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

PointofVeiw, Fisrt GOD bless you and Thank You for your service. I appreciate you.

Our rights are removed in small baby steps. Back in the early 70s I would occassionally OC. Often in my car but it would always be in plain sight (usually on the dashboard). Many had shotgiuns in the racks in their pick-ups. It got to where people didn't even like those. Then they (they being anti 2nd people) started complaining and that's when the BS inducing panic and disorderly conduct laws were used to disarm law abiding citizens. I will most definitely agree that the attitudes of some OCers suck and make others look bad. One video has the OCer doing what should be done when stopped and questioned. While he refuse to answer (most) questions and refused to show his I.D. , he remained polite. His buddy on the otherhand was acting like a little spoiled bratt. He was moving around, waving his hand in front of a police officers face and also seemed to be trying to stir-up the gathering group of people. On the clip capacity I offer Susan Gratia Hupp -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis&feature=player_embedded (her parents and others were murdered in the Lubys Cariteria shootings) She is testifying before congress on asult weapons.

On my small baby steps statement. They have a Happy Meal TOY BAN (In well meaning California) because GROWN-UP CHILDREN in Santa Clara County don't have the testicular fortitude to JUST SAY NO to their ADOLESCENT ADULTS. Now I know this last little rant here isn't about 2nd, But ya see these things happen accross the whole spectrum of our rights. 30 round clip too many? Some say 9 is too many. What about just a single shot breech load? Lot a folks don't even want to allow that. Baby steps.

I respect the OP's position and can appreciate the way he articulated it in a very clear and reasonable manner when compared to most who argue for more gun control. I do strongly disagree with most of it though.

The gun is a tool but it is unlike the chainsaw and the power drill such that there aren't political lobbies and actions threatening to take those tools away from us, leaving us much more defenseless than we currently are.

I also see the need for some restrictions but I honestly feel things should be loosened up even more. I actually believe that non-violent felons should also be allowed to possess and carry firearms among other things that might seem to be a little more radical to some.

The reason I support the gung ho enthusiasm we see out of many on the gun rights side of political issues is because we are up against a political machine that is attempting to chip away at our freedoms everyday in many different ways. Not just against our 2nd Amendment rights but I feel all our rights are always in jeopardy by those in power who wish to exert greater control over the population and our individual liberties. I see what's happened in England and Canada and what's happening in Australia and how their societies and governments are very similar to ours and have very close ties to us and I fear that the same could eventually happen here if we let our guard down. I see places like New York, Chicago, New Jersey and Maryland to name a few as perfect examples that it can and is happening in America.

First its the 30 round mag that gets banned and when that one flies, its the semi-auto that gets banned and so on and so on. Eventually we'll all have to keep our firearms (which is now limited to shotguns and single shot rifles) at hunting clubs and those firearms will be worthless to our own defense and easy commandeered by any movements against the people by the government should that situation ever arise. However unlikely that may seem, the chances for it automatically increase due to the sole condition that the populace is unarmed.

There are movements out there to take the guns away from LACs. As long as their are efforts to take our firearms away, there should be counter efforts to expand upon those rights to keep and carry them as well.

Walt_Kowalski said:

Something to think about....

"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." ~Benjamin Franklin

Click to expand...

Ahh, but don't you know? Contemporary thought has it that the Founders' ideas are antiquated and if not that then simply not in line with modern thought and intelligent discourse. How could they have known? How ignorant of them to know the past before designing the future. What were they thinking? Clearly the Founding Fathers are about as relevant today as leprosy. They are past history, not to be listened to or studied as their approach to liberty was borderline anarchy.

PointofView said:

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.

Click to expand...

Neither the founding fathers, authors of the Constitution, nor SCOTUS agree with your definition of militia - we, individually, are the militia. Any collective group is first reliant upon the individual's belief and action. We individually exercise the 2nd Amendment. It is not a group function.

I do not subscribe to the theory that the Constitution should be subject to the current trend or fad of the day, nor modified to reflect the whims of a few. Acceptance of change in this unique document should be only after careful adherence to the original intent. Yes that makes me an originalist.

