killchain
Regular Member
imported post
Wheelgunner wrote:
Wheelgunner wrote:
-
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.
OC more than a pistol!
- Thread starter bennie1986
- Start date
Batousaii
Regular Member
imported post
amzbrady wrote:
As far as a know of, no law onup v. downhere. BUT, Two schools of thought:
1) Pointing up lets the bullet fly, fly fly... what goes up, must come down.
2) pointing Down Lets the bullet bury itself in the ground, but, since most of us live in the city, and bullets will bounce back up with radical force and could then strike someone close (or/then see #1). Even in dirt, might find rocks or solids to bounce off of.
-So my personal preference would be point it up, and there is a high chance thats the direction it'll go anyways. In the military, we carried them up, on the shoulder, or kinda cross-ways along the back on a tac-rig. ----------bang-------> (ouch)
However, be 100% aware as to method of carry. being "At the ready" is same as "gun in hand", we seen this in case laws. Over,all, i'd simply state that muzzle awareness, not sticking it in the ground, flagging a buddy, and being alert as to ones surroundings is paramount with any firearm, a rifle even more so due to it's inherit strength.
Although i think it a bit brazen to carry a rifle (under current affairs), and i understand the premise of "how the cause is viewed" when balanced upon a rifle, I still fully support the rifle-mans right to carry, as much as a pistol OC, CC, etc. I do however hope they understand the attention that may be received, or how they may be perceived by onlookers. But, alas, the intention above all is second amendment freedom, raising awareness, and nothing, i mean NOTHING, will do that more than legally carrying a rifle in awell managedmanner, and being able to be perceived as a "good guy" at the same time. If one can accomplish this, then full kudos and bravo! I admit, i would love to tote my L1A1 with complete anonymity and normalcy. I am a full patriot, and have to give respect to those that push the envelope in a legal and civilised manner... takes balls.
Let Freedom Ring,
Bat
amzbrady wrote:
As far as a know of, no law onup v. downhere. BUT, Two schools of thought:
1) Pointing up lets the bullet fly, fly fly... what goes up, must come down.
2) pointing Down Lets the bullet bury itself in the ground, but, since most of us live in the city, and bullets will bounce back up with radical force and could then strike someone close (or/then see #1). Even in dirt, might find rocks or solids to bounce off of.
-So my personal preference would be point it up, and there is a high chance thats the direction it'll go anyways. In the military, we carried them up, on the shoulder, or kinda cross-ways along the back on a tac-rig. ----------bang-------> (ouch)
However, be 100% aware as to method of carry. being "At the ready" is same as "gun in hand", we seen this in case laws. Over,all, i'd simply state that muzzle awareness, not sticking it in the ground, flagging a buddy, and being alert as to ones surroundings is paramount with any firearm, a rifle even more so due to it's inherit strength.
Although i think it a bit brazen to carry a rifle (under current affairs), and i understand the premise of "how the cause is viewed" when balanced upon a rifle, I still fully support the rifle-mans right to carry, as much as a pistol OC, CC, etc. I do however hope they understand the attention that may be received, or how they may be perceived by onlookers. But, alas, the intention above all is second amendment freedom, raising awareness, and nothing, i mean NOTHING, will do that more than legally carrying a rifle in awell managedmanner, and being able to be perceived as a "good guy" at the same time. If one can accomplish this, then full kudos and bravo! I admit, i would love to tote my L1A1 with complete anonymity and normalcy. I am a full patriot, and have to give respect to those that push the envelope in a legal and civilised manner... takes balls.
Let Freedom Ring,
BatKildars
Regular Member
imported post
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
I really do not mean to nitpick, but, "shall not be infringed" is the wording in the federal constitution and the 2nd amendment has not been applied to the states. The WA State constitution is the document that outlines and protects your right to bear arms in this state.
OrangeIsTrouble
Regular Member
imported post
Kildars wrote:
Kildars wrote:
http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minn...ion-101--The-Second-Amendment-is-no-good-here
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
Poosharker wrote:
The second ammendment has always applied. Hence the beginning words of "we the people".
In less than a 100 yrs after our start lawyers and politicians made a loop hole for them to escape this fact. Hopefully soon with "incorporation" it will again be as the supreme law of the land. Then we can start working on the countless other ways government has overstepped its boundaries.
Poosharker wrote:
The second ammendment has always applied. Hence the beginning words of "we the people".
