• 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.

KY Open carry

langzaiguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
916
Location
Central KY
imported post

I still think that the running of the serial number against my will is a 4th amend. violation.

I believe you are addressing a different issue. If you volunteer your weapon, it would not be a violation. You are arguing the benefits of volunteering your weapon. I'm more interested in if the involuntary, temporary seizure of the weapon & search of its serial number would be a 4th amend violation--it seems it would be.

More along the lines of your argument--if I had a ND, or a brandished weapon, or something grossly in violation of the law, I would expect that the weapon's numbers would be run. I mean, if I'm doing something illegal with my vehicle, they are justified in pulling me over, seeing if I'm drunk, and checking my license. If I am going the speed limit, following the letter of the law, I shouldn't be subjected to a time & energy wasting detainment to prove my legality. I think that is a dangerous position for a citizen to be in--to prove one's legality.

I suppose if a cop is genuine, courteous, and understands my right to carry and doesn't detain me, I suppose I might make his job a little easier. I guess the point is, it should be up to the citizen as to whether or not they are to comply with the search.
 

MayfieldDan45acp

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1
Location
, ,
imported post

I was 18 whenI bought an SKS the whyI see it if you can't buy it yourself don't carry it ,the laws have some grayarea's in them .Butt we do have the right to protect ourselves
 

sawhitt

New member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
21
Location
Guston, ,
imported post

Thos.Jefferson wrote:
alwynsw wrote:
langzaiguy wrote:
Unless the officer believes a gun crime has been committed, how is he justified to run the serial numbers of a gun? Isn't that illegal search & seizure?

Devil's advocate here.
It's not necessary to search someone who is openly carrying in order to determine that he is indeed carrying a firearm. The idea of illegal search holds no water.If a leo removes your property from your person it is an illegal search.

If one who has identified himself as a LEO and reasonably proved himself to be so requests your handgun to check the serial number, why refuse? Tell him what you're doing, observe all rules of firearm safety, clear the weapon and hand it over.
While it may be a gross inconvenience to the owner (and very nosy and rude of the cop), doing as I wrote above can keep a small hassle from turning into a large hassle.Why refuse? Hand it over? Have you ever heard of the Constitution?Read it? What's next, let them come into our homes and rummage around and look for things that may be a danger to"public safety"?How about We all just submit our fingerprints,just to be on the safe side? Hell let's all just run on down to the station house and answer a few routine questions for the sake of safety.In case you don't know this is America and We aren't fond of tyranny.
Many LEO's and John Q's are ignorant of gun laws. We can and should politely inform them, especially the LEO's of the laws that are in effect in our respective states as well as pertinent Federal statures when necessary and possible. (That's easy enough by printing and carrying the applicable references found in this forum.)Ignorance of the law is no excuse as per the courts. Cops are Citizens just like you and I and are not above the law .
I'm am neither now a cop, nor have I ever been a cop. I have worked very closely with them over the years. They're far better to have as friendly acquaintances than adversaries. I am not advocating obsequiousness toward cops, just common sense and good manners. Their BS detectors are as good as ours - or better.

There are times in which it is preferable to be the wheat rather than the oak.
You sir, are part of the problem. It's folks like you with your "what have you got to hide" attitude that has gotten Our contry in the shape that it is in, SHAME ON YOU!!!

Try again. I was likely very active in opposing the gun grabbers whilst you were still a twinkle in pop's eye.

If you choose to paint me with that brush, back it up. A broad slam without basis is exactly what the Brady Bunch, et al expect of those of us who believe that all U.S. and state firearms laws need to be rolled back to 1925.

Regardless of one's stance, there is never and excuse for rudeness (as you have exhibited), smugness, or the display of a superiority.

If you choose to flame away without stating the basis for your claim, you're no better than the touchy-feely group that fears those of us who choose to exercise our right and have those rights that have been limited restored.

That being said, what does a law-abiding citizen have to hide?

As an aside, if you're going to rebut within the body of a post, you might want to make it a bit more differentiated than you did when arguing my post. At least embolden or italicize it so that the 10% or so that are color blind to some degree can differentiate the writers. No. I have perfect color vision.

Last items: Learn to read and comprehend. (Incidentally, your reference to "illegal search" in your first incorrect argument should read "illegal seizure". There's a huge difference.)I said nothing about a LEO taking a firearm. I suggested handing it to him to run the serial number.

Read the preamble to my post. You do know what "Devil's advocate" means, don't you?

