Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 128

Thread: A house divided against itself cannot stand

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    When I first got here I spent all of my time reading topics in the Virginia section. At first I only read until I received the answer that I was looking for. I went through and have now read every post in the 100+ pages that looked relevant to me. The wealth of knowledge in here was really impressive. I went from pro gun to super pro Gun and Pro OC. Then as I stopped reading for knowledge and started to read into those sections that looked fun or of general interest I stumbled upon the dark side of OCDO.

    That dark side that I found was the inability for some active members to get along. I saw fly by posts that say nothing more than a response is from someone stupid or that their opinion was stupid. Threads quickly deteriorated into name calling and childish posturing. The whole time I was reading these posts all I could think of is that it is no wonder while anti-gun people think we are a bunch of idiot redneck, back woods hillbillies that refuse to come into the 21st century.

    If it is NOT your intent to make us all look like fools then the infighting has to come to an end. How can we fight the stereotype that we are all right wing GOP gun nuts when we cannot even have civil discussions amongst ourselves? In case you are oblivious to it, the infighting reflects very poorly on all of us. It MUST stop. If you cannot control yourself on this forum I ask that you leave. I am powerless alone and hope that there are others who feel as strongly as I do in trying to save the reputation of this forum.



    "A house divided against itself cannot stand" - Lincoln



    - D

    God grant me the serenity
    To accept the things I cannot change;
    Courage to change the things I can;
    And wisdom to know the difference.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    One word, moderators. This issue is too emotionally charged for some people to remain civil.

  3. #3
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    Post imported post

    Darroll wrote:
    "A house divided against itself cannot stand" - Lincoln
    Use the originial quote for more effect:

    "Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. Luke 11:16-18

    There are troll's to blame as well. Also when you converse on things you hold important, passion tends to cloud thinking sometimes.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Lets all hold hands, sing Kum Bay Ya and make nice!



    WELCOME TO THE DARK SIDE...

    Be AFRAID... BE VERY AFRAID! :what:

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Darroll wrote:
    ...the inability for some active members to get along. I saw fly by posts that say nothing more than a response is from someone stupid or that their opinion was stupid. Threads quickly deteriorated into name calling and childish posturing.
    Realize that expecting people to get along because they are pro-gun is like expecting people to get along just because they allwear shoes.

    The thing that would be really amazing, suspicious even, is if everyone did get along, creating in effect a forum like The High Road, except THR is moderated and demands civility. (not a criticism of the THR, where I am also a member.)

    Basically, you are getting a cross-sectional glimpseof all the possible waysthat peoplehandle communication--giving and receiving. Some are pretty much almost always destructive, some take only a little to get upset, some take a little more than that to get upset...right on up the scale to those like Mike and John who almost never have a harsh word.

    John and Mike seem to have decided they want a broader cross-section of participation. Fine. I can still make my contribution through, over, and around the noise, such noise as there is.

    Realize too that of all the membership, the noisy ones and the ones that invite or instigate noise are relatively few in number. Any given thread has many more "views" than "posts."

    As for image, I wouldn't worry too much. The worthwhile people--the people who can differentiate, the people who can think--will be able to see past the noise. I suspect that the moredecent a person is, the greater tolerance he has for noisy people, recognizing that noisy-ness varies by degrees from one person to the next and the variation is a part of the human condition.

    If I feel like cooling an argument, I usually just PM the more responsive or respectable of the participants, reminding them that:

    • most everybody else is smart enough to see the other guy is being an idiot; it rarely requires real heat to illustrate it.
    • the thread has way more views than participants, thus many people can see the PM recipientmaking a bit of a fool of himself

    This usually handles it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Celina, OH, ,
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    I think that one of the biggest problems we have in the pro-gun movement is that we're not having an honest discussion amongst ourselves about what each person's individual sensibilities on the issue entails. Within the community I see 4 specific groups drawing lines in the sand.

    Disclaimer: My opinion may offend you, if you want to discuss the ISSUE I'm more than willing to do so.

    The first group is the one most likely to be brought forward by the NRA: The "keep the laws we have" defeatists. This group tends to try and compromise with the sensibilities of the anti-gun crowd by claiming some fondness of the current infringements written into law against the second amendment. In the long run, all they do is compromise on our rights without our express consent. This in effect limits the other groups' voices in the matter.

