An interesting perspective: Open Carry actually IS legal in all states

OC for ME · Aug 11, 2014

guy fawkes said:
... For those who do no more than "preach to the choir" by railing against the status quo from the relative safety and security of their keyboards in a forum filled with like-minded individuals - I have nothing. Certainly not a salute, but also no disdain, no contempt, or any other emotion. You are nothing but background noise. And until you *do* something to promote freedom and liberty and are willing to sacrifice something of yourself, that's all you'll ever be. Background noise.

Grapeshot said:
I read guy fawkes statements as neither accusation or disparagement. What he did was encourage us to look within ourselves - don't see judgements on his part.

Maybe I'm thin skinned...then again, maybe I'm not.

Sacrifice is not a prerequisite to promote freedom and liberty.

Credibility is currently set to zero for the dude in the white mask.

To reiterate...prattle.

WalkingWolf · Aug 11, 2014

He continues to make remarks and demand what others have done without putting up any evidence of his own. When he refers to the membership as "background noise" he clearly is insulting the membership. He either needs to put up, or shut up. In any case in my thoughts he does not deserve an ounce of respect and has no credibility.

He needs to look inside himself, before making damaging statements to others looking inside ourselves. We can only control one person, a person who tries to control more than that is a fool.

stealthyeliminator · Aug 11, 2014

IMO he made it very clear that he was not referring to the membership as background noise. He was not accusing the membership of being as he described, he was challenging the membership to decide for themselves whether or not they were as he described. If you aren't, then great, he wasn't talking about you. Like I said, seemed pretty clear to me. There was no accusation explicitly in his words or implicitly in his tone, in my opinion.

The Truth · Aug 11, 2014

This is all circular argument anyway. The guy's first post ever on the forum is one preaching to the choir. It's not that big of a deal, and it really doesn't matter what one's intention is when individuals have their own perspective. Let's just move forward... we've all come off as insulting to someone at one point or another, myself included. Guy Fawkes seems reasonable enough to me, but wth do I know?

Grapeshot · Aug 11, 2014

Grapeshot said:
I read guy fawkes statements as neither accusation or disparagement. What he did was encourage us to look within ourselves - don't see judgements on his part.

stealthyeliminator said:
IMO he made it very clear that he was not referring to the membership as background noise. He was not accusing the membership of being as he described, he was challenging the membership to decide for themselves whether or not they were as he described. If you aren't, then great, he wasn't talking about you. Like I said, seemed pretty clear to me. There was no accusation explicitly in his words or implicitly in his tone, in my opinion.

Indeed that was my take. No offense offered, none taken. Moderation not required.

OC for ME · Aug 13, 2014

guy fawkes said:
...Let me say this - and although I've used your post as a launch pad, this is not directed at you or anyone else in particular. If it applies to you, you'll know - and if it does not apply to you, you'll likewise know just as certainly....Background noise.

Rhetorical tool to include all while appearing to exclude all. Nothing but a linguistic diversion...some folks fell for it.

stealthyeliminator said:
IMO he made it very clear that he was not referring to the membership as background noise. He was not accusing the membership of being as he described, he was challenging the membership to decide for themselves whether or not they were as he described. If you aren't, then great, he wasn't talking about you. Like I said, seemed pretty clear to me. There was no accusation explicitly in his words or implicitly in his tone, in my opinion.

Clear? If that is what you wish to believe. Me, I see through liberal gibberish. Words mean things and I try not to infer a meaning from clearly readable words.

Grapeshot said:
Indeed that was my take. No offense offered, none taken. Moderation not required.

Moderation is not desired or required. Though, it is evident to me that painting with a broad brush is acceptable as long as the lingo used is not too disparaging.

Anyway...guy fawkes = prattle.

WalkingWolf · Aug 13, 2014

His prattle was no difference than the CC only bunch that chastise/judge others for what they do, he just took the opposite approach. His rant was also off topic, there is nothing in the OP about what we should or should not be doing, and being judged on that. Add to that the hypocrisy of his first post and his continual refusal to back up what he himself has done.

I am surprised at stealthy falling for his prattle, considering the attacks OCT has suffered for claims of doing too much.

rightwinglibertarian · Aug 13, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
What is more important is what I didn't do. I didn't disparage my fellow open carriers. You have not posted or cited what YOU have done, yet you demand others prove themselves to you. The more you post the more you prove you came here for one reason, to sow dissent among the faithful. You are not the first nor will be the last. But the members here are much smarter than some person posing as a avatar. Avatars are nothing more than a way for others to represent themselves but they all have the sanity to know unless they post a true image of themselves it is just a avatar. YOU on the other hand believe your moniker and your avatar gives you the pleasure to insult others and demand they bow to your whims. You won't last long unless you turn off the path you are on.

No.... he is encouraging us to stand for what rights are ours under the Constitution

OC for ME said:
Rhetorical tool to include all while appearing to exclude all. Nothing but a linguistic diversion...some folks fell for it.

Clear? If that is what you wish to believe. Me, I see through liberal gibberish. Words mean things and I try not to infer a meaning from clearly readable words.

Moderation is not desired or required. Though, it is evident to me that painting with a broad brush is acceptable as long as the lingo used is not too disparaging.

Anyway...guy fawkes = prattle.

He made a good and accurate case as to why in fact there are no lawful restrictions on the bearing of arms. I think what I see with many people is offense taken because people know they are only partially for 2A rights as they do not support the acting out of the Constitutional carry rights that we have. They play politics, waiting for rights to be granted, when in fact they already have those rights and have had them since the foundation of this nation, they just refuse exercise them which is why the government took advantage of the situation and made all kinds of nonsensical 'laws' which as we have seen in this threat mean nothing.

stealthyeliminator · Aug 13, 2014

rightwinglibertarian said:
No.... he is encouraging us to stand for what rights are ours under the Constitution

He made a good and accurate case as to why in fact there are no lawful restrictions on the bearing of arms. I think what I see with many people is offense taken because people know they are only partially for 2A rights as they do not support the acting out of the Constitutional carry rights that we have. They play politics, waiting for rights to be granted, when in fact they already have those rights and have had them since the foundation of this nation, they just refuse exercise them which is why the government took advantage of the situation and made all kinds of nonsensical 'laws' which as we have seen in this threat mean nothing.

*Since the beginning of time

Edit: But yes, even I am "guilty" of what you describe... I am not sure how much criticism that justifies, though... How much can I really be criticized for not OCing a handgun in Texas?

rightwinglibertarian · Aug 13, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
*Since the beginning of time

Edit: But yes, even I am "guilty" of what you describe... I am not sure how much criticism that justifies, though... How much can I really be criticized for not OCing a handgun in Texas?

You can't be. It's your choice whether you OC or CC. Thats not the issue. The issue is the fact it's 'illegal' in TX, when the idea is laughable and there is a myriad of evidence just on this thread all gun restrictions have no (genuine) authority behind them. I am aware of the forum rule about keeping the law before anyone suggests it however I maintain the only valid law with regards to the keeping and bearing of arms in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of these United States. Whats more the Constitution itself dictates it is the supreme law.

OC for ME · Aug 14, 2014

rightwinglibertarian said:
...He made a good and accurate case as to why in fact there are no lawful restrictions on the bearing of arms. I think what I see with many people is offense taken because people know they are only partially for 2A rights as they do not support the acting out of the Constitutional carry rights that we have. They play politics, waiting for rights to be granted, when in fact they already have those rights and have had them since the foundation of this nation, they just refuse exercise them which is why the government took advantage of the situation and made all kinds of nonsensical 'laws' which as we have seen in this threat mean nothing.

OCDO has a rule about violating unconstitutional laws. This rule is used in many states to restore liberty. If a citizen chooses to violate this rule then the resultant consequences are obviously acceptable to that citizen. My fellow non-gun toting citizens would rather see me working within the system to affect the restoration of liberty.

YMMV

PeterNSteinmetz · Aug 14, 2014

guy fawkes said:
I have not ascribed to my self heroics - far from it. Where have I laid any claim to such? To do so would be folly for though I have done some for the cause, I have done less than others, and doubtless could have done more. Where is the heroism in that?

While I have to agree with some of the questions about relevance, I do enjoy this prose. Hope you will write more.

Grapeshot · Aug 15, 2014

PeterNSteinmetz said:
While I have to agree with some of the questions about relevance, I do enjoy this prose. Hope you will write more.

Please do NOT feed the animals

The wild beasts become tame and the tame aroused.....shortly, one resembles the other, only more so.

countryclubjoe · Aug 15, 2014

If I had MORE BALLS and LOTS MORE MONEY I would OC in NJ.. However I do not. Besides I heard the prison food is horrible.

Regards

CCJ

JoeSparky · Aug 16, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
If I had MORE BALLS and LOTS MORE MONEY I would OC in NJ.. However I do not. Besides I heard the prison food is horrible.

Regards

CCJ

Oh, come on now, it ain't the food---- You just don't like BUBBA!!!!:shocker:

Grapeshot · Aug 16, 2014

JoeSparky said:
Oh, come on now, it ain't the food---- You just don't like BUBBA!!!!:shocker:

Bubba is an equal opportunity imployer :lol:

VAopencarry · Aug 16, 2014

The Truth said:
Now let me preface this post by saying that I believe in States' Rights, and I do not necessarily agree with this perspective as of the time of the writing of this post. I guess I am just entertaining ideas. I would love to hear others' thoughts on the following post I copy+pasted from a comment section on another site, especially that of practicing lawyers/judges.

"Supreme Court Ruling –
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed.”
]

Nunn v State ruling was by the Georgia Supreme Court not SCOTUS. Ruling by Georgia courts do not make it "legal in all states".

Grapeshot · Aug 17, 2014

VAopencarry said:
Nunn v State ruling was by the Georgia Supreme Court not SCOTUS. Ruling by Georgia courts do not make it "legal in all states".

Some courts are doing better. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as an example.

.......where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.”
http://www.fedagent.com/columns/case...ard-of-seizure

This case, United States v. Black, can be found here.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction can be found following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circuit

An interesting perspective: Open Carry actually IS legal in all states

OC for ME

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

The Truth

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

OC for ME

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

PeterNSteinmetz

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

countryclubjoe

Regular Member

JoeSparky

Centurion

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

VAopencarry

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior