Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 79

Thread: Where do you draw the line?

  1. #1
    Regular Member independence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    339

    Question Where do you draw the line?

    I am developing my opinions on open carry and have already learned a lot but need a clearer picture on some things. One of the things I've found in the past when developing a position on an issue, is to test the boundaries. It may seem fruitless to some to have an extreme or hypothetical example, but I believe it helps draw the line and reveal the root issues when we can express our opinion on an extreme example or one with complicating factors.

    I am pro-OC, but have been thinking about to what extreme I would take that, and figured that many of you who developed your opinions long ago would have something to offer in this regard. I have listed some specific OC issues below that I am considering and would appreciate your opinion on.

    NOTE: Some of the things listed below are illegal in various jurisdictions. But that is not the debate angle I am looking for. I'm looking to find out what you think should ideally be legal in your opinion. I say this to avoid responses like this: "Dude, if you are going to OC [in such-and-so way/place] you are going to go to jail." I'm not wanting to discuss the current legal situation, but more your personal worldview on what you think should be legal ideally.

    What type of pistol?
    It's probably safe to say all of us (except the trolls) are in favor of the right to OC a pistol. How far would you take that? Would you be okay with someone OCing an AK-47 pistol slung over the shoulder or in a scabbard? (Think Embody.) Why or why not?

    What locations?
    I've seen many on this forum say that they believe in no restrictions on where you can carry. How far would you take that? Would you be okay with someone OCing in federal court? What about to the White House as a visitor? Why? Is there any place you can think of that you think should be banned? Why?

    What type of long gun (for states that don't allow OC of a pistol)?
    OCDO doesn't allow discussion of long gun OC except in states where pistol OC is illegal. In regards to those states, is there a place you would draw the line as far as firearm type? What about carrying fully automatic rifles in public? Why?

    Ownership of large arms
    Should the average citizen be allowed to own a shoulder mounted missile launcher? Should they be allowed to carry it in public? (LOL.) Why?

    Mixing it up
    Say I get a traffic ticket and have to go to court for it. Would you be okay with me carrying a AK-47 pistol slung over my shoulder in court? Should a citizen be allowed to own a tank and drive it down the road through town? If the president is in town and will be walking from his limo into a hotel, should a person have the legal right to place themselves on top of the roof of a nearby building OCing as long as they are not actually aiming a gun at the president? (Oh great, now I've flagged the NSA.) In this instance, is the citizen innocent until proven guilty, or should the Secret Service have the right to ban them from going armed on top of a nearby building? NOTE: I am not advocating that anyone do such a thing nor am I planning any such thing. I am asking because I am trying to develop an opinion on where the boundaries between personal rights and government control should be drawn.

    I realize that many here will react to this post emotionally and assume that I am trolling, a spy for the gun haters, etc. That is not the case. These are the questions that are dancing around in my head and I am trying to make sense of them. The reason I chose to put them here, is because I have seen some very intelligent and articulate advocates of freedom on this forum who may be able to help me make some sense of some of these blurry lines. Thanks.
    Last edited by independence; 10-02-2013 at 01:54 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    This post is not a request for useful information in my view.

    All of these situations have been discussed in one manner or another. Search this site and learn more.

    A AK pistol is not a handgun that can be "properly holstered", which this site is dedicated to promoting the open carry of.

  3. #3
    Regular Member independence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    This post is not a request for useful information in my view.

    All of these situations have been discussed in one manner or another. Search this site and learn more.

    A AK pistol is not a handgun that can be "properly holstered", which this site is dedicated to promoting the open carry of.
    I see your point. I'm just trying to carve out my opinion and what extreme I would take it to. I think of this post as a way of touching on the fringe issues that help in determining where one draws the line. My apologies if it is not useful to others or violates forum rules.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    I didn't look at your posting history, but this looks like a troll post, using 'argument by hyperbole' to try and paint OC-ers as extremists who would carry a scary looking weapon into a questionable venue by adopting an 'innocent' "who me?" posture.

    You already know the answers to your questions. Don't waste our time and don't play coy games.

  5. #5
    Regular Member independence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    339

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    I didn't look at your posting history, but this looks like a troll post, using 'argument by hyperbole' to try and paint OC-ers as extremists who would carry a scary looking weapon into a questionable venue by adopting an 'innocent' "who me?" posture.

    You already know the answers to your questions. Don't waste our time and don't play coy games.


    I understand there are a lot of trolls here so maybe it was fruitless to think that I could think-out-loud so to speak. I OC about 50% of the time and am not a troll. I am new at this though, and am trying to decide exactly where I stand on certain issues. A previous poster answered the AK-47 issue and I think what they said made pretty good sense. It would be great to have opinion on the other issues but I fear that will probably not happen. That's understandable, though. The level of trolling is pretty bad, I understand. Too bad that affects people like me who are genuinely searching and have questions.
    Last edited by independence; 10-02-2013 at 02:14 PM. Reason: minor edit

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    I draw the line at ...shall not be infringed.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms is far more inclusive than the more narrowly crafted purposes of OCDO, so discussion here of the "border" issues you bring up will simply be seen as off topic.

  7. #7
    Regular Member independence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by ATM View Post
    I draw the line at ...shall not be infringed.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms is far more inclusive than the more narrowly crafted purposes of OCDO, so discussion here of the "border" issues you bring up will simply be seen as off topic.
    Yeah, I was thinking about that. I wanted to put something about how I think that fully automatic firearms should not be restricted, but was afraid it would be too off topic and cause it to be deleted. As it is, I think I failed anyway. Especially since I ended mentioning a missile launcher and a tank, lol. I am resigned to the fact that the post will probably be deleted. This is the type of thing that would be best discussed in person with a personal friend where we can talk hypothetical and abstract and will quite obviously be misunderstood here. Trouble is, I don't have any friends who would even want to talk about this in real life. My gun friends mostly are CC only kind of people who think I've kind of lost it because I open carry into Walmart. That's why I enjoy this forum so much. :/
    Last edited by independence; 10-02-2013 at 02:50 PM. Reason: typo

  8. #8
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Well let's see. You're in the General Discussion forum so pretty much anything goes which relates to firearms if one considers the forum title. In other words, your posit is valid as far as I can see. Some may prefer to not open those doors as that leaves an electronic trail to their thought processes regarding these questions. Others?.... well, there are others and I sure they will crawl out from the cracks and make their presence known unless this thread gets locked or removed.

    Perhaps altering the verbiage a little might do the trick. You mentioned RPG's and tanks and I would say those are questionable in most minds, though a famous author had a tank in his front yard. Their weight and treads would do terrible things to our roads.

    Some restrictions make sense (courts, jails, etc.;;; maybe the white house depending upon who the occupant is at the time (heh, heh)), while others don't. This will result in many opinions and some will come across as being higher-than-thou in their responses, should they choose to chime in.

    So would say a different approach to your questions may elicit better results. In any case, this is the correct forum for such postings.... unless the owners of this site deem otherwise.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    A good "rule of thumb" (for me, anyway) has always been, if I don't already know it's okay (okay=lawful, reasonable and prudent) to do, I choose not to do it. Personally, I can see neither reasonableness nor prudence in carrying an M72 LAWS into my bank, or driving a tank down Main Street USA. Should it be legal to own a LAWS or a tank? They serve no practical purpose, but if one is of good character I can't think of a valid reason why not.

    At this point in time, there are numerous reasons why the White House would be a GFZ for anyone other than the Secret Service (which ain't all that "secret"). Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    A good "rule of thumb" (for me, anyway) has always been, if I don't already know it's okay (okay=lawful, reasonable and prudent) to do, I choose not to do it. Personally, I can see neither reasonableness nor prudence in carrying an M72 LAWS into my bank, or driving a tank down Main Street USA. Should it be legal to own a LAWS or a tank? They serve no practical purpose, but if one is of good character I can't think of a valid reason why not.

    At this point in time, there are numerous reasons why the White House would be a GFZ for anyone other than the Secret Service (which ain't all that "secret"). Pax...
    I would think that if you parked a tank in your front yard the chances of being robbed go to about zero

    If tanks serve no practical purpose, then why do they exist? To be or not to be, that is the question.

