Why Do You Carry Concealed? - Page 135
Page 135 of 139 FirstFirst ... 3585125133134135136137 ... LastLast
Results 1,341 to 1,350 of 1390

Thread: Why Do You Carry Concealed?

  1. Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Instead of asking me what I think, why don't you just tell me your thoughts about it?

    I have a hard time believing that the second amendment is basically a free-for-all saying anyone period can have and carry guns without some regulation.... But I guess I could be wrong. I don't know. I'm not gonna lie to ya. But, until I do know, I really couldn't care less. As long as the government doesn't take my right away to own and carry guns, I really don't care. If buying a permit was considered so wrong by me, I'd move to a state that doesn't charge.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    That's what I thought. You don't even know who the militia is that you claim the government has the authority to "regulate" - meaning to you to have the authority to say who can and cannot legally carry a firearm and where they legally can and cannot carry it. PRICELESS!

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

    10 USC 311:
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  2.   
  3. #1342

    Why Do You Carry Concealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    Which is why I asked in the first place and your insulting reply was inappropriate.
    What was inappropriate? You were talking about young adults. I was referring to children.

    It's not my fault you assumed different.



    You initially didn't say anything about level of training or "degenerates". Not that the lack of training or being a "degenerate" is a disqualifier for a right.

    By the way, I have been once myself named a "degenerate" by a government. At that time it meant being for freedom of speech, freedom to travel, free and fair elections, ..., you know the Bill of Rights kind of thing.
    Lol, totally not what I was talking about!!


    I was talking about the difference in the young adults that YOU were talking about, first. The responsible ones, including the ones who wish to go serve their country, not the degenerate kids, also not the ones who are being trained by professional military trainers.

    You never specified, but insulted me instead.
    You're right, I didn't, but it's funnier than hell that you assumed I was talking about 18, 19, and 20 year old children. lol.
    Classy!
    I know, right? You're trying to blame me with your assumption! Epic!


    Yes, all three disqualifiers you mentioned turned out to be flaws in the system. Gee, wonder why I said you were ignorant?
    Lol no, just your dreamed up nonsense of your assumptions.

    You were talking about young adults. I was talking about bonifide children.

    You were talking about about a person who probably was mentally unstable long, long ago. I was talking about someone who, IS, NOW.... who is a current danger to themselves and everyone around them. Not somebody who once was.

    You were talking about a person who did their time and is out. I was talking about about more or less what the felony was a about regarding earning their right back as a once felon.

    [quote]You have obviously never dealt with mental illnesses in any form and have no clue about them other than generic name calling (i.e., "whack job"). Is every vet that suffers or suffered PTS a "whack job" that should be disqualified? An estimated 19 million American adults are living with major depression. Should they be automatically disqualified? When or at what point does the disqualification time out? Who does that determination? But hey, it is just easy to call people "unstable" and "whack jobs" and disqualify them from exercising a right when you have no clue.[quote]

    First off, it's not me doing it. That's our laws at work. Second, there is no "automatically" about it. Certain mentally unstable people are deemed unstable and considered unworthy of it. Not automatically.

    Besides, depression isn't automatically related to suicidal tendencies, right off the bat. There has to be a history of it first. You make it sound like I'm saying every ptsd, depression, or anything else of that matter is automatically the mentally unstable that the law disqualifies a person from being deemed a responsible gun owner and carrier.

    Yes, finally.
    Lol.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #1343
    So, Navy..

    You believe that in this day of age; no, not 200 years ago or so when the constitution was written, that even today, with all the crap that goes down every single day, that there should be no regulation, what so ever? Just because the constitution was written at the beginning of our country's time when things were simpler, in THAT timeframe? Their society back then is no where near what modern life is.

    I believe I know already what you are goin to say and that's fine. The reason I say that is because, why have these regulations in place anyways, even the ones that remotely make sense? Only us law abiding citizens follow laws anyway, not criminals. They get to do what they want, why can't we?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #1344

    Why Do You Carry Concealed?

    Deleted, accidental post.

  6. #1345
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    What was inappropriate? You were talking about young adults. I was referring to children.

    It's not my fault you assumed different.
    Yes it's your fault:

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    What does kids mean in your case and what does that have to do with carry permits?
    And your calling me ignorant? Lol. Kids having carry permits, gee whiz.
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Lol, totally not what I was talking about!!

    I was talking about the difference in kids- the responsible ones, including the ones who wish to go serve their country, not the degenerate kids or the ones who are being trained by professional military trainers.
    Once again a case of reading comprehension. Read your post and them my reply. You mentioned the "the degenerate 18 year old teenager bully who has no self decency or respect for anyone". I meant that your personal opinion of 18 year olds has no bearing on them being able to exercise their rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    You're right, I didn't, but it's funnier than hell that you assumed I was talking about 18, 19, and 20 year old children. lol.
    Can't really laugh about that one, kid.

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    I know, right? You're trying to blame me with your assumption! Epic!
    Who else? If you state things but refuse to clarify, one has to assume things to nail you down to finally get an answer out of you.

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Lol no, just your dreamed up nonsense of your assumptions.

    You were talking about young adults. I was talking about bonifide children.

    You were talking about about a person who probably was mentally unstable long, long ago. I was talking about someone who, IS, NOW.... who is a current danger to themselves and everyone around them. Not somebody who once was.

    You were talking about a person who did their time and is out. I was talking about about more or less what the felony was a about regarding earning their right back as a once felon.
    You talked in general superficial terms that showed your ignorance to these problems: "kids, the mentally unstable and felons". Only after I told you of these problems, you acknowledged them and realized that you were talking nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    You have obviously never dealt with mental illnesses in any form and have no clue about them other than generic name calling (i.e., "whack job"). Is every vet that suffers or suffered PTS a "whack job" that should be disqualified? An estimated 19 million American adults are living with major depression. Should they be automatically disqualified? When or at what point does the disqualification time out? Who does that determination? But hey, it is just easy to call people "unstable" and "whack jobs" and disqualify them from exercising a right when you have no clue.
    First off, it's not me doing it. That's our laws at work. Second, there is no "automatically" about it. Certain mentally unstable people are deemed unstable and considered unworthy of it. Not automatically.

    Besides, depression isn't automatically related to suicidal tendencies, right off the bat. There has to be a history of it first. You make it sound like I'm saying every ptsd, depression, or anything else of that matter is automatically the mentally unstable that the law disqualifies a person from being deemed a responsible gun owner and carrier.
    As I said, your original statement about "kids, the mentally unstable and felons" was ignorant. Life is more complicated than that. You mentioned the term "mentally unstable". I was just asking questions as I assumed (and know now) that you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to mental illnesses. You also do not understand current laws, as a commitment to a mental institution automatically disqualifies a person from possessing a firearm (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4)).

  7. #1346

    Why Do You Carry Concealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    Yes it's your fault:
    No, it's not. Again, dumarse, I was talking about young kids! You're the one who started yabbering about "kids" in the frigging army!...lol.



    Once again a case of reading comprehension. Read your post and them my reply. You mentioned the "the degenerate 18 year old teenager bully who has no self decency or respect for anyone". I meant that your personal opinion of 18 year olds has no bearing on them being able to exercise their rights.
    I don't have to re read anything, bonehead! You're the one who's twisting crap around! When I said, "the degenerate 18 year old teenager bully who has no self respect for anyone", I was explaining the difference between the 18 year old who is being trained in the army and the other 18 year old brat. Not to be assumed I'm saying every other 18 year old is like that, Jiminy Effing Christmas, man!

    Can't really laugh about that one, kid.
    Neither can you, smartass. I mean, kid.

    Again, I was talking about children, not young adults. Please get that though your head.

    Who else? If you state things but refuse to clarify, one has to assume things to nail you down to finally get an answer out of you.
    I have clarified! It's not my fault you keep dragging this out!



