Well stated as usual Dave.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Gun owners will be the demise of 2nd Amendment
- Thread Starter markpeters1970
- Start date
Well stated as usual Dave.
Open carry of a long gun in public places will not normalize it will radicalize, with most people who do not have an opinion on gun ownership jumping over to the "we have to do something to keep guns off the street" crowd. IMO if the anti's just sent a bunch of people out walking around the city streets with open carry AR's they would have an easy victory this fall.
Long gun open carry does for the 2nd amendment what the Westboro Baptist Church does for the first amendment. Yes, you have a right to protest at military funerals, but man if it doesn't make me want to punch you in the face.
- Messages
- 19,697
- Reactions
- 54,986
Liberal gun owners are the real enemy because they vote for the idiot politicians who will 're Yes on any gun. Control measure plopped before them "UNREAD"!!!!!!
- Messages
- 42,615
- Reactions
- 110,626
I am "liberal" in the classic sense - I believe in liberty.
I don't vote for any politician that is anti-liberty, whether they are republican or democratic.
I am also not a single issue voter. I think freedom of speech, religion, association, etc., are just as important as the right to own and bare arms.
I don't believe that possession of *any* item by an individual, when that item does not necessarily or endanger others by its simple possession, should be banned or even regulated by government (some common sense regulations), whether that item is an illicit "recreational" drug, porn, guns or other common item.
Exceptions and "common sense" examples are:
Toxic chemicals that if leaked into the environment would be likely to cause widespread long term danger or harm to anybody in the locale or large amounts of flammables or explosives or unstable chemicals should have "common sense" storage requirements.
Radiation emitting substances.
etc.
I don't vote for any politician that is anti-liberty, whether they are republican or democratic.
I am also not a single issue voter. I think freedom of speech, religion, association, etc., are just as important as the right to own and bare arms.
I don't believe that possession of *any* item by an individual, when that item does not necessarily or endanger others by its simple possession, should be banned or even regulated by government (some common sense regulations), whether that item is an illicit "recreational" drug, porn, guns or other common item.
Exceptions and "common sense" examples are:
Toxic chemicals that if leaked into the environment would be likely to cause widespread long term danger or harm to anybody in the locale or large amounts of flammables or explosives or unstable chemicals should have "common sense" storage requirements.
Radiation emitting substances.
etc.
- Messages
- 3,053
- Reactions
- 1,934
*deleted*
Last Edited:
I'm just going to focus on the bolded sentence above. Define responsible Group Captain. Is it just open carry of pistols? A poster earlier didn't want to see open carry pistols while eating lunch at a diner if I recall correctly. Rifles but no brazen handling of them? When and where? Do we legislate that or have a group consensus in "civilized society"?
How has the responsible method been working out for the last 80 years on just the federal level? Your enemies are using your reasonableness against you Group Captain. They will drain your essence if you're not careful. Perhaps the responsible manner is to let them have a little pound of flesh. Then they'll compromise, I'm sure of it.
- Messages
- 234
- Reactions
- 243
RB87 thanks for your comment. I appreciate it.
- Responsibility is ensuring your guns are under control at all times. Not accessible to those with acute mental illness, criminals, etc.
- Responsibility is ensuring your following the safety rules at all times. How many people have been shot because of negligence by those who should have known better.
- Responsibility is ensuring you are not creating needless sensation instead of meaningful discussion.
- Responsibility is being sensitive to the existence of an emotionally charged topics. It's called being "tactful".
I cannot comment on why the other poster thought what he/she thinks. I can only answer for my own thought process. I would say this regarding what you may or may not carry. Are you violating point three above? Are you violating point four above? Are you ensuring point two is followed at all times? While sitting eating your burrito are you controlling the muzzle of your gun? Are you able to control access to your gun? You see when I decided to carry a gun for personal protection I took all of these things and more into consideration. Knowing that my decision to carry could and would have lasting impacts on my life, my family's life and others, I made decisions based wholeheartedly on numerous issues of safety, discretion, and safety. I don't need to make a spectacle of it all. I didn't choose to carry because I wanted to make a point, a political statement, or as an education for those around me. I carry for personal protection. If you can't conduct yourself reasonably, responsibly and prudently then you can expect it will be legislated, it's just a matter of time.
Not sure where you are going with this argument. I didn't accuse the government of being responsible, reasonable or prudent.
I assume that middle sentence was a little tongue in cheek about the Dr. Strangelove movie, or at least that is what it reminded me of. However sir I would say that people cannot use anything I possess as a weapon against me, unless I am willing to allow it. I also do not see people with differing opinions as enemies. They are simply people with different opinions. If they want to engage me in discussion of those points I will be happy to oblige. I will reserve the title of enemy to those who seek to deprive me of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (terrorists, murderous criminals, zombies, etc.). I know it is a fine line with this definition but it is what it is, if you can't deal with some ambiguity in life you are going to have a rough go of it. Lastly I don't think I advocated giving anyone a pound of flesh, nor did I express any delusions of compromise. I simply stated that if folks do not stop violating the points above than more legislation is inevitable. Simple as that.
Define needless sensation please. We have children being suspended from school for bringing little toy guns that came with their GIJOE dolls. Pastries such as pop tarts eaten into a shape of a gun are being construed as the same as a real gun in a school cafeteria.
Sadly Group Captain, they do see you as an enemy. They do want to deprive you of your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Your RWR has failed you, check your six. They will report you to the gendarmerie out of fear (needless sensation?) when they see you loading your hunting rifle into the car let alone any evil black rifles you might have. You mentioned California and other states earlier. California if I recall correctly recently completely banned open carry. Why? To get around the supposed loopholes that allowed Californians to open carry pistols, so long as the pistols were not loaded. Those darn chipotle chuckleheads down there made a spectacle of themselves and more legislation happened. Not over AR15s but unloaded pistols openly carried.
Incrementalism in federal gun laws. Give a little here, take a little there and yet its never enough. The ultimate goal is to ban guns. You stated we have to worry about the perceptions of the people who will vote for those representatives who will make more legislation. Your compromise is to play by their rules of perception. They won't play by their rules but they will expect you to play by their rules. Two chuckleheads at a chipotle shouldn't matter when pushing facts.
I used to be more like you in that "I also do not see people with differing opinions as enemies". The past ten years of watching politics have taught me that one cannot rely on a live and let live philosophy in this country anymore. War is politics by other means. Politics is war by other means. Throw "the personal is political" in the mix too.
Ambiguity doesn't scare me Group Captain, society and laws based completely on random feelings or emotions do. You wake up one morning and the church of what's happening now says get on your knees and repent because what you believed in yesterday is evil and wrong. Because we say it is.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 1,100
- Reactions
- 609
To the original poster: To side with an enemies argument even for your own reasons, appeals to your enemies interests more so than your allies. So who's side are you really on?
- Messages
- 1,527
- Reactions
- 1,774
Not sure if this is what the OP was trying to say, but I believe so. Open Carrying was become way too much of a protest point rather than a carry point. OC Texas has done lots of damage to all gun owners because they aren't carrying for any other reason than to get on the news and scare people. They even have stated, We are forced to open carry long guns because we can't carry pistols. If they would change the law we would not be doing this. They aren't carrying for protection, they are carrying for shock value. They are trying to convince people they should allow open carrying of pistols because it's less scary than long guns.
The guy in Vancouver at the Big Al's. He wasn't carrying an AR and going about his daily business. He was carrying an AR, filming all the responses, and waited until the police showed up to get his 15 minutes.
I've open carried my pistol at my local grocery store, barber, etc, never had an issue. Why? Because I go on about my business like normal. To me my pistol is just like my keys, my knife, my phone, etc. It's a tool I EDC and if I need it, I have it, if not it just sits there.
This behavior is bad business. When we try to say, "We carry for self defense," these incidents are thrown back in our faces as times when that is not true. If we want to start winning the PR war, we need to be smarter.
The guy in Vancouver at the Big Al's. He wasn't carrying an AR and going about his daily business. He was carrying an AR, filming all the responses, and waited until the police showed up to get his 15 minutes.
I've open carried my pistol at my local grocery store, barber, etc, never had an issue. Why? Because I go on about my business like normal. To me my pistol is just like my keys, my knife, my phone, etc. It's a tool I EDC and if I need it, I have it, if not it just sits there.
This behavior is bad business. When we try to say, "We carry for self defense," these incidents are thrown back in our faces as times when that is not true. If we want to start winning the PR war, we need to be smarter.
- Messages
- 1,100
- Reactions
- 609
You can look at every law out there & before something becomes illegal, the people that want it made illegal strive at making it a socially unacceptable behavior. In this case open carry. And all these people claiming they must be pro gun rights because they own a gun but are against people open carrying an AR-15 .... well owning a gun doesn't make you pro 2nd amendment, anymore than it makes a woman a feminist because she has a vagina
And open carrying an AR-15 while acting like a twit doesn't make you pro 2nd amendment, it just makes you a twit. Bad behavior doesn't make you a patriot. Bad behavior turns public sentiment against lawful gun owners. Like it or not, the political world of today is highly affected by social media. That means photos and videos of people open carrying with absolutely no regard to the consequences, get splashed all over cyberspace. The end result? The general public believing that we're all just as brash and arrogant as those who have the 'in your face' attitude about it. That is never going to win in the fight for 2nd amendment rights. OC events are proving to have a collective negative effect on our rights - believing otherwise is to be very sadly misinformed. There are good and positive OC'ers out there, unfortunately, they seem to be in the minority. Being for the 2nd amendment doesn't mean we shove it in peoples faces in every opportunity - that is how we end up losing our rights. Public opinion is swayed by a small group of individuals that doesn't give a f$ck about the impact their actions have on the rest of us.
- Messages
- 17,471
- Reactions
- 36,483
- Messages
- 1,100
- Reactions
- 609
Very few people share another persons genuine beliefs. I share very few if any of your own personal beliefs. If it is essential that your opinion is popular, then you are more worried about what other people think, rather than yourself. That is not healthy and it leaves you vulnerable to believing in whatever a societies 'common sense' becomes. This is exactly what Thomas Paine warned us about and in learning from the "common sense" found in England.
If you read Common Sense, then you know it was written to encourage a break from England. But it didn't do so by suggesting we all become a bunch of individuals free from the bonds of our fellow man. Rather, he suggested that it was best if the laws were determined by the collective whole - that each citizen could be involved in the process of making laws. With that in mind, as the idea of the revolution was sparked among the people, it was the colonies working together, against a common foe, that allowed us to defeat the greatest military power of its time. Imagine what would have happened if no one else cared what their fellow colonists thought? We'd all be speaking like Piers Morgan right now, and my beautiful teeth would not exist.
The opinions of others do matter, in a big way. Since public sentiment will be the guiding force that drives new laws into existence or removes old ones, it is critical that we win the trust and respect of the rest of the voting populace. Little factions of F-you activists will never gain the support they need to make the changes they advocate - certainly not by ignoring the opinions of others. You're right about one thing - we don't all share the same genuine beliefs. That's all the more reason that we must find common ground on which to agree if we hope to have any chance in this fight.
Consider the recently formed WCFA. They are struggling just to stay afloat. Do you wonder why more and more gun owners aren't flocking to that group? Could it be that their "our way is the only way" style message is not going to work - and most people know that?
But go right ahead, keep pissing people off, walking your own path and giving the world the finger. You'll see where it gets everyone. More laws. More restrictions. Do you really think we'd have had places like Target, Chipotle and Sonic releasing statements about banning guns in their establishments if it weren't for the open carry events we all know were the cause of it? If people can't show some form of self-restraint, then the type of freedom and liberty we enjoy will eventually be taken away. The fringe OC crowd (by that I mean the in your face activist types) are the ones leading to more and more restrictions on our rights. You may disagree, but I can see the reports for myself.
- Messages
- 1,100
- Reactions
- 609
Comprehension isn't your strong suit I see. 'Common sense' was written as a warning to the people, that we do not repeat our history. Not to maintain the same 'common sense' found in England but to create one of our own. It declared the dangers brought on by a 'common sense' when that sense which was common, was not in our best interests as people.
You're referring to Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", right? The pamphlet that is widely regarded as one of the most influential publications leading to the American Revolution? I do agree he challenged the widely held belief that many people in America at the time still looked to the Monarchy in England for support. And yes, he did challenge that. If that's what you mean by challenging 'common sense' thinking, then I guess I see what you're trying to say.
But what he did not advocate for was a complete departure for common sense thinking - it's just not there. The work is a cry for independence from Britain. It is a cry for Americans to unite and take control of America for themselves.
But you make a good point. We should be cautious of the dangers of "common sense" when that sense, which was common, was not in our best interests. But how do you do from that to justifying scaring people by walking around with an AR-15 and a chip on your shoulder? Paine was not advocating for a complete disregard for common sense. Consider this, we all know it would be foolish to walk out into the middle of a busy freeway during rush hour. It would be foolish. Common sense tells us that we shouldn't do that. Common sense tells us not to stick our hand in a fire, not to drink poison, not to rob our neighbor. How can anyone argue against that type of common sense? The fact is that the actions of some are costing us our rights - you only have to watch the news or social media feeds to see the results of their actions. People like me are asking that people use common sense in just the way I mention above - don't do something that incites the general populace to turn against us.
And, by the way, I don't hear anyone at this point advocating for a monarchy (though I'm sure some would like that), turning all of our rights over to a single individual (or small group), that would be the history we don't want to repeat.
- Messages
- 1,100
- Reactions
- 609
"turning all of our rights over to a single individual (or small group)" bears the same resemblance of tyranny, as turning all of our rights over to any single nation (or small group of nations). Whether it be the United States or the United Nations.
Not sure exactly what you mean here. I assume you mean 'the government' when you say the 'United States'? Considering that all of us collectively make up the United States. Just who is advocating for more government in this discussion? I know I'm not. You managed to jump from a discussion of common sense decisions by gun owners regarding their actions (such as not freaking out the general public using certain types of open carry displays) to tyrannical control of the government ushered in by those of us that think those kinds of displays are harming our rights. That's quite a leap you've made.
If you'd care to offer up some good examples of how these open carry events actually benefit the fight for our 2nd amendment rights, rather than to turn more and more people against gun ownership and legal carry, please, I'd love to hear them. I can think of numerous instances where such displays have led to an erosion of our rights - can you provide evidence to prove my thinking is wrong? No sarcasm here, I'd really like to hear them. They seem to be hard to come by.
- Messages
- 3,390
- Reactions
- 3,094
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
Russian makarov IMEZ with extra grips and armourer pack
- Started by alelord
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Czechpoint Czech Small Arms "Military Select" Vz.58 Carbine 7.62x39- Started by Aero Denezol
- Replies: 0
-
