travelerjp98
Active Member
I didn't catch the pun
Why carry a gun?
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/20#post_3484950
It doesn't matter. Fact remains that people in Mexico have an extremely hard time getting guns and have massacres the like of what happened in Colorado on a regular basis. You are the one trying to deflect. Hello? The cartels mainly use FULL AUTO WEAPONS. Want to rethink that claim most of them come from the US again?
HELLO? Go online and find a plethera of diagrams and step-by-step instrucvtions on how to turn a semi-auto to full auto in about 30 minutes. So now you're the reseident expert on the guns the Mexican cartels use? Didn't know you were that well connected with those organizations. Hmmm.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/20#post_3484950
It doesn't matter. Fact remains that people in Mexico have an extremely hard time getting guns and have massacres the like of what happened in Colorado on a regular basis. You are the one trying to deflect. Hello? The cartels mainly use FULL AUTO WEAPONS. Want to rethink that claim most of them come from the US again?
HELLO? Go online and find a plethera of diagrams and step-by-step instrucvtions on how to turn a semi-auto to full auto in about 30 minutes. So now you're the reseident expert on the guns the Mexican cartels use? Didn't know you were that well connected with those organizations. Hmmm.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3484998
HELLO? Go online and find a plethera of diagrams and step-by-step instrucvtions on how to turn a semi-auto to full auto in about 30 minutes. So now you're the reseident expert on the guns the Mexican cartels use? Didn't know you were that well connected with those organizations. Hmmm.
Not an expert. I read the findings of people who are.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3484998
HELLO? Go online and find a plethera of diagrams and step-by-step instrucvtions on how to turn a semi-auto to full auto in about 30 minutes. So now you're the reseident expert on the guns the Mexican cartels use? Didn't know you were that well connected with those organizations. Hmmm.
Not an expert. I read the findings of people who are.
mantisman51
Active Member
He really used that "30% of firearms used in crime in Mexico are from the U.S." line that Obama and Holder used, then had to quickly retract? Actually, that number is correct, BUT only 5% was from the civilian market. The rest were grants and sales BY OUR GOVERNMENT to their government. The crooked Mexican military and police are providing far more weapons(already full-auto) to the cartels. The F&F weapons are mainly used on the border, which makes them an American problem.
mantisman51
Active Member
Actually, the numbers used by my Senator, Kyl, were artificially inflated by the ATF. Here's the real numbers:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
Stratfor is an honest-to-goodness defense analyst company. Out of 30,000 guns seized in Mexico in 2008, only 4000 were thought to come from the U.S. and only 3,480 were confirmed to come from the U.S. and many of those were military guns. The cartels don't really need our guns. They get all they need from their own government.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
Stratfor is an honest-to-goodness defense analyst company. Out of 30,000 guns seized in Mexico in 2008, only 4000 were thought to come from the U.S. and only 3,480 were confirmed to come from the U.S. and many of those were military guns. The cartels don't really need our guns. They get all they need from their own government.
bionicarm
Active Member
Look, the bottom line is, no one is going to take away your personal weapons. Never happen in a million years, regardless of the ridiculous conspiracy theories that Obama or the UN is going to circumvent the 2nd Amendment and force you to give up your guns. The problem is that gun advocates want to rationalize the restrictions of owning assault-type weapons is akin to taking away your 2nd Amendment rights, when in reality, there's no logical reason for the average citizen to own a weapon of that type regardless if you have the right to do so. Until the day comes where restrictions are put into place to keep people from buying one or more of these weapons that are capable of multiple injuries or deaths, incidents like the Colorado theatre shootings are going to continue to occur. For some twisted reason, you seem content that as long as you're not denied access to these weapons, you're willing to risk the potential of an event like this happening again. You can rationalize that someone could use a plethera of other weapons and accomplish the same feat, but the facts have shown that the last several incidents where multiple people have either been injured or killed, an assault-type weapon was involved. So go on living with that false sense of security that you could protect yourself in the event you were faced against someone using an assault weapon in some attack, when in fact, there has never been an incident where some personal gun owner took down one of these nutjobs using an assault weapon on a killing spree. In most cases, the guy ends up killing himself before anyone could get a clean shot.
