Barred for life from Ball State for doing something Legal

[ATM]

ATM, I believe he is talking about jackwagons like this actively fondling weapons in public:

LOTS of people on both sides of the debate took issue with how they (and others carrying similarly) were carrying, resulting in a less than positive impact on the movement. Just like the Westboro folks arent exactly poster children for positive 1A use.

It is possible to exercise a right in such a way that it does not actually further your cause.

What sort of cause is strengthened by hiding it rather than promoting via free exercise? I assure you, the Westboro folks' cause is not the 1A, yet that amendment still stands to protect the free expression of their unpopular cause.

For that matter, popular causes need no protection at all, the majority are fine with them.

 

[ATM]

Now you are just rambling and going off on a tangent that doesn't make any sense. I have said nothing about disagreeing with the 2nd Amendment nor would I.

Try to stay on task here, I've actually been rather succinct in calling out your misunderstanding of what the 2A is and what it does. Please quote the part where I suggested or even hinted that you disagree with the amendment (as if I'd even care, lots of folks disagree with it).

The 2nd Amendment is in jeopardy of being repealed or rewritten and the lobbying behind it is very influential and increasingly popular.

Who told you this? You realize that a constitutional convention would need to repeal the prohibition and further delegate the actual authority to infringe upon those rights, correct?

If legal gun owners didn't have anything to do with the situations that are causing the anti-gun movement then what in your opinion is???

An agenda of control. Suggesting otherwise is naive.

I'm just being the devil's advocate here in hope of getting some to think before acting if their actions can jeopardize our Rights.

My actions cannot jeopardize our rights, only my own.

Thinking that Public Opinion has no horses in this race is being delusional.

Which race are you referring to? Public opinion has a horse in some races but not others. Regarding law, the U.S. isn't a mob rule democracy.

<snip ...blah blah tangent>

...I can't for the life of me understand why you can't comprehend this. I'm not saying nor have I ever said that I agreed with this but you continuously insist that I have.

Continually insist? Again, show me where I suggested that you agree or disagree with anything.

A gun is a tool that can yield deadly force in a fraction of a second at a distance, and many of the people that do not own guns feel fear when they see someone with one. Like it or not, that is a fact of life.

Why would I care that some have irrational fears?

Therefore, it is easily twisted to be portrayed as a blatant threat.

How? Do you accept or adopt irrational fears when they're portrayed as blatant threats? I tend to note the glaring distinctions when people attempt absurd stuff like that.

If you want to be the one to walk proudly through Walmart showing everyone you have a loaded weapon then go for it.

If you want to proudly go to any lengths you see fit to hide the fact that you have the same, go for it. I will support your right to do so.

I will again voice my opinion and I don't want to hear any whining when your gun is taken away.

Whining? Is that what you'd call the justified expressions of outrage following the unlawful confiscation of citizens' guns?

Interesting. No, it won't be whining.

 

[david890]

What will stop them is the possibility that they themselves will be shot. Active shooters only operate in gun free zones.

While the Pulse nightclub shooting was in a gun-free zone, the shooter forced a uniformed, armed cop to retreat into the club.

Martyrs don't care about being shot; most *hope* to die in the act.

 

[ATM]

While the Pulse nightclub shooting was in a gun-free zone, the shooter forced a uniformed, armed cop to retreat into the club.

Martyrs don't care about being shot; most *hope* to die in the act.

...but only after they killed the maximum number of fish in the barrel they chose. Otherwise, they'd just go to the police station or a gun range to pick a suicidal fight.

 

[RMC]

Whining? Is that what you'd call the justified expressions of outrage following the unlawful confiscation of citizens' guns?

Interesting. No, it won't be whining.

I'm beginning to suspect that you might be one of those people the Liberals want for a poster child. Ramble on, by all means, ramble on.

 

[david890]

You realize that a constitutional convention would need to repeal the prohibition and further delegate the actual authority to infringe upon those rights, correct?

No, a convention would not be required. Just 2/3 of state legislatures to ratify a law passed by the US Congress....

 

[david890]

Otherwise, they'd just go to the police station or a gun range to pick a suicidal fight.

So, those are "gun-free zones"? Remember, it was your claim that "active shooters only operate in GFZs".

 

[bwframe]

...Martyrs don't care about being shot; most *hope* to die in the act.

It's interesting that you would call a terrorist a martyr.

 

[bobzilla]

So, those are "gun-free zones"? Remember, it was your claim that "active shooters only operate in GFZs".

Actually that is incorrect. It was bwframe's comment, that you quoted even. Post 103 actually: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ate-doing-something-legal-11.html#post6723096

 

[ATM]

So, those are "gun-free zones"? Remember, it was your claim that "active shooters only operate in GFZs".

Indeed, I never made that claim, it was bwframe.

However, I obviously agree with him that they do tend to exclusively choose gun free zones so they can kill the maximum number of fish in the barrel before being shot.

The part about choosing a heavily defended target very clearly followed "Otherwise, " because by contrast, that is extremely rare.

 

[ATM]

I'm beginning to suspect that you might be one of those people the Liberals want for a poster child. Ramble on, by all means, ramble on.

I'm beginning to suspect you're about done digging yourself into a hole on this topic.

 

[rhino]

I'm beginning to suspect you're about done digging yourself into a hole on this topic.

I think the quality of the irritants is waning.

 

[RMC]

I'm beginning to suspect you're about done digging yourself into a hole on this topic.

Naw, I'm not in a hole. You have however confirmed my thoughts about people that have a cult mentality.... They can be shown or even taken to the path of wisdom, but they can't be convinced to think. My mission is now complete. Thank you for playing!

 

[ATM]

Naw, I'm not in a hole. You have however confirmed my thoughts about people that have a cult mentality.... They can be shown or even taken to the path of wisdom, but they can't be convinced to think. My mission is now complete. Thank you for playing!

Please, leave the shovel over there in the corner for the next guy who wants to give it a whirl.

Or, study up and have another go yourself.

 

[CraigAPS]

It's interesting that you would call a terrorist a martyr.

How is a terrorist NOT a martyr?? Martyrs are people who die for a cause. Whether or not those outside of the martyr's cause feel that s/he is a "martyr" has no bearing on the fact that the one killed for a cause will be a "martyr" for it. This is true for suicide bombers, peaceful members of a state (in the sense of a sovereign nation not as in one of the 50 geographical areas of the US) protesting something they feel is unjust, Joan of Arc, etc. Those on the other side of the cause see martyrs as extremists.

 

[Compatriot G]

No, a convention would not be required. Just 2/3 of state legislatures to ratify a law passed by the US Congress....

That is not correct either. To ratify an amendment to the Constitution, it requires a 3/4 majority of the states to approve the amendment.

 

[foszoe]

Prejudice is a factor that needs to be considered in many controversial situations. A lot of people are against guns, especially handguns and military-looking semi-automatic weapons (mistakenly perceived as assault weapons), yet they have very limited knowledge of guns or the reasons why people have them. However, they have had their brains saturated with the Liberals ranting that everything bad that happens is the result of the tool rather than the person that used it. To me, guns are no different than many other things that the Government has already infringed on. We are told we can't smoke, we can't exceed a specified speed limit, hell, in South Dakota you can't even ride a horse on State game production areas (public hunting land) without getting written permission in advance. Basically, laws are made because somebody complained about something. That is why some guns are illegal in some States and all guns are illegal in other places. There are far more people complaining about guns and their negative impacts on society than there are gun owners defending the benefits of owning a gun within society. Or at least that's the way the media and politicians are playing it. The media and politicians will use anything they can to show gun owners are bad people, even if they have to spin the facts in their favor.

I'm not defending any kind of gun control unless it's the range one can consistantly drop a prairie dog. However, I will not support anyone that chooses to open carry in a place that will likely bring the ire of the general public down on all gun owners. Do you dislike Kaepernick sitting during the National Anthem? I do. He has the Right to sit and many Americans sacrificed their lives to provide that Right but that doesn't mean I have to like it. You can't carry a firearm into a Colts game but I bet most of the INGO group support the Colts by watching their games. Flip the coin and you'll find mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and friends of people that died from a gunshot that will get very vocal when someone with a gun invades their perceived space even if it's on public property. Why provide the fuel to a fight that will only lead to more negative results?

Citizens that have guns CAN and DO have an impact on our 2nd Amendment. Saying or thinking they don't is absolutely absurd. 40 years ago I wasn't aware of guns being illegal in any State or city. Now look at New York, New Jersey, Chigago, California... I'm guessing all the guns that caused the Government to impose restrictions/laws in those areas were owned by a law abiding citizen at some point. If you are saying that only illegal guns are the problem then please show us all what an illegal gun looks like compared to a legal gun. If the average person can tell the difference 100% of the time at a reasonable distance then there should never be any restrictions that the Government would support. Wasn't there a business in Indy that had a truck loaded with a lot of guns that was left outside overnight and the contents got stolen? I'm sure the owner(s) were legal gun owners. Wasn't there a law officer that killed his family and a few others last year? I'm sure that person was a legal gun owner up until the point he/she chose to use it illegally. My point is, guns of any kind scare the hell out of some people and there is no way of being sure who has or doesn't have malicious intent. If a gun owner chooses to ignore that fact or deliberately goes against the wishes of the establishment they are in, then that person has the potential of screwing all of us with their poor judgement. There are countless examples of the good and bad of being able to get and carry a firearm. Unfortunately, the numbers of those that seek and broadcast the bad outnumber those of us that know better. "Choose your battles wisely so you don't lose the war" does have its merits.

Everytime I see your avatar I want to get on Amazon.com and order a special wreath for my favorite golden retriever

 

[bwframe]

How is a terrorist NOT a martyr?? Martyrs are people who die for a cause. Whether or not those outside of the martyr's cause feel that s/he is a "martyr" has no bearing on the fact that the one killed for a cause will be a "martyr" for it. This is true for suicide bombers, peaceful members of a state (in the sense of a sovereign nation not as in one of the 50 geographical areas of the US) protesting something they feel is unjust, Joan of Arc, etc. Those on the other side of the cause see martyrs as extremists.

Nah, active shooters are suicidal cowards that want to be famous on their way to hell. I would never grant them the credit of being a martyr and neither should you. A martyr is one with a noble cause, not the killing of innocents in the name of anyone or anything.

We can help these terrorists out by sending them to their destination empty handed.

Let us convince our legislature that we need campus carry so that students can eliminate these terrorists. The students will likely never need to fire a shot because the terrorists don't come where they might not die on their own terms.

Icing on the cake will be that campus sexual assault will be virtually eliminated also. The great equalizer...

 

[CraigAPS]

A martyr is one with a noble cause,

The cause is always noble to those who believe in it.

 

[Hawkeye]

Maybe to get this thread sort of back on track...

ive read the article linked in the OP, or at least one of the early posts. I don't get where this guy has been banned for life. Where does that come into play?