the Constitution under assault and they will never stop

Collecting historical memorabilia -- including guns -- is a hobby, you paranoid lib-retard. Firing those guns is also part of that hobby, you feeble, paranoid lib-retard. Hunting is also a hobby, you paranoid cretin. One usually transports weapons in one's vehicle when one goes hunting or to shoot at the range, you paranoid moron.


You accede to the post of one who suggests that confiscation is acceptable, but yet you lyingly and hypocritically claim you don't harbor those same sentiments. Lay in your piss and quake, you miserable, paranoid cretin: your neighbor might have a gun.


Oh, and you think Old-Twerp's rant on post-Colombian settlement in the New World was on point and relevant to the subject at hand, you paranoid, piss-in-your-pants moron?
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You have said you a CHL. A CHL is obtained so that you can legally carry a CONCEALED handgun for your protection. It has absolutely nothing to do with owning, transporting, or firing a handgun, whether antique or not. You can do all those things without a CHL. Idiot. If you are not using your CHL then you have no reason to complain about the cost and time involved obtaining a CHL. My guess is that you also own a handgun similar to a Glock (or whatever -- I know little about handguns) which I doubt anyone would consider an antique.

I re-read Old-T's post and I can't find any "suggestion" of confiscation. Once again you are reading between the lines and coming up with words that aren't there. You should really try just a little bit to comprehend what others write before you jump off the cliff with your idiotic responses.

You have said you a CHL. A CHL is obtained so that you can legally carry a CONCEALED handgun for your protection. It has absolutely nothing to do with owning, transporting, or firing a handgun, whether antique or not. You can do all those things without a CHL. Idiot. If you are not using your CHL then you have no reason to complain about the cost and time involved obtaining a CHL. My guess is that you also own a handgun similar to a Glock (or whatever -- I know little about handguns) which I doubt anyone would consider an antique.

I re-read Old-T's post and I can't find any "suggestion" of confiscation. Once again you are reading between the lines and coming up with words that aren't there. You should really try just a little bit to comprehend what others write before you jump off the cliff with your idiotic responses. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Try again, Speedy. You "guessed" wrong, Speedy: don't own a Glock. CHL facilitates smoothing over any issues that might arise when one is transporting a weapon in a vehicle. I own several "military style rifles" featuring bayonet lugs: five of them are black powder, others include WWI and WWII vintage; one of which was recently ex post facto ruled illegal and would be confiscated in Connecticut. Read Old-Twerp again, Speedy, his notion of "balancing freedoms" is the same as yours: deny others what you don't like. Quake in your sneakers, Speedy, your neighbor *might* have a gun in his home.

Try again, Speedy. You "guessed" wrong, Speedy: don't own a Glock. CHL facilitates smoothing over any issues that might arise when one is transporting a weapon in a vehicle. I own several "military style rifles" featuring bayonet lugs: five of them are black powder, others include WWI and WWII vintage; one of which was recently ex post facto ruled illegal and would be confiscated in Connecticut. Read Old-Twerp again, Speedy, his notion of "balancing freedoms" is the same as yours: deny others what you don't like. Quake in your sneakers, Speedy, your neighbor *might* have a gun in his home. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So the only handguns you own are antique?

Balancing freedoms somehow being convoluted into taking your guns away is a HUGE stretch, even for an idiot like you. Re-read Old-T's examples. Totally correct. And I challenge you to find ANY post I've made that is denying anyone anything, and please don't go through some convoluted logic that somehow gets you from point A to point B -- such as I support gun control law 1 and therefore support another gun control law . The ONLY gun control law that I have supported in this thread is requiring people who want to carry a concealed handgun to obtain a valid CHL. That's it. Nothing else. And since this law currently exists in about 45 of the 50 states, I am not taking a right away from anyone in those states. Let Wyoming and the other few states keep their laws.

No confiscation of guns. No limitations on magazine size. Oh, and I want the right to keep handguns out of my home and I want businesses to have the right to keep handguns off their property. And here again I am not taking anyone's rights away since their rights have already been taken away, at least in this state.

So the only handguns you own are antique?

Balancing freedoms somehow being convoluted into taking your guns away is a HUGE stretch, even for an idiot like you. Re-read Old-T's examples. Totally correct. And I challenge you to find ANY post I've made that is denying anyone anything, and please don't go through some convoluted logic that somehow gets you from point A to point B -- such as I support gun control law 1 and therefore support another gun control law . The ONLY gun control law that I have supported in this thread is requiring people who want to carry a concealed handgun to obtain a valid CHL. That's it. Nothing else. And since this law currently exists in about 45 of the 50 states, I am not taking a right away from anyone in those states. Let Wyoming and the other few states keep their laws.

No confiscation of guns. No limitations on magazine size. Oh, and I want the right to keep handguns out of my home and I want businesses to have the right to keep handguns off their property. And here again I am not taking anyone's rights away since their rights have already been taken away, at least in this state. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You're quite disingenuous, Speedy, because it's obvious you're perfectly content to see Connecticut, etc., proceed as they have and that's why you voiced your objection to Wyoming's AG becoming involved in the suit.

You're quite disingenuous, Speedy, because it's obvious you're perfectly content to see Connecticut, etc., proceed as they have and that's why you voiced your objection to Wyoming's AG becoming involved in the suit. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You just continually prove your stupidity. Don't you ever get tired of it? You simply love to put words in other people's mouths. I have never uttered a word about Connecticut. It's your convoluted logic that gets you to make statements like that. Yes, I disagree with the actions of the Wyoming AG and others who are proceeding with the legal action. Their goal is to do away with the CHL requirement in EVERY state, an action with which I disagree. That is it. Nothing else.

Now, please add on to your string of completely idiotic posts. I'm sure that somehow you'll make that statement I just made into one in which I want to take your guns away, support police coming into your home, want no one to have the right to carry concealed handguns, etc.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I have read the 2nd Amendment 100s, if not 1000s, of times, and I still don't know what it says or does not say. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I believe you when you say that!

I believe you when you say that! Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

And it is why our court system gets inundated with so many cases involving 2nd Amendment rights.

No guns for retards. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Well maybe they'll allow you to have a sling shot then. Just be careful with it.


Jim

You just continually prove your stupidity. Don't you ever get tired of it? You simply love to put words in other people's mouths. I have never uttered a word about Connecticut. It's your convoluted logic that gets you to make statements like that. Yes, I disagree with the actions of the Wyoming AG and others who are proceeding with the legal action. Their goal is to do away with the CHL requirement in EVERY state, an action with which I disagree. That is it. Nothing else.

Now, please add on to your string of completely idiotic posts. I'm sure that somehow you'll make that statement I just made into one in which I want to take your guns away, support police coming into your home, want no one to have the right to carry concealed handguns, etc.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

There's nothing "stupid" about defending rights guaranteed by the Constitution, Speedy. You're enormously stupid for believing so. Your claims are completely disingenuous since you continue to vote for and support those who mean to abridge the Second Amendment rights of every American citizen. Your actions speak much louder than your words.

Little boys with shitty drawers should not be allowed to carry firearms. IBSandyHook is a perfect example of why there should be background checks before issuing any type of CHL or selling a dimwitted psycho a firearm of any kind. I don't give a shit how many Civil War re-enactment shows he does a year.

Squeak, squeak, squeak, little fuck doll. You should just pray that nobody finds out.

There's nothing "stupid" about defending rights guaranteed by the Constitution, Speedy. You're enormously stupid for believing so. Your claims are completely disingenuous since you continue to vote for and support those who mean to abridge the Second Amendment rights of every American citizen. Your actions speak much louder than your words. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Well, I challenged you to come up with another idiotic post and you most certainly did so.

The problem is, which you are obviously too dense to understand, the 2nd Amendment rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution are mostly unstated. Thus the need for court cases to decide all the unwritten "rights". Own a handgun for your home? That wasn't totally decided until District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Can you LEGALLY carry a concealed handgun outside the home WITHOUT a CHL? I don't give a crap how YOU interpret the 2nd Amendment, it is obvious that about 45 of the 50 states disagree with you.

Please answer one of my questions for a change instead of ranting on and on about irrelevant subjects. You have continually made reference to non-comments I've made on Connecticut. What do you mean by this statement? I've proven you 100% wrong on just about every accusation you've made of me thus far. I'll be you'll be unable to do so.

BTW, you never responded to one of my questions -- are the only handguns you have in your home simply antique handguns?

From IB AN IDIOT:

"Your claims are completely disingenuous since you continue to vote for and support those who mean to abridge the Second Amendment rights of every American citizen. Your actions speak much louder than your words."

Who have I voted for or supported? What rights other than a CHL requirement have I tried to abridge. Which is a right that is already abridged in most states.

Well, I challenged you to come up with another idiotic post and you most certainly did so.

The problem is, which you are obviously too dense to understand, the 2nd Amendment rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution are mostly unstated. Thus the need for court cases to decide all the unwritten "rights". Own a handgun for your home? That wasn't totally decided until District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Can you LEGALLY carry a concealed handgun outside the home WITHOUT a CHL? I don't give a crap how YOU interpret the 2nd Amendment, it is obvious that about 45 of the 50 states disagree with you.

Please answer one of my questions for a change instead of ranting on and on about irrelevant subjects. You have continually made reference to non-comments I've made on Connecticut. What do you mean by this statement? I've proven you 100% wrong on just about every accusation you've made of me thus far. I'll be you'll be unable to do so.

BTW, you never responded to one of my questions -- are the only handguns you have in your home simply antique handguns?

From IB AN IDIOT:

"Your claims are completely disingenuous since you continue to vote for and support those who mean to abridge the Second Amendment rights of every American citizen. Your actions speak much louder than your words."

Who have I voted for or supported? What rights other than a CHL requirement have I tried to abridge. Which is a right that is already abridged in most states. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Every time you voted for a dim-retard in a national election -- e.g., Odumbo -- you've supported the anti-gun lobby, Speedy. Furthermore, weapons from WWI and WWII era are not necessarily considered "antiques" but that doesn't mean they're not "historic memorabilia", Speedy. BTW, you fucking lib-retarded moron, your stats are as bogus as your retarded stance. At least eighteen states allow for open carry -- no CHL required, Speedy. Over thirty states have are "shall issue" states; so, quake in your sneakers, Speedy.

Every time you voted for a dim-retard in a national election -- e.g., Odumbo -- you've supported the anti-gun lobby, Speedy. Furthermore, weapons from WWI and WWII era are not necessarily considered "antiques" but that doesn't mean they're not "historic memorabilia", Speedy. BTW, you fucking lib-retarded moron, your stats are as bogus as your retarded stance. At least eighteen states allow for open carry -- no CHL required, Speedy. Over thirty states have are "shall issue" states; so, quake in your sneakers, Speedy.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You just continue to show your stupidity.

First, the reasons I voted for Obama for president had absolutely nothing to do with his position on gun rights. It had everything to do with the economic condition of the country at the time of the election and the fact that the Republicans, for whom I had voted for throughout my long life, had put up McCain and Palin both of whom I did not like, to put it mildly.

Second, "Open carry" and "Concealed carry" are 2 totally different rights. It's amazing how stupid you are. I have been talking TOTALLY about "concealed carry". Exactly 5 states are unrestricted, requiring no CHL. Every other of the 45 states REQUIRES a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun. As shown below, a "shall issue" state has requirements in order to obtain a CHL, Texas is a "shall issue" state but an applicant must, at a minimum, attend a class, show competency in firing the weapon, and pass a written test in order to obtain a CHL. So MY stats are absolutely correct. Not to worry. The odds are that EVENTUALLY you will be right on some issue.

A Shall-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a license to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such licenses is subject only to meeting determinate criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the licenses, and there is no requirement of the applicant to demonstrate "good cause". The laws in a Shall-Issue jurisdiction typically state that a granting authority shall issue a license if the criteria are met, as opposed to laws in which the authority may issue a license at their discretion.


Typical license requirements include residency, minimum age, submitting fingerprints, passing a computerized instant background check (or a more comprehensive manual background check), attending a certified handgun/firearm safety class, passing a practical qualification demonstrating handgun proficiency, and paying a required fee. These requirements vary widely by jurisdiction, with some having few or none of these and others having most or all.


Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceal...es#Shall-Issue

By the way, you STILL haven't answered my very simple question:

Are the only handguns you have in your home simply antique handguns? I'm not asking whether or not the guns are "historic memorabilia". Simply asking if you have a gun in your home for self defense and whether you have a concealed handgun you carry on your person when outside your home. You keep saying you only have weapons from WWI and WWII, but have not answered my question.

this is the kind of thread where Corpy the Golgathan is ALL IN!

Meltdown continues.

Every time you voted for a dim-retard in a national election -- e.g., Odumbo -- you've supported the anti-gun lobby, Speedy.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

By the way, using your fractured logic, when I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, Bob Dole in 1996, Bush in 1988 and 1992, Reagan in 1980 and 1984, Ford in 1976, and so on, and voted for all Republican candidates for U.S. Senator, U.S. House, and state governor, then I must have done so because I supported the pro-gun lobby.

Idiot.