Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: NRA Deception or oversight?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1

    NRA Deception or oversight?

    I can only guess that the NRA's focus of the Right To Bear Arms instead of the more important Right To Form A Militia is politically motivated. This appears to be deliberate misdirection by the NRA. Anyone with military background knows that the first place a tyrannical government will attack is the enemy's weapon's cache. Does anyone realize this might be the reason the US Government insists upon gun registration? Our greatest strength against a tyrannical government is the right of all citizens to form a militia regulated by itself which is completely free of government control. Without establishing this NOW we remain defenseless. I must assume the NRA is intelligent enough to know this, yet this most important constitutional ammendment holds second place in their efforts. Why? My opinion is that the US government by the second ammendment has absolutely no jurisdiction regarding our weapons. None! Their having any ability to access information regarding citizens weaponry will only serve to erode our effectiveness against government tyranny. All of this should be common sense. But frighteningly it is not. Do not forget these words, hopefully we will never regret the day we ignored them. A MILITIA BY DESIGN TO BE PREPARED AGAINST A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT MUST KEEP THE LOCATION OF ITS WEAPONS CACHE SECRET.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Form 4473....too late.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    This is outside the scope of OpenCarry.org. I would suggest that there are other forums where you would find a more receptive audience. We do not address militia issues here. We are focused on working within the system to insure such a need never arises.


    John

    Quote Originally Posted by Manuel View Post
    I can only guess that the NRA's focus of the Right To Bear Arms instead of the more important Right To Form A Militia is politically motivated. This appears to be deliberate misdirection by the NRA. Anyone with military background knows that the first place a tyrannical government will attack is the enemy's weapon's cache. Does anyone realize this might be the reason the US Government insists upon gun registration? Our greatest strength against a tyrannical government is the right of all citizens to form a militia regulated by itself which is completely free of government control. Without establishing this NOW we remain defenseless. I must assume the NRA is intelligent enough to know this, yet this most important constitutional ammendment holds second place in their efforts. Why? My opinion is that the US government by the second ammendment has absolutely no jurisdiction regarding our weapons. None! Their having any ability to access information regarding citizens weaponry will only serve to erode our effectiveness against government tyranny. All of this should be common sense. But frighteningly it is not. Do not forget these words, hopefully we will never regret the day we ignored them. A MILITIA BY DESIGN TO BE PREPARED AGAINST A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT MUST KEEP THE LOCATION OF ITS WEAPONS CACHE SECRET.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Administrator View Post
    This is outside the scope of OpenCarry.org. I would suggest that there are other forums where you would find a more receptive audience. We do not address militia issues here. We are focused on working within the system to insure such a need never arises.


    John


    But topics like the National Motorist Association are within the scope of OpenCarry.org? I find it strange that a site that allows such wide discussion of topics concerning the 2nd Amendment, would find the need to distance itself from one which is presented in the very first text of the 2nd Amendment. While I personally don't have an opinion on the need of a militia, I cannot for the life of me see why the Administrator feels the need to try and stifle any discussion before it even begins.

    I would say, in lieu of a personal opinion, that since militias are mentioned, specifically , in the 2nd Amendment, that they are in fact part of "the system".
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    .....uh....'Administrator' kind of gives away what he will or will not permit....he gave us a wee bit of a hint, it is now up to us.

    Simply because he can....yet the thread remains open....interesting.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    .....uh....'Administrator' kind of gives away what he will or will not permit....he gave us a wee bit of a hint, it is now up to us.

    Simply because he can....yet the thread remains open....interesting.

    And if what he will and will not permit are more succinctly defined, such hints would not be necessary. Surely it can be argued that a discussion of militias(which once again are specifically mentioned first in the 2nd Amendment) are as relevant to the RTKABA discussion as reloading and cases of people being shot in FL(a case where there was not even any mention of Open Carry), all of which can be found on this very sub forum.

    Let us be honest. Militia discussion is unwanted here because, some people will view it as proof that all here are, by association, fringe nutcases. (Yes Grape, I know Image...Image... Image) The simple fact is that those people already view everyone here as fringe nutcases for advocating wearing openly displayed firearms. Bowing to such pressure allows them to dictate the discussion and you have already lost it.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    Being conscious of image is 100% needed in our image-centric world.

    The whole purpose behind OCDO is to work towards enhancing the image of responsible ownership and carrying of handguns in public.

    So if we give up the image battle, this forum serves no specific purpose anymore.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by ComradeV View Post
    Being conscious of image is 100% needed in our image-centric world.

    The whole purpose behind OCDO is to work towards enhancing the image of responsible ownership and carrying of handguns in public.

    So if we give up the image battle, this forum serves no specific purpose anymore.

    That is not the whole purpose behind OCDO. Go to the home page and you will see it very prominently displayed that OCDO is "focused on the right", not "focused on the image". Image battle or not this forum serves to discuss the right.

    http://opencarry.org/
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    And if what he will and will not permit are more succinctly defined, such hints would not be necessary. Surely it can be argued that a discussion of militias(which once again are specifically mentioned first in the 2nd Amendment) are as relevant to the RTKABA discussion as reloading and cases of people being shot in FL(a case where there was not even any mention of Open Carry), all of which can be found on this very sub forum.

    Let us be honest. Militia discussion is unwanted here because, some people will view it as proof that all here are, by association, fringe nutcases. (Yes Grape, I know Image...Image... Image) The simple fact is that those people already view everyone here as fringe nutcases for advocating wearing openly displayed firearms. Bowing to such pressure allows them to dictate the discussion and you have already lost it.
    FORUM RULES: (2) RIGHT TO EDIT AND DELETE POSTS: We reserve the right to edit or remove posts for any reason, at any time, at our sole discretion.
    Can't get any more detailed than that as far as I'm concerned.

    From a historical perspective, OCDO has been very consistent, as far as I am concerned, regarding what 'topics' they will tolerate and the discussion contained there in. If I had a say, I would say, but I don't, so I play in their sandbox at their pleasure.

    It is their property, other venues are available.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Can't get any more detailed than that as far as I'm concerned.

    From a historical perspective, OCDO has been very consistent, as far as I am concerned, regarding what 'topics' they will tolerate and the discussion contained there in. If I had a say, I would say, but I don't, so I play in their sandbox at their pleasure.

    It is their property, other venues are available.

    The rule you quoted would be considered a "blanket statement" ,which is the opposite of "detailed", being so broad as to cover as many possibilities as conceivable.

    As far as consistency, your telling me that discussing the Federal Governments possible denial of water rights, in a "General Discussion" sub-forum is more consistent than a discussion of a topic which is specifically mentioned in the wording of the 2nd Amendment? Really? On a supposed 2A friendly site? Really?

    As to their "sandbox", did I ever say it wasn't? I am fully aware that this web site is private property(in fact I have in the past discussed this in other threads) and I certainly bow to their rules. My point was that their rules, in this matter, were inconsistent.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    OCDO's consistency is their patience as we violate this:
    (8) KEEP IT ON-TOPIC: All gun rights discussions not directly related to open carry should take place in the "General Discussions" forum and topics that are not related to gun rights at all should take place in "The Lounge". Please police your own posts before posting them and help keep OCDO strong and focused.
    on a regular basis.

    Even this minor discussion regarding militia issues is an example of their benevolence.

    As to their "sandbox", did I ever say it wasn't? I am fully aware that this web site is private property(in fact I have in the past discussed this in other threads) and I certainly bow to their rules. My point was that their rules, in this matter, were inconsistent.
    I was referring to myself as my statement clearly reads. The rules are what they are, how the rules are applied has been very consistent in my view. Even the OCDO 'Staff' have engaged in our little excursions into the violations of Rule 8, but, they are typically the adults in the room when we get a little too excited. I guess my main point is that I would never raise my kids with the amount of latitude that is provided to us here on OCDO.

    I like the latitude they give and I will not complain about their determinations when they hand one down....except for one thing.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    OCDO's consistency is their patience as we violate thisn a regular basis.

    Even this minor discussion regarding militia issues is an example of their benevolence.

    I was referring to myself as my statement clearly reads. The rules are what they are, how the rules are applied has been very consistent in my view. Even the OCDO 'Staff' have engaged in our little excursions into the violations of Rule 8, but, they are typically the adults in the room when we get a little too excited. I guess my main point is that I would never raise my kids with the amount of latitude that is provided to us here on OCDO.

    I like the latitude they give and I will not complain about their determinations when they hand one down....except for one thing.


    So what your saying is, that OCDO's consistency in being inconsistent is proof that they were being consistent? What are you, a politician?

    Is it your position that a topic specifically mentioned in the wording of the 2nd Amendment is not related to "gun rights"? If that is not the case then you would have to admit that the "General Discussion" sub-forum, would be the appropriate place for it. I would ask how you feel that a discussions of water rights in Tombstone Arizona, or the loss of the Freedom Of Speech, or the right of travel, or one punch homicides, or true choices in our election, etc, etc, etc. are "gun related" and thus are in the proper forum.

    For the record I am not discussing militia issues, as I have said I don't have a personal opinion on them. I am discussing the Administrator stating that such discussion is "outside the scope of OpenCarry.org" while allowing discussion of so many other non-gun related topics(a question he has chosen not to respond to, by the way).
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    I hear ya, I really do, but the reality is that he stated it.

    He apparently could care less what the reception of his determination is.

    All that other stuff you mention does not relate to militia stuff, so the latitude to violate rule (8) is given, up to a point (a point that is a moving target it seems).

    By the way, this is not about me, but about you not liking what he stated. I got over it before he stated it. We have more rule (8) violating to do on other threads.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    11
    Would be kind of hard to oc weapons if the govt takes them all. I have to think this would be on topic because the right and freedom to form militias and cache weapons was one of the reasons the 2a was written in the first place. IMHO. BTW, we are in the general discussion forum, and this does pertain to other gun rights, seems to fit rule 8 to me.
    Last edited by Valerius; 05-04-2012 at 12:13 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Good to know...now, get Administrator to retract his post.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I hear ya, I really do, but the reality is that he stated it.

    He apparently could care less what the reception of his determination is.

    All that other stuff you mention does not relate to militia stuff, so the latitude to violate rule (8) is given, up to a point (a point that is a moving target it seems).

    By the way, this is not about me, but about you not liking what he stated. I got over it before he stated it. We have more rule (8) violating to do on other threads.

    First, let me say if during this discussion I have given offense or insulted you I sincerely apologize.

    You are correct the Administrator is under no obligation to follow the rules he has laid out for others. Every man is king of his private property(and in this case John's crown is definitely showing) and under no obligation to follow any whim other than his own. If he choses to only champion part of the 2nd Amendment that is certainly his choice. He has always seemed to be fairly open minded about the 2A. I can only hope that in the future when he is sitting back and thinking what a champion of the 2nd Amendment he is that, perhaps this discussion will echo, and remind him that he is just as much a Fudd as all the CCers who condemn OC.

    You cannot consider yourself a proponent of the 2nd Amendment, unless you are for all of it, not just the parts you like or are popular at the moment. Popular opinion or not, Militias are a part of the system laid out by the Framers. Militias are part of the system he says he is trying to work within. Disallowing the discussion of them is just as hypocritical as supposed pro-gun sites that pan OC.

    I hope someday he will see this, and allow discussion.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  17. #17
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Form 4473....too late.
    If you've ever read the laws that apply to Form 4473 you'd laugh.

    The Form only applies to gun sales on military installations and between federal territories.

    The ATF forces the misapplication of the law upon all 'legal' arms dealers.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    First, let me say if during this discussion I have given offense or insulted you I sincerely apologize.

    You are correct the Administrator is under no obligation to follow the rules he has laid out for others. Every man is king of his private property(and in this case John's crown is definitely showing) and under no obligation to follow any whim other than his own. If he choses to only champion part of the 2nd Amendment that is certainly his choice. He has always seemed to be fairly open minded about the 2A. I can only hope that in the future when he is sitting back and thinking what a champion of the 2nd Amendment he is that, perhaps this discussion will echo, and remind him that he is just as much a Fudd as all the CCers who condemn OC.

    You cannot consider yourself a proponent of the 2nd Amendment, unless you are for all of it, not just the parts you like or are popular at the moment. Popular opinion or not, Militias are a part of the system laid out by the Framers. Militias are part of the system he says he is trying to work within. Disallowing the discussion of them is just as hypocritical as supposed pro-gun sites that pan OC.

    I hope someday he will see this, and allow discussion.
    No offense was detected by me, I do not easily get offended because I choose to not be offended. As to the 2A, it would be better, from as a academic discussion point, if the Founders had not included the word militia. I ignore that concept because their intent, as described in their various writings on the subject are clearly in the realm of a individual citizen's right, not a collective right.

    The reality of Administrator's position is akin to spitting into a gale force wind, why even try.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    If you've ever read the laws that apply to Form 4473 you'd laugh.

    The Form only applies to gun sales on military installations and between federal territories.

    The ATF forces the misapplication of the law upon all 'legal' arms dealers.
    Cite please.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  20. #20
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Cite please.
    After you read USC title 26 I will show you USC Title 18.

    http://originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php

    read that as a primer.

    18 USC 10:
    The term ''interstate commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia. The term ''foreign commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.

    18 USC 921(2)
    The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
    [emphasis and underlining added]



    Then I know that most people on here can't read the IRC so I try to not address do to the fact I would start insulting people.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 05-08-2012 at 01:40 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Snip...The reality of Administrator's position is akin to spitting into a gale force wind, why even try.
    I see no more futility in asking the Administrator to change his stance on allowing discussion of militias here, than those who choose to participate in a letter writing campaign to a corporation that limits or prohibits the exercising of the 2A on their property. In fact I see a parallel here. In one case the a private property owner is prohibiting the exercise of the 2A, in the other the private property owner is prohibiting the discussion of the 2A. In both cases the 2A is under attack.

    I will say that the lack of others voicing concern that the mere discussion of the 2A is taboo, is troubling. Strange, that there are those who will scream from the rooftops if Costco or some other company tries to prohibit the 2A, yet their silence is deafening when the simple discussion of it is condemned here.
    Last edited by SavageOne; 05-08-2012 at 07:59 AM.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    No offense was detected by me, I do not easily get offended because I choose to not be offended. As to the 2A, it would be better, from as a academic discussion point, if the Founders had not included the word militia. I ignore that concept because their intent, as described in their various writings on the subject are clearly in the realm of a individual citizen's right, not a collective right.

    Snip...

    Respectfully, if you can ignore a part of the 2nd Amendment that you don't agree with, how can you deny that same option to those who don't agree with the rest of it?

    You believe the Founders intent was only a citizen's right, others may view the 2nd Amendment as both a individual and a collective right. The individual right of the citizen to posses arms and the collective right to ban together for defense of all rights.

    Regrettably, this is just the sort of discussion of the 2nd Amendment that we are not allowed to have, because of the Administrator's decry. With the inability to discuss different points of view and opinions on the subject, we are all left poorer.


    P.S.

    Should not the descendants of the PO'd folks, you reference here

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...he-gun-banners

    be allowed to form up for their defense the same as their ancestors?
    Last edited by SavageOne; 05-08-2012 at 07:32 AM.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    Respectfully, if you can ignore a part of the 2nd Amendment that you don't agree with, how can you deny that same option to those who don't agree with the rest of it?
    Me: "I ignore that concept because their intent, as described in their various writings...." Ignore is different than disagree with. I am in no position to deny you or anyone else any options.

    You believe the Founders intent was only a citizen's right, others may view the 2nd Amendment as both a individual and a collective right. The individual right of the citizen to posses arms and the collective right to ban together for defense of all rights.
    Interesting take on what the historical record indicates. Beyond the Continental Army, the 'militia', being volunteers, were individuals that came and went as their needs and level of commitment dictated.

    The citizen must have a individual right before the citizenry could 'collect' together to become a militia. The anti-gun crowd desires the emphasis to be placed on militia. I choose to place it on the individual citizen as the Founders state in their writings. There is no central depository for the militia's arms....and there never would be if the anti-gun crowd reaches their goal.

    Regrettably, this is just the sort of discussion of the 2nd Amendment that we are not allowed to have, because of the Administrator's decry. With the inability to discuss different points of view and opinions on the subject, we are all left poorer.
    Don't you find it ironic that this thread is still open because we are not discussing 'militias' but the Founders intent and meanings regarding the 2A.

    P.S.

    Should not the descendants of the PO'd folks, you reference here

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...he-gun-banners

    be allowed to form up for their defense the same as their ancestors?
    There is no law that prohibits armed individuals from collecting together, even for self defense.

    Now, to take up arms against the 'state' is a different matter....these days. The ballot box is the weapon of our modern day 'militia' as I define the militia from the 2A....not a firearm.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Snip...
    Don't you find it ironic that this thread is still open because we are not discussing 'militias' but the Founders intent and meanings regarding the 2A.

    That's just it, because of the prohibition on discussion I am unable to go in depth on my opinions. The best we can do is take little bites from around the edges, but never get to the meat of the subject. This is not allowing discussion of the 2A, it is simply placation(placation without concession, I might add) on the part of the Administrator and his moderators. This thread(or more specifically the prohibition of a subject in this thread) has caused me to start thinking about a portion of the 2A seldom discussed today, that is good. Unfortunately, the Administrator's decry keeps me from being able to explore, compare, or expand my opinions on the subject with others here, that is bad. If that is what you meant by "ironic" then, yes I would agree that it is.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    The OP was rapidly approaching a violation of Rule 15 - WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY.

    Amendment 2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    The OP is not referring to 'A well regulated Militia', quite the opposite in fact. That is what Administrator is prohibiting. Discussions regarding 'A well regulated Militia' should be more than acceptable, in my view, but what is the point behind that. That subject is boring and, in Missouri anyway, already codified into law.

    Article I, Bill of Rights, Right to keep and bear arms--exception.

    Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
    A citizen refusing to 'aid the civil power' when lawfully called can face criminal penalties.

    Discussions regarding 'A well regulated Militia' will neither promote nor hinder our efforts to restore our individual right to keep and bear arms as the Founder's originally intended.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •