Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 161

Thread: My honest view of this forum and the current unrest about firearms

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    119

    My honest view of this forum and the current unrest about firearms

    Good Evening,

    I am writing after having a discussion with my wife about the reason I do not often partake in the discussions on this forum as I once did. I am often off fighting the good fight in the Middle East so that is one reason. The second reason is the one sided reasoning I see here. Please step back for a minute and examine the posts on OC.org.

    I see people posting along the lines of my belief that guns are a tool that serve a purpose of self defense. I don't hunt, I don't shop gun stores for multiple weapons, I don't sit around and spend more time than is required to ensure the safety of my family. This forum has countless posts glorifying firearms to be some awesome, great, fun amazing thing. They are a tool and if you do not post about your power drill and post about crap like gun jokes, the amount of guns you own, and other unrelated crap then perhaps you carry for the illusion of power or attention you may get when you enter a room.

    I enjoy and utilize the right to carry as much as anyone. I open carry and conceal carry every day (whatever is comfortable based on the clothes I put on) when I am not heading onto base and it has served me well. I find my reasons for carrying is that I refuse to feel threatend by less than desireable people in a country I defend. This is my home and I will not be a victim of being unprepared for any situation. I defend my family and simply care less about the valuables of a business who should be insured and not depend on me taking up for them as their overpriced products found in their store.

    I am also very liberal in my politics and think the constitution should be ammended to reflect self defense as specific reason for the right to own firearms. I also think if tracking my bullets when I buy them allows others with intentions that are not as honorable as mine to be tracked down and questioned when they were used in a shooting more than fair. I also think that if you cannot defend yourself with a reasonable amount of ammunition in your mag, you should not carry a firearm as you are not qualified. I think if you need a thirty round mag for your gun, you are lazy, or a clown. This is reasonable to reel back. I do NOT believe that the MIB are coming for my firearm and also know that if I did believe this I would not be in the military or this country. The power is in numbers of the people and just as many quote history of disarming populations and tyranny, the serfs have overthrown many a nobles.

    That being said, reasonable discussions can and must be had as to limits. Freedom of speech and religion have limits that pass a test of resonableness in relation to society. Guns are no different and in the recent incident in AZ, the mag size did matter. You can argue that if someone there had a weapon they could have minimized the damage. This is true, but just as it is your right to strap your tool to your hip in the morning, it is your right to not carry a firearm. (admit you know someone that you just don't think should carry a weapon for your own safety) A firearm is a responsibility, and the responsible thing to do is support viable laws and limitations that generally enhance the ability of law enforcement to catch bad guys, and ensure they are not outgunned.

    Feel free to disagree, and I am down to have coffee with someone who in the Yorktown area if you would like meet up as I am on R&R for a few more days. I made it home again! Thank you for your time and consideration.

  2. #2
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    My response is that you have expressed yourself clearly, and if that's what you needed to do - more power to you. I thank you for serving our country, as I have also done. I don't agree with you on most of your points of view, but then I am not you - am I.

    I think your military career has a strong influence upon your perspective. Service in the military enjoys many of the benefits stemming from the liberties established in this constitutional republic, but military personnel nevertheless live under a system wherein they have waived their constitutional rights for a duration. The ration of liberties allowed to military personnel are pretty much a dispensation of privilege and not true enjoyment of civil rights. Carreer military tend to have a higher tolerance for autocracy than I do.

    I respect your current point of view. Like my own current point of view - it may be subject to change at some time in the future. I'm not ready to surrender any more of the U.S. Constitution than we already have. It very hard to re-secure freedoms once surrendered. I sometimes carry as many as 56 rounds of .40 SW in or adjacent to my Glock. If some jihadist sympathizer decides to replicate the Ft Hood shooting in my public square - those 56 rounds would most likely come in handy.

    Enjoy that R & R and may God bless and protect you.
    Last edited by rushcreek2; 01-25-2011 at 09:28 PM.

