• 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.

The great arming is underway, and that’s a very good thing for our nation . . .

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
No, I am advocating that you accept freedom and liberty and by that advocating, you may need to surrender all privileges and fight for your rights..

I am encouraging members to think about their rights v privileges...

Can't even keep your story straight within a single post. Are you "advocating" or are you merely encouraging food for thought?

You and momma complain about what drives momma away from the forum, but you two are engaging in it.

The political crap is constant ragging on a President who upheld his campaign promise to appoint a textualist to the court. That is good for our RKBA. What else about Trump--good, bad, or indifferent--is truly relevant to this forum?

The political crap is also constant proselytizing of an extreme libertarian or even anarchist position. Momma goes so far as to declare as an "enemy forever", a "hypocrite" and a "tyrant" anyone who rejects her political views even as she complains about those who are not willing to civilly discuss differing opinions. Calling those who happen to hold differing social or political views than you do those words isn't civil. It is exaclty what drives a lot of people away.

You two claim to be waging mighty battles for freedom by refusing to get permits. Great. What else are you doing? In Montana, Momma can carry as she sees fit and probably not violate any laws. In NJ, you are either not carrying at all, or you are almost certainly violating all kinds of local laws. Which is it?

Carping on the internet and claiming to be tough guys or gals is nothing more than keyboard commando.

What are you doing to get bad laws repealed and/or good laws passed? Anything?
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Guilty as charged... :( I used to look at this forum daily, then weekly, then eventually almost never. Same reason, unfortunately. Since I am not interested in discussions (arguments?) over who is president or any of the other electoral political stuff, long ago outgrew the caliber and gun brand wars, and can't understand why so many people bow down and worship the "permit," it just hasn't been inviting here. I spend a daily few minutes reading over at TTAG, but even that has become "The Truth About Suppressors" - and a lot of weird gear I'd never use - to a great extent. Phewy

Let's you and me (and anyone else) start posting some threads with real meat in them again. I'm willing. :) Maybe we can pull some other folks back from all the drek.

Indeed. :) ...What gets to me is the "wars" aspect of the other discussions. Instead of simply comparing options, preferences and possibilities, far too much of the "discussion" is disrespectful or outright hostile. ... I'm as opinionated and contrary as anyone else, but I don't expect everyone to walk in the same path or always agree with me. And I suspect that anyone new to guns and shooting would be very unlikely to ask good questions or seek our advice... if they can see right away that they'll get their head bitten off. Why would they come back here? What a shame.

... I will consider them to be hypocrites and aggressors... enemies always.

Take a look in the mirror for a prime example of one who bites heads off, will not engage in civil discussion with those who politely disagree, and posts a lot more emphatic assertion venom than anything with real meat.

Want a real, civil discussion, come join in on the national reciprocity bill thread and offer some real thoughts on what makes the bill a bad idea. Come explain, civilly, to me why I'm wrong in my assessment. Bring something better than emphatic assertion and barbs like "enemy forever."

If you can.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Can't even keep your story straight within a single post. Are you "advocating" or are you merely encouraging food for thought?

You and momma complain about what drives momma away from the forum,

Take a look in the mirror for a prime example of one who bites heads off, will not engage in civil discussion with those who politely disagree, and posts a lot more emphatic assertion venom than anything with real meat.

Want a real, civil discussion, come join in on the national reciprocity bill thread and offer some real thoughts on what makes the bill a bad idea. Come explain, civilly, to me why I'm wrong in my assessment. Bring something better than emphatic assertion and barbs like "enemy forever."

If you can.

Charles, you should really follow your own advice and look at your reflection before you cast such displays of civility.

as for doing something, the lady from WY, as well as CountryClubJoe, and a many many other members of this group are doing their part, behind the scenes, within their respective communities and nationally. their modality might be rightly or wrongly, but they are quietly pushing their respective agendas.

for the record, last alert was june 16, last feedback 2007, currency of white-papers-2013, the links contain outdated information which is so incorrect, coupled with BS information-to include comments from the Pres of VDL stating such...quote

You comment about Virginia not having a stand-your-ground law or a castle doctrine are incorrect. We have a strong stand-your-ground law in our common law and case law. That applies in your home OR anywhere you are outside your home! I am the president of a large gun rights group here in Virginia, if you have any questions on this. My email is: president@vcdl.org. unquote

so civilly charles, what have you done for the cause except 'loosely conceal carry', carry on about how everyone is bigoted and engage in playground rants about how you perceive everyone is soooo bloody rude to YOU!

please tell us if you can.

thanks
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Agreed. But, we (meaning in general) have allowed the legislators to steal our rights and the courts support that theft. The three branches of gov. are not separate anymore.
And when they do we must get out the vote to change their misdeeds.

Nobody said it would be easy. I routinely chastise my elected reps for taking a path different than the one the told me they would take. More guns is a indicator of the citizenry's view on the job government is doing to protect or rights. If the government can't or won't, then I guess we must do so ourselves.

I did not vote for a fella to inject his views on any particular issue into the laws, I voted for him to inject my views on any particular issue into the laws.

