The Raging Debate

imported post

+1 marshaul! :celebrate

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

+1 marshaul! :celebrate

Click to expand...

Just for the record, Orygunner made this remark before I completed my edit wherein I made a distinction between what I support as a matter of right and what behavior I advise as a matter of prudence.

Just so as I don't go putting words into peoples' mouths.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Orygunner wrote:

+1 marshaul! :celebrate

Click to expand...

Just for the record, Orygunner made this remark before I completed my edit wherein I made a distinction between what I support as a matter of right and what behavior I advise as a matter of prudence.

Just so as I don't go putting words into peoples' mouths.

Click to expand...

Thank you, I will now correct my previous +1.


+2!

:celebrate:monkey

...Orygunner...

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I couldn't vote, because there was no option for "I support all forms of carry regardless of the legality thereof."

Edit: With that said, I made a post about "baby steps" just earlier. Although I support the right of every man to carry a rifle in any manner he sees fit (so long as no aggression occurs, of course), I think that, as a practical matter, it is wise to focus on handgun OC when it comes to advancing the RKBA as a political reality.

When it comes to enlightening the citizenry, putting that handgun they are already used to seeing on the side of someone they fear (a cop) on the side of someone they have no reason to fear (someone who is not a cop), has great "normalization" potential.

Carrying a rifle demands a lot more out of those citizens with whom we are trying to achieve "normalized" status. Specifically, it demands that they already view guns as normal. It's putting the cart before the horse.

However, what I support as a matter of right and what I advise as practical behavior are two things which rarely intersect.

Click to expand...

+moar

I think most people receive no public notice of their carry, because they are not even noticed. I think most of the people who are opposed to Long Gun Carry, are opposed because they have their experiences only because no one notices. If no one notices, it is useless, from my perspective. It is impossible not to notice a long gun.

imported post

ixtow wrote:

+moar

I think most people receive no public notice of their carry, because they are not even noticed.  I think most of the people who are opposed to Long Gun Carry, are opposed because they have their experiences only because no one notices.  If no one notices, it is useless, from my perspective.  It is impossible not to notice a long gun.

Click to expand...

The common misconception of Open Carry is "he's just looking for trouble" or "he's just wanting attention."

I have to admit, if I'm OCing, yes, part of it is that I AM wanting attention, but not for the negative reasons some might think. Not for attention's sake, but to desensitize the public to the sight of regular people carrying firearms. To act as an advocate and liaison for gun owners.

I want more people to be seen carrying firearms in public. if nobody notices, how will the general public ever get used to it?

...Orygunner...

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I couldn't vote, because there was no option for "I support all forms of carry regardless of the legality thereof."

Edit: With that said, I made a post about "baby steps" just earlier. Although I support the right of every man to carry a rifle in any manner he sees fit (so long as no aggression occurs, of course), I think that, as a practical matter, it is wise to focus on handgun OC when it comes to advancing the RKBA as a political reality.

When it comes to enlightening the citizenry, putting that handgun they are already used to seeing on the side of someone they fear (a cop) on the side of someone they have no reason to fear (someone who is not a cop), has great "normalization" potential.

Carrying a rifle demands a lot more out of those citizens with whom we are trying to achieve "normalized" status. Specifically, it demands that they already view guns as normal. It's putting the cart before the horse.

However, what I support as a matter of right and what I advise as practical behavior are two things which rarely intersect.

Click to expand...

I agree with the gist of your post but think there is one importantissue that is being missed in this discussion.

I appreciate the fact that you live in or around the "big city". This fact colors your opinionas towhat people are accustomed to seeing, i.e. cops with side arms. I'm sure that most people in most big cities never come any closer to any type of firearm than talking to a cop during a traffic stop. This is certainly what I saw while living near population centers on both coasts.

But now, by choice, I live out in the sticks a piece.A couple of miles to the nearest paved road. Five miles to the nearest public water system. A little further than that to get cable TV. At least ten to find a traffic light. You get the idea.

Where I live, seeing someone with a long gun slung over their shoulder walking down the road, displayed in the back window of their truck at churchor propped against the wall while eating red catfish stew for lunch at the local general store/all day diner/liquor store/post office is not unusual. As a matter of fact it's normal. Here, normalizing the carry of long guns was done years ago. It'sfixing the non-OC law (in SC)and then normalizing the carry of handguns that is the issue.