  3. #3
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    I disagree with several of your personal views. First off, some of my firearms are tools, that I use in my daily life to ensure my freedom, and well being, and that of my family. However, the rest of my firearms are recreational tools that I use for target shooting, practicing, hunting, etc. Yes, a firearm used for hunting can be considered a tool, but it isnt a tool just for self defense, its for putting meat on the table. As far as amending the constituitions second amendment to state the right to own firearms is for self defense I say this.....A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I dont think you could word it any better for a self defense claim, our lovely politicians in washington just seem to overlook that sometimes......As far as freedom of speech and religion having limitations, have you misread the one document you have sworn an oath to protect???? If you believe our 1st amendment should have LIMITATIONS, then you should believe our second amendment to be the same, then I ask myself what are you doing on this website? Blaming magazine capacity for the number of people that was injured in arizona is just absurd. I consider myself a decent, "not anywhere near perfect," pistolero, and I can reload my chosen handgun in around a second and a half on a good day, so if I was to have one 30 rd. mag, or 3 10 rd. mags, it really wouldnt matter, that is a rant of the anti crowd, and it sounds like you agree with them whole heartedly. As far as you saying anyone that is entitled to have a firearm shouldnt need that many rounds I have this to say. What if you are jumped by a gang of 4,5,6 guys. All of which happend to be armed. With the sudden BAR, your good marksmanship can go away in a hurry, and to take 6 guys out with 6 shots is almost unheard of. This is why I carry one extra 15 rd. magazine for my glock 23, because I do not believe myself to be bulletproof and perfect, and never know what trouble could be lurking around the corner. Sure there is people I wonder about having firearms, but thanks to our constitution they are entitled to them, and thank GOD, because if we didnt have that document, none of us would enjoy the pleasures and security of keeping and bearing arms.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    119

    Response to Glockster

    Well let me clarify a few things. The Constitution does not state for self defense it states for militia (a strong central government was in the works) and we were playing cowboys and indians in many areas. A general basis for defense and the rule of law did not exist in many territorial areas. The keep and bear arms is associated with milita and should be clarified to end the arguement. Times change and should reflect the intent or logic of today self defense = good reason. Militia = antiquated reasoning.

    Libel and Slander are limitations of freedom of speech. You cannot legally yell fire in a movie theater if there is not one. I am well aware of the document I took an oath to protect. Do not incite a riot. Do not state your intent to commit a crime and cling to freedom of speech when the cops come carrying a note that you wrote to someone asking them to kill your wife. I am well versed and know what I took an oath to uphold and defend.

    Religion is not an excuse to supercede the rule of law as it has been implemented. Limitations do exist.

    The second mag good option, but joe clownshoe does not need a 30 round mag in a handgun, and in this instance he was taken down when he went to reload. It is easy to squeeze a trigger, but when you know the potential that someone is going to try to take you down when you reload and you have all sorts of that excitement juice running through you failure can happen. So if the cops and military have gotten by without 30 round mags in our handguns, I think you will be jussssst fine.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523
    Funny how those who believe in restrictions on our rights are the first to say they don't believe the "MIB" are coming for "THEIR GUNS". Somehow you have been decieved into agreeing with those who think themselves your masters. As far as the ammendment you mentioned, that's an open door for restricting all use of firearms, and registration, you have been indoctrinated into surrendering your god given freedom, and don't even realize it. Got more bad news for you, the numbers you rely on to prevent their abuse, most of them are simply sheep. If it doesn't come from wally world, or they don't see it on TV, they don't care. Most people take whatever the media tells them to think as the gospel. My only question is this.... If you're wrong, what will you do when they DO come for your guns?


    Ps. Who are you or anyone else to decide how much ammo I "need" to carry. That's like me arbitrarily telling you how often you need to ( insert constitutional right here) you may not think "Joe Clownshoe" doesn't "need" something, but you nor anyone else has the right to tell him he can't. Put simply, your rights indeed end, where mine, or anyone else's begin.
    Last edited by NRAMARINE; 01-25-2011 at 09:55 PM.
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523
    " Marines who are foolish enough to run out of ammo before killing all enemies in the area suffer from a serious lack of situational awareness. They will also suffer from a case of unauthorized death!! Then your @$$ will be in deep s**t!! No one dies in my unit without proper authorization!! "


    Col William H. Tetlow USMC
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PointofView View Post
    Well let me clarify a few things. The Constitution does not state for self defense it states for militia (a strong central government was in the works) and we were playing cowboys and indians in many areas. A general basis for defense and the rule of law did not exist in many territorial areas. The keep and bear arms is associated with milita and should be clarified to end the arguement. Times change and should reflect the intent or logic of today self defense = good reason. Militia = antiquated reasoning.
    I would like to offer additional perspective on the militia clause for your consideration. In this hectic age we sometimes do not get the time to think through as far on a line of thinking as we might if we could just sit around all day and think. Let me pass along some additional thinking someone passed to me some time ago.

    Self-defense is a basic human right. The militia is just individuals associating/concentrating for individual self-defense when threatened by numbers or strength sufficient to warrant.

