chevysoldier

...h....h....gregg....apply online, almost all stores are hiring

I hear that's a really great place to work.

not to mention the glitter and snail tracks...

And plus the $1 bills stuck in your g-string.

Welcome.

I notice you spec M&P there Chebby, so you agree S&W in general not worth the money just the M&P?????

S&W are just over priced Rugers in my book.

Ya, I agree not all S&W are worth it, but I do really like my M&P. I don't think I'd trade it for any other pistol. If I had the money, I'd be all over this 40.

250 is all I'd give, its a S&W.

M&P's are awesome.

$350

I don't have $375.

See how far you get into nationwide arena with your open carry.

I believe that gander used to require all fire arms being brought into the store to be checked and wire tied open at the customer service counter.

Nationwide Arena sells liquor for consumption on the premise. Can't carry there at all anyway.

You can still play xbox.

Don't worry. It will get better.

Vice President Biden predicted Friday at a Pennsylvania fundraiser that the U.S. economy would be adding up to 500,000 jobs each month "some time in the next couple of months."

"All in all we're going to be creating somewhere between 100[,000] and 200,000 jobs next month, I predict," Biden said, according to a pool report, adding that he "got in trouble" for a job growth prediction last month. "Even some in the White House said, 'Hey, don't get ahead of yourself.' Well, I'm here to tell you, some time in the next couple of months, we're going to be creating between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month."

Howdy.

Holy hell. He's in some pain.

I think the above line is the only consistently agreed upon statement in this entire thread.

....

I understand what you are saying, for the most part.

You are correct that the amendments do not carry the same weight. But I feel the second protects the rest of them IMHO and therefore carries more weight. I cannot find justification in meeting a requirement to enjoy one amendment and not another.

And what do you have against stinger? lol, he was at the parade on Saturday. Saw me taking a picture and posed for it.

This is where OC bothers me! First off, I have a CCW and carry daily. I dont open carry, I'm not totally opposed to it and wish it was more widely accepted. However, you found a place where the manager does not know the law and he obviously didnt like you OCing in there. Now you want to go back and do it again!!! this will likely cause a no guns sign to go up and make it a pain for all the rest of us to CC. You already have your CCW, why not just cover up when in the store........ no grief and no new signs.

He didn't have a problem with me openly carrying there. He just thought I was required to be either LE or have a CHL to OC. If a no gun sign goes up, they lose business. And how does a place that sell guns post a no guns sign?

Let's just say that it was a mutual decision that it just wasn't for me...

Ah I see. Sorry buddy. Hope you find something. I don't know of anything though, will keep my eyes out for ya.

I needs full time work. 40+ hrs a week, I'm willing to start at the bottom and work my way up. Most of you know I have 13 yrs experience in construction, but I'm willing to do just about anything. please help.

What happened with working at the pony? Or is that just part time?

Multiple times now, they've considered it. The latest is to try and split into 2 to 5 new states. Dunno... Seems to me they won't be doing much of anything if they are out of money and in debt. Same as Illinois, New York, and New Jersey is close to it.

If they go bankrupt... do we have to sell them to the highest bidder?

Think anyone would really want to buy CA? I say we give it to Mexico.

I dunno. Texas threatens to do that all the time.

Actually, one could make an argument for letting Cali divide up into two or three states-- hang out in SoCal for a while, then go up north. The general culture and mindset differs widely between the two.

Yes, the north and south are very different. I was in SoCal for 3 years. It sucked. Barstow was horrible.

he is Watson, im Sherlock

How'd that happen?

eh no, reading comprehension.. you need a little more of it

It is italicized and said "share with my readers" so I guess you are right but even the OP didn't realize it to be such and the original story was meant to be "real". I skimmed is because I've seen it before.

Game on then, whip the lil feller out and lets have look see peewee.

You know the urinals that go all the way to the floor? I have to use those but they only work when it's cold out.

got it, I've been wrong about that. Maybe the federal is different in some way. But you're right, it's meant to prevent a 3rd party from wire tapping.

Of course it will vary from state to state. I have no idea if there is a federal law or what it states. I wouldn't go to Oregon with a camcorder strapped on my helmet though.

Dang this thread got interesting. How did a dancing guy with chicken move to gay marriage?

holy hell this is alot of reading

No kidding. It took me three tries of cutting and pasting to get it all posted up. Originally had it at like 19,000 character on a 10,000 character limit.

says its a spoof right below the title there sherlock

Did you read the rest of the sentence?

This is one of the more hilarious spoofs of PETA I have seen in ages.

It could also be written as "This is one of the more hilarious actions by PETA I have seen in ages."

Thanks for playing.

so how long till cali falls into the ocean??

Not soon enough. I thought they wanted to secede?

I think we are lost in translation somewhere, UP, though if we are not, I will respectfully agree to disagree. I would wholeheartedly agree that self preservation is a right. The means by which you chose to preserve yourself however should be graduated, and those with the most significant means of permanently altering ones life (and the understood means of self preservation) should not be granted simply because of citizenship. I didn't state that I think the defending ones self was a privilege. We are all born with the right to preserve and protect ourself.

I think I touched on this earlier in this reply.

But in this day and age, I am not of the opinion that it for one takes a handgun to do so,

It is better to have and not need than need and not have.

nor do I think because you have the right to defend yourself that it gives you the right to simply carry a gun without proving you have the mental stability to do so, or established yourself to some form of authority the proper judgement skills necessary to carry a firearm in a public setting.

Touched on but will add to carry a gun is a right but to "hide" a gun is a privilege (as the Ohio laws stands at this time) If a cop finds a gun hidden on your person, you'd better have a reason. That reason is a CHL.

Some of this has to do with the ambiguity that currently exists with our gun laws, some of it has to do with our species and its current sociologial state with regard to firearms.

All these fricken laws about you can here, you can't there, yada yada, drives me nuts.

You and I both know that the moment you were in a position to discharge a firearm in a public setting because you understood your life to be in imminent danger that your life, as well as everyond around that situation would be changed permanently, regardless of the level of significance for each person. That shot fired is a bell you cannot unring. Regardless of where that bullet would land, or the harm done, that is a situation that I would want the person posessing and discharging that weapon to be certified and recognized beyond a reasonable doubt to be capable of understanding the responsibility that comes with that decision. You and I both know as well that not every person born unto this nation is capable of understanding and respecting the gravity of said descision. It is within those parameters that I find the right to self preservation becomes dependent on the privilege of how it is executed.

Be certified beyond a reasonable doubt? Even you said we have bad cops who abuse their authority. That motorcyclist should never have been shot in the back. Their are CHL holders that abuse what they have. I don't think it is justified to make everyone certified to openly carry a gun.

Your right to self preservation also allows you the ability to not engage in activity that is potentially threatening. Are we aware of every single threat out there when we step outside the confines of our homes, of course not. Is it necessary to then take the steps to deal with a worst-case scenario each and every time we leave? Not really. Each moment is a judgement call, and therein lies the most significant aspect of self preservation: discretion.

Again I feel it is better to have and not need than need and not have.

And unfortunately, ever single born American does not come equipped with the discretion necessary to carry a firearm. Therefore I feel the ability to do so should be extended as a privilege to those who have satisfied an established set of requirements, and be able to maintain one's standing within those parameters rather than simply being born under the Constitution of The United States of American and co-signed with their birth certificate.

I will add that part of this is due to so many antigunners pass their views to the kids that we. I think if kids were brought up to understand and respect firearms half the issues we have now would be nonexistent. I remember being young and my dad telling me where the guns and ammo was when I was left home alone. But he taught me to have a respect for firearms. My daughter is 3. At about 2 she and I started talking about guns. Nothing major but she has seen what a bullet will do and knows they are not toys, they can hurt you. She will not touch them.