    The second group is the "common sense gun laws" group. This group is similar to the first one in that they would accept the current laws, but they go further to limit the rights of others based on how they feel about certain issues rather than the facts at hand.

    The third group is comprised of Constitutional moderates. This group does believe in the absolute right to bear arms, and is wary not only of the laws we have but also of the efforts by others to create more strict laws and void the right to bear arms. This group is the most likely to avoid the discussion entirely, and won't stick around to be insulted by others who have a more militant point of view.

    The fourth group is comprised of Constitutional militants who actively engage in fighting the anti-gun movement, and will rabidly tear apart the other 3 groups within the pro-gun movement when met with resistance to the concept of an absolute right to bear arms.

    Personally, I fall somewhere between the last 2 groups. If we're going to unite as a community, we need to define amongst ourselves what the second amendment means and stick to it at all times. We need to define what a firearm is, and more importantly what it isn't. Every time I hear a pro-gun voice speak out against OC or try to compromise on the full intent and language of the second amendment it tends to make me want to snap. Either we're discussing our rights, or we're advocating the issuance of priveleges. There really is no middle ground on the issue that I can see.

  7. #7
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Lets all hold hands, sing Kum Bay Ya and make nice!



    WELCOME TO THE DARK SIDE...

    Be AFRAID... BE VERY AFRAID! :what:
    Where's the s'mores? Don't forget the s'mores. I want s'mores.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    DMWyatt wrote:
    I think that one of the biggest problems we have in the pro-gun movement is that we're not having an honest discussion amongst ourselves about what each person's individual sensibilities on the issue entails. Within the community I see 4 specific groups drawing lines in the sand.

    Disclaimer: My opinion may offend you, if you want to discuss the ISSUE I'm more than willing to do so.

    The first group is the one most likely to be brought forward by the NRA: The "keep the laws we have" defeatists. This group tends to try and compromise with the sensibilities of the anti-gun crowd by claiming some fondness of the current infringements written into law against the second amendment. In the long run, all they do is compromise on our rights without our express consent. This in effect limits the other groups' voices in the matter.

    The second group is the "common sense gun laws" group. This group is similar to the first one in that they would accept the current laws, but they go further to limit the rights of others based on how they feel about certain issues rather than the facts at hand.

    The third group is comprised of Constitutional moderates. This group does believe in the absolute right to bear arms, and is wary not only of the laws we have but also of the efforts by others to create more strict laws and void the right to bear arms. This group is the most likely to avoid the discussion entirely, and won't stick around to be insulted by others who have a more militant point of view.

    The fourth group is comprised of Constitutional militants who actively engage in fighting the anti-gun movement, and will rabidly tear apart the other 3 groups within the pro-gun movement when met with resistance to the concept of an absolute right to bear arms.

    Personally, I fall somewhere between the last 2 groups. If we're going to unite as a community, we need to define amongst ourselves what the second amendment means and stick to it at all times. We need to define what a firearm is, and more importantly what it isn't. Every time I hear a pro-gun voice speak out against OC or try to compromise on the full intent and language of the second amendment it tends to make me want to snap. Either we're discussing our rights, or we're advocating the issuance of priveleges. There really is no middle ground on the issue that I can see.



    I think you actually summed that up pretty well (obvious bias is obvious, though).



    As citizen pointed out, what we've got isa truly massive group of people, from all walks of live. Trying to get them to 100% agreeon ANYTHING is an exercise in futility.

    This is why the people in the first three groups simply try to focus on what they DO agree on, and publicly push for that. It's group number #4 that comes forward to @#$% in the pie. They refuse to compromise on ANYTHING. They want felons with guns, kids with guns, no background checks, etc. I don't care what your interpretation of the 2A is, the American public is NOT going to buy that extremism. They need to cut the crap, drop the extremist attitude, and follow suit with everyone else. Gun rights were taken away in baby steps, they must be restored in baby steps. An all or nothing approach results in us getting nowhere.

    Not to mention, it's #4 that fits the "gun nut" stereotype as well. That stereotype is KILLING us and it MUST go. The people don't necessarily have to go, but that image has got to go. Unfortunately, that group is the most vocal, abrasive, and obnoxious of the three and it's THEY that get us all the bad press and continued stereotype (which isn't true for the rest of us) reinforcement.



