One person in Chicago decided that lying down and dying was not an option

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Okay, we're back to denial. (fyi, I own several guns) You are going to deny that you have actively been pushing for more gun legislation. Legislation that in the end has to deny people the right to own a weapon. This is no other way around it.

FYI, I know you own several guns. Probably enough to stop a small army. Good for you.

I totally deny it. Please find any statement I've made asking for more gun control. I certainly have made statements that I do not like certain gun rights (e.g. permitting people to carry concealed handguns without a CHL which requires passing a test showing competency with the gun and a knowledge of when the gun should and should not be used) but I support a state's or city's right to enact, or not enact, gun legislation.

Again, for example, I support Wyoming's decision to not require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun. Don't agree with it but I support it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You are obviously as stupid as IBanIdiot.

I have ALWAYS said that I support people having the right to have guns in their home, in their car, and on their person (with a CHL, if required). I choose to not own a gun. You choose to own a gun. As long as what you are doing is legal, I am fine with it. Just because I support SOME gun control does not mean I want to ban guns. That is just something that you and many other gun rights advocates can't get through your heads.

And regarding NY and Chicago, once again your statements are ridiculously incorrect. Was the veteran who shot Denzel Mickiel in Chicago in the article you cited put in jail? Hell no because he had a valid CHL and was protecting himself. Same in NY. If you are carrying a gun legally, no problem. When you break the law, problem. If you don't like the law, try to change it or move if it is that important to you.

And if you check back to another thread, it was I who pointed out to you that the law in Nelson or Kennesaw Georgia requiring homeowners to own a handgun could be legally circumvented by those who did not want to do so.

And here's an article that shows requiring everyone to have a handgun doesn't always work.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...-to-own-a-gun/

Speedy claims he isn't a single issue voter, so his votes for anti-gun lib-retards has always been coincidental. Yet Speedy's only remarks in this forum are for abridging the Second Amendment rights of other American citizens. So it's obvious that Speedy is a lying, Kool Aid sotted lib-retard.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Speedy claims he isn't a single issue voter, so his votes for anti-gun lib-retards has always been coincidental. Yet Speedy's only remarks in this forum are for abridging the Second Amendment rights of other American citizens. So it's obvious that Speedy is a lying, Kool Aid sotted lib-retard.

Idiot.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Idiot.

Speedy is a lying, Kool Aid sotted lib-retard who means to abridge the rights of other citizens at every opportunity he gets.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

FYI, I know you own several guns. Probably enough to stop a small army. Good for you.

I totally deny it. Please find any statement I've made asking for more gun control. I certainly have made statements that I do not like certain gun rights (e.g. permitting people to carry concealed handguns without a CHL which requires passing a test showing competency with the gun and a knowledge of when the gun should and should not be used) but I support a state's or city's right to enact, or not enact, gun legislation.

Again, for example, I support Wyoming's decision to not require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun. Don't agree with it but I support it.

All the gun legislation that I've seen requires that the government take away someone's guns (civil rights). Now if you ever want to promote criminal legislation then I'm willing to listen. The two are not the same thing.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

All the gun legislation that I've seen requires that the government take away someone's guns (civil rights). Now if you ever want to promote criminal legislation then I'm willing to listen. The two are not the same thing.

Wrong. As I mentioned in the Wyoming case, used to be that a CHL was required to carry a concealed handgun. Not required anymore.

And more college campuses are allowing concealed handguns:

From: http://www.armedcampuses.org/

Despite the success of these gun-free policies, an increasingly extreme pro-gun movement in the USA is promoting legislation and litigation to force colleges and universities to allow concealed guns on campus. As a result, schools in Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin have now been forced in different ways to allow the carrying of firearms on their premises (i.e. campus grounds, classrooms, dormitories, or parking lots).

In Texas, proposals to allow concealed handguns in public university dorms and classrooms comes up every 2 years. Open carry of handguns is being debated.

More states are enacting updated "Castle Laws" and "Stand-Your-Ground Laws", giving more freedom to gun owners to protect themselves.

How's that for a start in showing that states are enacting laws giving gun owners MORE rights.

Still waiting for you to tell me what I've said to promote stricter gun control laws.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Well the veteran did his best. He was able to protect himself and in my opinion minimized the injuries to others. The bottom line though if you're going to live in Chicago and find yourself frequenting the south side having a CHL is not a bad idea. If you opt not to carry then I would suggest wearing a ballistics vest under your cloths. I think most of the posters here live in quiet gated communities or sections of large cities with low crime and an array of amenities where problems are seldom encountered, you're lucky cause not every place is like that.