Now. Do you want to argue with me or with the hopey-changey group that wants to disarm us all?
 

sawhitt

New member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
21
Location
Guston, ,
imported post

langzaiguy wrote:
I still think that the running of the serial number against my will is a 4th amend. violation.

I believe you are addressing a different issue. If you volunteer your weapon, it would not be a violation. You are arguing the benefits of volunteering your weapon. I'm more interested in if the involuntary, temporary seizure of the weapon & search of its serial number would be a 4th amend violation--it seems it would be.

More along the lines of your argument--if I had a ND, or a brandished weapon, or something grossly in violation of the law, I would expect that the weapon's numbers would be run. I mean, if I'm doing something illegal with my vehicle, they are justified in pulling me over, seeing if I'm drunk, and checking my license. If I am going the speed limit, following the letter of the law, I shouldn't be subjected to a time & energy wasting detainment to prove my legality. I think that is a dangerous position for a citizen to be in--to prove one's legality.

I suppose if a cop is genuine, courteous, and understands my right to carry and doesn't detain me, I suppose I might make his job a little easier. I guess the point is, it should be up to the citizen as to whether or not they are to comply with the search.

I addressed no consent to search.

I'm merely recommending steps that can drastically reduce the chances of increasing your inconvenience caused by an uninformed individual.

You hit the nail on the head. Courtesy is never unwarranted in an initial encounter of this sort - by either party.

To sum it up, if anyone gets in a peeing contest with a cop, the cop will be the winner of the first round. Many of us do not have the funds or time to fight a specious arrest or citation. You will likely win in the end, but is it worth it? That time and money is better spent, IMHO, in working to reduce current firearms legislation and (hopefully) repeal existing legislation.

I've been the poster child for our cause before and am willing to do so again if needs be. It's always better if you pick the time and place for your battles.
 

Thos.Jefferson

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
288
Location
just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
imported post

alwynsw wrote:
Thos.Jefferson wrote:
alwynsw wrote:
langzaiguy wrote:
Unless the officer believes a gun crime has been committed, how is he justified to run the serial numbers of a gun? Isn't that illegal search & seizure?

Devil's advocate here.
It's not necessary to search someone who is openly carrying in order to determine that he is indeed carrying a firearm. The idea of illegal search holds no water.If a leo removes your property from your person it is an illegal search.

If one who has identified himself as a LEO and reasonably proved himself to be so requests your handgun to check the serial number, why refuse? Tell him what you're doing, observe all rules of firearm safety, clear the weapon and hand it over.
While it may be a gross inconvenience to the owner (and very nosy and rude of the cop), doing as I wrote above can keep a small hassle from turning into a large hassle.Why refuse? Hand it over? Have you ever heard of the Constitution?Read it? What's next, let them come into our homes and rummage around and look for things that may be a danger to"public safety"?How about We all just submit our fingerprints,just to be on the safe side? Hell let's all just run on down to the station house and answer a few routine questions for the sake of safety.In case you don't know this is America and We aren't fond of tyranny.
Many LEO's and John Q's are ignorant of gun laws. We can and should politely inform them, especially the LEO's of the laws that are in effect in our respective states as well as pertinent Federal statures when necessary and possible. (That's easy enough by printing and carrying the applicable references found in this forum.)Ignorance of the law is no excuse as per the courts. Cops are Citizens just like you and I and are not above the law .
I'm am neither now a cop, nor have I ever been a cop. I have worked very closely with them over the years. They're far better to have as friendly acquaintances than adversaries. I am not advocating obsequiousness toward cops, just common sense and good manners. Their BS detectors are as good as ours - or better.

There are times in which it is preferable to be the wheat rather than the oak.
You sir, are part of the problem. It's folks like you with your "what have you got to hide" attitude that has gotten Our contry in the shape that it is in, SHAME ON YOU!!!

Try again. I was likely very active in opposing the gun grabbers whilst you were still a twinkle in pop's eye. How it it that you presume to know my age? Have we met and I just don't remember you?

If you choose to paint me with that brush, back it up. A broad slam without basis is exactly what the Brady Bunch, et al expect of those of us who believe that all U.S. and state firearms laws need to be rolled back to 1925.You are the one who suggested it was so much easier than standing up for your Rights.

Regardless of one's stance, there is never and excuse for rudeness (as you have exhibited), smugness, or the display of a superiority.Because my opinion differs with your opinion now I have to wear the label of being rude?Are you saying it is not possible to defend your rights sans-rudeness

If you choose to flame away without stating the basis for your claim, you're no better than the touchy-feely group that fears those of us who choose to exercise our right and have those rights that have been limited restored. The basis of my claim was clearly stated"Why refuse?Hand it over? Ever hear of the Constitution? Read it?

That being said, what does a law-abiding citizen have to hide? It's not about whether or not a person has something to hide it's about keeping the government within the bounds of the Constitution.

As an aside, if you're going to rebut within the body of a post, you might want to make it a bit more differentiated than you did when arguing my post. At least embolden or italicize it so that the 10% or so that are color blind to some degree can differentiate the writers. No. I have perfect color vision.Is this more acceptable?

Last items: Learn to read and comprehend. (Incidentally, your reference to "illegal search" in your first incorrect argument should read "illegal seizure". There's a huge difference.)I said nothing about a LEO taking a firearm. I suggested handing it to him to run the serial number.If you think they going to allow you to reach down and even touch your weapon you are dillusional.

Read the preamble to my post. You do know what "Devil's advocate" means, don't you?Why would you assume a position you disagree with just for the sake arguement?

Now. Do you want to argue with me or with the hopey-changey group that wants to disarm us all?See above.
 

langzaiguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
916
Location
Central KY
imported post

Again, in an ideal situation, it's always nice to cooperate. The point is, you shouldn't HAVE to. In my reference to an illegal search & seizure--if you are forced to hand over your firearm, I would consider that an illegal seizure. If you are forced to hand over the weapon and then they run the numbers, I would deem that an illegal search.
 

sawhitt

New member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
21
Location
Guston, ,
imported post

Mr. Jefferson, there is one in every punch bowl; and you, sir, are it. You're stuck way up there on your high horse and I'm disinclined to attempt to help you down.

By-the-by, your use of language and spelling make it abundantly clear that you need improvement in your communication skills.

Sophomoric, rude, and childish: as the cabinetmaker said when the varnish dried, "I'm done finished with you."
 

sawhitt

New member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
21
Location
Guston, ,
imported post

langzaiguy wrote:
Again, in an ideal situation, it's always nice to cooperate. The point is, you shouldn't HAVE to. In my reference to an illegal search & seizure--if you are forced to hand over your firearm, I would consider that an illegal seizure. If you are forced to hand over the weapon and then they run the numbers, I would deem that an illegal search.

A search is not necessary if you are open carrying to establish that you have a firearm. I honestly will have to do some research to verify the validity of a LEO running the serial number, but I suspect that I will discover that it is treated in much the same way as running an auto license plate. (I do hope that I'm wrong in that assumption.)

If you are forced to hand it over, I agree that it may be considered illegal seizure, but there is a caveat: The LEO must refuse to return it to you in the condition it was received (I am not referring to loaded or unloaded, I am referring to the condition of your firearm) during the course of your encounter for it to qualify as seizure.

To distill this whole thing down to it's essence; one should cooperate when practicable.

Bear in mind that cops stay alive by assuming guilty until proven innocent. I'm not condoning that position, it simply is what it is.
 

Thos.Jefferson

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
288
Location
just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
imported post

alwynsw wrote:
Mr. Jefferson, there is one in every punch bowl; and you, sir, are it. You're stuck way up there on your high horse and I'm disinclined to attempt to help you down.

By-the-by, your use of language and spelling make it abundantly clear that you need improvement in your communication skills.

Sophomoric, rude, and childish: as the cabinetmaker said when the varnish dried, "I'm done finished with you."

Why is it that when a persons' arguements are refuted their first instinct is to resort to name calling? I'll tell you what, if I'm a turd(did I spell that right?) just because I believe government should be bound by the chains of the Constitution then I will gladly wear that badge with pride!

If you wish to take the easy way out and relinquish your rights to the all powerful govenment agents rather than calmly stating " I do not consent to this illegal search " then please feel free to do so but don't go trying to convince the members of this board to follow suit.

I stand by my original post, people like you are the reason this country is in the shape it is in.

Shame on you!

 

Liberty4Ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
351
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

I'm 100% with Thos.Jefferson on this issue. I will not willingly hand over my legally carried firearm just because a law enforcement officer wants to run the serial number to see if it's stolen, any more than I'd allow the same LEO to enter my house to look around to see if I was in possession of any stolen property. It's an absurd position to take in the United States, and nobody who would do such a thing understands the first thing about liberty.

Confusing a wholesale abandonment of your rights with being courteous, or going along to get along, or whatever lame justification is being argued is ridiculous. It encourages tyranny. The next step is the checkpoint with the jack booted representative of the police state demanding, "Your papers, please."

You believe that police practice the presumption of guilt instead of the presumption of innocence that is the fundamental basis of our legal system?!? What country do you think this is?

There is just too much wrong with your thought processes to attempt a detailed analysis. This represents only a few isolated examples. I'd like to urge you to read our Constitution and some of our country's founding documents, but I do not believe you have the capacity to understand them. A quote from Samuel Adams seems appropriate.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

SHAME ON YOU... TIMES TWO!



PS - I hear that France is lovely this time of year. I think you might like it there.
 

sawhitt

New member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
21
Location
Guston, ,
imported post

Liberty4Ever wrote:
I'm 100% with Thos.Jefferson on this issue. I will not willingly hand over my legally carried firearm just because a law enforcement officer wants to run the serial number to see if it's stolen, any more than I'd allow the same LEO to enter my house to look around to see if I was in possession of any stolen property. It's an absurd position to take in the United States, and nobody who would do such a thing understands the first thing about liberty.

Confusing a wholesale abandonment of your rights with being courteous, or going along to get along, or whatever lame justification is being argued is ridiculous. It encourages tyranny. The next step is the checkpoint with the jack booted representative of the police state demanding, "Your papers, please."

You believe that police practice the presumption of guilt instead of the presumption of innocence that is the fundamental basis of our legal system?!? What country do you think this is?

There is just too much wrong with your thought processes to attempt a detailed analysis. This represents only a few isolated examples. I'd like to urge you to read our Constitution and some of our country's founding documents, but I do not believe you have the capacity to understand them. A quote from Samuel Adams seems appropriate.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

SHAME ON YOU... TIMES TWO!



PS - I hear that France is lovely this time of year. I think you might like it there.

Like Mr. Jefferson, you seem to have tunnel vision. You are both reading courtesy as some sort of sheepish obsequiousness where it does not exist.

I've fought and bled for this country. I likely was reading both our Constitution and the Federalist Papers (and comprehending them quite well) before you were born.

Allow me to make this perfectly clear: At no time will I surrender any right to any person. potentate, or principality. At no time have I, nor will I sit idly by while the likes of HR 1022 or HR 45 are proposed (2009).

My interests in both our personal and national well-being extend beyond Second Amendment rights. We have an entire alphabet soup of Constitutionally illegal Federal agencies that need addressing and elimination.

You both need to learn to read and comprehend.
 

Liberty4Ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
351
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

alwynsw wrote
Like Mr. Jefferson, you seem to have tunnel vision. You are both reading courtesy as some sort of sheepish obsequiousness where it does not exist.

I've fought and bled for this country. I likely was reading both our Constitution and the Federalist Papers (and comprehending them quite well) before you were born.

Allow me to make this perfectly clear: At no time will I surrender any right to any person. potentate, or principality. At no time have I, nor will I sit idly by while the likes of HR 1022 or HR 45 are proposed (2009).

My interests in both our personal and national well-being extend beyond Second Amendment rights. We have an entire alphabet soup of Constitutionally illegal Federal agencies that need addressing and elimination.

You both need to learn to read and comprehend.
I don't know why you keep wanting to guess other people's age, or imply that you're older and that somehow lends credibility to your tyranny enabling behavior. Making assumptions about another person's age is presumptuous, and in this context, it seems arrogant. For what it's worth, I'm no spring chicken, and as you can probably guess from my user name, I am no stranger to the fight to preserve our essential liberty. It's something I take very seriously, and despite your claims to the contrary, it's something you apparently do not understand at all.

Courtesy is holding a door for someone, or not interrupting when others are trying to make their point. I'm a big fan of courtesy. Do not confuse courtesy with rolling over and surrendering our rights, a little bit at a time, as the government subsumes more and more power over us. I chose my words carefully. You are not merely surrendering your rights. When you encourage tyranny, you chip away at the rights of all of us, and you leave us fighting to preserve the rights that you enjoy, while you enjoy the favorable treatment that government bestows upon those who enable the government to grow more powerful.

You claim to have read the writings of our founding fathers, but you apparently didn't absorb any of it. I normally wouldn't bother arguing with you because you seem incapable of understanding the most basic aspects of liberty, but this is a public forum and I'm reluctant to let your dangerous beliefs go unchallenged. Maybe Benjamin Franklin can reach you and help you to understand what I cannot.

"
Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Franklin did not advise us to surrender unto government to make things easier for everyone. He counsels us to vigorously resist the growth of government and keep it small, and safely contained. Like fire, we need to keep a wary eye on our government. Do not allow any aspect of government to obtain a position that is superior to that of the people. Preserve its status as our servant government. Do not allow government to be our master.

Let me make this perfectly clear. When an agent of the government asks you to voluntarily abandon your constitutionally recognized right and you obey to make things easier, you HAVE abandoned your rights and put us all on the slippery slope to tyranny. There is no need to be discourteous as you inform the law enforcement officer that you are not required to honor their request, and if they feel the need to take your firearm and check the serial number to make sure it isn't stolen (the anti-American presumption of guilt, requiring you to prove your innocence), then the LEO should demonstrate that need to do so to a judge and secure a legally issued warrant.

Finally, HR 1022 was introduced in 2007 and not in 2009 as you claimed. It only had 67 cosponsors and was never a serious threat to firearms ownership. It did serve to help identify rabidly anti-gun legislators who we should target for removal from Congress. HR 45 was introduced in early 2009, but it has no co-sponsors and was never any threat to firearms ownership. Both of these bills were closer to internet scare tactics than they were threats to our liberty.
 

sawhitt

New member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
21
Location
Guston, ,
imported post

Liberty4Ever wrote:
alwynsw wrote
Like Mr. Jefferson, you seem to have tunnel vision. You are both reading courtesy as some sort of sheepish obsequiousness where it does not exist.

I've fought and bled for this country. I likely was reading both our Constitution and the Federalist Papers (and comprehending them quite well) before you were born.

Allow me to make this perfectly clear: At no time will I surrender any right to any person. potentate, or principality. At no time have I, nor will I sit idly by while the likes of HR 1022 or HR 45 are proposed (2009).

My interests in both our personal and national well-being extend beyond Second Amendment rights. We have an entire alphabet soup of Constitutionally illegal Federal agencies that need addressing and elimination.

You both need to learn to read and comprehend.
I don't know why you keep wanting to guess other people's age, or imply that you're older and that somehow lends credibility to your tyranny enabling behavior. Making assumptions about another person's age is presumptuous, and in this context, it seems arrogant. For what it's worth, I'm no spring chicken, and as you can probably guess from my user name, I am no stranger to the fight to preserve our essential liberty. It's something I take very seriously, and despite your claims to the contrary, it's something you apparently do not understand at all.

Courtesy is holding a door for someone, or not interrupting when others are trying to make their point. I'm a big fan of courtesy. Do not confuse courtesy with rolling over and surrendering our rights, a little bit at a time, as the government subsumes more and more power over us. I chose my words carefully. You are not merely surrendering your rights. When you encourage tyranny, you chip away at the rights of all of us, and you leave us fighting to preserve the rights that you enjoy, while you enjoy the favorable treatment that government bestows upon those who enable the government to grow more powerful.

You claim to have read the writings of our founding fathers, but you apparently didn't absorb any of it. I normally wouldn't bother arguing with you because you seem incapable of understanding the most basic aspects of liberty, but this is a public forum and I'm reluctant to let your dangerous beliefs go unchallenged. Maybe Benjamin Franklin can reach you and help you to understand what I cannot.

"
Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Franklin did not advise us to surrender unto government to make things easier for everyone. He counsels us to vigorously resist the growth of government and keep it small, and safely contained. Like fire, we need to keep a wary eye on our government. Do not allow any aspect of government to obtain a position that is superior to that of the people. Preserve its status as our servant government. Do not allow government to be our master.

Let me make this perfectly clear. When an agent of the government asks you to voluntarily abandon your constitutionally recognized right and you obey to make things easier, you HAVE abandoned your rights and put us all on the slippery slope to tyranny. There is no need to be discourteous as you inform the law enforcement officer that you are not required to honor their request, and if they feel the need to take your firearm and check the serial number to make sure it isn't stolen (the anti-American presumption of guilt, requiring you to prove your innocence), then the LEO should demonstrate that need to do so to a judge and secure a legally issued warrant.

Finally, HR 1022 was introduced in 2007 and not in 2009 as you claimed. It only had 67 cosponsors and was never a serious threat to firearms ownership. It did serve to help identify rabidly anti-gun legislators who we should target for removal from Congress. HR 45 was introduced in early 2009, but it has no co-sponsors and was never any threat to firearms ownership. Both of these bills were closer to internet scare tactics than they were threats to our liberty.

Insofar as the age estimates go, the two posters referenced write and reason more like sophomoric adolescents than adults. I'll not post my age because of simple internet safety concerns. If you want an idea of my age, my grandfather was born shortly after the Civil War, I imagine about as soon as Great Grandpa could get around to it after mustering out.

Please pardon the typo on the date. Trifocals and arthritis, along with my attempt to type faster than I should sometimes cause those. (Spell check doesn't work for numbers.)

We will obviously have to agree to disagree on this one.

I do find it odd that no one has bothered to mention my position that firearms laws - all of them - be repealed taking us back to 1925. I'll save you some searching.

In 1925, concealed carry was considered simply carrying a firearm. No permits were needed and it was legal. A machine gun or sub-machine gun was considered a firearm that could be purchased and owned as easily as a pocket comb. If you could put your money on the counter, you could buy it; any forearm or ammunition. It was up to your parents to tell you that a Thompson was a bit much for a 6-year-old.

I believe you get my drift.

Here's where I get into the position of an adolescent on a road trip: I stated my thoughts on the subject clearly and without rancor. For my trouble I was insulted, belittled, and backhandedly called a Socialist (something about my moving to France as I recall - I don't have it up for reference for exact wording). In short, "HE TOUCHED ME FIRST! HE LOOKED AT ME! MA, HE'S STILL DOING IT!"

I've been reading this forum for quite a while. I decided to join fairly recently because I saw a few comments to which I might respond.

While almost all of the members of this forum seem to be good folks, there are a few Internet bullies who attempt to quash any and all disagreement in a most vile and contemptible way. The anonymity of the Internet is a great thing for those who would rather argue than make progress against those who wish to both exercise and restore our rights.

I see that the tolerance of some board members here reflects the thinking of Pelosi, Reid, and the Dali Obama: We'll compromise so long as we get everything we want and you get nothing you want.

I fought so folks such as that can spout what they want when they want. I firmly support that right, as I do all others. (There are no gray areas concerning our rights.) What I do not have to do, is listen to the posturing, name calling, and chest thumping.

My only regret in this little brush war is that I responded partially in kind to a blowhard.

You folks can have this forum. You seem more intent upon eating your own than fighting the good fight.

It does indeed sadden me that this could all have been avoided by a tad of reading comprehension. This whole affair simply lends credence to those who paint us as "flyover country" populated by bumpkins not worthy of notice.
 

Liberty4Ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
351
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

I do find it odd that no one has bothered to mention my position that firearms laws - all of them - be repealed taking us back to 1925.

I didn't reply to that because I agreed with you. Maybe others didn't reply for the same reason.



It was up to your parents to tell you that a Thompson was a bit much for a 6-year-old.

I was big for my age. :)


While almost all of the members of this forum seem to be good folks, there are a few Internet bullies who attempt to quash any and all disagreement in a most vile and contemptible way.

I'm not sure what was vile and contemptible about saying that I disagreed with your strategy of abandoning your right to keep and bear arms, and endangering everyone else's rights in the process.



The anonymity of the Internet is a great thing for those who would rather argue than make progress against those who wish to both exercise and restore our rights.

And once again, what part of abandoning the right to keep and bear arms is in any way exercising and restoring that right?



I see that the tolerance of some board members here reflects the thinking of Pelosi, Reid, and the Dali Obama: We'll compromise so long as we get everything we want and you get nothing you want.

I don't compromise on anything in our Bill of Rights. These are some of our most fundamental human rights. Sue me.



You folks can have this forum. You seem more intent upon eating your own than fighting the good fight.

You started your last post with comparisons to juvenile behavior, but who's pouting and taking his toys and going home?



It does indeed sadden me that this could all have been avoided by a tad of reading comprehension.

You were repeatedly asked to defend your position of handing over your legally owned firearm when a law enforcement officer wanted to violate your property rights, your right to keep and bear arms, and the privacy normally accorded to a free person, based only on some whim and their desire to check to see if your firearm was stolen. Your only defense seemed to be an argument based on courtesy. That didn't make any sense to me, and apparently others, and I don't think the lack of comprehension was the result of not reading what you wrote or a lack of reading comprehension skills. I think it's more a matter of a fundamental difference of opinion. People have those from time to time. Sometimes, discussing our different beliefs can be very educational if the parties listen and try to understand, and are willing to rethink their positions in light of opposing views.

What opinion did you expect to prevail on an open carry forum? Did you expect everyone to agree with you and hand over their firearms any time they are asked to do so, for the lamest of reasons, or no reason at all? If we all agree to give up our right to open carry without harassment, will you stick around? Please?
 
Top