All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 9 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Regardless of how you defined society, enforced politeness without it coming from within is slavery.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In most of those countries it is only a portion of the population that is armed (gangs and the powerful). Thus, they use them to oppress those not armed. There would be a big difference if all were armed and ammo were available to all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IndianaGary 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Those are not "society"; not when only the thugs are armed. In the 3rd world only the thugs have guns. We have a Constitution (if we only used it) and a 2nd Amendment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Depends....plenty of armed, 3rd world countries we would not define as "polite."

    You need something that guides the armed citizens which dictates politeness from within. Politeness by force is slavery.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I quit Starbucks because of their politics and then their policy re: CCW just made it ironclad.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 5 months ago
    how about calling them "do-badders" instead?
    if I were king, people would be encouraged to
    become trained and carry everywhere!!! -- j

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 5 months ago
    They just never stop. MADD has spawned much more socialism and evil than any other group in the recent past. If you can't pass a law that bypasses natural rights--shame them with the Moms. How absurd.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 9 years, 5 months ago
    Women like this mouthpiece for a liberal bunch give women a bad name.They overreact, do not study the issues and they jump at events as excuses. Columbine was a tragedy waiting to happen, and it was NOT guns, rather psychotropic drugs and values clarification in school. The curriculum was never studied after the incident, but we studied it a year before and said it was a disaster in the majking.
    Sandy Hook? No there is an incident with some conflicts in truth. The so-called weapon was taken from the trunk of the car - AFTER the shooting. The government was conducting tests just down the road that same day. One publicized dead girl was in a photo op with Obama a few days AFTER the shooting. Some of the so-called parents who went on camera were members of the actors union.
    These women better start doing some research instead of freaking at the word gun. They should be more concerned how their kids are being brainwahsed in school and overmedicated on psychiatric drugs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I once bought an AR-15 at a Birmingham Civic Center gun show. I handed cash across a table and the man and the man behind it handed me the weapon. No receipt.
    I was carrying it in full sight to my car. So were other folks carrying semiautomatic weapons.
    A beggar actually asked for money, saying he had missed lunch at the local homeless shelter.
    I was afraid he wanted to snatch my rifle and run. He was bigger and looked faster.
    I declined and kept my distance.. Saw a security guard and reported the beggar.
    The security guard ran after the beggar. Buh-bye, beggar. That's a story I like to tell..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 5 months ago
    Hurray for Kroger!
    Looks as if they have a set. Let's hope that castration is not in their future.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, I wasn't looking to get into that discussion in this thread, but go ahead. No, all those other "protected classes" shouldn't be protected, as far as I'm concerned. If they don't like being discriminated against, then they can go open their own business and serve that constituency.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by iraeise 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you've submitted a NICS check when buying the firearm, you're "registered as owning a firearm". The federal government knows who you are and what firearm you have (type, caliber, and serial number).
    If you have gotten the firearm without a NICS check, then your point is worth considering. Then you have to go for the concealed carry, but then of course, you had to apply for that permit, so you're "on record" either way.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Kind of interesting, isn't it - a "private" business cannot refuse entry or service to gays, transvestites, muslims, aliens (from outer space or outside the borders), but may and is often encouraged to refuse it to a person legally exercising their constitutional right. Welcome to the New Amerika!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Don't think that would help FFA, that implies logic and rationality and she has already OD'd on emotionalism and megalomania
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 5 months ago
    Funny thing I did NOT see in that article.

    Bearing arms is a constitutionally guaranteed right

    Something that cannot be said about the feelings of "mothers"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A very valid concern. Becomes a toss up of protecting your self (as much as feasible) from the Big Brother later or from the little bro's now. Plan A for now, plan B on the shelf.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's a matter of rights. As a citizen, you have a right to carry in public places. As a private business (and citizen as well), you also have a right to identify what is allowable in your private business (except for things that have been distinctly protected - now we could have a discussion on whether those should be allowed or not, in most cases they should not but that's a different discussion). Likewise, you have the right to tell people visiting your home that you don't want them to carry a firearm into your home, but you have no right to tell them they cannot have a firearm on them or in their vehicle parked on the public street in front of their home. Balancing the rights of all individuals is a challenging thing to do.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't know about most states, but I know in my state, Wisconsin, if you open carry, there is no permit, training, or distinct background check required to do so. That said, if you do, particularly in the lib enclaves of Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, etc. you are likely to be stopped by a police officer and requested to provide identification. They will say that this is to ensure that you are not a convicted felon, and therefore permitted to open carry. What this also does, is put your name in a database as a known firearm owner.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JanelleFila 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So then what's the point of making it legal? If every private business can make it illegal, why not just make it illegal? If there is enough public support to make it legal then I think that should be the consensus and those in opposition should leave the businesses alone and deal directly with the government (good luck) :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why boycott them? Those private companies made their decisions based on their own criteria. I support trying to influence them to change that decision, but it is theirs to make. I prefer to boycott those who make decisions that I support.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo