wrightme
Regular Member
But you did this instead. Why?
And you went back on your word to reply to this thread.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Hey John and Mike!
- Thread starter eye95
- Start date
And you went back on your word to reply to this thread.
stainless1911
Banned
The forefathers made the first post advocating violence against the .gov.
In these times, advocating violence against the .gov, and America are two distinctly different things.
In these times, advocating violence against the .gov, and America are two distinctly different things.
SavageOne
Regular Member
You have been asked to provide cites to these posts you have,now, twice described. Will you provide them, please?
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Not in the "eyes" of authoritarian statists.
I see no advocating of violence against the government just reminders that it is a choice and the gov. should start behaving before the people opt to use that choice.
If public discourse was not desired, then it would seem to have been better handled by PMs with the principals. By posting as you have, the opportunity/invite could not have been more clearly made to those so disposed.
eye95
Well-known member
Public discourse on the increased calls on this site for violence against our nation is quite desired. Public discourse calling for that violence is not (nor posts in denial of the existence of such). Unfortunately the former (the purpose of the thread) will naturally result in the latter (to which I will not respond, as I said I would not, preferring instead to limit my responses to members of the staff who reply to the thread.)
So no, PMs would not do, even though the consequence will be the discussion I am looking for intermixed with the one I am decrying.
As long as folks continue to post calls for violence against the nation, the government, or its lawfully-acting agents, this movement will be marginalized.
wrightme
Regular Member
It would see more productive to me if you were to simply report those posts where you see such so the site moderation team can take it for action.
Otherwise, it IS their site, and THEIR call. If you do not like the site the way it is, the routes are clear.
1) Enter a dialog with the site owner, not the users, to voice your concerns to HIM.
or
2) Take your ball and go somewhere else.
Starting a public discussion about it does not make a change that meets your needs.
M-Taliesin
Regular Member
Howdy Folks!
I am fairly new to the OCDO forum. I came here because I learned a great deal about my right to open carry here in Colorado. I have met some terrific folks in the Colorado forum in person at an OC event in Colorado Springs. I learned that I could carry while on a trip through Nebraska. The information here is of terrific value, and newcomers have a wonderful resource for learning about OC, laws in various jurisdictions, and their rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
That being said, I haven't been around long enough to 'judge' anybody else. I hope I never do arrive at a place where I feel justified to judge anybody else. That ain't my reason for being here. With that being said, I have no particular opinion regarding Eye95 or anybody else, for that matter.
What I do feel justified to 'judge' is the compliance of government to the intentions of our founding fathers and their expression through documents such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These men who gave us our own nation were revolutionaries. They were not the majority in their day. They saw abuses of power by the existing government (under a foreign king) and stood against it. In so doing, they put everything on the line for what they believed should be the nature of liberty and the rights of the citizen. They stated clearly enough with whom the power should reside with the words: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
More than lofty words, this statement made clear the people were the ultimate source of power for our new government. And the Constitution acknowledged that power could be usurped by ambitious men and provided for a resolution, Petition for Redress of Grievances as set forth in the first Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This is important because we all speak of the Constitution while frequently forgetting the language crafted by our founding fathers and found in the Declaration of Indepdendence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
So I guess these men were not patriots, if we accept at face value that criticism of government or asserting the same ideas as set into our founding documents is unacceptable.
That being said, and a long way around the barn getting to my point, I do not judge anybody for their perspective on the status of our government. Do we see abuses of power. Yep! Do we see government catering more to special interests than the will of the people? You betcha! Do we see government usurping power to itself that should reside in the consent of the governed? Yes! But I haven't seen any calls for revolution around here. I haven't seen anybody advocating for violence against our government either. I have seen folks comment that such abuses as have been observed cannot long be tolerated, but that's a long way from claiming we need to man the barricades.
The moderators of this forum do a really fine job and allow a great deal of latitude for folks to air their opinion. Do I agree with every opinion on this forum? Nope. Not by a long shot. Some will judge another person by their political affiliation, whether they are an LEO or not, or other extraneous factor. I evaluate an opinion based on rationality of the post itself. Many will disagree, as is their right, with other posters. Fine and dandy. That's what liberty is all about. But that, too, is a far cry from a call for revolution. I have not seen any posts myself advocating violence against our government. If I have any gripe with Eye95, it would be that repeated calls for specific citings have gone ignored. I'd like to see specific examples for evaluation purposes. Thus far, none have been forthcoming. Only a general call for the moderators to do something about a situation that I haven't seen manifested.
So until there be a demonstrated and compelling reason to do differently, I applaud the moderators for the job they are doing (a thankless one at that) and encourage them to carry on as they have. Well done! To those who feel they are inadequate, their answer has always been freedom to leave the forum and create your own!
Thank you for reading this far, and I apologize in advance for some measure of verbosity. However, I wanted to cover my sentiment fully as we are heirs to more than simply what one finds in the Constitution. We need to value and appreciate all the implications of our founding father's experiment in liberty; and claim it in entirety for our own times.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
I am fairly new to the OCDO forum. I came here because I learned a great deal about my right to open carry here in Colorado. I have met some terrific folks in the Colorado forum in person at an OC event in Colorado Springs. I learned that I could carry while on a trip through Nebraska. The information here is of terrific value, and newcomers have a wonderful resource for learning about OC, laws in various jurisdictions, and their rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
That being said, I haven't been around long enough to 'judge' anybody else. I hope I never do arrive at a place where I feel justified to judge anybody else. That ain't my reason for being here. With that being said, I have no particular opinion regarding Eye95 or anybody else, for that matter.
What I do feel justified to 'judge' is the compliance of government to the intentions of our founding fathers and their expression through documents such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These men who gave us our own nation were revolutionaries. They were not the majority in their day. They saw abuses of power by the existing government (under a foreign king) and stood against it. In so doing, they put everything on the line for what they believed should be the nature of liberty and the rights of the citizen. They stated clearly enough with whom the power should reside with the words: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
More than lofty words, this statement made clear the people were the ultimate source of power for our new government. And the Constitution acknowledged that power could be usurped by ambitious men and provided for a resolution, Petition for Redress of Grievances as set forth in the first Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This is important because we all speak of the Constitution while frequently forgetting the language crafted by our founding fathers and found in the Declaration of Indepdendence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
So I guess these men were not patriots, if we accept at face value that criticism of government or asserting the same ideas as set into our founding documents is unacceptable.
That being said, and a long way around the barn getting to my point, I do not judge anybody for their perspective on the status of our government. Do we see abuses of power. Yep! Do we see government catering more to special interests than the will of the people? You betcha! Do we see government usurping power to itself that should reside in the consent of the governed? Yes! But I haven't seen any calls for revolution around here. I haven't seen anybody advocating for violence against our government either. I have seen folks comment that such abuses as have been observed cannot long be tolerated, but that's a long way from claiming we need to man the barricades.
The moderators of this forum do a really fine job and allow a great deal of latitude for folks to air their opinion. Do I agree with every opinion on this forum? Nope. Not by a long shot. Some will judge another person by their political affiliation, whether they are an LEO or not, or other extraneous factor. I evaluate an opinion based on rationality of the post itself. Many will disagree, as is their right, with other posters. Fine and dandy. That's what liberty is all about. But that, too, is a far cry from a call for revolution. I have not seen any posts myself advocating violence against our government. If I have any gripe with Eye95, it would be that repeated calls for specific citings have gone ignored. I'd like to see specific examples for evaluation purposes. Thus far, none have been forthcoming. Only a general call for the moderators to do something about a situation that I haven't seen manifested.
So until there be a demonstrated and compelling reason to do differently, I applaud the moderators for the job they are doing (a thankless one at that) and encourage them to carry on as they have. Well done! To those who feel they are inadequate, their answer has always been freedom to leave the forum and create your own!
Thank you for reading this far, and I apologize in advance for some measure of verbosity. However, I wanted to cover my sentiment fully as we are heirs to more than simply what one finds in the Constitution. We need to value and appreciate all the implications of our founding father's experiment in liberty; and claim it in entirety for our own times.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
I advocate violence against.....
Snowcones!
Snowcones!
Gunslinger
Regular Member
You live in the PDR, so marrying Joshua Trees is legal...
bom1911
Regular Member
Looks like a tantrum to me. I guess it's time to move on.
since9
Campaign Veteran
He came on board the same year/month I did, about a year and a half ago. I'm way too new to have a feel for how this forum has changed over the totality of its existence.
He might also be confusing others disagreeing with government policies and their disagreement with his own ideas.[/quote]
:banana:
Same. The optimist in me sincerely hopes and prays that would never be necessary. The pragmatist in me realizes history demonstrates it's often necessary, most notably when those entrusted with governing authority abuse it for ill-gotten gain, including garnering political favor.
