Sankey?s Letter in the gun law.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duckdog

You Sir, still don't get it

---

And YOU seem to think it's a good idea for people to be able to carry into a high emotion and high alcohol event like a ball game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

Wrong. Based on norms of the time, all able bodied men were expected to serve in government or state sponsored militias when the need arose. This would augment the inability of Congress to raise a regular army. Congress could only implement and fund a raised Army for a 2 year period. By allowing the ownership of common weapons of the day - muskets - it guaranteed that the government would have a defense force always available without having to arm them, and without having to infringe upon that 2 year limit. Now, it so happened that the Colonist used the Militias create by the British to protect the colonies to create an army and rise up against a tyrannical government. However, there is a large distinction between a tyrannical government and government overreach

---

Dude. Just stop and please fix your bing or google. Jefferson and others wrote in depth about this very argument aside from constitution. They didn?t even develop the idea. The idea came from the John Locke?s, Adam Smith?s and other great philosophers before them, who believed we all had unalienable rights granted to us by being born in The image of God that no government could take away. That was the founding of our consorititiin and one of those God given human rights is the ability for one to defend themselves.

You have no need for a weapon in a sporting event or courthouse. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pollodawg

You have no need for a weapon in a sporting event or courthouse. Sorry.

---

'Merica, bra. 'Merica! #itstheprinciple

Yeah, let’s go ahead and mix alcohol, emotions, and firearms. That’s as Mississippi as possible. Smh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeardoMSU

'Merica, bra. 'Merica! #itstheprinciple

---

The constitution doesn’t remotely guarantee you the right to carry a gun everywhere you so desire regardless of anything at all to the contrary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pollodawg

You have no need for a weapon in a sporting event or courthouse. Sorry.

---

How about an optometrist office in Walmart?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pollodawg

The constitution doesn’t remotely guarantee you the right to carry a gun everywhere you so desire regardless of anything at all to the contrary.

---

I didn't add these "***" because I thought my sarcasm was obvious, Pollo, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pollodawg

The constitution doesn’t remotely guarantee you the right to carry a gun everywhere you so desire regardless of anything at all to the contrary.

---

He agrees with you, and so do I.

My bad, guys. Been a long day. Carry on, gents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starkvegasdawg34

How about an optometrist office in Walmart?

---

That's not remotely the same thing. I operate a similar business and I keep a weapon on hand.

Hey guys the Lady Dawgs are winning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liverpooldawg

That's not remotely the same thing. I operate a similar business and I keep a weapon on hand.

---

It is the same thing. A psycho walked in there and could just as easily walk into DWS. People have mentioned alcohol. It?s illegal to carry and drink. If anyone is carrying while drinking put them under the jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starkvegasdawg34

It is the same thing. A psycho walked in there and could just as easily walk into DWS. People have mentioned alcohol. It?s illegal to carry and drink. If anyone is carrying while drinking put them under the jail.

---

I understand the idea of soft targets, but are more guns (other than trained security) really the answer? What if a concealed carrier misses their target and hits innocents themselves? Especially in such a packed and frenzied environment (like DWS), I can't remotely think this would be a good idea...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commercecomet24

Hey guys the Lady Dawgs are winning.

---

and blowing it out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeardoMSU

and blowing it out...

---

As always lol! I?m coming to expect it every time from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeardoMSU

and blowing it out...

---

Nah. Only winning by 26 at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starkvegasdawg34

It is the same thing. A psycho walked in there and could just as easily walk into DWS. People have mentioned alcohol. It?s illegal to carry and drink. If anyone is carrying while drinking put them under the jail.

---

There are not a lot of people drinking before and during their optometrist appointment. There are also not thousands of fans of rival optometrists crammed in close quarters in that office who are rabidly supporting their favorite Doc. It's not remotely the same situation. What happens when a drunk goes after a carrier with a cowbell? What happens if a drunk starts winning a fight with a carrier in a big way? I've just seen too much crap at games from otherwise responsible people. However you feel about this is beside the point though. I didn't start this thread to start a debate about gun rights. I started it to point out that if this bill passes as is then at the least we will play every SEC game on the road. I suspect most other teams and leagues would do the same to us. We very easily could get kicked out of the SEC and find that no one would take us or play us. THAT is the choice here. If you are cool with that then by all means support this bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeardoMSU

I understand the idea of soft targets, but are more guns (other than trained security) really the answer? What if a concealed carrier misses their target and hits innocents themselves? Especially in such a packed and frenzied environment (like DWS), I can't remotely think this would be a good idea...

---

It?s a very real risk I admit. And an enhanced carry license offers no legal or civil protection if you shoot an innocent person. We had that drilled into us in our class. Drawing a weapon is an act of absolute last resort because there?s no unpulling the trigger. But if put in that situation, I?d rather have the ability to try and protect my wife and children or someone else?s wife and kids instead of standing there helpless watching them die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liverpooldawg

That's not remotely the same thing. I operate a similar business and I keep a weapon on hand.

---

I assume the subject was the guy who killed his wife in the Wal Mart a few weeks ago. If they'd had access to a gun, would they have recognized the situation and reacted in time? I have no idea ... seemed to me like it was a pretty sudden thing. But yes, I agree ... I don't blame you for keeping protection on hand. The probability of getting held up in a Wal Mart is much higher than getting mugged in Davis Wade. Or I would think.