Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Armed American Radio

  1. #1
    Regular Member ISMOID's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    MOC Charter Member - Dearborn Heights, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    I sent an email to Armed American Radio tonight while listening to the show.

    Mark,
    Excellent show, this is what America is about.

    As I sit here though I am shocked that you and Ted would say that the 2nd Amendment is your "concealed" carry permit. The 2A doesn't put a condition of the way you can carry. The 2A is our carry permit. Whether you carry open or concealed should be left up to your personal preference.

    Again excellent show

    Frank L
    Dearborn Heights, MI
    Listening on WDTK am 1400 in Detroit.


    After sending the email I realized I didn't mention my Michigan Open Carry Charter Membership.
    So what did they say about it...I would be the first one the bad guy would shoot!

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    quote : So what did they say about it...I would be the first one the bad guy would shoot!


    well, thats our cuetime to educate. gotta plan?

  3. #3
    Guest

    Post imported post

    You can't educate Ted.

    He already knows everything.

    Just ask him.

    I'm sure he'll tell you.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    U got that right.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Jackson, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    i'm going to agree with them here..... 2A is your CPL.... it also authorizes OC... it has no conditions. It is the reason I believe the CPL to be unconstitutional.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    hale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    is there some archives where i can hear this show? i missed it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member ISMOID's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    MOC Charter Member - Dearborn Heights, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    The main site is http://armedamericanradio.org/

    Later today you should be able to download the MP3 or listen to a stream from the site.

    They read my email either at the end of the 2nd hour or the begining of the 3rd hour.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    hale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    listening now thanks

  9. #9
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Ted Nugent is a Fudd!!!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    MOC Charter Member - Shelby Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    Ted follows the gravy train - the money doesn't support open carry just yet, so neither does he...

  11. #11
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    I actually don't have a moral or constitutional problem with militants (because that's what we are if we believe the constitution gives us a right to be armed) having to get special permission to carry concealed, just as long as anyone without a permit/license can carry openly anywhere anyone with that government permission can carry.

    If you go back to the definition of "regulated" as it stood when the BOR was drafted, it meant something like "to function as expected". In order for the militia of each free state to function as expected, a certain degree of scrutiny needs to be in place. When someone carries openly, they will be scrutinized by everyone near them who notices, and the government will have no need to do anything to make sure that person carries responsibly. No criminal in his or her right mind would dare to carry openly, as statistics almost universally prove. So in that respect, OC is a means to ensure that the militia is operating properly. That is why common law used to prohibit CC.

    In modern times, CC has become popular, typically with permits/licenses, save Alaska and Vermont. I'm not morally opposed to permitless CC, however I'm not completely sure it's the best idea, nor am I sure you can argue it's the only constitutional route.

    Criminals carry concealed, period. When someone with a record or someone committing a crime gets caught carrying concealed, I think it's just fine and dandy that they can be punished for it.

    Furthermore, I do not mind knowing that all the people I encounter who are carrying concealed legally have had some training. This is again a way to make sure that the militia functions as expected.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    MOC Charter Member - Shelby Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    I must have read it wrong.. Must be "shall only be infringed a little" rather than "shall not be infringed".

    keep:
    to hold or retain in one's possession

    bear:
    transitive verb 1 : to physically carry (as an object or message) bear arms —U.S. Constitution amendment II

  13. #13
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    PilotPTK wrote:
    I must have read it wrong.. Must be "shall only be infringed a little" rather than "shall not be infringed".
    Are you saying that legal OC everywhere permit/license holders can CC would be an even slight infringement? I do not understand.

    As long as average joe citizen can carry openly anywhere he chooses to, aside from private property where he isn't welcome, I don't understand how CC being more tightly controlled is a constitutional issue.

    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    MOC Charter Member - Shelby Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    You don't believe that telling people how they may keep or bear arms is infringing? What if the only legal way to carry a gun was to strap it to your forehead - would you then find it infringing? Or how about if you were forced to only carry a certain make, model and caliber of gun - now is it infringing?

    I don't understand how you don't understand. Our rights to "keep" and "bear" arms is either infringed upon, or it isn't. there is no middle ground.

