i open carry!..........because im crazy???

Citizen · Oct 14, 2009

imported post

For the antagonistic ones:

"Oh, I never explain my rights. Have a nice day, ma'am." (but say that last part with a little force, straight at her)

If she opens her mouth to rebut, justgive it again a little more forcefully, "Have a nice day, ma'am." (you're not really wishing her a nice day, you're interrupting her, and supplanting her reaction with your declaration.)

jay75009 · Oct 14, 2009

imported post

see thats almost a liberal ideology that we all dispise the whole "i look out for me , only me, my beliefs , my opinions and my ass " and dont give a single regard for anyone around you

and your right, people like and im willing to bet 90% of the other people on these forums will continue to protect not only ourselves, but innocent civilians around us.

and while we go to bed at night knowing that we kept others from harm, you can sleep at night hating yourself for the rest of your life after some innocent person dies infront of you because your too selfish to care or too much of a coward to risk yourself for another human being

people like you make the rest of us sick

jay75009 · Oct 14, 2009

imported post

you see it doesnt matter to me if someone is anti-gun or doesnt support my beliefs a human life is a human life, and in the Marine Corps i took an oath to defend my country and the citizens that live in it from all threats both foreign AND DOMESTIC meaning if it takes my life, my courage and my weapon to defend a innoncet person agianst a DOMESTIC threat..........so be it..........my hands my have blood on them at the end of the day.............but my soul is clear

cloudcroft · Oct 14, 2009

imported post

There are no "innocent civilians" anymore...maybe there never were.

But like the lady told you, you're crazy, soYOU save the world.

-- John D.

usaf0906 · Oct 14, 2009

imported post

Citizen wrote:

For the antagonistic ones:

"Oh, I never explain my rights. Have a nice day, ma'am." (but say that last part with a little force, straight at her)

If she opens her mouth to rebut, justgive it again a little more forcefully, "Have a nice day, ma'am." (you're not really wishing her a nice day, you're interrupting her, and supplanting her reaction with your declaration.)

You know, I havent had any issues with anti's bugging me, mainly just curious people asking why. If I ever come across a stubborn person, I think this will be my response.

Thank you Citizen, sometimes we over look the simple things.

SouthernBoy · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

As I've said, LOTS of people -- usually liberals, and they arethe majority in America nowadays-- MUST learn the hard way, i.e.,something bad happens to them or theirs...then they MIGHT wake up. Maybe.

Whatever, I'm highly unlikelyto come to their aid. That's why I am not one of those "sheepdogs" some people are so proud to be called: I am not going to help those who refuse to help themselves.

If lots of people (and apparently MOST people) don't want to be armed, let them be the victms they are destined for. Why interfere?

In a way, it works out well: Their numbers are reduced by criminals practicing "natural selection," so less of them are in the gene pool replicating themselves.

Works for me...

-- John D.

Actually they're not the majority but rather a significant minority. It just seems they are the majority because of the media, the entertainment industry, and academia are raft with them.

SouthernBoy · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

jay75009 wrote:

cloudcroft wrote:

As I've said, LOTS of people -- usually liberals, and they arethe majority in America nowadays-- MUST learn the hard way, i.e.,something bad happens to them or theirs...then they MIGHT wake up. Maybe.

Whatever, I'm highly unlikelyto come to their aid. That's why I am not one of those "sheepdogs" some people are so proud to be called: I am not going to help those who refuse to help themselves.

If lots of people (and apparently MOST people) don't want to be armed, let them be the victms they are destined for. Why interfere?

In a way, it works out well: Their numbers are reduced by criminals practicing "natural selection," so less of them are in the gene pool replicating themselves.

Works for me...

-- John D.

Click to expand...

well thats taking it a little far, i wouldnt help a rich yuppy and draw my weapon cause some punk stole a pack of marlboros out of her car...............if she has been getting raped or murdered i would have not had a second thought of putting said perp in the ground, 2 in the chest and one in the head.

anyone who carrys and can stand by and watch an innocent person be seriously mamed or killed, is not helping the 2nd amendment cause or the reputation of gun owners!

at that point your just as guilty and moraly wrong as the douchebag commiting the crime, and in alot of states your legaly guilty as well

you really should be ashamed of yourself

Can you name at least one state where you are required to render aid in such a situation... assuming you are not in law enforcement? If I'm not mistaken, there is no state where such is the case. And this would also apply to coming upon an accident victim.

cloudcroft · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

SouthernBoy,

I believe the last time the vast "Silent Majority" wereconservatives was in the 1960s/Nixon years. Since then they have 'adjusted' their political, social, clutural and most importantly, MORAL values in order to be like everypone else and 'get along.' In short, they became traitors and have been aiding and abetting the decline of America ever since,maybe not actively, but surely passively.

So IMO, the minority -- even if "significant" as you term it -- are conservatives now, notliberals. And yes, the press is HUGELY liberal as we all know...and if it weren't for talk radio where conservatives ARE present, you'd NEVER believe there are ANY conservatives left in America...except here and there.

Of course, I have no hard data to support that, it's just how it seems to me...MAINLY because ifAmerica WERE mostly conservative (and so-called Christians who also supposedly are a majority -- yeah, right), we'd not have all the naive, feel-good, corruptleft-leaning BS going on we've seen since the 60s when the wheels started coming off.

And as I also have said before, most so-called 'gun owners' are VERY liberal in other issues, soeven THEY are part of the problem.

But I must admit that I am amazed we still have things like open-carry or even concealed cary...HTH did THAT "conservative" stuff get through the "thin pansy [liberal] line?"

-- John D.

jay75009 · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

well Maine for one has a good semaritain law, stating that you are free from legal suit or arrest for aiding someone whos life is in danger, the swing side of it is that if you witness a murder or vicious beating and stand ther to watch instead of trying to aid the person or save their life, you are often held as an accomplice to the crime because crimes seem to have become a spectator sport.

MetalChris · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

If lots of people (and apparently MOST people) don't want to be armed, let them be the victms they are destined for. Why interfere?

In a way, it works out well: Their numbers are reduced by criminals practicing "natural selection," so less of them are in the gene pool replicating themselves.

Works for me...

-- John D.

My sentiments exactly.

SouthernBoy · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

jay75009 wrote:

well Maine for one has a good semaritain law, stating that you are free from legal suit or arrest for aiding someone whos life is in danger, the swing side of it is that if you witness a murder or vicious beating and stand ther to watch instead of trying to aid the person or save their life, you are often held as an accomplice to the crime because crimes seem to have become a spectator sport.

Virginia also has a Good Samaritan law. But if I am not mistaken, you cannot be forced by law to jeopardize your own safety by aiding someone else who is in danger. Whether you do or not is your decision to take.

It would indeed be a sad state of affairs if states started to require you to give aid to someone who is in danger of serious injury or death. That is not the government's business and there is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights to mandate such a thing, other than a state passing a law for this which would be a very bad thing.

SouthernBoy · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

SouthernBoy,

I believe the last time the vast "Silent Majority" wereconservatives was in the 1960s/Nixon years. Since then they have 'adjusted' their political, social, clutural and most importantly, MORAL values in order to be like everypone else and 'get along.' In short, they became traitors and have been aiding and abetting the decline of America ever since,maybe not actively, but surely passively.

So IMO, the minority -- even if "significant" as you term it -- are conservatives now, notliberals. And yes, the press is HUGELY liberal as we all know...and if it weren't for talk radio where conservatives ARE present, you'd NEVER believe there are ANY conservatives left in America...except here and there.

Of course, I have no hard data to support that, it's just how it seems to me...MAINLY because ifAmerica WERE mostly conservative (and so-called Christians who also supposedly are a majority -- yeah, right), we'd not have all the naive, feel-good, corruptleft-leaning BS going on we've seen since the 60s when the wheels started coming off.

And as I also have said before, most so-called 'gun owners' are VERY liberal in other issues, soeven THEY are part of the problem.

But I must admit that I am amazed we still have things like open-carry or even concealed cary...HTH did THAT "conservative" stuff get through the "thin pansy [liberal] line?"

-- John D.

I think the discrepancy here is one of degrees. What some might call a more liberal approach, others might think of it as right of center. What happens is this.

The political pendulum tends to reset itself after times of socio-political stress. The problem with this is for the past century, the newer resets has been to the left of the prior resets. On occasion, this process undergoes a correction (the Reagan era), but before too long, another reset occurs. A primary reason for the left-of-center reset is what I said before: the media, the entertainment industry, and academia aid a abet the resetting to the left of center process and there is little on the right side of the spectrum to counter that until another upheaval comes along - enter Obama.

The majority of the country is still conservative in their social and political beliefs. The problem is that they are disregarded to the extent that both their general silence and their being disregarded make them appear to be smaller in number than they really are.

I could easily spend the next hour and a few thousand words explaining the reasons for all of this and how we, as a people, have reached this point in our history. Perhaps another day for that one.

jay75009 · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

well my main issue was , anyone at all who says if they saw someone being killed, had a weapon, had the skill and power to save that persons life, and does not because that person is a "liberal" or "conservative, and bases the value of that persons life on a political standpoint.........really needs to have their head checked.

and the fact that he said that, and then did an edit after thestatement was obviously not well liked. an edit that says "well maybe i would" says that the person is not only selfish, but the exact reason why liberals think we are all nuts, i bet if every gun owner, showed the courage , and compassion for other people that alot of us do, liberals would see us as a life saving force..............instead of a crazy group of guns with too many guns that have an obsession with killing everything that moves.

the only outrage i ever see from anyone when a responsible gun owner uses his weapon in the defense of an innocent person, is minoritys crying "racisim" just to have something to talk about or advance thier cause. i never see anyone say "oh that piece of crap had a gun and becuase of him that college girl is alive.........the horror!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

but solely basing the decision to help another human being whos life is in danger on where the person stands politicaly is not only dammaging the odds of the second amendment standing for another 100 years..........its just plain sick, i mean come on now, liberal, conservative........right in the middle..........were all americans, we all bleed red.........

SouthernBoy · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

jay75009 wrote:

well my main issue was , anyone at all who says if they saw someone being killed, had a weapon, had the skill and power to save that persons life, and does not because that person is a "liberal" or "conservative, and bases the value of that persons life on a political standpoint.........really needs to have their head checked.

and the fact that he said that, and then did an edit after thestatement was obviously not well liked. an edit that says "well maybe i would" says that the person is not only selfish, but the exact reason why liberals think we are all nuts, i bet if every gun owner, showed the courage , and compassion for other people that alot of us do, liberals would see us as a life saving force..............instead of a crazy group of guns with too many guns that have an obsession with killing everything that moves.

the only outrage i ever see from anyone when a responsible gun owner uses his weapon in the defense of an innocent person, is minoritys crying "racisim" just to have something to talk about or advance thier cause. i never see anyone say "oh that piece of crap had a gun and becuase of him that college girl is alive.........the horror!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

but solely basing the decision to help another human being whos life is in danger on where the person stands politicaly is not only dammaging the odds of the second amendment standing for another 100 years..........its just plain sick, i mean come on now, liberal, conservative........right in the middle..........were all americans, we all bleed red.........

Of course, not once did I say what I would or would not do.. only that I believe any such law that would force someone to intervene would be very bad, indeed. The decision should rest on the shoulders of the potential individual who is in the position of rendering help. That would be my take on the matter.

cloudcroft · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

Hey jayboy,

You must be a newbie to this forum and/or life in general...

I didn't edit anything"because I got flack," I edited to REPEAT what I have expressed here before for clarification. Look me up. I have been online for years, and been in many flame wars...I can keep up with the best of them, and do not cave in due to public pressure...but willand HAVE admitted when I am wrong (I've done that in forums, too). I'm just not wrong here (I am hardly ever wrong. Yeah...that's my opinion, and it's as right as anyone else's). Also, I'm not your typical wimpy white guy that seems to be so de rigueur nowadays in this country. Or some pansy "metrosexual," WTH that critter is. Or a rich Yuppie.

I HAVE come to the aid of others when needed, but HEREI am talking about those who refuse to protect themselves.

It's much like down here in hurricane country: MY emergency-preparednessis just fine (I stayed here for Hurricane Ike and it was a 'breeze' for me), but I will not help others who didn't prepare, only those who did or at least TRIED to. Even IF I did help the unprepared, they'd pay big time $$ for my having to take the time to educate them. It's "The Ant and the Grasshopper" fable in real life, if you will. Reap what you sow.

So I have said nothing NEW or "changed my position." You must be confusing me with the last sorry politician you voted for.

Further, as IALSO have said, I am not "akin" to most so-called gun owners here or elsewhere, i.e., the average garden-variety like you. So I'm not surprised few would agree with ANYthing I say (I've stated THAT before, too). That's VERY fine with me as I'm not trying to perrsuade anyone about anything. Again though, I have said nothing new here.

So nothing has changed, no new statements here. And I still wouldn't help the category of people I named.

If you're too stupid or naive to look out for yourself, you don''t deserve to be alive andare on borrowed time, probablydepending upon dumb (pun intended) luck or prey vs. predator population numbers -- there are just too manyprey for predator criminals to get to ALL of them, just some -- at least until the criminals DO get to you. Let's see how the 'warm and fuzzy' highbrow stuff works then.

People canbe unarmed ifthey wish, but that also has consquences. They should accept them. I do.

Ithink we understand where we each are coming from on this issue, so if you'll excuse me, I'm done with you.

-- John D.

P.S. Here's another "edit" for you jayboy:Thanks for the free medical advice -- your implicationto see a shrink -- but I've already done that. Turns out they don't know any more about real life than you do.

MikeV · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

Perhaps it may just be better if we let them suffer the consequences of their ignorance and succumb to the will and evil of those who would prey upon them. Why put our own selves in mortal danger to defend those who would rather we not have those very means with which to present a defense?

Just a thought, not a sermon.

How does the quote go?

"All it takes for evil to be victorious is for a good man to do nothing."?

I understand what your saying but, as much as I like the "lay in the bed you made" analogy. I don't know if I could take the looks and the questions from My wife and children when they ask me why i just walked on by when that man was being beaten/killed/robbed. What answer can I give that would stop them from suspecting that I am nothin more than a coward?

jay75009 · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

Hey jayboy,

You must be a newbie to this forum and/or life in general...

I didn't edit anything"because I got flack," I edited to REPEAT what I have expressed here before for clarification. Look me up. I have been online for years, and been in many flame wars...I can keep up with the best of them, and do not cave in due to public pressure...but willand HAVE admitted when I am wrong (I've done that in forums, too). I'm just not wrong here (I am hardly ever wrong. Yeah...that's my opinion, and it's as right as anyone else's). Also, I'm not your typical wimpy white guy that seems to be so de rigueur nowadays in this country. Or some pansy "metrosexual," WTH that critter is. Or a rich Yuppie.

I HAVE come to the aid of others when needed, but HEREI am talking about those who refuse to protect themselves.

It's much like down here in hurricane country: MY emergency-preparednessis just fine (I stayed here for Hurricane Ike and it was a 'breeze' for me), but I will not help others who didn't prepare, only those who did or at least TRIED to. Even IF I did help the unprepared, they'd pay big time $$ for my having to take the time to educate them. It's "The Ant and the Grasshopper" fable in real life, if you will. Reap what you sow.

So I have said nothing NEW or "changed my position." You must be confusing me with the last sorry politician you voted for.

Further, as IALSO have said, I am not "akin" to most so-called gun owners here or elsewhere, i.e., the average garden-variety like you. So I'm not surprised few would agree with ANYthing I say (I've stated THAT before, too). That's VERY fine with me as I'm not trying to perrsuade anyone about anything. Again though, I have said nothing new here.

So nothing has changed, no new statements here. And I still wouldn't help the category of people I named.

If you're too stupid or naive to look out for yourself, you don''t deserve to be alive andare on borrowed time, probablydepending upon dumb (pun intended) luck or prey vs. predator population numbers -- there are just too manyprey for predator criminals to get to ALL of them, just some -- at least until the criminals DO get to you. Let's see how the 'warm and fuzzy' highbrow stuff works then.

People canbe unarmed ifthey wish, but that also has consquences. They should accept them. I do.

Ithink we understand where we each are coming from on this issue, so if you'll excuse me, I'm done with you.

-- John D.

P.S. Here's another "edit" for you jayboy:Thanks for the free medical advice -- your implicationto see a shrink -- but I've already done that. Turns out they don't know any more about real life than you do.

actualy i voted for mccain :-D and im not a "garden variety gun owner" thank you very much im a Actively Enlisted United States Marine. i have served two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. I HAVE seen combat. I HAVE used my weapon both Military and Private, in the defense of myself and the the defense of others, I HAVE taken lives with my hands. I am not some liberal deomocrat kid sitting by his puter being an armchair warrior, i have fought and sacrificed for my country, my blood HAS spilt on American soil and foreign soil to defend myself and others. i am NOT some child pretending to play good guy because i own a pistol . I AM a graduate of the Frontsight Training Institute and MANY other Tactical Training Institutes.

Also thinks that i AM. I AM an American citizen. I AM a taxpayer. I AM a father, son , brother and friend. I AM a law abiding citizen.

a few things i AM NOT.

I AM not someone who takes self defense lightly. I AM NOT someone who will idley stand by and let another person be beaten, mugged , raped, or murdered because they DO NOT own a firearm as i do. I AM not someone who will sleep well at night knowing someone elses father son or brother is dead because i failed to act because i dont have the courage to put myself at stake for someone who does not have the means to defend themselves.

now with that said, thank you sir, for your opinion of me, the citizens of this country and your views on ppl who just may be affraid to carry a firearm. I am now done with you

SouthernBoy · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

MikeV wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

Perhaps it may just be better if we let them suffer the consequences of their ignorance and succumb to the will and evil of those who would prey upon them. Why put our own selves in mortal danger to defend those who would rather we not have those very means with which to present a defense?

Just a thought, not a sermon.

Click to expand...

How does the quote go?

"All it takes for evil to be victorious is for a good man to do nothing."?

I understand what your saying but, as much as I like the "lay in the bed you made" analogy. I don't know if I could take the looks and the questions from My wife and children when they ask me why i just walked on by when that man was being beaten/killed/robbed. What answer can I give that would stop them from suspecting that I am nothin more than a coward?

My post was offered as a thought.. not what I necessarily thought. Please see my subsequent posts on this.

BTW, lotta love floating around on this thread.

MikeV · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

MikeV wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

Perhaps it may just be better if we let them suffer the consequences of their ignorance and succumb to the will and evil of those who would prey upon them. Why put our own selves in mortal danger to defend those who would rather we not have those very means with which to present a defense?

Just a thought, not a sermon.

Click to expand...

How does the quote go?

"All it takes for evil to be victorious is for a good man to do nothing."?

I understand what your saying but, as much as I like the "lay in the bed you made" analogy. I don't know if I could take the looks and the questions from My wife and children when they ask me why i just walked on by when that man was being beaten/killed/robbed. What answer can I give that would stop them from suspecting that I am nothin more than a coward?

Click to expand...

My post was offered as a thought.. not what I necessarily thought. Please see my subsequent posts on this.

BTW, lotta love floating around on this thread.

I hear you, In all honesty I wasn't so much pointing fingers as I was just, how can I put it, offering a "Counter-thought" and putting my own perspective on the "he who won't help himself" argument.

jay75009 · Oct 15, 2009

imported post

i am sorry to anyone who has been offended by any of my harsh remarks on this thread, i lost my father at the age of 7 because some rich yuppy with a gun didnt care enough to even say a word when a thug in boston robbed and shot my father, when the police questioned him as a witness they found his pistol and asked him why he dindt try to help he simply replied "its not my job"................so im kind of sensitive on the subject................and again i appologise to anyone i may have offended

i open carry!..........because im crazy???

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member