Do you think Colonel Peters is correct?

Your response shows a serious problem with this whole argument, what does the term "gun control" mean. It has a different meaning for every person. You zig into the ridiculous to sell your argument. Should children have the right to carry a gun "strapped on their side". Really? Is that your best? Tell me what a child is? Sound easy but think about it. You're including everyone from a toddler to, according to Obamacare, someone who is 26 years old. Want to qualify that a bit? If not, I'll do it for you. Number one, anyone who is of an age to join the military should have the rights of an adult so that gets us to 17 years old. How about a "child" who is the sole protector of a household. We have had cases where a 13 year old has used a weapon to protect family members in their home. Maybe even younger. We're talking law though and not a case by case. First caveat, anyone who takes up the responsibility of carrying a weapon (concealed or otherwise) must also take up the responsibility of it's use as an adult. If you can't control your weapon then you're better off not having it around. So we can't decide on a lawful age unless we change the laws on what is adult behavior.

You know what? I don't care about your home. If I choose to carry a concealed weapon into your home and you don't know about it. Then no one is harmed. If, like an old west saloon, they require you to check your weapon before you enter then that is okay. Private property rights and all. Then you swerve into public venues which is a different matter. Number one, it becames difficult to check everyone completely to see if they have a weapon. Two, what constitutes a weapon. You can take away everyone's gun or knife but a bottle is a weapon. An umbrella is a weapon. Some people even have hands that are considered weapons. Should we shackle the hands of every MMA fighter when he, or she, goes out. They are certainly more dangerous than me.

I know you don't want to get into a discussion about what weapon does what because you will have your ass handed to you again. Refer to answer one for the answer to question three. Also, go back and review my original answer. The truth is there. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The definition of gun control to me is fairly simple. Here is Merriam dictionary of what it means and a definition which I can accept.

gun control

noun : laws that control how guns are sold and used and who can own them




My God, you're making this so much more difficult than it is. In reality I don't care about the decisions that are made inside a person's home. That is up to the individuals in the home. Those decisions do not affect others. Once someone leaves their home, their decisions may affect me. What is a child? We have driving laws, drinking laws, smoking laws, CHL laws and many other laws that define what a "child" is. It is not that difficult a concept to apply to the carrying of guns outside the home. In Texas, the age to carry a handgun in public is 21.

Regarding homes or other establishments -- you are correct. The people who ban handguns from their establishments have little way, other than installing metal detectors, of ensuring that people entering their establishments are not carrying handguns. Most people are law-abiding citizens and even if they disagree with the law will honor it. If not, they can be arrested. As I've said in other threads, handguns are VERY different than other weapons such as knives. With a handgun I don't have to be close to another person in order to kill them. I can also kill many people in seconds with a handgun, which I probably can't do with a knife or umbrella.

BTW. the next time you hand my ass to me will be the first. I have proven you wrong countless times and you have yet to prove me wrong on anything. Disagree with my opinions, yes. Prove me wrong, no. As a reminder, the most recent time I remember proving you wrong was when you said a sign cannot legally prohibit someone from entering an establishment with a handgun.

My God, you're making this so much more difficult than it is. In reality I don't care about the decisions that are made inside a person's home. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

If I could buy a firearm "inside my home" it would be "simple." A problem is that under the pretense of "GUN CONTROL" there are those who want to control what happens "inside my home" ... from two directions ... recently ....

.. alleging that "gun violence" is a disease under CDC regulation and

.. encouraging children to bring their parents' firearms to school.

The SCOTUS says "society" cannot regulate butt fucking in private residences, but those same liberal asshole lovers want to tell me having a gun is an "illness"???????????????

It's real simple actually: You get to butt fuck whomever and whenever you wish in the privacy of your home, and I get to keep whatever firearm I wish in the privacy of my home.

