If you have the right to carry guns everywhere, should you carry guns everywhere? Are there places where you personally would not carry a gun?
Well, swimming.
Now that you’ve had your “humorous” moment, would you mind answering seriously? Can you conceive of a situation where it might be legal to carry a weapon, but it wouldn’t be, in your own judgment, prudent?
Actually, aren’t there guns that’ll fire underwater? And sharks live in the ocean. As do jellyfish! (Are guns effective against jellyfish?)
If they did, they wouldn’t be law-abiding, now would they?
How about this - do you think it would be imprudent to carry a gun while drinking in a bar? What if you’re going out on a proper pub-crawl - is it imprudent to carry a gun then?
I think there is something called a “Bang Stick” that will fire a 12 gauge shotgun shell underwater. From what I understand, effective range is limited to having the muzzle touching the target when the device is triggered. I’ve never seen or fired a Bang Stick, though.
Mr. E: Or, if you don’t, is it OK by you if the violent drunk a few stools down has his own?
Psst. Post #74:
I couldn’t say, because I have never felt the need to carry a weapon.
Are there places you wouldn’t carry a weapon because you didn’t feel it was prudent to do so?
This partisan sneering needs to stop. It belongs in the Pit, maybe, but not in here.
Please resolve your issues with Czarcasm by private message, email, or somewhere outside this thread.
Leave out the personal remarks like “you’re full of crap,” please. They’re not appropriate for this forum.
I’m sorry, my mistake - that question was directed towards Bricker.
Watch where you point those questions, mister-an innocent bystander could get hurt!
It doesn’t take “significant” backing to support the position that it’s stupid for the the pro-gun side to present itself as a mob of unprincipled thugs inclined to bring excess firepower in order to exert intimitation as political pressure, is a bad idea. This is what we call “obvious”.
I can see why you wouldn’t want to have to refute the obvious - you know you haven’t got a shred of a hope of a prayer. Hence, your crappy adhominimeny drek-shoveling here.
Responding to others who at least attempted to argue the position, I would suggest that to think that the above-mentioned PR cost is outweighed by the gains from increasing debate (when the debate will largely be against you) is pretty dim, despite the meme that any advertising is good advertising.
If you were to look at the foolishness I responded to, you’d be quite aware that I was being presented with any wits to battle against.
It is stupid for the anti-gun side to see this as anything other than a group of citizens lawfully exercising their constitutional rights. This is what is truly obvious.
[my emphasis] For the last time in this thread - this kind of sniping isn’t allowed in this forum. If there is any more of this, posters will start getting warned.
Oakminster, I think we all agree that this was lawful. The question is just whether or not it was a particularly good idea.
Is there anyplace you think it’s inappropriate, rude, or just plain foolish to carry a firearm, even when it’s legal?
Heh… he said “sniping.”
It doesn’t matter if you’re right. Pretend for a moment that liberals all reacted with horror and terror from the color purple - it truly intimidated them, for no reason whatsoever. In this case, wearing excessive amounts of purple, presenting a veritable *wall *of purple, is fricking stupid to do at a peaceful pro-purple rally, because it’s deliberately provoking the maximum negative visceral response.
Unless your goal is to terrify and intimidate. Then you’re terrorists (of purpledom!) but at least you’re not too stupid to realize the extremely predictable reaction to what you’re doing.