Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/6/2002 8:55:19 AM EDT
surely there are some who don't (no, i'm not one of them)
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 8:59:49 AM EDT
Use the poll. I support CCW. I also support Open Carry. [;D]
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:05:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Belfry_Express: Use the poll. I support CCW. I also support Open Carry. [;D]
View Quote
Roger that ^^^
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:06:59 AM EDT
good idea on the poll, just added
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:10:10 AM EDT
Would be nice to have ANY legal form of CC here in my state of misery (missiouri). Vermont style would be ideal.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:15:27 AM EDT
You're kidding right? Now where's that nugent CC license pic...
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:17:10 AM EDT
nope, not kidding... surely there is 1 member here who opposes concealed carry... heck, i've been in a gunshop and heard some "regulars" start voicing how ridiculous it is to carry a gun (the day i bought my p32)
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:18:04 AM EDT
oh, and they all shared the opinion that it would be most likely that the gun would be taken and used on you *sigh*... wonder if they voted for gore
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:18:07 AM EDT
I support open carry, but I think some kind of MINIMAL permit and instruction should come before concealed carry.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:19:42 AM EDT
hmm, i would think you would support training for any sort of carry, why only concealed??? incidently, i *encourage* training, but would never approve of it being required, just another system to be abused
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:21:45 AM EDT
I dont feel that you have to have a permit to use your right to bear arms. I do support instruction and classes but don't feel that they should be required.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:39:56 AM EDT
i would encourage everyone to read, "Why Adopt a Vermont-style CCW Law?" which can be found here: [url]http://www.gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:46:14 AM EDT
i knew there'd be one: do you support concealed carry? yes, vermont-style... no permit system needed : 81% yes, with extensive background check, fingerprints, and required training : 3% yes, with minimal permit requirement : 14% no, how can you feel safe with people carrying "hidden guns"??? : 0% no, (fill in your own reasoning in your response) : 3% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37 Total Votes but he/she didn't fill in reasoning, i'd be interested, please do
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:47:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By armed-to-the-teeth-1: i would encourage everyone to read, "Why Adopt a Vermont-style CCW Law?" which can be found here: [url]http://www.gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm[/url]
View Quote
That hits the nail on the head. Thanks
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:48:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:51:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2002 9:52:46 AM EDT by JIMBEAM]
I support CC but think basic weapons proficency and an understanding of when lethal force can be used should be required. Check this thread concering a DU debate on CCW. cold DU link http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID32/1315.html#1
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 10:06:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By armed-to-the-teeth-1: nope, not kidding... surely there is 1 member here who opposes concealed carry... heck, i've been in a gunshop and heard some "regulars" start voicing how ridiculous it is to carry a gun (the day i bought my p32)
View Quote
Hell, I've had several hunters tell me that their hunting rifles were okay, but they saw no reason for the pistol on my hip or that ugly black rifle. It seems that not all gun owners are pro-gun rights.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 10:13:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG: Hell, I've had several hunters tell me that their hunting rifles were okay, but they saw no reason for the pistol on my hip or that ugly black rifle. It seems that not all gun owners are pro-gun rights.
View Quote
You should see the looks me and my friends get as 20-21 year olds with AR15's. In South Florida where I am from I would get all kinds of dirty looks, "those damn kids and their assault weapons" is what they were thinking. here in Gainesville, it's not that big of a problem.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 10:42:26 AM EDT
I'm actually undecided about this issue. For me personally, yeah I'd prefer to be allowed to carry a handgun if I feel it woudl be necessary to protect myself. Currently I do not feel that, so I probably would not carry except on rare occasions when I felt it was warranted. However, the reason for my indecisiveness is because of the public policy and overall societal benefit issue. Ultimately, it is an empirical question as to whether or not the benefit would outweigh the harm. I see a lot of people who are supposed to be adult, yet behave like children at the drop of a hat - who are easily angered, who will lose their temper at the drop of a hat, who have a chip on their shoulder, who are provocative and rude, who easily get road rage - and it raises the question of whether or not the additional people killed in incidents that previously would have resulted in a fist-fight or a yelling match OUTWEIGHS the number of lives saved by citizens having handguns to protect themselves and others in a crisis. I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not sure that answer is ultimately knowable. Don't bother referring me to studies - all of them are biased one way or another, but more importantly, all of the are statistically confounded, and extremely limited in conclusion validity. Believe me, it is not clear whether the benefits outweigh the costs - and while we can point to very salient and sensational stories where there would clearly have been a benefit, I'm still not able to see whether there is a greater cost or benefit at the aggregate social level. The ideal solution for ME, would be that I'm allowed to carry and nobody else is [:D] I would be in favor of a tightly regulated national CC - with required traninng and some sort of testing. Some of you might find this unreasonable, but there are a lot of people out there who really cannot control themselves, and yet do not have a criminal record (yet) and are not otherwise disqualified in any obvoius way. To me, CC is the epitomy of an issue where RESPONSIBILITY has to be balanced with RIGHT. Just my $.02
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 10:58:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2002 11:02:23 AM EDT by bvmjethead]
Originally Posted By armed-to-the-teeth-1: hmm, i would think you would support training for any sort of carry, why only concealed???
