MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,454
- Likes
- 17,672
Don't call them progressive "idiots".....they're smart, and know how to warp public opinion.
Use another pejorative.
Use another pejorative.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
There are two flavors of progressive. 9.999/10 of them are idiots who speak of "30 caliber clips" and "the more GBs" and spew whatever "nah, nah, nah, leader!" -Homer Simpson tells them to say at any given moment even if it conflicts with that they said 2 seconds ago.Don't call them progressive "idiots".....they're smart, and know how to warp public opinion.
Use another pejorative.
FREEDOM !!!! Thread fail on everyone who thinks open carry should not happen. if you think open carry should not happen then line up with Bloomberg. it's a choice to open carry or not, if it's legal then go for it. if you are the one saying not don't do it then you are just as bad as the corrupt politicians. America is about freedom of the people and choice. Don't say "oh your only hurting our freedoms" because in the truth of it all your the one who is betraying our freedoms!! Its a right !! Don't forgot it.
A RIGHT !!
Here's the final analysis: Others can do only what I think is right, proper, and/or smart.
Of course, picking the "I" is the tough part.
Is there a specific law that gives law enforcement the right to open carry or is it the same law, or lack of a law, allowing or not restricting the rest of us to open carry in Massachusetts?
There is no statutory prohibition against open carry of a firearm (meaning handgun) in the Mass. General Laws. It just "Isn't done" by most folks.
There is a statutory prohibition against open carry of a long gun unless lawfully engaged in hunting.
There are numerous carve-outs for all of the prohibitions - parades, law enforcement, etc. etc.
Go read Ch. 140, take two bottles of aspirin, and post again in the morning.
If LTC holders in MA start open carrying regularly, there most certainly will end up being a statutory prohibition against open carry. I assume most MA LTC holders do not want their suitability called into question and prefer to continue to carry concealed exclusively rather than having all their firearms confiscated and ultimately stolen by the state for not breaking the law.There is no statutory prohibition against open carry of a firearm (meaning handgun) in the Mass. General Laws. It just "Isn't done" by most folks.
There is a statutory prohibition against open carry of a long gun unless lawfully engaged in hunting.
There are numerous carve-outs for all of the prohibitions - parades, law enforcement, etc. etc.
Go read Ch. 140, take two bottles of aspirin, and post again in the morning.
If LTC holders in MA start open carrying regularly, there most certainly will end up being a statutory prohibition against open carry.
That's a mighty big presumption there.
I'd put him in the 0.001 group, he knows the game so he's trying to get in. I guess it is fair to say that Bloomberg and his sycophants like Shannon watts aren't quite the same, but it's really just an expression of their distance from the circles of power.Cekim - I agree with you about government and human flaws 100%. The ethos I described above is mine. I may try to convince someone not to ever drink and carry using ethical arguments. But i would never advocate a governmental prohibition on it.
re your 99.999% and you .001 percent.
Thats good. But what about statists like Gabriel Gomez (you know he's hispanic, right?, if you didn't, he'll tell you)
The guy is ex-military (you know he was a SEAL right?) He knows a clip from a mag. Would you say he falls into that .001%, or someother group?
People need to step back and realize that big, open naked power grabs are much, much easier to combat at every level and with every tool at our disposal.Either of those things you mentioned will never happen. Buy a powerball ticket instead, your odds are far better. This has nothing to do with suitability, either, and everything to do with wanting to fly below the radar.
-Mike
That's a mighty big presumption there.
Hence the use of the conditional if, thus "presumption" and "presuming" do not apply.Either of those things you mentioned will never happen. Buy a powerball ticket instead, your odds are far better. This has nothing to do with suitability, either, and everything to do with wanting to fly below the radar.
-Mike
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, it's about as "big" as presuming that pigs will start flying out of logan tomorrow.
-Mike
The fact that their existing laws have so effectively "chilled" people from exercise of their rights is the best evidence of their unconstitutional nature I can imagine...
When a "reasonable person" is too afraid to exercise their right, they have violated your rights... Period, end of story.
Jerry Patterson said the following when rebutting Moms Demand . . in their opposition to OC coming to Texas
"There is no reason to restrict liberty in any way if exercising that liberty is not hurtful. Open carry is not hurtful," he said.
Hmm. That sounds pretty libertarian.
I wonder if that sentiment extends to pot, hookers, and homosexual marriage? I'm guessing it doesn't.
And that, my friends, is the difference between a libertarian and a conservative or a liberal.
They are taking liberty and property without due process. You are presumed guilty as all gun ownership in MA is illegal, unless you are granted a revokable exemption from breaking this law (called an LTC) the burden of suitability - according to the SJC - is "on the applicant".Also, notice, that we are talking about a Government taking your property without any due process, in clear violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
They are taking liberty and property without due process. You are presumed guilty as all gun ownership in MA is illegal, unless you are granted a revokable exemption from breaking this law (called an LTC) the burden of suitability - according to the SJC - is "on the applicant".
The harm to your civil rights is not theoretical, or hypothetical, it has already happened to each and every gun owner in this state and any American who has driven through.
It has also happened to 1M people who used to have a license and no longer do...
I am not sure i will be comfortable to do what this man did in the video. I just don't like confrontation.
How is that legal? I always thought an 'agreement' like that would need to be in writing and signed to be enforceable. Is there no law anymore or is it all made up as they go along?One of the arguments made that the roadblocks are constitutional is that by entering the roadblock you are agreeing to the "search", and that you always have the freedom to not enter the checkpoint by turning around. In practice, cops don't like that.
Don
How is that legal? I always thought an 'agreement' like that would need to be in writing and signed to be enforceable. Is there no law anymore or is it all made up as they go along?
The correct response to that guestion is not a yes no answer. Either could be construed as consent. You may not enter my house. If they have probable cause or a warrant they arent going to ask first.Thats not true at all. If an officer says "do you mind if I come in your house" and you say "Yes" you are giving consent. You are WAIVING your 4A and 5A rights.
The argument is that by continuing into the checkpoint, you are consenting to be questioned. Since there is no RAS yet, you can always decline. By turning around.
Don
The correct response to that guestion is not a yes no answer. Either could be construed as consent. You may not enter my house. If they have probable cause or a warrant they arent going to ask first.