3 ms·
You're being facetious. The "like your reaction" isn't applicable, because one would reasonable expect those with different senses of modesty, etc. may not agr
by 0ct4via 3y ago
You're being facetious.
The "like your reaction" isn't applicable, because one would reasonable expect those with different senses of modesty, etc. may not agree with someone being topless in public.
The "donut and ice cream for every meal" is equally ridiculous -- yes, it's legal, but (a) suggesting otherwise is farcical, and (b) anybody with common sense knows that it would both be lacking in nutrition, and lead to other health issues.
By contrast, OP engaging in regular business while happening to be enjoying their constitutionally-protected rights, is not "dumb" or something they "shouldn't do" -- the only thing that "shouldn't" be done in this case, is be interrogated for simply open carrying -- they wouldn't have batted an eyelid if GP had a CCW and was concealed-carrying.
If you're going to make an argument that GP was "dumb" for open-carrying in a police station, make that argument -- don't resort to childish and laughable attempts at puerile analogies.
- dangus 3y ago> (b) anybody with common sense knows that it would both be lacking in nutrition, and lead to other health issues Anyone with common sense knows you don’t need a gun in a police station because the police have already secured the police station. Everything you said in your comment as a rebuttal to my analogy fit my analogy perfectly. Let me reiterate: “interrogation” as described in this story is legal. It’s just a forceful word for asking questions. Police are allowed to ask questions in almost any situation, which is why they do it so much. They don’t have to automatically tell you that you’re not obligated to answer or stick around.
- cryptonector 3y ago> Anyone with common sense knows you don’t need a gun in a police station because the police have already secured the police station. Reading this subthread, it seems pretty clear that one wouldn't legally carry in a police station out of fear of needing it, but out of fear of having it stolen from their vehicles.
- dangus 3y agoHaving a firearm unsecured and unlocked inside a vehicle is a crime isn’t it? How many children die from unsecured firearms every year again? I swear, every pro-gun logic path brings you back to the fact that guns are dangerous to have around.
- cryptonector 3y agoWho said anything about "unsecured and unlocked"? I don't think you can easily secure a gun in a vehicle when the vehicle can be stolen. Also, it is not the case that "having a firearm unsecured and unlocked inside a vehicle is a crime" where I live.
- dangus 3y agoSince property is so easy to steal then it’s probably not good for society to have minimal restrictions on ownership of firearms.
- 0ct4via 3y agoYou're being deliberately disingenuous again, there's a massive difference between securing something on your person, and leaving it unattended in a vehicle - especially given how commonplace vehicle thefts and break-ins are. If you're going to troll to push your anti-gun rhetoric, at least try and go for reasoned arguments rather than ridiculous hypotheticals and apparently-serious hyperbole.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dangus 3y agoIt’s sad to think that we’re so deep into the gun lobby’s idea of normal society that you think what I am saying is “pro-gun rhetoric.” No, it’s not, my rhetoric is that of a person that wants to live in a society as the rest of the developed world understands it. Here’s my reasoned argument: our government is verifiably deeply intertwined with gun organizations and manufacturers. Without this influence we would see our nation’s wildly statistically abnormal situation as a cause for urgent action. Instead, we’ve been trained to think of that anything against our “freedom” to own guns as “anti-gun rhetoric.” https://archive.is/sNDTt https://archive.is/sNDTt