Idiotic gun owners

[RoyJackson]

Originally Posted by tlgpa

Gee, did you ever stop to think others do, especially when it comes to constitutional rights? This forum is a little more than fluff you may find on the "Who's your favorite American Idol forum"

And folks will be smart enough to seperate the fluff from the good stuff. Read , say, 100 posts at random (on PAFOA). Determine for yourself how serious they are.
Not to rehash, but even this thread started off damning some guy no one (except the OP) knows. Quite a few posters (including my first one on this thread) took the side of the OP without knowing all of the facts or any of the facts. Shooting at 10:30 PM doesn't seem too bright, at first thought. But if the yard was well lit, maybe it wasn't such a reckless thing. I wasn't there...so I don't know. Neither were 99% of the people responding to the OP.

I don't think there are many Constitutional scholars on this forum. Even though most on PAFOA think US v Miller was a bad decision, it did hold up (and still does hold up) after 70 years. There's a lot of Constitutional scholars who agree with that decision (in my opinion, more for political beliefs then scholarly justification). And, other then bitching and moaning, what have you done to overturn this, and protect the 2nd Amendment? Have you even paid the twenty bucks (or what ever the lowest amount is) to support this forum?
The internet and forums do provide better communication then we had in 1993-1994. That's a boon.
But, do that experiment (100 posts at random...random is hard to do, BTW) and determine for yourself how serious forums are in general
Time for bed...this adventure continues on Thursday.

[biggs88]

This has gotten way off topic.

I am, along with many other members are just trying to keep this Forum as informational and useful as it can.

Be safe.

[JCWohlschlag]

Originally Posted by RoyJackson

I'll ignore most of your post...but, no, I don't take internet forums very seriously (not just this one, BTW...I'm a regular on about half a dozen or so). If you followed all the posts, you know I've been on forums since the early to mid 90's. Some good, informative stuff, some bad stuff, a lot of opinions...but mostly fluff. Hell, most folks hide behind screen nicks...how can one take that seriously?
It's like that cartoon you see now and then about arguing on the internet (picture of a retarded kid) which is kind of cruel, but pretty funny. If you've seen that pic, you know what I'm writing about. If you haven't seen that pic, search for IRC pictures.
As far as legality...well, are you a lawyer? I'm not going to continue this debate as I think everything that could have been written has been written. Hell, laddie, I even acknowledged Gunlawyer's response (I take it you didn't read that far back).
But now this thread has just deteriorated to a pissing contest. As soon as you lads get back to the original topic (remember that?), I'll probably stop rebutting these character assassinations.

Uh, dude… are you freaking kidding me? I tried to stay out of your childish “my mistake wasn’t my fault” bullcrap, but the stupidity actually started to burn with this post.

You are responding to a post by GunLawyer001!!! Seriously! Go back and check if you don’t believe me! Yes, GunLawyer001 is a lawyer! Yes, GunLawyer001 does know that you acknowledged “GunLawyer’s” (in third person) response… because GunLawyer001 really doesn’t have much of a choice but to “read that far back” when it’s his own post he’s reading! I can pretty much guarantee you that he read the post before anyone else here did, right before he clicked the Submit Reply button.

Jesus, man! Get over it. You posted information that was either incorrect due to being unclear or just clearly incorrect. Whether you originally meant for the excepted origins and destinations of travel to be included in your first posts is irrelevant. Numerous experienced users did not pick up on the “obvious” context of your posts, which means that inexperienced users have a snowball’s chance in hell of picking up on it, and this all assumes that context actually existed in the first place as you claim. The vehicle carry without a license statute cannot be summarized into the one-liners that you provided because the important information that is missing could screw a newbie up royally. Additionally, you continued to support your original posts by claiming that “just taking your handgun to a friend’s house” was perfectly fine, which is blatantly false as pointed out by GunLawyer001, the person who you just said didn’t read that far back.

Please stop contributing even more stupidity to this thread. And if you do choose to contribute more, please at least try to pay attention to who you are responding to. Telling one to go back and read one’s own posts as if they are a different person is absolutely useless on a colossal scale. Just accept that your original posts were dangerously unclear and let’s move on.

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by JCWohlschlag

Uh, dude… are you freaking kidding me? I tried to stay out of your childish “my mistake wasn’t my fault” bullcrap, but the stupidity actually started to burn with this post.

You are responding to a post by GunLawyer001!!! Seriously! Go back and check if you don’t believe me! Yes, GunLawyer001 is a lawyer! Yes, GunLawyer001 does know that you acknowledged “GunLawyer’s” (in third person) response… because GunLawyer001 really doesn’t have much of a choice but to “read that far back” when it’s his own post he’s reading! I can pretty much guarantee you that he read the post before anyone else here did, right before he clicked the Submit Reply button.

Jesus, man! Get over it. You posted information that was either incorrect due to being unclear or just clearly incorrect. Whether you originally meant for the excepted origins and destinations of travel to be included in your first posts is irrelevant. Numerous experienced users did not pick up on the “obvious” context of your posts, which means that inexperienced users have a snowball’s chance in hell of picking up on it, and this all assumes that context actually existed in the first place as you claim. The vehicle carry without a license statute cannot be summarized into the one-liners that you provided because the important information that is missing could screw a newbie up royally. Additionally, you continued to support your original posts by claiming that “just taking your handgun to a friend’s house” was perfectly fine, which is blatantly false as pointed out by GunLawyer001, the person who you just said didn’t read that far back.

Please stop contributing even more stupidity to this thread. And if you do choose to contribute more, please at least try to pay attention to who you are responding to. Telling one to go back and read one’s own posts as if they are a different person is absolutely useless on a colossal scale. Just accept that your original posts were dangerously unclear and let’s move on.

I owe you, my button is broke right now!!!!

[MostlyHarmless]

Originally Posted by RoyJackson

And folks will be smart enough to seperate the fluff from the good stuff.

I still don't understand why you think it is a good idea to add a lot of nonsensical fluff to an otherwise very serious forum, who's members usually strive to be accurate and err on the safe side.

At least we can use you as a bad example. So your contributions may be worth something after all.


Jan

[Carnes]

Originally Posted by RoyJackson

Unless he's carrying the gun concealed, he doesn't need an LCTF. Again, unless firearms are prohibited in the lease, the order to leave or to remove the gun probably violated his rights and the lease.

This information is wrong, misleading and potentially harmful to an uninformed reader.

A number of the members of this forum take pride in providing a good solid place from which a reader can gain enough information to begin meaningful, educated, research on firearm related issues. Many of us take this organization very seriously.

Several members have clearly articulated exactly how the information you presented is wrong and could jeopardize the rights of an unsuspecting reader. Instead of learning from the experience and correcting yourself you use weak propaganda to attempt to defend yourself.

Originally Posted by PAFOA-BOT

Thank you for deducting reputation from this user.

I respect your age, your activism and your contribution to this organization, but that does not excuse blatantly bad and illegal advice. This forum is about as close to a peer-review journal as the firearm owners community is going to get for the time being, and you are getting to witness how well it works first hand. Embrace it, respect it and quit trying to fuck it up.

[RoyJackson]

Originally Posted by biggs88

This has gotten way off topic.

I am, along with many other members are just trying to keep this Forum as informational and useful as it can.

Be safe.

Sure has...happens all the time...you'll get used to it.