Gundude
Regular Member
imported post
N6ATF wrote:
N6ATF wrote:
We can own slaves too?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Please Do Not UOC At This Time
- Thread starter cato
- Start date
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
Gundude wrote:
Gundude wrote:
We were only counting to 10, restrictions (honored or not) on government, not everyone.
Livermoron
Regular Member
imported post
Ham Radio "ditto's" my friend - 73's de K6EWN
Ham Radio "ditto's" my friend - 73's de K6EWN
coolusername2007
Regular Member
imported post
I'm sorry I just do not agree with your or Gene's analysis. The UOC cat is out of the bag thanks to you and many others. If the jerkislators choose to create and pass more anti-gun laws it definitely will not be because we did not stop open carrying, which is to say that if we stop now somehow all will be forgotten and more bad legislation would be averted. That's just naive.
The anti-gunners HATE us, nothing will change that. I will no longer remain silent. Plus I've heard the gay analogy one too many times now. It is a false argument. The two issues have absolutely nothing in common. There is a 200+ year history of positive gun culture in this country, not to mention a little paragraph titled Amendment II. The same cannot be said for the homosexual movement. I will not accept the false, fear mongering FUD about the lack of gun support in this state. There are more of us than them (speaking of pro vs anti gunners). What is especially frustrating is the fact that so many of us choose to remain silent and allow our rights to be ripped away all the while those in the know and on the front lines continue to preach silence and secrecy.
Exercise all your rights and carry on!
Further l must say all this stand down talk makes me very skeptical especially in light of the fact that after Nordyke incorporated the 2nd there was not a single announcement promoting, supporting, or encouraging open carry despite statements to that effect from the "right people".
If you believe in open carry then do it because those who wish to control your behavior while perverting the Constitution will do so whether or not you carry any longer. They are sniveling, spineless, world view, world order, gun controlling, anti-American shrills who seek nothing less than your complete and total subservience to their beliefs and ideals.
I'm sorry I just do not agree with your or Gene's analysis. The UOC cat is out of the bag thanks to you and many others. If the jerkislators choose to create and pass more anti-gun laws it definitely will not be because we did not stop open carrying, which is to say that if we stop now somehow all will be forgotten and more bad legislation would be averted. That's just naive.
The anti-gunners HATE us, nothing will change that. I will no longer remain silent. Plus I've heard the gay analogy one too many times now. It is a false argument. The two issues have absolutely nothing in common. There is a 200+ year history of positive gun culture in this country, not to mention a little paragraph titled Amendment II. The same cannot be said for the homosexual movement. I will not accept the false, fear mongering FUD about the lack of gun support in this state. There are more of us than them (speaking of pro vs anti gunners). What is especially frustrating is the fact that so many of us choose to remain silent and allow our rights to be ripped away all the while those in the know and on the front lines continue to preach silence and secrecy.
Exercise all your rights and carry on!
Further l must say all this stand down talk makes me very skeptical especially in light of the fact that after Nordyke incorporated the 2nd there was not a single announcement promoting, supporting, or encouraging open carry despite statements to that effect from the "right people".
If you believe in open carry then do it because those who wish to control your behavior while perverting the Constitution will do so whether or not you carry any longer. They are sniveling, spineless, world view, world order, gun controlling, anti-American shrills who seek nothing less than your complete and total subservience to their beliefs and ideals.
yelohamr
Regular Member
imported post
An email I sent earlier this evening:
To:jpierce@speedscape.com
Can anything be done about the trolls from Calguns that post in the Open Carry CA forum?
If they want to whine and bitch about UOC, have them do it inthe Calguns forum.
All they are doing is disrupting our usually friendly discussions and may be discouraging new members to join in the discussions.
Any help would be appreciated.
I'm realllly going to hold my breath until the :cuss:troll problem is taken care of.
An email I sent earlier this evening:
To:jpierce@speedscape.com
Can anything be done about the trolls from Calguns that post in the Open Carry CA forum?
If they want to whine and bitch about UOC, have them do it inthe Calguns forum.
