I'm OK with concealed carry, ONLY if the unlicensed can legally fight back.

[amdhunter]

I would be OK with a citizen to buy and legally carry a gun, but only if the following law is put into place.

Unlicensed un-armed citizens will have the right to have the person arrested if he makes ANY threat towards them, no matter how minuscule. Simply announcing you are a concealed carry gun holder should be considered a threat, and the gun holder should be held accountable.

If getting a quick response from law enforcement isn't available - the person being threatened by the gun holder should have the right, with legal backing, to try and disable the gun holder by any means possible, even if it includes ending his life with an impromptu device, such as a car, or bat, or whatever is available.

For example - I get into an argument with someone who proclaims that he is gun holder; at that exact moment, I have every right to have him arrested for threatening me. If getting help from law enforcement is not readily available, I will have every right to find any weapon I can, and have the right to end his life with full legal backing.

Castle law rights should not always favor the gun holder, it should work either way, and should always favor the unarmed if any questions should come up.

Once I get full legal backing to have concealed carry holders arrested for simply mentioning they have a gun, I'll be OK with sales of said weapons to individuals.

Troll thread. And, if this is really your opinion, feel free to post it in any of the other at least half dozen current threads on this topic. -Admin DrPizza

 

[Matt1970]

I would be OK with a citizen to buy and legally carry a gun, but only if the following law is put into place.

Unlicensed un-armed citizens will have the right to have the person arrested if he makes ANY threat towards them, no matter how minuscule. Simply announcing you are a concealed carry gun holder should be considered a threat, and the gun holder should be held accountable.

If getting a quick response from law enforcement isn't available - the person being threatened by the gun holder should have the right, with legal backing, to try and disable the gun holder by any means possible, even if it includes ending his life with an impromptu device, such as a car, or bat, or whatever is available.

For example - I get into an argument with someone who proclaims that he is gun holder; at that exact moment, I have every right to have him arrested for threatening me. If getting help from law enforcement is not readily available, I will have every right to find any weapon I can, and have the right to end his life with full legal backing.

Castle law rights should not always favor the gun holder, it should work either way, and should always favor the unarmed if any questions should come up.

Once I get full legal backing to have concealed carry holders arrested for simply mentioning they have a gun, I'll be OK with sales of said weapons to individuals.

So if you happen to get into an altercation with someone and before it leads to punches he tells you he has a weapon on them, you then want the legal backing to immediately kill them? The very fact that they are mentioning they have a gun is probably to diffuse the situation to begin with, not to bully people. Never mind the fact that crimes committed by carry/conceal permit holders account for .01% of all crimes committed with guns so congratulations, you just solved 1/100th of the problem. Never mind the fact that if you ask most permit holders they will tell you they typically avoid any situations that could lead to a fist fight just due to the fact they are carrying. And believe me, the last thing you want to do in any situation is to disable a permit holder.

 

[Incorruptible]

So if you happen to get into an altercation with someone and before it leads to punches he tells you he has a weapon on them, you then want the legal backing to immediately kill them? The very fact that they are mentioning they have a gun is probably to diffuse the situation to begin with, not to bully people. Never mind the fact that crimes committed by carry/conceal permit holders account for .01% of all crimes committed with guns so congratulations, you just solved 1/100th of the problem. Never mind the fact that if you ask most permit holders they will tell you they typically avoid any situations that could lead to a fist fight just due to the fact they are carrying. And believe me, the last thing you want to do in any situation is to disable a permit holder.

Agreed with everything you said, The op makes no sense

Not sure if serious or trolling

 

[RampantAndroid]

I would be OK with a citizen to buy and legally carry a gun, but only if the following law is put into place.

Unlicensed un-armed citizens will have the right to have the person arrested if he makes ANY threat towards them, no matter how minuscule. Simply announcing you are a concealed carry gun holder should be considered a threat, and the gun holder should be held accountable.

If getting a quick response from law enforcement isn't available - the person being threatened by the gun holder should have the right, with legal backing, to try and disable the gun holder by any means possible, even if it includes ending his life with an impromptu device, such as a car, or bat, or whatever is available.

For example - I get into an argument with someone who proclaims that he is gun holder; at that exact moment, I have every right to have him arrested for threatening me. If getting help from law enforcement is not readily available, I will have every right to find any weapon I can, and have the right to end his life with full legal backing.

Castle law rights should not always favor the gun holder, it should work either way, and should always favor the unarmed if any questions should come up.

Once I get full legal backing to have concealed carry holders arrested for simply mentioning they have a gun, I'll be OK with sales of said weapons to individuals.

The shit? Dude, you already have something like this. It's called self defense. What the hell are you on about?

Oh, wait. You're the one who posted the video of thugs acting like parole officers. Nevermind...

 

[davmat787]

OP, why would you feel sufficiently threatened by the mere fact a law abiding citizen is carrying that warrants lethal force?

And I think you should look into the current self defense laws and gain a basic understanding of them if you want to change them, it is obvious you have no clue what they currently say.

 

[waggy]

OP you are a idiot.

 

[shortylickens]

The OP is a troll. And I cant state my theories as to why he's still allowed here.

 

[Incorruptible]

OP you are a idiot.

Agreed. He wasn't serious about the OP

 

[RampantAndroid]

OP, why would you feel sufficiently threatened by the mere fact a law abiding citizen is carrying that warrants lethal force?

And I think you should look into the current self defense laws and gain a basic understanding of them if you want to change them, it is obvious you have no clue what they currently say.

Well, keep in mind he says "if he states he is a gun owner" as if that is a threat. Whatever...

 

[Jaskalas]

Agreed with everything you said, The op makes no sense

Not sure if serious or trolling

Some people are blood hungry, some people hate gun owners. OP combined the two.

Not cool with that premise.

 

[Zor Prime]

Post by OP is possibly one of the dumbest things I've read on the Internet.

CCW holders I know go above and beyond to ensure they stay out of trouble and would only ever act to save a life (them or someone else).

The stranger walking next to you just might be the best thing that ever happened to you.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I would be OK with a citizen to buy and legally carry a gun, but only if the following law is put into place.

Unlicensed un-armed citizens will have the right to have the person arrested if he makes ANY threat towards them, no matter how minuscule. Simply announcing you are a concealed carry gun holder should be considered a threat, and the gun holder should be held accountable.

If getting a quick response from law enforcement isn't available - the person being threatened by the gun holder should have the right, with legal backing, to try and disable the gun holder by any means possible, even if it includes ending his life with an impromptu device, such as a car, or bat, or whatever is available.

For example - I get into an argument with someone who proclaims that he is gun holder; at that exact moment, I have every right to have him arrested for threatening me. If getting help from law enforcement is not readily available, I will have every right to find any weapon I can, and have the right to end his life with full legal backing.

Castle law rights should not always favor the gun holder, it should work either way, and should always favor the unarmed if any questions should come up.

Once I get full legal backing to have concealed carry holders arrested for simply mentioning they have a gun, I'll be OK with sales of said weapons to individuals.

No.

And go fuck yourself you sorry wise and beautiful woman.

Uncalled for, even in P&N.
admin allisolm

 

[buckshot24]

You can't brandish your gun. People who carry don't typically act more aggressively, just the opposite.

 

[BudAshes]

Agreed with everything you said, The op makes no sense

Not sure if serious or trolling

Are you talking about yourself or the OP? Because you are both on the same level in my book.

 

[Ackmed]

Nobody gives a fuck what you care about or want.

 

[Smoblikat]

I would be OK with a citizen to buy and legally carry a gun, but only if the following law is put into place.

Unlicensed un-armed citizens will have the right to have the person arrested if he makes ANY threat towards them, no matter how minuscule. Simply announcing you are a concealed carry gun holder should be considered a threat, and the gun holder should be held accountable.

If getting a quick response from law enforcement isn't available - the person being threatened by the gun holder should have the right, with legal backing, to try and disable the gun holder by any means possible, even if it includes ending his life with an impromptu device, such as a car, or bat, or whatever is available.

For example - I get into an argument with someone who proclaims that he is gun holder; at that exact moment, I have every right to have him arrested for threatening me. If getting help from law enforcement is not readily available, I will have every right to find any weapon I can, and have the right to end his life with full legal backing.

Castle law rights should not always favor the gun holder, it should work either way, and should always favor the unarmed if any questions should come up.

Once I get full legal backing to have concealed carry holders arrested for simply mentioning they have a gun, I'll be OK with sales of said weapons to individuals.

"Hello, I currently posses a firearm"
"FUCKING KILL HIM, HE TALKED"

 

[Braznor]

Man, how insecure some people can feel about certain shapes of metal! :\

 

[OverVolt]

Someone has a criminal background and is jealous.

Or doesn't trust themselves with a firearm.

Pick 1.

 

[WilliamM2]

I would be OK with a citizen to buy and legally carry a gun, but only if the following law is put into place.

Unlicensed un-armed citizens will have the right to have the person arrested if he makes ANY threat towards them, no matter how minuscule. Simply announcing you are a concealed carry gun holder should be considered a threat, and the gun holder should be held accountable.

If getting a quick response from law enforcement isn't available - the person being threatened by the gun holder should have the right, with legal backing, to try and disable the gun holder by any means possible, even if it includes ending his life with an impromptu device, such as a car, or bat, or whatever is available.

For example - I get into an argument with someone who proclaims that he is gun holder; at that exact moment, I have every right to have him arrested for threatening me. If getting help from law enforcement is not readily available, I will have every right to find any weapon I can, and have the right to end his life with full legal backing.

Castle law rights should not always favor the gun holder, it should work either way, and should always favor the unarmed if any questions should come up.

Once I get full legal backing to have concealed carry holders arrested for simply mentioning they have a gun, I'll be OK with sales of said weapons to individuals.

Why are you so violent? Enviroment?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Ok so,

I am on my back porch and see a hooded thug cut through my property, peering between houses and trying see what's in my garage.

I walk to the front and demand that he leave my property, while on the phone with the cops.

He runs away, and I walk to the edge of the yard to see where he went.

5 minutes later, while waiting for the police, he runs out from behind some bushes and viciously attacks me. During this attack, he sees that I am armed.

Said hooded thug can now legally take my life?...... Yeah I don't think so.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Ok so,

I am on my back porch and see a hooded thug cut through my property, peering between houses and trying see what's in my garage.

I walk to the front and demand that he leave my property, while on the phone with the cops.

He runs away, and I walk to the edge of the yard to see where he went.

5 minutes later, while waiting for the police, he runs out from behind some bushes and viciously attacks me. During this attack, he sees that I am armed.

Said hooded thug can now legally take my life?...... Yeah I don't think so.

Go look up AMDHunter's post about his brothers TV show (if it's really his brother) - it's a youtube show about these useless shitheads, probably on steroids or something, pretending to be parole enforcers, threatening to break down doors DESPITE not having any legal backing to do so. So, yeah. He's totally grounded and logical.