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    I see your point. I'm just trying to carve out my opinion and what extreme I would take it to. I think of this post as a way of touching on the fringe issues that help in determining where one draws the line. My apologies if it is not useful to others or violates forum rules.
    In my view, you do not "see" my point. If you did you would rewrite your op. OCers should be viewed by their fellow citizens as not extreme, normal, virtually invisible. Normal, everyday, Joe Sixpack is the goal of the "OC movement." I desire a day where my OCed and properly holstered firearm is viewed in the same light as a cell phone, not even seen. Exploring extreme scenarios, especially when trying to carve out your opinion, does a disservice to our 2A right and efforts to restore that right to a unfettered state.

    There are folks who may entertain your extreme situations, for the sake of discussion, I will not.

    Welcome to OCDO.

  12. #12
    Regular Member independence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    What type of pistol?
    It's probably safe to say all of us (except the trolls) are in favor of the right to OC a pistol. How far would you take that? Would you be okay with someone OCing an AK-47 pistol slung over the shoulder or in a scabbard? (Think Embody.) Why or why not?

    What type of long gun (for states that don't allow OC of a pistol)?
    OCDO doesn't allow discussion of long gun OC except in states where pistol OC is illegal. In regards to those states, is there a place you would draw the line as far as firearm type? What about carrying fully automatic rifles in public? Why?
    Okay, I've made up my mind on this part. I don't have any problem with any of the above. And if OCDO does have a problem with any of the above, that doesn't necessarily make them hypocritical because they are simply limiting the discussion to what matters to them. I'm fine with that.

    Ownership of large arms
    Should the average citizen be allowed to own a shoulder mounted missile launcher? Should they be allowed to carry it in public? (LOL.) Why?
    On this, I'm pretty sure I'm okay with a citizen owning one but not carrying on their shoulder it in public. If it were my way, the citizen would still have the right to own it so that it could be used in an extreme EOTWAWKI situation but they just could not carry it. It's not hypocritical because it is a weapon that does have an ordinary use in everyday life. Why is a pistol okay in every day life? Because threats to one's self and one's family are unfortunately a part of everyday life in America. Imminent threats from military vehicles/helicopters that need blasted away are NOT a part of everyday life -- yet. Is my reasoning perfect on this? Eh... I dunno. I need more time to think on it. But this is where I'm at right now.

    What locations?
    I've seen many on this forum say that they believe in no restrictions on where you can carry. How far would you take that? Would you be okay with someone OCing in federal court? What about to the White House as a visitor? Why? Is there any place you can think of that you think should be banned? Why?
    As far as locations, I still have some things that look blurry to me. We say that we should be allowed to carry anywhere, but I'm not sure how many of us would think it was okay to carry into the White House. Maybe. Still thinking on this.

    Mixing it up
    Say I get a traffic ticket and have to go to court for it. Would you be okay with me carrying a AK-47 pistol slung over my shoulder in court? Should a citizen be allowed to own a tank and drive it down the road through town? If the president is in town and will be walking from his limo into a hotel, should a person have the legal right to place themselves on top of the roof of a nearby building OCing as long as they are not actually aiming a gun at the president? (Oh great, now I've flagged the NSA.) In this instance, is the citizen innocent until proven guilty, or should the Secret Service have the right to ban them from going armed on top of a nearby building? NOTE: I am not advocating that anyone do such a thing nor am I planning any such thing. I am asking because I am trying to develop an opinion on where the boundaries between personal rights and government control should be drawn.
    As far as the court and AK pistol issues, I already addressed them above. As far a tank, I think it fits in the same category as the missile launcher. I am unsure on the other issues and am interested in your opinions.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Marion County, Tennessee
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    As far as locations, I still have some things that look blurry to me. We say that we should be allowed to carry anywhere, but I'm not sure how many of us would think it was okay to carry into the White House. Maybe. Still thinking on this.
    I've heard it said in a certain way, and I really like the way in which it was said, so I'll paraphrase it here:

    Bad guys don't make appointments. Keep it with you where you are.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    Would you be okay with someone OCing in federal court? What about to the White House as a visitor? Why? Is there any place you can think of that you think should be banned? Why?
    What does it say of an elected official that is afraid to face his armed electorate constituency?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I would think that if you parked a tank in your front yard the chances of being robbed go to about zero
    What a clever idea - the decorative tank...much better than a lawn jockey. Although the lawn jockey is smaller and lighter, a 27 foot long, 12 foot wide, 68 ton, $9,000,000 M1 Abrams lawn ornament would be quite impressive! (Bill Gates and Warren Buffet probably have one or two of their own, which they paid for by skipping lunch one day.)

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If tanks serve no practical purpose, then why do they exist? To be or not to be, that is the question.
    Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you to understand... let me type slowly, while you find somebody to explain it to you. (PAUSE) Understand that this is only my opinion, but a tank is designed strictly as a weapon of war. It has no other purpose - it crushes anything in it's path, and blows things up. It is the large, economy-size can of HELL. You cannot mow your yard with one, nor can it be used to plant or harvest crops. Although it would hold many bags, your local golf course would probably prohibit it's use as a golf cart. The SCCA would not sanction it's use in the weekend parking-lot gymkhana. You cannot buy one at the Dollar Tree, or even WalMart, and there is no "Tanks-R-Us" retail chain. A tank is extremely difficult to OC in a holster, and even more difficult to conceal on your person. The average person is not trained to operate a tank - it is a crew-serviced weapon (4 people). If you think ammunition is in short supply for your .22, and expensive when you do find it, ask about a couple of cases of 105mm & 120mm ammo! The only place a tank is practical is the battlefield, as are flamethrowers, hand grenades and nuclear weapons. And, filling that 500 gallon diesel tank @ $4p/g (and only .56mpg) would get very expensive, very quickly. At this point in time there is no practical need for tanks, or other war-specific weapons in the hands of Joe Average. But, tomorrow... who knows. Pax...
    Last edited by Gil223; 10-04-2013 at 12:07 PM. Reason: Typo... what else?
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    A good "rule of thumb" (for me, anyway) has always been, if I don't already know it's okay (okay=lawful, reasonable and prudent) to do, I choose not to do it. Personally, I can see neither reasonableness nor prudence in carrying an M72 LAWS into my bank, or driving a tank down Main Street USA. Should it be legal to own a LAWS or a tank? They serve no practical purpose, but if one is of good character I can't think of a valid reason why not.

    At this point in time, there are numerous reasons why the White House would be a GFZ for anyone other than the Secret Service (which ain't all that "secret"). Pax...
    Don't agree with you on "practical purpose" needing to be a requirement to own something. It sounds too much to me like the whole "legitimate sporting purpose" thing. The 10 foot-long Mosin-Nagant () I bought for funnsies years ago has never been practical, but I don't see a problem in such a beautifully ugly pig-sticker like it. I can understand the whole rocket or nuke analogy, but a tank could still be used around on dirt roads (ultimate offroad vehicle?) or just as a lawn ornament to be fired up when necessary.

    To the OP: this article is a good read on the subject, even if it is just mental masturbation because of lack of funds/connections
    http://bearingarms.com/yes-professor...ssault-rifles/

    To the NSA: This post and any referenced material contained therein are purely satirical and solely intended to be humorous and/or entertainment to any readers that may or may not read these forums. Please do not kill me. Pretty please?

    *EDIT* The first paragraph arose from a misunderstanding of the quoted post. The rest stands.
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 10-04-2013 at 02:46 PM. Reason: Retraction

  17. #17
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Silvertongue View Post
    I've heard it said in a certain way, and I really like the way in which it was said, so I'll paraphrase it here:

    Bad guys don't make appointments. Keep it with you where you are.
    I like that. Simple and true. Can't argue with reality.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    What a clever idea - the decorative tank...much better than a lawn jockey. Although the lawn jockey is smaller and lighter, a 27 foot long, 12 foot wide, 68 ton, $9,000,000 M1 Abrams lawn ornament would be quite impressive! (Bill Gates and Warren Buffet probably have one or two of their own, which they paid for by skipping lunch one day.)

    Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you to understand... let me type slowly, while you find somebody to explain it to you. (PAUSE) Understand that this is only my opinion, but a tank is designed strictly as a weapon of war. It has no other purpose - it crushes anything in it's path, and blows things up. It is the large, economy-size can of HELL. You cannot mow your yard with one, nor can it be used to plant or harvest crops. Although it would hold many bags, your local golf course would probably prohibit it's use as a golf cart. The SCCA would not sanction it's use in the weekend parking-lot gymkhana. You cannot buy one at the Dollar Tree, or even WalMart, and there is no "Tanks-R-Us" retail chain. A tank is extremely difficult to OC in a holster, and even more difficult to conceal on your person. The average person is not trained to operate a tank - it is a crew-serviced weapon (4 people). If you think ammunition is in short supply for your .22, and expensive when you do find it, ask about a couple of cases of 105mm & 120mm ammo! The only place a tank is practical is the battlefield, as are flamethrowers, hand grenades and nuclear weapons. And, filling that 500 gallon diesel tank @ $4p/g (and only .56mpg) would get very expensive, very quickly. At this point in time there is no practical need for tanks, or other war-specific weapons in the hands of Joe Average. But, tomorrow... who knows. Pax...
    I would disagree. The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect us from the government. "At this point in time there is no practical need for tanks" ... well, ya get these items before the need so you can become proficient in their use so when the need is there, you are ready.

    And the battlefield maybe your back yard.

    Gil needs to re-look at Katrina and the Boston bombing aftermaths ... the police and feds were just going around making people more free huh?

    If you can afford it, go buy a tank .. you'll thank me later. Or have a plan to get one ... the army has plenty, they won't mind you borrowing one. In between that time, you could charge for rides in yours to mitigate the costs.

    The 2nd amendment is absolute .... anything of military value is available to you and me.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    Don't agree with you on "practical purpose" needing to be a requirement to own something. It sounds too much to me like the whole "legitimate sporting purpose" thing.
    We are not in disagreement over owning. I will now repeat myself regarding owning...
    They serve no practical purpose, but if one is of good character I can't think of a valid reason why not.
    The word "practical" is defined as:
    adjective: practical

    1. of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas. (emph added)
    a : of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical or ideal <a practical question> <for all practical purposes> (emph added)
    There is no reason that anything MUST have a "practical purpose" to be owned. A bald man can own a comb if he wishes, and a blind man can own a TV, a Rembrandt, or a Kriss Super Vee (there is nothing in the firearms laws that says one must be sighted to own a firearm... yet). Personally, I have neither need nor desire to own anything I cannot use frequently and effectively - my budget prohibits such indulgences. I can afford a "lawn jockey", but it has no practical function, which explains the absence of one from my lawn. I can afford a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun, and I own each. I enjoy them, and use each frequently.

    A thing serves a practical purpose if it brings you personal pleasure - even if that thing is something you use only to punch long-distance holes in paper (true... a paper punch will also punch holes in paper, but efficiency with a paper punch will provide me with no particular sense of achievement). Great works of art are pleasing to many people's senses, and they are practical not only in their ability to please the owner, but as an investment. The bottom line? I believe we should not be prohibited from owning virtually anything - and in multiples if our budget allows it! At the same time, I believe there are some things that should have strict controls upon their availability - like powerful (bigger than an M80) explosive devices, and those devices with no other use than the destruction of human beings, such as M18 Claymore mines. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  20. #20
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    We are not in disagreement over owning. I will now repeat myself regarding owning... The word "practical" is defined as:There is no reason that anything MUST have a "practical purpose" to be owned. A bald man can own a comb if he wishes, and a blind man can own a TV, a Rembrandt, or a Kriss Super Vee (there is nothing in the firearms laws that says one must be sighted to own a firearm... yet). Personally, I have neither need nor desire to own anything I cannot use frequently and effectively - my budget prohibits such indulgences. I can afford a "lawn jockey", but it has no practical function, which explains the absence of one from my lawn. I can afford a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun, and I own each. I enjoy them, and use each frequently.

    A thing serves a practical purpose if it brings you personal pleasure - even if that thing is something you use only to punch long-distance holes in paper (true... a paper punch will also punch holes in paper, but efficiency with a paper punch will provide me with no particular sense of achievement). Great works of art are pleasing to many people's senses, and they are practical not only in their ability to please the owner, but as an investment. The bottom line? I believe we should not be prohibited from owning virtually anything - and in multiples if our budget allows it! At the same time, I believe there are some things that should have strict controls upon their availability - like powerful (bigger than an M80) explosive devices, and those devices with no other use than the destruction of human beings, such as M18 Claymore mines. Pax...
    You and I seem to be on the same page about ownership of anything, practical or not, as long as we do not violate another's Rights (i.e.: blasting speakers late at night). So I retract what I said, as I obviously misunderstood where you were headed, and seem to have completely missed the second part of the last sentence in the post I originally responded to. If you believe I am not being sincere, please follow the link I provided for the OP, and consider the fact that I would buy at least one of these if I had the money:
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/30...for-criminals/ (plus, it makes for a great conversation starter)

  21. #21
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I would disagree. The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect us from the government. "At this point in time there is no practical need for tanks" ... well, ya get these items before the need so you can become proficient in their use so when the need is there, you are ready.

    And the battlefield maybe your back yard.
    At the time 2A was written and included into the BoR, individual "arms" were rifles, pistols, shotguns, edged and pointed weapons, and impact weapons. They had no crystal ball with which they could foresee motorized, crew-served weapons or the airborne weapons of the future. Does that mean the BoR needs to be rewritten or even amended? No! But... if we start interpreting it to permit individual ownership of any and all weapons of war, the left will immediately pursue (with some psychologically implied justification) their claim that our Constitution is obviously obsolete and needs to be rewritten or rescinded. Perhaps the legal challenge is what is needed to resolve the issue with finality. And the "battlefield" of my backyard (roughly 10'x40') would definitely meet the definition of "CQB"!
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Gil needs to re-look at Katrina and the Boston bombing aftermaths ... the police and feds were just going around making people more free huh?
    I am well aware of the unconstitutional governmental actions that took place during both events, and I don't know that the phrase "exigent circumstances" appears anywhere in our Constitution.
    IMNSHO, a government that violates our Constitution is no longer a legitimate government. I also understand that the time for preparation is prior to the expected event. Otherwise it is not "preparation" - after the fact it is called panic catch-up.
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If you can afford it, go buy a tank .. you'll thank me later. Or have a plan to get one ... the army has plenty, they won't mind you borrowing one. In between that time, you could charge for rides in yours to mitigate the costs.
    I'll put that on my "to-do list".
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The 2nd amendment is absolute .... anything of military value is available to you and me.
    I agree with 2A being absolute (wait for it)........ BUT, realistically, very little "of military value is available to us" (assuming that "us" is Joe Average - a working-class wage earner). Defensive items, such as ballistic vests are available, as are handguns, rifles and shotguns. Full-auto weapons are available to those who can afford them, but they are also carefully monitored/controlled via the additional expense of the required "tax stamp" (if confiscation should come, these will probably be the first items to be taken). I'm uncertain of the status of mortars, hand grenades, Claymores and RPGs, but I feel safe in assuming that they, too, are subject to Draconian regulation - IF they are not simply prohibited for private ownership. However, IF one has the money, and is willing to jump through enough federal hoops, there is little that is not conditionally available. Pax...

    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    You and I seem to be on the same page about ownership of anything, practical or not, as long as we do not violate another's Rights (i.e.: blasting speakers late at night). So I retract what I said, as I obviously misunderstood where you were headed, and seem to have completely missed the second part of the last sentence in the post I originally responded to. If you believe I am not being sincere, please follow the link I provided for the OP, and consider the fact that I would buy at least one of these if I had the money:
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/30...for-criminals/ (plus, it makes for a great conversation starter)
    I don't doubt your sincerity at all, but I followed the link anyway out of curiosity. I have to laugh at the way these departments justify the acquisition of MRAPS,
    The Observer writes the sheriff’s office will now use it to serve warrants on wanted men.
    and Davis County Utah also acquired one in the past year. WARRANT SERVICE?? A knock on the door, and a posse of LEOs has been all that was needed for the last couple of hundred years, but suddenly we need a heavily armored vehicle? And, why is the federal government so quick to give up a $535,000 - $600,000+ fighting vehicle for only the transportation costs? (I seem to recall hearing somewhere that this program is being run though the DHS - which immediately makes it suspect in my mind) Even at an average cost of $5,560 a LEA can buy enough portable ballistic shields (which incur no additional operational, maintenance or repair costs) to outfit 10 "warrant serving" officers for roughly the same cost as the transportation cost of the (otherwise "free") 14-ton MRAP.

    Sheriff, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, and don't tell me a warrant needs an armored vehicle in order to be properly served. Bounty hunters don't have MRAPS... if it weren't for the fact that it would be very difficult to maintain the necessary "element of surprise", bounty hunters and "Bail Enforcement Officers" (2¢ difference?) would probably LOVE to have an MRAP! The MRAPs are on loan to civilian LEA's in preparation for that ambiguous "tomorrow". Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  23. #23
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    Any holstered handgun can be CONCEALED, or DISPLAYED depending upon the perspective of OTHER persons in proximity.

    More specifically expressed - I "display" if you will, when , and wherever I deem it to be appropriate. Generally, I choose where I go - WHEN I go there - and to what extent my holstered handgun is going to displayed depending upon the conditions.

    If I don't want you to see my holstered handgun - you won't. If ...I do - you WILL.

    That is the tactical advantage of carrying a handgun.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran Running Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Corner of No and Where
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    (snip) suddenly we need a heavily armored vehicle? And, why is the federal government so quick to give up a $535,000 - $600,000+ fighting vehicle for only the transportation costs? (I seem to recall hearing somewhere that this program is being run though the DHS - which immediately makes it suspect in my mind) Even at an average cost of $5,560 a LEA can buy enough portable ballistic shields (which incur no additional operational, maintenance or repair costs) to outfit 10 "warrant serving" officers for roughly the same cost as the transportation cost of the (otherwise "free") 14-ton MRAP.

    Sheriff, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, and don't tell me a warrant needs an armored vehicle in order to be properly served. Bounty hunters don't have MRAPS... if it weren't for the fact that it would be very difficult to maintain the necessary "element of surprise", bounty hunters and "Bail Enforcement Officers" (2¢ difference?) would probably LOVE to have an MRAP! The MRAPs are on loan to civilian LEA's in preparation for that ambiguous "tomorrow". Pax...
    The programs supplying these items to local PDs have been prolific. "The Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), the agency that oversees the Pentagon giveaways, boasted that fiscal year 2011 was the most productive in its history . . ." They deployed $500 million worth of property in 2011, which is "several hundred million dollars" more than previous years. And the department's stated goal is to keep increasing that number.*

    Ostensibly it's all for the "war on drugs" of course. . . .



    * - Rise of the Warrior Cop - Radley Balko, 2013
    When rights are outlawed only outlaws will have rights.

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor

    No American citizen should be willing to accept a government that uses its power against its own people. - Catherine Engelbrecht

  25. #25
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    I am developing my opinions on open carry and have already learned a lot but need a clearer picture on some things. One of the things I've found in the past when developing a position on an issue, is to test the boundaries. It may seem fruitless to some to have an extreme or hypothetical example, but I believe it helps draw the line and reveal the root issues when we can express our opinion on an extreme example or one with complicating factors.
    I agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    I am pro-OC, but have been thinking about to what extreme I would take that, and figured that many of you who developed your opinions long ago would have something to offer in this regard. I have listed some specific OC issues below that I am considering and would appreciate your opinion on.
    I'll be glad to give you my opinion - and I won't even call you a troll for asking.


    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    NOTE: Some of the things listed below are illegal in various jurisdictions. But that is not the debate angle I am looking for. I'm looking to find out what you think should ideally be legal in your opinion. I say this to avoid responses like this: "Dude, if you are going to OC [in such-and-so way/place] you are going to go to jail." I'm not wanting to discuss the current legal situation, but more your personal worldview on what you think should be legal ideally.
    I believe I understand. Thanks for the clarification.



    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    What type of pistol?
    It's probably safe to say all of us (except the trolls) are in favor of the right to OC a pistol. How far would you take that? Would you be okay with someone OCing an AK-47 pistol slung over the shoulder or in a scabbard? (Think Embody.) Why or why not?
    Yes, I would, as long as it was carried in a manner that doesn't pose an immediate threat to me other others around the carrier I don't care what they carry. I believe that essentially the only justification one can have for intervening with another's actions is when the actor is infringing on an equally applied right of another individual. Unless you're doing something that threatens me, my life, my liberty, etc. then I do not have any moral grounds on which to justify stopping you from doing whatever it is that you're doing. That can be carrying a knife, carrying a gun, carrying a hand grenade, wearing lipstick, walking like a duck, quacking like a duck, kissing another man, giving yourself a wedgie, etc. It may be morally reprehensible, but it doesn't justify me intervening.



