yeahYeah
Regular Member
imported post
scare tactics. it's an election year.
scare tactics. it's an election year.
-
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.
Brady Campaign says Open Carry Activists are "Pushy and Aggressive"
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
JimmyD8681 wrote:
JimmyD8681 wrote:
I noticed that. 'Armed White Men"... :what:Whutta novelconcept. I s'pose if they'd been anything other... that could be considered a 'racist' remark. Maybe that's why 'mostly' was used. 'Too bad there has to be a 'demonstration' of any sort to emphasize a Constitutionally recognized Right that's taken for granted elsewhere. (I just got back from the store 'n hung up my gunbelt.)
Cowboy_Rick
Regular Member
imported post
Here in TEXAS, the other day I was or received some BIRD SHOT in the right FOREARM from a "neighbor" that was SKEET SHOOTING in his back yard after I asked him to quit shooting-approximately 500 ft from my fence. I called the Sheriff and luckily for me he was far enough away that the birdshot was just under the skin-to make a long story short the Deputy warned him that the next time he may receive a citation therefore I open carry on my property constantly now and I use a Wyoming Rig with a Single Action Ivory handled .45. Stopped all of the problem!
The "BRADY's" wouldn't find it easy being here in TEXAS!!
Oh was wonderin', up there can "OTHER THAN WHITE" also carry open?
Here in TEXAS, the other day I was or received some BIRD SHOT in the right FOREARM from a "neighbor" that was SKEET SHOOTING in his back yard after I asked him to quit shooting-approximately 500 ft from my fence. I called the Sheriff and luckily for me he was far enough away that the birdshot was just under the skin-to make a long story short the Deputy warned him that the next time he may receive a citation therefore I open carry on my property constantly now and I use a Wyoming Rig with a Single Action Ivory handled .45. Stopped all of the problem!
The "BRADY's" wouldn't find it easy being here in TEXAS!!
Oh was wonderin', up there can "OTHER THAN WHITE" also carry open?
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
Cowboy_Rick wrote:
Cowboy_Rick wrote:
That'd be Class 3 Felony in AZ... 'n he would have been arrested. 'Glad it was only superficial. I reckon you could still sue him tho... you DID get shot thru his negligence.
Repeater
Regular Member
imported post
The Gun Week article is good. I've enjoyed reading the Hastings thread here:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/14025.html
Also here:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum63/14056.html
The main article on the event appeared in the Detroit Free Press:
Gun owners show their metal
This article not only includes the Hamm quote, but this concerning Mike:
The event was heavily promoted on the Web site OpenCarry.org, the premier place on the Internet for those who like their pistols at their side. Web site cofounder Mike Stollenwerk, a retired Army officer, said he and partner John Pierce started the site in 2004 out of a mutual interest in U.S. gun laws.
"It's a couple of geeky guys who put together some maps and a database, and it became a movement," Stollenwerk said.
Stollenwerk said the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that assured the right of individuals to own and carry guns stoked some interest in the open-carry movement, but he added that it's been growing on its own.
His Web site has more than 8,500 registered members and has been attracting 600,000 visitors a month, he said.
The Hastings event was posted, and this week Stollenwerk issued a news release about it that suggested a looming confrontation in the streets. It didn't happen.
The Gun Week article is good. I've enjoyed reading the Hastings thread here:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/14025.html
Also here:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum63/14056.html
The main article on the event appeared in the Detroit Free Press:
Gun owners show their metal
This article not only includes the Hamm quote, but this concerning Mike:
The event was heavily promoted on the Web site OpenCarry.org, the premier place on the Internet for those who like their pistols at their side. Web site cofounder Mike Stollenwerk, a retired Army officer, said he and partner John Pierce started the site in 2004 out of a mutual interest in U.S. gun laws.
"It's a couple of geeky guys who put together some maps and a database, and it became a movement," Stollenwerk said.
Stollenwerk said the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that assured the right of individuals to own and carry guns stoked some interest in the open-carry movement, but he added that it's been growing on its own.
His Web site has more than 8,500 registered members and has been attracting 600,000 visitors a month, he said.