My point at the end of this is simple. Because the USA is a big and diverse place, while we all want the same thing, the way we go about it may be different. What works in the bay area probably won't work here. And half way in between may require something entirely different. What we can't afford to do is discount someone elses opinion on the subject simply because of our somewhat different perspective. We may even learn something from that differing viewpoint.

imported post

Excellent point. What I said does apply to more urbanized areas (Northern Virginia as well -- that being my other haunt).

Hell, you get far enough in the country, and it might be the exact opposite.

imported post

HankT wrote:

Are you saying that a law to ban concealed carry of AR-15/AK-47 type firearms would be an "infringement" as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment?

That would be an interesting position to advocate. Kind of extremist, actually.

Click to expand...

I would most definitely take that position. All of the laws restricting my right to bear arms violate the 2A, concealed or not, fully automatic or not.

imported post

I don't care what you carry or how you do it (or don't). People's right to protect themselves shall not be infringed.

imported post

LeagueOf1291 wrote:

HankT wrote:

Are you saying that a law to ban concealed carry of AR-15/AK-47 type firearms would be an "infringement" as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment?

That would be an interesting position to advocate. Kind of extremist, actually.

Click to expand...

I would most definitely take that position. All of the laws restricting my right to bear arms violate the 2A, concealed or not, fully automatic or not.

Click to expand...

Aren't there now laws in some states, such as Cali and NJ, that restrict the carry and or possession of AR-15/AK-47 rifles?

Are you saying that you believe those laws to be unconstitutional?

imported post

HankT wrote:

T Vance wrote:

HankT wrote:

Phoenixphire wrote:

I believewe here atOpenCarry.org, as a group,should follow this philosophy: We support ALL forms of lawful carry.
...

So, I put it to you, members and friends of OCDO: What rights do you support?

Click to expand...

Phx, are you suggesting that we should be supporting long arm concealed carry?

Did I read that right?

Click to expand...

Our right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Click to expand...

Are you saying that a law to ban concealed carry of AR-15/AK-47 type firearms would be an "infringement" as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment?

That would be an interesting position to advocate. Kind of extremist, actually.

Click to expand...

Some people are sort of silly like that, thinking that Rights should be as broad as possible as long as you don't harm anyone.

I guess I'm silly....

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

That's the problem with RIGHTS. Where do you draw the line?

Click to expand...

Well, if it is a 'Right,' you don't draw a line at all; it's a Right!

This is not a problem with Rights. It is a problem with the sociopathy gone mainstream. Everybody hates Essential Human Rights, and sees those Rights as a problem in the way of their would-be rightless slave nation utopia...

imported post

HankT wrote:

LeagueOf1291 wrote:

HankT wrote:

Are you saying that a law to ban concealed carry of AR-15/AK-47 type firearms would be an "infringement" as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment?

That would be an interesting position to advocate. Kind of extremist, actually.

Click to expand...

I would most definitely take that position. All of the laws restricting my right to bear arms violate the 2A, concealed or not, fully automatic or not.

Click to expand...

Aren't there now laws in some states, such as Cali and NJ, that restrict the carry and or possession of AR-15/AK-47 rifles?

Are you saying that you believe those laws to be unconstitutional?

Click to expand...

Yeah, why is that even a question?

Unless you want to argue that the states should be able to make their own decisions (which I normally agree with). But in this case, if the states can override it, what is the point of the 2nd amendment?

The 1st is worded "Congress shall make no law..."
The 2nd is worded "...shall not be infringed."

I would actually find it more plausible to say the 1st specifically limits the fed and not the states (I DO NOT agree with that position) than to say that the 2nd only applies to the fed, just based on the wording.

imported post

squisher wrote:

HankT wrote:

LeagueOf1291 wrote:

HankT wrote:

Are you saying that a law to ban concealed carry of AR-15/AK-47 type firearms would be an "infringement" as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment?

That would be an interesting position to advocate. Kind of extremist, actually.

Click to expand...

I would most definitely take that position. All of the laws restricting my right to bear arms violate the 2A, concealed or not, fully automatic or not.

Click to expand...

Aren't there now laws in some states, such as Cali and NJ, that restrict the carry and or possession of AR-15/AK-47 rifles?

Are you saying that you believe those laws to be unconstitutional?

Click to expand...

Yeah, why is that even a question?

Unless you want to argue that the states should be able to make their own decisions (which I normally agree with). But in this case, if the states can override it, what is the point of the 2nd amendment?

The 1st is worded "Congress shall make no law..."
The 2nd is worded "...shall not be infringed."

Click to expand...

So, you're saying that "infringed" means legally that no law can be passed that would restrict or ban an AR/AK in any way? That any law regulating any thing about those rifles would be de facto unconstituional?

Try to focus like a laser on the meaning of the word "infringed." The meaning from a legal standpoint. Not "infringed" from a conversational context.

It seems to me that if the laws were truly unconstitutional, that they would be attacked as such and that they would fall.

The recent Heller case indicates that "reasonable regulation" is an operational legal concept. "Reasonable regulation" is not unconstitutional.

So, if you're saying that any law whatsoever regarding AR/AKs, state or federal, are unconstitutional...you are wayyyyyyy out there in extremist land. Your view would simply not be realistic.

imported post

When the constitution was written,citizens were using the same firearms as the military. Yes times have changed, but as the left likes to brag "we need to level the playing field" I believe every citizen that has a right to keep and bear arms has the right to keep ANY firearm period.

imported post

HankT wrote:

It seems to me that if the laws were truly unconstitutional, that they would be attacked as such and that they would fall.

Click to expand...

Your statement suggests that the watchers will watch themselves... Among many other circular impossibilities.

This alleges that those making the judgment have any interest in preserving the Constitution. A very interesting suggestion, since no person in a position of such power has ever once shown such a propensity... Not even once.

So why hold such a supposition up at all?

Oh, yes, because you 'believe' differently, in spite of all evidence against it...

At least people who Believe in God have some kind of excuse for what they believe.

Those who believe in a benevolent and just government of any kind, anywhere, ever; they're just plain nuts. All evidence known to man since the beginning of recorded history shows the opposite to be true.

imported post

wethepeople wrote:

When the constitution was written,citizens were using the same firearms as the military. Yes times have changed, but as the left likes to brag "we need to level the playing field" I believe every citizen that has a right to keep and bear arms has the right to keep ANY firearm period.

Click to expand...

So, do you think that any law, state or federal, that regulates any gun in any way ..... is unconstitutional?

Also, do you include mentally incapable and felons in your definition of "every citizen?"

imported post

HankT wrote:

wethepeople wrote:

When the constitution was written,citizens were using the same firearms as the military. Yes times have changed, but as the left likes to brag "we need to level the playing field" I believe every citizen that has a right to keep and bear arms has the right to keep ANY firearm period.

Click to expand...

So, do you think that any law, state or federal, that regulates any gun in any way ..... is unconstitutional?

Also, do you include mentally incapable and felons in your definition of "every citizen?"

Click to expand...

If a convicted felon can't be trusted with legally carrying a gun, how can we trust him not to carry it illegally? The purpose of our penal system ought to be to punish the criminal for his crime and send him back to be a productive member of his community. This includes the ability to defend himself and his family. I don't think we ought to deprive felons of the ability to defend themselves that is afforded to other citizens. I certainly don't think the Federal government has the constitutional authority to do so.

imported post

LeagueOf1291 wrote:

HankT wrote:

wethepeople wrote:

When the constitution was written,citizens were using the same firearms as the military. Yes times have changed, but as the left likes to brag "we need to level the playing field" I believe every citizen that has a right to keep and bear arms has the right to keep ANY firearm period.

Click to expand...

So, do you think that any law, state or federal, that regulates any gun in any way ..... is unconstitutional?

Also, do you include mentally incapable and felons in your definition of "every citizen?"

Click to expand...

If a convicted felon can't be trusted with legally carrying a gun, how can we trust him not to carry it illegally? The purpose of our penal system ought to be to punish the criminal for his crime and send him back to be a productive member of his community. This includes the ability to defend himself and his family. I don't think we ought to deprive felons of the ability to defend themselves that is afforded to other citizens. I certainly don't think the Federal government has the constitutional authority to do so.

Click to expand...

So, you favor felons, including those who are felons because of violent acts, including murder and rape,obtaining guns and carrying them after they get out of prison?

Fascinating.

imported post

If they are dangerous to our society, they have no business being out on our streets and should either be executed or kept in Prison until they are deemed not a threat. Which means that if they are a violent murderer/rapist and cannot be trusted to not violently rape and murder why should they be on the streets at all, with/without "legal" weapons?