• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

They laughed when I said I wanted to restore gun rights in Wyoming

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,957
Location
Gone
Not talking about private property. PRIVATE owners may do as they wish.

What I was referring to is PUBLIC property. The "owners" you speak of are the PEOPLE....Not the government.


And yes another "if you ain't from around here your opinion is worthless"....Very refreshing.

Common sense and moderation is the motto of gun control.

Until they put your name on the deed... the government agency responsible for the building determines who may enter with what. Try waltzing into NSA or the Pentagon... armed or not. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,957
Location
Gone
The police (public servant employee) should have no problem when their master (the boss, employer/ we the PEOPLE) walk into the station armed! the servant should always fear the master, NEVER the other way around.

LOL! Good luck with that in Illinois. I'm sure you can prove this on any given day... Yes?
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,957
Location
Gone
The police - by Constitutional restriction - do not have the authority to tell me "no". Therefore, I'm not concerned with their opinion on carrying in police stations when it's of no consequence, anyway.

Cite please. (I do believe you've gone round the bend if you actually believe that statement.)
 

NewZealandAmerican

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
348
Location
Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb
LOL! Good luck with that in Illinois. I'm sure you can prove this on any given day... Yes?

Right you are brother, how wrong of me to suggest enforcement of unalienable rights, I\we should just accept the scraps from my master the government allows us to get away with and accept it, right???? I thought we were the boss but i stand corrected by you After all they have all the big guns and we should obey them as the weak little piss ants we really are. Let me know how that works out for you when more of your freedom is incrementally restricted increasingly. (sarcasm toggled off) As for me I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees, die free rather than live as a slave! see RIGHTS vs privileges http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/sites/default/files/files-misc/chapter_two.pdf by Michael Badnarik, a great Constitutional primer book BTW "Good To Be King", Chapter 2 in summary:

A RIGHT is something that you can do without asking for permission, such as walking back and forth on your property. A privilege is something you require permission to do, such as walking back and forth across my property. I may grant you the privilege of walking across my property - BUT - I can revoke that privilege any time I wish. Rights and privileges are opposites! Either you need permission - or you don't. You can't lose "some" of your virginity, or be "a little bit" pregnant. You either are or you're not. There's no middle ground.
 
Last edited:

NewZealandAmerican

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
348
Location
Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb
Philosophically

and philosophically Sonora Rebel, pray tell, why would it not be appropriate for a law abiding citizen doing anything within the law in a police station or court room, or anywhere else in a public venue? Police officers are armed in those situations and locations aren't they? Philosophically... do you have an answer to that one? Would you "trust" yourself to be lawfully armed in a police station or court room? Would you "trust" others to be lawfully armed in a police station or court room? Do you only trust police to be armed in a police station or court room? Just what IS the issue of an "armed citizenry" that you are having a problem with? Should citizens only be "armed" in certain circumstance, situation, and/or location? Just what is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that leads anyone to endorse a practice of only being "armed" in certain circumstance, situation, and/or location?... philosophically asking, of course.
 

PaulB

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
28
Location
, ,
People seem to be getting confused between what is and what ought to be.

Here is what is: The people are not employers at all. The people in government are not "servants". That is nothing but propaganda. People go into government because they like to exercise power, plain and simple. When you vote, you are selecting your future master, not your slave. Slaves don't tell masters what to do. If you hadn't noticed, those in government tell "the people" what to do.

Here is what ought to be: the people should be in charge. Yes, the propaganda should be true.

And here is another dose of reality: "The people" is not a sentient being, but just a collection of individuals. Thus it is literally impossible for "the people" to be in charge of anything. Person A may want to do one thing, and person B may want to do the opposite. You might instead say "the majority of people" wants X, and that would be logical; but that is not the same thing as saying "the people" want X.
 

saiga12boy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
110
Location
Colorado
Colorado

Now why can't Colorado hae that kind of initiative for freedom? It's because of the liberals in Denver and Boulder. Denver already banned open carry in their
"wonderful" city. So we don't have any hope in Colorado in the near future since Denver holds the politics of the state. But I am happy for Wyoming.
 
Top