And as you recognized me as someone sworn to defend that Constitution, I did so, and would do so once again with these views. I know that my POV is one of desired perfection for this case, I know that its not always wise to allow perfection to interfere with simply making things better. With what wisdom and experience that I have acquired in the 19 years since I took that oath, I would have done it all over again, and would today, were it not for the fact my body isn't much more than a one-time protective device for the Marine standing behind me. Hell, I served the majority of my service under Bill Clinton, and I loathe the idea he was ever leader of the free world. He shit on us when we were in, and showed little respect for the veterans while he served his watch. But I would have then, and would now for the current President take a bullet for them. Not because of the person they are, but what they represent. So if I am willing to take one for freaking Bill Clinton, I would die on any soil to preserve the rights and freedoms of my fellow Americans. Even if I don't agree to the degree of liberty that they provide.

Very much so.

Very much so.

Note: As far as I know, recording other people's voice without permission is a violation of Federal wiretapping laws, and is prosecuted. If recording, the first thing you should say, when spoken to, is "I'm recording" or something similar. So that it is very clear. Then you're safe, and it goes from there.

No, I don't think people wandering through your home movies w/voice in the park can prosecute. Not that people haven't tried... In those cases it is obvious. That doesn't count. It is recording without knowledge that isn't allowed.

Oddly, that isn't the case with law enforcement. They record all the time, and nothing is said about it.

Found this:

Ohio Wiretapping Law

Ohio's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. Ohio law makes it a crime to intercept or record any "wire, oral, or electronic communication" unless one party to the conversation consents. Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52. Thus, if you operate in Ohio, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance. That said, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties.

Additionally, consent is not required for oral communications (e.g., in-person conversations) where the speakers does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communication. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51. This means that you are free to record a conversation happening between two people in a public place such as a street or a restaurant, so long as you are not using sensitive recording equipment to pick up what you otherwise would not hear.

In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the Ohio wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party.

Consult the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's Can We Tape?: Ohio for more information on Ohio wiretapping law.

Dang 10,000 character limits.

...

Damn, I never would have thought this subject would have been a topic with this much discussion on this board. I think its cool and find all the replies interesting.

Ditto

I think chevysoldier should open carry any time he feels like it but he should be better prepared for the confrontations.

Agreed

When he posts them I would hope he would be more sincere about expecting a confrontation and just state them as a matter of fact rather than can you believe what happened to me in a situation I created.

I apologize if that is how I came off. It was not my intention to say "hey look what I got myself into". I posted this up to get feedback from other people with different points of view. Just as you stated I should have been better prepared for a confrontation and not been thrown off my game. Two heads are always better than one.

The voice recorder is a very good idea to protect himself from LEO who would learn of the laws after they have abused their power by harassing him and possibly change their story to protect themselves.

Chevysolder is correct about no one being able to state for a fact about the tactical superiority of one method over the other. I open carry occasionally but only when I am by myself. If I am with family I don't want any extra attention on me or them until I can provide them with cover and concealment. When I am by myself I do think there are times when showing potential opposition would keep an undetermined bad guy from making a poor decision.

---------------

I don’t think one method is superior over another and it is a personal choice based on the sum of one’s life experiences and education up to that point.

Well put.

I don't think LEO has the right to check out anyone who is carrying a gun nor should they. If a dispatcher takes a call from someone about a man with a gun they should ask them if the gun is holstered or is the person doing anything illegal, if not it should be a non event and no one should be harassed. If a LEO wants to drive by and take a look I wouldn't take issue with that but if the person isn't doing anything illegal they should be left alone. Carrying a holstered weapon and brandishing one are two different scenarios and should be handled differently. No one should be subject to a challenge while going about their business in a perfectly legal manor weather you like what they are doing or not.

Agreed

Every person should have the right to protect them self by virtue of being born, period, regardless of where they are born. The manner in which they chose is not up to the rest of us as long as it doesn't put the rest of us at risk. We don't have the right to decide who is qualified to defend themselves unless they have caused others harm in doing so. I am disappointed in RVTPilots view on that subject and can't imagine someone thinking otherwise especially when they have sworn to uphold the constitution. Protecting me is not a privilege it is a right that no man can take away. While some subjects we discuss here I might be able to be swayed from my original stand this is one I am sure you cannot convince me that my self preservation is a privilege and not a right.

Agreed