I do not think increased gun ownership/carry is a direct result of government passing/repealing laws friendly to our RKBA, certainly helps where the formerly timid did not due to the laws, but government seeing the citizenry becoming fed up with government not protecting our rights and the reps wanting to keep their job. Our vote matters.
 

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
T
Want a real, civil discussion, come join in on the national reciprocity bill thread and offer some real thoughts on what makes the bill a bad idea.

I think it is a very bad idea, especially bad to give the feds any more power over anything. I have made comments on that in a number of places, but don't remember where all.
 

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
I did not vote for a fella to inject his views on any particular issue into the laws, I voted for him to inject my views on any particular issue into the laws.

How many people is that "fella" supposed to represent? Are you deluded into thinking that every one of the people "represented" - or even a majority of them - have the same "views" and want the same things? If even two different "views" are presented to him/her... how is that "representative" supposed to satisfy both? Or dozens of different views, demands? Thousands? Millions?

Given many different views to "represent," it is no wonder at all that it is his/her own views that prevail much of the time. And that view will conform to whatever it takes to be re-elected, of course, but the actual right or wrong of it won't often be part of the process.

Things like Bloomberg's money likely makes a whole lot more difference than anyone's "vote." :)
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I think it is a very bad idea, especially bad to give the feds any more power over anything. I have made comments on that in a number of places, but don't remember where all.

I appreciate the concern about increasing federal power.

What new powers do you think this bill gives or exercises thst have not previously been exercised by congress in a different direction?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
How many people is that "fella" supposed to represent? Are you deluded into thinking that every one of the people "represented" - or even a majority of them - have the same "views" and want the same things? If even two different "views" are presented to him/her... how is that "representative" supposed to satisfy both? Or dozens of different views, demands? Thousands? Millions?

Given many different views to "represent," it is no wonder at all that it is his/her own views that prevail much of the time. And that view will conform to whatever it takes to be re-elected, of course, but the actual right or wrong of it won't often be part of the process.

Things like Bloomberg's money likely makes a whole lot more difference than anyone's "vote." :)
Simple, always side with restoring individual liberty and removing government from those aspect of our lives where they have no business. When he does not do what he stated to me that he would do, while asking for my vote, he places his views above those whose votes he asked for. He does not get my vote next time if he does not stick to his word.
 

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
I appreciate the concern about increasing federal power.

What new powers do you think this bill gives or exercises thst have not previously been exercised by congress in a different direction?

Give any politician or bureaucrat an inch, and they will take ten miles. They will do what they decide to do, no matter what the "law" says... they can't be held to any actual LAW in the long run - because they have a monopoly on it. If they have no interest in adhering to the bill of rights, and they obviously don't, why would this be any different? What part of "shall not be infringed" will this new "law" change or make more enforceable? Why add another layer to it? Let's go back to the original. :)

Why play their game? I mean, you can if you want, obviously... but I have no interest in doing so. :) There have been some good articles written about this, but I can't remember any just now. Will go look and come back to post the links if I find them.
 

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
he places his views above those whose votes he asked for. He does not get my vote next time if he does not stick to his word.

Problem is, he probably made lots of different promises to dozens or millions of others... it is impossible for any "representative" to actually satisfy even a few, let alone thousands or millions. Mr. Trump right now is a perfect example. He made a lot of rash promises, and he promised different things to different people. All those crows are now coming home to roost, and he can't do anything to please everyone, not even close - even if he wanted to do so.

How in the world does your vote make any difference? Why should any politician care? Clue... he/she doesn't - unless it comes with lots and lots of cash and or POWER over other people.
 

FreedomVA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
592
Location
FreedomVA
Problem is, he probably made lots of different promises to dozens or millions of others... it is impossible for any "representative" to actually satisfy even a few, let alone thousands or millions. Mr. Trump right now is a perfect example. He made a lot of rash promises, and he promised different things to different people. All those crows are now coming home to roost, and he can't do anything to please everyone, not even close - even if he wanted to do so.

How in the world does your vote make any difference? Why should any politician care? Clue... he/she doesn't - unless it comes with lots and lots of cash and or POWER over other people.

or is Trump giving a little now to gain a lot when he leaves office?
 

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
or is Trump giving a little now to gain a lot when he leaves office?

I could not care less. I do not grant him, or any other person, the authority to control my life and property. The "powers that be" can steal, hold a gun to my head, and force me to comply, of course... but I do not consent - any more than most of the people here would consent to the 2A being wiped out. Same exact problem.
 

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
This Trump voter is quite satisfied already. Any more advance against our enemies is pure gravy.

Well, goody for you. :) I don't want or need any "politician" to control my life and property. None of them. I'm curious how you consider the current police state and imminent economic melt down to be any kind of advancement against our enemies? Whom do you consider "our" enemies?
 
Last edited:

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
POTUS-45 is not to blame for our current dire straits. He did step to the helm of the ship of state to pilot US to calmer waters.

Not blaming him any more than any other politician - or those who support them. And I'm sure nuclear war with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and any number of others will be much calmer waters. Not. The people actually responsible for our current dire straits are those who are happy to give power to politicians and anyone who will promise them they won't need to take personal responsibility for themselves.

The economic meltdown has been imminent for most of my life
And I'm so very glad you are not suffering right now. But the current and accelerating decline of both large and small businesses, increasing personal debt, and the vast entitlement spawned by socialism are very real. The productive population is shrinking and soon the "government" will simply be out of "other people's money."

Our enemies are the enemies of Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies and its epilog The Poverty of Historicism.

Our enemies are those who would destroy individual liberty and kill anyone who rejects their control. How they go about it is secondary. More than 200 million innocent people killed by their own "governments" in just the 20th century. And then there are the millions killed by the US government all over the world. A proud heritage, for sure.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Give any politician or bureaucrat an inch, and they will take ten miles. They will do what they decide to do, no matter what the "law" says... they can't be held to any actual LAW in the long run - because they have a monopoly on it. If they have no interest in adhering to the bill of rights, and they obviously don't, why would this be any different? What part of "shall not be infringed" will this new "law" change or make more enforceable? Why add another layer to it? Let's go back to the original. :)

Why play their game? I mean, you can if you want, obviously... but I have no interest in doing so. :) There have been some good articles written about this, but I can't remember any just now. Will go look and come back to post the links if I find them.

Respectfully, I read platitudes. I do not see an answer to my question of what new powers a national recognition bill would be exercising. Hint: Congress regulated and infringed RKBA since at least the NFA '34. The GCA '68 was another huge impact. So too was the GFSZ law of 1990. The scary looking gun ban of 1994 was another. Congress has exercised the illegitimate power to infringe our RKBA for a long time.

In contrast, a national recognition law starts down the path of congress exercising its properly delegated powers under the 14th amendment to protect our 2nd amendment rights from State and local infringement. I know, permits are not true recognition. But not being made a felon for crossing the bridge from Virginia to DC, or from Pennsylvania to New Jersey prevents States from making felons of otherwise law abiding citizens.

If the bill were a nationwide permit-free / constitutional carry would you object to congress exercising that authority?

I support such a bill. I believe a nationwide permit recognition bill gets us started in that direction with a higher chance of ultimate success (including being upheld by the SCOTUS)than if we were to run with a nationwide permit-free carry bill first.

Why play "their game"? Because we are not anarchists hoping to overthrow the government. Most of us recognize the general legitimacy of our government and realize that the political process is one key element to peacefully determining the laws of society. The other is the judicial process. They interact. Refusal to participate in our political process is to simply accept that the other side will have political success until war is inevitable. No sensible person wants that. And with the 20 years of progress we've seen on RKBA issues (with 14 States no having some form of permit free carry), no rational, honest observer can claim that things are headed the wrong direction and so war is inevitable anyway. We "play the game" because we are winning without the risks and heartache and costs of rebellion. Why wouldn't anyone play under these circumstances?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Problem is, he probably made lots of different promises to dozens or millions of others... it is impossible for any "representative" to actually satisfy even a few, let alone thousands or millions. ...
A bit of background, all I asked my reps to do was to remove the ability for Missouri political subdivisions to outlaw OC without a permit while working to get permitless CC.
RSMo 21.750.3 Firearms legislation preemption by general assembly,exceptions--limitation on civil recovery against firearms orammunitions manufacturers, when, exception.

3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243. No ordinance shall be construed to preclude the use of a firearm in the defense of person or property, subject to the provisions of chapter 563.

(2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following: ...
My reps and his cronies could not take a pencil and line through the OC prohibition while working to get permitless CC.

A few views from around the state.

http://www.komu.com/news/a-look-at-constitutional-carry-missouri-s-new-gun-law/
http://www.emissourian.com/local_ne...cle_adb371a4-d449-11e6-8859-3f3235ae9a78.html
http://www.lakenewsonline.com/news/...o-know-about-constitutional-carry-in-missouri
http://www.ky3.com/content/news/New...or-concealed-carry-in-Missouri-409038545.html
http://www.kspr.com/content/news/Missouris-new-constitutional-carry-law--394031261.html
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_52cae4d3-310c-5c89-a55e-007ec99fefbf.html
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
"On January 1, 2017, constitutional carry will become the law of the land in Missouri. People allowed to legally purchase a firearm will be able to conceal and carry it without requiring a permit or additional training."

"Missouri has always been an open carry state, meaning gun owners could openly carry their firearm in public places with some exceptions, including schools and daycares."

http://www.komu.com/news/a-look-at-constitutional-carry-missouri-s-new-gun-law/
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
353
Location
Planet Earth
For the most part, I believe this change in the law to be a good thing.

That being said, some of the "public safety officers" questioned in these articles had concerns that MIGHT be valid. With this change, some of the new carriers won't be as aware of those places (like St. Louis) that have more stringent regulations. They also won't have had the benefit of an impartial observer seeing how accurate they and their carry gun can be. We don't know if these people are cognizant of the "4 Rules" or their level of familiarity with them OR their weapon.

It's going to take some time to see how this shakes out.
 
Top