All they are doing is disrupting our usually friendly discussions and may be discouraging new members to join in the discussions.
Any help would be appreciated.
I'm realllly going to hold my breath until the :cuss:troll problem is taken care of.
imported post
yelohamr wrote:
IMHO that is not how an open forum should operate. Listening to other opinions can be educational and offer the opportunity to hone your response skills. Yes it can be frustrating, but not nearly as frustrating as face to face events wherein you are not properly schooled.
Keep your cool, use facts and truth, and let them be the fools.
I have confidence that if they cross the established lines, the hammer will fall.
Yata hey
BTW - Sure glad I live in Virginia. Good luck guys.
yelohamr wrote:
Calguns will delete and ban you if you dare to go against the grain.
IMHO that is not how an open forum should operate. Listening to other opinions can be educational and offer the opportunity to hone your response skills. Yes it can be frustrating, but not nearly as frustrating as face to face events wherein you are not properly schooled.
Keep your cool, use facts and truth, and let them be the fools.
I have confidence that if they cross the established lines, the hammer will fall.
Yata hey
BTW - Sure glad I live in Virginia. Good luck guys.
cato
Newbie
imported post
coolusername2007 wrote:
Quite true. But as the battlefield has shifted (post Heller) so have I in my support of what tactic is best to achieve our goals which I hope are LOC (UOC is not the right).
You're rightit may already be too late to forestall legislation aimed at us by lying low. Then again maybe not. Often it takes an "event" to trigger legislation which is"standing by" forthat public outcry to "appear" to be the stimulus. Lying low forestalls that "event" and only costs till next summer.
It is however not too late to prevent the next "Theseus" event from not having a 2nd A. defense. With Federal civil litigation there is no needfor individuals to assume any risk yet. Martyrdom is not necessary and wasteful of our resources. Waiting is prudent and we don't loose anything to doing snce "bear" is established the publicpromotion of"bearing" will thendwarf all of our UOC efforts over the last three years making up for any lost time.
In the very least I would hope any UOC events would be at fixed locations. There are too many variables involved in the roaming / walking events that can end negatively for the groups.
coolusername2007 wrote:
Quite true. But as the battlefield has shifted (post Heller) so have I in my support of what tactic is best to achieve our goals which I hope are LOC (UOC is not the right).
You're rightit may already be too late to forestall legislation aimed at us by lying low. Then again maybe not. Often it takes an "event" to trigger legislation which is"standing by" forthat public outcry to "appear" to be the stimulus. Lying low forestalls that "event" and only costs till next summer.
It is however not too late to prevent the next "Theseus" event from not having a 2nd A. defense. With Federal civil litigation there is no needfor individuals to assume any risk yet. Martyrdom is not necessary and wasteful of our resources. Waiting is prudent and we don't loose anything to doing s
nce "bear" is established the publicpromotion of"bearing" will thendwarf all of our UOC efforts over the last three years making up for any lost time.In the very least I would hope any UOC events would be at fixed locations. There are too many variables involved in the roaming / walking events that can end negatively for the groups.
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
Well, you'll get a temp ban if you reflect a small fraction of the rudeness back onto the aggressors. Can't allow them to be challenged or banned, can we?
coolusername2007
Regular Member
imported post
cato wrote:
Triggering legislation: You are quite correct...they are opportunists if nothing else.
Martyrdom is not only not necessary, its not the goal. Who ever said anything about martyrdom?!Ours, or at least mine, is an educational campaign.
cato wrote:
You're rightit may already be too late to forestall legislation aimed at us by lying low. Then again maybe not. Often it takes an "event" to trigger legislation which is"standing by" forthat public outcry to "appear" to be the stimulus. Lying low forestalls that "event" and only costs till next summer.
It is however not too late to prevent the next "Theseus" event from not having a 2nd A. defense. With Federal civil litigation there is no needfor individuals to assume any risk yet. Martyrdom is not necessary and wasteful of our resources. Waiting is prudent and we don't loose anything to doing s
Triggering legislation: You are quite correct...they are opportunists if nothing else.