View Quote
Guess you're referring to my post. I support training before all rights to carry. Example to get a hunters license (even bowhunting) in Virginia you must complete a firearms safety training course at the police station. I think a similar requirement should be in force before open carry, say beginning at a certain age. Furthermore I think you should have to walk through a shooting course with an instructor to determine you know how to hit what you aim at with a firearm. Also some determination that you know when deadly force is justifiable. Safety is no accident, it must be taught. For concealed I think further training should be required, such as being able to pass a test as to where you can and cannot carry a concealed weapon even with a concealed carry permit. For instance, banks, movie theaters, gun shops. Not that I agree with the laws that are in place, but here in Virginia there are places you cannot carry a loaded firearm no matter what permit you have. You should know these and be able to prove you know them. It's really for your own protection.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 11:01:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2002 11:02:33 AM EDT by Glock31]
I support it with the only required training being to show minimal proficiency with your weapon of choice and to know when you are justified in using deadly force. Minimal proficiency in KY is 11 shots out of 20 from 7 yards on a full size human silhouette target and be able to field strip your weapon. Personally, I don't see how anyone could actually miss one of those targets and if you only get 11 out of 20 I hope I'm nowhere around when you shoot. Edited to add: I'd really like to see a national concealed carry permit even if it meant tougher testing, which is the only way it would happen.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 11:06:03 AM EDT
I think that all "carriers" need to be at least made aware of the legal ramifications of brandishing and possibly using deadly force. So yes, I support minimal training requirements simply to protect ourselves.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 11:08:29 AM EDT
You didn't have my choice---everyone, regardless of age should be allowed to carry whatever they want.....ya want to see sexual crimes against minors go away?
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 11:09:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Glock31: I'd really like to see a national concealed carry permit even if it meant tougher testing, which is the only way it would happen.
View Quote
Only if I can carry open or concealed ANYWHERE, no restrictions.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 11:10:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SWS: I think that all "carriers" need to be at least made aware of the legal ramifications of brandishing and possibly using deadly force. So yes, I support minimal training requirements simply to protect ourselves.
View Quote
Agreed, in addition to the NICS system to weed out criminals, stalkers, felons, etc. Now, if we can only implement full training requirements for VOTERS![:D]
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 11:20:32 AM EDT
So, can I cart around my howitzer everywhere I go? I'll throw a blanket over it so it's concealed.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 11:21:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: I'm actually undecided about this issue. For me personally, yeah I'd prefer to be allowed to carry a handgun if I feel it woudl be necessary to protect myself. Currently I do not feel that, so I probably would not carry except on rare occasions when I felt it was warranted. However, the reason for my indecisiveness is because of the public policy and overall societal benefit issue. Ultimately, it is an empirical question as to whether or not the benefit would outweigh the harm. I see a lot of people who are supposed to be adult, yet behave like children at the drop of a hat - who are easily angered, who will lose their temper at the drop of a hat, who have a chip on their shoulder, who are provocative and rude, who easily get road rage - and it raises the question of whether or not the additional people killed in incidents that previously would have resulted in a fist-fight or a yelling match OUTWEIGHS the number of lives saved by citizens having handguns to protect themselves and others in a crisis. I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not sure that answer is ultimately knowable. Don't bother referring me to studies - all of them are biased one way or another, but more importantly, all of the are statistically confounded, and extremely limited in conclusion validity. Believe me, it is not clear whether the benefits outweigh the costs - and while we can point to very salient and sensational stories where there would clearly have been a benefit, I'm still not able to see whether there is a greater cost or benefit at the aggregate social level. The ideal solution for ME, would be that I'm allowed to carry and nobody else is [:D] I would be in favor of a tightly regulated national CC - with required traninng and some sort of testing. Some of you might find this unreasonable, but there are a lot of people out there who really cannot control themselves, and yet do not have a criminal record (yet) and are not otherwise disqualified in any obvoius way. To me, CC is the epitomy of an issue where RESPONSIBILITY has to be balanced with RIGHT. Just my $.02
View Quote
yes i realize you requested that we spare you from studies, and certainly all are biased, but i would ask you to please refer to this one: [url]http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm[/url] which is well documented.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 11:23:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SWS: I think that all "carriers" need to be at least made aware of the legal ramifications of brandishing and possibly using deadly force. So yes, I support minimal training requirements simply to protect ourselves.