travelerjp98
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485038
Look, the bottom line is, no one is going to take away your personal weapons. Never happen in a million years, regardless of the ridiculous conspiracy theories that Obama or the UN is going to circumvent the 2nd Amendment and force you to give up your guns. The problem is that gun advocates want to rationalize the restrictions of owning assault-type weapons is akin to taking away your 2nd Amendment rights, when in reality, there's no logical reason for the average citizen to own a weapon of that type regardless if you have the right to do so. Until the day comes where restrictions are put into place to keep people from buying one or more of these weapons that are capable of multiple injuries or deaths, incidents like the Colorado theatre shootings are going to continue to occur. For some twisted reason, you seem content that as long as you're not denied access to these weapons, you're willing to risk the potential of an event like this happening again. You can rationalize that someone could use a plethera of other weapons and accomplish the same feat, but the facts have shown that the last several incidents where multiple people have either been injured or killed, an assault-type weapon was involved. So go on living with that false sense of security that you could protect yourself in the event you were faced against someone using an assault weapon in some attack, when in fact, there has never been an incident where some personal gun owner took down one of these nutjobs using an assault weapon on a killing spree. In most cases, the guy ends up killing himself before anyone could get a clean shot.
BUT THESE EVENTS STILL WILL HAPPEN EVEN WITH A BAN OF THESE WEAPONS!!! That's the point that everyone is arguing and proving and backing up with research.... but you are saying the same thing OVER and OVER again... and not listening or understanding what anyone else IS saying.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485038
Look, the bottom line is, no one is going to take away your personal weapons. Never happen in a million years, regardless of the ridiculous conspiracy theories that Obama or the UN is going to circumvent the 2nd Amendment and force you to give up your guns. The problem is that gun advocates want to rationalize the restrictions of owning assault-type weapons is akin to taking away your 2nd Amendment rights, when in reality, there's no logical reason for the average citizen to own a weapon of that type regardless if you have the right to do so. Until the day comes where restrictions are put into place to keep people from buying one or more of these weapons that are capable of multiple injuries or deaths, incidents like the Colorado theatre shootings are going to continue to occur. For some twisted reason, you seem content that as long as you're not denied access to these weapons, you're willing to risk the potential of an event like this happening again. You can rationalize that someone could use a plethera of other weapons and accomplish the same feat, but the facts have shown that the last several incidents where multiple people have either been injured or killed, an assault-type weapon was involved. So go on living with that false sense of security that you could protect yourself in the event you were faced against someone using an assault weapon in some attack, when in fact, there has never been an incident where some personal gun owner took down one of these nutjobs using an assault weapon on a killing spree. In most cases, the guy ends up killing himself before anyone could get a clean shot.
BUT THESE EVENTS STILL WILL HAPPEN EVEN WITH A BAN OF THESE WEAPONS!!! That's the point that everyone is arguing and proving and backing up with research.... but you are saying the same thing OVER and OVER again... and not listening or understanding what anyone else IS saying.
mantisman51
Active Member
By the ATF/Justice Department figures, "assault rifles" are used in less than 1% of gun crimes in the U.S. They are big and heavy, especially with 30 round magazines. I think it is an honest concern over the amount of damage one nut can do with them. However, they are rarely used in crime as they simply are not made to conceal or wield in confined areas. Heck, even our own military is using the M4 carbine in urban areas and have had a competition to develop a smaller weapon since 2004 since even trained soldiers find them incompatible with urban warfare. Think about it this way, in the late 70's and 80's in the cocaine wars of South Florida, the cartels used and quickly abandoned using AR15's and AK47's and started using Israeli Uzi's because the larger rifles were difficult to conceal and use for their mass killings. And something no liberal has explained to me is how the Swiss government issues full-auto rifles and even ordinance to their citizens and they rarely have these kind of incidents. Why? That "why" is what we need to address. It isn't access to guns, obviously, or they would have shooting sprees in Switzerland all the time.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelerjp98 http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485055
BUT THESE EVENTS STILL WILL HAPPEN EVEN WITH A BAN OF THESE WEAPONS!!! That's the point that everyone is arguing and proving and backing up with research.... but you are saying the same thing OVER and OVER again... and not listening or understanding what anyone else IS saying.
