Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I didn't say it was illegal. I just don't think it was a thing because of the types of weapons and dress at the time.The early Americans could carry whatever firearm, long gun or handgun, that they wanted to (and I suspect that also included while at Ye Ol' Pub). Dressing and "carrying" for a particular occasion, as the person thought was appropriate.
Of course. While in "militia practice," the long gun would probably be more appropriate (or perhaps, REQUIRED) for the occasion. Bringing along a handgun, was probably NOT frowned upon either.
So then (back then)......IF, someone CHOSE to carry in a Pub. It was probably a personal decision.
No law to prohibit such.....FREEDOM.
But I admit, that I could be wrong. So.....IF.......YOU know of any particular law or prohibition against the carrying in Ye Ol' Pub from back in that era? Please post it.
Aloha, Mark
PS......"silly" is making gun laws against and/or not understanding......
"........shall not be infringed."
Doubtful, they drive away the productive members unfortunately.Stop diddling the troll, maybe it'll go away.
We're six pages deep here ladies.Doubtful, they drive away the productive members unfortunately.
Laws work on the law abiding. That is reality.You're clumping all criminals into the premeditated class, and then saying that laws don't work on them so there is no point. That isn't reality.
That's what you are, but what am I?Laws work on the law abiding. That is reality.
I give up. What are you?That's what you are, but what am I?
I spy with my little eye.....I give up. What are you?
Now you're making me nervous.I spy with my little eye.....
That's what she said.Now you're making me nervous.
He can't quit us!Stop diddling the troll, maybe it'll go away.
Fixed it for you….We're six " deep here ladies.
Yes, indeedy!That's what she said.
Oh sure, start a thread and it's supposed to be allllll about YOU!So, I started this thread yesterday and I cannot for the life of me remember what it was about, LOL.
As stated, law abiding is a range of behaviors, not a state of mind. An idiot that avoids shooting someone when drunk because they didn't want the hazard of getting caught with a gun is a crime prevented, even if on the most banal level.Laws work on the law abiding. That is reality.
How much have you had to drink tonight? Because you're making about as much sense as Kamala Harris.As stated, law abiding is a range of behaviors, not a state of mind. An idiot that avoids shooting someone when drunk because they didn't want the hazard of getting caught with a gun is a crime prevented, even if on the most banal level.
How much have you had to drink tonight? Because you're making about as much sense as Kamala Harris.
Because the significance banal is anal, and anal is significant when being banal during the passage of time, because if I was not playing football today, I would not be playing football.
-Kamala Harris
I don't know what kind of explanation wil. get through to you. So you'll pardon me if I just restate myself:How much have you had to drink tonight? Because you're making about as much sense as Kamala Harris.
Yet you have previously stated (post #113) that abiding by the law is not a state of mind. Is this not a contradiction?I don't know what kind of explanation wil. get through to you. So you'll pardon me if I just restate myself:
1. Some people follow the law out of principle.
2. Some people follow the law because it would be a hassle to get caught, but they have no morals. These people might commit an awful crime if angry or drunk. These people are sometimes prevented from becoming criminals by laws that keep them out of the position of doing something stupid.
No. I meant that it is not a binary state of mind, where abiding by the law is only due to one way of thinking. I listed two types, as a generalization.Yet you have previously stated (post #113) that abiding by the law is not a state of mind. Is this not a contradiction?