View Quote
perhaps if the state issuing the permit would include a factsheet with your permit... simple, cheap, nothing required, but will help the problem as you see it
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 11:23:35 AM EDT
Ya know… the reason that there's so many pin-heads around that are afraid of CCW laws is due to the fact that 99% of what people know about firearm use is garnered from that great educator: [b]TV[/b]! Unfortunately, there's another side to this coin - and that applies to what people know about the safe, legal, ethical, and effective use of a handgun in a self-defense scenario. 99% percent of what they know, or what they think they know, is gathered from watching TV or talking to the idiot behind the counter at the gun store. That's the way it is boys. Do a search - there's not a week that goes by where some idiot is getting his gun confiscated for brandishing or someone with questions about "when is it OK to fire a warning shot?" Mandatory training prior to issuance of a revocable, set term license - I have no problem with that. (And for you old unreasoning, stubborn mules that say "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" - well why don't you take your unbendable philosophy down to a mental health group home or a sexual predator half-way house and arm some of those folks? Their rights are being infringed all to hell aren't they?)
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 11:24:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MisterGreens:
Originally Posted By LARRYG: Hell, I've had several hunters tell me that their hunting rifles were okay, but they saw no reason for the pistol on my hip or that ugly black rifle. It seems that not all gun owners are pro-gun rights.
View Quote
You should see the looks me and my friends get as 20-21 year olds with AR15's. In South Florida where I am from I would get all kinds of dirty looks, "those damn kids and their assault weapons" is what they were thinking. here in Gainesville, it's not that big of a problem.
View Quote
that's one of the reasons i keep my military i.d. ready to show someone who needs to buzz off b/c they don't like my naughty rifles
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 11:27:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: I am the person who voted no. Who needs concealed carry when you can open carry a rifle, a shotgun and a pistol? Nobody would NEED to carry if everybody could sling an AR, an AK or a FAL. Barring that, I actually DO like concealed carry. It gives me a har - I mean, a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that there may be armed citizens wherever I go. It's also my next moneyhole after I procure an AR [:D]
View Quote
perhaps i should have specified that i was leaving open carry as an entirely separate issue, i'm only wanting to see if people support concealed carry as an option... even if open carry was legal everywhere (it's not, i.e. illinois) concealed carry would still be needed
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 11:29:37 AM EDT
Since dolomite wants to trot out the tired what-if stories....here...what is the sex-offenders were all shot by their victims? Why don't people pee on electrical fences...because they know that every time they are liable to get the piss shocked out of them...how much would our society be changed if every criminal knew he was SURE to get popped. You want safety? well look around it ain't happening.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 11:29:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dolomite: Ya know… the reason that there's so many pin-heads around that are afraid of CCW laws is due to the fact that 99% of what people know about firearm use is garnered from that great educator: [b]TV[/b]! Unfortunately, there's another side to this coin - and that applies to what people know about the safe, legal, ethical, and effective use of a handgun in a self-defense scenario. 99% percent of what they know, or what they think they know, is gathered from watching TV or talking to the idiot behind the counter at the gun store. That's the way it is boys. Do a search - there's not a week that goes by where some idiot is getting his gun confiscated for brandishing or someone with questions about "when is it OK to fire a warning shot?" Mandatory training prior to issuance of a revocable, set term license - I have no problem with that. (And for you old unreasoning, stubborn mules that say "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" - well why don't you take your unbendable philosophy down to a mental health group home or a sexual predator half-way house and arm some of those folks? Their rights are being infringed all to hell aren't they?)
View Quote
where did you cast your vote in the poll? just curious
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 11:56:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 12:00:24 PM EDT
do you support concealed carry? yes, vermont-style... no permit system needed : 77% yes, with extensive background check, fingerprints, and required training : 3% yes, with minimal permit requirement : 17% no, how can you feel safe with people carrying "hidden guns"??? : 0% no, (fill in your own reasoning in your response) : 3% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100 Total Votes 3 No's, yet i don't see 3 explanations, only 1... now quit hiding you two [;)]
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 12:08:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By armed-to-the-teeth-1: yes i realize you requested that we spare you from studies, and certainly all are biased, but i would ask you to please refer to this one: [url]http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm[/url] which is well documented.
View Quote
Much of the basis is on the Kleck and Gertz study, which concludes that there are about 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. This number is about 20 times higher than estimates by the Department of Justice, and there are HUGE problems with the study. I could go into a lot of detail if you were interested, but do not have time right now. The conclusions in the Kleck and Gertz study simply cannot be substantiated, and there are a number of very serious flaws in the study - some in the survey itself, and the validity of the measures, and also in the assumptions the authors make. Taking that into acocunt, you really cannot draw ANY conclusion as to the LIVES saved by DGU. Sorry I'm being non-specific, but I have to get back to work. I'm behind scedhule in reviewing a textbook and proofing a book chapter - and I really cannot take the time to review this paper. But my issues with the study are farily clear - if you read the study you will find that the conslusions are completely unsubstantiated. Interestingly enough - most of the medical studies you hear about on the news are also piss-porly done, and the conclusions that are touted are often completely unsubstantiated as well. Go figure [;)]
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 12:24:56 PM EDT
Okay I wimped out on the poll I voted; yes, with minimal permit requirement I really like the vermont law but I think someone should remind all CCW holders that they need training and practice. It is hard for people on this board to think of a person who is a gun owner and not ever shooting that firearm. But they are out there. I live in MA. and have a carry permit. I practice at least 3 times a month with just a carry gun and most weekends I shoot everything from shotguns to Ar's. I meet people on the range "who just bought a gun" they shoot a box of ammo and that's it you never see them again. I think a minimal permit may remind them to practice a couple times a year at least.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 12:27:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG: Hell, I've had several hunters tell me that their hunting rifles were okay, but they saw no reason for the pistol on my hip or that ugly black rifle. It seems that not all gun owners are pro-gun rights.
View Quote
IMHO, hunters are of little help in defending gun rights. You'll notice, most gun control laws are written so as not to interfere with "hunters and sportsmen". And yeah, I've encountred plenty of hunter and bullseye guys who see "no good reason" to own an AR, FAL or carry a pistol. CKMorley
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 12:35:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Glock31: I support it with the only required training being to show minimal proficiency with your weapon of choice and to know when you are justified in using deadly force. Minimal proficiency in KY is 11 shots out of 20 from 7 yards on a full size human silhouette target and be able to field strip your weapon. Personally, I don't see how anyone could actually miss one of those targets and if you only get 11 out of 20 I hope I'm nowhere around when you shoot. Edited to add: I'd really like to see a national concealed carry permit even if it meant tougher testing, which is the only way it would happen.
View Quote
Your observation is dead on. This test is utterly meaningless. In a real shootout, when both people are moving and the adrenaline is pumping, you could miss all 20 rounds at that distance. All the courses and tests and so forth are just another variety of corporate welfare handed out by the state--KY just had a huge scandal over who got to administer those courses, or was that TN? Anyways, it is just another place where our rights can be abused. Requiring a course prevents more people from carrying. NC has ridiculous costs associated with obtaining a CHL, $95 fee, plus $50-$100 for the damn course. Add to that the way they treat you like a criminal by demanding fingerprints and so forth, and you can absolutely count me out of ever wanting to obtain such a thing. I don't care what the corrupt courts or politicians say or what authority they claim over me, my RKBA is inalienable and that means I don't actually need their permission, ever, PERIOD! By going and playing their game, I assent to their rules and give turn my right into a privilege. I've already bent over backwards by getting those damn purchase permits, enough is enough.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 12:35:35 PM EDT
I honestly believe that everyone who gets a permit should at least have to demonstrate an abilty to operate the firearm in a safe manner. The NRA prescribed class I took for my CHL, in Virginia, was a JOKE!!! The people had no idea how to operate a 1911 with a Ceiner Conversion, a Ruger Vaquero in 22lr, or several other revolvers in 22lr. Upon completion of this class, and the prescribed 45 day wait, these people would be "qualified" to carry a handgun. Please.... [rolleyes] Most of them weren't qualified to be handling firearms yet at all. Scary scary stuff..... The NRA range requires a basic range safety tet before you can shoot there, and that range gets some fairly well qualified people there. So it's not like it is too much to ask for....
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 12:48:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot:
Originally Posted By Glock31: I support it with the only required training being to show minimal proficiency with your weapon of choice and to know when you are justified in using deadly force. Minimal proficiency in KY is 11 shots out of 20 from 7 yards on a full size human silhouette target and be able to field strip your weapon. Personally, I don't see how anyone could actually miss one of those targets and if you only get 11 out of 20 I hope I'm nowhere around when you shoot. Edited to add: I'd really like to see a national concealed carry permit even if it meant tougher testing, which is the only way it would happen.
