Should people be allowed to carry handguns openly?

then normal is a relative term, imo.

let me say again, if people in my town openly carried guns, say on a certain night the town closes down main street to have a farmer's market, i would not be the only one concerned and uncomfortable about it. and this town is more conservative than other coastal towns.
if someone is not overtly threatening or intimidating you, is there a crime being committed?
 
erThanYou;989264]I'm actually unaware of the case you're referring to.

dude....you just gave me the case several minutes ago:

United States Supreme Court, Murdock v. commonwealth of pennsylvania.

what up buttercup?



my statement 'anything not specifically prohibited by law, is therefore legal' supported merely by the fact that there is nothing to charge a person with for performing some action that isn't prohibited by law. If it's not prohibited by law, it must therefore be legal.

ok...so i can dookie in your face. wrong. a private business can deny you patronage of that business. that is why a bank can deny you service or entrance to the bank. unless it violates the 14th, which, openly carrying a gun, does not fall under.
 
do you know what the word infringement means? the 2nd talks only about bearing arms, it does not talk about HOW we can bear those arms.

let's just take this to you and STY's logical conclusion:

the right to bear arms cannot be infringed.

thus, any child can bear a firearm in school, open or concealed.

I see you've decided to use Anti Gay marriage way of thinking, reagarding gay marriage will lead to children being married; because children are not allowed to carry firearms, because THEY'RE CHILDREN.
Try staying in a rational world, instead of one you make up.
 
can you cite the case, the case that came up in westlaw is a JW case....

there is no law, which is why it's the law. Anything not specifically prohibited, is therefore allowed. Since there is no law that prohibits carrying in a bank, carrying in a bank is legal.

Correct.
I've seen numerous people open carry, in a bank.
 
dude....you just gave me the case several minutes ago:

United States Supreme Court, Murdock v. commonwealth of pennsylvania.

what up buttercup?
that case I use for the cite of no state may charge a license, fee, or tax, to exercise a right protected by the constitution.

ok...so i can dookie in your face. wrong.
that is part of the definition of assault in almost every state. maybe not the exact wording, dookie, but the general meaning.

a private business can deny you patronage of that business. that is why a bank can deny you service or entrance to the bank. unless it violates the 14th, which, openly carrying a gun, does not fall under.
once again, i'm not saying that a private property owner can not prohibit guns from their place. It's not a law though. It's a policy of that business which CAN be enforced by a trespassing charge, not a gun carrying charge.
 
I see you've decided to use Anti Gay marriage way of thinking, reagarding gay marriage will lead to children being married; because children are not allowed to carry firearms, because THEY'RE CHILDREN.
Try staying in a rational world, instead of one you make up.

you are truly an idiot.

my example is not a - X leads to Y example. my example is solely X allows X.

please pass on my thoughts to rana.....:D
 
SmarterThanYou;989277]that case I use for the cite of no state may charge a license, fee, or tax, to exercise a right protected by the constitution.

again...how does that apply to your claim? all i'm asking is for you to explain how it applies. i don't see it. i'm asking you to analogize the case to to the current issue.

that is part of the definition of assault in almost every state. maybe not the exact wording, dookie, but the general meaning.

that is what i'm talking about. dookie is not defined as assault, but, one can apply the current law to make dookie in face against the law.



nce again, i'm not saying that a private property owner can not prohibit guns from their place. It's not a law though. It's a policy of that business which CAN be enforced by a trespassing charge, not a gun carrying charge.

i'm not sure we disagree here. though i disagree with your statement that the bank has to put up a sign, like...no shirt, no shoes....no guns...no service.
 
can you cite the case, the case that came up in westlaw is a JW case....

there is no law, which is why it's the law. Anything not specifically prohibited, is therefore allowed. Since there is no law that prohibits carrying in a bank, carrying in a bank is legal.

Correct.
I've seen numerous people open carry, in a bank.

what? you combined STY's post with mine....i never said the last part.

and what bank did you see people open carry in?

Brought your own posts forward, so you could aplogize for your accusation.

Capital One - Chase - I and E
 
you are truly an idiot.

my example is not a - X leads to Y example. my example is solely X allows X.

please pass on my thoughts to rana.....:D

You're the one who decided to try and bring children into a conversation regarding adults.
 
again...how does that apply to your claim? all i'm asking is for you to explain how it applies. i don't see it. i'm asking you to analogize the case to to the current issue.



that is what i'm talking about. dookie is not defined as assault, but, one can apply the current law to make dookie in face against the law.





i'm not sure we disagree here. though i disagree with your statement that the bank has to put up a sign, like...no shirt, no shoes....no guns...no service.

In actuallity they do have to put up a sign.
 
Back
Top