How do you know they will still happen? You have no proof whether mass shootings like this will not occur again if assault weapons are banned. Don't try citing the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, because that banned specific weapons, which the AR-15 and the capability to purchase a 100-round drum wasn't defined in that law. None of the weapons used in any of the mas shooting over the last few years were ever banned or taken of the market. No one has yet to provide a logical answer as to why an average gun owner needs an assault weapon. You can't provide a realistic reason why someone should be able to purchase a 100-round drum, 5 or more 30-round clips, or 10,000 rounds of ammo in one purchase. All that does is raise red flags to anyone with some sort or common sense. Please tell me what purpose someone would have with a .50 caliber sniper rifle. You want to play Rambo and shoot these types of weapons get get some sort of rush? Allow gun shops and shooting ranges the capability to rent these weapons at a reasonable cost, and go blow $100 in 3 minutes tearing up defenseless targets.
Looks like this guy was a little premature with taking his gun to a movie theatre in Colorado. He didn't think maybe someone would freak out seeing someone carrying a pistol into a movie this soon right after this massacre occurred?
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Man-arrested-after-gun-brought-into-theater-3746118.php
Originally Posted by travelerjp98 http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485055
BUT THESE EVENTS STILL WILL HAPPEN EVEN WITH A BAN OF THESE WEAPONS!!! That's the point that everyone is arguing and proving and backing up with research.... but you are saying the same thing OVER and OVER again... and not listening or understanding what anyone else IS saying.
How do you know they will still happen? You have no proof whether mass shootings like this will not occur again if assault weapons are banned. Don't try citing the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, because that banned specific weapons, which the AR-15 and the capability to purchase a 100-round drum wasn't defined in that law. None of the weapons used in any of the mas shooting over the last few years were ever banned or taken of the market. No one has yet to provide a logical answer as to why an average gun owner needs an assault weapon. You can't provide a realistic reason why someone should be able to purchase a 100-round drum, 5 or more 30-round clips, or 10,000 rounds of ammo in one purchase. All that does is raise red flags to anyone with some sort or common sense. Please tell me what purpose someone would have with a .50 caliber sniper rifle. You want to play Rambo and shoot these types of weapons get get some sort of rush? Allow gun shops and shooting ranges the capability to rent these weapons at a reasonable cost, and go blow $100 in 3 minutes tearing up defenseless targets.
Looks like this guy was a little premature with taking his gun to a movie theatre in Colorado. He didn't think maybe someone would freak out seeing someone carrying a pistol into a movie this soon right after this massacre occurred?
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Man-arrested-after-gun-brought-into-theater-3746118.php
mantisman51
Active Member
Query: Will those predisposed to such violent acts turn in their weapons if they are banned? In California they are still catching criminals with AR's and Ak's 18 years after the ban. I have a friend(and flaming liberal) in Butte County, California who still has his AK's in his closet.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485064
By the ATF/Justice Department figures, "assault rifles" are used in less than 1% of gun crimes in the U.S. They are big and heavy, especially with 30 round magazines. I think it is an honest concern over the amount of damage one nut can do with them. However, they are rarely used in crime as they simply are not made to conceal or wield in confined areas. Heck, even our own military is using the M4 carbine in urban areas and have had a competition to develop a smaller weapon since 2004 since even trained soldiers find them incompatible with urban warfare. Think about it this way, in the late 70's and 80's in the cocaine wars of South Florida, the cartels used and quickly abandoned using AR15's and AK47's and started using Israeli Uzi's because the larger rifles were difficult to conceal and use for their mass killings. And something no liberal has explained to me is how the Swiss government issues full-auto rifles and even ordinance to their citizens and they rarely have these kind of incidents. Why? That "why" is what we need to address. It isn't access to guns, obviously, or they would have shooting sprees in Switzerland all the time.
Full auto weapons in Switzerland were disarmed and changed to semi-auto in 2007. These "citizens" are primarily males who had to go through militia/military training before being issued the weapons. The weapons are also strictly tracked, and every weapon is accounted for by the Swiss government. Their 1999 Gun Act requires the same militia tarining, and you were restricted to purchasing up to three firearms. Would you be willing to use your weapon in a criminal offense knowing that the government has access to the majority of every gun purchased?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485064
By the ATF/Justice Department figures, "assault rifles" are used in less than 1% of gun crimes in the U.S. They are big and heavy, especially with 30 round magazines. I think it is an honest concern over the amount of damage one nut can do with them. However, they are rarely used in crime as they simply are not made to conceal or wield in confined areas. Heck, even our own military is using the M4 carbine in urban areas and have had a competition to develop a smaller weapon since 2004 since even trained soldiers find them incompatible with urban warfare. Think about it this way, in the late 70's and 80's in the cocaine wars of South Florida, the cartels used and quickly abandoned using AR15's and AK47's and started using Israeli Uzi's because the larger rifles were difficult to conceal and use for their mass killings. And something no liberal has explained to me is how the Swiss government issues full-auto rifles and even ordinance to their citizens and they rarely have these kind of incidents. Why? That "why" is what we need to address. It isn't access to guns, obviously, or they would have shooting sprees in Switzerland all the time.
Full auto weapons in Switzerland were disarmed and changed to semi-auto in 2007. These "citizens" are primarily males who had to go through militia/military training before being issued the weapons. The weapons are also strictly tracked, and every weapon is accounted for by the Swiss government. Their 1999 Gun Act requires the same militia tarining, and you were restricted to purchasing up to three firearms. Would you be willing to use your weapon in a criminal offense knowing that the government has access to the majority of every gun purchased?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485065
How do you know they will still happen? You have no proof whether mass shootings like this will not occur again if assault weapons are banned. Don't try citing the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, because that banned specific weapons, which the AR-15 and the capability to purchase a 100-round drum wasn't defined in that law. None of the weapons used in any of the mas shooting over the last few years were ever banned or taken of the market. No one has yet to provide a logical answer as to why an average gun owner needs an assault weapon. You can't provide a realistic reason why someone should be able to purchase a 100-round drum, 5 or more 30-round clips, or 10,000 rounds of ammo in one purchase. All that does is raise red flags to anyone with some sort or common sense. Please tell me what purpose someone would have with a .50 caliber sniper rifle. You want to play Rambo and shoot these types of weapons get get some sort of rush? Allow gun shops and shooting ranges the capability to rent these weapons at a reasonable cost, and go blow $100 in 3 minutes tearing up defenseless targets.
Looks like this guy was a little premature with taking his gun to a movie theatre in Colorado. He didn't think maybe someone would freak out seeing someone carrying a pistol into a movie this soon right after this massacre occurred?
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Man-arrested-after-gun-brought-into-theater-3746118.php
I need an assault weapon for the same reason someone needs a Corvette and the ability to go drink some beers with the guys. Because I am a law abiding citizen and I can until my weapon causes an illegal death. The Corvette and beers kill more people in this country every year than AR's.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485065
How do you know they will still happen? You have no proof whether mass shootings like this will not occur again if assault weapons are banned. Don't try citing the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, because that banned specific weapons, which the AR-15 and the capability to purchase a 100-round drum wasn't defined in that law. None of the weapons used in any of the mas shooting over the last few years were ever banned or taken of the market. No one has yet to provide a logical answer as to why an average gun owner needs an assault weapon. You can't provide a realistic reason why someone should be able to purchase a 100-round drum, 5 or more 30-round clips, or 10,000 rounds of ammo in one purchase. All that does is raise red flags to anyone with some sort or common sense. Please tell me what purpose someone would have with a .50 caliber sniper rifle. You want to play Rambo and shoot these types of weapons get get some sort of rush? Allow gun shops and shooting ranges the capability to rent these weapons at a reasonable cost, and go blow $100 in 3 minutes tearing up defenseless targets.
