Originally posted by RevRSleeker 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...
sounds like somebody lives somewhere where firearms of any sort are prohibited.
Originally posted by VoidSpirit sounds like somebody lives somewhere where firearms of any sort are prohibited.
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...
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)
Originally posted by Luck 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)
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)
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.
Originally posted by normbenign 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.
Originally posted by Soothfast 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
Lol, it is an excellent post...expertly tongue in cheek 😀
Originally posted by Kunsoo 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.
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.
Originally posted by RevRSleeker 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...
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 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.
Originally posted by normbenign 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.
Absolutely comical...an NRA 'advert', word for word it sounds...
Originally posted by normbenign 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.
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.
Originally posted by normbenign 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.
Yeah, it's impossible that someone could kill a bunch of people with a firearm in Arizona.
Originally posted by Soothfast Maybe he can stow it in his ten-gallon hat.
I carried a six shot Taurus .357 magnum in a pocket holster. It was invisible, deployed quickly and was a stopper, and accurate enough at close range. At longer range, I'd run rather than shoot.
Originally posted by no1marauder Yeah, it's impossible that someone could kill a bunch of people with a firearm in Arizona.
Silly 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.
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.
Neither speech nor religious rights are unlimited.
"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."
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.
gun control in america
26 Jul '11 00:05
Back to Top