    You talked in general superficial terms that showed your ignorance to these problems: "kids, the mentally unstable and felons". Only after I told you of these problems, you acknowledged them and realized that you were talking nonsense.
    Whatever man, you're the one who started that with your assumptions.

    As I said, your original statement about "kids, the mentally unstable and felons" was ignorant. Life is more complicated than that.
    No, your assumptions to what all you thought I was talking about, was what was ignorant.

    You mentioned the term "mentally unstable".
    Yes, I did. Again, it was your own assumption and your own addition of something clearly that I was not talking about.


    I was just asking questions as I assumed (and know now) that you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to mental illnesses.
    Whatever, you are so full of **** if you believe that. Im not even going to argue with you on that.

    You also do not understand current laws, as a commitment to a mental institution automatically disqualifies a person from possessing a firearm (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4)).
    Well, yes, the kind of "mentally unstable" people I was talking about was exactly that. Thanks for proving my point.

    But about the other part, I never said that every person who was depressed was considered mentally unstable and was automatically admitted to an institution. You we're the one who acted like that was what I meant when you started talking about your friend who lost his wife.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    I did no such thing. Try to read and understand my posts before replying. The real "douchewad" is you, not realizing how ignorant (at so many levels) your comment was.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Deleted, accidental post.
    Like all of your other posts as well......

  10. Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    So, Navy..

    You believe that in this day of age; no, not 200 years ago or so when the constitution was written, that even today, with all the crap that goes down every single day, that there should be no regulation, what so ever? Just because the constitution was written at the beginning of our country's time when things were simpler, in THAT timeframe? Their society back then is no where near what modern life is.

    I believe I know already what you are goin to say and that's fine. The reason I say that is because, why have these regulations in place anyways, even the ones that remotely make sense? Only us law abiding citizens follow laws anyway, not criminals. They get to do what they want, why can't we?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    So let's just toss the Constitution because it is 200 years old. Is that your belief corneileous? To hell with it - it's too old. The founding fathers understood that the the Constitution as they wrote it would become outdated over time. That's why they included in the Constitution a method to revise it - to amend it. That is not what happened with the Second Amendment, though, is it? There was never a further amendment to change the Second Amendment - like the 21st Amendment which repealed the 18th Amendment. You want to bring the Second Amendment up to date? Fine. Then do it the Constitutional way. Amend it using the process that is written into the Constitution. But what we have allowed is for the government to enact one unconstitutional infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms on top of another - screw the Constitution.

    The National Firearms Act of 1934 should have been the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution enacted by the method allowed for in the Constitution instead of a simple act of Congress. An amendment to the Constitution allowing the Federal government to regulate the bearing of firearms by the People would be the Constitutional way to do it - not the bullsh$$t that we have allowed the government to get away with.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  11. #1350
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    No, your assumptions to what all you thought I was talking about, was what was ignorant.

    Yes, I did. Again, it was your own assumption and your own addition of something clearly that I was not talking about.

    Whatever, you are so full of **** if you believe that. Im not even going to argue with you on that.
    Once again, a "classy" reply. If you fail to clarify your statements then one can only assume. That's why I asked questions, over and over again. To get clarifications.

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Well, yes, the kind of "mentally unstable" people I was talking about was exactly that. Thanks for proving my point.
    Actually, you just proved my point. The automatic disqualification is permanent, while a mental illness may or may not be.

    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    But about the other part, I never said that every person who was depressed was considered mentally unstable and was automatically admitted to an institution. You we're the one who acted like that was what I meant when you started talking about your friend who lost his wife.
    Again, you still lack in reading comprehension. The only thing you said was "mentally unstable" people. Then I asked what you mean by that and gave you examples in the form of questions, so that you can clarify your statements.

    Again, you talked in general superficial terms that showed your ignorance to these problems. If you can't clearly articulate what you mean, then your statements may be mistaken and may be viewed as ignorant. It is up to you to state your opinions clearly and not up to me to guess them correctly.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast