guns

[Rainman]

i chose to do the same with Hobby Lobby

So it's wrong to stand up for your beliefs?


Kmart sux. So does Walmart. And Orion.

 

[Rainman]

That's fine. But I doubt you have the slightest real notion of what "suffering" is if the constitutional restrictions placed on gun ownership fits your definition.

Possibly more so than you. If you don't know a persons situation it's hard to accurately judge what they may or may not have had to go through. I don't judge you, so why do you feel it necessary to judge me?


Kmart sux. So does Walmart. And Orion.

 

[realbrown1]

you're right. It's not for me to say. Go ahead and suffer if you insist.

I'd prefer to keep my inherent right to own gun and not suffer.

But there is always someone like you around that likes the big government nanny state to contend with.

 

[soberups]

Actually...I don't really blame Target for their "no gun" policy.

It is in response to the "open carry" idiots who scare the hell out of people by parading around in malls and restaurants and in front of schools carrying rifles in order to make a political statement.

The new policy wont stop me from shopping at or carrying concealed in my local Target store, since by law all they can do if they see me carrying my gun is to order me to leave the premises and then charge me with criminal trespassing only if I refuse to do so.

That's not an issue for me, because the only foreseeable circumstances under which my gun would ever be out of its holster in a Target store to begin with would be circumstances such as a mass shooting incident where I would most certainly be trying to get the hell out of there anyway.

Concealed means concealed. There are times and places where the open carry of rifles is appropriate, but schools and restaurants and malls are not among them and Target has every right to decide whether or not to allow guns on their property.

 

[Nimnim]

Gun laws, effective or not, do not make law abiding citizens suffer.

Ok, with the current trend to reduce magazine size, it's not unrealistic to believe in the next decade some politician would suggest that any firearm should by law only be capable of having a single round loaded legally at a time. What happens then when the law abiding citizen who only has a single shot without reloading wouldn't be in serious trouble if a group of 3 committed a home invasion, or even a single person, the odds would be pretty good they'd succeed since panic of the occupant is likely to cause them to miss at least once.

Hell, I'm a law abiding citizen, but if I knew that if I attempted to rob someone they'd have one shot before having to reload I'd probably get some body armor or make my own to ensure I could take one shot.

 

[bbsam]

Not a bad idea.

 

[Nimnim]

Not a bad idea.

I'll assume this is in response to my last post about the possibility of only having one
round loaded legally.

Personally I cannot see how limiting one to only one good chance legally to defend themselves against one or more people who intend to harm them, likely physically, is anything other than a bad idea. Sure you can attempt to struggle after the shot, and against one there may be a chance, but those that have a chance against multiple threatening individuals unarmed aren't really those that definitively need a firearm to protect themselves. Doesn't mean it's not better to have a significant deterrent in the form of a firearm with more than enough rounds available without reloading to keep the individuals from continuing to commit their crime.

 

[bbsam]

no. Body armor as self defense.

 

[The Other Side]

I'll assume this is in response to my last post about the possibility of only having one
round loaded legally.

Personally I cannot see how limiting one to only one good chance legally to defend themselves against one or more people who intend to harm them, likely physically, is anything other than a bad idea. Sure you can attempt to struggle after the shot, and against one there may be a chance, but those that have a chance against multiple threatening individuals unarmed aren't really those that definitively need a firearm to protect themselves. Doesn't mean it's not better to have a significant deterrent in the form of a firearm with more than enough rounds available without reloading to keep the individuals from continuing to commit their crime.

Where does one live, where they even have to "think" about protecting themselves against one or more persons, or even having to reload?

For Christ's sake, does everyone live in somalia?

TOS.

 

[oldngray]

You are welcome to use your single shot muzzleloader if that is your choice. We also have the choice (and right) to carry weapons that hold more rounds.

 

[brett636]

Where does one live, where they even have to "think" about protecting themselves against one or more persons, or even having to reload?

For Christ's sake, does everyone live in somalia?

TOS.

This reminds me of the old Aesop fable of the ants and the grasshopper. Some people are the ants, you are the grasshopper.

 

[brett636]

View attachment 14123

If you can show me where in the constitution it guarantees the right to all those items specifically then you may have a point.

 

[wayfair]

My guess is if you feel the need to bring a gun into the store, they are not worried about your business.

It's cool, I'll support China by shopping at Walmart.

 

[MAKAVELI]

It's cool, I'll support China by shopping at Walmart.

I'm sure China has no problem with Americans killing each other needlessly if they make a buck from them . But if you feel the need to bring a gun while you shop hopefully you don't end up like one of these two. Just another reason for me to stay away from Wal-Mart.
http://nativenewsonline.net/current...ights-legally-carry-firearm-states-permitted/

 

[728ups]

Actually...I don't really blame Target for their "no gun" policy.

It is in response to the "open carry" idiots who scare the hell out of people by parading around in malls and restaurants and in front of schools carrying rifles in order to make a political statement.

The new policy wont stop me from shopping at or carrying concealed in my local Target store, since by law all they can do if they see me carrying my gun is to order me to leave the premises and then charge me with criminal trespassing only if I refuse to do so.

That's not an issue for me, because the only foreseeable circumstances under which my gun would ever be out of its holster in a Target store to begin with would be circumstances such as a mass shooting incident where I would most certainly be trying to get the hell out of there anyway.

Concealed means concealed. There are times and places where the open carry of rifles is appropriate, but schools and restaurants and malls are not among them and Target has every right to decide whether or not to allow guns on their property.

we actually have common ground here

 

[realbrown1]

Where does one live, where they even have to "think" about protecting themselves against one or more persons, or even having to reload?

For Christ's sake, does everyone live in somalia?

TOS.

Because no one in the US has ever been attacked by 2 or more people at the same time.

 

[The Other Side]

This reminds me of the old Aesop fable of the ants and the grasshopper. Some people are the ants, you are the grasshopper.

The only fables I know, are the ones where people have to stock pile guns just to live in a world where they have to fear an army breaking into their home.

For me, I have everything insured for replacement value. GO AHEAD , take everything!!

You'd be doing me a favor.

TOS.

 

[realbrown1]

Actually...I don't really blame Target for their "no gun" policy.

It is in response to the "open carry" idiots who scare the hell out of people by parading around in malls and restaurants and in front of schools carrying rifles in order to make a political statement.

The new policy wont stop me from shopping at or carrying concealed in my local Target store, since by law all they can do if they see me carrying my gun is to order me to leave the premises and then charge me with criminal trespassing only if I refuse to do so.

That's not an issue for me, because the only foreseeable circumstances under which my gun would ever be out of its holster in a Target store to begin with would be circumstances such as a mass shooting incident where I would most certainly be trying to get the hell out of there anyway.

Concealed means concealed. There are times and places where the open carry of rifles is appropriate, but schools and restaurants and malls are not among them and Target has every right to decide whether or not to allow guns on their property.

I don't have any problem shopping with people who OPEN CARRY. I have yet to see or hear about a place that was robbed by someone who OPEN CARRIES.

But I am sure 1 of the 3 will post a link to stories of OPEN CARRIES who have robbed stores.

 

[bbsam]

The constitution doesn't place restrictions on gun ownership. If you can find a place where it does, please enlighten me.


Kmart sux. So does Walmart. And Orion.

So your reading of second amendment is that there can be no restrictions on gun ownership? How do you get that? Enlighten me, please.

 

[728ups]

If you can show me where in the constitution it guarantees the right to all those items specifically then you may have a point.

I can certainly show you where Regulation is listed in the Second Amendment:
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.