|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/12/2011 05:45:49 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Someone needs to come to Jesus... ;P |
I SO read that wrong. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 05:47:20 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Someone needs to come to Jesus... ;P |
I SO read that wrong. |
You are a sick man... |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 05:57:08 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Someone needs to come to Jesus... ;P |
I SO read that wrong. |
You are a sick man... |
Guilty as charged. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 05:58:56 PM · #229 |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 05:59:28 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Someone needs to come to Jesus... ;P |
I SO read that wrong. |
You are a sick man... |
Guilty as charged. |
Not that that will keep you from buying a gun in Arizona ... |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 05:59:49 PM · #231 |
| I still have my desert beige leg holster but it won't go with many of my outfits these days. I suppose I'll need a new one, yes? |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:03:07 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I still have my desert beige leg holster but it won't go with many of my outfits these days. I suppose I'll need a new one, yes? |
It should fit right in with today's urban styles ...  Or, as the Rolling Stones say, Paint It Black ... ;-) |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:26:44 PM · #233 |
For some relief, I'm hijacking the thread.
You Tube, "Hi Jack"
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:27:06 PM · #234 |
People.
This in not a liberal issue or a conservative issue, despite everyone shuddering in terror at deranged, conservative Arizona and repeatedly bashing liberal idiocy. Way to reduce a nuanced situation to a political black and white, guys. Congratulations all around.
People freaked because you can get a gun and concealed carry in Arizona without restrictions, and probably assume Arizona must be this way because of out of control conservative whack-job ideology (It's Arizona, after all). Once again, let me point out that Vermont, one of the most liberal states in the nation (Statewide ban on billboards? Gay marriage? Thriving counterculture? Yes, yes, and yes.) also allows permit-less, unrestricted concealed carry.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
What gives? Wouldn't that indicate the gun control issue is orthogonal to one's general political stance? Liberal Vermonters like their guns, endure very little crime in general, and are not dropping like flies from sudden bullet holes. Wouldn't this also indicate that gun violence is, at least in part, decoupled from gun ownership and gun regulation? Go look up VT crime stats and VT gun-related injury stats. Compare them to California, with its TONS of regulations. They're readily available.
Of course, nobody took me up on the offer to explain this discrepancy, the last time I asked.
I mean, look at me! I'm a hard-core social liberal. It's hard not to be with the husband, yes? Yet both of us rather enjoy bringing our semiautomatic pistols, revolvers, and shotguns to the range to blow holes in a bunch of crap. We are INTO guns. They are FUN. It is RECREATIONAL and CULTURAL.
No macho bragging about burglar-stopping power, no 2nd amendment solution fantasies of changing the government, no brandishing at strangers to get our way... just the simple joys of a loud noise and significant action at a distance, paired with personal improvement through practice.
The issue here is about restricting liberty to effect positive change, and given my own background, I'm just not seeing it. The way most people treat guns is irrational, particularly people who have not used them, and that colors legislation. Firearms are tools, they are not death machines.
If you're willing to limit my access to semiautomatic firearms to reduce a small number of bad outcomes unrelated to me, why not start by restricting pleasure driving, or consuming alcohol anywhere outside the home? Way more bang for the buck, IMO. Of course, it's easier to legislate away something you don't care about than it is something you actively engage in. And there are always unintended consequences.
What I'm seeing here is a failure to draw a distinction between 'scary' and 'dangerous', and letting that control your thinking. People focus on guns because they're scared of them in a way that they are not scared about cars, despite cars being super dangerous. They only see the symbol, and not the device.
Why not come shooting with my husband and I if you're in town? You might find you like it.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:29:59 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
People.
This in not a liberal issue or a conservative issue, despite everyone shuddering in terror at deranged, conservative Arizona and repeatedly bashing liberal idiocy. Way to reduce a nuanced situation to a political black and white, guys. Congratulations all around.
People freaked because you can get a gun and concealed carry in Arizona without restrictions, and probably assume Arizona must be this way because of out of control conservative whack-job ideology (It's Arizona, after all). Once again, let me point out that Vermont, one of the most liberal states in the nation (Statewide ban on billboards? Gay marriage? Thriving counterculture? Yes, yes, and yes.) also allows permit-less, unrestricted concealed carry.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
What gives? Wouldn't that indicate the gun control issue is orthogonal to one's general political stance? Liberal Vermonters like their guns, endure very little crime in general, and are not dropping like flies from sudden bullet holes. Wouldn't this also indicate that gun violence is, at least in part, decoupled from gun ownership and gun regulation? Go look up VT crime stats and VT gun-related injury stats. Compare them to California, with its TONS of regulations. They're readily available.
Of course, nobody took me up on the offer to explain this discrepancy, the last time I asked.
I mean, look at me! I'm a hard-core social liberal. It's hard not to be with the husband, yes? Yet both of us rather enjoy bringing our semiautomatic pistols, revolvers, and shotguns to the range to blow holes in a bunch of crap. We are INTO guns. They are FUN. It is RECREATIONAL and CULTURAL.
No macho bragging about burglar-stopping power, no 2nd amendment solution fantasies of changing the government, no brandishing at strangers to get our way... just the simple joys of a loud noise and significant action at a distance, paired with personal improvement through practice.
The issue here is about restricting liberty to effect positive change, and given my own background, I'm just not seeing it. The way most people treat guns is irrational, particularly people who have not used them, and that colors legislation. Firearms are tools, they are not death machines.
If you're willing to limit my access to semiautomatic firearms to reduce a small number of bad outcomes unrelated to me, why not start by restricting pleasure driving, or consuming alcohol anywhere outside the home? Way more bang for the buck, IMO. Of course, it's easier to legislate away something you don't care about than it is something you actively engage in. And there are always unintended consequences.
What I'm seeing here is a failure to draw a distinction between 'scary' and 'dangerous', and letting that control your thinking. People focus on guns because they're scared of them in a way that they are not scared about cars, despite cars being super dangerous. They only see the symbol, and not the device.
Why not come shooting with my husband and I if you're in town? You might find you like it. |
I don't think you've actually read anything anyone in this thread has said, and are doing your own over-reactionary posting, and engaging in exactly what you're railing on about :D |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:33:32 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Really, I'm not at all generally that way, but when you start getting aggressive towards someone because they've got a gun, and you are trying to get a rise out of them, sure, I think you outta have your nose broken, just to teach you some g-damn manners, not everybody is your momma, and they ain't gonna always take your shit, simple lesson that some folks seem to have never learned..
If it's just someone who's politely opposed, then that's a different matter... I call those folks, people who are opposed, not something less complementary and intentionally inflammatory. |
You cannot contradict yourself more if you tried. |
Perhaps you should consider a bit remedial English education.
Let me simplify for the simple.
People who are non-aggressive but opposed are fine by me... People who try to start fights with someone carrying a gun, simply because they are carrying that gun, deserve whatever they might get. Make sense now? And you're damn right I'm quite willing to meet aggression with greater aggression - that's one of the issues I have with some folks, they think I should meet an aggressor with the "turn the other cheek" mentality... Sorry, but I'd rather not, as one bruised cheek is quite enough for me. |
Interesting. That you would consider some innocuous comment from someone as "aggressive" is telling. What it says about you is that you carry a low self-esteem about your person, and that you actually sub-consciously question yourself enough that you can't accept an opposing viewpoint without fantasizing about carrying it to violent extremes. |
Umm, I was talking about the pushing on my chest, finger in my face type you dolt...
Glad you got another opportunity try to get in another personal insult, no idea what your beef with me personally is, but you might want to think about what you're saying, and show a little respect yourself |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:35:38 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I always preferred to carry concealed, but since it was, at the time, against the law - there were times that I felt carrying the darn thing legally was a good idea... I pretty quickly went back to carrying it concealed despite the legality issues due to the aforementioned anti-gun idiots.. (it's a misdemeanor anyway. Not exactly a huge offense) |
Have you actually used it yet? Just curious, really, I don't live in New Mexico, but I haven't needed one yet in Los Angeles, or previously in Philadelphia. If not, what do you do during any 24 hour period that makes you want to carry a gun. |
Yep, I've shot a ton of paper and other inanimate objects... Didn't I mention that I no longer even see a need for one? What did I previously do? You have no business knowing. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:38:23 PM · #238 |
The commonality between Arizona and Vermont is probably along the Libertarian spectrum rather than the "conservative" one.
There is, however, other evidence to support your idea. In 1986 82% of people polled felt gun laws should be "more restrictive" than present. In 2010 that number is 44%. I do not think the country has shifted, as a whole, so drastically to the right that you could use conservatism as the sole explanation.
However, the difference in feelings about gun rights is quite apparent between people who associate themselves with either party.
Message edited by author 2011-01-12 18:39:11. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:38:42 PM · #239 |
He didn't ask what you previously did. He said 'what do you do in a 24 hour period that makes you want to carry a gun'
Anyway, now that you've got all our attention... what did you do previously? And did you have a double-oh license to kill? |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:40:18 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Mousie:
People.
This in not a liberal issue or a conservative issue, despite everyone shuddering in terror at deranged, conservative Arizona and repeatedly bashing liberal idiocy. Way to reduce a nuanced situation to a political black and white, guys. Congratulations all around.
People freaked because you can get a gun and concealed carry in Arizona without restrictions, and probably assume Arizona must be this way because of out of control conservative whack-job ideology (It's Arizona, after all). Once again, let me point out that Vermont, one of the most liberal states in the nation (Statewide ban on billboards? Gay marriage? Thriving counterculture? Yes, yes, and yes.) also allows permit-less, unrestricted concealed carry.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
What gives? Wouldn't that indicate the gun control issue is orthogonal to one's general political stance? Liberal Vermonters like their guns, endure very little crime in general, and are not dropping like flies from sudden bullet holes. Wouldn't this also indicate that gun violence is, at least in part, decoupled from gun ownership and gun regulation? Go look up VT crime stats and VT gun-related injury stats. Compare them to California, with its TONS of regulations. They're readily available.
Of course, nobody took me up on the offer to explain this discrepancy, the last time I asked.
I mean, look at me! I'm a hard-core social liberal. It's hard not to be with the husband, yes? Yet both of us rather enjoy bringing our semiautomatic pistols, revolvers, and shotguns to the range to blow holes in a bunch of crap. We are INTO guns. They are FUN. It is RECREATIONAL and CULTURAL.
No macho bragging about burglar-stopping power, no 2nd amendment solution fantasies of changing the government, no brandishing at strangers to get our way... just the simple joys of a loud noise and significant action at a distance, paired with personal improvement through practice.
The issue here is about restricting liberty to effect positive change, and given my own background, I'm just not seeing it. The way most people treat guns is irrational, particularly people who have not used them, and that colors legislation. Firearms are tools, they are not death machines.
If you're willing to limit my access to semiautomatic firearms to reduce a small number of bad outcomes unrelated to me, why not start by restricting pleasure driving, or consuming alcohol anywhere outside the home? Way more bang for the buck, IMO. Of course, it's easier to legislate away something you don't care about than it is something you actively engage in. And there are always unintended consequences.
What I'm seeing here is a failure to draw a distinction between 'scary' and 'dangerous', and letting that control your thinking. People focus on guns because they're scared of them in a way that they are not scared about cars, despite cars being super dangerous. They only see the symbol, and not the device.
Why not come shooting with my husband and I if you're in town? You might find you like it. |
I don't think you've actually read anything anyone in this thread has said, and are doing your own over-reactionary posting, and engaging in exactly what you're railing on about :D |
Really? Cause, that's not his first response, and it seems to me he did read the thread, I'm just thinking you're busy viewing this as some sort of personal insult game, as you've really been quite busy throwing the insults around, but I haven't seen much in the way of actual real thought, opinions, or other discourse from you, other than that which I've directly called you out on, and you've been forced to type more than one sentence... Even then your posts pretty quickly devolve into personal shots... In short I'm not impressed with you sir. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:43:01 PM · #241 |
| Well, I own a few guns. Mostly 'cause I like them. I also am armed 24/7. At my age I don't run as fast and there ain't as much fight in me as there used to be. Now who among you are going to be around when some jerk decides to harm me? NO ONE, and likely no police either. So, it's up to me to provide my own protection. Notice I did not say take something from me. Have I ever had to use my weapon? No, never exposed it to anyone but I have had it in hand, concealed, but ready a few times and I believe the bad guys recognised I was armed. I have a cemetery plot I haven't used yet but it is there when I need it. Now please don't try to tell me I have no right to protect myself and my family, or maybe even YOU. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:45:26 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by JH:
He didn't ask what you previously did. He said 'what do you do in a 24 hour period that makes you want to carry a gun'
Anyway, now that you've got all our attention... what did you do previously? And did you have a double-oh license to kill? |
1. None-ya business. :) Although, you should know that I grew up on a working horse (etc) ranch.. Plenty of reasons to know how to use, and need for, guns...
2. Nope.
And just to really settle the "how much does Cory actually use a gun" argument, it's hard to say, I mean, my personal defense weapon is sitting within about a foot and a half of me, yet it hasn't moved in months. I've fired it last sometime in June - and yep, you can bet I'm nowhere near as good at shooting as I used to be... But I'm still good enough to generally hit what I intend to hit.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:46:54 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
If not, what do you do during any 24 hour period that makes you want to carry a gun. |
I believe Corey works in I.T, so, honestly, who the hell can blame him. It's either that or World Of Warcraft i imagine. |
LOL, and WOW really should be outlawed... :) |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:55:18 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
You cannot contradict yourself more if you tried. |
Perhaps you should consider a bit of remedial English education.
Let me simplify for the simple.
People who are non-aggressive but opposed are fine by me... People who try to start fights with someone carrying a gun, simply because they are carrying that gun, deserve whatever they might get. Make sense now? And you're damn right I'm quite willing to meet aggression with greater aggression - that's one of the issues I have with some folks, they think I should meet an aggressor with the "turn the other cheek" mentality... Sorry, but I'd rather not, as one bruised cheek is quite enough for me. |
You are amongst the most aggressive people on this board. Is it really necessary to try to belittle anyone who opposes your viewpoint? Calling people dolts, simple, a sniping asshole, etc. etc.
Yet you expect people to be non-aggressive towards you?
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 06:56:28 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Mousie:
People.
This in not a liberal issue or a conservative issue, despite everyone shuddering in terror at deranged, conservative Arizona and repeatedly bashing liberal idiocy. Way to reduce a nuanced situation to a political black and white, guys. Congratulations all around.
People freaked because you can get a gun and concealed carry in Arizona without restrictions, and probably assume Arizona must be this way because of out of control conservative whack-job ideology (It's Arizona, after all). Once again, let me point out that Vermont, one of the most liberal states in the nation (Statewide ban on billboards? Gay marriage? Thriving counterculture? Yes, yes, and yes.) also allows permit-less, unrestricted concealed carry.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
What gives? Wouldn't that indicate the gun control issue is orthogonal to one's general political stance? Liberal Vermonters like their guns, endure very little crime in general, and are not dropping like flies from sudden bullet holes. Wouldn't this also indicate that gun violence is, at least in part, decoupled from gun ownership and gun regulation? Go look up VT crime stats and VT gun-related injury stats. Compare them to California, with its TONS of regulations. They're readily available.
Of course, nobody took me up on the offer to explain this discrepancy, the last time I asked.
I mean, look at me! I'm a hard-core social liberal. It's hard not to be with the husband, yes? Yet both of us rather enjoy bringing our semiautomatic pistols, revolvers, and shotguns to the range to blow holes in a bunch of crap. We are INTO guns. They are FUN. It is RECREATIONAL and CULTURAL.
No macho bragging about burglar-stopping power, no 2nd amendment solution fantasies of changing the government, no brandishing at strangers to get our way... just the simple joys of a loud noise and significant action at a distance, paired with personal improvement through practice.
The issue here is about restricting liberty to effect positive change, and given my own background, I'm just not seeing it. The way most people treat guns is irrational, particularly people who have not used them, and that colors legislation. Firearms are tools, they are not death machines.
If you're willing to limit my access to semiautomatic firearms to reduce a small number of bad outcomes unrelated to me, why not start by restricting pleasure driving, or consuming alcohol anywhere outside the home? Way more bang for the buck, IMO. Of course, it's easier to legislate away something you don't care about than it is something you actively engage in. And there are always unintended consequences.
What I'm seeing here is a failure to draw a distinction between 'scary' and 'dangerous', and letting that control your thinking. People focus on guns because they're scared of them in a way that they are not scared about cars, despite cars being super dangerous. They only see the symbol, and not the device.
Why not come shooting with my husband and I if you're in town? You might find you like it. |
I don't think you've actually read anything anyone in this thread has said, and are doing your own over-reactionary posting, and engaging in exactly what you're railing on about :D |
Really? Cause, that's not his first response, and it seems to me he did read the thread, I'm just thinking you're busy viewing this as some sort of personal insult game, as you've really been quite busy throwing the insults around, but I haven't seen much in the way of actual real thought, opinions, or other discourse from you, other than that which I've directly called you out on, and you've been forced to type more than one sentence... Even then your posts pretty quickly devolve into personal shots... In short I'm not impressed with you sir. |
I'm shocked and hurt :) |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 07:50:48 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Really, I'm not at all generally that way, but when you start getting aggressive towards someone because they've got a gun, and you are trying to get a rise out of them, sure, I think you outta have your nose broken, just to teach you some g-damn manners, not everybody is your momma, and they ain't gonna always take your shit, simple lesson that some folks seem to have never learned..
If it's just someone who's politely opposed, then that's a different matter... I call those folks, people who are opposed, not something less complementary and intentionally inflammatory. |
You cannot contradict yourself more if you tried. |
Perhaps you should consider a bit remedial English education.
Let me simplify for the simple.
People who are non-aggressive but opposed are fine by me... People who try to start fights with someone carrying a gun, simply because they are carrying that gun, deserve whatever they might get. Make sense now? And you're damn right I'm quite willing to meet aggression with greater aggression - that's one of the issues I have with some folks, they think I should meet an aggressor with the "turn the other cheek" mentality... Sorry, but I'd rather not, as one bruised cheek is quite enough for me. |
Interesting. That you would consider some innocuous comment from someone as "aggressive" is telling. What it says about you is that you carry a low self-esteem about your person, and that you actually sub-consciously question yourself enough that you can't accept an opposing viewpoint without fantasizing about carrying it to violent extremes. |
Um, I do believe he described an aggressive affront, not an innocuous comment. There's a big difference between saying "Oh, guns, I don't like them" and "So you think you're a tough guy, huh?" One is a comment. The other is both a direct challenge and an attack on the carrier's character. I don't have any trouble telling which is which, myself.
While I personally practice strict non-violence when it comes to physical interaction, if someone called me out like that, taking me to task over a prejudice of their own, I would certainly be tempted to pop them in the mouth, and undoubtedly hope they'd get their comeuppance eventually, by some other means. As far as I'm concerned, they're asking for it. Too bad I don't believe in Karma.
As originally described, I'd consider it the peacenik equivalent to a jock calling me a worthless fag. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 07:59:00 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I don't think you've actually read anything anyone in this thread has said, and are doing your own over-reactionary posting, and engaging in exactly what you're railing on about :D |
Well, you'd be completely off track then, but thanks for the vote of confidence.
Out of fairness... prove me wrong! Where am I being partisan exactly? And where am I being irrational about guns because I'm scared of them? Cite examples, please.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2011 08:17:54 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I don't think you've actually read anything anyone in this thread has said, and are doing your own over-reactionary posting, and engaging in exactly what you're railing on about :D |
Well, you'd be completely off track then, but thanks for the vote of confidence.
Out of fairness... prove me wrong! Where am I being partisan exactly? And where am I being irrational about guns because I'm scared of them? Cite examples, please. |
I didn't say you were being partisan OR scared of guns, did I? I said you were being over-reactionary and engaging in the same TYPE of posting that you were accusing others of, not that you were posting the same subjects.
I don't really see the need to be that much more specific really. Your post speaks for itself. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 08:25:54 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
You cannot contradict yourself more if you tried. |
Perhaps you should consider a bit of remedial English education.
Let me simplify for the simple.
People who are non-aggressive but opposed are fine by me... People who try to start fights with someone carrying a gun, simply because they are carrying that gun, deserve whatever they might get. Make sense now? And you're damn right I'm quite willing to meet aggression with greater aggression - that's one of the issues I have with some folks, they think I should meet an aggressor with the "turn the other cheek" mentality... Sorry, but I'd rather not, as one bruised cheek is quite enough for me. |
You are amongst the most aggressive people on this board. Is it really necessary to try to belittle anyone who opposes your viewpoint? Calling people dolts, simple, a sniping asshole, etc. etc.
Yet you expect people to be non-aggressive towards you? |
Aggressive with words, with words... I can discuss things in this same manner, in person, laid back with a smile on my face, a genuine smile, talking at a normal volume level, I expect the same of others (more or less anyway, a smile isn't required). Sure I'm aggressive with words, but you'll notice that I've not suggested that I'm going to actually pop you or anyone else in the kisser have I? At least not for disagreeing with me, however vehemently.. I might have a small urge to do so when someone attacks my character without good cause, or based upon some twisting of something I've said, sure that's annoying, but not really gonna get me to do something..
Now, if we (proverbial we, and or you - from here forth) should be having this (or any other) discussion in real life, and you feel the need to suddenly start having the discussion at unreasonable volume levels, at at unreasonably short distances to my person, you might well find that I am quite willing to take violent remedies... Justifiably so, IMO, as that behavior constitutes an immediate personal threat, at a severity which would justify the use of moderate physical force. Which, before you think I mean I'm going to shoot you or something so silly, means that I'd be quite willing to make you set on the floor, in a quick and effective manner.
I'm sure you'll think I'm wrong for that.. I feel quite strongly that I am not. |
|
|
|
01/12/2011 08:34:16 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I always preferred to carry concealed, but since it was, at the time, against the law - there were times that I felt carrying the darn thing legally was a good idea... I pretty quickly went back to carrying it concealed despite the legality issues due to the aforementioned anti-gun idiots.. (it's a misdemeanor anyway. Not exactly a huge offense) |
Have you actually used it yet? Just curious, really, I don't live in New Mexico, but I haven't needed one yet in Los Angeles, or previously in Philadelphia. If not, what do you do during any 24 hour period that makes you want to carry a gun. |
Yep, I've shot a ton of paper and other inanimate objects... Didn't I mention that I no longer even see a need for one? What did I previously do? You have no business knowing. |
Cory, I meant have, in this case did, you use it while carrying it concealed;i.e., did you ever come across a situation in which you were grateful for carrying a weapon?
I also think this is a valid question for any gun advocate: What do you do during any 24 hour period that makes you want to carry a gun.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/28/2025 01:45:46 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/28/2025 01:45:46 AM EDT.
|
