-
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.
GUYS CHECK THIS OUT AND SEE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT WI
- Thread starter Pal
- Start date
gbu28
Regular Member
imported post
I think it depends on what is trying to be accomplished. 3 things struck me right away. First is that it would be nice if we lived in a world where you could do that and it wasn't a news story. Just somebody going about his business in a lawful way. (True, it was a demonstration of some sort, but the idea holds). Second, I don't think most gun rights people will bat an eye at this. Third, and this is where the goal of the OC'er really matters: It was an over the top demonstration which will probably solidify the anti-gun nuts in their opposition. A subtle approach is sometimes more effective than an in-your-face approach. For those people who simply see a gun and are terrified, this won't do much to convince them to come over to our side. While the guy was certainly within his rights, I don't think he will have swayed one person's opinion.
As an example I would offer the abortion issue. I believe many people who are against abortion are also against the tactic of sticking pics of aborted fetuses in people's faces or on picket signs. While those images may be factually true, it's the methodology that disagrees with people. I don't think this is altogether different.
I think it depends on what is trying to be accomplished. 3 things struck me right away. First is that it would be nice if we lived in a world where you could do that and it wasn't a news story. Just somebody going about his business in a lawful way. (True, it was a demonstration of some sort, but the idea holds). Second, I don't think most gun rights people will bat an eye at this. Third, and this is where the goal of the OC'er really matters: It was an over the top demonstration which will probably solidify the anti-gun nuts in their opposition. A subtle approach is sometimes more effective than an in-your-face approach. For those people who simply see a gun and are terrified, this won't do much to convince them to come over to our side. While the guy was certainly within his rights, I don't think he will have swayed one person's opinion.
As an example I would offer the abortion issue. I believe many people who are against abortion are also against the tactic of sticking pics of aborted fetuses in people's faces or on picket signs. While those images may be factually true, it's the methodology that disagrees with people. I don't think this is altogether different.
AaronS
Regular Member
imported post
gbu28 wrote:
Im glad I diidnt have to say that. I do agree with you 100%. This man sure must feel protected though. Two mags. for his AR, and a few for the hand gun, I would not screw with this guy on the way home from the store...
I also think he did more harm then good, but who knows...
I would ask, what do you all think would have happened to this man back in the RAYGUN years? How about any and all of the Bush years? People keep telling me that our new Pres. wants to take my guns away, but I guess I am just not seeing it... Maybe I should just call him up and ask to sit withhim and talk about it over a few cold beers.
gbu28 wrote:
Im glad I diidnt have to say that. I do agree with you 100%. This man sure must feel protected though. Two mags. for his AR, and a few for the hand gun, I would not screw with this guy on the way home from the store...
I also think he did more harm then good, but who knows...
I would ask, what do you all think would have happened to this man back in the RAYGUN years? How about any and all of the Bush years? People keep telling me that our new Pres. wants to take my guns away, but I guess I am just not seeing it... Maybe I should just call him up and ask to sit withhim and talk about it over a few cold beers.
gbu28
Regular Member
imported post
I also at first considered the locale he was in and it probably is more acceptable there than a Madison might be. But with technology today, there really is no local news story only anymore. When you do something, you should expect that the whole nation has access to it.
Yeah, the Reagan thing is interesting. I voted for him twice, flew to DC for the day when he died and waited in ungodly heat for hours to pay my respects. But I hardly think he is the demi-god that many people make him out to be. And I also voted for Obama, partly because of many of his positions, partly because Bush allowed Cheney to institute the single most detrimental policy on American freedom ever (that would be the Patriot Act, for those of you not in the "know"), and I'm embarrassed I voted for him. edit: And partly because I had liked McCain early on but he turned into a bitter, albeit temporary, crazy old man in the later part of the campaign, and let's not even mention the P-word debacle.
And please, before anyone jumps down my throat about my statement, know this. I've debated this subject with different people no less than dozens of times over the years. Not one person I've ever debated has ever actually read the Patriot Act. I have, from beginning to end. If you did, you wouldn't debate me, you'd defend me. Therefore, I no longer debate people about this unless you are willing to expend the minimum amount of effort and actually read that which you defend. Whoops, starting to rant (that happens to be my trigger topic).
