Holy shit. That was the longest and most uninformative post I’ve ever read. As an attorney and insurance adjuster, I always carry when I go to court. (I know we’re not supposed to, and no we don’t have to walk through the metal detector.) I carry an S&W 360 in the small of my back. I have a custom built flex nylon hoster that is completely invisible while in a suit, unless sitting in an open backed chair.
It’s extremely comfortable and I usually forget I’m wearing it. I nearly got in trouble whilst speeding on the Pike. The officer stopped me for speeding, and customarily asked me if I had any weapons, I said no… He asked me for permission to search and I declined. He kept me there for 45 minutes until a canine unit arrived. The dog sniffed my car and found nothing.
I am currently suing that the state police for harassment. They’ll settle and I’ll get another free vacation.
WTF is my point? This is America and we are garunteed the right to bear arms, anything less is an infringement. Do not subvert your rights, and if you get fucked with call me. lol
Dade, I thought you were a health professional.
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=57735&page=4
And you’re in contempt of the very system you NOW claim you’re part of?
I don’t get searched either when I go into recieving (or some court venues), but I leave my weapons outside per their policy.
Someone keep an eye on this dickhead.
Duh.
He’s a physician AND an attorney… Like Jubal Harshaw!
Prolly banged the M.D. out online.
You mean, you haven’t yet?
I have, in fact, banged 3 M.D.'s.
None, however, online…
WTF is my point? This is America and we are garunteed the right to bear arms, anything less is an infringement.
a. The threat of invasion from the colonials is no longer present.
b. People like you shouldn’t be allowed to carry weapons. It should be a privlage not a right.
c. You, a proclaimed member of the justice system, lies to an officer then tries to sue? Looking to slow down the court system EVEN more?
YOU deserved to be hit in the chest by a ball of your own shit.
Hey Dale where are you licensed to practice law? I’m licensed in Connecticut and my juris # is 417779 which can be confirmed on the Connecticut Judicial Branch Website. Where can I confirm your status?
Since we’re in trollshido I feel entitled to point out that at least one framer made it clear that the point of the right to bear arms was so that free americans would have a line of defence against their own government in the event it became tyranical. Us brits lost that right a long time ago, and look at us now!
so that free americans would have a line of defence against their own government in the event it became tyranical. Us brits lost that right a long time ago, and look at us now!
I can see it now.
Scores of citizens with airsoft and 1st person shooter experience rising up to defend against tyranny!
Wait
Considering the people vote the government into power, the idea of that government becomming tyranical means that the majority of the citizens voted for and likely back that government, ergo, those resisting tyranny have even MORE people against them with guns. No?
No, not necessarily. A minority of the people actually vote for the ruling party in most modern western democracies most of the time.
Of course, one of the most important reasons a sane person might actually consider bearing arms against their own goverment is if the elections were rigged, which would also mean that they wouldn’t necessarily be in a minority.
You’re missing a key point. If the government is doing the will of the people, it is not a tyranny. If it is doing something terrible enough to spark a revolution, hordes of military personnel would leave, weakening the military. It is a flawed argument to say that people shouldn’t have weapons because they’re useless against military might.
It’s unlikely Randy Weaver voted for anyone shooting at his family…
You’re no doubt familiar with the “tyranny of the majority”?
Which brings us to an important point: You have to take into account that the right to bear arms shouldn’t be limited to just pussy sidearms. The people need real anti-armour and anti-aircraft firepower. At the very least.
If North Korea can have something without facing censure, why can’t I ?
WORD.
I’m getting horny.
But wasn’t there concern that the last elections were rigged?
Ruh row.
You’re no doubt familiar with the “tyranny of the majority”?
I am.
It is a flawed argument to say that people shouldn’t have weapons because they’re useless against military might.
Naw basically I’m saying a hell of a lot of people haven’t shown the level or responsibility to own firearms. There is a difference between a flintlock or musket, whatever, and a fully automatic assault rifle, medium machinegun and anti-armor .50 caliber semiautomatic rifle.
There you go. See? There you go.
Braggart.
Did I spell that right?
Hell, in my opinion there are a lot of people that shouldn’t be allowed to have kids. They sure aren’t responsible enough. But it’s not up to me to decide. How do you assess whether someone is responsible enough to own a firearm? Where do you draw the line? And if you’re not sure, should you err on the side of caution or freedom?