Barred for life from Ball State for doing something Legal

[drillsgt]

Good luck with that. Carmel residents have a talent for hyperbole. A simple man with a gun, will end up active shooter or hostage situation.

Ha, I can imagine what that call would sound like.

 

[Joniki]

And you think neither sends the wrong message?

Not at all. I grew up in a time when most everyone had a 22 rifle and a shotgun in or vehicles at school. I groundhog hunted and rat hunted with the local police almost every day as a kid.

 

[RMC]

Not at all. I grew up in a time when most everyone had a 22 rifle and a shotgun in or vehicles at school. I groundhog hunted and rat hunted with the local police almost every day as a kid.

Me too. Gun control back then meant hitting a gopher at 100 yards with iron sights.

 

[MontereyC6]

Were you OC'ing or CC'ing?

Half ass CC. Polo shirt was kind of snug, so it printed pretty good.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Not at all. I grew up in a time when most everyone had a 22 rifle and a shotgun in or vehicles at school. I groundhog hunted and rat hunted with the local police almost every day as a kid.

Just so we're clear, I said neither. So you'd be ok with police officers always carrying their rifles continuously during the course of their duties.

 

[ATM]

All I've stated was opinions. "Distasteful," isn't "illegal." I'd oppose any such law that made carrying a long gun illegal, despite finding it distasteful. And where in the world you get I'm ok with handguns because you have to have a permit?

Some seem more comfortable with people exercising licensed privileges, comforted in some way that they were vetted and granted permission from the State, than they are with people exercising natural rights.
It is a real perception changer for some.

You did make me think of something though. Would you be ok, if police had long guns strapped to their chest/backs during all calls, routine/emergency?

No problem. They can even roll up to every call in an MRAP.

 

[ATM]

According to your analogies any person and/or people should be able to carry anything, regardless of potential destructive ability, anywhere they wish as long as they are not actively engaged in a threatening situation.

Why do you feel the need to expand beyond handguns and rifles? Not getting any traction for your ideas within this scope of discussion?

Therefore, seeing someone carrying a package labeled C-4 and a bunch of what appears to be electronics should be ignored because they haven't blown up any people or buildings..........yet.

If they work for a government agency, I'd definitely keep a closer eye on them, but I certainly wouldn't attack them in fear for my life.

If you are so trusting, why would you have the desire to carry open or concealed?

Why do you believe I am trusting? I have a plan to kill most everyone I meet.

If you think the example merits concern then why wouldn't the average person be concerned when they spot anyone carrying a weapon designed to inflict deadly force?

Concern, attentiveness, caution, even relocation or defensive positioning are a far cry from assuming imminent danger to my life which might warrant defensive force. We're talking about a slung rifle or holstered handgun here.

You are saying people have no right to their feelings of discomfort and/or fear when they go out in public

A right to their feelings? Sure, even the most irrational feelings. They also have the right to remove themselves from whatever is triggering those feelings. Their feelings give them no authority to control others in public, but should guide their own choices.

...as long as you have the right to carry under your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

I don't carry under anyone's interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Our right to keep and bear arms exists apart from and was recognized long before that amendment was crafted; it can't rationally be considered a subordinate result granted by it. Your misunderstanding and continued misapplication has been pointed out several times now.

The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is probably the most likely part to come under attack and the arguments for opening that interpretation are getting to be difficult to dispute.

Difficult for you, not at all for me.

You will lose your guns before me for the simple reason that I don't bother showing everyone that I'm armed.

Your reasoning is so simple it makes no sense at all. Are you saying that in a hypothetical future when they come to confiscate guns, I still won't hide mine but you will?

Thus, you are more of the problem than the solution to protect our right to carry. Sad, so very sad!

When the anti-gunners come to mine quotes from 'gun owners' to fuel their campaigns, I doubt they'll touch anything I've ever written here.

Many of your ideas and opinions, on the other hand, will be used to compartmentalize and divide us into smaller sets for incremental victories. If you only want to protect the right to conceal a handgun, at least quit yammering on about how senseless and threatening you feel any other practice of bearing arms is. Quit giving them fuel.

