Comments on: When Does Carrying a Loaded Weapon to a Presidential Rally Become a Threat?

By: retrocon

retrocon — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 22:48:10 +0000

Please feel free, glad it resonated with you!

This We'll Defend! (gee, never did sound as cool as the Corps ;-)

By: I.P

I.P — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 22:23:54 +0000

The last paragraph of this is the best analogy I've ever heard. With your permission I'd like to use it in everyday life from now on. Semper-fi.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 05:36:53 +0000

Shut up…

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:22:59 +0000

Crybaby liberals. Grow up.

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:22:59 +0000

Crybaby liberals. Grow up.

By: billprovenzano

billprovenzano — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:01:19 +0000

That's awesome.

By: billprovenzano

billprovenzano — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:59:36 +0000

Think about your question for a second and then apply the same question (which I interpret to be a rhetorical question and therefore evidential of a form of logic) to other areas of life. How do we know who's going to be a drunk driver? How do we know which cop is going to be corrupt? How do we know which law enforcement officer isn't going to turn on his country and try to shoot the president. How do we know which pharmacist is going to give someone the wrong drugs? etc etc.

I interpret your question to mean that if it is indiscernible who may or may not be a criminal, therefore no one should carry a gun in the immediate vicinity of a building in which is the president.

Well, extrapolating your logice then since we don't know what we don't know about anything, we should ban cars from being driven to these events because how do we know someone won't use their car as a weapon and try to run the president over?

Extrapolate your logic and think about the impact on freedom and the presumption of innocence. Do you restrict rights of everyone because one or two people might or might not be a criminal. If you do that, you have to do it consistently and it would plunge our country into an abysmal place to live without any rights, just because someone might be a criminal.

By: leaves mine at home

leaves mine at home — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:01:44 +0000

One question. How do we tell the good law abidding gun toters from the crazy want to shoot the president gun toters?

By: retrocon

retrocon — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:07:43 +0000

No, someone who is going to shoot someone else, like in VA Tech or Luby's or other places, hide the weapon until ready to use it.

Since legal concealed carry holders are about the smallest statistical crime population, that leaves, wow, BAD PEOPLE hiding their weapons.

Bad people get and carry guns illegally. Good people get and carry guns legally.

i just don't see what that's so confusing for liberals, unless they somehow think that every good person has a bad person in them... in which case, they must be speaking from experience, and maybe we should ban liberals from having guns.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:15:00 +0000

inalienable… not so much. unalienable is correct

constitution… not so much.

Declaration of Independence:… endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”