Unfortunately I'm convinced most people choose a position or belief on something and then find evidence to support their conclusion and dismiss evidence which counters their position, hence the Obama/Reagan conundrum. I have two hardcore conservative co-workers who are absolutely convinced Obama will take their guns away. They buy up all the ammo they can because they think it will be banned. Of course, everyone else does the same, driving up the cost. And then these two guys blame Obama for jacking up the price. When asked for what evidence they have for that conclusion I get nothing. But they see only the target they want and filter out everything else, unfortunately.
As such, I also believe Reagan's eleventh commandment will be the ultimate demise of the Republican party. If people aren't willing to clean their own house, nobody else is going to do it. Sooner or later the stench will overpower even the best air freshener and no one will stick around. How many politicians and governments in history eventually failed because they didn't clean their own house?
I also at first considered the locale he was in and it probably is more acceptable there than a Madison might be. But with technology today, there really is no local news story only anymore. When you do something, you should expect that the whole nation has access to it.
Yeah, the Reagan thing is interesting. I voted for him twice, flew to DC for the day when he died and waited in ungodly heat for hours to pay my respects. But I hardly think he is the demi-god that many people make him out to be. And I also voted for Obama, partly because of many of his positions, partly because Bush allowed Cheney to institute the single most detrimental policy on American freedom ever (that would be the Patriot Act, for those of you not in the "know"), and I'm embarrassed I voted for him. edit: And partly because I had liked McCain early on but he turned into a bitter, albeit temporary, crazy old man in the later part of the campaign, and let's not even mention the P-word debacle.
And please, before anyone jumps down my throat about my statement, know this. I've debated this subject with different people no less than dozens of times over the years. Not one person I've ever debated has ever actually read the Patriot Act. I have, from beginning to end. If you did, you wouldn't debate me, you'd defend me. Therefore, I no longer debate people about this unless you are willing to expend the minimum amount of effort and actually read that which you defend. Whoops, starting to rant (that happens to be my trigger topic).
Unfortunately I'm convinced most people choose a position or belief on something and then find evidence to support their conclusion and dismiss evidence which counters their position, hence the Obama/Reagan conundrum. I have two hardcore conservative co-workers who are absolutely convinced Obama will take their guns away. They buy up all the ammo they can because they think it will be banned. Of course, everyone else does the same, driving up the cost. And then these two guys blame Obama for jacking up the price. When asked for what evidence they have for that conclusion I get nothing. But they see only the target they want and filter out everything else, unfortunately.
As such, I also believe Reagan's eleventh commandment will be the ultimate demise of the Republican party. If people aren't willing to clean their own house, nobody else is going to do it. Sooner or later the stench will overpower even the best air freshener and no one will stick around. How many politicians and governments in history eventually failed because they didn't clean their own house?
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
These dumb arse laws were in effect before Obama ever thought of running for President.
When we become distracted by these outside issues we lose track of the principal argument.
One has to wonder if the man wasn't detained because of the color of his skin!
However, I definitely applaud the man and I am very glad to see an African American finally stepping up and joining in for our cause.
I am sure there are others, but this is the first I have seen.
Well done!
Molon Labe!
Carry On!
These dumb arse laws were in effect before Obama ever thought of running for President.
When we become distracted by these outside issues we lose track of the principal argument.
One has to wonder if the man wasn't detained because of the color of his skin!
However, I definitely applaud the man and I am very glad to see an African American finally stepping up and joining in for our cause.
I am sure there are others, but this is the first I have seen.
Well done!
Molon Labe!
Carry On!
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Pal wrote:
One drawback to open carrying for the purpose of expressive conduct re a non-gun rioghts issue is that the message becomes garbled. Think of the perception by the audience - the open carry movement then gets viewed as just some extension of part ofthe people protesting Obamacare, or the tea party crowd, etc.
Similarly, open carrying long guns as a fgorm of expressive conduct to promote the open carry of handguns also garbles the message. Audience receives message sent - OK, so these people want to carry that fifle swinging around on their shoulder in the mall I go to? Hmmm, weird and maybe not good.
Contrast this with having an open carry picnic or public meeting where folks are assembling to talk about the right to open carry a holstered handgun, and repealing laws that make this diffiicult. Here the expressive conduct is aligned with the actual intended message and avoids sending garbled or unintended collateral messages.
Pal wrote:
One drawback to open carrying for the purpose of expressive conduct re a non-gun rioghts issue is that the message becomes garbled. Think of the perception by the audience - the open carry movement then gets viewed as just some extension of part ofthe people protesting Obamacare, or the tea party crowd, etc.
Similarly, open carrying long guns as a fgorm of expressive conduct to promote the open carry of handguns also garbles the message. Audience receives message sent - OK, so these people want to carry that fifle swinging around on their shoulder in the mall I go to? Hmmm, weird and maybe not good.
Contrast this with having an open carry picnic or public meeting where folks are assembling to talk about the right to open carry a holstered handgun, and repealing laws that make this diffiicult. Here the expressive conduct is aligned with the actual intended message and avoids sending garbled or unintended collateral messages.
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
Nobody is commenting on the reporter saying "A man carrying a machine-gun"
I am used to hearing people refer to AR-15's Ak-47, the Ruger Mini'sand their variants as "Assault Rifles" or "Assault Weapons". But to say in a news video that a man is carrying "Machine Gun" is a little to far out there for it not to be commented on.
I watched the video here http://www.abc15.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=23628@knxv.dayport.com
it starts with amale reporterwith a spaced-out look saying nothing, and cuts to a blond woman speaking about this 'Machine Gun"
Nobody is commenting on the reporter saying "A man carrying a machine-gun"
I am used to hearing people refer to AR-15's Ak-47, the Ruger Mini'sand their variants as "Assault Rifles" or "Assault Weapons". But to say in a news video that a man is carrying "Machine Gun" is a little to far out there for it not to be commented on.
I watched the video here http://www.abc15.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=23628@knxv.dayport.com
it starts with amale reporterwith a spaced-out look saying nothing, and cuts to a blond woman speaking about this 'Machine Gun"
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
GBU28, Let me get this straight, you didn't actually vote for Obama, but instead you voted against bush/cheney in an election that primarilyconsisted of McCain & Obama.
I think that is how many people acted that voted for the current person named as president of the USA
GBU28, Let me get this straight, you didn't actually vote for Obama, but instead you voted against bush/cheney in an election that primarilyconsisted of McCain & Obama.
I think that is how many people acted that voted for the current person named as president of the USA
Sgt_Habz
Regular Member
imported post
Well I would have to defend gbu28's line of thinking. I did nearly the same thing. If you were as disgusted with the Republicans as I was during the election, and I saw McCain as another pea in the same pod, Obama's message for change was a clear winner. Unfortunately, at the time I was educated on the wrong arguments, and voted for his stances on energy and military direction (was in the Marines 5 years during the most recent Iraq War, and IMO we shouldn't have left Afghanistan with unfinished business to attend to).
In any case, I have since seen the error of my ways, and am shamed to have contributed to the very problems I now protest (so don't bother picking at the above reasons for voting for him, because I can't logically debate that which I refuse to defend). And if I had to vote all over again, it would most certainly have been...
Ron Paul, for insists that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." Bravo to that mentality.
Well I would have to defend gbu28's line of thinking. I did nearly the same thing. If you were as disgusted with the Republicans as I was during the election, and I saw McCain as another pea in the same pod, Obama's message for change was a clear winner. Unfortunately, at the time I was educated on the wrong arguments, and voted for his stances on energy and military direction (was in the Marines 5 years during the most recent Iraq War, and IMO we shouldn't have left Afghanistan with unfinished business to attend to).
In any case, I have since seen the error of my ways, and am shamed to have contributed to the very problems I now protest (so don't bother picking at the above reasons for voting for him, because I can't logically debate that which I refuse to defend). And if I had to vote all over again, it would most certainly have been...
Ron Paul, for insists that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." Bravo to that mentality.
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
Anyone who claims to vote on "principle" and then votes for Obama is either stupid, or patronizing. (in my opinion of course)
Anyone who believes in freedom had a choice in who to vote for, and it didn't include Obama or McCain. Anyone who voted otherwise and claimed it was a principled vote loses all credibility with me. ymmv
There are about a million other contradictions in your short post, but I'll just leave it at that.
Excuse me while I wipe the arrogance away from your post in order to respond to it.
Anyone who claims to vote on "principle" and then votes for Obama is either stupid, or patronizing. (in my opinion of course)
Anyone who believes in freedom had a choice in who to vote for, and it didn't include Obama or McCain. Anyone who voted otherwise and claimed it was a principled vote loses all credibility with me. ymmv
There are about a million other contradictions in your short post, but I'll just leave it at that.
gbu28
Regular Member
imported post
Sgt_Habz wrote:
Yes, I really like Ron Paul a lot and would have voted for him had I thought he had a chance. The more he speaks, the more I like him. Unfortunately, most people either don't like him or don't think he'll win so won't vote for him. Obama is still a good second choice though, despite some downsides thus far. He may very well turn out to be the next Carter though, so who knows.
The conservatives were quick to jump on Obama about the bailouts but fail to see through their filtered vision that Bush initiated them with AIG. Bailouts: bad idea from both sides. Death panels: if I even have to address this issue then people aren't even doing a modicum of homework.
Sorry to those detractors but the Republican party has resorted to controlling it's membership through fear. You better fear this, you better fear that. I refuse to be a sheep. If they want my vote they have to actually adhere to conservative principals.
Nutzcak: You zeroed in pretty good on the one line you apparently feel takes away from the whole message. I don't know you so I don't want to mis-characterize you in any way, but my reading of your last sentence is that you find yourself incapable of even typing Obama's name. I genuinely don't want to offend or get into a pissing match with your supporters, but if I may say that seems a bit not as mature as I would hope for. I like discourse with people who disagree with me as long as it's civil. I just don't know how to respond to this.
Hugh: I was expecting my biggest detractor to be you but I had hoped for a better argument. You usually have pretty well laid out points going from a to z. I also don't contradict myself in any way. But at the same time I don't want to write the equivalent of a novel to explain every dimension of what I'm saying.
I don't think I said anything about voting on principle, in fact I believe quite the opposite. Or maybe our perspectives are different on what principle means. What I don't do, because I'm generally conservative, is to vote Republican because "Hey, I'm Republican".
Basically, let me give you the voting mechanism in a nutshell from my point of view. The Dems have a solid base of supporters who they know will vote for them no matter what kind of crappy product they have. The same holds true for the Republicans. They can be as crooked and off kilter as they choose but they know who will vote for them, right down to individual neighborhoods. Those voters hold no sway in their parties. They've bought their lifetime ticket. Thus, there is little incentive on those parties to appease their constitutients.
Then there is the rest of us who vote with our political pocketbooks. If our politicians don't do as we expect, there is a real chance we will go elsewhere. That's not to say one party is good and one party is bad. Hell, most of the time, both parties outright suck, for lack of a better term.
Is this system perfect? Hell no. Is there some other way I have as a voter of swaying a parties activities? Not that I'm aware unless I'm part of the leadership. So I would argue that the swing voter's are the only ones with a say (albeit still small). The hardcores on both sides are voiceless.
More specifically, my biggest issue with the conservative party (other than the Patriot Act) is they claim to be fiscally conservative. Not even close. The truth is when Dems are in charge, they spend roughly the same as when Republicans are in charge (I'm speaking at the national level). The difference is what the money tends to be spent on and under Republicans taxes are usually actually lower than under the Dems. However, if your spending the same and taxing lower, that leads to of course, higher deficits. If you had to pick a single issue which will lead to the collapse of the country, short of war it would have to be uncontrolled debt.
I didn't really follow your third line so I'll pass on commenting. I felt your last line was the equivalent of a
middle finger salute, which is your right, but didn't actually address an issue so I'll pass on that as well.
Civil coherent discourse I'll gladly respond to, but since this is an open carry forum, which we all agree on, we should probably stick to that.
Peace-
Sgt_Habz wrote:
Yes, I really like Ron Paul a lot and would have voted for him had I thought he had a chance. The more he speaks, the more I like him. Unfortunately, most people either don't like him or don't think he'll win so won't vote for him. Obama is still a good second choice though, despite some downsides thus far. He may very well turn out to be the next Carter though, so who knows.
The conservatives were quick to jump on Obama about the bailouts but fail to see through their filtered vision that Bush initiated them with AIG. Bailouts: bad idea from both sides. Death panels: if I even have to address this issue then people aren't even doing a modicum of homework.
Sorry to those detractors but the Republican party has resorted to controlling it's membership through fear. You better fear this, you better fear that. I refuse to be a sheep. If they want my vote they have to actually adhere to conservative principals.
Nutzcak: You zeroed in pretty good on the one line you apparently feel takes away from the whole message. I don't know you so I don't want to mis-characterize you in any way, but my reading of your last sentence is that you find yourself incapable of even typing Obama's name. I genuinely don't want to offend or get into a pissing match with your supporters, but if I may say that seems a bit not as mature as I would hope for. I like discourse with people who disagree with me as long as it's civil. I just don't know how to respond to this.
Hugh: I was expecting my biggest detractor to be you but I had hoped for a better argument. You usually have pretty well laid out points going from a to z. I also don't contradict myself in any way. But at the same time I don't want to write the equivalent of a novel to explain every dimension of what I'm saying.
I don't think I said anything about voting on principle, in fact I believe quite the opposite. Or maybe our perspectives are different on what principle means. What I don't do, because I'm generally conservative, is to vote Republican because "Hey, I'm Republican".
Basically, let me give you the voting mechanism in a nutshell from my point of view. The Dems have a solid base of supporters who they know will vote for them no matter what kind of crappy product they have. The same holds true for the Republicans. They can be as crooked and off kilter as they choose but they know who will vote for them, right down to individual neighborhoods. Those voters hold no sway in their parties. They've bought their lifetime ticket. Thus, there is little incentive on those parties to appease their constitutients.
Then there is the rest of us who vote with our political pocketbooks. If our politicians don't do as we expect, there is a real chance we will go elsewhere. That's not to say one party is good and one party is bad. Hell, most of the time, both parties outright suck, for lack of a better term.
Is this system perfect? Hell no. Is there some other way I have as a voter of swaying a parties activities? Not that I'm aware unless I'm part of the leadership. So I would argue that the swing voter's are the only ones with a say (albeit still small). The hardcores on both sides are voiceless.
More specifically, my biggest issue with the conservative party (other than the Patriot Act) is they claim to be fiscally conservative. Not even close. The truth is when Dems are in charge, they spend roughly the same as when Republicans are in charge (I'm speaking at the national level). The difference is what the money tends to be spent on and under Republicans taxes are usually actually lower than under the Dems. However, if your spending the same and taxing lower, that leads to of course, higher deficits. If you had to pick a single issue which will lead to the collapse of the country, short of war it would have to be uncontrolled debt.
I didn't really follow your third line so I'll pass on commenting. I felt your last line was the equivalent of a
middle finger salute, which is your right, but didn't actually address an issue so I'll pass on that as well.
Civil coherent discourse I'll gladly respond to, but since this is an open carry forum, which we all agree on, we should probably stick to that.
Peace-
lockman
State Researcher
imported post
I go to the link and it is a story about chiropractors.
I go to the link and it is a story about chiropractors.
Hillmann
Regular Member
imported post
I think you all should look at The Libertarian Option
http://www.youtube.com/profile_video_blog?sid=5CD77AF10EBEAA54&id=B3130B59C5359159
It is hard to dissagree with there princepals.
I think you all should look at The Libertarian Option
http://www.youtube.com/profile_video_blog?sid=5CD77AF10EBEAA54&id=B3130B59C5359159
It is hard to dissagree with there princepals.
ilvg2k
Regular Member
imported post
lockman wrote:
lockman wrote:
The OP's link just plays the last posted video. I think this is the story > http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html
imported post
gbu28's post of Tue Aug 18th, 2009 12:33 am is well thought out and not deserving of the name-calling. Whether or not I agree with him, he did take the time to reason through his thoughts and explain them. If he'd filled his post with touchy-feely nonsense, then the name calling might be deserved, but that wasn't the case.
Sgt. Habz: You're a good man for recognising your shortcomings and adapting. Semper Fidelis.
gbu28's post of Tue Aug 18th, 2009 12:33 am is well thought out and not deserving of the name-calling. Whether or not I agree with him, he did take the time to reason through his thoughts and explain them. If he'd filled his post with touchy-feely nonsense, then the name calling might be deserved, but that wasn't the case.
Sgt. Habz: You're a good man for recognising your shortcomings and adapting. Semper Fidelis.