What are gunners trying to prove?

SmarterThanYou said:
but now you're being very specific. you weren't in your earlier post. yes, schools and courthouses are restricted, but city halls and council chambers are not, unless they are part of those schools and courthouses.

you might be a former cop, but I did study gun laws very extensively.

one other thing, the gun free school zones act only applies to the building itself, not the parking lot or sidewalks.
Click to expand...

Yeah? Well how come a HS kid got in big trouble for having a gun in his car in the local HS parking lot.

Laws have changed since 911 and the Columbine shootings dude. Catch up.

Also I am a current cop. For my volunteer job working with troubled vets.
I can have them committed or be in charge of a situation if it arises.

I do not patrol and such but attend training and meetings if they have doughnuts there.
 
Last edited:
WinterBorn said:
Or they can gradually restrict the freedoms we gun owners enjoy, until our ability to fight back is gone.

The 2nd Amendment is very clear about guns. But it says nothing about ammunition. That is where I have predicted their control will come from. If they include bulk smokeless powders with that, we are screwed.
Click to expand...

See, this is what cracks me up about gunners......when the Brady Bill passed, the NRA propaganda machine went full blast with all sorts of "it's just a matter of time" scenarios.....well here we are a decade or so later, and law abiding citizens can still purchase guns....as the yahoos showing up at HEALTHCARE meetings demonstrate.

In a local newspaper, an article about my hometown's gun shops show that sales are through the roof! Why? Because of people being herded by the fear mongering neocon/NRA propaganda that "Obama is going to take your guns". Bottom line: the gun manufacturers and distributors are making a killing...meanwhile the dopes recently portrayed in the news are just itching for some sort of confrontation. :(
 
Southern Man said:
That we can. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Newsflash genius....in that state NO ONE SAID YOU COULDN'T! So what was the point? To be a beligerant ass because they didn't like the results of the 2008 elections? And what the hell does this peacock action have to do with HEALTHCARE? Bottom line: these jokers knew to stay well outside the Secret Service security radius...but if they want to provoke a confrontation in any shape or form, the Secret Service has the legal right to expand the radius during Presidential excursions
 
Taichiliberal said:
See, this is what cracks me up about gunners......when the Brady Bill passed, the NRA propaganda machine went full blast with all sorts of "it's just a matter of time" scenarios.....well here we are a decade or so later, and law abiding citizens can still purchase guns....as the yahoos showing up at HEALTHCARE meetings demonstrate.

In a local newspaper, an article about my hometown's gun shops show that sales are through the roof! Why? Because of people being herded by the fear mongering neocon/NRA propaganda that "Obama is going to take your guns". Bottom line: the gun manufacturers and distributors are making a killing...meanwhile the dopes recently portrayed in the news are just itching for some sort of confrontation. :(
Click to expand...

Yeah the gun and ammo buying mania going on is both funny as hell and scary.
Like a bunch of lemmings.
Of course it has caused a gun and ammo price bubble.

My 1911 .45 auto is worth over twice what I paid for it just over a year ago.
I am gald I bought enough ammo for it then to last me the rest of my life too. Ammo has doubled in the last year.
 
Superfreak said:
1) They did not try to enter the event

2) They did not display any threat to the President

3) They are LEGALLY allowed to do EXACTLY what they just did

4) In NO WAY DOES THIS RESEMBLE WHAT THE NAZI's did. NO WAY. It is an insult to those who suffered and died at the hands of those fascists to suggest this is the same.
Click to expand...

1. They did not enter the security perimeter that would have given the Secret Service the right to secure the weapons and remove them. They DID get close enough to grab the attention of the media...which was there purpose. But to what end? It was a HEALTHCARE discussion?

2. But they DID want to display a beligerent dislike for the President by trying to introduce (yet another)bogus conflict where there was none. A healthcare discussion...nothing about new gun laws. They just wanted to pump life into a dead lie about Obama going to take away their guns.

3. Yep, just like any nut job group has the right to protest....thing is these jackasses had NOTHING to protest about. It's just part of the anti-Obama tirade that willfully ignorant (and genuinely ignorant) folk have been doing since 2008.

4. It does remotely resemble one of their tactics.....creating controversy where there is none to maintain a false accusation against an opponent. Any response to the provocation, no matter how legal or justified, fits into the propaganda of the provocators. Topspin's accusation may be over the top, but it does have a basis of truth to it.
 
Good Luck said:
90 posts on this topic, and once again, the leftist anti-gunners prove they have no valid nor rational reason for their hatred of the 2nd Amendment. The article itself is a bunch of "oohhh, they COULD have posed a danger....."

Except - they did not. NOTHING happened, except the media wet their panties and a bunch of mindless dweebs crapped in the fruit-of-the-looms because law-abiding American citizens are shown exercising an enumerated constitutional right.
Click to expand...

No one here bashed the Second Amendment, you fool. READ. The point is that these jackasses wanted controversy. Well, they got it...and the PR is not going well for them. See genius, bringing a gun to discussion about healthcare hosted by the President is not a smart or logical thing to do...and if these assholes had caused the commotion they were seeking, the Secret Service was well within their legal rights to expand the security perimeter for the next meeting.
 
Good Luck said:
What makes you think they do not carry at local meetings? People who carry usually do so habitually. Assuming they did so just because it was Obama is nothing less than putting your own prejudices on the story without knowing anything about the people involved.
Click to expand...

READ STUPID! I said if they did, then it's no biggie.....because in that state it's legal to. It's a whole other smoke when the President is in town. The Secret Service has a legal right to expand a perimeter if it seems there are jackasses spoiling for a fight. They got their publicity...and it makes them out for the assholes that they are...and you don't like it. TFB.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
The current secret service spokesperson who said that there was never any danger to the president and that there never would be.
Click to expand...

Not quite, bunky. They said that his assertions about threats and staff reductions were wrong.....BUT......the spokesman did say that an increase in personal and heightened security measures were being taken. Hmmm, bit of a coincidence? Contradiction?
 
Taichiliberal said:
1. They did not enter the security perimeter that would have given the Secret Service the right to secure the weapons and remove them. They DID get close enough to grab the attention of the media...which was there purpose. But to what end? It was a HEALTHCARE discussion?

2. But they DID want to display a beligerent dislike for the President by trying to introduce (yet another)bogus conflict where there was none. A healthcare discussion...nothing about new gun laws. They just wanted to pump life into a dead lie about Obama going to take away their guns.

3. Yep, just like any nut job group has the right to protest....thing is these jackasses had NOTHING to protest about. It's just part of the anti-Obama tirade that willfully ignorant (and genuinely ignorant) folk have been doing since 2008.

4. It does remotely resemble one of their tactics.....creating controversy where there is none to maintain a false accusation against an opponent. Any response to the provocation, no matter how legal or justified, fits into the propaganda of the provocators. Topspin's accusation may be over the top, but it does have a basis of truth to it.
Click to expand...

The fears of gun owners is valid. I do not think Obama is antigun. But Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are rabidly antigun. And they have shown they have a lot of clout in the new administration.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Oh yeah....let's go back to the good old Wild West days...where anyone who could afford it carried a gun.

Did it stop crime? Nope....which is why as things evolved gun laws came into effect.

Like the man said, these jokers are a more potential, immediate threat to safety and security at these meetings than they are willing to admit.
Click to expand...

not very learned in your history, are you?

gun laws did not come in to effect in order to curtail crime. They came about to disarm minority races.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Not quite, bunky. They said that his assertions about threats and staff reductions were wrong.....BUT......the spokesman did say that an increase in personal and heightened security measures were being taken. Hmmm, bit of a coincidence? Contradiction?
Click to expand...

that is not what he said at all. quit pulling shit out of your ass.

U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.

Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."

The individuals would never have gotten close to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president, and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he said.
Click to expand...

Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan. "They weren't in positions outside the events that we considered a threat to the event in any way."
Click to expand...

"In neither of these cases were either of these guys trying to circumvent security or infringe on our secure area," said Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley.
Click to expand...
 
Taichiliberal said:
Newsflash genius....in that state NO ONE SAID YOU COULDN'T! So what was the point? To be a beligerant ass because they didn't like the results of the 2008 elections? And what the hell does this peacock action have to do with HEALTHCARE? Bottom line: these jokers knew to stay well outside the Secret Service security radius...but if they want to provoke a confrontation in any shape or form, the Secret Service has the legal right to expand the radius during Presidential excursions
Click to expand...
You missed the point, instead reacting hysterically. :)

Hint: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
 
Everything aside, I carry everywhere I go.....church, school (got an exemption from the DA), Walmart, the mall (yuck, hardly ever go there), etc. The only place I cannot carry are the hospitals. If you met me though, you'd never know I was carrying.
 
uscitizen said:
No it was having a gun on school property.

But then everyone in TX knows more about KY laws than Kentuckians.
That is a Texican fer ya.
Click to expand...

the gun free school zone act specifically exempts licensees from the parking lot and surrounding areas while specifically noting that inside the building is forbidden.

new subsection (q) to Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

Exception: This does not include possession of a firearm on private property that is not part of school grounds or possession of a loaded firearm by an individual who is licensed to do so by the State. (i.e. a concealed carry, weapon, or firearm permit).
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the gun free school zone act specifically exempts licensees from the parking lot and surrounding areas while specifically noting that inside the building is forbidden.

new subsection (q) to Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

Exception: This does not include possession of a firearm on private property that is not part of school grounds or possession of a loaded firearm by an individual who is licensed to do so by the State. (i.e. a concealed carry, weapon, or firearm permit).
Click to expand...

Can you understand what you post? The school parking lot is NOT private property and IS part of the school zone.

that is US code anyway, not KY law.
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
Can you understand what you post? The school parking lot is NOT private property and IS part of the school zone.

that is US code anyway, not KY law.
Click to expand...

yes, I understand exceptions very well. Also the use of the word OR.

If you are licensed by the state, you can have a gun in your car in a school parking lot via federal law. Does KY state have a different law? some do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top