Ammo For Sale

« « Tactical Pens | Home | Lump of coal » »

More on the Embody case

Generally speaking, in common law it was an offense to go about armed to the terror of the people.

7 Responses to “More on the Embody case”

  1. John Smith. Says:

    I thought there was already a de facto ban on OC in NJ…

  2. Montieth Says:

    Armed to the terror of the people…

    Isn’t that one of the justifications that anti’s use against us when we’re open or concealed carrying a handgun? The carried firearm violates their rights by being scary….

  3. Bubblehead Les Says:

    If painting a real AK-47 to look like a Toy Gun is the Proper way to use the RKBA, then one should be able to Smoke at the Gas Pump. But there’s something called “Common Sense.” Kinda like keeping your Booger Tool off the Trigger until ready to fire.

  4. John Smith. Says:

    I watch people pump gas with the car running, smoking a cig and using a cell phone rather often.. When did america become such a pussy state where you cannot do anything that is remotely dangerous without upsetting the neurotic, nanny bitches? Reminds me of the old chemistry sets… Cannot let children hurt themselves because they are too stupid to learn chemistry… The fucking orange tip is more of the same bullshit. It just reduces personal responsibility for the police mainly not for anyone else.. Of course america has become a bunch of wusses who are afraid of their own shadows.. Pathetic. If fucking sucks to live in a country where anything dangerous is a fucking felony.

  5. Pink Pistols Says:

    What he did, making it look like a toy, was LESS likely to add “to the terror of the people.” So goodluck for you walking around with something that looks like the real thing…

    If the irrational fears of the majority is the yard stick you wish to be judged by on your right to bear arms, so be it. Just stop kidding yourself that it is inalienable, because you will gladly see your fellows disarmed so sheep have no fear, (and they will do the same to you.)

  6. Matthew Carberry Says:

    I still fail to see the point being made.

    OC of a handgun in that park was legal right?

    What possible legal nuance or point was he trying to make that couldn’t have been made without being a dick about it? What was the “upside” to his action?

    Trying to make what is legal “more legal-er”?

    If you deliberately choose to paint the tip of a weapon to avoid being shot, you are tacitly admitting what you are doing might not be smart. Since there was nothing to be gained legally, and doing what he did could only -possibly- have negative effects on what was already a right and easy to legally practice, why do it?

    “Because he can” as a defence to asshattery only really applies if a right is actively being denied in practice; he could have carried a normal holstered handgun all day long with no negative repercussions, so why not do that?

    Why unnecessarily push buttons that don’t need pushing?

    Who on earth benefits, cause right now the tally is noone.

  7. John Smith. Says:

    I heard the very same argument against concealed carry not so many years ago….