Do you think Colonel Peters is correct?

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Good deflection Rio. Nothing substantive to say so make a homophobic comment. Well done.

Not deflection Old-T.
It is called return fire. The sob insults with no offer of debate daily.
You see he likes it that way, so he gets it that way.

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

What the fuck is a Musselman, you dimwitted Trog?

Embarassing. And you don't even know it.

You're like the idiot who walked into the convenience story and shouted: "Hands in the air, this is a fuckup!"

"You mean stickup," said the clerk.

"No," said the idiot, "I meant fuckup. I forgot my gun!"

Duuuuuurrrrrrhhhhhn!

Look it up yourself, Twat-Lips !
You call me a dimwhit and still you are ignorant of the term !
Are simply too lazy to look it up after all this time ? Afterall, you have nothing else to do but wait on your next gub'mint check to hit the mailbox, you slug.
It's not the first time you have seen Musselman unless you do not read threads but simply hurl insults based upon the political beliefs of the author ???

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Not at all sure what your 1st paragraph is getting at.

The Gallup poll you cited is from 2011. The poll in the 2nd article I cited is from 2013. Got anything more recent that supports your POV?

You equivocate, speedy. The Gallup poll is from October 2011; whereas, the poll your article cites is "sometime unspecified in 2012", and the hyper-link in your cited article doesn't actually take you to the actual survey results your article claims to be citing. RE: the first paragraph, speedy, we've already discussed this, but it's obvious you don't understand that many, many people do not want the government to infringe on their privacy -- in any manner: including intrusive questions.

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Fuck, I answered the census one time, then they dogged me for a fucking year asking all sorts of questions. They asked hundreds of intrusive questions, it was worse than WTF's favorite part of the yearly physical!!! (digital rectal examination)

Imagine that they are hassling you about your neighbor.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

JD it seems that you , a gun owner seem not to respect the wishes of your fellow private property owners.

Am I missing something here boardman?

As I said before the second amendment doesn't trump property rights. I think the vice-versa holds true as well.

As a property owner in these here United States you have to be aware that someone could be legally, or illegally carrying a concealed weapon. If it is that much of an issue that they don't carry on your property then it is your responsibility to make sure they don't. If you are going to invite someone onto your property be prepared to do what makes you comfortable or don't invite them.

On the other hand.
As a gun owner who is legally carrying and exercising their 2nd amendment rights I think you have the responsibility to respect the rights of others onto who's personal property you may enter. If invited then you have a responsibility to acknowledge the property owner's right not to allow a firearm on their property by asking permission or decline the invitation if not allowed and it is that important to you.

Again,
I can't imagine someone staunchly defending the second amendment and not respecting property rights. If that is indeed what JD is representing then he may be too selective in his interpretation of his rights.

As in most things the golden rule applies. Treat others as you want to be treated...with respect. Unfortunately we can't legislate real respect only the illusion of respect.

Of course this doesn't apply to personas on a SHMB.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

, many people do not want the government to infringe on their privacy -- in any manner, including intrusive questions.


.

And that is where the quandary comes, these same folks cry bloody murder at the government for not keeping them safe from terrorism.

I take no issue with the folks who want the protection of the Federal/State/local government and all the intrusion it entails. Some folks value safety over freedom.

I take no issue with folks like myself who want no government intrusion and will not cry about a 9/11 . Some folks value freedom over safety

I take issue with the folks who seem not to understand the tradeoff. Crying on one hand about intrusive government and on the other about not being safe from say ISIS....a group half way around the world.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

On the other hand.
As a gun owner who is legally carrying and exercising their 2nd amendment rights I think you have the responsibility to respect the rights of others onto who's personal property you may enter. If invited then you have a responsibility to acknowledge the property owner's right not to allow a firearm on their property by asking permission or decline the invitation if not allowed and it is that important to you.

Again,
I can't imagine someone staunchly defending the second amendment and not respecting property rights. If that is indeed what JD is representing then he may be too selective in his interpretation of his rights.

.

We are in total agreement, it is JD that seems to be taking issue with the wishes of private property owners.

Under JD's hypothetical if you were out of town it would be ok for him to come over and spend the night at your house as long as you didn't find out about it!

What I have been pointing out to many of you is that JD and a few others are nothing but CINO's.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You equivocate, speedy. The Gallup poll is from October 2011; whereas, the poll your article cites is "sometime unspecified in 2012", and the hyper-link in your cited article doesn't actually take you to the actual survey results your article claims to be citing. RE: the first paragraph, speedy, we've already discussed this, but it's obvious you don't understand that many, many people do not want the government to infringe on their privacy -- in any manner: including intrusive questions.


Imagine that they are hassling you about your neighbor.

The NY Times poll was released in March of 2013. Try reading the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us...pagewanted=all

Second stupid statement -- I fully understand that some people simply don't want their privacy invaded. I never mentioned government surveys -- you brought that up. I was talking totally about telephone surveys -- you brought up in-person surveys (and I've been a member of several focus groups -- fun experiences). And you seem to ignore that I've stated anyone being asked to participate in a telephone survey can simply hang up the phone. The pollsters simply move on to the next person on their call list.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The NY Times poll was released in March of 2013. Try reading the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us...pagewanted=all

Second stupid statement -- I fully understand that some people simply don't want their privacy invaded. I never mentioned government surveys -- you brought that up. I was talking totally about telephone surveys -- you brought up in-person surveys (and I've been a member of several focus groups -- fun experiences). And you seem to ignore that I've stated anyone being asked to participate in a telephone survey can simply hang up the phone. The pollsters simply move on to the next person on their call list.

