carry without permit

[Gluemanz28]

I'm pretty sure that he either got banned or his Mom made him go to bed. Either way this post has run its course.

 

[MikeDVB]

I'm pretty sure that he either got banned or his Mom made him go to bed. Either way this post has run its course.

Or he's taking the good advice I gave, and not responding to this thread anymore. No matter what he posts here, there's no undoing it and people are still going to keep bashing him - we all know it's true.

Sometimes when people know they don't need the last word, they can walk away from things .

 

[Bersalover]

Way to much work for little upside. Why intentionally upset the leo in your community and run the risk of being in a unfriendly or unfamiliar environment and not able to carry? This is failed logic at its finest and bound to come back to haunt you. Now that you proved your point to all your neighbors and local gas stations why not take the extra step and make it legal? Makes no sense.

 

[Burnsy]

Way to much work for little upside. Why intentionally upset the leo in your community and run the risk of being in a unfriendly or unfamiliar environment and not able to carry? This is failed logic at its finest and bound to come back to haunt you. Now that you proved your point to all your neighbors and local gas stations why not take the extra step and make it legal? Makes no sense.

I have to say my quoted poster has the most rep to post ratio I have ever seen. Either he is the smartest man alive or shenanigans are afoot.

 

[MikeDVB]

I have to say my quoted poster has the most rep to post ratio I have ever seen. Either he is the smartest man alive or shenanigans are afoot.

Compare mine to theirs... Either shenanigans are afoot or I'm terrible. Lol

 

[gungirl65]

I have to say my quoted poster has the most rep to post ratio I have ever seen. Either he is the smartest man alive or shenanigans are afoot.

What difference does it make, are you the rep police? So he has more rep than you do. Maybe he's funnier, wittier or he plays the rep pyramid and got his rep that way.

He's been here since Feb 2011 so that doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

I am stunned and disappointed by all of the people who have responded like this is real. Guys with large rep scores too........ Guys who have shown enough sense that many people recognized them with rep. Guys who ACTUALLY are militant weapon rights advocates and have went head to head with the law. I am ashamed for you all. only 3 people called BS and the rest of you have lost credibility to an obvious troll. Now I think that I am starting to rant........I am just incredulous that this crystal clear prank was so effective.

 

[MikeDVB]

I am stunned and disappointed by all of the people who have responded like this is real. Guys with large rep scores too........ Guys who have shown enough sense that many people recognized them with rep. Guys who ACTUALLY are militant weapon rights advocates and have went head to head with the law. I am ashamed for you all. only 3 people called BS and the rest of you have lost credibility to an obvious troll. Now I think that I am starting to rant........I am just incredulous that this crystal clear prank was so effective.

Careful...




You'll shoot your eye out ;-)

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Careful...




You'll shoot your eye out ;-)

Yes.... I accept the rebuke, good advise.

 

[churchmouse]

There is nothing unlawful about what i do. And please point out what name i called someone.[/QUO

And why not point out that you are skirting the law and name calling. We as a group are under enough scrutiny right now with out paranoid name callers drawing attention to us in this way.
Do as you will in your own life but please new guy, settle down. Enjoy the forum. If you are really that angry/scared/paranoid then there are other forums for you folks.

Seriously, if you were to come and ask me for a permission slip to carry on my property we would escort you back to the sidewalk and send you on your way, really. This is just a bit on the whack side. If you do not see it that way, well, nuff said.

Be Safe...........

-CM-

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I am stunned and disappointed by all of the people who have responded like this is real. Guys with large rep scores too........ Guys who have shown enough sense that many people recognized them with rep. Guys who ACTUALLY are militant weapon rights advocates and have went head to head with the law. I am ashamed for you all. only 3 people called BS and the rest of you have lost credibility to an obvious troll. Now I think that I am starting to rant........I am just incredulous that this crystal clear prank was so effective.

Who are you talking to?

 

[ModernGunner]

The 'logic' doesn't appear to be very logical.

The thread is titled "carry without permit", but then the OP says he has about 25 'permits' he's needed to obtain just to carry in an extremely limited capacity.

I dont want to be labled as having a gun permit so they wont end up posting my address like happened recently.

Indiana has already passed legislation for this, legislation that we fought hard and swiftly to enact to insure this doesn't happen. I would agree with someone who may note that it COULD change. But gun owners moved fast (perhaps the quickest legislative response ever, LOL!) to insure that some whack-job at a newspaper CAN'T publish names and addresses, as the Journal News did.

In the long run, THAT didn't work out so well for the Journal News, anyway. Though personally, I disagreed with the response of publishing the names and addresses of the reported who perpetrated the problem, and those of the editors, etc. of the Journal News. I understand the concept, but two wrongs don't make a 'write', LOL...

I live in a not so good "hood" and the cops around here always have something to prove. plus i carry in a dropleg holster.

I would have to agree with someone else who observed that it appears the OP is the one who has 'something to prove'. If one is creating confrontation and/or conflict where none need exist, it doesn't benefit that person, NOR the larger pro-2nd Amendment community.

Not saying it COULDN'T happen, but what are the chances of being attacked in a neighbor's house, or at a specific store at a specific time (when the OP happens to be there)? Not impossible, the probability states unlikely. And at the OP's own home, they need NO consent except their own, anyway.

The greater possibility is being subject to attack somewhere 'out in PUBLIC' for which the OP has, by his own design, left himself defenseless, at least to the point of needing a weapon for that defense.

It appears that the point to all of this is to promote and encourage confrontation, NOT for the individual to provide for their own defense, as they've CHOSEN to leave themself defenseless in circumstances where they're MOST likely to need a firearm for their own protection.

There's simply no real logic to this other than making the 'political, Sovereign Citizen' statement. Is this one of the same folks who would shout pejoratives toward someone who CC's, or demagogues those who carry a covert collapsible baton or badge as a "cop wannabe"?

Doesn't using a drop-leg holster denote a "cop wannabe"? For that matter, doesn't anyone OC'ing just for the sake of OC'ing present MORE of "cop wannabe" image? They argue "No, because I have the right!", which I would agree they DO.

But to the reasonable and prudent man, it likely does. Therefore, it provides no positive benefit either to the OP, nor to the gun community as a whole. Since the general concept is, if you carry a gun you're supposed to be more responsible and LESS confrontational, it likely creates a WORSE image for gun owners.

Perhaps exactly the opposite of the goal the OP is trying to achieve.

 

[concrete dog]

The 'logic' doesn't appear to be very logical.

The thread is titled "carry without permit", but then the OP says he has about 25 'permits' he's needed to obtain just to carry in an extremely limited capacity.



Indiana has already passed legislation for this, legislation that we fought hard and swiftly to enact to insure this doesn't happen. I would agree with someone who may note that it COULD change. But gun owners moved fast (perhaps the quickest legislative response ever, LOL!) to insure that some whack-job at a newspaper CAN'T publish names and addresses, as the Journal News did.

In the long run, THAT didn't work out so well for the Journal News, anyway. Though personally, I disagreed with the response of publishing the names and addresses of the reported who perpetrated the problem, and those of the editors, etc. of the Journal News. I understand the concept, but two wrongs don't make a 'write', LOL...



I would have to agree with someone else who observed that it appears the OP is the one who has 'something to prove'. If one is creating confrontation and/or conflict where none need exist, it doesn't benefit that person, NOR the larger pro-2nd Amendment community.

Not saying it COULDN'T happen, but what are the chances of being attacked in a neighbor's house, or at a specific store at a specific time (when the OP happens to be there)? Not impossible, the probability states unlikely. And at the OP's own home, they need NO consent except their own, anyway.

The greater possibility is being subject to attack somewhere 'out in PUBLIC' for which the OP has, by his own design, left himself defenseless, at least to the point of needing a weapon for that defense.

It appears that the point to all of this is to promote and encourage confrontation, NOT for the individual to provide for their own defense, as they've CHOSEN to leave themself defenseless in circumstances where they're MOST likely to need a firearm for their own protection.

There's simply no real logic to this other than making the 'political, Sovereign Citizen' statement. Is this one of the same folks who would shout pejoratives toward someone who CC's, or demagogues those who carry a covert collapsible baton or badge as a "cop wannabe"?

Doesn't using a drop-leg holster denote a "cop wannabe"? For that matter, doesn't anyone OC'ing just for the sake of OC'ing present MORE of "cop wannabe" image? They argue "No, because I have the right!", which I would agree they DO.

But to the reasonable and prudent man, it likely does. Therefore, it provides no positive benefit either to the OP, nor to the gun community as a whole. Since the general concept is, if you carry a gun you're supposed to be more responsible and LESS confrontational, it likely creates a WORSE image for gun owners.

Perhaps exactly the opposite of the goal the OP is trying to achieve.

AMEN!!!!

 

[possum_128]

At least you don't have to worry about him coming after you with a gun... You haven't signed his permission slip.

Now that is funny as heck.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

I have nothing to add.

I just wanted to leave my digital footprints in this thread.

 

[Bunnykid68]

There is nothing unlawful about what i do. And please point out what name i called someone.[/QUO

And why not point out that you are skirting the law and name calling. We as a group are under enough scrutiny right now with out paranoid name callers drawing attention to us in this way.
Do as you will in your own life but please new guy, settle down. Enjoy the forum. If you are really that angry/scared/paranoid then there are other forums for you folks.

Seriously, if you were to come and ask me for a permission slip to carry on my property we would escort you back to the sidewalk and send you on your way, really. This is just a bit on the whack side. If you do not see it that way, well, nuff said.

Be Safe...........

-CM-

How do you call following the law to the letter skirting the law. If his story is true it sounds like he is simply following an unjust law to keep from getting in trouble with the powers that be that says he does not have a Right to Bear Arms.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The 'logic' doesn't appear to be very logical.

The thread is titled "carry without permit", but then the OP says he has about 25 'permits' he's needed to obtain just to carry in an extremely limited capacity.

Yet, you still need the same permission he was given by property owners to visit their property even though you have an LTCH. You acknowledge to the State that you do not have a Right to Bear Arms, he does not and he goes about his daily life realizing that the State is keeping him from protecting himself with the force of law.

 

[concrete dog]

Yet, you still need the same permission he was given by property owners to visit their property even though you have an LTCH. You acknowledge to the State that you do not have a Right to Bear Arms, he does not and he goes about his daily life realizing that the State is keeping him from protecting himself with the force of law.

If his BS story about NO LTCH is true, it will catch up to him sooner that later. Then he will have wished he had listened to . ( If it is true)

 

[Bunnykid68]

If his BS story about NO LTCH is true, it will catch up to him sooner that later. Then he will have wished he had listened to . ( If it is true)

I am not following how it will catch up with him if he carries on private property with permission? Will the law punish him for following the law?

 

[pudly]

If a neighbor had come over and asked me to sign anything so he could carry a gun on my property, I would have told him to get a LTCH instead. I would only sign for my closest friends and random neighbors don't fit that description. No deal.