Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

But that is your country and it would be what to expect. Here, we expect the opposite. After all, you people drive on the wrong side of the road. It is only natural that our thinking would be opposite as well.

We still have the Right to carry arms and that is to be expected. :lol:

Chaostrain Loc: Hillsboro, Oregon

This issue debate only shows the selfishness of people that "demand" their rights. Everybody wants their rights but nobody wants the responsibility to go with them. Yes, you have the right to open carry but with the right comes the responsibility of not scaring people almost to death. Open carry in any place that's not accustomed to it is just plan ludicrous and flat stupid. I'm a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment but I also accept the responsibility that goes with it. It's also funny how one issue can be expanded to all issues. The CEO states that it's to address the issue of open carry in their stores and yet everyone wants to talk CCW. If you have properly concealed your weapon nobody would know you have it and therefore there would be no issue. If you haven't properly concealed your weapon then don't take it in the store and scare people for no good reason.

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

What it is is that she is scared to death of anything that represents main stream Americana so she feels a need to act out. People like her won't rest until they have destroyed every institution that helped make this country what it is, soon to be was, and have implemented total so called "progressive" agendas on us all including the destruction of the right to worship God and she has as much said so! To her, a christian mother with five children or a private company who doesn't want to enable their employees to commit infanticide is repugnant.
She's a real piece of work, that one!

nascar27 Loc: Kansas City, MO

Did you attend my tactical training? Bet not. We were put through several different scenarios on proper reactions & techniques. Many hours of tactical range training. Where you there with me. Bet not. I'm not a "show off" either my friend. I believe in the right to defend my family and have the training/means to accomplish that if necessary. I would do my best to run or hide before putting rounds towards a person if possible. Only as a last resort would I fire. So be careful with your generalizations. 8-)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I'm a gun owner but I've always felt it was weird to see images of people carrying their semi-automatic rifles when they are just going shopping. If the purpose is to protect themselves from others openly carrying semiautomatic weapons, than the whole system has broken down.

viscountdriver Loc: East Kent UK

Well,no.You drive on the wrong side of the road.We were doing that before you were a country.it was Napoleon who changed that because he was left handed and for some unknown reason you decided to follow the French. Alors!

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

So that is why they helped us in the revolution! A teacher once told me there is always more to history than what meets the eye. I'll remember to toast one to them this glorious Fourth of July!
:lol:

viscountdriver Loc: East Kent UK

Don't forget the cheese with the toast, you know, like your Frenchy pals.

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

What you and Donna fell to understand is why those people in the pictures were carrying rifles in the first place. To protest the Texas law that prohibit the right to Open carry hand guns. Texas can Conceal carry a pistol or open carry rifles but not open carry a pistol. Understand?

ted45 Loc: Delaware

That type of activity occurred only in a small area as a protest. The biggest joke is that the person posting the photos has no gun knowledge and did not notice that the rifles are unloaded. That makes them nothing more than paper weights.

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

I think your last sentence "There are loads of things you can do legally but that doesn't mean you should do them." pretty well covers the issue.

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

What an unmitigated load of ****! Where has Donna advocated the "destruction of the right to worship God"? How has she advocated the destruction of American institutions, except perhaps in your twisted mind? Just because she - or anyone - disagrees with you doesn't make them the anti-Christ. Go back to the sandbox and learn to play well with others.

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

She has said she will be glad when religion especially" bible thumpers" as she calls them, meaning christians, are basically on the ash heap of history and she expects any private business to be compelled by government to pay for things that are against their conscience in the name of progressivism! She is content with the POTUS using executive privilege to usurp the Constitution of the United States! That's her opinion and she has a right to express it even though she has actually advocated that others opinions, including mine, be disallowed! Now go back to your library and help the bumb out over in the corner on the PC find his porn sight, all being funded by hard working tax payers! Trough diver!
http://solofemininity.blogs.com/posts/2008/04/porn-in-public.html

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

:thumbup: If one is carrying concealed then it should never be an issue anyway. Even if the store prohibits it, they won't know you are carrying(you are not breaking any laws). I think one is at a disadvantage with open carry as you would be the first one taken out during a robbery. Just because you are carrying concealed doesn't mean you have to react with your weapon. Discretion is always available.

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

Well, here we go again.....

Very few of us equate "bible thumpers" with all Christians, just those who seem to find it necessary to push their "faith" on others, and who indulge in what is known as proof texting. You might want to do a little research before you issue blanket condemnations of "progressive-ism. That movement around the turn of the 20th century was responsible for many reforms, many of which probably benefit you.

And you are now a constitutional lawyer? I think you'll find that Obama's use of such is generally in line with other presidents:

Name Number claimed: Actual number:
Theodore Roosevelt 3 1,081
Franklin Roosevelt 11 3,522
Harry Truman 5 907
Dwight Eisenhower 2 484
John Kennedy 4 214
Lyndon Johnson 4 325
Richard Nixon 1 346
Gerald Ford 3 169
Jimmy Carter 3 320
Ronald Reagan 5 381
George H.W. Bush 3 166
Bill Clinton 15 364
George W. Bush 62 291
Barack Obama 923 147

The attribution to President Obama of fourteen executive orders (numbered between 10990 to 11921) in the example text reproduced above is way off base as well: not a single one of those orders was issued by President Obama. The first twelve orders in the list date to the administration of President John F. Kennedy in 1962, one dates to the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966, and one dates to the administration of President Gerald R. Ford in 1976.

The text of these orders can be viewed in full through the following links:
• Executive Order 10990: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 2, 1962
• Executive Order 10995: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 10997: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 10998: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 11000: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 11001: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 11002: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 11003: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 11004: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 11005: John F. Kennedy, Feb. 16, 1962
• Executive Order 11049: John F. Kennedy, Sep. 14, 1962
• Executive Order 11051: John F. Kennedy, Sep. 27, 1962
• Executive Order 11310: Lyndon B. Johnson, Oct. 11, 1966
• Executive Order 11921: Gerald R. Ford, June 11, 1976
Last updated: 16 June 2014

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com.
This material may not be reproduced without permission.
snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.


Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp#TzbzgtKX2KXrQT98.99

Sorry that the formatting is not better. But then I imagine that you feel that anything from Snopes.com is automatically suspect, don't you?



Yes, I am a retired librarian. My library, in common with most if not all others, forbade viewing porn. Offenders were given ONE warning, then they were banned. Automated systems make it easy to ban a user.

And what is a "trough diver?" And would you dare to call me that to my face?