Looks like this guy was a little premature with taking his gun to a movie theatre in Colorado. He didn't think maybe someone would freak out seeing someone carrying a pistol into a movie this soon right after this massacre occurred?
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Man-arrested-after-gun-brought-into-theater-3746118.php
I need an assault weapon for the same reason someone needs a Corvette and the ability to go drink some beers with the guys. Because I am a law abiding citizen and I can until my weapon causes an illegal death. The Corvette and beers kill more people in this country every year than AR's.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485065
Looks like this guy was a little premature with taking his gun to a movie theatre in Colorado. He didn't think maybe someone would freak out seeing someone carrying a pistol into a movie this soon right after this massacre occurred?
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Man-arrested-after-gun-brought-into-theater-3746118.php
You know how much he's going to make on the lawsuit? Colorado is an open carry state. His gun was holstered on his hip in plain sight and nobody asked him to remove it which would have been the theaters right. I am torn on this one. I wouldn't have done it but the guy broke no laws based on the information we have at this point.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485065
Looks like this guy was a little premature with taking his gun to a movie theatre in Colorado. He didn't think maybe someone would freak out seeing someone carrying a pistol into a movie this soon right after this massacre occurred?
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Man-arrested-after-gun-brought-into-theater-3746118.php
You know how much he's going to make on the lawsuit? Colorado is an open carry state. His gun was holstered on his hip in plain sight and nobody asked him to remove it which would have been the theaters right. I am torn on this one. I wouldn't have done it but the guy broke no laws based on the information we have at this point.
travelerjp98
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485070
I need an assault weapon for the same reason someone needs a Corvette and the ability to go drink some beers with the guys. Because I am a law abiding citizen and I can until my weapon causes an illegal death. The Corvette and beers kill more people in this country every year than AR's.
Thank you!
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485070
I need an assault weapon for the same reason someone needs a Corvette and the ability to go drink some beers with the guys. Because I am a law abiding citizen and I can until my weapon causes an illegal death. The Corvette and beers kill more people in this country every year than AR's.
Thank you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485065
No one has yet to provide a logical answer as to why an average gun owner needs an assault weapon. You can't provide a realistic reason why someone should be able to purchase a 100-round drum, 5 or more 30-round clips, or 10,000 rounds of ammo in one purchase. All that does is raise red flags to anyone with some sort or common sense. Please tell me what purpose someone would have with a .50 caliber sniper rifle. You want to play Rambo and shoot these types of weapons get get some sort of rush? Allow gun shops and shooting ranges the capability to rent these weapons at a reasonable cost, and go blow $100 in 3 minutes tearing up defenseless targets.
Bionicarm, please read 2nd Am.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The use of "the people" referenced in our Constitution does not equate to "the state". It means, the people.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485065
No one has yet to provide a logical answer as to why an average gun owner needs an assault weapon. You can't provide a realistic reason why someone should be able to purchase a 100-round drum, 5 or more 30-round clips, or 10,000 rounds of ammo in one purchase. All that does is raise red flags to anyone with some sort or common sense. Please tell me what purpose someone would have with a .50 caliber sniper rifle. You want to play Rambo and shoot these types of weapons get get some sort of rush? Allow gun shops and shooting ranges the capability to rent these weapons at a reasonable cost, and go blow $100 in 3 minutes tearing up defenseless targets.
Bionicarm, please read 2nd Am.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The use of "the people" referenced in our Constitution does not equate to "the state". It means, the people.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485090
Bionicarm, please read 2nd Am.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The use of "the people" referenced in our Constitution does not equate to "the state". It means, the people.
Go ask the Founding Fathers if they envisoned someone having the ability to "bear" a weapon capable of mowing down several individuals in a matter of minutes without reloading. Again, you're not answering the question. What reasonable person needs a gun capable of shooting a 100-rounds in a few minutes? We've beat the "regualted militia" theory to death. Your AR is no match to the hundreds the government has to counter your attack.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485090
Bionicarm, please read 2nd Am.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The use of "the people" referenced in our Constitution does not equate to "the state". It means, the people.
