SECOND AMENDMENT - What do you think? - Page 7

SECOND AMENDMENT - What do you think?

This is a discussion on SECOND AMENDMENT - What do you think? within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by ExHippie Once again, people fear the unknown. By hiding our guns from them, we are not helping them overcome irrational fear, we ...

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 91 to 101 of 101

Thread: SECOND AMENDMENT - What do you think?

  1. #91
    VIP Member Array Rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    3,007
    Quote Originally Posted by ExHippie View Post
    Once again, people fear the unknown. By hiding our guns from them, we are not helping them overcome irrational fear, we are feeding it.

    Just so you know, Rollo, I don't think you are a sissy. You're obviously willing to protect you and yours. But if we want to get beyond our current anti-2A-culture, we're going to need to do some things differently. Hiding our guns is what created this mess in the first place.
    I agree with your sentiment but we differ in method. I think the "soft sell" is a more effective way to get someone to overcome their fear because it gives them the choice. And choice gives them control and I would venture to argue that we as human beings are more likely to accept something when we feel we have control over it.
    -It is a seriously scary thought that there are subsets of American society that think being intellectual is a BAD thing...


  2. #92
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,363
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Dec 24, 8:47 AM EST

    Man with AK-47-style gun in park detained, let go

    By TRAVIS LOLLER
    Associated Press Writer

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- A man carrying an AK-47-style semiautomatic pistol was detained at Radnor Lake State Park on Sunday after startled hikers complained to park rangers.

    Ellen Thomas told WSMV-TV she was hiking an upper trail when she encountered 37-year-old Leonard Embody wearing a camouflage jacket, military boots and a black skull cap. She called the encounter "scary."

    State Department of Environment and Conservation spokeswoman Tisha Calabrese-Benton said Embody was detained by park rangers because his weapon looked like a rifle.

    After the gun was secured and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives personnel were called, Embody was released without charges because he has a handgun carry permit.

    Calabrese-Benton said the gun had no stock and the barrel was under 11 inches, however state attorneys are still investigating whether the AK-47-style pistol, with a 30-round magazine, is legal to carry as a handgun.

    The state legislature passed a law earlier this year allowing people with handgun permits to carry their weapons in parks.

    John Pierce is a co-founder of OpenCarry.org, a group that seeks to normalize the open carry of "properly holstered handguns" as people go about their lives.

    "On a fundamental level, I don't think he did anything wrong," Pierce said of Embody, "but politically that might not be best thing to do and it's not something we're advocating for."

    Pierce said wearing camouflage also perpetuates an unhelpful stereotype.

    Pierce said he lived in Bristol, Va., for years, right on Tennessee border. He said he has openly carried a holstered, normal-sized handgun in Tennessee numerous times and never had anyone complain about it.


    Lets anlyze this article a bit before I blow some of these ridiculously misinformed comments out of the water.



    I guess the fact that it was hunting season, possibly even deer season my have been lost on them.



    Hmmm. Somebody ignorant of the law is scared. So what? The burden of proof is on them, not the bearer of the scary,evil looking AK.



    Duh. Detained for carrying a gun. Great. Detained become someone thought it was scary.



    Released without charges. Of course. He was carrying a legal pistol, not much different than carrying a AR pistol. No stock, a barrel length that dosent exceed 16 inches. The ATF checked it, it was good to go, and they released him,further proof that what he was doing was legal.



    More clueless people. The ATF released him. If the ATF would have thought for a second that the man violated ANY state laws, they would have called the local authorities. They did not. They check for violations of both State and Federal law. Its the very reason that ATF has agents in each state.Those agents are familiar with state law.



    Here is what the sheep generally dont understand. If there is no law prohibiting someone carrying an AK handgun, then it is legal.



    I personally dont give a rip about what someone elses thinks of my activity. If its legal, they have no say. If they are scared, that is their problem, not mine.

    Weak minded people only exist because of people better than them. Weak people do not make change.
    Wearing camoflage? You've got to be kidding. Go to any town in the South during deer season and you'll see more people wearing camoflage than not.
    Oh boy here I GO,
    Hot Guns nailed it.

    This would be tantamount to anyone of you naysayers being pulled over for driving 68 mph in a 70 mph zone, wearing a camo jacket and skull-cap.
    YOU:
    officer, why are you pulling me over, I wasn't speeeding?
    Officer:
    because someone called with your plate saying you were wearing camo, and a skull cap
    YOU:
    thats rediculous, I wasn't speeding

    If the guy is/was /always pulling a stunt, so be it, but if its NOT illegal, shut the H up and stand behind them
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  3. #93
    Member Array HockeyTrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    15

    Really,

    If the guy is/was /always pulling a stunt, so be it, but if its NOT illegal, shut the H up and stand behind them[/QUOTE]

    It is LEGAL for the Church of Nutbags to scream damnation at fallen soldiers, while they are being laid to rest, because the military allows homosexuals to serve. Are you standing behind them???

    In most states it is LEGAL for someone to take "up the skirt" pictures of women and girls in public. Are you "shutting the H up" and standing behind them????

    Like I said previously, I like to make a point as much as the next guy but legal does not = smart and point-making does not always further a cause.

  4. #94
    VIP Member Array Rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    3,007
    Quote Originally Posted by HockeyTrix View Post
    If the guy is/was /always pulling a stunt, so be it, but if its NOT illegal, shut the H up and stand behind them
    It is LEGAL for the Church of Nutbags to scream damnation at fallen soldiers, while they are being laid to rest, because the military allows homosexuals to serve. Are you standing behind them???

    In most states it is LEGAL for someone to take "up the skirt" pictures of women and girls in public. Are you "shutting the H up" and standing behind them????

    Like I said previously, I like to make a point as much as the next guy but legal does not = smart and point-making does not always further a cause.[/QUOTE]

    Amen
    -It is a seriously scary thought that there are subsets of American society that think being intellectual is a BAD thing...

  5. #95
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    This would be tantamount to anyone of you naysayers being pulled over for driving 68 mph in a 70 mph zone, wearing a camo jacket and skull-cap.
    This analogy fails, completely. He wasn't just "driving," he was PURPOSELY looking to get police attention by doing something that was commonly (though incorrectly) thought to be illegal, and WAS illegal until recently.

    A closer (though still far from perfect) analogy might be driving back and forth in front of the State Trooper barracks going 65 in a 65 zone that was a 55 zone yesterday, and still has signage indicating that it was a 55 zone. He should also be doing it in some extremely unusual vehicle, wearing what many might consider "provocative" attire.

    The guy was NOT just out minding his business, he was TRYING to get attention, and further, he was TRYING to get police attention. Note that I'm not making any judgment for or against his actions, I'm just pointing out the facts at hand - facts that your flawed analogy completely dismiss.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  6. #96
    Ex Member Array Treo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,098
    Originally posted by Rollo If the guy wants to protect himself he would be plenty well protected with a well concealed pistol.
    Who are you to make that call?

    How would you feel if , using your logic, the antis decided that you were pretty well protected W/ a handgun limited to 10 rounds?

    Are we really judging this guy based on his fashion sense? If he's 100% legal in his actions who cares how he's dressed?

    Originally posted by GottaBeKidding This dude walking around carrying a AK pistol which in most cases would have most local LEO's out gunned,
    And as for him "outgunning the cops" I thought that was kinda the intent of the second ammendment.

  7. #97
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,489
    Quote Originally Posted by 2 Gunz View Post
    There is a HUGE difference between what you have the right to do and what you should do.

    This might be the move of someone trying to interfere with our rights by being a bad example!
    I wouldn't put it past some of the radical anti gun proponents to employ some of the useful idiots to help steer legislators and voters in the direction they desire. I doubt the main topic of this thread is actually on the Brady payroll but he may as well be. Anyhow, I see he now has ex member status which suggests that Bumper or one of the Mods probably gave him the heave-ho. Might be time to let him rest in peace.

  8. #98
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    20,007
    Quote Originally Posted by wmhawth View Post
    Might be time to let him rest in peace.
    Yes, yes it is.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  9. #99
    Ex Member Array jahwarrior72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    the raggedy edge
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro2A View Post
    I've open carried a rifle before. Does that make me a nut? A right not exercised is a right lost. Don't forget that.
    there's a difference between carrying a rifle legally slung over your shoulder, and carrying a handgun in your hand, or painting the tip of an AK type pistol orange to make it look like an airsoft gun. HUGE difference.

  10. #100
    Ex Member Array Treo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,098
    Originally posted by Jahwarrior there's a difference between carrying a rifle legally slung over your shoulder, and carrying a handgun in your hand,
    But only if you deliberatly ignore the fact that the law specified the type of pistol and manner of carry requiring that the pistol be carried in the hand.

    We seem to be over run by Fudds

  11. #101
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,979
    Since the much of the topic is about an ex-member that is no longer with us, and this topic could be argued until the cows come home, I am closing it before it digresses further. I will leave it up for others to think about.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. WA Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  2. 1st Amendment vs. 2nd Amendment in private forums
    By ShawnMoncali in forum Forum News, Feedback, Problems & Comments
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: March 15th, 2010, 11:54 AM
  3. New 2d Amendment?
    By SIGguy229 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2007, 02:20 PM
  4. "Applying 2nd Amendment restrictions to the 1st Amendment ;-)"
    By goawayfarm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: June 16th, 2007, 09:19 AM
  5. What does the 2nd Amendment mean to you?
    By cagueits in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 20th, 2007, 01:00 AM

Search tags for this page

second amendment, what do you think?

,

which one do you think is better the 13 amendment or the 14 or 15

Click on a term to search for related topics.