-
There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.
more on gun rights
- Thread starter cuznjohn
- Start date
Bob Denman
New member
It looked more like a bunch of kids with a new toy and an attitude...
The officer was doing what he had to in order to:
maintain control of the situation
Gather up the information that he needed in order to figure out what was going on
This sort of irresponsible behavior actually hurts gun owners... :gaah:
The officer was doing what he had to in order to:
maintain control of the situation
Gather up the information that he needed in order to figure out what was going on
This sort of irresponsible behavior actually hurts gun owners... :gaah:
reverendg
New member
What part was irresponsible? I open carry regularly, even shopping for home improvement supplies. As a result I am aware of the weapons of choice of quite a few of the salespeople at the local Lowe's. Was it just the local Starbuck's here that publicized their support for people open carrying, I though it was national?
spydaman60
New member
personally I don't think that twelve people would have died that night is aurora Colorado if someone in the front row would have been carrying. (maybe one or two and the shooter) I also don't mind the idea of teachers carrying after they have been trained and have certification.(it might have saved lives in sandy hook, ct) some of these whimps that carry out these massacres would be less likely to do so, if they know people out there would use them as a target when they made a move. texas, has some communities that allow teachers the option, and many of them do. it would be interesting to see how it played out if someone tried something at one of those schools! lets hope it never happens again!!!
ray:ray:
ray:ray:
Dan McNally
New member
Each state has their own laws. In my state, open carry is legal and no permit is required, but there are places (i.e., Post Offices, Court Houses, government buildings, schools, businesses that have a no gun policy) where open or concealed carry is banned. If I wished to, I could strap on a .357 and walk into the local Wal-Mart. I don't, however, as, in my mind, open carry is akin to wearing a t-shirt that says to criminals: "shoot me, first." I have a concealed carry permit and always carry, concealed, anywhere I legally may. That said, in states where open carry is legal, the police often don't know the laws that apply. The police officer in this video demanded IDs from people who had committed no crime, to his knowledge (as he admitted) and said he was going to "run them" - check a data base of wants and warrants. He violated the rights of these people, who had committed no crime of which he was aware. His actions were no different than if he stopped you, while eating lunch at a lunch counter, took your ID and told you to come outside and stand against the wall . . . because you had a sandwich in your hand. They could have told him to arrest them or leave them alone, as he had no probable cause that a crime was committed. If I had been with them, I'd have told him we were leaving if the store wanted us to leave, but we were going to our cars and departing unless he arrested us. If he detained us, I'd have brought a lawsuit for illegal detainment and arrest. Anti-gun advocates are chipping away at 2A, little by little. People like this are tired of it and are pushing back.
reverendg
New member
I disagree with your opinion on open carry, both stances do have good points. That said, the rest of your commentary is excellent. Federal laws do apply regarding places where one cannot carry as well, and schools are one of those places. Granted some states refuse to abide federal prohibitions, as in Michigan, where the federal law prohibiting arms within 1000 ft of a school is not recognized. In cities and suburbs, with sometimes more than 4 schools in a square mile, it would be impossible to carry at all and not violate such a federal prohibition.
Bob Denman
New member
I'm glad that you adked that question! :thumbup:
First: the one fellow admitted to having some sort of channel on Youtube or something; I didn't pay attention to the location, but it made this whole episode appear to be nothign more than an attempt to scare up some footage for his site...
Second: Just because you can do something; doesn't automatically tht you should...
The Police were called because they got a complaint from another patron who felt threatened...
Use some common sense, and this doesn't happen.
The ladies were all carrying large, bulky sidearms; probably meant to make "an impression" far more than to provide protection for them.
Now; having said all of this, everybody in here knows that I'm a Benefactor Member of th NRA, and a staunch advocate of the Second Amendment.
It's a right; but it's a right that carries with it tremendous responsibilities.
Face it; There's a lot of folks out there who don't like guns, don't want guns, and don't want YOU to have guns either...
Don't give them more ammuntion for their arguments.
"Carry cool", and nobobdy gets upset...:thumbup:
reverendg
New member
Yet what you are saying makes no sense. If you don't use a right, you lose it. Your idea is to pretend we don't have guns, so they can help eradicate the right to bear them. If someone "felt threatened" by seeing a gun legally carried, that is their problem. In Michigan, a liberal democrat Governor even went so far as to make sure 911 operators knew to ask any person making calls about "armed individuals" if the person was actually menacing people or was just in public with a weapon. We have a right to be armed. My rights are not subservient to someone else's irrational fears. Common sense would be to open carry regularly, so as to inform the populace that such practice is perfectly legal. "Large bulky sidearms"? So does my Glock 19 or my 1911 count as such? They and others of similar size, are open carried regularly. Perhaps you would have warned Rosa Parks to work with the system and write letters, that refusing to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus hurts all people of color? You are the one hurting gun rights by insisting we hide our guns away and pretend they don't exist, so people can "feel safer". Pandering to fears never works out well.
Bob Denman
New member
I routinely carry a full sized 1911A-1; and nobody knows that I've got it until it's needed.
But I've also got a Seecamp for when more discretion might be a bit wiser...
Your attitude is guaranteed to cost us right and support! :gaah:
Waving a sidearm under the nose of a person who doesn't like them, only mobilizes them into action...
Discretion, common sense and good manners will always be our best weapon in this battle! :thumbup:
But I've also got a Seecamp for when more discretion might be a bit wiser...
Your attitude is guaranteed to cost us right and support! :gaah:
Waving a sidearm under the nose of a person who doesn't like them, only mobilizes them into action...
Discretion, common sense and good manners will always be our best weapon in this battle! :thumbup:
reverendg
New member
On the contrary, it is those who have pandered to the fears of others who have already compromised too many of our rights away. Neville Chamberlain is a hero to those people. He compromised, and showed how it is always a losing proposition. In any compromise, you lose something, and then they come for more, forcing you to compromise again. The compromise game merely stalls the inevitable total loss of rights. In the video, nobody was waving any firearms under anyones noses, nor were any of those firearms larger than a 1911. You may be afraid to admit to owning a firearm, but others, like those girls, are taking the stand for you. Thank them when you get a chance.
wyliec
New member
How would the person that felt threatened actually know if someone was legal with their firearm? Also, not everyone who is openly carrying illegally is going to act like a lunatic and wave it around; this is in regards to the liberal democrat governor's comment which sounds like there should be no response to a 911 call, if the person appears to be acting normal.
Last edited:
reverendg
New member
If you aren't doing anything suspicious, you are not supposed to be harassed by police. Since carrying a firearm openly is perfectly legal, the mere presence of a firearm is not sufficient reason to suspect someone of criminal activity. Open carry is not "suspicious", it is perfectly legal.
wyliec
New member
I take it your comments are based on not requiring a permit to openly carry in certain states. If that statement is not true, you haven't answered my question in the previous post.
Flanker
New member
I agree. In an ideal world, those of us who legally can, would be able to carry openly without pushing the "fear button" on non gunners. That's simply not the case in our current USA. I've had numerous conversations on this topic (we do have open carry with some limits; in MI) with non gunners. Without exception they've tended to be reactive fearful sheep; upon seeing "a gun". I don't get it at all.........................I've asked all of 'em if they'd be fearful if they saw an armed police officer in the same place they saw the openly carrying citizen? Nope; they're OK with that. I asked why? Because he's a police officer and qualified to carry a weapon. So I follow up with how easy is it to get a police uniform, badge, and ID? None of 'em had any idea. In fairness to the fearful; I've never run across anyone impersonating a police officer either. I asked how much training (and how often) did the officer have? No idea on their part. I also asked if they knew how much training (and how often) the armed citizen they saw had? No idea again. Well, did they know the armed citizens' background? Could they have been a former police officer, or some Spec Ops dude with years of professional armed experience? Yes the citizen could have been, but they was scardy cats (not the way they put it) when they saw them. I asked them a bunch of other stuff too, trying to get them through a logic chain to see how reactive and assumptive they are....................didn't make any difference. Gun + citizen = bad/or danger. Reactively fearful, bleating emo sheep; I say. Obviously the folks I spoke with are not a representative sampling of the American Public......................still though, it absolutely was a common attitude and demeanor. Open carry = damaging gun rights and the Second Amendment; it does leave a bad impression on the non gunning public. Unless there was an imperative need for an open carry (and don't get me wrong, there are many times during warm weather when it would be so much simpler to carry that way) I just don't see it as beneficial to "our cause".