    Literally, each gun owner could wait on his front porch and take on the invader, usurper, etc., by himself when they arrived to his driveway. Or, he can gather with other gun owners and apply their concentrated force to repel the threat.

    In a genuine democratic republic, a standing army just takes this a step further and has the individuals already concentrated, trained, and for a time, dedicated to defense.

    Militia is just self-defense organized. As is a standing army (in a democratic republic). The distinctions are the number of attackers, the preparation to meet the threat, and foreseeing a threat. More attackers, the more defenders needed. The greater the sophistication of the attackers, the greater preparation (thus, drilling for militia or MOS's in a standing army.) Foreseeing the potential for a sophisticated threat leads into long time-frames for preparation (building submarines, training personnel, etc.)

    But, it all boils down to self-defense, and is inseparable from self-defense. The short version is that if individuals are not worth letting them defend themselves from criminals, there cannot possibly be a justification for a militia or standing army. They would just be defending a bunch of worthless individuals.

    A person cannot justify militia, nor a standing army, without first justifying self-defense. Same for having police.

    Thus, the concept of militia is not antiquated. It has just been divorced, improperly, from the rationale that goes along with it.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-25-2011 at 10:20 PM.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by NRAMARINE View Post
    " Marines who are foolish enough to run out of ammo before killing all enemies in the area suffer from a serious lack of situational awareness. They will also suffer from a case of unauthorized death!! Then your @$$ will be in deep s**t!! No one dies in my unit without proper authorization!! "


    Col William H. Tetlow USMC
    "You got bayonets, don't you?" Col. Lewis (Chesty) B. Puller. USMC. Question to a junior commander who complained during a battle that his unit was running out of ammo.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-25-2011 at 10:48 PM.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PointofView View Post
    SNIP [the OP]
    The question is not whether ammo should be traceable or magazine capacity limited. If you allow others to frame the debate this way, you will lose your freedoms every time.

    The question is whether government should be permitted the authority to regulate these things. Government has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt it cannot be trusted with rights.

    The questions about ammo tracing and magazine capacity have as their unseen premise that government should or already does have the power to regulate in this area. By accepting the posed question, one also accepts the hidden premise. By accepting the hidden premise, the listener loses the argument before it is started. He makes the concession most valuable to the questioner.

    Government has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that it cannot be trusted with rights. It will always legislate, regulate, or opine them away. Rights are a limitation on power. Power does not need limitations in order to accomplish its ends, thus rights are antithetical to power--literally.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    There is a definite reason the founders put the comma in there it wasn't for a pause but to separate individuals right to bear arms not to be infringed from the militia being necessary part. The 2A wasn't just about hunting, or self defense or about being part of a militia ( which to them basically was anybody who could fight in defense for country and state), but was also written this way because they wanted to make sure the citizenry was armed against tyranny and an over reaching by the newly founded U.S. government and various state governments. I think the way they wrote it was well put short and too the point to include all reasons we bear arms.

    Penn and Teller put it excellently. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&NR=1

    I'd also like to address your point about not liking people joking around and talking about their collection, etc. too put it bluntly but meaning no offense,,,,,,,,too bad.
    Like you yourself pointed out it is just a "tool", I whole heartedly agree, and like any other inanimate object, I can joke about it, show it off, talk about it, ask others advice and advocate nobody infringing upon my rights to own or use that tool in anyway I want as long as it causes no body else harm. That my friend is liberty.

    If I was in your area I'd love to sit down have coffee and talk more. Good luck and look forward to hearing your point of view again in the future, that is if you can handle others point of view.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    SNIP like any other inanimate object, I can joke about it, show it off, talk about it, ask others advice and advocate nobody infringing upon my rights to own or use that tool in anyway I want as long as it causes no body else harm. That my friend is liberty.
    Well, all I got to say is you better not joke about your power saw, can opener, stapler, or corkscrew. Especially, the corkscrew. Those are sacred.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Well, all I got to say is you better not joke about your power saw, can opener, stapler, or corkscrew. Especially, the corkscrew. Those are sacred.
    Chuckle, funny you mention power saw first being a carpenter/contractor, it does end up as a butt of many jokes. Or rather the operator ends up being the butt of the jokes. Like hey it's called a skillsaw you can't use that since you have no skill.

    But yea we should amend the constitution to ban jokes about corkscrews.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 01-25-2011 at 11:07 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by NRAMARINE View Post


    Ps. Who are you or anyone else to decide how much ammo I "need" to carry. That's like me arbitrarily telling you how often you need to ( insert constitutional right here) you may not think "Joe Clownshoe" doesn't "need" something, but you nor anyone else has the right to tell him he can't. Put simply, your rights indeed end, where mine, or anyone else's begin.
    The same logic that says the right to bear arms does not allow you to carry a suitcase nuke around should be applied. Your logic is not logical. The men in black have an interest in a functional democracy and to think you have some insight about them coming to take your guns makes you paranoid. I suppose you would have no problem with your neighbor raising lions since who are you to tell him he can't. Would you want your kids playing out in the yard? Reason demands honest and complete thought to be given. Regulation is not evil when applied appropriately.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Well, all I got to say is you better not joke about your power saw, can opener, stapler, or corkscrew. Especially, the corkscrew. Those are sacred.
    My point may have been lost it seems. People claim that their firearms are simply tools but I see an obsession and braggart attitude of many on these forums. People have posts in which many reply.. favorite gun movies, license plates, etc. This seems to really go against the tool claim that many have and I support. To me it seems that people claim it is a tool and worship the guns. I wish I lived in a world that did not encourage my sensibilities to carry a fire arm with me at all times, but that is not the way it is. I am saddened at the thought of ever having to draw my weapon from its holster. Others seem excited and beyond simply ready.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by PointofView View Post
    I suppose you would have no problem with your neighbor raising lions since who are you to tell him he can't. Would you want your kids playing out in the yard? Reason demands honest and complete thought to be given. Regulation is not evil when applied appropriately.
    How about some honest and complete thought on rights vs privilages, it is a right to keep and bear arms it is a privilage to own lions, big difference.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PointofView View Post
    The same logic that says the right to bear arms does not allow you to carry a suitcase nuke around should be applied. Your logic is not logical. The men in black have an interest in a functional democracy and to think you have some insight about them coming to take your guns makes you paranoid. I suppose you would have no problem with your neighbor raising lions since who are you to tell him he can't. Would you want your kids playing out in the yard? Reason demands honest and complete thought to be given. Regulation is not evil when applied appropriately.
    This is the same premise, PointofView--that government has or should have the authority to regulate in these areas.

    As you say, reason demands honest and complete thought given. This necessarily includes whether government should have authority to regulate in a given area. And, this question necessarily includes whether and how government will abuse its authority if it is given authority to regulate in a given area. This question is in fact senior to the questions about the form of the regulation.

    And, it is "dishonest" and incomplete reasoning to dismiss concerns about government abuse with a rhetorical wave of the hand by simple declaration that it will not occur in the face of millenia of history proving otherwise. Or, more to the point, 223 years of proof. The Framers didn't spend the summer of '87 cooped up in hot statehouse in Philly hashing out checks and balances of the Constitution because they thought abuse could not happen. Same for the Bill of Rights. And, then, despite all the checks and balances and the Bill of Rights, the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts under the 2nd President, one being a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. Its been going on ever since. Some infringements little, others larger. Each pushing farther down the slippery slope.

    Human nature is what it is. Government has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt...
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-25-2011 at 11:27 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    There is a definite reason the founders put the comma in there it wasn't for a pause but to separate individuals right to bear arms not to be infringed from the militia being necessary part. The 2A wasn't just about hunting, or self defense or about being part of a militia—which to them basically was anybody who could fight in defense for country and state—but was also written this way because they wanted to make sure the citizenry was armed against tyranny and an over reaching by the newly founded U.S. government and various state governments. I think the way they wrote it was well put short and too the point to include all reasons we bear arms.
    Well said! This also coincides with the historical reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment which Thomas Jefferson spoke about.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    I'd also like to address your point about not liking people joking around and talking about their collection, etc. too put it bluntly but meaning no offense,,,,,,,,too bad.

    SVG could you just quit beating around the bush and say what you really mean.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PointofView View Post
    My point may have been lost it seems. People claim that their firearms are simply tools but I see an obsession and braggart attitude of many on these forums. People have posts in which many reply.. favorite gun movies, license plates, etc. This seems to really go against the tool claim that many have and I support. To me it seems that people claim it is a tool and worship the guns. I wish I lived in a world that did not encourage my sensibilities to carry a fire arm with me at all times, but that is not the way it is. I am saddened at the thought of ever having to draw my weapon from its holster. Others seem excited and beyond simply ready.
    Oh, I see.

    The primary "tool" argument is to counter the idea that guns are evil. The point being that a gun cannot be evil, its just a tool, and has no volition of its own. Similar is countering the various unstated unsavory connotations against guns--a gun can't have this or that connotation, its just a tool. Context is everything.

    Separately, be a little careful about complaining of others investing meaning into objects or deriving satisfaction or enjoyment from having done so. Most of the world does. You open yourself to all sorts of counter-attack for investing meaning into things yourself.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    How about some honest and complete thought on rights vs privilages, it is a right to keep and bear arms it is a privilage to own lions, big difference.
    Hey! No lyin' about the right to keep bears and lions.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    How about some honest and complete thought on rights vs privilages, it is a right to keep and bear arms it is a privilage to own lions, big difference.
    Nope.. my pursuit of happiness. Lions make me happy. Doctrine dictates. Also it is the right to bear arms does limit you from keeping a nuke. Do you want RPG's in everyones house here? Guns are not specified. Why are you people so friggen nuts about honest regulation being the end of the world? I suppose the constitution does not prohibit felons from owning weapons. How about children? It is afterall their right and it is not a privilage. How about insane people or addicts... I mean it is their right.

    The perfect infallable constitution also called called blacks 3/5 of a person and women not worthy of voting. So simply because it is a right does not that it should be limited with common sense.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PointofView View Post
    Nope.. my pursuit of happiness. Lions make me happy. Doctrine dictates. Also it is the right to bear arms does limit you from keeping a nuke. Do you want RPG's in everyones house here? Guns are not specified. Why are you people so friggen nuts about honest regulation being the end of the world? I suppose the constitution does not prohibit felons from owning weapons. How about children? It is afterall their right and it is not a privilage. How about insane people or addicts... I mean it is their right.

    The perfect infallable constitution also called called blacks 3/5 of a person and women not worthy of voting. So simply because it is a right does not that it should be limited with common sense.
    Ahhh the rationalizations of those who would encroach on the freedom of others.

    Personally I think the laws above you mentioned should be done away with they do no good. If someone is too dangerous to be in society don't let them out. If you done your time then your rights should be restored.

    And the U.S. have addressed your second paragraph with amendments. But want to point out the 3/5 part of the constitution had more to do with limiting Slave states power in our government. You forgot to mention how only land owners were allowed to vote. Something I understand , look how far toward socialism we have moved, when those feel they are without can vote to take from those they feel owe them something.

    The problem I have with viewpoints like yours is you want your "dream" and "utopia" forced upon others who don't share your viewpoint (don't feel bad I feel this way about Republicans too). We broke down and dismantled your reasoning of the 2A as not valid so because you have an agenda are moving on to other "rationalizations" and now attack parts of the constitution that have already been voided to demonize our position.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post

    SVG could you just quit beating around the bush and say what you really mean.
    Hey my friend from the dry side, I will work on that!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PointofView View Post
    My point may have been lost it seems. People claim that their firearms are simply tools but I see an obsession and braggart attitude of many on these forums. People have posts in which many reply.. favorite gun movies, license plates, etc. This seems to really go against the tool claim that many have and I support. To me it seems that people claim it is a tool and worship the guns. I wish I lived in a world that did not encourage my sensibilities to carry a fire arm with me at all times, but that is not the way it is. I am saddened at the thought of ever having to draw my weapon from its holster. Others seem excited and beyond simply ready.
    No your point wasn't lost on us but our point may have been lost in return.

    To the first half of your paragraph,,,, so.....? What harm does it do? People are enthusiastic about tools, I have my favorite carpenter, home improvement, engineering, shows. I like to surf and have a bumper sticker on my garage door, " Friends don't let Friends ride Long Boards" I really wish people would take the seriousness and dangers of surfing seriously {sarcasm}.

    Second half, I wish I too didn't live in that world, but I really don't walk around paranoid. I could also conceal if I wanted, but I take the chance to express my 1st amendment right by open carrying to let others in on our rights.

    I too would never wish for the day I would have to fire my weapon ( I did draw not too long ago). And agree there are a few (very few) who do seem to portray the attitude you mention, again as long as they exercise self control and only act on this attitude when proper there is nothing you and I can do about it. Freedom of speech/liberty my friend. Means we often have to live with things that don't make us happy.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by PointofView View Post
    The perfect infallable constitution also called called blacks 3/5 of a person...
    I wonder how many people on this site know the real reason for this?


    On another note, what do we say to those of us who just happen to love firearms; their mechanical perfection and intricate design. What would we say to stamp collectors or numismatics who spend hours admiring their collections and and gathering to view each others' best offerings? How are they different in their love for those things they collect, study, and trade than gun owners who spend much time with their interests? Are we to admonish stamp collectors and numismatics because they might be a bit weird and different?
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 01-26-2011 at 09:42 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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