    Ben

  15. #15
    Guest

    Post imported post

    PilotPTK wrote:
    You don't believe that telling people how they may keep or bear arms is infringing? What if the only legal way to carry a gun was to strap it to your forehead - would you then find it infringing? Or how about if you were forced to only carry a certain make, model and caliber of gun - now is it infringing?

    I don't understand how you don't understand. Our rights to "keep" and "bear" arms is either infringed upon, or it isn't. there is no middle ground.

    Ben
    That doesn't quite jive with the "self infringement" you advocate here:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/36638-13.html

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    MOC Charter Member - Shelby Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    I'm reasonably sure that the constitution doesn't protect us against private persons and private businesses. If we're talking constitutional issues, then we're talking about government - period.

    While I don't like to patronize businesses who infringe upon my rights, I also refuse to infringe upon their rights as the property owner. In that setting, a reasonable give and take is acceptable to me. What level of compromise is acceptable to you is up to you.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Plymouth/Canton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    PilotPTK wrote:
    Ted follows the gravy train - the money doesn't support open carry just yet, so neither does he...
    Oh... so your saying that he has a monetary/political agenda?

    Ted has become nothing more than an over the hill rock icon that has turned into a politician.

    As proven already, he is only driven by money to support HIS political agenda... NOT the agenda of the people he claims to be in support of.

    If you set aside Teds political agendas, and look at his support of the 2a, he feels that concealed carry is the only carry. He is only half supporting our rights, thus as far as i am concerned, Uncle Ted can "suck a fart directly out of my cornhole."



  18. #18
    Guest

    Post imported post

    PilotPTK wrote:
    I'm reasonably sure that the constitution doesn't protect us against private persons and private businesses. If we're talking constitutional issues, then we're talking about government - period.

    While I don't like to patronize businesses who infringe upon my rights, I also refuse to infringe upon their rights as the property owner. In that setting, a reasonable give and take is acceptable to me. What level of compromise is acceptable to you is up to you.
    What's the difference between Ted saying we should only carry a certain way and you saying we should only carry certain guns?

    His wasn't a constitutional statement. Neither is yours.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    MOC Charter Member - Shelby Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    I didn't say we should only carry certain guns. Read.

    In fact, I steadfastly support kimberguy (and anyone else who chooses the same) in his right to carry an AR-15.

    I will not waver on my philosophy that the second amendment protects us from ANY infringement BY THE GOVERNMENT of our right to KEEP and BEAR arms. In the private sector, I'm willing to entertain compromises. If a place like ponderosa is willing to allow me to carry a hand-gun but not a long gun, I can accept that. It's their property, and to me, I feel as if we can both be satisfied at that middle ground. With regards to government, my willingness to entertain compromise is zero.

    And as to Ted - he can do whatever he wants. If he wants to promote concealed and denote open carry, that's his choice. It is too much of a compromise for me to be a part of. Simple.

  20. #20
    Guest

    Post imported post

    PilotPTK wrote:
    I didn't say we should only carry certain guns. Read.

    In fact, I steadfastly support kimberguy (and anyone else who chooses the same) in his right to carry an AR-15.

    I will not waver on my philosophy that the second amendment protects us from ANY infringement BY THE GOVERNMENT of our right to KEEP and BEAR arms. In the private sector, I'm willing to entertain compromises. If a place like ponderosa is willing to allow me to carry a hand-gun but not a long gun, I can accept that. It's their property, and to me, I feel as if we can both be satisfied at that middle ground. With regards to government, my willingness to entertain compromise is zero.

    And as to Ted - he can do whatever he wants. If he wants to promote concealed and denote open carry, that's his choice. It is too much of a compromise for me to be a part of. Simple.
    PilotPTK wrote:
    I've been watching this thread unfold, and honestly, here is my take.

    MOC, and open carry in general is still a 'new' thing to a lot of people. In most cases, even us. The simple truth is that we don't really know what works, because in any scientific experiment the results don't come until the end.

    There are so many people, so many businesses and so many police departments in this state that the only way to find out what works is by trial and error. The additional problem is that the method will likely have to vary based upon geographic location, local culture and other variants. Determining success is also a subjective measurement.

    Rather than argue about the best way to accomplish our collective goals, I suggest we abide by the number one goal of the organization - the realization of freedom. If some people are comfortable returning to Ponderosa under a set of guidelines, I suggest that they do it. If some people are not comfortable returning to Ponderosa under a set of guidelines, I suggest that they not. I personally believe that requesting hand-gun only carry is a reasonable request, but truthfully, my opinion should be somewhat irrelevant.

    If we, as an organization, start deciding for our own comrades what is right and what is wrong - have we not become the beast that we try so hard to destroy? Although we are a Pro 2A group, I would like to believe that 2A is only a small subset of the real truth that we are a Pro Liberty group.

    We all have a similar objective, and I humbly suggest that there is no reason why we have to all have the same methods.

    Would I carry my AR-15 to a Ponderosa - probably not. Do I think KimberGuy made a mistake in carrying it - absolutely not. He was exercising a right that not one of us can say he doesn't have. That some of us would condone him for that is confusing to me.

    JMHO
    Ben
    I don't see any difference of opinion here...
    Ted personally believes that CC only is a reasonable request.
    Justg like you personally believe that handgun carry only is reasonable.

    Why wouldn't anyone condone Kimberguy in participating in any lawful activity.

    It's not like he resisted the coward's order to leave presented on the coward's behalf by the LPD in an excessive and disproportionate display of force.

    You can't have it both ways. In one thread you advocate restraint and in another you challenge another person's (Ted Nugent) advocacy for restraint.



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    MOC Charter Member - Shelby Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    This topic is quickly becoming uninteresting.

    I approve of (don't advocate) 'restraint' when it comes to a private business requesting compromise. (That's me)

    I do not approve of or advocate 'restraint' when dealing with our rights in terms of the government. (That's Ted)

    What is so difficult to understand about this? Using KimberGuy as an example - Ted believes that he shouldn't be carrying that way - Period. I believe that he shouldn't be carrying that way IN PONDEROSA, IF THEY DON'T WANT HIM TO. (Although the way that they made that fact apparent leaves a lot to be desired - that is a topic for a different thread)

  22. #22
    Guest

    Post imported post

    PilotPTK wrote:
    This topic is quickly becoming uninteresting.

    I approve of (don't advocate) 'restraint' when it comes to a private business requesting compromise. (That's me)

    I do not approve of or advocate 'restraint' when dealing with our rights in terms of the government. (That's Ted)

    What is so difficult to understand about this? Using KimberGuy as an example - Ted believes that he shouldn't be carrying that way - Period. I believe that he shouldn't be carrying that way IN PONDEROSA, IF THEY DON'T WANT HIM TO. (Although the way that they made that fact apparent leaves a lot to be desired - that is a topic for a different thread)
    So if someone doesn't exhibit your acceptable restraint, you disapprove?

    So you're the one who's approval/disapproval we seek?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    MOC Charter Member - Shelby Township, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    I'm ignoring this thread now. You don't even make sense.

    I suggested my opinion on carry was not relevant. I suggested that your level of restraint and tolerance was up to you. My 'approval' is necessary for one person - me. The only 'approval' that you should seek is your own.

    If you choose to tread on property owners rights, that is your decision. I choose not to. What other people choose to do is up to them. I will abide by a property owners rules if they are satisfactory to me, and if they are not, I will not be present on their property - simple.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    PilotPTK wrote:
    You don't believe that telling people how they may keep or bear arms is infringing? What if the only legal way to carry a gun was to strap it to your forehead - would you then find it infringing? Or how about if you were forced to only carry a certain make, model and caliber of gun - now is it infringing?

    I don't understand how you don't understand. Our rights to "keep" and "bear" arms is either infringed upon, or it isn't. there is no middle ground.

    Ben
    You're changing the subject. Back when the constitution was written, open carry, including I suppose on your forehead if you wanted to be a goof ball, was legal. That kept things well regulated, as in you'd know who was armed and trustworthy, because they'd have nothing to hide. Only the low class criminals would conceal, because they'd have a need to hide their guns.

    Back then, no electronic systems existed to register criminals or do background checks. Felons were hung, and honest men were kept honest by carrying openly. If you can't understand why this system worked then same as it does now, I don't think there is anything I can do to explain it to you better.

    I am not quite sure how you figured it merited to bring up types of weapons. As far back as I can remember, I have never, ever in my life claimed the second amendment was specific to the types of weapons you can carry.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

Posting Permissions

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