    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    What locations?
    I've seen many on this forum say that they believe in no restrictions on where you can carry. How far would you take that? Would you be okay with someone OCing in federal court? What about to the White House as a visitor? Why? Is there any place you can think of that you think should be banned? Why?
    Back to the rights issue - anyone with private property, or anyone legitimately put in control of a private property, can make their own rules, and any visitors have a moral obligation to follow those rules or leave. So, basically, no restrictions "in public," but on private property, whatever restrictions the property owner comes up with are legitimate. If they say no guns what-so-ever, and you've been made known of the rules, you have a moral obligation to refrain from carrying a gun onto their property. This isn't principle that can carry over to so called "public property" when the acquisition of the property was illegitimate. It doesn't actually belong to "the public", it belongs to the poor sap that the government stole it from. So, the government does not own public property, and cannot legitimately make rules for it as a private property own could legitimately do on their own property.


    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    What type of long gun (for states that don't allow OC of a pistol)?
    OCDO doesn't allow discussion of long gun OC except in states where pistol OC is illegal. In regards to those states, is there a place you would draw the line as far as firearm type? What about carrying fully automatic rifles in public? Why?
    No restrictions on fire mode, because me carrying a fully automatic weapon in a safe manner doesn't legitimately threaten you any more than a simi automatic rifle, or a fully automatic pistol, or a simi automatic pistol, or a single action pistol, or a rubber band pistol. Unless I threaten you with it, you don't have any right to intervene with my carrying, and if I do threaten you with it then you have every right to intervene no matter what type of weapon it is.




    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    Ownership of large arms
    Should the average citizen be allowed to own a shoulder mounted missile launcher? Should they be allowed to carry it in public? (LOL.) Why?
    Yes. Because the principles on which intervention and use of force are founded offer no justification for the intervention against someone carrying such a weapon as long as they are not actively threatening someone with it and are transporting it in a safe manner which does not put those around the carrier at risk.



    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    Mixing it up
    Say I get a traffic ticket and have to go to court for it. Would you be okay with me carrying a AK-47 pistol slung over my shoulder in court? Should a citizen be allowed to own a tank and drive it down the road through town? If the president is in town and will be walking from his limo into a hotel, should a person have the legal right to place themselves on top of the roof of a nearby building OCing as long as they are not actually aiming a gun at the president? (Oh great, now I've flagged the NSA.) In this instance, is the citizen innocent until proven guilty, or should the Secret Service have the right to ban them from going armed on top of a nearby building? NOTE: I am not advocating that anyone do such a thing nor am I planning any such thing. I am asking because I am trying to develop an opinion on where the boundaries between personal rights and government control should be drawn.
    In these sort of hypothetical situations, more changes from the current state of things are needed than just what is being discussed, in order for the changes being discussed to make sense.

    Instead of giving an incomplete answer in order to remain brief, I will decline to answer these questions right now.

    Much could be said on this subject - and much has been said on this subject. But the best answers are those contained in entire books on the subject of liberty and individual rights. It's not easy to condense those concepts down into a forum-sized post. At least, not for me.

    I will say that, I think things go much deeper than gun rights. I don't advocate gun rights so that I can carry a gun. I advocate gun rights because it's liberty. Liberty is the goal, and private ownership and bearing of arms is the best method we have to ensure our liberty. Maybe someday that won't be the case. Maybe someday we can minimize the threat to liberty without having to even own a firearm. But, I don't think that time has come. And so, we fight for gun rights because we fight for liberty. Gun rights are essential to the protection of all liberty.


    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    I realize that many here will react to this post emotionally and assume that I am trolling, a spy for the gun haters, etc. That is not the case. These are the questions that are dancing around in my head and I am trying to make sense of them. The reason I chose to put them here, is because I have seen some very intelligent and articulate advocates of freedom on this forum who may be able to help me make some sense of some of these blurry lines. Thanks.
    I am glad you asked. Hopefully my answers are at least a little bit helpful. If nothing else, maybe some food for thought.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •