• 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.

Open carry on Election day?

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

I suspect this election is most likely the last election anybody can carry open.

Or concealed for that matter.

Gun rights for an honest law abiding citizen are out the window.
 

richarcm

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,182
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

Sheriff wrote:
I suspect this election is most likely the last election anybody can carry open.

Or concealed for that matter.

Gun rights for an honest law abiding citizen are out the window.
Which is why it AMAZES me that someone can be on this website and defend or even support Obama. Makes me wonder about the intentions of these people.....
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

I am in Albania now, voted at the Chesapeake Registrars Office on Friday while open carrying. No issues, but I was OCing my S&W 642, which is pretty small. One lady at the front doorsaw it and asked if I was a cop. I said no and kept walking to the line.
 

GLENGLOCKER

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
558
Location
VA Beach, Virginia, USA
imported post

richarcm wrote:
Sheriff wrote:
I suspect this election is most likely the last election anybody can carry open.

Or concealed for that matter.

Gun rights for an honest law abiding citizen are out the window.
Which is why it AMAZES me that someone can be on this website and defend or even support Obama. Makes me wonder about the intentions of these people.....
What AMAZES ME is during the primaries when I was doing campaign stuff for Ron Paul, how many of my fellow gun owners didn't want to hear it. A lot of my fellow gun owners told me they didn't care at all about politics. Or the one I like the most was "Ron Paul attracts wierdos" Well it looks like some of you are getting what you deserve. I've went to several GOP functions here in VA Beach and guess what? No OCers or VCDL members. In the last week I've been working the phones at the McCain/Drake victory center in VA Beach and after 6pm I see a lot of empty seats that my fellow gun owners could by filling. Something to think about should McCain not win.
 

richarcm

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,182
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

GLENGLOCKER wrote:
richarcm wrote:
Sheriff wrote:
I suspect this election is most likely the last election anybody can carry open.

Or concealed for that matter.

Gun rights for an honest law abiding citizen are out the window.
Which is why it AMAZES me that someone can be on this website and defend or even support Obama. Makes me wonder about the intentions of these people.....
What AMAZES ME is during the primaries when I was doing campaign stuff for Ron Paul, how many of my fellow gun owners didn't want to hear it. A lot of my fellow gun owners told me they didn't care at all about politics. Or the one I like the most was "Ron Paul attracts wierdos" Well it looks like some of you are getting what you deserve. I've went to several GOP functions here in VA Beach and guess what? No OCers or VCDL members. In the last week I've been working the phones at the McCain/Drake victory center in VA Beach and after 6pm I see a lot of empty seats that my fellow gun owners could by filling. Something to think about should McCain not win.

No offense but a lot of Ron Paul's supporters were a little wacky. I'm not sure if it was because Ron Paul was anti-war or because Ron Paul was pro drugs....but some of his younger supporters were a little out there. That being said, outside of Ron Paul being anti-war, I agreed with just about everything that he stood for. The anti-war component was the deal breaker. We can fight for liberty, for rights, for small government...for whatever. But if we lay down and let extremists take over our country NONE of that other stuff matters. National security comes FIRST...that is the foundation of the house. After that is laid down you work on the electrical, the plumbing, and all the rest.

And yes, I've been trying to drill this into everyone's heads. I know people who are progun like an obsession but shrug off politics like it's not THAT big of a deal. I hope that everyone on here understands how important this is TO THIS WEBSITE!! Everyone on here has a HUGE part to play in how this pivital state ends up.

The choice is YOURS. Take control of it NOW. And don't just think that voting is enough. Spread the word, show your support, write on blogs, do whatever you can. IT ALL MATTERS.

Okay, I'm not preaching anymore. There are 2 days left. You people are going to do or not do whatever you are going to do or not do.
 

