26 Jul 11
Originally posted by RevRSleekersounds like somebody lives somewhere where firearms of any sort are prohibited.
Sadly, toys they are not but boasting about such on a site for the supposed 'thinking man's' game could be considered truly an appalling glimpse into the minds eye...sadder still when life is considered so cheap that it's assumed everyone has one, needs one, and if not you're an obvious target ( what a catch 22 that is )..consequently, is it a wild guess ...[text shortened]... igger money spinner in such a state...
Take it to the 'wild wild west' forum, spanky...
26 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou're quite right but regardless, the post was highlighting the mindless bragging about firearms and on a supposed 'thinkers' chess site when there's already an ongoing thread in 'debates'..it just seemed somewhat at odds and without any merit whatsoever, fabricated 'shock posting' I think it's sometimes regarded as. I asked but didn't get an answer, I'm guessing I was correct...
sounds like somebody lives somewhere where firearms of any sort are prohibited.
Originally posted by LuckOh, the return of the Great Sage who gave us wondrous quotes such as this:
Finland is the land with highest rate of consealed weapons permits per capita and the lowest gun crime rates. Most of the finns know how to use a gun! :o)
Why, this is the perfect jobs for homosexual government personnel.
You know that they enjoy touching your "junk"
Finally the lesbian homeland security leader found a jobs for alike minds.
We have to accept people regardless their sexual orientation. :o)
Enjoy the touches! :o)
Sincerely,
Harri / Luck
26 Jul 11
I don't want to bust your bubble, but carrying that thing in your pocket is a bad idea, at least without a pocket holster. The barrel can be blocked by pocket lint, and then you've got a bomb which can leave your hand in tatters, not to mention the other pieces which may hit other areas.
.22LR is not going to stop anyone with COM hits. The pocket pistol will not even produce the velocity that a .22 rifle or longer barreled pistol generates. I read the review, and there is also a .25 caliber, but I don't consider either a reliable self defense handgun.
If you are correct about Arizona law, that's the way it ought to be. Vermont has that standard, but unless things changed recently, I didn't know that concealed carry was permitted without a license in Arizona. Also, you should be aware of the details of open carry in whatever state you are in. For example, Michigan technically doesn't prohibit open carry, but don't try it. The weapon is considered concealed when you enter a motor vehicle, and most cops will pick you up for "brandishing" if you carry openly. You may win in court, but that will be small consolation for the legal costs.
Good luck, but I recommend that if you like Taurus products you look into the Millenium series, in either 9mm or .40 S&W.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by normbenignMaybe he can stow it in his ten-gallon hat.
I don't want to bust your bubble, but carrying that thing in your pocket is a bad idea, at least without a pocket holster. The barrel can be blocked by pocket lint, and then you've got a bomb which can leave your hand in tatters, not to mention the other pieces which may hit other areas.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastLol, it is an excellent post...expertly tongue in cheek 😀
Oh, the return of the Great Sage who gave us wondrous quotes such as this:
Why, this is the perfect jobs for homosexual government personnel.
You know that they enjoy touching your "junk"
Finally the lesbian homeland security leader found a jobs for alike minds.
We have to accept people regardless their sexual orientation. :o)
Enjoy the touches! :o)
Sincerely,
Harri / Luck
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by KunsooWhat may be the good to come from this thread, is the fact the the 2nd amendment says "the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed."
Yeah, you have to love a state where so many of its citizens responded to a multiple murder and near fatal gun attack on a popular leader by running out to buy that model of gun before it could be banned.
If the poster is correct, then Arizona is I believe only the 2nd State to fully recognize that right. Requiring a license to bear arms, is and infringement on the right.
There would be public outcry if licensing of speech or practice of religion were to be enacted.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by RevRSleekerI resent the implication that somehow thinking and being able and prepared to defend oneself are incongruous. I belive the blythly believing that society and the cops are going to keep you safe is the unthinking course. You have homeowner's insurance, and keep fire extinquishers which may never be used.
You're quite right but regardless, the post was highlighting the mindless bragging about firearms and on a supposed 'thinkers' chess site when there's already an ongoing thread in 'debates'..it just seemed somewhat at odds and without any merit whatsoever, fabricated 'shock posting' I think it's sometimes regarded as. I asked but didn't get an answer, I'm guessing I was correct...
By the way, when a shooter went on a rampage in Norway, I instinctively knew there were restrictive gun laws in place. The rule of thumb is that a shooter usually stops only when someone threatens to shoot back, or actually does shoot back. Otherwise the carnage goes on.
While there are lots of legally owned guns in Norway, none of them are in a position to be used for self defense. They are required to be stored in disassembled state, and one has to be a hunter or sports shooter to own guns in Norway.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by normbenignAbsolutely comical...an NRA 'advert', word for word it sounds...
What may be the good to come from this thread, is the fact the the 2nd amendment says "the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed."
If the poster is correct, then Arizona is I believe only the 2nd State to fully recognize that right. Requiring a license to bear arms, is and infringement on the right.
There would be public outcry if licensing of speech or practice of religion were to be enacted.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by normbenignThere is zero evidence that the Framers took the "right to bear arms" as a right to carry lethal weapons wherever and whenever one pleased.
What may be the good to come from this thread, is the fact the the 2nd amendment says "the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed."
If the poster is correct, then Arizona is I believe only the 2nd State to fully recognize that right. Requiring a license to bear arms, is and infringement on the right.
There would be public outcry if licensing of speech or practice of religion were to be enacted.
Neither speech nor religious rights are unlimited.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by normbenignYeah, it's impossible that someone could kill a bunch of people with a firearm in Arizona.
I resent the implication that somehow thinking and being able and prepared to defend oneself are incongruous. I belive the blythly believing that society and the cops are going to keep you safe is the unthinking course. You have homeowner's insurance, and keep fire extinquishers which may never be used.
By the way, when a shooter went on a rampage in ...[text shortened]... ored in disassembled state, and one has to be a hunter or sports shooter to own guns in Norway.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderSilly twit. It is never "impossible" that someone will kill lots of people with a firearm anywhere. It is made more likely when the public is disarmed. Passing restrictive gun laws doesn't make it impossible, but does increase the likelihood of a high body count.
Yeah, it's impossible that someone could kill a bunch of people with a firearm in Arizona.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauder"There is zero evidence that the Framers took the "right to bear arms" as a right to carry lethal weapons wherever and whenever one pleased."
There is zero evidence that the Framers took the "right to bear arms" as a right to carry lethal weapons wherever and whenever one pleased.
Neither speech nor religious rights are unlimited.
Go read the 2nd amendment. That's the evidence.
"Neither speech nor religious rights are unlimited."
Where in the 1st amendment are the limitations. The limitations are those unconstitutionally added later on.