Did you read any of the articles I cited, including the Supreme Court decisions on the subject? YOU ARE WRONG -- as determined by the rulings of SCOTUS. My statements are NOT assumptions. Your statements are how you believe things should be in your mind. Simply NOT true in the real world. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So you accept all rulings of the SCOTUS ?
My statements are not derived from my mind. THEY ARE DERIVED from the 2nd Amendment. Your willingness to accept others spin on a self evident freedom is foolish.
I do not put my liberties in the hands of anyone. Freedom is not decided by a panel of robed figures. It is the irrevokable gift of the creator to mankind.
Yes you make assumptions or accept the assumptions of other men. Yes I read your beloved articles. They mean nothing to free men. If you will allow your guaranteed liberties to be decided by another it is your choice.
If the founding fathers accepted your brand of freedom, then this country would never have achieve independence from Great Britain.
Can you imagine Patrick Henry claiming "Give me the will of King George, or give me death" ! Doesn't quite ring the same does it ?

This is how you and others re-invent the 2nd Amendment :

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon as long as it is a weapon of the late 1700s era. Also this freedom rest on the assumption that federal, state,municipal governments and SpeedRacerXXX hold sway over who,how,what and when this particular freedom is permitted."

Did you read any of the articles I cited, including the Supreme Court decisions on the subject? YOU ARE WRONG -- as determined by the rulings of SCOTUS. My statements are NOT assumptions. Your statements are how you believe things should be in your mind. Simply NOT true in the real world. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Here's the "real world" ... This country has at least two more years of the current administration trying to disarm America on two fronts: LE and civilians, while systematically FREEING known killers and facilitators of killers to go back to their killing fields ... ALL THE WHILE KNOWING that there are people coming into this country through the borders HE REFUSES TO REGULATE who wish to do harm to the citizens of this country.

I can hear the echo in the drafting room where the 2nd amendment was crafted:

"FUCK THAT SHIT."

I can't think of a greater "call to arms" that a citizen's inalienable right to defend his family and property from those who wish to do harm to either whether the threat is domestic or foreign, when the GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO DO SO! I have the inalienable right in the exact wording of the 2nd amendment to arm myself with whatever "arm" is effective in successfully meeting the force threat to neutralize the threat ... not equal force, but superior force to stop anyone initiating and/or threatening my family and/or property. NOTHING in the 2nd amendment restricts the type of "arm" ... and there is nothing that implies that any "arms" I have in my possession must be inferior to those possessed by the GOVERNMENT .. and in fact the history behind the 2nd amendment and its purpose suggests otherwise as well.

In Mexico ( other countries) there is (or was) "freedom of the press" in their constitution, which was applied to newspapers. The only "problem' was the newspaper had to buy the printing paper from the government. That is NOT "freedom of the press"! Having the GOVERNMENT approve what type of firearm I can buy and possess amounts to the same thing. See how Mexico has turned out with its "gun control" laws. Who gets the guns?

It's real simple actually: You get to butt fuck whomever and whenever you wish in the privacy of your home, and I get to keep whatever firearm I wish in the privacy of my home. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I certainly agree with the first part and will let the feds, states and cities determine what firearms you are legally allowed to have in the privacy of your home. Doesn't really matter to me.

Here's the "real world" ... This country has at least two more years of the current administration trying to disarm America on two fronts: LE and civilians, while systematically FREEING known killers and facilitators of killers to go back to their killing fields ... ALL THE WHILE KNOWING that there are people coming into this country through the borders HE REFUSES TO REGULATE who wish to do harm to the citizens of this country.

I can hear the echo in the drafting room where the 2nd amendment was crafted:

"FUCK THAT SHIT."

