Open Carry: why do gun nuts need to pack fire arms everywhere they go??

In 2017, there were an estimated 1,247,321 violent crimes. The estimated number of robbery offenses decreased 4.0 percent, and the estimated number of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter offenses decreased 0.7 percent when compared with estimates from 2016.Sep 24, 2018
https://www.fbi.gov › press-releases
 
reagansghost said:
you're saying you and your family could very well be shot in public?

where the hell do you live, El Paso?
Click to expand...

In 2017, there were an estimated 1,247,321 violent crimes. The estimated number of robbery offenses decreased 4.0 percent, and the estimated number of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter offenses decreased 0.7 percent when compared with estimates from 2016.Sep 24, 2018
https://www.fbi.gov › press-releases
 
It doesn’t matter what the far left gun confiscation loons think about crime in America.

The Second Amendment remains extant and so does Heller v. DC.
 
Earl said:
“personally I believe it's cowardice, they're afraid and need to hide behind a gun”

No fear, just caution, to prevent loons like you ftom harming my family or any family that wants protection from violent loons.
Click to expand...

I don't hide behind my gun, I stand along side of it. It's there if I need it and it's always loaded unless I'm cleaning it (the Blackhawk is, for one).
 
Hello reagansghost,

reagansghost said:
I don't hear of a lot of people getting robbed at the mall or Walmart, food shopping, car shopping, or at non-redneck bars

and you damn sure don't hear any stories of 'good guys with guns' stopping mass shooters - there have been 283 mass shootings in 2019 already [mass shootings are incidents in which at least four people were shot excluding the shooter]. Is this some kind of a "look at my giant penis" thing, something a wannabe alpha male would do to make his bones? Or, is it simply a lack of confidence in general, afraid they can't take care of themselves in public with a crutch hanging on their belts?

never understood this phenomenon and why only in America people demand to be armed at all times...…...doesn't really matter who you are, lock and load
Click to expand...

They are afraid. They live their lives in fear. They have no faith in their fellow Americans.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I believe that every person has as much of a right to own a firearm as he/she has a right to own a bowling ball or a set of golf clubs. We don't license and register them.

The Second Amendment doesn't specify the right to own nuclear weapons or other military ordinance, however.

Liberals who want to ban the private ownership of firearms are asking too much.
Conservatives who want to own military weapons are also asking too much.
I'm a Liz & Bernie guy, but Beto is right about one thing. Military style weapons already in public circulation should be confiscated. We can discuss
reasonable compensation for their owners.
Click to expand...

But there are no "Military style weapons" in public circulation, except for a very small number (with everything considered) that are taxed and regulated; unless you're referring to how they LOOK.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Poor lame troll. Once again you fail. Don't you ever get tired of being publicly whipped by one of your many, many betters? :laugh:

Now scoot along and go post some more shares from Breitbart....



https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...arms-everywhere-they-go&p=3249021#post3249021
Click to expand...

OH - LOOK, Owl is "just being her typical whiny gossip-girl bitchy cunt hypocritical self"??

By "better", are you referring to your extraordinary number of ex-husbands??

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
reagansghost said:
personally I believe it's cowardice, they're afraid and need to hide behind a gun

sad
Click to expand...

Then who do you expect to protect you?

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Gonzomin said:
The NRA used to be for background checks. That was until they became subservient to gun manufacturers. Now they serve them. The NRA does not even care about what the membership want. They work for companies and delude the membership.
The gun lovers are unable to perceive or understand the changes.
Click to expand...

We no longer have background checks, for firearm purchases??
 
Mr.Badguy said:
So you'd sooner shoot someone than try to prevent them from possessing a weapon in the first place?
Click to expand...

How is passing more laws, going to stop a criminal from possessing a weapon; because the laws don't restrain the criminal and only make it more difficult for law abiding citizens??
 
Gonzomin said:
The world is different for gun lovers. They have to shoot their way to McDonald's and shoot their way back. The world is a gun and crime battleground that is too scary to contemplate entering without packing.
Click to expand...

Then who do you expect to protect you?

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
 
Bleeding heart said:
It wasn't always that way but you are correct.
Click to expand...

I know. The NRA used to be respectable. Those days are long gone.

Incorrect not one mass shooting was committed with a military grade weapon. Every mass shooting that used an AR15 or AK47 could have been done with any semiautomatic hunting rifle because the AR15 and AK47are nothing more that legal hunting rifles made to look like military weapons.
Click to expand...

They could have been done with other types of weapons -- but were not. Why is that, I wonder?
 
Earl said:
It doesn’t matter what the far left gun confiscation loons think about crime in America.

The Second Amendment remains extant and so does Heller v. DC.
Click to expand...

Also

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top