The Hastings event was posted, and this week Stollenwerk issued a news release about it that suggested a looming confrontation in the streets. It didn't happen.
yeahYeah
Regular Member
imported post
so gay rights activists, pro-abortion activists, environmentalists are not pushy and aggressive? ooooh yeah, they are liberal causes...
so gay rights activists, pro-abortion activists, environmentalists are not pushy and aggressive? ooooh yeah, they are liberal causes...
DocV
Regular Member
imported post
Huck wrote:
Huck wrote:
There's a mayor in Maryland right now that might disagree with that....:uhoh:
Cowboy_Rick
Regular Member
imported post
Don't know if the guy is even "LEGAL", I'll get ahold of the "RANGERS" and the TEXAS HIGHWAY PATROL tomorrow! The Last neighbors were given a "FREE" ride because they were "ILLEGAL" aliens-they had lived there for 8 months! Might even call the INS!
Don't know if the guy is even "LEGAL", I'll get ahold of the "RANGERS" and the TEXAS HIGHWAY PATROL tomorrow! The Last neighbors were given a "FREE" ride because they were "ILLEGAL" aliens-they had lived there for 8 months! Might even call the INS!
mvpel
Regular Member
imported post
The nice thing about the Free State Project in New Hampshire is that an Open Carry event turns out a lot of women as well.
The nice thing about the Free State Project in New Hampshire is that an Open Carry event turns out a lot of women as well.
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
Gay rights activists are very pushy and in your face (not that I care, I feel they should all have equal rights anyway).
So what if OC activists are? It is their right is it not?!! It is only "acceptable" to be "in your face" and "pushy" if you are going after some "liberal" agenda, so it seems.
OC advocates are extremely non-violent and passionate, what better way to be an American and voice your opinion!
Gay rights activists are very pushy and in your face (not that I care, I feel they should all have equal rights anyway).
So what if OC activists are? It is their right is it not?!! It is only "acceptable" to be "in your face" and "pushy" if you are going after some "liberal" agenda, so it seems.
OC advocates are extremely non-violent and passionate, what better way to be an American and voice your opinion!
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
hsmith wrote:
There's no specific Constitutional 'Right' to be 'Gay'... or for any other devient behavioral abnormality.Too many 'people' claiming 'Rights' that don't exist... and too many people puttin' the kabosh on actual Rights that do exist. I don't consider myself an 'activist' anything. I have the Right to bear arms (openly) for self defense. I need a License to hunt... carry concealed and such. Rights and License are two d'frint animals. Preemption of a recognized Right by local ordinances is unconstitutional... and the politicians are aware of that... No matter what comes out of their mouths to the contrary.
SCJ Scalia: “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset... The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’.”
This legal opinion... largely ignored... may well be the most important Constitutional opinion in over 100 years. Don't 'skim read it'... READ IT SLOWLY. Let it sink in. 'All Instruments'.... bearable arms is not limited to firearms only. Arms... think about that! "...a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset..." There goes the militia, military and LEO arguments in one fell swoop!"
hsmith wrote:
There's no specific Constitutional 'Right' to be 'Gay'... or for any other devient behavioral abnormality.Too many 'people' claiming 'Rights' that don't exist... and too many people puttin' the kabosh on actual Rights that do exist. I don't consider myself an 'activist' anything. I have the Right to bear arms (openly) for self defense. I need a License to hunt... carry concealed and such. Rights and License are two d'frint animals. Preemption of a recognized Right by local ordinances is unconstitutional... and the politicians are aware of that... No matter what comes out of their mouths to the contrary.
SCJ Scalia: “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset... The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’.”
This legal opinion... largely ignored... may well be the most important Constitutional opinion in over 100 years. Don't 'skim read it'... READ IT SLOWLY. Let it sink in. 'All Instruments'.... bearable arms is not limited to firearms only. Arms... think about that! "...a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset..." There goes the militia, military and LEO arguments in one fell swoop!"
tattedupboy
Regular Member
imported post
They say that it is legal in 44 states without any kind of permit. Wrong. Several shall issue states, including Indiana, North Dakota, and Minnesota require a permit for open carry, as do some may issue states (which are in reality no issue states), such as PRMA, PRNJ, PRMD, PRHIand PRRI. If you take away the de facto no issue states (in which open carry is a moot point since it takes a permit to do and virtually none are issued), the number is actually 39.
They say that it is legal in 44 states without any kind of permit. Wrong. Several shall issue states, including Indiana, North Dakota, and Minnesota require a permit for open carry, as do some may issue states (which are in reality no issue states), such as PRMA, PRNJ, PRMD, PRHIand PRRI. If you take away the de facto no issue states (in which open carry is a moot point since it takes a permit to do and virtually none are issued), the number is actually 39.
like_the_roman
Regular Member
imported post
S.E.WI
Regular Member
imported post
Sonora Rebel wrote:
Article VI of The United States Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land." See The Supremacy Clause: U.S. Constitution, art. VI, § 2. Furthermore, all federal, state, and local officials must take an oath to support the Constitution. This means that state governments and officials cannot take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties. The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it. That power is not itself explicitly set out in the Constitution but was declared to exist by the Supreme Court in the decision of McCulloch v. Maryland.
I don't see anything in 2A about any infringement like permits and how or where we can carry. State officials are violating the law. The most important point to make here is that the Supreme Court judges are restricted to the Constitution also. We have to pull this group together for a better fight.
Reread the Miller case.....it uses militia for its reasoning.....if Congress didn't pass a law it would seem that sawed off shotguns would be legal now.
Sonora Rebel wrote:
Article VI of The United States Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land." See The Supremacy Clause: U.S. Constitution, art. VI, § 2. Furthermore, all federal, state, and local officials must take an oath to support the Constitution. This means that state governments and officials cannot take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties. The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it. That power is not itself explicitly set out in the Constitution but was declared to exist by the Supreme Court in the decision of McCulloch v. Maryland.
I don't see anything in 2A about any infringement like permits and how or where we can carry. State officials are violating the law. The most important point to make here is that the Supreme Court judges are restricted to the Constitution also. We have to pull this group together for a better fight.
Reread the Miller case.....it uses militia for its reasoning.....if Congress didn't pass a law it would seem that sawed off shotguns would be legal now.
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
imported post
Which side is the one being pushy?
Brady who demand enveryone loose thier pistols, (even though he was shot with a rifle).
Or OC who do not demand anyone else be required to do anything they don't want to.
I guess the pushy is another one of those "is" definitions.
As for background checks/training. By who's standards. I have no problem
with a standard of must prove reason in court to deny a permit.
Present the evidence before a jury.
The man in Ga who was labels a srapist because the BG used his name when
arrested. His check will show him as undesireable for no reason except sherrif
didn't verify information entered into computer..
But would be reason for the brady crowd.
As long as polititions can have armed security, then so should every citizen.
I carry for the wifes protection. She "hired" me.
Which side is the one being pushy?
Brady who demand enveryone loose thier pistols, (even though he was shot with a rifle).
Or OC who do not demand anyone else be required to do anything they don't want to.
I guess the pushy is another one of those "is" definitions.
As for background checks/training. By who's standards. I have no problem
with a standard of must prove reason in court to deny a permit.
Present the evidence before a jury.
The man in Ga who was labels a srapist because the BG used his name when
arrested. His check will show him as undesireable for no reason except sherrif
didn't verify information entered into computer..
But would be reason for the brady crowd.
As long as polititions can have armed security, then so should every citizen.
I carry for the wifes protection. She "hired" me.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
SlackwareRobert wrote:
SlackwareRobert wrote:
huh? Brady was shot with a handgun. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Assassination_Attempt.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
In a book written by one of the founders of Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady bunch) said something to the effect that they'll never try to ban long guns because they aren't concealable. That was written I think, in the 80's, in other words, many many lies ago.
In a book written by one of the founders of Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady bunch) said something to the effect that they'll never try to ban long guns because they aren't concealable. That was written I think, in the 80's, in other words, many many lies ago.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
yeahYeah wrote:
yeahYeah wrote:
Um, in the area of abortion, the "pro-lifers" are easily the far more pushy and aggressive side of that issue. So you might want to have not included this in your list of examples.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
S.E.WI wrote:
S.E.WI wrote:
They are legal.
tarzan1888
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
If they really think that then we must be doing something right. I know that most of us are not overly pushy or aggressive, but are perceived as such because we chose to exercise our rights.
Tarzan
Mike wrote:
If they really think that then we must be doing something right. I know that most of us are not overly pushy or aggressive, but are perceived as such because we chose to exercise our rights.
Tarzan