Delete

[billrd]

I've seen several threads that have made me wounder this question. One thread a guy is considering quitting his job because he can't carry at work. Another someone says they always answer the door armed at all times. Others who refuse to go shopping (or out in public) without carrying a gun. I have seen some were people keep a gun on 24/7 as some kind of security blanket. I have even seen threads asking about carrying while in the shower (like WTF is that?).

There was another thread were It was asserted that answering your door with a shotgun was normal in other states and it must be a CA thing if one were to find that abnormal.

I can see if someone lives in a legitimately bad neighborhood but the way many portray themselves here (up talk their social status) most surely don't live in the ghetto.

Sometimes when I read about people and their fanatical need to carry it comes across as kind of crazy/obsessive. Couple that with all the "what if?" ninja stories and those who have a palpable fantasy of being some kind of super hero bad guy hunter/prepper and it sometimes makes us as a group come across as kind of gun-kooky nutcases.

It's as if there is a door kicking-car jacking-robbing-murderer-rapist-thug (thug is used far too often by the way and I have come to except it to mean either someone who could kick your azz or someone who looks different and people apply bias to their fear/stereotype).

Many of us live in some of the safest neighborhoods on the planet and crime has been on the decline for years now. It seems as if much of this over the top "gun nut" activities/beliefs is fear based rather than rooted in a second amendment/sports shooting/hunting base.

You'd think we were living in a war zone by the way some people talk.

It's you.
"Crime is down" - BUT it ain't ZERO.
"But I live in a nice neighborhood" - Really - a nice target! How many times do you hear a resident on TV say the same thing after a killing, robbery, etc. in THEIR neighborhood - nothing like this has never happened before???
Crooks are stupid but they all agree - they prefer to go where there are no guns. They admit it. And stats show it.
I want the right to do what I think is necessary to defend my self & others. Preferably legally.
Why would anyone object to that - you know the answer.
When you leave your car & house doors open and a sign that says - "NO GUNS HERE" Then I will listen to your philosophy.
Good luck. I hope you don't need it but odds are not in your favor.

[rugershooter]

The difference (again) is that some people are carrying their firearms for the purpose of telling off the police. Defense is "second" to many of them. Again, I am not referring to those who carry to defend themselves. I am referring to those who carry for the sole purpose of pissing off police, in an ATTEMPT to prove a point. Yes, I understand that the manner in which a person carries should not matter, but we still need more votes on the side of pro-gun.

Why does a person's motivation matter? The fact is they have rights and an integral part of all rights is not having to justify ourselves to anybody. I don't owe anybody any type of explanation as to why I' exercising my rights or how I'm exercising them. Your "difference" really isn't any difference at all. Ok, so people have different motivations for carrying guns. So what?


Again, if people want to carry, I believe they should have the right to. I personally feel that we need to come off as responsible Americans, in order for the anti-gun kiddies to feel more secure with firearms. Yes, I understand that those people should suck it up, and deal with the fact that the most important document in the United States gives us the right to bear arms. Ultimately, our laws and rules are decided on a majority vote.
Sadly, the majority of Americans feel that firearms are "unsafe" and "the devils weapon" (or whatever idiotic argument happens to be floating around regarding firearms).

You're wrong. The Constitution doesn't give us anything. It affirms pre-existing rights and specifically prohibits the government from infringing on those rights. But the problem is that the 2nd Amendment is dead. It may as well not exist anymore because it's not recognized on either a state or federal level. You may disagree, if so, answer a question. If the 2nd Amendment was still recognized by the government at all levels, would we have to walk an eggshells around people who may not support my ability to exercise my right, so that we don't offend them and end up with our rights being violated through laws? In other words, the fact that so many gun owners are so scared of offending or scaring people who are on the fence regarding guns is because they're afraid that their rights will be violated through the enactment of more laws. But the only reason that is possible is because the government does not recognize the 2nd Amendment.


I will agree with you, we do have to change the norm regarding carrying. To do so, we should (mind you, I said SHOULD, not "have to" -I'm not forcing anyone to do anything or think a certain way, just as I wasn't in my previous post) show that simply carrying a firearm should not be an issue. And if handled by responsible Americans, the right to carry can actually be beneficial.

Ruger, again, I agree with you that Americans should have the right to carry. However, these anti-gun advocates are like children. They need to be spoon fed information, and patted on their shoulders every few moments - God forbid we say anything to offend them...-. Despite the fact that I don't believe we should have to "baby them" until they realize that many firearm owners are responsible adults, they are still voters.

I think it is important to recognize that there are different types of "anti gun" people. The first and most common type is the ignorant one. Those people are simply ignorant in regards to the Constitution, modern gun laws guns, etc. They don't think critically about the issue and blindly believe that if the law says not to have guns then people won't have them. The second kind of anti gun people are the types who are able to recognize that laws won't stop people but still don't want people to be able to own certain types of guns or carry guns. Most people of this type are simply stupid; they are not logical and cannot use reason. Unless, they actively try to get gun laws passed...which is the third type gun anti gun person: People who attempt to get gun laws passed. These people are criminals. They're arrogant, self serving disgusting pieces of human trash. They're some of the worst types of anti gun people because they want to tale away my ability to defend myself with the tools that I determine to be most suited for myself. This type of anti gun person can't mind his own damn business. The last type of anti gun person is the hypocrite, which is most common type here on Calguns. They're the type of people who claim to be pro gun "but" justify violating the 2nd Amendment for various reasons. I.E. "some people aren't proficient with a gun so they should be required by the government to take a mandatory firearm class in order to carry a gun, otherwise they might be a danger to other people". Or "I don't believe that people under the age of 21 are mature enough to carry a gun. I was stupid at that age and know how people are at that age. So I support the prohibition on people under 21 carrying a gun." It's important to recognize the different types of anti gun people because some simply cannot be converted by reasoning with them. With that type of person, it's simply a waste of time and I really don't give a damn that they get offended by the way I exercise my rights.


Maybe a little more gun education would do everyone (especially the
anti-gun nuts) some good.

Regardless of how I feel about the method of "proving a point" there is one thing that will never change...the average response time of a 911 call is 20 minutes, the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.

Bold

[55BlackShadow]

Backup

I freely expressed another form of forum etiquette by reporting his vulgarity and rudeness which led to his post being deleted.

I've been away for a few days.

The post just before mine was deleted, rkt88edmo, for the language I stated. It was immediately deleted by a moderator as VictorFranco and another person stated to you. The post I referred to wasn't the current post before mine now. I see the happy face post. That wasn't it.

What's an Interboob? Somebody you know well?

Maybe a post asking what I was referring to would have been more appropriate, than assuming I was an Interboob.

I've already been called much worse.

DVSmith, thanks for welcoming me.

[DannyInSoCal]

As much as you dont understand why someone might carry all the time -

They dont understand why you dont.

Obviously youre clairvoyant and magically know when a bad guy/kraxy person will present themselves.

Good luck to you...

[MrSam]

Bold

There is not point in me continuing this argument. We are both entitled to our own opinion. I did show the part about the 2nd amendment to a 2L instructor to get his opinion. He disagrees, for the most part, but again he is entitled to his own opinion as well.

[rugershooter]

There is not point in me continuing this argument. We are both entitled to our own opinion. I did show the part about the 2nd amendment to a 2L instructor to get his opinion. He disagrees, for the most part, but again he is entitled to his own opinion as well.

Most people disagree because the courts and politicians use the words "2nd Amendment" or "constitutional rights", etc. But they fail to realize that the original and plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been twisted in pretty much every court case it has been involved in. No branch of government actually recognizes it for what it is: A prohibition on any type of control on arms. And that's only when they bother to try making it look like they actually care.