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
imported post

richarcm wrote:
No offense but a lot of Ron Paul's supporters were a little wacky. I'm not sure if it was because Ron Paul was anti-war or because Ron Paul was pro drugs....but some of his younger supporters were a little out there. That being said, outside of Ron Paul being anti-war, I agreed with just about everything that he stood for. The anti-war component was the deal breaker. We can fight for liberty, for rights, for small government...for whatever. But if we lay down and let extremists take over our country NONE of that other stuff matters. National security comes FIRST...that is the foundation of the house. After that is laid down you work on the electrical, the plumbing, and all the rest.

And yes, I've been trying to drill this into everyone's heads. I know people who are progun like an obsession but shrug off politics like it's not THAT big of a deal. I hope that everyone on here understands how important this is TO THIS WEBSITE!! Everyone on here has a HUGE part to play in how this pivital state ends up.

The choice is YOURS. Take control of it NOW. And don't just think that voting is enough. Spread the word, show your support, write on blogs, do whatever you can. IT ALL MATTERS.

Okay, I'm not preaching anymore. There are 2 days left. You people are going to do or not do whatever you are going to do or not do.
Spreading war isn't going to make us safer either. Afgan was alright to fight, but Iraq has been a disaster and will continue to be. Over what? What have we gained? Oh Saddam is dead, awesome!

I won't be voting for either Obama or McCain because they will both continue to erode our rights, not just our 2nd Amendment rights. It is like deciding if you want hepatitis or herpes.
 

richarcm

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,182
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

If you see this....say hi. It's me. :)

nosocialism.jpg
 

richarcm

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,182
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

hsmith wrote:
richarcm wrote:
No offense but a lot of Ron Paul's supporters were a little wacky. I'm not sure if it was because Ron Paul was anti-war or because Ron Paul was pro drugs....but some of his younger supporters were a little out there. That being said, outside of Ron Paul being anti-war, I agreed with just about everything that he stood for. The anti-war component was the deal breaker. We can fight for liberty, for rights, for small government...for whatever. But if we lay down and let extremists take over our country NONE of that other stuff matters. National security comes FIRST...that is the foundation of the house. After that is laid down you work on the electrical, the plumbing, and all the rest.

And yes, I've been trying to drill this into everyone's heads. I know people who are progun like an obsession but shrug off politics like it's not THAT big of a deal. I hope that everyone on here understands how important this is TO THIS WEBSITE!! Everyone on here has a HUGE part to play in how this pivital state ends up.

The choice is YOURS. Take control of it NOW. And don't just think that voting is enough. Spread the word, show your support, write on blogs, do whatever you can. IT ALL MATTERS.

Okay, I'm not preaching anymore. There are 2 days left. You people are going to do or not do whatever you are going to do or not do.
Spreading war isn't going to make us safer either. Afgan was alright to fight, but Iraq has been a disaster and will continue to be. Over what? What have we gained? Oh Saddam is dead, awesome!

I won't be voting for either Obama or McCain because they will both continue to erode our rights, not just our 2nd Amendment rights. It is like deciding if you want hepatitis or herpes.

I didn't say go to war with everyone. I'm saying leave war on the table. Any candidate that is anti-war should NEVER EVER EVER be President. EVER. I'm not saying let's go kill some people. But you must be able to accept war as a viable option if necessary.

Don't vote. With your logic you will end up with Socialism and no guns. Give me the lesser of the evils (unfortunately) ANY day. Great idea.
 

GLENGLOCKER

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
558
Location
VA Beach, Virginia, USA
imported post

Richarm, Ron Paul is neither pro-drug or anti war. Iraq should have been a declared war. Every person who knows money like Neil Cavuto say the same thing. That Ron Paul knows exactly how banking should work. If we listened to him a long time ago us the tax payers wouldn't be paying for these bailouts. As for the drug thing you make it sound as if he's saying YAAAA go do drugs. He just thinks they should be legal.
 

richarcm

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,182
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

GLENGLOCKER wrote:
Richarm, Ron Paul is neither pro-drug or anti war. Iraq should have been a declared war. Every person who knows money like Neil Cavuto say the same thing. That Ron Paul knows exactly how banking should work. If we listened to him a long time ago us the tax payers wouldn't be paying for these bailouts. As for the drug thing you make it sound as if he's saying YAAAA go do drugs. He just thinks they should be legal.
Ron Paul IS pro-drug and anti-war. Do the research.

As I said I agree with Ron on EVERYTHING else.
 

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
imported post

richarcm wrote:
GLENGLOCKER wrote:
Richarm, Ron Paul is neither pro-drug or anti war. Iraq should have been a declared war. Every person who knows money like Neil Cavuto say the same thing. That Ron Paul knows exactly how banking should work. If we listened to him a long time ago us the tax payers wouldn't be paying for these bailouts. As for the drug thing you make it sound as if he's saying YAAAA go do drugs. He just thinks they should be legal.
Ron Paul IS pro-drug and anti-war. Do the research.

As I said I agree with Ron on EVERYTHING else.
Can you post this research saying we should never go to war? I'd love to read it.

Because even in his Wikipedia page (which is cited) he voted to authorize the president to go to war for those responsible for 9/11...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Later in 2001, Paul voted to authorize the president, pursuant to WPR, to respond to those responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks.
So, right there debunks your "anti-war" myth.

As far as his "pro-drug" - he isn't pro drug, he is pro-stop the government from getting its nose into something it doesn't belong.

Any pro-gun person should be anti-war-on-drugs, the "war on drugs" is one major forefront for our eroding gun rights (as well as many other rights, look at the Fredricks case).
 

richarcm

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,182
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

hsmith wrote:

Can you post this research saying we should never go to war? I'd love to read it.

Because even in his Wikipedia page (which is cited) he voted to authorize the president to go to war for those responsible for 9/11...

Later in 2001, Paul voted to authorize the president, pursuant to WPR, to respond to those responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks.
So, right there debunks your "anti-war" myth.

As far as his "pro-drug" - he isn't pro drug, he is pro-stop the government from getting its nose into something it doesn't belong.

Any pro-gun person should be anti-war-on-drugs, the "war on drugs" is one major forefront for our eroding gun rights (as well as many other rights, look at the Fredricks case).
Wikipedia hardly debunks much of anything. I love it when people us Wikipedia as their source of information. His whole campaign was littered with propoganda of being antiwar. Just do a search...."Ron Paul Antiwar". See what you get. There are MANY hits on it from blogs, to antiwar websites to the NY Times. Take your pick.

In regards to drugs he IS pro drug. If you have the desire to decriminalize something you are saying that you see no problem with it having it's place in society. Why doesn't he tell government to decriminalize prostitution? murder? rape? suicide? Obviously he is not telling people to go out and snort some lines. But he does not see ANYTHING wrong with people doing it. That is PRO DRUG. Just like PRO "CHOICE" is the desire to decriminalize (which it already is but barely) abortions.

We are PRO GUN. Not because we want people to go out there shooting people. But because we do not want government to make laws saying that we can't should we need to.
 

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
imported post

richarcm wrote:
Wikipedia hardly debunks much of anything. I love it when people us Wikipedia as their source of information. His whole campaign was littered with propoganda of being antiwar. Just do a search...."Ron Paul Antiwar". See what you get. There are MANY hits on it from blogs, to antiwar websites to the NY Times. Take your pick.

In regards to drugs he IS pro drug. If you have the desire to decriminalize something you are saying that you see no problem with it having it's place in society. Why doesn't he tell government to decriminalize prostitution? murder? rape? suicide? Obviously he is not telling people to go out and snort some lines. But he does not see ANYTHING wrong with people doing it. That is PRO DRUG. Just like PRO "CHOICE" is the desire to decriminalize (which it already is but barely) abortions.
Here is the cite, care to argue with that: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3064 (the quote I posted was backed with this cite...). Silly do dismiss something but "brush off" the source because it doesn't fit your viewpoint.

Now please, you are the one making this claim, please show me where he is against any military action. Please, do tell.

If you can't tell the difference between being decriminalizing drugs and rape/murder, you won't be able to understand why drugs should be legalized. So we will leave that one alone. A victimless crime is the same as a victim crime? ha, wow.
 

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
imported post

And there is a big difference between allowing someone to do all the drugs they want and STEALING to fund their drug habit.

One is doing whatever you want with your own life and the other is violating someone elses, so lets not confuse the facts. One is a victimless act against yourself, the other is a property crime and should be prosecuted as such.

Driving intoxicated even falls under this as well. Driving drunk would be the same as driving high. There are already punishments for doing both.
 

richarcm

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,182
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

hsmith wrote:
richarcm wrote:
Wikipedia hardly debunks much of anything. I love it when people us Wikipedia as their source of information. His whole campaign was littered with propoganda of being antiwar. Just do a search...."Ron Paul Antiwar". See what you get. There are MANY hits on it from blogs, to antiwar websites to the NY Times. Take your pick.

In regards to drugs he IS pro drug. If you have the desire to decriminalize something you are saying that you see no problem with it having it's place in society. Why doesn't he tell government to decriminalize prostitution? murder? rape? suicide? Obviously he is not telling people to go out and snort some lines. But he does not see ANYTHING wrong with people doing it. That is PRO DRUG. Just like PRO "CHOICE" is the desire to decriminalize (which it already is but barely) abortions.
Here is the cite, care to argue with that: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3064 (the quote I posted was backed with this cite...). Silly do dismiss something but "brush off" the source because it doesn't fit your viewpoint.

Now please, you are the one making this claim, please show me where he is against any military action. Please, do tell.

If you can't tell the difference between being "pro drug" and rape/murder, you won't be able to understand why drugs should be legalized. So we will leave that one alone. A victimless crime is the same as a victim crime? ha, wow.
First drugs are HARDLY a victimless crime. I wonder how many murders, theft is derived from drugs? How about suicide? Is that victimless? Prostitution? How about abortion? You can argue "victimless" from a broad spectrum of angles.

In regards to your link....99% of the votes were a Yes from Republicans and Democrats. It was political suicide at that point to say No. Now 1/2 of those Yays have become Nays due to hindsight. Okay, how about this....he may not be antiwar under ALL circumstances....just most. Whether that deems him the title anti-war...whatever. His campaign, his supporters and the media have deemed him to be antiwar and for the most part he was (most of his votes). The aura that is campaign created was that of being antiwar regardless of whether or not he ever said that he was. Just like Obama promotes the aura of being for high taxes, antigun and a Socialist. But you won't find any of that on his website. THATS FOR DAMN SURE.
 

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
imported post

richarcm wrote:
First drugs are HARDLY a victimless crime. I wonder how many murders, theft is derived from drugs? How about suicide? Is that victimless? Prostitution? How about abortion? You can argue "victimless" from a broad spectrum of angles.

In regards to your link....99% of the votes were a Yes from Republicans and Democrats. It was political suicide at that point to say No. Now 1/2 of those Yays have become Nays due to hindsight. Okay, how about this....he may not be antiwar under ALL circumstances....just most. Whether that deems him the title anti-war...whatever. His campaign, his supporters and the media have deemed him to be antiwar and for the most part he was (most of his votes). The aura that is campaign created was that of being antiwar regardless of whether or not he ever said that he was. Just like Obama promotes the aura of being for high taxes, antigun and a Socialist. But you won't find any of that on his website. THATS FOR DAMN SURE.
You can get drunk and plow into a car full of children.

You can get drunk and shoot an innocent person.

You can take depression medication and flip out and shoot up a school.

All those substances are legal and you can do everything you described while being high. But you can also do them while being drunk, on prescription drugs, or even stone cold sober.

Sorry, laws already cover each of those things.

Suicide being "illegal" is absolutely retarded, hard to prosecute someone who is already dead from killing themselves. Who cares about prostitution? If someone wants to pay and someone will take the money what is the big deal?

How many murders and firearm laws have been derived thanks to the war on drugs and the artificial market the government has created? Drugs, the way they are now are an extremely high return industry where violence is necessary.

How many less murders, drug laws, firearm crimes would we see if we legalized the trade and took the violence away?

To me it follows anti-gun logic "guns kill people, so lets ban guns so people will no longer die from gun shots"
 

richarcm

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,182
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

hsmith wrote:
You can get drunk and plow into a car full of children.

You can get drunk and shoot an innocent person.

You can take depression medication and flip out and shoot up a school.

All those substances are legal and you can do everything you described while being high. But you can also do them while being drunk, on prescription drugs, or even stone cold sober.

Sorry, laws already cover each of those things.

Suicide being "illegal" is absolutely retarded, hard to prosecute someone who is already dead from killing themselves. Who cares about prostitution? If someone wants to pay and someone will take the money what is the big deal?

How many murders and firearm laws have been derived thanks to the war on drugs and the artificial market the government has created? Drugs, the way they are now are an extremely high return industry where violence is necessary.

How many less murders, drug laws, firearm crimes would we see if we legalized the trade and took the violence away?
You CAN get drunk and do stupid stuff sure. So the logic then would be that two wrongs make a right. Secondly I see MUCH less of a threat from a drunk person who's harm is TYPICALLY limited to a bad joke or sexual harassment than someone who is smoking crack or high on speed. Maybe that's just me....I dunno.

Attempting suicide is illegal. Of course you can't convict a dead person. But you can convict someone who you stopped from finishing the act.

The violence that drugs create does have something to do with them being illegal. I'll give you that. But I've seen enough documentaries, heard enough stories from recovering addicts, enough stories from cops to know that drugs are NOT victimless. Not even to mention the sidestream smoke coming from weed and crack. We are well on the way to making tobacco illegal and by the same people on the way to making drugs legal. Makes sense.

We could save some crime by legalizing drugs. But we can also save some by locking up offenders all the while keeping the offenders from influencing sober people from using. Weed is one thing....although I see it as destructive to society...even if I am being slightly hypocritical....most other drugs do not serve any benefit to society at all. In most cases they serve a detriment.

Part of the problem with liberalism is that society is generally dumbed down due to pop culture, drugs and misinformation. To say that that dumbing down of society does not effect me is silly. We, as a society, should be striving for intelligence, hard work, good quality education, respect of others....instead, in the name of liberalism/libertarianism, we are allowing society to get dumber than it already is. Meanwhile we are asking ourselves why our country is so dumb. If it weren't so retarded it might be slightly funny.
 

Forty-five

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
223
Location
, Virginia, USA
imported post

hsmith wrote:
...I won't be voting for either Obama or McCain because they will both continue to erode our rights, not just our 2nd Amendment rights...

Keep in mind that the next president will appoint hundreds of district court judges, scores of appellate court judges, a couple/few supreme court justices, and oodles of administrative bureaucrats.

Given that most cases do not make it to the supreme court, the district and appellate courts have more of a bearing on your everyday life (remember, it took just the right circumstance to get the supremes to accept Heller-having avoided the 2nd amendment for so long). Thus, while you may not agree with McCain on every gun issue, we would get better judges with McCain than Obama, particularly since most district judges are rubber stamped by the Senate. It is the supreme court justices, and sometimes the appellate justices, that get all the scrutiny in the Senate. Also, Obama's administrative bureaucrats would be happy to sign on to international small arms control and other nonsense.

Additionally, with the Democrats likely to extend their majorities in the House and the Senate, there must be some sort of check on their power.
 
Top