In less than a 100 yrs after our start lawyers and politicians made a loop hole for them to escape this fact. Hopefully soon with "incorporation" it will again be as the supreme law of the land. Then we can start working on the countless other ways government has overstepped its boundaries.
Kildars
Regular Member
imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
I don't really agree that the federal constitution should be applied to the states. However since a majority of it is already it only makes sense to do the whole thing. The founders certainly did not intend for only part of the constitution to apply to the states.
You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore
sudden valley gunner wrote:
You're wrong. The federal constitution was written as a document to prevent the federal government from infringing of your rights. Over the years different cases have lead to different amendments being applied to the states. However the 2nd amendment is not one -- yet. As posted earlier there is a case in the SCOTUS now.
I don't really agree that the federal constitution should be applied to the states. However since a majority of it is already it only makes sense to do the whole thing. The founders certainly did not intend for only part of the constitution to apply to the states.
You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore
Kildars
Regular Member
imported post
Poosharker wrote:
Good article.
Poosharker wrote:
Good article.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
I disagree. It was written as unalienable rights that can't be infringed upon. A major clue to this is the phrase "we the people".
And you read any quote about the right to be armed by any of our "founding fathers" and it shows this as the intent also.
I disagree. It was written as unalienable rights that can't be infringed upon. A major clue to this is the phrase "we the people".
And you read any quote about the right to be armed by any of our "founding fathers" and it shows this as the intent also.
Kildars
Regular Member
imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
I'm not saying you don't have a right to bear arms, I'm just saying the constitution doesn't protect it. The state one does though.
sudden valley gunner wrote:
Do you have any proof that the constitution was written to apply to the states, or is it just your opinion? The federal constitution was written as a restriction on federal government.
I'm not saying you don't have a right to bear arms, I'm just saying the constitution doesn't protect it. The state one does though.
kito109654
Regular Member
imported post
Anyone consider an AR pistol. Totally protected right to carry it and you still get to piss people off and freak people out! Plus you have rifle rounds for self defense and you can keep it loaded in your vehicle with a valid WA CPL. WINS!
Credit to "jailer" and"noveske18" from ARFCOM.
Anyone consider an AR pistol. Totally protected right to carry it and you still get to piss people off and freak people out! Plus you have rifle rounds for self defense and you can keep it loaded in your vehicle with a valid WA CPL. WINS!
Credit to "jailer" and"noveske18" from ARFCOM.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
Kildars wrote:
Where is your proof? Does it state anywhere that it only applies federally?
It is written as a universal document. To protect all rights of those in this union.
Again the preamble begins "We the people" and it means just that. We the people have these rights and no one can take them away or infringe upon them the feds, state, city, county, or any other individuals.
And no its not just my opinion it is the opinion of the majority of the folks in U.S.
Kildars wrote:
My proof is every quote by every founding father regarding the constitution and its amendments especially the second.
Where is your proof? Does it state anywhere that it only applies federally?
It is written as a universal document. To protect all rights of those in this union.
Again the preamble begins "We the people" and it means just that. We the people have these rights and no one can take them away or infringe upon them the feds, state, city, county, or any other individuals.
And no its not just my opinion it is the opinion of the majority of the folks in U.S.
bennie1986
Regular Member
imported post
Ok I've left this thread alone for a few about a week because the initial response got me a little heated. I thought everyone was in this to fight for our rights... all of them. I am tired of people that aren’t willing to put themselves 100% into the fight. A perfect example of this is the reaction I got from the people at sharp shooting in Spokane, Wa. They told me that OC was just going to keep people fighting against gun rights but they couldn’t be more wrong. People who want guns completely banned will continue to pursue their agendas whether or not we OC. In fact taking their stance and continuing to conform to more regulation, for example only allowing CC, will in fact be making things worse. They will keep chiseling away one tiny issue at a time because we don’t want to upset people with an opposing view. Anyone happy with how PC has screwed this country up already? Yea me either! So until the people that are only in this for the occasional debate wake up and are will to put themselves on the line for their freedoms we aren’t going to get anything meaningful accomplished. In fact I believe it will be unfortunately the opposite.
Ok I've left this thread alone for a few about a week because the initial response got me a little heated. I thought everyone was in this to fight for our rights... all of them. I am tired of people that aren’t willing to put themselves 100% into the fight. A perfect example of this is the reaction I got from the people at sharp shooting in Spokane, Wa. They told me that OC was just going to keep people fighting against gun rights but they couldn’t be more wrong. People who want guns completely banned will continue to pursue their agendas whether or not we OC. In fact taking their stance and continuing to conform to more regulation, for example only allowing CC, will in fact be making things worse. They will keep chiseling away one tiny issue at a time because we don’t want to upset people with an opposing view. Anyone happy with how PC has screwed this country up already? Yea me either! So until the people that are only in this for the occasional debate wake up and are will to put themselves on the line for their freedoms we aren’t going to get anything meaningful accomplished. In fact I believe it will be unfortunately the opposite.
bennie1986
Regular Member
imported post
kito109654 wrote:
I really hope your joking about pissing people off and freaking people out because that’s absolutely ridiculous. That’s the type of thinking that will get our rights taken away. If you are serious do us all a favor and stop carrying a gun altogether.
kito109654 wrote:
Anyone consider an AR pistol. Totally protected right to carry it and you still get to piss people off and freak people out! Plus you have rifle rounds for self defense and you can keep it loaded in your vehicle with a valid WA CPL. WINS!
Credit to "jailer" and"noveske18" from ARFCOM.
I really hope your joking about pissing people off and freaking people out because that’s absolutely ridiculous. That’s the type of thinking that will get our rights taken away. If you are serious do us all a favor and stop carrying a gun altogether.
Kildars
Regular Member
imported post
NavyLT wrote:
I appreciate what you're trying to say here but I think you need to research a little more. What you are saying is a common misconception of our constitution. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore (Barron v. Baltimore 1833) and United States v. Cruikshank (1876) which ruled, "[the first amendment] was not intended to limit the powers of State Governments in respect to their own citizens." and that "the second amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the federal government.
The first amendment was incorporated not as whole but each clause was almost individually incorporated see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education (Everson v. Board of Education (1947) which did the establishment of religion clause and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York Gitlow vs New York (1925) which incorprated freedom of speech. I can try to find all the cases for you that incorporate each clause. Just let me know if you want to. The second amendment has yet to be incorporated (there is a case pending) but as of now the appeals court stated the 2nd amendment does not apply: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/03/nation/na-gun-rights3. Other older cases that ruled against incorporation of the second amendment include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Texas (Miller v Texas 1894) and Presser v Illinois (1886) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Texas.
Even in our recent DC v Heller Case it said:"
Where does the federal government get this power to step in under the powers of the U.S. constitution? Can you show it to me or show case law? I think that is how you want it to be and how most gun owners want it to be but you gotta remember that they allowed a federal assault weapons ban and it did not infringe on the 2nd amendment. Do you really want that to apply everywhere?
The federal government has a very limited role in this country, or it was intended to, most of the powers are supposed to be left to the state.
I disagree with this as well also. The power of the government to infringe on rights should end when the punishment ends. If a person is deemed to be a danger to a society they should not be released, if they're released they should have their full rights restored. The government is the force which is limited, not the rights and liberties of the individual.
NavyLT wrote:
I appreciate what you're trying to say here but I think you need to research a little more. What you are saying is a common misconception of our constitution. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore (Barron v. Baltimore 1833) and United States v. Cruikshank (1876) which ruled, "[the first amendment] was not intended to limit the powers of State Governments in respect to their own citizens." and that "the second amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the federal government.
The first amendment was incorporated not as whole but each clause was almost individually incorporated see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education (Everson v. Board of Education (1947) which did the establishment of religion clause and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York Gitlow vs New York (1925) which incorprated freedom of speech. I can try to find all the cases for you that incorporate each clause. Just let me know if you want to. The second amendment has yet to be incorporated (there is a case pending) but as of now the appeals court stated the 2nd amendment does not apply: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/03/nation/na-gun-rights3. Other older cases that ruled against incorporation of the second amendment include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Texas (Miller v Texas 1894) and Presser v Illinois (1886) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Texas.
Even in our recent DC v Heller Case it said:"
Where does the federal government get this power to step in under the powers of the U.S. constitution? Can you show it to me or show case law? I think that is how you want it to be and how most gun owners want it to be but you gotta remember that they allowed a federal assault weapons ban and it did not infringe on the 2nd amendment. Do you really want that to apply everywhere?
The federal government has a very limited role in this country, or it was intended to, most of the powers are supposed to be left to the state.
I disagree with this as well also. The power of the government to infringe on rights should end when the punishment ends. If a person is deemed to be a danger to a society they should not be released, if they're released they should have their full rights restored. The government is the force which is limited, not the rights and liberties of the individual.
Kildars
Regular Member
imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
The opinion of the majority of the folks in the U.S. is largely wrong on this issue.
sudden valley gunner wrote:
I have provided case law and proof to support my side of the story. Could you please provide some for yours other than your opinion? Most of the founding fathers supported states rights which is why they ratified the 10th amendment.
The opinion of the majority of the folks in the U.S. is largely wrong on this issue.
Kildars
Regular Member
imported post
Never mind.
Never mind.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
I know about the case law and it was simply unchallenged, it doesn't mean it is right.
And it doesn't mean the constitution was written the way that court, interpreted it.
And folks who continue to believe that are part of the problem.
You did not refute anything I said about the time it was written and every comment on it by those who wrote it and the way it was written.
Also your "proof" proves my point on how it is lawyers and politicians who in less than a hundred years had already twisted the original intent of the constitution. And they use a bad precedent to further control.
Why is it that to this day, even local judges have to take oaths to uphold the constitution of the U.S.?
Who are to stop tyranny? The people, how by being armed? If the state has the right to take away their arms how would they stop tyranny according to the 2A? It is common sense that the 2A is an individual right, that noone including state is to infringe upon it.
Common sense that the whole constitution, as written, is to be applied that way. It took "smart" people to try to convince us dummies that just isn't true.
JAMES MADISON, AMERICAN FOUNDING FATHER wrote:
I know about the case law and it was simply unchallenged, it doesn't mean it is right.
And it doesn't mean the constitution was written the way that court, interpreted it.
And folks who continue to believe that are part of the problem.
You did not refute anything I said about the time it was written and every comment on it by those who wrote it and the way it was written.
Also your "proof" proves my point on how it is lawyers and politicians who in less than a hundred years had already twisted the original intent of the constitution. And they use a bad precedent to further control.
Why is it that to this day, even local judges have to take oaths to uphold the constitution of the U.S.?
Who are to stop tyranny? The people, how by being armed? If the state has the right to take away their arms how would they stop tyranny according to the 2A? It is common sense that the 2A is an individual right, that noone including state is to infringe upon it.
Common sense that the whole constitution, as written, is to be applied that way. It took "smart" people to try to convince us dummies that just isn't true.
JAMES MADISON, AMERICAN FOUNDING FATHER wrote:
Kildars
Regular Member
imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
I'm sorry, pro-gun quotes from founders does not prove that they intended the constitution to apply to the states. Each state ratified their own constitution even after the federal constitution was ratified for a reason. If you want to argue that every single supreme court case that stated the constitution applies to federal government for two centuries was wrong, I guess you can have the opinion but it has no basis in case law or history.
sudden valley gunner wrote:
I hope you're not mistaking me for thinking that I believe you don't have a right to carry a firearm, I do. I agree that the founders believed you do. However your one quote does not prove anything regarding who the federal constitution applied against. The DC v Heller case just re-affirmed that the second amendment does not apply. If you read the articles of confederation they were drawn up to create and better the federal government. They were thrown out and a constitution was written in it's place for the federal government.
I'm sorry, pro-gun quotes from founders does not prove that they intended the constitution to apply to the states. Each state ratified their own constitution even after the federal constitution was ratified for a reason. If you want to argue that every single supreme court case that stated the constitution applies to federal government for two centuries was wrong, I guess you can have the opinion but it has no basis in case law or history.
Kildars
Regular Member
imported post
NavyLT wrote:
NavyLT wrote:
Care to refute anything? What I said was correct.
kito109654
Regular Member
imported post
bennie1986 wrote:
You blow my mind! :banghead::banghead::banghead:I'm not in the habit of explaining myself but I was indeed being sarcastic, in fact, making fun of your terrible idea of OCing more than an ordinary pistol. Even if it should be our right, it's not smart and it hurts the cause. My reference to pissing off and scaring people was in response to you carrying a damned shotgun around. What is that supposed to do for our rights? :cuss:
FAIL.
bennie1986 wrote:
You blow my mind! :banghead::banghead::banghead:I'm not in the habit of explaining myself but I was indeed being sarcastic, in fact, making fun of your terrible idea of OCing more than an ordinary pistol. Even if it should be our right, it's not smart and it hurts the cause. My reference to pissing off and scaring people was in response to you carrying a damned shotgun around. What is that supposed to do for our rights? :cuss:
FAIL.