Go ask the Founding Fathers if they envisoned someone having the ability to "bear" a weapon capable of mowing down several individuals in a matter of minutes without reloading. Again, you're not answering the question. What reasonable person needs a gun capable of shooting a 100-rounds in a few minutes? We've beat the "regualted militia" theory to death. Your AR is no match to the hundreds the government has to counter your attack.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485070
I need an assault weapon for the same reason someone needs a Corvette and the ability to go drink some beers with the guys. Because I am a law abiding citizen and I can until my weapon causes an illegal death. The Corvette and beers kill more people in this country every year than AR's.
Blah, blah, blah. How many times have I dispeled that stupid analogy. MILLIONS of cars, MILLIONS of drivers. 100 times more drivers than gun owners (no don't count the number of gun sales, considering you have some fanatics with 30+ guns.) How do I know you're a "law abiding citizens"? Everyone's a law abiding citizen until something snaps, and they're out using innocent civilians for target practice. So I'm supposed to take your word you'd never use that weapon illegally? So when you do cause an illegal death, we're supposed to go, "Ooops, never saw that coming. Oh well, you miss one every once in a while."
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485070
I need an assault weapon for the same reason someone needs a Corvette and the ability to go drink some beers with the guys. Because I am a law abiding citizen and I can until my weapon causes an illegal death. The Corvette and beers kill more people in this country every year than AR's.
Blah, blah, blah. How many times have I dispeled that stupid analogy. MILLIONS of cars, MILLIONS of drivers. 100 times more drivers than gun owners (no don't count the number of gun sales, considering you have some fanatics with 30+ guns.) How do I know you're a "law abiding citizens"? Everyone's a law abiding citizen until something snaps, and they're out using innocent civilians for target practice. So I'm supposed to take your word you'd never use that weapon illegally? So when you do cause an illegal death, we're supposed to go, "Ooops, never saw that coming. Oh well, you miss one every once in a while."
morgan175
Member
You know one thing I have found out more from this thread is until something happens to someone this country does nothing. I should have the right to own what I want in this country. I follow the laws and have no felony of any sort. If I chose to stay off of drugs not drink or smoke then why cant I go to the range and relieve stress shooting at targets. So if it is an ar or ak or handgun.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485071
You know how much he's going to make on the lawsuit? Colorado is an open carry state. His gun was holstered on his hip in plain sight and nobody asked him to remove it which would have been the theaters right. I am torn on this one. I wouldn't have done it but the guy broke no laws based on the information we have at this point.
That's good. Just because he's temporaily apprehened, he should sue the city. They took the guy out of the theater, cited him for displaying a weapon in a public place, and issued him a summons. If he had a concealed carry license or was legally allowed to carry the weapon on his side, then why was the summons given? Did he not have his license with him? Did he have it and the police simply didn't know the circumstances of the theater whereby they allowed weapons in their establishment? He said he's taken it to the movies before, but did the theater change their policies after the shooting in the other theater? Who cares if he thinks he wasn't a threat to anyone. Unless every single person knew who he was, they're supposed to trust his integrity that he wasn't some copy cat lunatic? Gotta love the arrogance of some gun owners.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392453/why-carry-a-gun/40#post_3485071
You know how much he's going to make on the lawsuit? Colorado is an open carry state. His gun was holstered on his hip in plain sight and nobody asked him to remove it which would have been the theaters right. I am torn on this one. I wouldn't have done it but the guy broke no laws based on the information we have at this point.
That's good. Just because he's temporaily apprehened, he should sue the city. They took the guy out of the theater, cited him for displaying a weapon in a public place, and issued him a summons. If he had a concealed carry license or was legally allowed to carry the weapon on his side, then why was the summons given? Did he not have his license with him? Did he have it and the police simply didn't know the circumstances of the theater whereby they allowed weapons in their establishment? He said he's taken it to the movies before, but did the theater change their policies after the shooting in the other theater? Who cares if he thinks he wasn't a threat to anyone. Unless every single person knew who he was, they're supposed to trust his integrity that he wasn't some copy cat lunatic? Gotta love the arrogance of some gun owners.