Lose LTC Quickly...update post 112

[jasons]

What's more awesome is we now know TReischl roams around like his own little no knock SWAT team tresspassing on people's property and fully expects, like the SWAT team, that he has the law protecting him and thus no harm shall come and he can prosecute those evil land owners at will.

Totally worth the thread drift to find that one out

I would really like to see his results from one of those "which way do you lean politically" tests. (Like http://www.isidewith.com) for example.

 

[HTRN]

I would really like to see his results from one of those "which way do you lean politically" tests. (Like http://www.isidewith.com) for example.

Is dolly one of the possible answers?

 

[StevieP]

Let's see... This thread has just about everything. , , , , , , , , and probably a few more that there aren't emoticons for...

I haven't read every post in this thread so I don't know who I'm agreeing or disagreeing with... I'm for personal responsibility. If your stated purpose is to go out drinking "to get drunk" then leave the gun at home or in a car safe. NOTHING good comes from going out (or even staying in...) and drinking TO GET DRUNK. Nothing good happens after 2am either, but that's a separate argument.

If you're going out to have dinner with your wife and split a bottle of wine or enjoy a couple cocktails with friends, and know you can be trusted to act as an adult, then by all means carry on. Concealed means concealed.

HOWEVER - If your public drunkenness (whether driving or not) becomes a problem I have no major issue with the police calling your "suitability" into question. I don't know that it means you deserve a lifetime suspension of your 2A rights, but maybe a timeout could be in order (whatever that means...). I know it does NOT mean your guns should be impounded or anything along those lines.

What I absolutely DO NOT want, is to lose the ability to carry into a bar in the first place. We as gun-owners should be "self-policing" in this regard. If enough idiots keep blowing .18 while driving, carrying a gun, after leaving a bar, I have no doubt that the libtards of this state will propose just such a limitation. So, drunken idiots of the Commonwealth, please consider the rest of us, before "carrying wherever and whenever I want, no matter much alcohol I've consumed." IOW don't blow it for the rest of us. If you won't do it for the children, then maybe you can be responsible for us, and don't give all gun owners a bad name.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Dorchester exists, so we can't have people being free. Got it.

Nothing kills liberty like population density. People bump into one another, live on top of and under others, smell their cooking, hear their noise, and feel the bass in their music. And then we get the rules. People don't know each other, so they don't help each other. Government steps in there too. And finally you get generations of culturally inbred idiots who think that this cesspool of collectivism and servitude is the natural human condition. They point to that morass of fellow fools and say, "hey, just look there, we need rules or it could get even worse". Yes, it probably could. And you can blame generations of collectivism, dependence and entitlement for that outcome. But most won't. Instead, they blame everyone who won't trade even more liberty for less and less.

Indeed. Part of the reason most population centers vote Democrat.

 

[TReischl]

What is worth the thread drift is to see how stupid these discussions become.

When I was a boy (those many years ago), I started hunting with my Dad. One of the things he taught me was "Don't just shoot into the air, it is stupid, you never know where that bullet is going to come down." Seemed simple enough to me, I was about 10 years old. It even made sense. Back then, in rural Wisconsin, we didn't have any laws about not shooting into the air, it was just common sense. What the hell would you shoot a rifle into the air for? What was the point in that? It was dumb then, and it is dumb now.

But I watch this forum and see people argue about how it is their RIGHT to shoot a rifle or handgun into the air. They argue like it is something that is really important to them. Apparently, they are either stupid (which I doubt, since they can type and articulate fairly well), or they are not really arguing about shooting in the air, but rather they are arguing about the fact that they do not like having a LAW that tells them they cannot do something. I would bet that almost all of them would never fire a rifle into the air for the hell of it, it is just the idea of another law that grinds their gonads to paste. If that is the case, I would offer this for consideration:

Not everyone is as smart as all of us, nor is everyone as responsible as we are. The fact is, some people are just plain stupid. They can be TOLD that shooting into the air is stupid, but they will do it anyway. They can be told to make sure of what is behind their target, but they won't. They can be told to not point a weapon at anything they do not want to kill, but they will do it anyway. Where does that leave the rest of us when they screw up? Without a law in place, everything that the stupid do, is nothing more than an "accident", they didn't know any better. I know, that goes contrary to what quite a few on this forum believe in, but that is also reality.

When it comes down to a law about not shooting into the air, I could care less. There is nothing in the sky that I want to shoot a rifle or handgun at. It is a moot law as far as I am concerned. If someone had an actual reason to be shooting into the air with a rifle, then I would change my mind.

Does anyone have anything other than "Just because I want to" as a reason to shoot a rifle or pistol into the air?

 

[Admin]

Good god.