right and not a privilege", then why does one need a permit in the first place?

The Missouri legislature passed, then passed again over riding the liberal governor veto, Constitutional carry. It states your rights in St Louis and other places cannot be restricted.

 

[Nick M]

Class 3 firearms "machine gun" and suppressors is an infringement on my rights to own arms. I expect it to be repealed also.

 

[Foxfire]

The Missouri legislature passed, then passed again over riding the liberal governor veto, Constitutional carry. It states your rights in St Louis and other places cannot be restricted.

How would reciprocity between states work for someone that resides in a state that already recognizes universal (no permit required) CCW?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

It depends on where that carrying is being done, as property rights come before constitutional rights.

Nope. You can ask anybody to leave for any reason. At no point is a person required to disarm, according to the Constitution. But you being a butt-head liberal don't understand the difference.

Respond to the latter part of the post, explaining why a private property owner can violate 1st Amendment rights, but in your ever so confused mind, not the supposed right to carry a firearm everywhere and anywhere.
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...g-optimistic&p=4862678&viewfull=1#post4862678

BTW, what do you tell the officers manning the metal detectors at government buildings when they say that you can't carry your firearm into the building?

I betcha call em a "butt-head liberal" don't cha Nicky? (under his tough guy breath that is).

 

[Nihilo]

How would reciprocity between states work for someone that resides in a state that already recognizes universal (no permit required) CCW?

State ID.

 

[Nihilo]

I have to say that it's quite refreshing to me to see that a number of my...not so conservative...friends have taken an entirely new interest in gun ownership. Even some who have heretofore been rather vocal in the direction of firearm restrictions.

I have not personally seen this, but just to hear someone else say they have is heartening. :up:

One question that I would ask the Trump administration to clarify is;

If "CCW is a right and not a privilege", then why does one need a permit in the first place?

In Vermont and Alaska, the answer is, "You don't." I think the NRA should champion a push for similar laws, federal laws, nationwide.