[rjd3282]

Suggesting that things only be based on need is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. I just don't understand why some of you gun owners still don't get "shall not be infringed".

Hell you don't need a 60 inch TV, you don't need air conditioning, you don't need more than one pair of shoes, you don't need a 300 hp car with power windows. We have all these things because we have rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to keep and bear arms. If a man is comfy carrying his 870 12 gauge it's none of my business or anyone else's. If you want to carry a 22 that's your business. You guys should step back and listen to yourselves. According to some of you, people should only be allowed to do what you would do. "I carry a 9 mm so that's all anyone else should need." "Where does Joe get off carrying a bigger gun than me?"

[opaww]

No matter what anyone does the anti-gunners/anti-rights asses will always look for something to cry about. I don't have the time left in this world to play nice with these pricks. No pro-gun owner should play nice to the social-ist anti-gunners any more. We played nice for How Many years and what did it get us? More gun control, and once we started playing dirty we started winning.

[Jim1611]

Isn't part of the reason the Founders saw fit to include gun ownership as a vital part of the country so as to insure we had a defense against tyranny? When Washington and his soldiers attacked the Hessians and defeated then they took their cannons and other things. Now these were just mere colonist, what need di they have for those wicked cannons. No doubt the British would not have wanted them to have them.

The noose is being tightened my friends. It would not bother me in the least bit if we all had access to full auto weapons and grenade launchers. But wait many gun owners feel we need to be controlled and go along with the many laws we have that limit our access to such things. I've also read post on here and other places that poke fun at those that feel we as citizens should stand up against tyranny and that we would all perish. I can only say that's being a coward and I'm glad those dear patriots didn't share many of the mindsets we see today.

[rjd3282]

Originally Posted by opaww

No matter what anyone does the anti-gunners/anti-rights asses will always look for something to cry about. I don't have the time left in this world to play nice with these pricks. No pro-gun owner should play nice to the social-ist anti-gunners any more. We played nice for How Many years and what did it get us? More gun control, and once we started playing dirty we started winning.

Amen!!!!!!

[partdeux]

Originally Posted by Jim1611

The noose is being tightened my friends.

One tiny little knot at a time.

First you can't carry with one in the chamber
Then you can't carry with the magazine loaded
Then you can't carry a pistol
Then you can't carry a rifle.

[vincent]

Year in and year out, news like this comes out of CA...

Year in and year out, the people of CA put the same folks in office...

WHAT THE HELL DID YOU EXPECT CALIFORNIA??????????

[levelcross]

AB1527, which makes it a misdemeanor for a person to carry an unloaded long gun in a public, passed the Assembly 42-28, with Republicans opposed. It includes a long list of exemptions for hunters, military personnel and others.

Read more: http://www.kcra.com/politics/31002867/detail.html#ixzz1tujLhnZ4


It's already illegal to carry a loaded weapon openly in California.

Read more: http://www.kcra.com/politics/31002867/detail.html#ixzz1tujRUVNx

Now just how/who does this Bill help??? If it was open carried it had to be unloaded anyway. Glad I am as far RIGHT of California as I can get.

[rebelcowboy]

Hopefully we can get all 50 a shall issue and quit being a pita about our 2nd amendment and leave us alone

[rebelcowboy]

Originally Posted by rjd3282

Suggesting that things only be based on need is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. I just don't understand why some of you gun owners still don't get "shall not be infringed".

Hell you don't need a 60 inch TV, you don't need air conditioning, you don't need more than one pair of shoes, you don't need a 300 hp car with power windows. We have all these things because we have rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to keep and bear arms. If a man is comfy carrying his 870 12 gauge it's none of my business or anyone else's. If you want to carry a 22 that's your business. You guys should step back and listen to yourselves. According to some of you, people should only be allowed to do what you would do. "I carry a 9 mm so that's all anyone else should need." "Where does Joe get off carrying a bigger gun than me?"

You are so right why aren't we just carrying and fighting back the way it should be and telling the government like it is?

[Millwright]

Originally Posted by TripleTap

Going into Starbucks to order a double frap no whip late grande with a Remington 700 at your side is not the smartest move for gun rights!

OTOH, trudging up to a convenience store/gas station with your rifle after you've become lost/injured, or suffered a breakdown in transport would evoke the same response. Would you leave your high-end varmiter unsecured in your vehicle as you trudged to get gas or help ? >MW