I can't think of a greater "call to arms" that a citizen's inalienable right to defend his family and property from those who wish to do harm to either whether the threat is domestic or foreign, when the GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO DO SO! I have the inalienable right in the exact wording of the 2nd amendment to arm myself with whatever "arm" is effective in successfully meeting the force threat to neutralize the threat ... not equal force, but superior force to stop anyone initiating and/or threatening my family and/or property. NOTHING in the 2nd amendment restricts the type of "arm" ... and there is nothing that implies that any "arms" I have in my possession must be inferior to those possessed by the GOVERNMENT .. and in fact the history behind the 2nd amendment and its purpose suggests otherwise as well.

In Mexico ( other countries) there is (or was) "freedom of the press" in their constitution, which was applied to newspapers. The only "problem' was the newspaper had to buy the printing paper from the government. That is NOT "freedom of the press"! Having the GOVERNMENT approve what type of firearm i can buy and possess amounts to the same thing. See how Mexico has turned out with its "gun control" laws. Who gets the guns? Originally Posted by LexusLover

You are expanding the discussion quite a bit. The current administration has nothing to do with the rulings of SCOTUS. Immigration has nothing to do with gun control issues. You most certainly have the right to defend yourself as you see fit -- with limits as defined by law. And you certainly have the option to break the law. I did not set up our system of government where we have executive, legislative, and judicial branches "to ensure a central government in which no individual or group gains too much control". It is obvious that you, like rioseco, have a problem with the judicial arm of government which has made rulings which you do not like. That is life. We can try to change laws we don't like, we can break the law, or we can move somewhere where the laws are more to our liking. But don't blame me for the facts as to our "real world".

So you accept all rulings of the SCOTUS ?
My statements are not derived from my mind. THEY ARE DERIVED from the 2nd Amendment. Your willingness to accept others spin on a self evident freedom is foolish.
I do not put my liberties in the hands of anyone. Freedom is not decided by a panel of robed figures. It is the irrevokable gift of the creator to mankind.
Yes you make assumptions or accept the assumptions of other men. Yes I read your beloved articles. They mean nothing to free men. If you will allow your guaranteed liberties to be decided by another it is your choice.
If the founding fathers accepted your brand of freedom, then this country would never have achieve independence from Great Britain.
Can you imagine Patrick Henry claiming "Give me the will of King George, or give me death" ! Doesn't quite ring the same does it ?

This is how you and others re-invent the 2nd Amendment :

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon as long as it is a weapon of the late 1700s era. Also this freedom rest on the assumption that federal, state,municipal governments and SpeedRacerXXX hold sway over who,how,what and when this particular freedom is permitted." Originally Posted by rioseco

My statements may or may not be what I feel. They are the law of the land. Sorry that you do not respect our system of government when it doesn't work in your way. No, I probably do not agree with every legal ruling or law that affects me but I support our system of government. That is hardly foolish. If we disagree with our representatives in the House of Representatives, we can vote them out of office every 2 years. The president every 4 years. The senate every 6 years.

Don't fight with me. Fight with SCOTUS. That is our system of government which predates the 2nd Amendment. Compared to other forms of government, I think, for the most part, it's worked very well. Sorry if you think otherwise.

[SIZE="3"]You are a vicious little hypocritical miserable racist, just like the little whore.

. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I posted a link showing that we are all racist, how does that make me vicious?

Now you are sounding like an overweight whore who got her feelings hurt, because I called her out on the TRUTH .... she was advertising she weighed 130 on P411, but tipped the scales at AT LEAST 160 ... and looked like porky with her clothes off. TRUTH HURTS. So then you attack.


. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Who are you trying to impress with this type of post? LE? So her weight might be off....your real name is not LL. What really does that have to do with her opinion on the subject matter. None. See LL if you keep this lying up, quit crying if it happens to you. I do not post to impress so called Bimbos. I do not employ illegal immigrants no more than you do. Have I bought a meal at some eatery that employs them? Maybe, just like you maybe have. So cut the crap. CaptainMidnight's forum is looking better and better...

My statements may or may not be what I feel. They are the law of the land. Sorry that you do not respect our system of government when it doesn't work in your way. No, I probably do not agree with every legal ruling or law that affects me but I support our system of government. That is hardly foolish. If we disagree with our representatives in the House of Representatives, we can vote them out of office every 2 years. The president every 4 years. The senate every 6 years.

Don't fight with me. Fight with SCOTUS. That is our system of government which predates the 2nd Amendment. Compared to other forms of government, I think, for the most part, it's worked very well. Sorry if you think otherwise. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Not here to fight you. Im just here to sound out for freedom.
"The System" has been corrupted by both parties. You are correct, I do not support our system as it stands today. Far too many have attacked the republic and that which it once stood for. Far too many have succeeded in the "Euro-Downing" of what the founders built in America. My ancestors came here because it was better than Europe. Now the liberal trend is to drag this nation back down to the same boggish standards as the eastern world. What a waste.

Ted Nugent LITE! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Boy George Maximum !

So you accept all rulings of the SCOTUS ?
My statements are not derived from my mind. THEY ARE DERIVED from the 2nd Amendment. Your willingness to accept others spin on a self evident freedom is foolish.
I do not put my liberties in the hands of anyone. Freedom is not decided by a panel of robed figures. It is the irrevokable gift of the creator to mankind.
Yes you make assumptions or accept the assumptions of other men. Yes I read your beloved articles. They mean nothing to free men. If you will allow your guaranteed liberties to be decided by another it is your choice.
If the founding fathers accepted your brand of freedom, then this country would never have achieve independence from Great Britain.
Can you imagine Patrick Henry claiming "Give me the will of King George, or give me death" ! Doesn't quite ring the same does it ?

This is how you and others re-invent the 2nd Amendment :

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon as long as it is a weapon of the late 1700s era. Also this freedom rest on the assumption that federal, state,municipal governments and SpeedRacerXXX hold sway over who,how,what and when this particular freedom is permitted." Originally Posted by rioseco

+1

See LL ... quit crying if it happens to you. Originally Posted by WTF

What "happens" WTF? Tell what "happens!"

You gonna claim I'm LE on here, WTF? Like the fat whore?

Is that what you're gonna do?

You are expanding the discussion quite a bit. The current administration has nothing to do with the rulings of SCOTUS. Immigration has nothing to do with gun control issues.

But don't blame me for the facts as to our "real world". Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Wrong again.

Recently this administration has had a lot to do about SCOTUS rulings. And trying to disarm LE and civilians while not controlling our borders is exactly connected. One does not discuss amendments to the Constitution in an "intellectual vacuum .. the SCOTUS doesn't even do that.

What "happens" WTF? Tell what "happens!"

You gonna claim I'm LE on here, WTF? Like the fat whore?

Is that what you're gonna do? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Don't you just love it when the Idiot's dive into the "deep end," but forgot they didn't know how to swim?

Where's the lifeguard?

In all my life I have never had anyone come up to my door and force their way into my home. How about you? I would expect a law-abiding person with a handgun to honor my request to not enter my home with a handgun. We are talking about law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I guess I'm not understanding then.
Are you OK with making that request? How do you know to make that request without asking anyone who enters your home whether they are armed or not. It seemed that you had a problem with bearing the burden of making that request or posting proper signage on your own property. I get that conundrum if that's what you were getting at and I don't honestly don't have the answer.

TBH, I haven't really thought about it to that extent. I don't invite a lot of people into my home that I don't already know. The people that are welcome into my home are those that I would not have a problem with being armed as most of them I know to be CHL holders or at least responsible gun owners. In addition they are people that I know would go into a fight having my back. In short, I trust them.

People that I'm not comfortable with probably aren't going to be invited so it's not really an issue. We can talk on the front porch about whatever it is that needs to be discussed and I will be in control of the discussion because I am on my property. If I feel that there is a threat I will be prepared to deal with it.

If a person comes in uninvited they will most likely be dealt with in a manner where I presume they are armed.