Do you mean where it says ...

The center’s 2012 survey

speedy? And the referenced "General Social Survey" (a NYT hyper-link that doesn't show a damn thing) was also concluded on some unspecified date in 2012, speedy. It's obvious you are the one who didn't understand what you read, speedy.

Guess what, speedy, I did bring up the subject of how and why people refuse to give information to government pollsters; thus, generating false and inconclusive data, but you're the one that disingenuously played stupid like it hadn't been discussed.

[JD Barleycorn]

Oh, I respect property rights. I just pointed out that you would need a long list of things that you don't want on your property if you wish to be consistent. If you don't bring it up or post a sign how can you expect someone to bow to your wishes. Like some recent Walmart videos (that can be found on youtube), they do not have a policy of keeping guns out of their stores but sometimes a manager will call in the police to harass or arrest concealed carry (or open carry) people who are NOT breaking any law, regulation, or store policy.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Oh, I respect property rights. I just pointed out that you would need a long list of things that you don't want on your property if you wish to be consistent. If you don't bring it up or post a sign how can you expect someone to bow to your wishes. Like some recent Walmart videos (that can be found on youtube), they do not have a policy of keeping guns out of their stores but sometimes a manager will call in the police to harass or arrest concealed carry (or open carry) people who are NOT breaking any law, regulation, or store policy.

Like I said, which you ignored, a simple statement to the homeowner such as "I have a Concealed Handgun License and I am carrying my handgun for my protection. Do you mind if I enter your home with my handgun?." A person's home is not Walmart. I don't think the responsibility should rest on the homeowner to inform someone coming into his home that handguns are not allowed. The assumption on the part of the gun owner should be that the homeowner does not want handguns on his property. 97% of eligible Texans do not carry concealed handguns legally. I shouldn't have to cater to 3% of the population.

If I am invited to someone's home I don't bring my 2 children and 3 stepchildren and 8 grandchildren with me. I assume the invitation was for me and probably my wife. I don't bring a dog with me because I assume the invitation did not include animals. And, if I owned one, I would not bring a handgun into someone's home.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Do you mean where it says ...

speedy? And the referenced "General Social Survey" (a NYT hyper-link that doesn't show a damn thing) was also concluded on some unspecified date in 2012, speedy. It's obvious you are the one who didn't understand what you read, speedy.

Guess what, speedy, I did bring up the subject of how and why people refuse to give information to government pollsters; thus, generating false and inconclusive data, but you're the one that disingenuously played stupid like it hadn't been discussed.

Every survey takes time from end of survey to publishing of results. The one you cited is no different. No matter how you look at it, the survey I cited came at a later date than the one you cited. To me it makes little difference. No matter which survey is used, it still shows the majority of households do not have handguns -- somewhere between 35% and 48%.

Here's the result of a Pew Research Center study from July, 2014.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...ng-households/

"Overall, about a third of all Americans with children under 18 at home have a gun in their household, including 34% of families with children younger than 12. That’s nearly identical to the share of childless adults or those with older children who have a firearm at home."

So this study puts the percent of households with handguns in the mid-30s.

And once again you are showing your ignorance in your second paragraph. You continually bring into discussions points that are not being discussed and then you say "See, you're wrong". My statements did not discuss government census taking. That is not a poll for one thing. It may have been discussed by you but not by me and somehow you responded to my post with reference to it. Totally irrelevant.

[Whirlaway]

The answer is it was Col. Mustard in the Library with the Candlestick.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Speedy just post up a sign on you front door NO GUNS ALLOWED. Hell, rent a billboard on the freeway close to your house and put your address on it... that says NO GUNS ALLOWED AT THIS HOUSE! Put a bumper sticker on you car that says NO GUNS ALLOWED IN THIS CAR. Get a tattoo that says NO GUNS ALLOWED NEAR ME. But a 10 T-shirts that say I HATE GUNS and wear them everyday. Get a little flag on your bicycle that says I WOULD RATHER BE HIT IN THE HEAD WITH A AX THAN SHOT BY A GUN.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Speedy just post up a sign on you front door NO GUNS ALLOWED. Hell, rent a billboard on the freeway close to your house and put your address on it... that says NO GUNS ALLOWED AT THIS HOUSE! Put a bumper sticker on you car that says NO GUNS ALLOWED IN THIS CAR. Get a tattoo that says NO GUNS ALLOWED NEAR ME. But a 10 T-shirts that say I HATE GUNS and wear them everyday. Get a little flag on your bicycle that says I WOULD RATHER BE HIT IN THE HEAD WITH A AX THAN SHOT BY A GUN.

And you said all that without adding a video. Congratulations.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

A person's home is not Walmart. I don't think the responsibility should rest on the homeowner to inform someone coming into his home that handguns are not allowed. .

While you might not think it should be your responsibility , in Texas that is exactly who it rest with.
http://dps.texas.gov/RSD/CHL/faqs/index.htm

36. Do private property/business owners have the right to exclude license holders from their property?
Yes. Private property owners may exclude license holders from carrying concealed handguns on their property by providing notice as provided in Section 30.06, Texas Penal Code. If you wish to prohibit license holders from carrying concealed handguns on your property, §30.06, Texas Penal Code requires you to post specific signage. The sign must be in both English and Spanish, must include the specific language described by law, must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.