fxdwngflyr
Regular Member
imported post
TROLL
Dont feed them
TROLL
Dont feed them
-
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.
-
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.
Please Don't Open Carry in California
- Thread starter Shylock
- Start date
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
MudCamper wrote:
Simply put, the NRA supports gun control that erodes my rights. This is unacceptable to me. I think it is more important to stand on pure principles than to sell those principles to chalk up hollow victories.
MudCamper wrote:
Simply put, the NRA supports gun control that erodes my rights. This is unacceptable to me. I think it is more important to stand on pure principles than to sell those principles to chalk up hollow victories.
awesomeness
Regular Member
imported post
Another person that......your not worth it. Yourclaimswillonly further encourage people to open carry. If such a ban on open carry is passed it could end up in the courts which would only help our cause even more.
Another person that......your not worth it. Yourclaimswillonly further encourage people to open carry. If such a ban on open carry is passed it could end up in the courts which would only help our cause even more.
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
They start out cute enough......
But watch out if you feed them.
They start out cute enough......
But watch out if you feed them.
imported post
MudCamper wrote:
I respectfully must disagree. The NRA has been the only option for some time now. Long enough that there is considerable money involved now. Have they served a noble purpose? Yes. Do I trust them? No. Not anymore than I would trust any other organization that has no vested interest in seeing the 2nd Amendment resolved (for better or for worse). You see, either way, if the 2nd Amendment issue is decided and defined, they are out of business. Either there is no one left to fight, or there is nothing left to fight over, neither of which continues the money flow that they have been accustomed to.
Are they necessarily corupt? No. In fact, I believe that the majority of NRA workers and supporters do believe in the cause and reasoning for the existence of the NRA...but that doesn't mean the upper management isn't. Both the NRA and HCI have managed to polarize and stalemate the 2nd Amendment issue, which has proven to be very profitable for both organizations. Have you looked at how much money they are estimated to have received each year? Since they are considered non-profit, we really have no way of knowing, much less how much the CEO's and such are paid annually. I'd be willing to bet it's quite a bit...
Just to reitterate my point, I don't necessarily believe the NRA is bad, but like any powerful ally, you have to be sure they aren't playing both sides of the game. And to this date, I remain highly skeptical that their intentions have been completely honorable. Too many cases have been declined for argument...
Does anyone know if the NRA is defending Heller? IIRC, it was his own lawyer....
Oh yeah, and this Shylock person is a turd. Sorry I can't be more elloquent...
MudCamper wrote:
I respectfully must disagree. The NRA has been the only option for some time now. Long enough that there is considerable money involved now. Have they served a noble purpose? Yes. Do I trust them? No. Not anymore than I would trust any other organization that has no vested interest in seeing the 2nd Amendment resolved (for better or for worse). You see, either way, if the 2nd Amendment issue is decided and defined, they are out of business. Either there is no one left to fight, or there is nothing left to fight over, neither of which continues the money flow that they have been accustomed to.
Are they necessarily corupt? No. In fact, I believe that the majority of NRA workers and supporters do believe in the cause and reasoning for the existence of the NRA...but that doesn't mean the upper management isn't. Both the NRA and HCI have managed to polarize and stalemate the 2nd Amendment issue, which has proven to be very profitable for both organizations. Have you looked at how much money they are estimated to have received each year? Since they are considered non-profit, we really have no way of knowing, much less how much the CEO's and such are paid annually. I'd be willing to bet it's quite a bit...
Just to reitterate my point, I don't necessarily believe the NRA is bad, but like any powerful ally, you have to be sure they aren't playing both sides of the game. And to this date, I remain highly skeptical that their intentions have been completely honorable. Too many cases have been declined for argument...
Does anyone know if the NRA is defending Heller? IIRC, it was his own lawyer....
Oh yeah, and this Shylock person is a turd. Sorry I can't be more elloquent...
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
bigtoe416 wrote:
Where did you hear the decision is Monday?
I'm closely following the blog of one of the amicae. He doesn't know. And he's a guy who is looking for it.
bigtoe416 wrote:
Where did you hear the decision is Monday?
I'm closely following the blog of one of the amicae. He doesn't know. And he's a guy who is looking for it.
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
You know Shylock is on to something. You know what, please, forget the whole 4 foot thing, just call for a full out ban on open carry of firearms. Do it please. When California bans all forms of self defensive carry except for concealment with a may-issue license, a lawsuit can be filed under the 14th amendment and the 2nd amendment under the bear provisions. Granted it'll be shitty for a few years while the courts sort it out, but it'll be a flat out ban on bearing arms, versus the possibility that the courts may rule loaded open carry "bearing arms" as protected, and we get loaded open carry in the process.
You know Shylock is on to something. You know what, please, forget the whole 4 foot thing, just call for a full out ban on open carry of firearms. Do it please. When California bans all forms of self defensive carry except for concealment with a may-issue license, a lawsuit can be filed under the 14th amendment and the 2nd amendment under the bear provisions. Granted it'll be shitty for a few years while the courts sort it out, but it'll be a flat out ban on bearing arms, versus the possibility that the courts may rule loaded open carry "bearing arms" as protected, and we get loaded open carry in the process.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Citizen wrote:
It will be a Monday, Opinion Day, and is supposed to be in June. It will be at SCOTUS' pleasure.
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Undecided cases:
Davis v FEC
Giles v. California
Sprint Communications Co. V. APPC Services
Rothgery v. Gillepsie County, Texas
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co.
Kennedy v. Louisiana
Greenlaw v. United States
District of Columbia v. Heller
Exxon Shipping v. Baker
Morgan Stanley Capital Group v. Public Utility District 1
Citizen wrote:
Sorry, I thought the Supreme Court had to decide all their cases before their term ended. Monday is the last day in the 2007-2008 Supreme Court term. Last year they released opinions on the Thursday after their final session, so maybe it'll be on Thursday. Ten cases are still undecided, so I imagine they'll do two groups of opinions this year as well, Monday and Thursday.
Undecided cases:
Davis v FEC
Giles v. California
Sprint Communications Co. V. APPC Services
Rothgery v. Gillepsie County, Texas
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co.
Kennedy v. Louisiana
Greenlaw v. United States
District of Columbia v. Heller
Exxon Shipping v. Baker
Morgan Stanley Capital Group v. Public Utility District 1
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
It will be this week, hopefully tomorrow. A lot of the open decisions can be simply "we affirm" with no decision written, per se. Or, remanded, etc. Obviously, Heller will be a big one with, I suspect, at least 4 decisions--affirming and dissenting, written. I'm guessing that CJ Roberts will write for the majority. His prerogative. That dip Souter will write a dissent, most likely, but I think the overall affirm Heller and individual right to k&B will be 7-2. The real key is scrutiny of anti-2nd laws, i.e., that which restrict in any manner, strict or intermediate.
In re NRA: my enemies enemies are my friends. I don't like all the compromises they make, but understand the need. In the final analysis, they are enemies of the anti-gun rabble and therefor on the same side as I am. Kind of like us and the French...:banghead:
It will be this week, hopefully tomorrow. A lot of the open decisions can be simply "we affirm" with no decision written, per se. Or, remanded, etc. Obviously, Heller will be a big one with, I suspect, at least 4 decisions--affirming and dissenting, written. I'm guessing that CJ Roberts will write for the majority. His prerogative. That dip Souter will write a dissent, most likely, but I think the overall affirm Heller and individual right to k&B will be 7-2. The real key is scrutiny of anti-2nd laws, i.e., that which restrict in any manner, strict or intermediate.
In re NRA: my enemies enemies are my friends. I don't like all the compromises they make, but understand the need. In the final analysis, they are enemies of the anti-gun rabble and therefor on the same side as I am. Kind of like us and the French...:banghead:
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Gunslinger wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
NRA as French, brilliant! :celebrate
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Shylock wrote:
Shylock wrote:
If you are afraid to exercise your rights, you have already lost them.
jakemccoy
Regular Member
imported post
Because of Shylock, I'm looking for holsters to open carry my Glock 27 right now.
Because of Shylock, I'm looking for holsters to open carry my Glock 27 right now.
usSiR
Campaign Veteran
imported post
What?!
And to think I am associated with you as a Marine? Your a disgrace to the Marine Corps, you probably only shot a "pizza box" for rifle qual. anyway
besides you left enough address and info about your self it wouldn't be hard to find you if someone really wanted to.
go troll over in the Cute Teady Bears forum where you belong
What?!
And to think I am associated with you as a Marine? Your a disgrace to the Marine Corps, you probably only shot a "pizza box" for rifle qual. anyway
besides you left enough address and info about your self it wouldn't be hard to find you if someone really wanted to.
go troll over in the Cute Teady Bears forum where you belong
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
I need to make one point about this whole thing with Heller and open carry.
Now the pro-gunners in California now see open carry's utility now that SCOTUS basically declared open carry to be protected. Calguns.net, Californiaccw.org and so on NOW definitely believe in open carry.
If I were a more bitter man, I'd demand that they eat crow. However, that is not the point of this forum.
This decision for Heller is the best thing that can ever happen for Californians, Illinoisians and others.
To our brothers and sisters in the occupied anti-gun territories, we are COMING FOR YOU!
I need to make one point about this whole thing with Heller and open carry.
Now the pro-gunners in California now see open carry's utility now that SCOTUS basically declared open carry to be protected. Calguns.net, Californiaccw.org and so on NOW definitely believe in open carry.
If I were a more bitter man, I'd demand that they eat crow. However, that is not the point of this forum.
This decision for Heller is the best thing that can ever happen for Californians, Illinoisians and others.
To our brothers and sisters in the occupied anti-gun territories, we are COMING FOR YOU!
imported post
This is not meant to flame you, but what you advocate is surrender-- or that one's rights aren't important enough to stand up for.
Shame on you-- your opinion, but I disagree--
As a Marine Veteran (91-97 0331/8531) you use of "Semper Fi" is an insult to myself and other veterans that swore to defend the Constitiution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
You sound like an enemy of theConstitution, or at least one who never meant the oath he was required to give.
Once again, SHAME ON YOU.
This is not meant to flame you, but what you advocate is surrender-- or that one's rights aren't important enough to stand up for.
Shame on you-- your opinion, but I disagree--
As a Marine Veteran (91-97 0331/8531) you use of "Semper Fi" is an insult to myself and other veterans that swore to defend the Constitiution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
You sound like an enemy of theConstitution, or at least one who never meant the oath he was required to give.
Once again, SHAME ON YOU.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Shylock wrote:
So, let me get this straight... Not only do you hate freedom, but you hate yourself as well?
Because, although your letter was doubtless a waste of time, I have never seen a bigger case of cutting off the nose to spite the face in my life!
Edit: Actually, I believe I spoke too soon, and my above comment is false. I failed to recognize that Shylock has obviously fallen victim to "LEO-syndrome," whereby the sufferer believes that he is a member of the elite club of highly-trained professionals who, being the sole experts in handling weapons, are responsible for the entire defense of America and the lone protectors of each of its citizens. So, while he is attacking our freedoms, he would doubtless not intend for laws like the one he proposes to apply to his own person; after all, he is an expert at the proper handling and ethical deployment of firearms, and must remain the staunch defender of his Government, even while not "on duty."
Shylock wrote:
So, let me get this straight... Not only do you hate freedom, but you hate yourself as well?
Because, although your letter was doubtless a waste of time, I have never seen a bigger case of cutting off the nose to spite the face in my life!
Edit: Actually, I believe I spoke too soon, and my above comment is false. I failed to recognize that Shylock has obviously fallen victim to "LEO-syndrome," whereby the sufferer believes that he is a member of the elite club of highly-trained professionals who, being the sole experts in handling weapons, are responsible for the entire defense of America and the lone protectors of each of its citizens. So, while he is attacking our freedoms, he would doubtless not intend for laws like the one he proposes to apply to his own person; after all, he is an expert at the proper handling and ethical deployment of firearms, and must remain the staunch defender of his Government, even while not "on duty."
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
CA_Libertarian wrote:
CA_Libertarian, while I agree with so much you say, sometimes your perspective seems a little one-sided. From my view, the truth is that there is validity to both arguments.
I have been a vocal critic of the NRA since the time when I was still 13 and only had a single-shot .22 rifle. After all, they are a lobby group like any other, a "non-profit" in name only, and worst of all they are influenced by those who view gun rights as privileges to be bestowed upon their persons to the exclusion of others (among these are advocates of CCW licensing, and the types of people who think they can use the 2a to protect their ability to participate in "canned" hunts).
Obviously, this is not the right way to fight for our freedoms. And equally obviously, the "damage control" approach is doomed to eventual failure (scary thought, isn't it?).
On the other hand, the NRA is the group that the vast majority of Americans give money to when they think to contribute to defending their 2nd amendment rights. Thus, whether they wield it effectively or not, the NRA holds in their hands most of the influence (read: money) that gun owners create.
In Virginia the NRA range is very close to my parents' house. Not only do members get decent discounts on range time, but membership is only $25/year when obtained at the range itself. When I realized I shoot often enough in VA (usually at the NRA range) to pay for membership several times over, it seemed a no-brainer.
Not only that, but they have a range-only membership, so I wouldn't have to admit to being an NRA member! But when I really thought about it, either way I'm giving them my money. And if I'm going to give money to the biggest group that should-be-but-isn't defending 2nd amendment rights, I'd prefer it if they would use that money wisely. On top of which, no matter which kind of membership I chose, I wouldn't really be increasing their net revenue, since the whole point is to save money on range trips, in the long run.
So I ended up going for the actual NRA membership. Which means, for the first time in my life, I AM an NRA member. :uhoh:
Supposedly NRA members can vote in elections and whatnot after a few years. In the meantime, I am forced to admit to being a member now, but this is inevitably followed by a full explanation of why I became a member and what exactly the problems with the NRA are, and how one possible way to solve them would be from within. I guess I hope I can educate by setting a positive example, much like we do with OC.
CA_Libertarian wrote:
CA_Libertarian, while I agree with so much you say, sometimes your perspective seems a little one-sided. From my view, the truth is that there is validity to both arguments.
I have been a vocal critic of the NRA since the time when I was still 13 and only had a single-shot .22 rifle. After all, they are a lobby group like any other, a "non-profit" in name only, and worst of all they are influenced by those who view gun rights as privileges to be bestowed upon their persons to the exclusion of others (among these are advocates of CCW licensing, and the types of people who think they can use the 2a to protect their ability to participate in "canned" hunts).
Obviously, this is not the right way to fight for our freedoms. And equally obviously, the "damage control" approach is doomed to eventual failure (scary thought, isn't it?).
On the other hand, the NRA is the group that the vast majority of Americans give money to when they think to contribute to defending their 2nd amendment rights. Thus, whether they wield it effectively or not, the NRA holds in their hands most of the influence (read: money) that gun owners create.
In Virginia the NRA range is very close to my parents' house. Not only do members get decent discounts on range time, but membership is only $25/year when obtained at the range itself. When I realized I shoot often enough in VA (usually at the NRA range) to pay for membership several times over, it seemed a no-brainer.
Not only that, but they have a range-only membership, so I wouldn't have to admit to being an NRA member! But when I really thought about it, either way I'm giving them my money. And if I'm going to give money to the biggest group that should-be-but-isn't defending 2nd amendment rights, I'd prefer it if they would use that money wisely. On top of which, no matter which kind of membership I chose, I wouldn't really be increasing their net revenue, since the whole point is to save money on range trips, in the long run.
So I ended up going for the actual NRA membership. Which means, for the first time in my life, I AM an NRA member. :uhoh:
Supposedly NRA members can vote in elections and whatnot after a few years. In the meantime, I am forced to admit to being a member now, but this is inevitably followed by a full explanation of why I became a member and what exactly the problems with the NRA are, and how one possible way to solve them would be from within. I guess I hope I can educate by setting a positive example, much like we do with OC.
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
I see no problem with paying for a range membership that saves you money on range fees. That serves a purpose. In my opinion paying NRA membership doesn't serve a purpose. That is, you don't get your money's worth.
If you have thought it through and feel you are getting good value for your money, by all means keep on contributing to the NRA. I just get the feeling a lot of people join the NRA because it's the 'in' thing to do in the gun-lovin' crowd. I just want to get people thinking instead of following.
I see no problem with paying for a range membership that saves you money on range fees. That serves a purpose. In my opinion paying NRA membership doesn't serve a purpose. That is, you don't get your money's worth.
If you have thought it through and feel you are getting good value for your money, by all means keep on contributing to the NRA. I just get the feeling a lot of people join the NRA because it's the 'in' thing to do in the gun-lovin' crowd. I just want to get people thinking instead of following.