Man in Zorro Costume Detained Ahead of Chaotic Night at LAX

[av8tr1]

The horse is already out of the barn - 9/11 was a unique attack. You won't see 4 planes commandeered again.

I see where you two are trying to go with. But the terrorist problem is not the epidemic problem that is the mass shooting problem. We had people take over planes, and the entire country changed. Even the constitution was bent. Measures like stop and frisk, if you were black or brown, you could be stopped without reasonable or probably cause and "checked out" by a local police force. The Patriot Act also skirted some very fine edges too. Thing is, the country came together and both sides D&R decided to do something about it.

I'm not saying take your gun away. I'm saying lets find a way and stop the nutjobs (mental sick problem) people from getting guns legally. There's got to be a way to work that in the legal framework that keeps both sides relatively at peace.

And I think most POTG agree with you that we need to find a way to stop the nutjobs from getting guns legally. But there are far too many on your side of the argument for whom the only option is to ban ALL guns.

We have laws in place to stop those people from gaining guns. They are not working. What most people of the gun realize is only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. We have proof of that every day. Our police forces and military stop bad guys with guns nearly every time. In nearly every case where a bad guy brings a gun and find himself out gunned its over in no time. But if the bad guy doesn't face a good guy with a gun he can go all out until the good guys with guns get there. In the time he starts shooting until the good guys show up can be minutes or hours.

I know its seems counter productive to add more guns not less but the fact of the matter is the police can not be every where all the time. But there are enough of us good guys with guns who can make the difference and save lives.

 

[av8tr1]

And here's how you know we have a gun culture problem:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mp-40-cent-soaring-demand-mass-shootings.html

Smith Wesson sales up 40% after a shooting.

" In the wake of the massacre at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, sales of high-powered automatic rifles soared.

One Georgia gun seller saw 35 AR-15s - the semi-automatic weapon used in the Orlando shooting- fly off the shelf in a span of three hours. Typically, the store sells just two per day. "




THAT is a gun culture problem. It's no longer self defense, or hunting, or target shooting, or even hobby purpose. This is an out-of-spite purchase because "OMG! Obama is gonna come in a black helicopter and take our guns!" Or, "I better get that AR before the state bans it." Really?

This is a gun culture problem. Obama was right, people really do cling to guns and religion.

No, that is people making the choice to take responsibility for their own self defense. They recognize that the police can't be there to defend them so they have made a choice to be ready to do it themselves. Its ALL about self defense. Which was the whole point of the 2nd amendment.

Its more logical that people are buying guns because of a mass shooting where the victims had to wait 3 hours for the police to intervene than suddenly they are doing it because of Obama. That is a leap of logic on the level of the moon landing conspiracy. You're smarter than that.

Obama has what 4 months left? This has been going on for years. And it has nothing to do with Obama. “The National Instant Criminal Background Check System conducted 1,853,815 checks in August. That’s over 100,000 more checks than the previous record set last August. It is also the 16th month in a row to set a record.”

That means at least 17 months ago some big news story led people to want to start buying guns at a record pace. Can you think of anything that might have happened back in April of 2015 in the US. Like some big protests that led to the governor of a state to declare a state of emergency and set a curfew as demonstrators threw rocks and cinder blocks at police and firefighters, looted stores, and set buildings and cars on fire. I seem to recall a couple of those events in the past two years where the police were helpless to stop rioters. Maybe that might have had something to do with it.

People on average do not think Obama is going to take their guns. He's had nearly 8 years to do it. And to use your term we've seen Diddly Squat. Obama CAN'T take our guns. It would take Congress and a whole lot more to make that happen.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Umm.... The entire state of California has banned the sale of the AR-15 pattern rifle along with hundreds of other "assault style weapons" despite the fact they killed less people than hammers last year. Mass's attorney general announced through the offices opinion and without any legal ruling that those rifles are now illegal for sale in the state. And yet they kill less and less people every year (Nationally) despite millions more being available and in circulation since the ban expired in 2004.

Remind us again how they aren't coming to take the guns?

And if that is constitutionally illegal, then the SCOTUS will have to rule.

Googling images of "US soldiers" and this was the first image that came:

Are those the weapons California banned? Maybe they see that as weapons of war, and like other weapons we have deemed not applicable per the 2A, doesn't apply? Again, for the SCOTUS to decide and rule on.

Personally, I'd rather not see someone walking down the street with that slung on their shoulders. It's just going to lead to a 911 call. Of course the state I live in, if someone does that, the hammer's gonna drop down on them pretty quick.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

And I think most POTG agree with you that we need to find a way to stop the nutjobs from getting guns legally. But there are far too many on your side of the argument for whom the only option is to ban ALL guns.

We have laws in place to stop those people from gaining guns. They are not working. What most people of the gun realize is only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. We have proof of that every day. Our police forces and military stop bad guys with guns nearly every time. In nearly every case where a bad guy brings a gun and find himself out gunned its over in no time. But if the bad guy doesn't face a good guy with a gun he can go all out until the good guys with guns get there. In the time he starts shooting until the good guys show up can be minutes or hours.

I know its seems counter productive to add more guns not less but the fact of the matter is the police can not be every where all the time. But there are enough of us good guys with guns who can make the difference and save lives.

The civilian good guy with a gun, while has happened, represents 3% of the stopped the mass shooter statistic. The FBI report and video was linked a while back.

Most average civilians are not trained to successfully handle an active shooter situation.

No, that is people making the choice to take responsibility for their own self defense. They recognize that the police can't be there to defend them so they have made a choice to be ready to do it themselves. Its ALL about self defense. Which was the whole point of the 2nd amendment.

It isn't for self defense though. It's a knee jerk reaction to buy a *particular* type of weapon before (in their opinion) it gets outlawed. That's what it is. Not to be confused with someone making a calculated decision in which weapon to buy for self defense.

Its more logical that people are buying guns because of a mass shooting where the victims had to wait 3 hours for the police to intervene than suddenly they are doing it because of Obama. That is a leap of logic on the level of the moon landing conspiracy. You're smarter than that.

Really? So they are buying assault rifles to carry with them in gay night clubs?

Come one, when ARs fly off the shelf after a mass shooting that involved a AR it is because of the fear that restrictions are coming. The article on the previous page talking about Smith Wesson sales up 40% also explains this.

Obama has what 4 months left? This has been going on for years. And it has nothing to do with Obama. “The National Instant Criminal Background Check System conducted 1,853,815 checks in August. That’s over 100,000 more checks than the previous record set last August. It is also the 16th month in a row to set a record.”

That means at least 17 months ago some big news story led people to want to start buying guns at a record pace. Can you think of anything that might have happened back in April of 2015 in the US. Like some big protests that led to the governor of a state to declare a state of emergency and set a curfew as demonstrators threw rocks and cinder blocks at police and firefighters, looted stores, and set buildings and cars on fire. I seem to recall a couple of those events in the past two years where the police were helpless to stop rioters. Maybe that might have had something to do with it.

It's a gun culture issue.

Police are helpless to stop rioters because in some instances you have certain minority figures in the local government role who are pretty much encouraging that type of behavior, and prosecuting officers when they should not have been.

People on average do not think Obama is going to take their guns. He's had nearly 8 years to do it. And to use your term we've seen Diddly Squat. Obama CAN'T take our guns. It would take Congress and a whole lot more to make that happen.

You are correct.... but that doesn't stop people from irrational behavior.

 

[Lawman]

And if that is constitutionally illegal, then the SCOTUS will have to rule.

Googling images of "US soldiers" and this was the first image that came:

Are those the weapons California banned? Maybe they see that as weapons of war, and like other weapons we have deemed not applicable per the 2A, doesn't apply? Again, for the SCOTUS to decide and rule on.

Personally, I'd rather not see someone walking down the street with that slung on their shoulders. It's just going to lead to a 911 call. Of course the state I live in, if someone does that, the hammer's gonna drop down on them pretty quick.

Oh Jesus tap dancing... It's the same randomly tired rehashed crap with you every time you try to defend draconian uneducated gun control. It's like you forget anything from longer than 8 minutes ago.

You need to decide why we are banning this class of guns. Is it because they kill so many people? Because they don't. Again less people than hammers.

Or

Is it because they are "scary" oooohhh. So terrifying to let people walk down the street that cosmetically resembles (but it no way is) a rifle also carried by the military. If that's the case your rational is the same as people who cross the street because of black people or want Samir cavity searched at the airport/mall/etc because they know/heard those people are bad.

If it's the second one (which all evidence keeps pointing it is) well your dumb ideas are just as valid as the horribly written patriot act and look how long it's taken the Supreme Court to kill that off.... Oh wait they haven't so why should gun owners think that the court will come to their rescue and give them back their rights?

"We're gonna right laws and figure out the constitutionality later... All you people with guns are now criminals for having them until we get told otherwise"

Molon Labe!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Curious, how is this legal and not considered "a threat."


Protestors outside the home of that college "rapist" who got 3 months prison sentence and was released.

First guy I suppose looks peaceful protestor enough, but how is the 2nd one not illegal, with a gun and a "shoot your local rapist" message. Sounds like a direct threat.

 

[Lawman]

Curious, how is this legal and not considered "a threat."


Protestors outside the home of that college "rapist" who got 3 months prison sentence and was released.

First guy I suppose looks peaceful protestor enough, but how is the 2nd one not illegal, with a gun and a "shoot your local rapist" message. Sounds like a direct threat.

What makes this illegal to you?

The fact he's exercising First amendment rights on a sidewalk?

Or does the fact that he's doing it while wearing a gun suddenly make him a criminal to you?

If his statements are threats we can lock up all the black people screaming "Pigs in a blanket Fry them like bacon" right? That'll save some lives and stop some crimes statistically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hacker15e]

Maybe they see that as weapons of war, and like other weapons we have deemed not applicable per the 2A, doesn't apply? Again, for the SCOTUS to decide and rule on.

If you're going to play the "weapon of war" card, suggest you brush up on your SCOTUS cases. In this case, US v Miller.

You know...the case that held that it was okay to ban a short-barreled shotgun because, "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationiship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

In other words, SCOTUS caselaw actually establishes that it is ONLY "weapons of war" (e.g., weapons that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia") that are protected by the Second Amendment.

Have a nice night.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

What makes this illegal to you?

The fact he's exercising First amendment rights on a sidewalk?

Or does the fact that he's doing it while wearing a gun suddenly make him a criminal to you?

If his statements are threats we can lock up all the black people screaming "Pigs in a blanket Fry them like bacon" right? That'll save some lives and stop some crimes statistically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess I was under the impression having a sign saying "shoot someone" in particular outside his home, with a gun, is seen as threatening behavior. I didn't see the pigs in a blanket or fry them like bacon pictures, but if they have those signs while armed, that is a threat. We have a right to protest, but I'm under the impression we don't have a right to personally threaten someone else's well being.

 

[av8tr1]

If you're going to play the "weapon of war" card, suggest you brush up on your SCOTUS cases. In this case, US v Miller.

You know...the case that held that it was okay to ban a short-barreled shotgun because, "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationiship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

In other words, SCOTUS caselaw actually establishes that it is ONLY "weapons of war" (e.g., weapons that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia") that are protected by the Second Amendment.

Have a nice night.

Actually based on that logic we should be able to own fully armed and operational main battle tanks. Wonder how I missed that previously! wonder how the HOA is going to react the the M1 in my drive way.

 

[Lawman]

I guess I was under the impression having a sign saying "shoot someone" in particular outside his home, with a gun, is seen as threatening behavior. I didn't see the pigs in a blanket or fry them like bacon pictures, but if they have those signs while armed, that is a threat. We have a right to protest, but I'm under the impression we don't have a right to personally threaten someone else's well being.

No... No it's not. Simply having guns does not suddenly elevate speech to a threat. Me standing outside and saying "kill rapists" doesn't suddenly become illegal because I own guns, or because I say it while wearing guns.

That's the problem with people like you. You've got some terrified "he's gonna kill us all!" reaction to these dumb editorialized images of people who pose absolutely no threat to you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

It's also the unequal application of laws that differ from different states. If those two above were in NJ, they'd either be kissing the pavement or there would be shots fired by police officers. So you can't say what they are doing is legal and protected. The more accurate statement would be, what they are doing is only legal in certain states. In my state, that is illegal.... has nothing to do with how I "feel." I'm commenting on our laws that I'm used to here.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Actually based on that logic we should be able to own fully armed and operational main battle tanks. Wonder how I missed that previously! wonder how the HOA is going to react the the M1 in my drive way.

"I outgrew my old H1"

 

[Lawman]

It's also the unequal application of laws that differ from different states. If those two above were in NJ, they'd either be kissing the pavement or there would be shots fired by police officers. So you can't say what they are doing is legal and protected. The more accurate statement would be, what they are doing is only legal in certain states. In my state, that is illegal.... has nothing to do with how I "feel." I'm commenting on our laws that I'm used to here.

Again ... no... No it isn't. By NJ's own backward ass laws on firearm ownership any person possessing a FID card could in fact have a rifle in their possession while at the same time holding this sign. Certain conditions of the firearm (unloaded) apply but there is no law saying you can't simultaneously own/carry a firearm while taking a picture of you holding a piece of poster board.

Again the fact you are making statements of how the situation should involve an immediate reaction by police and possibly shots fired at an individual posing absolutely no risk demonstrates the failed mentality you subscribe to. To say this man posses and immediate and actionable threat which much be responded to by police and met with force if necessary means that per those conditions police should be arresting baseball players and their fans for possessing both the means and desire to "beat" the other teams players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cptnchia]

It's also the unequal application of laws that differ from different states. If those two above were in NJ, they'd either be kissing the pavement or there would be shots fired by police officers. So you can't say what they are doing is legal and protected. The more accurate statement would be, what they are doing is only legal in certain states. In my state, that is illegal.... has nothing to do with how I "feel." I'm commenting on our laws that I'm used to here.

Then NJ needs to get their shizzola together and join with the rest of the country. Or, conversely, just keep that shizzola to themselves. We don't really care, "How you did it back home." You moved here to get away from there. Why you trying to change this place to that place? (A daily convo I have with neighbors, or damn Yankees, who have decided to invade my town.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

But that's the problem - and the difference. I'm told what 2A is and allows. As a constitution, it should be universal on the federal level. But let alone NJ, there are also other states open carry is illegal and that protest above therefore is illegal. You can't just point to a little strip called NJ. Every state has its own different rules when it comes to carrying, owning, and types of guns.

So I find it hard to accept your answer of NJ being backwards, etc. It isn't NJ. Other states have similar laws. The problem therefore isn't as crystal clear as you make the 2A sound. Clearly, different states have different interpretations AND they have stood up in the court of law. May issue state is a classic example. If 2A clearly allowed conceal carry, the states would have no ground to be a May issue only state.

It's not clear - which is my point. I see some things in some states that would be entirely illegal compared to another state. But 2A should be 2A, but that's obviously not the case in reality.

States don't limit religion, press, freedom, and neither does federal. But clearly the federal lets the states pick gun laws and rules. Which leads me to believe what is already the case: just because it's allowed in your state doesn't mean it's allowed - or legal - in another state. That is what leads people to believe in gun control. And that 2A just isn't the same as 1A.

Make it federal or continue to lose on the state level.

 

[Lawman]

But that's the problem - and the difference. I'm told what 2A is and allows. As a constitution, it should be universal on the federal level. But let alone NJ, there are also other states open carry is illegal and that protest above therefore is illegal. You can't just point to a little strip called NJ. Every state has its own different rules when it comes to carrying, owning, and types of guns.

So I find it hard to accept your answer of NJ being backwards, etc. It isn't NJ. Other states have similar laws. The problem therefore isn't as crystal clear as you make the 2A sound. Clearly, different states have different interpretations AND they have stood up in the court of law. May issue state is a classic example. If 2A clearly allowed conceal carry, the states would have no ground to be a May issue only state.

It's not clear - which is my point. I see some things in some states that would be entirely illegal compared to another state. But 2A should be 2A, but that's obviously not the case in reality.

States don't limit religion, press, freedom, and neither does federal. But clearly the federal lets the states pick gun laws and rules. Which leads me to believe what is already the case: just because it's allowed in your state doesn't mean it's allowed - or legal - in another state. That is what leads people to believe in gun control. And that 2A just isn't the same as 1A.

Make it federal or continue to lose on the state level.

Again your understanding for our judicial process and the time/complexity it takes to make rulings leaves you woefully unprepared for this discussion.

Specifically you cited Carry laws as a gun right without universal understanding. In the last 25 years where concealed and open carry laws have been pushed to the forefront of the issue the Supreme Court has yet to even hear a case much less make a ruling. There was a ruling issued by the 9th circuit which ruled in favor of carry and struck down the May issue option only to be called back for review by the "full court" which then voted against it on partisan lines.

Seeing as it took nearly 35 years for DC's law to make the ruling that strict handgun bans where illegal again are you willing to tell Muslims they are no longer allowed in this country for the time it takes the courts to "sort things out."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Again your understanding for our judicial process and the time/complexity it takes to make rulings leaves you woefully unprepared for this discussion.

Specifically you cited Carry laws as a gun right without universal understanding. In the last 25 years where concealed and open carry laws have been pushed to the forefront of the issue the Supreme Court has yet to even hear a case much less make a ruling. There was a ruling issued by the 9th circuit which ruled in favor of carry and struck down the May issue option only to be called back for review by the "full court" which then voted against it on partisan lines.

Seeing as it took nearly 35 years for DC's law to make the ruling that strict handgun bans where illegal again are you willing to tell Muslims they are no longer allowed in this country for the time it takes the courts to "sort things out."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you have a gun debate without throwing religion into the mix? An absolutely irrelevant metric you are using! Religion, and the freedom of religion, is absolutely unequivocally recognized in all 50 states. The same is NOT the same for guns. Handguns shouldn't have been banned in DC. Yes, it was struck down. So you are saying it takes 25+ years for the courts to hear these things and pass laws / appeals / turn-down regulations regarding guns and carrying them. Hmm, okay, so I guess we still don't have an official answer for those states who are may-issue. Or all the other restrictions on guns. Which leads to the question, why were these laws passed in the first place, when "clearly" the 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed? I don't know what the solution is to slippery slopes. I guess we'll have to wait 25 years and see what NJ does. But given everything that is going on, mass shootings and the public response to it for gun control, do you see regulations/restrictions on guns getting better (lifted) or worse (restricted)? Given the trend, it seems leaning more towards "restricted." See California's latest proposal as an example.

And yes, according to Trump Muslims are now to be banned. Guess I know who you're voting for? Funny thing is Trump is anything but a supporter of gun rights. Past track record would say otherwise. Or even a real Republican for that matter.

 

[Lawman]

Can you have a gun debate without throwing religion into the mix? An absolutely irrelevant metric you are using! Religion, and the freedom of religion, is absolutely unequivocally recognized in all 50 states. The same is NOT the same for guns. Handguns shouldn't have been banned in DC. Yes, it was struck down. So you are saying it takes 25+ years for the courts to hear these things and pass laws / appeals / turn-down regulations regarding guns and carrying them. Hmm, okay, so I guess we still don't have an official answer for those states who are may-issue. Or all the other restrictions on guns. Which leads to the question, why were these laws passed in the first place, when "clearly" the 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed? I don't know what the solution is to slippery slopes. I guess we'll have to wait 25 years and see what NJ does. But given everything that is going on, mass shootings and the public response to it for gun control, do you see regulations/restrictions on guns getting better (lifted) or worse (restricted)? Given the trend, it seems leaning more towards "restricted." See California's latest proposal as an example.

And yes, according to Trump Muslims are now to be banned. Guess I know who you're voting for? Funny thing is Trump is anything but a supporter of gun rights. Past track record would say otherwise. Or even a real Republican for that matter.

No they are identical metrics because we are taking about access to a right, restricted by permission of the state.

I bring religion into it because you seem totally beholden to the idea of restricting the 2nd in ways you would be screaming about restricting the 1st amendment.

The Muslim religion (like any ideology) contains ideology that can be considered inflammatory as well as anti women/homosexual. It also contains a higher propensity of random acts of violence against society than say being Morman. So should it require special categorization amongst the other religions like we are doing with classes of firearms. Should we restrict access to that ideology until a demonstration of mental fitness and the ability to resist radicalized indoctrination can be established like you want with firearms? After all the safety of society is your driving point on access to firearms. The same drive could force restrictions to access on religion or the ability to exercise free speech because it could grow into violence (like the 70s with bombings/arson or black lives matter or lone wolf terror attacks like Boston) no different than access to firearms could result in a mass shooting.

If you are signing up for the idea that rights can be restricted for the greater good you are going counter to the idea that they are rights and instead proposing they are permissions given by the government that can be revoked under there authority at a time and place they chose.

And given the butt kicking all these 70s reign of terror hold over guns laws (DC/Chicago bans etc) it's no doubt the litigation is moving against gun control. That still doesn't stop people from moving toward the end goal of prohibition through a thousand cuts which is what is going on in places like Cali and Jersey. It's got nothing to do with public safety, it's a 50 year plan to slowly kill gun ownership or make it so prohibitively expensive and restricted that the infrastructure to support it prohibits access. Either way the people who sit in the halls of some building are deciding what rights you and I can have despite the fact they don't wear judges robes and ignore the decisions those judges made in the past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

No they are identical metrics because we are taking about access to a right, restricted by permission of the state.

I bring religion into it because you seem totally beholden to the idea of restricting the 2nd in ways you would be screaming about restricting the 1st amendment.

The Muslim religion (like any ideology) contains ideology that can be considered inflammatory as well as anti women/homosexual. It also contains a higher propensity of random acts of violence against society than say being Morman. So should it require special categorization amongst the other religions like we are doing with classes of firearms. Should we restrict access to that ideology until a demonstration of mental fitness and the ability to resist radicalized indoctrination can be established like you want with firearms? After all the safety of society is your driving point on access to firearms. The same drive could force restrictions to access on religion or the ability to exercise free speech because it could grow into violence (like the 70s with bombings/arson or black lives matter or lone wolf terror attacks like Boston) no different than access to firearms could result in a mass shooting.

If you are signing up for the idea that rights can be restricted for the greater good you are going counter to the idea that they are rights and instead proposing they are permissions given by the government that can be revoked under there authority at a time and place they chose.

And given the butt kicking all these 70s reign of terror hold over guns laws (DC/Chicago bans etc) it's no doubt the litigation is moving against gun control. That still doesn't stop people from moving toward the end goal of prohibition through a thousand cuts which is what is going on in places like Cali and Jersey. It's got nothing to do with public safety, it's a 50 year plan to slowly kill gun ownership or make it so prohibitively expensive and restricted that the infrastructure to support it prohibits access. Either way the people who sit in the halls of some building are deciding what rights you and I can have despite the fact they don't wear judges robes and ignore the decisions those judges made in the past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wont get into understanding of religion as that is whole another topic. All religious text can be considered inflammatory and anti women/homosexual. And text doesn't carry out a random act of violence against society, especially when text in a holy book prohibit doing so.

American Muslims haven't killed innocent Americans in the 50 states, except for those who did mass shootings using... guess what... guns. Which they obtained thanks to lax gun control laws. How about I'll give your side to pass that test on religion and indoctrination (and I'll go take that test, and pass in flying colors), so as long as your gun side also take a mental health evaluation before getting a handgun legally? Sounds like we have a deal.

MY point is what you are waving as a full-fledged right, is in actuality (practice?), not really a right in quite a few states. IT JUST ISN'T. It has nothing to do with religion and what someone believes or indoctrination. We are talking the current laws *today* are not uniform in regards to how the 2A is interpreted across different states. What does the future trend indicate? For or against? It would seem the red states are for and the blue states are not as much, and in some cases, against.

But none of that changes what is today. Today, you can be any religion in any state. But protest by throwing an AR across your shoulders? You can't do that legally in several states. While in others, it's perfectly legal.

Do you see the point that the 2A application is just not the same. It isn't I (myself) who is saying this. It's this Republic, this country, these 50 states, each of whom have a different understanding of what 2A means, and their associate state laws about ownership, purchasing, rights to conceal carry, and open carry. Some states you can open carry and conceal carry. Some states you can conceal carry, but not open carry. Some states you can't conceal carry nor open carry. Some guns allowed in one state, while a neighboring state that gun would be illegal (countless examples of PA vs NJ). My Mossberg 715t which was legal in California was not legal in NJ and I had to sell it to a local pawn shop before moving.

So how can you say I had a right to that gun? Looked more like a privilege I had to have it in California, and a privilege I had to give up moving to Jersey. At least, that was my experience. My particular model which was perfectly legal in CA was not so in NJ.

How can you tout something as a "right" when this Republic, our 50 states, all *clearly* differ on what the 2A is and therefore, what it allows us to do and not allow us to do?


I'm now gun-less because of that move from the SFO base to NYC. So you tell me I have a 2A and a gun right. Practice and reality says otherwise. But as far as I know, I kept my religion intact during the move