Martyrdom is not only not necessary, its not the goal. Who ever said anything about martyrdom?!Ours, or at least mine, is an educational campaign.
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
coolusername2007 wrote:
Or maybe suicide bombers getting videotaped running at a crowd with a UOCer visible, then detonating as we are in mid-load unable to take them down. Even the Israeli survivors should have a fit about that, considering they are 1-2 steps ahead with Condition 3 in their homeland.
coolusername2007 wrote:
Yeah, martyrdom in our case would be a series of us getting murdered by police with multiple video angles showing we had our hands in the air and nowhere near our guns. Then the survivors would have to demand CCW licensing be no longer necessary, we're going to do it so the rest of us don't suffer the same fate.cato wrote:You're rightit may already be too late to forestall legislation aimed at us by lying low. Then again maybe not. Often it takes an "event" to trigger legislation which is"standing by" forthat public outcry to "appear" to be the stimulus. Lying low forestalls that "event" and only costs till next summer.
It is however not too late to prevent the next "Theseus" event from not having a 2nd A. defense. With Federal civil litigation there is no needfor individuals to assume any risk yet. Martyrdom is not necessary and wasteful of our resources. Waiting is prudent and we don't loose anything to doing s
Triggering legislation: You are quite correct...they are opportunists if nothing else.
Martyrdom is not only not necessary, its not the goal. Who ever said anything about martyrdom?!Ours, or at least mine, is an educational campaign.
Or maybe suicide bombers getting videotaped running at a crowd with a UOCer visible, then detonating as we are in mid-load unable to take them down. Even the Israeli survivors should have a fit about that, considering they are 1-2 steps ahead with Condition 3 in their homeland.
expresstowal
Regular Member
imported post
cal guns people should give their guns to the police, to keep.
cal guns people should give their guns to the police, to keep.
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
expresstowal wrote:
expresstowal wrote:
More preemptive action! LOL
expresstowal
Regular Member
imported post
Im a nobody here, i have 8 posts, lol. But i just read that post on open carry in cal guns ,why would the moderator end the discussion on open carry, because maybe he's really timid, or maybe a little scared, i thought cal gun would have grown ups that could handle a little heat. imreally dissapointed about that, it seems cal guns only wants to talk about nice things, with nothing going against the grain. Ive seen more heated disscussions on my space between little kids. very very sad, next time i want to talk about something very sweet and kind, I know where Ill go.
Im a nobody here, i have 8 posts, lol. But i just read that post on open carry in cal guns ,why would the moderator end the discussion on open carry, because maybe he's really timid, or maybe a little scared, i thought cal gun would have grown ups that could handle a little heat. imreally dissapointed about that, it seems cal guns only wants to talk about nice things, with nothing going against the grain. Ive seen more heated disscussions on my space between little kids. very very sad, next time i want to talk about something very sweet and kind, I know where Ill go.
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
yelohamr wrote:
1. Cato has been here longer than 99% of the people who post in the CA forum.
2. He's not trolling in any way/shape/form - he's simply requesting that we consider his opinion on this subject - an opinion I agree with at this time.
3. He's one of the most pro-OC people I've ever met.
It's fine to disagree with the ideas being promoted by Cato and myself. However, to try and get the web site's administrators to force censorship on us is pretty un-liberty-like.
Whether you agree or not, I'm asking you to step back and realize who you're talking to. Cato has done more for the OC movement than almost anybody else (don't believe it? Just go back and read a few threads from the 2+ years we've been doing this before you got here). Having met and spoke to Cato on several occasions, I can confidently say I believe he has the best interests of liberty at heart.
yelohamr wrote:
You're new here, so let me help you out.
1. Cato has been here longer than 99% of the people who post in the CA forum.
2. He's not trolling in any way/shape/form - he's simply requesting that we consider his opinion on this subject - an opinion I agree with at this time.
3. He's one of the most pro-OC people I've ever met.
It's fine to disagree with the ideas being promoted by Cato and myself. However, to try and get the web site's administrators to force censorship on us is pretty un-liberty-like.
Whether you agree or not, I'm asking you to step back and realize who you're talking to. Cato has done more for the OC movement than almost anybody else (don't believe it? Just go back and read a few threads from the 2+ years we've been doing this before you got here). Having met and spoke to Cato on several occasions, I can confidently say I believe he has the best interests of liberty at heart.
imported post
yelohamr wrote:
Yelohamr, if you don't want to hear anyone else’s opinion, you should sign off the internet, and sit in a small room where your opinion is the only one that you can hear…….....[/quote]From many of the above posts, it sounds like many people on THIS SITE want to hear what Cato has to say and in many cases they understand, respect and take to heart what he has to say.....That why is is caled a chat room,,,,not YOUR ROOM........
yelohamr wrote:
Yelohamr, if you don't want to hear anyone else’s opinion, you should sign off the internet, and sit in a small room where your opinion is the only one that you can hear…….....[/quote]From many of the above posts, it sounds like many people on THIS SITE want to hear what Cato has to say and in many cases they understand, respect and take to heart what he has to say.....That why is is caled a chat room,,,,not YOUR ROOM........
yelohamr
Regular Member
imported post
greg36f wrote:
[/quote]The other troll is heard from. Welcome back. I have no problems with other opinions, I just don't have to agree with them.
BTW, this is not a chat room. How's that Acme Skin Thickener workin'g for you?
As far as being banned from Calguns for my opinion, so what? Do you think I really give a rat's ass. I would wear it as a badge of honor...and write a lot about it on my news blog.
Grapeshot, you are lucky to be in VA. For me AZ is closer to move to, but I don't run or "stand back".
It doesn't matter to me if someone posting in this forum has been here since the invention of gunpowder, if I don't agree with them, I'll tell them. You can find the sheeple in Calguns.
And cato, no matter how many times you ask, I will not go on a date with you.
greg36f wrote:
From many of the above posts, it sounds like many people on THIS SITE want to hear what Cato has to say and in many cases they understand, respect and take to heart what he has to say.....That why is is caled a chat room,,,,not YOUR ROOM........
[/quote]The other troll is heard from. Welcome back. I have no problems with other opinions, I just don't have to agree with them.
BTW, this is not a chat room. How's that Acme Skin Thickener workin'g for you?
As far as being banned from Calguns for my opinion, so what? Do you think I really give a rat's ass. I would wear it as a badge of honor...and write a lot about it on my news blog.
Grapeshot, you are lucky to be in VA. For me AZ is closer to move to, but I don't run or "stand back".
It doesn't matter to me if someone posting in this forum has been here since the invention of gunpowder, if I don't agree with them, I'll tell them. You can find the sheeple in Calguns.
And cato, no matter how many times you ask, I will not go on a date with you.
Streetbikerr6
Regular Member
imported post
yelohamr wrote:
Yelohamr. Cato presents tous a thought out argument and I see nothing but a slew of attacks coming from you. I have yet to hear a rebuttal to Cato's post. I am not saying I agree with Cato, though I don't deny that what he says makes sense. As for this whole troll debate... it is to my understanding that trolls are people withno logic or reasonwho come into a forum and name call/harrass/belittle a person making a clear (not necessarily correct)argument. Is that not the consensus opinion ofdefinition?
Anyways.. here are links to the 2 cases Cato brought to the table in his argument, in case anyone would like to counter.
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Palmer_v._District_of_Columbia
I almost had the chance to speak to Mcginness on the issue of open carry here in Sacramento when he was on the rob arnie and dawn show. He was trying to increase his budget and was trying to "threaten" the public by telling them he would have to increase ccw issuance if he had to cut back the # of patrol units on the streets. It was rather funny, he was saying "well people can't be protected from us if our budget gets cut, so I guess I will have to increase CCW's". It made enthusiasts like me excited but you know his agenda was to spread fear in the unknowing public eye.
yelohamr wrote:
Yelohamr. Cato presents tous a thought out argument and I see nothing but a slew of attacks coming from you. I have yet to hear a rebuttal to Cato's post. I am not saying I agree with Cato, though I don't deny that what he says makes sense. As for this whole troll debate... it is to my understanding that trolls are people withno logic or reasonwho come into a forum and name call/harrass/belittle a person making a clear (not necessarily correct)argument. Is that not the consensus opinion ofdefinition?
Anyways.. here are links to the 2 cases Cato brought to the table in his argument, in case anyone would like to counter.
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Palmer_v._District_of_Columbia
I almost had the chance to speak to Mcginness on the issue of open carry here in Sacramento when he was on the rob arnie and dawn show. He was trying to increase his budget and was trying to "threaten" the public by telling them he would have to increase ccw issuance if he had to cut back the # of patrol units on the streets. It was rather funny, he was saying "well people can't be protected from us if our budget gets cut, so I guess I will have to increase CCW's". It made enthusiasts like me excited but you know his agenda was to spread fear in the unknowing public eye.
camsoup
Regular Member
imported post
CA_Libertarian wrote:
If I may ask...What was different 2+ years ago that made it OK to UOC? Nothing has changed, we didn't have incorporation then, we don't have it now.
Somehow it was OK for you, Cato and others to do it then, and everyone was behind you (and all UOC'ers at the time) for standing up and exercising your rights, and now a majority of those same people that either participated in or support UOC are asking us not to do it.
Why? Because we "might" get incorporation in 7 months? We also might "not" get incorperation in 7 months and we will still be in the exact same boat as now.
As someone else said earlier they carry to protect themselves and loved ones, and that is the main reason I UOC (LOC where permisable). Other than that I hope to educate others I meet that seem interested in what I am doing. I do not actively go out and approach people, I don't do it for a political statement, I dont do it to feel manly. I simply do it because I want to protect me and mine. And in this state it is the only viable legal option to do so for us ordinary citizens,
If it wasn't for the forerunners who 2+ years ago started to UOC here in CA I wouldn't have known it was legal, Now I at least have that has a legal option to help protect myself and loved ones. I don't see myself has an OC activist, just someone who happens to sometime wear a gun on my hip as I go about my day to day tasks.
CA_Libertarian wrote:
CA, no disrespect meant by this post. I admire what you, Cato, and others have done for us thus far.
If I may ask...What was different 2+ years ago that made it OK to UOC? Nothing has changed, we didn't have incorporation then, we don't have it now.
Somehow it was OK for you, Cato and others to do it then, and everyone was behind you (and all UOC'ers at the time) for standing up and exercising your rights, and now a majority of those same people that either participated in or support UOC are asking us not to do it.
Why? Because we "might" get incorporation in 7 months? We also might "not" get incorperation in 7 months and we will still be in the exact same boat as now.
As someone else said earlier they carry to protect themselves and loved ones, and that is the main reason I UOC (LOC where permisable). Other than that I hope to educate others I meet that seem interested in what I am doing. I do not actively go out and approach people, I don't do it for a political statement, I dont do it to feel manly. I simply do it because I want to protect me and mine. And in this state it is the only viable legal option to do so for us ordinary citizens,
If it wasn't for the forerunners who 2+ years ago started to UOC here in CA I wouldn't have known it was legal, Now I at least have that has a legal option to help protect myself and loved ones. I don't see myself has an OC activist, just someone who happens to sometime wear a gun on my hip as I go about my day to day tasks.
expresstowal
Regular Member
imported post
You wont hear them bitch in their own forum , because to much heat will cause them to delete all posts.Kinda reminds me of old china or Iran, where they only want you to hear whats politicaly correct.
You wont hear them bitch in their own forum , because to much heat will cause them to delete all posts.Kinda reminds me of old china or Iran, where they only want you to hear whats politicaly correct.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
Are long guns permitted to be carried openly in California?
Are long guns permitted to be carried openly in California?