PavePusher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-12-09 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
| 96. It's not about proximity... |
|
it's about actions.
Settled case law says that the presence of a properly holstered firearm is not, in and of itself, considered brandishing or threatening behavior.
You have to consider the totallity of the circumstances.
Was he pointing at it? Otherwise drawing attention to it? Waving it around? Screaming about it? No. He was standing there, quietly, with a sign in his hand.
Release your paranoia.
|
| -Guns...sigh... |
Taverner |
Aug-12-09 12:09 PM |
#0 |
 -
K&R for a voice of reason |
slackmaster |
Aug-12-09 12:13 PM |
#1 |
| -
Monday, I would have supported you |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 12:14 PM |
#2 |
 -
I have a problem with CCW laws as they are |
Taverner |
Aug-12-09 12:16 PM |
#4 |
| -
Fortunately the 2nd Amendment disagrees with you. |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 12:25 PM |
#9 |
| -
The 2nd ammendment is open to exceptions just like the 1st ammendment |
Taverner |
Aug-12-09 12:31 PM |
#14 |
 -
Bullshit |
mudplanet |
Aug-12-09 01:08 PM |
#46 |
| -
I have no problem with taht but I think the majority of DU would. |
Statistical |
Aug-12-09 01:15 PM |
#48 |
| -
shall not be infringed |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 04:02 PM |
#54 |
| -
well regulated |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:11 PM |
#57 |
| -
Chatter and flowers. |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 04:13 PM |
#58 |
| -
Only when well regulated |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:14 PM |
#59 |
| -
Wrong. it's not conditional, that's what "shall not be infringed" means. Try Activia. |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 04:14 PM |
#61 |
| -
A well regulated milita |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:15 PM |
#64 |
| -
Unlike you, I have done my homework. The last part is not conditional on the first. |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 04:20 PM |
#66 |
| -
You drop the first part. |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:21 PM |
#67 |
| -
We ARE the "well-regulated militia" |
derby378 |
Aug-12-09 04:31 PM |
#75 |
| -
Not WITHOUT regulation n/t |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:32 PM |
#80 |
| -
Two acts have bearing.. |
X_Digger |
Aug-12-09 04:41 PM |
#84 |
| -
If the government has no power to regulate the ownership of arms |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:44 PM |
#85 |
| -
See reply below to same Q. n/t |
X_Digger |
Aug-12-09 04:46 PM |
#88 |
| -
In other words, YES, the govenrment CAN regulate the RTKBA. n/t |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:48 PM |
#89 |
| -
You CAN buy |
oneshooter |
Aug-12-09 08:02 PM |
#102 |
| -
Regulated in 1780 meant "well trained and equipped." |
hack89 |
Aug-12-09 09:09 PM |
#105 |
| -
Here's another example of that sentence construction.. |
X_Digger |
Aug-12-09 04:25 PM |
#70 |
| -
You are not convincing me |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:26 PM |
#72 |
| -
Perhaps, but that wasn't my point.. |
X_Digger |
Aug-12-09 04:36 PM |
#82 |
| -
Still not convining me |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:38 PM |
#83 |
| -
Do you know why you can't go pick up a machinegun? |
X_Digger |
Aug-12-09 04:45 PM |
#86 |
| -
Ergo, the government CAN regualte gun ownership |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:45 PM |
#87 |
| -
Who said they couldn't?? |
X_Digger |
Aug-12-09 04:52 PM |
#90 |
| -
Well regulated means well trained with like weapons. PLEASE |
Hoopla Phil |
Aug-13-09 02:09 AM |
#116 |
| -
Funny that |
pipoman |
Aug-12-09 09:59 PM |
#112 |
| -
"A man in the desert with a fully auto machine gun does no harm" |
lapfog_1 |
Aug-12-09 12:43 PM |
#22 |
| -
I guess we need to specify the desert :) |
Taverner |
Aug-12-09 12:44 PM |
#25 |
| -
There's the real point: people have no business living there. |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 12:47 PM |
#31 |
| -
Generally speaking, it's not the people that live here that are the problem |
lapfog_1 |
Aug-12-09 12:51 PM |
#35 |
| -
National Security Events have their own rules |
One_Life_To_Give |
Aug-12-09 01:07 PM |
#45 |
| -
That sounds good and everything |
rrneck |
Aug-12-09 07:21 PM |
#100 |
| -
LOL!!! |
virginia mountainman |
Aug-12-09 12:17 PM |
#6 |
| -
One person at a time altering their position |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 01:05 PM |
#43 |
| -
Yes I know.. |
virginia mountainman |
Aug-12-09 03:30 PM |
#49 |
| -
well congratulations |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 03:33 PM |
#50 |
| -
shall not be infringed |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 04:03 PM |
#55 |
| -
"well regulated" |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:09 PM |
#56 |
| -
If you are having problems with that, try exlax. |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 04:14 PM |
#60 |
| -
The constitution demands the RTKBA be well regulated. |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:15 PM |
#62 |
| -
No it doesn't. |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 04:15 PM |
#63 |
| -
You don't get to pick and choose |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:17 PM |
#65 |
| -
You don't get to pick and choose either, |
virginia mountainman |
Aug-12-09 04:25 PM |
#71 |
| -
So long as its wel regualted, the right is not infringed. n/t |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:31 PM |
#77 |
| -
That word does not mean what you think it means. |
ManiacJoe |
Aug-12-09 07:08 PM |
#97 |
| -
ok here it is in its entirity |
E-Mag |
Aug-12-09 07:18 PM |
#99 |
| -
Being willing to do your homework for you... |
ManiacJoe |
Aug-12-09 09:02 PM |
#104 |
| -
oops it should have been up a post |
E-Mag |
Aug-12-09 09:10 PM |
#106 |
| -
Sure. |
AtheistCrusader |
Aug-12-09 09:42 PM |
#109 |
| -
So long as well regulated means everyone gets a U.S. issued M-4. |
Hoopla Phil |
Aug-13-09 02:27 AM |
#120 |
| -
Correct, but don't change definitions to suit your beliefs either. |
Hoopla Phil |
Aug-13-09 02:26 AM |
#119 |
| -
Think about it.. |
X_Digger |
Aug-12-09 04:21 PM |
#68 |
| -
I completely disagree |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:23 PM |
#69 |
| -
LOL so your saying, that out of the WHOLE BILL OF RIGHTS.. |
virginia mountainman |
Aug-12-09 04:26 PM |
#73 |
| -
I'm saying the second |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:31 PM |
#74 |
| -
In general, the constitution 'grants' powers to the government.. |
X_Digger |
Aug-12-09 04:31 PM |
#76 |
| -
The second EXPLICITLY granted the power to regulate gun ownership. n/t |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 04:32 PM |
#78 |
| -
See above.. tired of typing the same thing in three places :) n/t |
X_Digger |
Aug-12-09 04:58 PM |
#92 |
| -
Actually, WeDidIt, the first clause of the second speaks to the quality of the militia |
tortoise1956 |
Aug-12-09 11:10 PM |
#114 |
| -
No, it prohibits the Federal Government from infringing on our RKBA. |
AtheistCrusader |
Aug-12-09 09:44 PM |
#110 |
| -
Actually it doesn't. |
AtheistCrusader |
Aug-12-09 09:41 PM |
#108 |
| -
Yes, by being well trained with like and kind weapons. Or are you going |
Hoopla Phil |
Aug-13-09 02:25 AM |
#118 |
| -
PLEASE use the correct definition of "well regulated" in the correct context. |
Hoopla Phil |
Aug-13-09 02:24 AM |
#117 |
| -
Keep up the good fight! A federal attack on gun rights would be suicide in 2010. nt |
kelly1mm |
Aug-12-09 09:53 PM |
#111 |
| -
Yes SOME REASON.. |
virginia mountainman |
Aug-12-09 12:16 PM |
#3 |
| -
I agree - the CCW permit SHOULD not apply to bars, public areas and public events |
Taverner |
Aug-12-09 12:17 PM |
#5 |
| -
The CCW is FOR public carry. |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 12:28 PM |
#11 |
| -
CCW not apply to "public areas"? CCW ONLY apply to public areas |
Statistical |
Aug-12-09 12:49 PM |
#32 |
| -
actually, CCW also applies toprivate property |
paulsby |
Aug-13-09 07:30 AM |
#121 |
| -
The presence of the president should suspend a civil right? |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 12:26 PM |
#10 |
| -
In certain situations, it is. |
virginia mountainman |
Aug-12-09 12:29 PM |
#12 |
| -
Yes, just like yelling fire in a crowded theater does |
Taverner |
Aug-12-09 12:29 PM |
#13 |
| -
Carrying a gun and threatening the president are not the same thing. |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 12:34 PM |
#15 |
| -
Yes it is - to carry a gun is to intimidate |
Taverner |
Aug-12-09 12:35 PM |
#16 |
| -
To brandish a gun is to intimidate. And there is a law against that, even in NH and FL. |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 12:39 PM |
# |
| -
The guy who can beat the shit out of me, if acting aggressive, is intimidating |
Taverner |
Aug-12-09 12:41 PM |
#21 |
| -
My right is not contingent on your feelings. |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 12:44 PM |
#26 |
| -
But like I said, its not about rights |
Taverner |
Aug-12-09 12:45 PM |
#29 |
| -
it's only about rights |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 12:51 PM |
#34 |
| -
Then you have lost me... |
Taverner |
Aug-12-09 12:55 PM |
#36 |
| -
The 4th and 5th causes lives to be lost. |
Statistical |
Aug-12-09 12:59 PM |
#42 |
| -
here's where you lose me. |
Morning Dew |
Aug-12-09 01:07 PM |
#44 |
| -
What was the justification for the Patriot Act? |
hack89 |
Aug-12-09 09:15 PM |
#107 |
| -
It's not about proximity... |
PavePusher |
Aug-12-09 07:04 PM |
#96 |
| -
Remember the Concealed part of CCW. |
proteus_lives |
Aug-12-09 12:46 PM |
#30 |
| -
Intimidation is not based on your reaction. |
Statistical |
Aug-12-09 12:51 PM |
#33 |
| -
Yes. n/t |
WeDidIt |
Aug-12-09 12:56 PM |
#38 |
| -
There is such a zone whenever secret service asks for one |
Recursion |
Aug-12-09 12:36 PM |
#18 |
| -
That man's gun was not a threat to the President. |
imdjh |
Aug-12-09 12:43 PM |
#24 |
| -
Secret Service can and has asked people to leave private property from time to time |
Recursion |
Aug-12-09 12:44 PM |
#27 |
| -
Yes, they can and do. |
PavePusher |
Aug-12-09 07:00 PM |
#95 |
| -
We don't know whether it was an actual or even intended threat to the president... |
Orsino |
Aug-12-09 12:58 PM |
#41 |
| -
Again, we are in total agreement. |
Greyhound |
Aug-12-09 12:21 PM |
#7 |
| -
K&R |
jody |
Aug-12-09 12:24 PM |
#8 |
| -
That's as close to my opinion as anything I've read recently |
tularetom |
Aug-12-09 12:35 PM |
#17 |
| -
I agree with one of your examples. |
proteus_lives |
Aug-12-09 12:38 PM |
#19 |
| -
Agree kinda... |
Taverner |
Aug-12-09 12:43 PM |
#23 |
| -
What if you use your car and make a mistake? Could you live with yourself. |
Statistical |
Aug-12-09 12:55 PM |
#37 |
| -
No I couldn't, and that is why my wife drives most of the time |
Taverner |
Aug-12-09 12:58 PM |
#40 |
| -
I agree guns & crime don't have causation. |
Statistical |
Aug-12-09 01:14 PM |
#47 |
| -
You're pretty misinformed here. |
Call Me Wesley |
Aug-12-09 03:57 PM |
#53 |
| -
Then it's something I would have to live with. |
proteus_lives |
Aug-12-09 03:44 PM |
#51 |
| -
Why? |
zipplewrath |
Aug-12-09 12:45 PM |
#28 |
| -
I think the logic is more on the trip there or back. |
Statistical |
Aug-12-09 12:57 PM |
#39 |
| -
I'm not looking for an opportunity to use it. |
proteus_lives |
Aug-12-09 03:47 PM |
#52 |
| -
That logic doesn't seem to flow. |
PavePusher |
Aug-12-09 07:13 PM |
#98 |
| -
K&R |
PVnRT |
Aug-12-09 12:39 PM |
#20 |
| -
K&R, You sir just nailed it! |
Norwood |
Aug-12-09 04:32 PM |
#79 |
| -
You think these folks would support reasonable time, place and manner restrictions? |
depakid |
Aug-12-09 04:34 PM |
#81 |
| -
Wrong word. |
proteus_lives |
Aug-12-09 10:03 PM |
#113 |
| -
People who bring guns to Presdential events ar eTERRORISTS |
alarimer |
Aug-12-09 04:56 PM |
#91 |
| -
That would be a radical definition of terrorist. |
ManiacJoe |
Aug-12-09 06:54 PM |
#93 |
| -
Bush supporter, eh? |
PavePusher |
Aug-12-09 06:56 PM |
#94 |
| -
I half agree with you. |
Tim01 |
Aug-12-09 07:25 PM |
#101 |
| -
Which is also true of concealed carry... |
spin |
Aug-12-09 08:11 PM |
#103 |
| -
Many of the tourists have their own.. |
virginia mountainman |
Aug-12-09 11:33 PM |
#115 |
| -
Also true. |
spin |
Aug-13-09 09:53 AM |
#122 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread