NRA Deception or oversight?

OC for ME said:

Snip...The reality of Administrator's position is akin to spitting into a gale force wind, why even try.

Click to expand...

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.

OC for ME said:

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...

Click to expand...

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/showthread.php?102555-some-more-of-the-gun-banners

be allowed to form up for their defense the same as their ancestors?

SavageOne said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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/showthread.php?102555-some-more-of-the-gun-banners

be allowed to form up for their defense the same as their ancestors?

Click to expand...

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.

OC for ME said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

This is most likely off-topic as far as OCDO is concerned and I do find it curious. Open Carry has made it clear they do not want to discuss the carry of rifles which is the primary weapon of militias or whatever moniker you wish to apply to organized teams who wish to defend themselves. Using the 2A as a bulwark will always philosophically drive you into a corner that accepts the regulation of said ownership; if that were not the case then the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and 1986 M-VA could not exist along with all the other Federal regulations.

Well before 1791, cacheing and weapons in the hands of training bands and militias was a primary RKBA issue. It was the seizure of caches that inaugurated the divorce with the UK in the first place at Lexington-Concord in 1775.

As far as the NRA is concerned, they have always been an entity interested in cooperating fully with government regulation of firearms. They are far more concerned with maintaining an opulent lifestyle as a lobbying firm, starting new "wine of the month" clubs and bending over backwards for the next swarm of gun regulations.

The only reason we still have what we have is that the politicians have done the calculation that a slow strangulation through regulation is far more effective than outright confiscation.

Due to the evolution of the disarmament efforts in CA, OCDO ought to reconsider their position on discussing rifle carry because that is the ONLY open carry option there right now.

lysander6 said:

This is most likely off-topic as far as OCDO is concerned and I do find it curious. Open Carry has made it clear they do not want to discuss the carry of rifles which is the primary weapon of militias or whatever moniker you wish to apply to organized teams who wish to defend themselves. Using the 2A as a bulwark will always philosophically drive you into a corner that accepts the regulation of said ownership; if that were not the case then the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and 1986 M-VA could not exist along with all the other Federal regulations.

Well before 1791, cacheing and weapons in the hands of training bands and militias was a primary RKBA issue. It was the seizure of caches that inaugurated the divorce with the UK in the first place at Lexington-Concord in 1775.

As far as the NRA is concerned, they have always been an entity interested in cooperating fully with government regulation of firearms. They are far more concerned with maintaining an opulent lifestyle as a lobbying firm, starting new "wine of the month" clubs and bending over backwards for the next swarm of gun regulations.

The only reason we still have what we have is that the politicians have done the calculation that a slow strangulation through regulation is far more effective than outright confiscation.

Due to the evolution of the disarmament efforts in CA, OCDO ought to reconsider their position on discussing rifle carry because that is the ONLY open carry option there right now.

Click to expand...

forum rule: (14) long gun carry is off-topic: this web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily american life. We do not promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! Ocdo co-founders john & mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry. exception: This rule does not apply to discussions about long gun carry in jurisdictions such as california which ban handgun carry and thus require long gun carry as a matter of public policy.

Click to expand...

....doh!!....

OC for ME said:

The OP was rapidly approaching a violation of Rule 15 - WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

And instead of warning that that a new member was approaching a possible rule violation, the Administrator said this.

Administrator said:

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

Click to expand...

You can try and spin it if you like. John told him we do not address militia issues here. He did not say we don't address "some" militia issues here, he made it clear he doesn't want any militia issues discussed here. It is this blanket prohibition of a topic directly connected to the 2nd Amendment that I am opposed to. John already has the power to edit or delete posts at his whim, that apparently isn't enough, he needs to stop discussion of the 2nd Amendment before it starts.


You will forgive me if I don't comment on the points you made concerning "well regulated", I do have an opinion, I just don't feel that I can voice them here. It would be against the Administrator's decry to not "address" militia issues here. True, he hasn't found the need to return and castigate us for our few violations of the (unwritten) rules(is he not a merciful King), but I don't feel it is proper to violate his edict. This is my point about why I am against this prohibition, it limits discussion of the various points of view and opinions of the 2nd Amendment, and I feel that is wrong. Hopefully some day John will allow full and open discussion of the 2nd Amendment, I can only hope his stance will "evolve" like the POTUS's did.

By the way, many of the terms, phrases and views used in the OP can be found daily in any number of other threads through out this forum, they just don't have the word "militia" attached. "Tyrannical Government" and "gun registration by the government" are topics I have seen posted here any number of times, and not a word is said by the powers that be, but add the word "militia" to them and suddenly you are violating some unwritten rule. Strange, one might almost say......hypocritical.