PointofView said:

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.

Click to expand...

If you don't want a 30 round mag then don't get one. I do not have a thirty round mag except for the few .223 mags I have for the machine gun I use from time to time.

What the cops or military do with or without regarding a mag is not any of my concern, nor would I use force to lock my neighbor in a cage for possessing a 30 round mag if they choose to. It's their business, not my business nor is it your business.... no matter how many trips you take to Afghanistan, no how liberal you are, or whatever.

Freedom is about leaving your neighbor alone. If you want freedom then you need to respect your neighbors choice. If they want a 30 round mag or a 300 round mag, that's their business, not yours.

You clearly want to boss people around regarding the bill of rights, I have no interest in doing so and I would appreciate it if you respect my right to have any magazine if I choose to and not advocate throwing me in a cage at gunpoint for choosing to own an object of my choice. Thank you. My life would be juusssssst fine if you butt out of my magazine collection

Grapeshot said:

I do not subscribe to the theory that the Constitution should be subject to the current trend or fad of the day, nor modified to reflect the whims of a few. Acceptance of change in this unique document should be only after careful adherence to the original intent. Yes that makes me an originalist.

Click to expand...

Yep, me too. I am frequently amazed and find it most curious how people today somehow believe the Founding Fathers and their exceptional work to be antiquated and worse, not at all relevant to today's world (the "world" was never intended to be the target of the Founders' grand design). Current thought is that these men were misguided simpletons who had little clue about how a government should be designed and furthermore, how could they possibly envision 21st century America?

The absolute vain arrogance of that posture never ceases to amaze me. Do they not know history? Did they not listen in school to the words of the Founders... or were they not taught? What was truth 230 years ago is still truth today and will be truth 230 years from now. These men knew exactly what they were doing and why. There is ample proof of this in their writings. When I read of some newly proposed bill to stifle more of our dwindling rights, I find solace in the words of men like Jefferson and Mason and Henry and Franklin and more. I'd much prefer to trust them than so many of the fools who sit in the hallowed halls of the capital and the white house.

Judging the rhetoric used by point of view, he must be sarah brady's little brother. He certainly uses her invalid talking points which have been around longer than the poster.
I am surprised that point of view did not trot out the old "there is too many guns on the street", "all I want are common sense gun laws"," handguns are made to kill people.", "the criminals outgun the police".

If you were a college student, you would be guilty of plagerism. Try to come up with something original. I have been around this issue for over 40 years and I have heard it all by the enemies of firearm ownership. Pleeeeeeze, come up with some new ideas. If your out there, don't masquerade as someone serving and fighting the good fight. You are a fraud and only serve to spread the common lies of the anti-gun zealots.

c45man said:

Judging the rhetoric used by point of view, he must be sarah brady's little brother. He certainly uses her invalid talking points which have been around longer than the poster.
I am surprised that point of view did not trot out the old "there is too many guns on the street", "all I want are common sense gun laws"," handguns are made to kill people.", "the criminals outgun the police".

If you were a college student, you would be guilty of plagerism. Try to come up with something original. I have been around this issue for over 40 years and I have heard it all by the enemies of firearm ownership. Pleeeeeeze, come up with some new ideas. If your out there, don't masquerade as someone serving and fighting the good fight. You are a fraud and only serve to spread the common lies of the anti-gun zealots.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I have never met a soldier who was anti 2A. Then again, some consider us Leathernecks, fanatics.

Restricting mag. size is redicolous in my opinion because would the Arizona shooter have listened to this "law"? No, he would have figured i'm going to jail for murder, whats a ilegal weapons charge. Although I think he was aiming for suicide by cop. And besides why do we have the 10 admendments? To protect the PEOPLES rights. England tried to "opress"(sp) us and we fought back, with our guns etc. I think the founding fathers gave us the second admendment to keep our government from doing it again. As far as cowboy and indians go, that is way over exagerated(sp) by movies and what not. My liberal boss always uses the "this isn't the wild west, what do we need guns for" garbage, but that is exactly that, GARBAGE!

your are correct, you absolutely cannot run into a movie theater and yell "fire!" however if you feel that is expressing your thoughts about something, your freedom to express yourself, than you are wrong. That is walking into a movie theater and acting like an idiot, not giving someone your point of view. As far as religion having limitations to the law, well how is it that native americans can do things that pertain to their specific religous beliefs that yourself or myself could not?? Religion is our right, and we can worship to any god, or gods we would like, and practice any religion we would like. I would also bet if you was arrested for something that your religion has considered sacred for hundreds of years, that I could file a civil suit and have charges dropped and a healthy stack of cash to go with it. Just my point of view but it seems to me that you have been brainwashed by the anti crowd, I do not see why you want to come on here and attack things that 99% of us hold dear to our hearts. We love our guns, atleast I do, and I can talk about them any way I deem fit, and luckily, the first amendment that you so want to amend to the point that it wouldnt be the first amendment anymore protects me in doing so. As far as magazines, government has no right to limit anything, the second amen. is pretty straightforward, the right is not to be infringed!

BTW, has everyone noticed this guy has posted like 5 times total? This tragedy in arizona happens and he pops up with some of the most anti talk I have ever heard on here. I believe it is pretty obvious, this guy is an anti that signed up and posted to try and get his anti views to melt into our minds. Just I dont think it is working.

KYGlockster said:

your are correct, you absolutely cannot run into a movie theater and yell "fire!"

Click to expand...

You want me to whisper it if there is in fact a fire? :uhoh:

The conditions of how, when, where and why are extremely pertinent.

I guess I should have put the post I was replying too, or you should have read it, I was responding to this guy saying you cant just run into a movie theater and yell fire when there is no fire. I believe it is common sense you can yell fire at the top of your lungs if there actually is one....

KYGlockster said:

BTW, has everyone noticed this guy has posted like 5 times total? This tragedy in arizona happens and he pops up with some of the most anti talk I have ever heard on here. I believe it is pretty obvious, this guy is an anti that signed up and posted to try and get his anti views to melt into our minds. Just I dont think it is working.

Click to expand...

To whom do you refer on this thread as only having 5 total posts?

KYGlockster said:

I guess I should have put the post I was replying too, or you should have read it, I was responding to this guy saying you cant just run into a movie theater and yell fire when there is no fire. I believe it is common sense you can yell fire at the top of your lungs if there actually is one....

Click to expand...

Oh, I understood your intent, but the devil is in the details.

Even in the event of a theater fire, I likely would not recommend screaming "FIRE" and panicking people. Might be better to stand up and say in a clear authoritative voice, "Ladies and gentleman may I have your attentions please. We have a slight emergency and wish you to proceed quietly and in an orderly fashion to the rear exits. Begin now please."

Grapeshot said:

You want me to whisper it if there is in fact a fire? :uhoh:

The conditions of how, when, where and why are extremely pertinent.

Click to expand...

You know, I have to hand it to you, Grapeshot.

This is a very astute observation and statement that I have not seen remarked upon before. I compliment you on your original line of thought!

So many times I have heard the clichet phrase: "Even the First Amendment is open to regulation! You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre!"

Leave it to Grapeshot to point out that you can indeed......if there IS a fire!

Oh, the obvious things we all overlook!

....and the truth shall set you free!

How many times have we all wondered about a pithy response, or a relevant defense to those who use this clichet to argue the validity of regulations to our second amendment? All the time it was right there for the voicing:

Yelling "FIRE" is not a crime if it is a valid use of the First Amendment!

Similarly: Openly carrying a firearm is not a crime! IT IS A VALID USE OF OUR SECOND AMENDMENT!

Sometimes the answers are so simple and obvious, we tend to overlook them. Thanks, Grapeshot. This simple post of yours has opened up an entire train of thought I haven't yet explored. This, in itself, is a gift. Whether you intended it as such, or not, is irrellevant. Having an idea blossom from the words of another, to be expanded upon is the truest meaning of the term "gift". I won't throw this one in the rubbish heap by disregarding it and failing to examine the implications of these words to the fullest extent I am able.

Does this mean you're simpleminded?

Didn't Einstein once say "Any fool can make things more complicated. A true genius is able to simplify."?

Have to be careful though 'cause of my experiences at Concord and Lexington; when someone yells "FIRE", I may take a moment to figure out what they mean. :lol:

Often times I think we complicate issues and walk right by the obvious. I prefer my wheat without any chaff. Some say it is a fault - oh well.

I do thank you, kind sir, for an appreciation of my point.

PointofView said:

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...

Click to expand...

These days, and having done that myself...

The second reason is the one sided reasoning I see here.

Click to expand...

Yes. Our reasoning is indeed one sided, and for very good reason.

Please step back for a minute and examine the posts on OC.org.

Click to expand...

I would ask you to do the same, so you may understand our reasoning!

I am also very liberal in my politics...

Click to expand...

No kidding...

...and think the constitution should be ammended to reflect self defense as specific reason for the right to own firearms.

Click to expand...

Good grief! Have you even read the document? It already does.

If you can't get that clue, then here's an F for third grade. My nine-year-old son gets this.

You can't?

:banghead:

I think if you need a thirty round mag for your gun, you are lazy, or a clown.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that, and I suppose this "clown" carries 65 rounds because I never know when I might run into some lunatic who carried not one, but two 30-round magazines.

Guns are no different and in the recent incident in AZ, the mag size did matter.

Click to expand...

You're one of those people who don't get the fact that neither criminals nor lunatics care about the law. They'll carry whatever mag size they dang well please.

Limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against their threat makes as much sense as disarming the military as a means of convincing militant radicals out there there we "mean no harm."

They will put a bullet through our brains before we can say, "I'll have tea, thank you."

The problem with you and you ilk is that you don't know the type. I do. Met 'em, fought 'em, as did my ancestors in WWII.

Grow a brain. If you can't then please stop posting your one-sided, ignorant posts, which indicate you just can't connect the dots.

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.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of people who have suffered loss of life or limb as a result of criminals illegally gunning them down were afflicted minutes before the police arrived. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Apparently, you don't get that, either.

The Constitution has NOT been "ammended [sic] to reflect self defense as specific reason for the right to own firearms." It uses the militia as the foundation for enumerating the right. The amendment specifically mentions the security of the State, i.e. defense of the State, as the reason for the militia. Self-defense is not mentioned.

Self-defense is an implicit (implied) reason, not the specific (specified) one.

And I have "even read the document."

PointofView said:

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.

Click to expand...

Okay, my turn. Now PointofView in case you haven't looked yet, look at the avatar by my handle. Yes I wore that rank at retirement. I spent 25 years US Army. I know what you're thinking, awe you're an ole Has_Been. You're used to having your life laid out to you by a training schedule. Having your day laid out, with the exception of those nasty lil firefights, a day of which you know where you're going to be and doing.
I'm going to throw some thoughts at you that you may not like to hear.
Pssssst listen up, THE GOVERNMENT is NOT of the people, by the people and for the people ,,, the "Ruling Class are Autocrats!
It's not being paranoid to say that "whoever" wants your guns, it's a reality. You've had your brainpan stuffed with BS. The Militia is US. Not a "Well governed militia", governed meaning in the sense of 1792 "trained, armed and supplied."
The current administration is rife with self proclaimed communists, socialists, and as Hillary put it " Early 20th century Progressives" Google that and you'll have a nightmare when you find out what they stand for. As stated earlier by folks more fluent in the better diction than I, WHO is ANYONE to tell ME what capacity my magazine can be? Who is anyone to tell me how much ammunition I can carry? or own? I don't wear a tin foil hat, but I do read the handwriting on the wall, and I don't like what I'm reading. The only part of the 2nd amendment that needs heeding is,,,, wait for it,,, "The right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" And as I've stated before, what part of that can't you understand?

HELL! Even Obama is for armed civilians. Well kinda, sorta in a way:


[video=youtube;gwaAVJITx1Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y[/video]

I also assume that PointofView feels that he is the only one who has one (a point of view that is). Many have responded to the OP but he hasn't answered any of them.