View Quote
Your observation is dead on. This test is utterly meaningless. In a real shootout, when both people are moving and the adrenaline is pumping, you could miss all 20 rounds at that distance. All the courses and tests and so forth are just another variety of corporate welfare handed out by the state--KY just had a huge scandal over who got to administer those courses, or was that TN? Anyways, it is just another place where our rights can be abused. Requiring a course prevents more people from carrying. NC has ridiculous costs associated with obtaining a CHL, $95 fee, plus $50-$100 for the damn course. Add to that the way they treat you like a criminal by demanding fingerprints and so forth, and you can absolutely count me out of ever wanting to obtain such a thing. I don't care what the corrupt courts or politicians say or what authority they claim over me, my RKBA is inalienable and that means I don't actually need their permission, ever, PERIOD! By going and playing their game, I assent to their rules and give turn my right into a privilege. I've already bent over backwards by getting those damn purchase permits, enough is enough.
View Quote
I do support the required course, but wish the firearms course here was tougher. 20 out of 20 in the black should be there bare minimum. Those 9 misses hit something other than their intended target. True, when adrenaline gets going you may miss every shot from closer than that, but if you can't hit a huge target like that every time from 7 yards, you should spend LOTS of time shooting before you even think about carrying.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:00:49 PM EDT
I was going to choose 2 just because of the training aspect. Each individual needs to take it upon themselves to train or get trained. I dont think you should be required to take training by the state or Gov.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:06:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By armed-to-the-teeth-1: where did you cast your vote in the poll? just curious
View Quote
It's hard for me to remember back to what I did just this afternoon but I voted for the "Minimal", not the "Extensive" box. My reason? The word 'extensive' can be used by the government (ya know, the people that think they're there to help us) to screw people over too easily. In Michigan, there's places that require you to acquire proof from your doctor that you don't have any mental health issues before a CCW can be issued. There's a guy on Glock Talk right now that was told by his doctor that he didn't think that anyone that wanted to carry a concealed weapon all the time had all their cookies in a jar so no - no letter for you. Needless to say he's looking for a new Dr. and is extremely pissed off! Another example of "extensive" misuse of CCW licensing would be denying a woman that was raped a permit to carry because she is being treated by a shrink and may have been issued an Rx for a tranquilizer to help her sleep after the ordeal. That would be a crime on top of a crime IMO. When I think "extensive", I think of California and New York where only the rich and well connected can get permits. I'm a big backer of "Shall-issue" believe me, it's just that being a certified NRA instructor in Pistol and Personal Protection as well as a Certified IDPA Safety Officer - the only "extensive" thing a majority of the people I see with guns in their hands need, is "extensive" training! Have a nice weekend!
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:20:36 PM EDT
Just DO IT... Really, if you have to, just do it. I will not be caught without a weapon in the moment of truth... P.S. practice and become proficient...
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:26:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By armed-to-the-teeth-1: yes i realize you requested that we spare you from studies, and certainly all are biased, but i would ask you to please refer to this one: [url]http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm[/url] which is well documented.
View Quote
Much of the basis is on the Kleck and Gertz study, which concludes that there are about 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. This number is about 20 times higher than estimates by the Department of Justice, and there are HUGE problems with the study. I could go into a lot of detail if you were interested, but do not have time right now. The conclusions in the Kleck and Gertz study simply cannot be substantiated, and there are a number of very serious flaws in the study - some in the survey itself, and the validity of the measures, and also in the assumptions the authors make. Taking that into acocunt, you really cannot draw ANY conclusion as to the LIVES saved by DGU. Sorry I'm being non-specific, but I have to get back to work. I'm behind scedhule in reviewing a textbook and proofing a book chapter - and I really cannot take the time to review this paper. But my issues with the study are farily clear - if you read the study you will find that the conslusions are completely unsubstantiated. Interestingly enough - most of the medical studies you hear about on the news are also piss-porly done, and the conclusions that are touted are often completely unsubstantiated as well. Go figure [;)]
View Quote
you apparently just glanced at the opening and went from there... that factsheet draws from a lot more than that particular study... give it a little more attention to be fair
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:42:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MisterGreens:
Originally Posted By LARRYG: Hell, I've had several hunters tell me that their hunting rifles were okay, but they saw no reason for the pistol on my hip or that ugly black rifle. It seems that not all gun owners are pro-gun rights.
View Quote
You should see the looks me and my friends get as 20-21 year olds with AR15's. In South Florida where I am from I would get all kinds of dirty looks, "those damn kids and their assault weapons" is what they were thinking. here in Gainesville, it's not that big of a problem.
View Quote
You should see the looks me and my friends get just talking about the "black rifles" as teenagers!
Top Top