Jim

[SA Angel]

Well, I don't think the article is an argument for always carrying, but from what I can tell that is not a good neighborhood so it was a very smart choice for the vet even if nothing had happened that night.

I DO think that some of the laws are too broad, for example Tex. Gov’t Code §411.172. I don't think anyone who has a history of mental illness should be permitted to carry handguns. A rifle or shotgun is perfect for protecting your home or for recreation. The idea of someone fresh from the looney bin being able to buy a 38 special is disturbing.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Wrong. As I mentioned in the Wyoming case, used to be that a CHL was required to carry a concealed handgun. Not required anymore.

And more college campuses are allowing concealed handguns:

From: http://www.armedcampuses.org/

Despite the success of these gun-free policies, an increasingly extreme pro-gun movement in the USA is promoting legislation and litigation to force colleges and universities to allow concealed guns on campus. As a result, schools in Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin have now been forced in different ways to allow the carrying of firearms on their premises (i.e. campus grounds, classrooms, dormitories, or parking lots).

In Texas, proposals to allow concealed handguns in public university dorms and classrooms comes up every 2 years. Open carry of handguns is being debated.

More states are enacting updated "Castle Laws" and "Stand-Your-Ground Laws", giving more freedom to gun owners to protect themselves.

How's that for a start in showing that states are enacting laws giving gun owners MORE rights.

Still waiting for you to tell me what I've said to promote stricter gun control laws.

You're just describing how events and people have gone against the gun grabber crowd which has very little to do with what you believe. We've read your posts and I don't have the time nor patience to go back over them. I think that is EVA's or Tampon's departments.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Well the veteran did his best. He was able to protect himself and in my opinion minimized the injuries to others. The bottom line though if you're going to live in Chicago and find yourself frequenting the south side having a CHL is not a bad idea. If you opt not to carry then I would suggest wearing a ballistics vest under your cloths. I think most of the posters here live in quiet gated communities or sections of large cities with low crime and an array of amenities where problems are seldom encountered, you're lucky cause not every place is like that.


Jim

Jim, I couldn't agree more. The south side of Chicago has always been a crime-ridden area.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You're just describing how events and people have gone against the gun grabber crowd which has very little to do with what you believe. We've read your posts and I don't have the time nor patience to go back over them. I think that is EVA's or Tampon's departments.

When you accuse someone of something, as you accused me of supporting further gun control legislation, it is customary to back up those accusations with at least one such statement that I've made in either this thread or past threads. To say you don't have the time or patience to do so is a cop out. When I tell you you're wrong, as I did in my last post, I back it up with PROOF. \

You obviously have no idea what I believe in and rank right up there with IBanIdiot in throwing out idiotic accusations. At least you haven't descended into his morass of mindless name-calling.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

When you accuse someone of something, as you accused me of supporting further gun control legislation, it is customary to back up those accusations with at least one such statement that I've made in either this thread or past threads. To say you don't have the time or patience to do so is a cop out. When I tell you you're wrong, as I did in my last post, I back it up with PROOF. \

You obviously have no idea what I believe in and rank right up there with IBanIdiot in throwing out idiotic accusations. At least you haven't descended into his morass of mindless name-calling.

Your one concern in this forum has been to further abridge the Second Amendment rights of American citizens, Speedy. You've made that point abundantly clear, Speedy, and you've admitted that there hasn't been a lib-retarded gun-control freak you didn't agree with and vote for when you were given the opportunity, you jackass liar.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your one concern in this forum has been to further abridge the Second Amendment rights of American citizens, Speedy. You've made that point abundantly clear, Speedy, and you've admitted that there hasn't been a lib-retarded gun-control freak you didn't agree with and vote for when you were given the opportunity, you jackass liar.

Gotta be killing you that others are stealing the spotlight from you, IBIdiot.

You had to know that your weak bullshit would go stale before too much longer.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Jim, I couldn't agree more. The south side of Chicago has always been a crime-ridden area.

It's the baddest part of town.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

When you accuse someone of something, as you accused me of supporting further gun control legislation, it is customary to back up those accusations with at least one such statement that I've made in either this thread or past threads. To say you don't have the time or patience to do so is a cop out. When I tell you you're wrong, as I did in my last post, I back it up with PROOF. \

You obviously have no idea what I believe in and rank right up there with IBanIdiot in throwing out idiotic accusations. At least you haven't descended into his morass of mindless name-calling.

What are you offering to do if I find a single post made by you that denies gun owners their rights?