Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If a man walks into a restaurant carrying an AR-15 the other patrons (families with young children included) must immediately assess the situation. To a rational person, especially a parent, a man in open possession of a firearm in a densely populated urban setting with no apparent or obvious need for a weapon (e.g. is not an officer of the law) represents a danger.?
Answer this question first:
How the fuck do you prevent people like
James Holmes
from entering a business establishment , where people come to be entertained, from mass murdering?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
.
Packing the court is not the same as doing away with it. Learn history.Federal Courts were destroyed primarily in 1935 when one scumbag known as FDR threatened to abolish SCOTUS. The "justices" succumbed and have approved every welfare/warfare state measure since then.
If a man walks into a restaurant carrying an AR-15 the other patrons (families with young children included) must immediately assess the situation. To a rational person, especially a parent, a man in open possession of a firearm in a densely populated urban setting with no apparent or obvious need for a weapon (e.g. is not an officer of the law) represents a danger.?
Answer this question first:
How the fuck do you prevent people like
James Holmes
from entering a business establishment , where people come to be entertained, from mass murdering?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
.
That is an important element of my submission, isn't it?
How about those of us who are over weight COLORED PEOPLE?
Was he denying the "authority" of the Federal Court or objecting to the fact that we no longer have Article III federal courts?!?!?!?!?
.
Mea Culpa, there was one black guy in the OP video. Much like the big tent of the Republican Party let's pretend the open carry club is diverse.
You need to clarify your comment, what do you mean by "we no longer have Article III Federal Courts"? There are trial courts, appelate courts and the Supreme Court, see:
Structure of Federal Courts
Federal Courts were destroyed primarily in 1935 when one scumbag known as FDR threatened to abolish SCOTUS. The "justices" succumbed and have approved every welfare/warfare state measure since then.
Nowadays their job is to pretend that we have judicial review, collect steady paychecks and enjoy theirr federal blue cross blue shield.
Back in 1935 they concealed , suppressed , censored Justice James Clark McReynolds's dissenting opinion opposing the encroaching power of the welfare/warfare state. Once that happens you no longer have a judiciary.
.
Just so I understand, you state here that the danger of aacidental discharge, which we know is extraordinarily small, is greater than that of a mass shooter - right?If a man walks into a restaurant carrying an AR-15 the other patrons (families with young children included) must immediately assess the situation. To a rational person, especially a parent, a man in open possession of a firearm in a densely populated urban setting with no apparent or obvious need for a weapon (e.g. is not an officer of the law) represents a danger. The scope of danger to be assessed ranges from accidental discharge to (more unlikely but still in play) the most extreme possibility that he is a James Eagan Holmes type psychopath intent on murderous mayhem.
If that's the case, then immediately puckering your sphincter and rushing to the door is, at best an over-reaction to an irrational fear.
See above.Some of you are saying that the immediate conclusion that there is danger inherent in this situation is irrational. We (and the simplest logic tree) are saying that some unknown level of danger is involved a priori.
There is a exceedingly tiny danger from accidental discharge, and a smaller danger, as you say, of a shooter. Thus, irrational.
Wait... people should be denied their 2A rights because of an irrational fear of a few? Funny, but no - that's not how things work here.We're saying that it is not fair that the public has to contend with this individuals risks without exigent cause. We're saying a show demonstrating 2ndA rights is not exigent cause.
What gets me here is the fact certain people are terrorized when know someone legally has a gun while they are comfortable - at least to the point that they do not break out in mass hysteria --when they do NOT when people legally have guns.
The difference? Irrational fear - they are so wrapped up in their own mal-imaginations as to the inherent evil of certain guns that they cannot control themselves.
If a business owner allows idiots to enter their place of business with AR-15's slung over their shoulders, I am not going to enter that business, or I will leave it immediately. I don't care if the law allows it or not. I do not even want to be under the same roof as people like that. I will do business with his competitor who has a sign on his front door reading, "No firearms allowed".
This is the beauty of freedom. You can do whatever you want and not enter whatever establishment you wish (I would also recommend not entering biker bars - 1%ters are vicious these days, I hear).
Though, from what I understand, there are plenty of states in the US (unlike Texas) where trying to own a gun is a legal nightmare and being openly seen with a pistol, much less a rifle, in public will be severely punished by law. So, you should just stick to those states and this kind of issue will never come up for you
Wait... people should be denied their 2A rights because of an irrational fear of a few? Funny, but no - that's not how things work here.
Just so I understand, you state here that the danger of aacidental discharge, which we know is extraordinarily small, is greater than that of a mass shooter - right?If a man walks into a restaurant carrying an AR-15 the other patrons (families with young children included) must immediately assess the situation. To a rational person, especially a parent, a man in open possession of a firearm in a densely populated urban setting with no apparent or obvious need for a weapon (e.g. is not an officer of the law) represents a danger. The scope of danger to be assessed ranges from accidental discharge to (more unlikely but still in play) the most extreme possibility that he is a James Eagan Holmes type psychopath intent on murderous mayhem.
If that's the case, then immediately puckering your sphincter and rushing to the door is, at best an over-reaction to an irrational fear.
See above.Some of you are saying that the immediate conclusion that there is danger inherent in this situation is irrational. We (and the simplest logic tree) are saying that some unknown level of danger is involved a priori.
There is a exceedingly tiny danger from accidental discharge, and a smaller danger, as you say, of a shooter. Thus, irrational.
Wait... people should be denied their 2A rights because of an irrational fear of a few? Funny, but no - that's not how things work here.We're saying that it is not fair that the public has to contend with this individuals risks without exigent cause. We're saying a show demonstrating 2ndA rights is not exigent cause.
What gets me here is the fact certain people are terrorized when know someone legally has a gun while they are comfortable - at least to the point that they do not break out in mass hysteria --when they do NOT when people legally have guns.
The difference? Irrational fear - they are so wrapped up in their own mal-imaginations as to the inherent evil of certain guns that they cannot control themselves.
Afraid, this one is - in him, irrational fear is strong.If a business owner allows idiots to enter their place of business with AR-15's slung over their shoulders, I am not going to enter that business, or I will leave it immediately. I don't care if the law allows it or not. I do not even want to be under the same roof as people like that. I will do business with his competitor who has a sign on his front door reading, "No firearms allowed".
Mea Culpa, there was one black guy in the OP video. Much like the big tent of the Republican Party let's pretend the open carry club is diverse.
You need to clarify your comment, what do you mean by "we no longer have Article III Federal Courts"? There are trial courts, appelate courts and the Supreme Court, see:
Structure of Federal Courts
Federal Courts were destroyed primarily in 1935 when one scumbag known as FDR threatened to abolish SCOTUS. The "justices" succumbed and have approved every welfare/warfare state measure since then.
Nowadays their job is to pretend that we have judicial review, collect steady paychecks and enjoy theirr federal blue cross blue shield.
Back in 1935 they concealed , suppressed , censored Justice James Clark McReynolds's dissenting opinion opposing the encroaching power of the welfare/warfare state. Once that happens you no longer have a judiciary.
.
You've been reading posts by PC? We have a Federal Court System! That is a fact; your spin is ridiculous, though I suppose you've only parroted one of the conservative lunatics on AM Radio.
If a business owner allows idiots to enter their place of business with AR-15's slung over their shoulders, I am not going to enter that business, or I will leave it immediately. I don't care if the law allows it or not. I do not even want to be under the same roof as people like that. I will do business with his competitor who has a sign on his front door reading, "No firearms allowed".
This is the beauty of freedom. You can do whatever you want and not enter whatever establishment you wish (I would also recommend not entering biker bars - 1%ters are vicious these days, I hear).
Though, from what I understand, there are plenty of states in the US (unlike Texas) where trying to own a gun is a legal nightmare and being openly seen with a pistol, much less a rifle, in public will be severely punished by law. So, you should just stick to those states and this kind of issue will never come up for you
Not a problem for me, Vor. I live near Tombstone, AZ. You can carry conceal, or openly in public without a license. Just the same, there is virtually no business in Tombstone that does not have a "No Firearms Allowed" sign on the door. Arizona is not Texas, thank God.
I love local laws.
Answer this question first:
How the fuck do you prevent people like
James Holmes
from entering a business establishment , where people come to be entertained, from mass murdering?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
.
That is an important element of my submission, isn't it?
Yes, indeed. That is the crux of the matter.
You dildos enact gun free zones knowing full well that the James Holmes types are going to ignore your mandates.
.
I'm sorry... your rants really arent all that entertaining anymore.You accuse everyone else of being meaningless and irrelevant while you're sitting in a Chili's with an assault rifle.
That is an important element of my submission, isn't it?
Yes, indeed. That is the crux of the matter.
You dildos enact gun free zones knowing full well that the James Holmes types are going to ignore your mandates.
.
To my post.
1: Heller was affirmed in McDonald, which went further to state that the 2nd protected a fundamental right of the people.Heller is no more settled law than was Dred Scott...The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Once again, a well regulated militia is one organized, armed and disciplined by The Congress;
Thus, your starement is imeaningless, and irrelevant as a response to my post.
But then, you knew that when you posted it.
Why you chose to be meaningless and irrelevant is beyond me, but you apparently enjoy it.
If that's the case, you don't know what "dictum" means.... and many of us today believe the Heller decision (5-4) was Dictum too.
Rant rant rant...If there aren't any laws, then job creators are free to make as much money as they possibly can. More rich job creators means more jobs. That's how trickle down economics works.
Rich people have been doing great without a court system. What are you upset about?
True. He can post a sign and I cannot enter legally.Just so I understand, you state here that the danger of aacidental discharge, which we know is extraordinarily small, is greater than that of a mass shooter - right?If a man walks into a restaurant carrying an AR-15 the other patrons (families with young children included) must immediately assess the situation. To a rational person, especially a parent, a man in open possession of a firearm in a densely populated urban setting with no apparent or obvious need for a weapon (e.g. is not an officer of the law) represents a danger. The scope of danger to be assessed ranges from accidental discharge to (more unlikely but still in play) the most extreme possibility that he is a James Eagan Holmes type psychopath intent on murderous mayhem.
If that's the case, then immediately puckering your sphincter and rushing to the door is, at best an over-reaction to an irrational fear.
See above.
There is a exceedingly tiny danger from accidental discharge, and a smaller danger, as you say, of a shooter. Thus, irrational.
Wait... people should be denied their 2A rights because of an irrational fear of a few? Funny, but no - that's not how things work here.We're saying that it is not fair that the public has to contend with this individuals risks without exigent cause. We're saying a show demonstrating 2ndA rights is not exigent cause.
What gets me here is the fact certain people are terrorized when know someone legally has a gun while they are comfortable - at least to the point that they do not break out in mass hysteria --when they do NOT when people legally have guns.
The difference? Irrational fear - they are so wrapped up in their own mal-imaginations as to the inherent evil of certain guns that they cannot control themselves.
You have absolutely no Constitutional right to carry your rifle into another man's private business.
Federal Courts were destroyed primarily in 1935 when one scumbag known as FDR threatened to abolish SCOTUS. The "justices" succumbed and have approved every welfare/warfare state measure since then.
Nowadays their job is to pretend that we have judicial review, collect steady paychecks and enjoy theirr federal blue cross blue shield.
Back in 1935 they concealed , suppressed , censored Justice James Clark McReynolds's dissenting opinion opposing the encroaching power of the welfare/warfare state. Once that happens you no longer have a judiciary.
.
You've been reading posts by PC? We have a Federal Court System! That is a fact; your spin is ridiculous, though I suppose you've only parroted one of the conservative lunatics on AM Radio.
Dream on.
I guess that supports your inertia if you can't handle, or refused to acknowledge, the truth.
