• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NRA Deception or oversight?

Manuel

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
1
Location
Minnesota
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.
 

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
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

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.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
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".
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
.....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.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
.....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.
 

ComradeV

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
428
Location
Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
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.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
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/
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
OCDO's consistency is their patience as we violate this:eek:n 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).
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

Valerius

Regular Member
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
11
Location
Louisiana
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:

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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:
Top