    I'd LOVE to see the NRA start a PR campaign to distance the rest of us from group #4. Unfortunately that'll never happen; the NRA enjoys their $$$$$ too much.


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    DMWyatt wrote:
    ...If we're going to unite as a community, we need to define amongst ourselves what the second amendment means and stick to it at all times. We need to define what a firearm is, and more importantly what it isn't. Every time I hear a pro-gun voice speak out against OC or try to compromise on the full intent and language of the second amendment it tends to make me want to snap. Either we're discussing our rights, or we're advocating the issuance of priveleges. There really is no middle ground on the issue that I can see.
    I don't think that we will ever unite completely as a communitybut I don't think it is necessary to be effective.

    As for defining the 2nd Amendment the obvious place to start and end is with theframers and their explanation of the purpose of the2nd Amendment. Our courts have departed from this and even many gun owners are ignorant on the framers' writings concerning the Constitution. We not only have lost many rights but we have also allowed ourselves tobe robbed of much of the history behind them with the dumbing down of our educational systems.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Celina, OH, ,
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    I think you actually summed that up pretty well (obvious bias is obvious, though).



    As citizen pointed out, what we've got isa truly massive group of people, from all walks of live. Trying to get them to 100% agreeon ANYTHING is an exercise in futility.

    This is why the people in the first three groups simply try to focus on what they DO agree on, and publicly push for that. It's group number #4 that comes forward to @#$% in the pie. They refuse to compromise on ANYTHING. They want felons with guns, kids with guns, no background checks, etc. I don't care what your interpretation of the 2A is, the American public is NOT going to buy that extremism. They need to cut the crap, drop the extremist attitude, and follow suit with everyone else. Gun rights were taken away in baby steps, they must be restored in baby steps. An all or nothing approach results in us getting nowhere.

    Not to mention, it's #4 that fits the "gun nut" stereotype as well. That stereotype is KILLING us and it MUST go. The people don't necessarily have to go, but that image has got to go. Unfortunately, that group is the most vocal, abrasive, and obnoxious of the three and it's THEY that get us all the bad press and continued stereotype (which isn't true for the rest of us) reinforcement.



    I'd LOVE to see the NRA start a PR campaign to distance the rest of us from group #4. Unfortunately that'll never happen; the NRA enjoys their $$$$$ too much.

    Where you and me are obviously going to disagree is what impact in society the majority should have over the minority with regard to the law. If the right to bear arms IS aprotected right and not a privelege, does the fact that a minority instead of a majorityexercise the rightoverride whatever protections are given for the right? Most of your arguments that I've seen so far hinge on a common sense approach. Common sense is not the law, it's an interpretation of certain circumstances that you've observed in your own life. Common sense for that matter, is only common so long as you're among a group of individuals coming from very similar backgrounds and leading similar lives. I would as a general observation be led to believe that our paths in life are anything but similar.

    When you have the protection of a right written into a social contract at the center of a governing structure as we do, a lot of people overlook the obvious around them. Nowhere in the document does it say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... unless you're a felon, idiot, republican, insane, etc. In fact, under statute it WOULD initially excludewomen from having a protected right to bear arms, but that's another issue entirely. It seems you are far too focused on the symptoms of the underlying issues in society rather than fixing the problems that cause them. A felon owning a gun in the realm of common sense DOES sound absurd, however what sense is so common that it has the distinction of being allowed to override the law? (putting aside the fact that the law regarding the ownership of firearms by felons to be illegal legislated after the drafting of the Constitution) Firearms were once so common to daily life that people rarely even thought that they would become a political issue, let alone something they may have to fight to protect. I do believe had our great grandparents and grandparents been more keen in standing vigil over their own rights, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It was common sense that got us here to begin with.

    I am curious how you feel about the protections granted to other rights? Do you feel uneasy at the fact that the ACLU fought in favor of the KKK's right to free speech? Do you believe that police should be open to detain and search anyone for the meresuspicion that they may be likely to commit a crime in the future? Do you believe that it's possible for someone to pay their debt to society? Why would you ever release a person from prison back into society if you believethey're still a threat to others? Do you believe that you have the responsibility to be vigilant over your rights, and that your rights specifically carry certain responsibilities in and of themselves?

  11. #11
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    DMWyatt wrote:
    It was common sense that got us here to begin with.

    I think you are onto something here. What did Einstein say about common sense?



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    What did Einstein say about common sense?
    Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein
    For those who didn't know and didn't want to lok it up.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Why not just replace "General Discussion" with "General Open Carry Discussion Only", and then create an "Off-Topic" forum where people can troll and drive by post all they want? I know this is OCDO, but creating an Off-Topic forum will help keep visitors here, when they want to talk about something else other than OC.

    I think it's worth a try to see the results.

  14. #14
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    DMWyatt wrote:
    ...Personally, I fall somewhere between the last 2 groups.
    It's group number #4 that comes forward to @#$% in the pie. They refuse to compromise on ANYTHING. They want felons with guns, kids with guns, no background checks, etc. I don't care what your interpretation of the 2A is, the American public is NOT going to buy that extremism.. .Gun rights were taken away in baby steps, they must be restored in baby steps. An all or nothing approach results in us getting nowhere.

    DMWyatt, that's a pretty good sumation of the gun/carry movement. Like yourself, I see myself as a group 3.5 or 3.75 person.

    AWD......I agree with you.....on this statement:what: (has hell froze over?).

    You are right also, in stating that regardless of whether the 2Awas meant to be anAbsolute Right or not (and Heller has pretty much said it is not an absolute right), 98%+ of the American public will never say, "hey, sure he's a rapist, and sure he just served his 15 year sentance, but now that he's out, he should be allowed to buy and carry a gun". Nor will they say, "Hey, ya know 'crazy mike', the guy who talks to imaginary people on the street corner and smears feces on his face...I think he should be able to have a gun".

    Just my opinion (which has no greater worth than anyone elses), I feel we should focus on:

    1. making OC (and CC, and gunpossession in general) socially acceptable and legal in all 50 states.

    2. Make 'Constitutional Carry' (OC/CC with no permit) legal and the norm in all 50 states.

    3. Repeal 'school zone' laws that infringe on The People's Right to Keep and Bear Arms in public places. I'd put the post office laws in this catagory, too.

    4. Repeal laws that infringe on business owner's rights to choose to allow or forbid weapons in their establishments (I'm referring to bar-carry or restaraunt carry specifically here).

    5. Repeal DV laws and other laws that allow misdemeanor offensesor Restraining Ordersto infringe on firearm possession.

    Basically, I feel that :

    1. As long as you have not been convicted of a felony (perhaps only a violent felony? I'm still thinking this one out--perhaps non-violent felons should have the right to petition the state to have their 2A rights restored at some point);

    2. Or have not been adjudicated as mentally incompetant;

    3. You should be able to buy/own/carry a firearm anywhere in public you wish; and anywhere on private property, as long as the private property owner does not object.



    I know the 'group 4' people will accuse me of being a gun grabber, communist sympathizer, or Jack Booted Thug, and that's fine. That's how I feel, and we'd be very blessed to get America to that condition.








  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Roanoke, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    Darroll,

    While I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, I think we should be realistic with the situation at hand.

    People will never completely agree with one another, and by my account that is a good thing. A wise man once told me that if you agree with everything someone says all the time, you are brainwashed. The longer I live, the more I find that to be true.

    Thank God for disagreements, I say. That is part of what makes us human - having the ability to reason and to communicate and share ideas with one another. If we all shared the same opinions all the time, we would be robots. I welcome debates (honest ones) and furthermore arguing on topics, so long as they remain somewhat civil and don't turn into personal assaults on one another (which is what I think you are talking about in the first place).

    All in all, I agree with your thoughts on the issue, but I think it is a bit unrealistic to envision a group of people this large all agreeing with one another and participating in civil discourse 24/7.

    P.S. - We should at least try our best though

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    AZkopper wrote:
    DMWyatt, that's a pretty good sumation of the gun/carry movement. Like yourself, I see myself as a group 3.5 or 3.75 person.

    AWD......I agree with you.....on this statement:what: (has hell froze over?).

    You are right also, in stating that regardless of whether the 2Awas meant to be anAbsolute Right or not (and Heller has pretty much said it is not an absolute right), 98%+ of the American public will never say, "hey, sure he's a rapist, and sure he just served his 15 year sentance, but now that he's out, he should be allowed to buy and carry a gun". Nor will they say, "Hey, ya know 'crazy mike', the guy who talks to imaginary people on the street corner and smears feces on his face...I think he should be able to have a gun".

    Just my opinion (which has no greater worth than anyone elses), I feel we should focus on:

    1. making OC (and CC, and gunpossession in general) socially acceptable and legal in all 50 states.

    2. Make 'Constitutional Carry' (OC/CC with no permit) legal and the norm in all 50 states.

    3. Repeal 'school zone' laws that infringe on The People's Right to Keep and Bear Arms in public places. I'd put the post office laws in this catagory, too.

    4. Repeal laws that infringe on business owner's rights to choose to allow or forbid weapons in their establishments (I'm referring to bar-carry or restaraunt carry specifically here).

    5. Repeal DV laws and other laws that allow misdemeanor offensesor Restraining Ordersto infringe on firearm possession.

    Basically, I feel that :

    1. As long as you have not been convicted of a felony (perhaps only a violent felony? I'm still thinking this one out--perhaps non-violent felons should have the right to petition the state to have their 2A rights restored at some point);

    2. Or have not been adjudicated as mentally incompetant;

    3. You should be able to buy/own/carry a firearm anywhere in public you wish; and anywhere on private property, as long as the private property owner does not object.



    I know the 'group 4' people will accuse me of being a gun grabber, communist sympathizer, or Jack Booted Thug, and that's fine. That's how I feel, and we'd be very blessed to get America to that condition.






    +1 That pretty well sums it up... commie!!!

    Kidding....
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    I'd just like to see the name calling and insults stop. Just because someone dissagrees with you doesn't mean they are stupid. It just means they have a different view of an issue. OK, once in awhile it does mean they are stupid, but it doesn't do any good to call them on it.

    I have a tendancy to not respond to posts that sound dumb or moronicto me. I will however challenge anti-gun rhetoric withmy best "Spock" like logicalresponse. I've found that turning off the emotions makes it easier to offer rational debate.

  18. #18
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Darroll wrote:
    buster81 wrote:
    What did Einstein say about common sense?
    Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein
    For those who didn't know and didn't want to lok it up.

    And what did Will Rogers say about common sense?

    "The thing about common sense is; it ain't too common."

    Well, that's close.

    ETA: I think that is a much more intelligent statement than Einstein's.

    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    Many very good thoughts on this forum, and much very valuable information. I just would like to see a stop to the nitpicking and sniping we too often see.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    DMWyatt wrote:
    Where you and me are obviously going to disagree is what impact in society the majority should have over the minority with regard to the law.
    I am curious how you feel about the protections granted to other rights? Do you feel uneasy at the fact that the ACLU fought in favor of the KKK's right to free speech? Do you believe that police should be open to detain and search anyone for the meresuspicion that they may be likely to commit a crime in the future? Do you believe that it's possible for someone to pay their debt to society? Why would you ever release a person from prison back into society if you believethey're still a threat to others? Do you believe that you have the responsibility to be vigilant over your rights, and that your rights specifically carry certain responsibilities in and of themselves?
    Red:

    I think where we truly disagree is on the actual interpretation of the law. Group #4 refuses to believe any interpretation other than their own. I can't, for the life of me, understand WHAT they base this interpretation on. The entire nation, as well as the Supreme Court, disagrees with them, but they choose to battle to the death over the issue (literally, if need be).

    I, on the other hand, accept that the 2A is no more unlimited than any other right, and, as such is subject toexceptions and restrictions.

    What it really comes down to is the denial of a changing world. Group #4's denial of reality goes far beyondjust the 2A. These are the same people that cry for a "free" market they don't understand, cry against "socialism" they don't understand, cry for no more income tax (as if that's even possible), destruction of the Fed, American exceptionalism, withdrawl from world politics, etc etc. It's great to be an idealist, but when it comes to getting stuff done, sometimes you need to be a realist. Opining away for the good old days is a great hobby, but I'll clue you in on a little secret: the good old days are gone forever.



    Blue:

    - The KKK can say whatever they want as long as it isn't threatening and they don't act on it. I'm very much against PC speech requirements, "hate" speech included.

    - The police... absolutely not. I'm very much against policestate America, as can easily be seen in my posting history.

    - As was discussed in a past thread, there is no "debt to society," there is only a debt to the victim(s). Does this mean that someone should be kept in jail for as long as the victim's life is changed? Not necessarily. That's for thecourt to determine. It DOES mean that if the criminal has caused someone irreparable harm, just because they get out of jail doesn't mean their rights are fully restored. Someone can learn their lesson in jail and be a changed person, thus getting ok'd for a release, but, much as the victim's life will NEVER be the same, neither will the criminal's. As I said, you have an all-or-nothing approach. I don't give a rat's dick about past felons (what constitutes a felony is another topic, I'm speaking of violent crime, not accidentally crossing state boarders with a pistol) and for you to care about them makes us all look like psychos. Get my rights restored first. I didn't screw up.

    - Absolutely. Rights come with responsibilities. I actively guard my rights. As stated above, what I'm guarding is different than what you're guarding, that's where the disconnect comes in.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    AZkopper wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    DMWyatt wrote:
    ...Personally, I fall somewhere between the last 2 groups.
    It's group number #4 that comes forward to @#$% in the pie. They refuse to compromise on ANYTHING. They want felons with guns, kids with guns, no background checks, etc. I don't care what your interpretation of the 2A is, the American public is NOT going to buy that extremism.. .Gun rights were taken away in baby steps, they must be restored in baby steps. An all or nothing approach results in us getting nowhere.

    DMWyatt, that's a pretty good sumation of the gun/carry movement. Like yourself, I see myself as a group 3.5 or 3.75 person.

    AWD......I agree with you.....on this statement:what: (has hell froze over?).

    You are right also, in stating that regardless of whether the 2Awas meant to be anAbsolute Right or not (and Heller has pretty much said it is not an absolute right), 98%+ of the American public will never say, "hey, sure he's a rapist, and sure he just served his 15 year sentance, but now that he's out, he should be allowed to buy and carry a gun". Nor will they say, "Hey, ya know 'crazy mike', the guy who talks to imaginary people on the street corner and smears feces on his face...I think he should be able to have a gun".

    Just my opinion (which has no greater worth than anyone elses), I feel we should focus on:

    1. making OC (and CC, and gunpossession in general) socially acceptable and legal in all 50 states.

    2. Make 'Constitutional Carry' (OC/CC with no permit) legal and the norm in all 50 states.

    3. Repeal 'school zone' laws that infringe on The People's Right to Keep and Bear Arms in public places. I'd put the post office laws in this catagory, too.

    4. Repeal laws that infringe on business owner's rights to choose to allow or forbid weapons in their establishments (I'm referring to bar-carry or restaraunt carry specifically here).

    5. Repeal DV laws and other laws that allow misdemeanor offensesor Restraining Ordersto infringe on firearm possession.

    Basically, I feel that :

    1. As long as you have not been convicted of a felony (perhaps only a violent felony? I'm still thinking this one out--perhaps non-violent felons should have the right to petition the state to have their 2A rights restored at some point);

    2. Or have not been adjudicated as mentally incompetant;

    3. You should be able to buy/own/carry a firearm anywhere in public you wish; and anywhere on private property, as long as the private property owner does not object.



    I know the 'group 4' people will accuse me of being a gun grabber, communist sympathizer, or Jack Booted Thug, and that's fine. That's how I feel, and we'd be very blessed to get America to that condition.








    Yes! This, exactly.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    I'd just like to see the name calling and insults stop. Just because someone dissagrees with you doesn't mean they are stupid. It just means they have a different view of an issue. OK, once in awhile it does mean they are stupid, but it doesn't do any good to call them on it.

    I have a tendancy to not respond to posts that sound dumb or moronicto me. I will however challenge anti-gun rhetoric withmy best "Spock" like logicalresponse. I've found that turning off the emotions makes it easier to offer rational debate.


    How much name calling has happened here? If no one is getting stupid, there's no reason to call anyone stupid. As I told you in the other thread, it's that simple.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    First let me say I probably fall inbetween groups 3 and 4 as well.

    AZkopper wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    DMWyatt wrote:
    ...Personally, I fall somewhere between the last 2 groups.
    It's group number #4 that comes forward to @#$% in the pie. They refuse to compromise on ANYTHING. They want felons with guns, kids with guns, no background checks, etc. I don't care what your interpretation of the 2A is, the American public is NOT going to buy that extremism.. .Gun rights were taken away in baby steps, they must be restored in baby steps. An all or nothing approach results in us getting nowhere.

    DMWyatt, that's a pretty good sumation of the gun/carry movement. Like yourself, I see myself as a group 3.5 or 3.75 person.

    AWD......I agree with you.....on this statement:what: (has hell froze over?).

    You are right also, in stating that regardless of whether the 2Awas meant to be anAbsolute Right or not (and Heller has pretty much said it is not an absolute right), 98%+ of the American public will never say, "hey, sure he's a rapist, and sure he just served his 15 year sentance, but now that he's out, he should be allowed to buy and carry a gun". Nor will they say, "Hey, ya know 'crazy mike', the guy who talks to imaginary people on the street corner and smears feces on his face...I think he should be able to have a gun".

    Just my opinion (which has no greater worth than anyone elses), I feel we should focus on:

    1. making OC (and CC, and gunpossession in general) socially acceptable and legal in all 50 states.

    2. Make 'Constitutional Carry' (OC/CC with no permit) legal and the norm in all 50 states.

    3. Repeal 'school zone' laws that infringe on The People's Right to Keep and Bear Arms in public places. I'd put the post office laws in this catagory, too.

    4. Repeal laws that infringe on business owner's rights to choose to allow or forbid weapons in their establishments (I'm referring to bar-carry or restaraunt carry specifically here).

    5. Repeal DV laws and other laws that allow misdemeanor offensesor Restraining Ordersto infringe on firearm possession.

    Basically, I feel that :

    1. As long as you have not been convicted of a felony (perhaps only a violent felony? I'm still thinking this one out--perhaps non-violent felons should have the right to petition the state to have their 2A rights restored at some point);

    2. Or have not been adjudicated as mentally incompetant;

    3. You should be able to buy/own/carry a firearm anywhere in public you wish; and anywhere on private property, as long as the private property owner does not object.



    I know the 'group 4' people will accuse me of being a gun grabber, communist sympathizer, or Jack Booted Thug, and that's fine. That's how I feel, and we'd be very blessed to get America to that condition.
    I agreee with the part about getting our rights back in "baby steps". I also agree with almost all of AZKopper's post.

    I've never personally seen anyone here advocating that felons or mental defectsthat deserve to have their rights disabled should have guns. I think what get's lost in the noise is that if one is truly rehabilitated or if ones "felony" didn't have anything to do with firearms, they shouldn't have them taken away. I'm a proponent of due process for this. In other words, bring not only the felony charge against the individual but also petition the court to have his right disabled and let the jury decide. Also, later on, it should be easier for the "reformed" felon to petition to have his rights restored.

    Sure the supreme court said that there should be "reasonable restrictions" but I believe they are incorrect. (so would our founding fathers, why the hell else would youput in "shall not be infringed" when the english bill of rights had "as allowed by law") I guess I'm one of those who believes that anything that doesn't cause "mass destruction" should be availlable for the civilian population. It's only fair right? In the very least we should have access to the same arms as the JBT's

    That being said, once again I'd like to point out that I'm a proponent of baby steps to get to where I want to be. Just like if Ron Paul became president today, he couldn't repeal everything that's unconstiutional without causing pandemonium, we need to slowly take the reigns back as well. That's whey I was attracted to the OC movement. It's slowly normalizing what should never have become abnormal in the first place.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    I've never personally seen anyone here advocating that felons or mental defectsthat deserve to have their rights disabled should have guns.

    Then you haven't looked back far enough. Pamiam had a multi-million page thread arguing for the rights of all felons. Some of the moonbats even said felons should be able to carry guns IN JAIL, because, of course, as we all know, "shall not be infringed" means "unlimited." And you wonder why I call people names.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Brass Magnet wrote:
    I've never personally seen anyone here advocating that felons or mental defectsthat deserve to have their rights disabled should have guns.

    Then you haven't looked back far enough. Pamiam had a multi-million page thread arguing for the rights of all felons. Some of the moonbats even said felons should be able to carry guns IN JAIL, because, of course, as we all know, "shall not be infringed" means "unlimited." And you wonder why I call people names.
    Well, "Shall not infringed" does mean what it says. I think what this particular person did not get is that rights may be disabled. If it's disabled, the wording doesn't mean anything.

    We all have certain rights disabled before we reach the age of majority and the reason we do is that we are not deemed responsible enough to exercise the right. A violent felon is no different. With every right comes a responsibility and if you can't uphold your responsibility, you shouldn't have the right.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •