The Liberal Gun Club Forum

rolandson wrote:

AmirMortal wrote:My opinion is that, yes, prohibiting people from being armed and thus defending themselves means that you are ready, willing, and able to assume complete and total responsibility, legally and otherwise, for the ultimate safety of everyone who enters the premises.

that is the way that it is anyway; plus, i am responsible for everything a guest does or whoever the guest harms while on the premises...

And for your home, although I disagree with your policy, I have no problem with that. After all, it's your castle. Florida law prohibits carrying in another's home without their permission.

However, my comment was more directed at "public" places on private property.


Also:
"And well dressed militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear pants, shall not be infringed. "

what about man skirts or worse yet utilikilts?

WHEN PANTS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE PANTS!

Seriously though, I LOVE my Utilikilt. I would very happily wear one everyday, and the only time I would have a problem with it would be when I have to don my harness... Not that I'd mind working over people's heads in my kilt, but harnesses on bare skin tend to chafe.

Seriously though, I believe that the 2a creates a protected class of citizen: all of us. Particularly on truly public lands, with the exception of maybe courthouses, banning firearms seems inexcusable. Public transport, privately run or not, I simply can't see that as justifiable to ban arms, and I don't believe for even a second that Franklin, or any of the framers would support such a law.

Has anyone else read "The Founders Second Amendment "?

AmirMortal wrote:WHEN PANTS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE PANTS!

Seriously though, I LOVE my Utilikilt. I would very happily wear one everyday, and the only time I would have a problem with it would be when I have to don my harness... Not that I'd mind working over people's heads in my kilt, but harnesses on bare skin tend to chafe.

Seriously though, I believe that the 2a creates a protected class of citizen: all of us. Particularly on truly public lands, with the exception of maybe courthouses, banning firearms seems inexcusable. Public transport, privately run or not, I simply can't see that as justifiable to ban arms, and I don't believe for even a second that Franklin, or any of the framers would support such a law.

Has anyone else read "The Founders Second Amendment "?

Banning firearms anywhere where not all points of access are controlled is irresponsible. That really only means prisons and places like that.

rolandson wrote:. . . after all, what need would I have for a weapon in the home of a friend, or they in mine?

Backup?

RJHinPDX wrote:

rolandson wrote:. . . after all, what need would I have for a weapon in the home of a friend, or they in mine?

Backup?

Precisely! Two arms are better than one, if you'll pardon the pun.