 

[RMC]

Please try to suppress your ignorance when addressing me. TYVM

 

[ATM]

Please try to suppress your ignorance when addressing me. TYVM

If you don't start making it more challenging to refute every single thing you post, I'll eventually quit addressing you at all.

Most folks learn and actually get better at this with practice, which makes it worth it. You just evade and repeat the same things. How pointless.

 

[RMC]

Somehow I fail to see a down side to not reading your incoherent ramblings.

 

[ATM]

Somehow I fail to see a down side to not reading your incoherent ramblings.

I fail to see how you haven't even attempted to improve your approach in the 2 years since I last called out your foolishness in a very similar thread:

You're the one adding fuel to their cause with all your talk of confrontation, flaunting, small penis syndrome, etc.

You sound solidly in their camp. Rather than support others' rights to carry how they please, you join the mad moms in deriding that which you consider "socially unacceptable".

Your sort of narrowly crafted support for the "right to keep and bear arms but only if they're kept concealed" is not really helpful at all.

You could have spent that time coming up with new or better material and actually getting good at this.

Did you really think your same tired attempts would fare any better this time?

Class is over, you are dismissed.

 

[RMC]

Still suffering from SPS I sense. Sorry, I didn't mean to hit such a sensitive nerve. Do you think you'll ever get over it?

 

[eldirector]

I often wonder why anti-freedom folks tend to reduce the argument to personal insults and ad hominem attacks.

 

[ATM]

I often wonder why anti-freedom folks tend to reduce the argument to personal insults and ad hominem attacks.

Because they lack valid points and the ability to support them?

 

[RMC]

I often wonder why anti-freedom folks tend to reduce the argument to personal insults and ad hominem attacks.

I don't recall any anti-freedom folks posting in this thread.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Please try to suppress your ignorance when addressing me. TYVM

Wow...the hubris in this one.

If you can't adequately refute the points laid out, you probably shouldn't post a response. That generally gets people into trouble, since it almost guarantees devolving into personal attacks.

Oh wait, I see we are already there

 

[RMC]

Wow...the hubris in this one.

If you can't adequately refute the points laid out, you probably shouldn't post a response. That generally gets people into trouble, since it almost guarantees devolving into personal attacks.

Oh wait, I see we are already there

What exactly do you need refuted? Please be specific and I will be as accommodating as possible.

 

[SteveM4A1]

What exactly do you need refuted? Please be specific and I will be as accommodating as possible.

I don't need anything. I am just trying to give you some advice.

 

[RMC]

I don't need anything. I am just trying to give you some advice.

Actually, you made a judgement and insinuating I need advice supports my viewpoint. There is nothing in my posts where I state that I am against guns or the right to bear arms. In fact, I own guns, probably more than most people, and I support keeping the 2nd Amendment intact. If you go thru the posts you can find that is true. So, what is the problem? If I said something you don't understand, all you need to do is ask for an explanation. If you want to participate in an open discussion then please try to refrain from twisting words into something that was not said, or making unfounded accusations. I did not say you have done either or am I implying you did.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Actually, you made a judgement and insinuating I need advice supports my viewpoint.

And what viewpoint is that?

There is nothing in my posts where I state that I am against guns or the right to bear arms. In fact, I own guns, probably more than most people, and I support keeping the 2nd Amendment intact. If you go thru the posts you can find that is true.

How does this matter?

So, what is the problem? If I said something you don't understand, all you need to do is ask for an explanation.

Again, with the intelligently superior spiel.

If you want to participate in an open discussion then please try to refrain from twisting words into something that was not said, or making unfounded accusations.

Please show me where I have done this.

I did not say you have done either or am I implying you did.

Contradict yourself much?


RMC, you didn't refute any of the points ATM laid out for you. If you are going to have a debate in a forum such as this, that would be a good starting point. You resorted to ad hominem fallacies, which shows upon your character. I simply gave you some advice to hopefully assist in this debate. There are others that take similar viewpoints as yours that don't resort to such actions. Try to follow their lead.