This is why I love the role Steve McQueen played in "The Great Escape." He was a Patriot, through and through, even as a POW for whom any criticism of the Germans was unacceptable.
Blasphemy! Heresy! (Just kidding; also I took license to slightly modify your post so as to include a copy of your post title for clarity. Hope you don't mind)
(sigh) You're right, of course. Moving on.
M-Taliesin
Regular Member
After the parade, Henry said "Gee Ma, did you notice? The entire regiment was out of step except for me!"
Moving on!
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
eye95
Well-known member
I reported the latest post I saw in which one of our members flat out said the he had been calling for the overthrow of our government (in response to a post from someone in this thread who had specifically said the he would not call for such an overthrow). The owners did nothing. I forwarded that post to the FBI.
I would rather that we internally policed this sub-movement that is developing on this board in which some members are calling for revolution, blood, and overthrow. Such postings give the OC movement a decidedly "wacko" feel that is counterproductive to its goals. In the future, if I read another such post, I will do what I did for that post: report it to the staff, wait one day, and then, if it is still there, forward it to the FBI.
I hope that I never feel compelled to forward such a post again. But make no mistake; I will.
The purpose of this thread is to motivate the staff to do a better job of policing such posts and to encourage the members to self-police. That ain't working. Maybe, in time, it will. Until then, when necessary, I will look outside the board for recourse.
On edit: For those of you having trouble seeing when this sub-movement suddenly expanded, it was when the Social Lounge was added. Before then, the calls for blood were rare. Now, I see them on a near-daily basis. Some are more subtle than others. However, when the subtlety is ignored, the revolutionaries are emboldened and become blunt, as in the post I forwarded.
We seem to have lost the focus on OC. If folks want to call for bloody revolution, I don't care. They just shouldn't be allowed to do it here in a way that casts the OC movement in a bad light.
I would rather that we internally policed this sub-movement that is developing on this board in which some members are calling for revolution, blood, and overthrow. Such postings give the OC movement a decidedly "wacko" feel that is counterproductive to its goals. In the future, if I read another such post, I will do what I did for that post: report it to the staff, wait one day, and then, if it is still there, forward it to the FBI.
I hope that I never feel compelled to forward such a post again. But make no mistake; I will.
The purpose of this thread is to motivate the staff to do a better job of policing such posts and to encourage the members to self-police. That ain't working. Maybe, in time, it will. Until then, when necessary, I will look outside the board for recourse.
On edit: For those of you having trouble seeing when this sub-movement suddenly expanded, it was when the Social Lounge was added. Before then, the calls for blood were rare. Now, I see them on a near-daily basis. Some are more subtle than others. However, when the subtlety is ignored, the revolutionaries are emboldened and become blunt, as in the post I forwarded.
We seem to have lost the focus on OC. If folks want to call for bloody revolution, I don't care. They just shouldn't be allowed to do it here in a way that casts the OC movement in a bad light.
Last edited:
Rattrapper
Regular Member
--Personal attack deleted by Moderator--
Last edited:
since9
Campaign Veteran
Just got off the phone with a good chum from high school who spent the last 22 years working for one of those three-letter government agencies. After we finished making plans for dinner with him and his family (my 30th HS reunion is next month, so I'll be in the D.C. area for that), I shared this thread's link with him, as well as the one I began here, and he said he'd get back to me.
He called about half an hour later, still chuckling, and thanked me for the link. He said he'd shared it with a few of his buddies at work, and asked me to convey a simple message to the OP of this thread: "Good one!"
Folks, lest we take ourselves too seriously, perhaps it would be wise to remind everyone here that our First Amendment exists for several reasons, not the least of which is as a pressure release valve on the proverbial steam kettle known as American politics.
These folks could care less about calls for government reform on message forums, particular if it's all about getting back to the foundations of our government. Remember, they take the same or nearly the same oaths to protect and defend our Constitution as do most members of the military and all senior government officials. Some may not take that oath seriously, but most do.
All they really care about are actual acts against our country or its citizens and specific and credible threats against the same, none of which are in evidence either here or in the other thread.
My friend asked me to convey one additional message to the OP, including its formatting:
I got the distinct impression he was not referring to Glock34's response in the other thread.
Then I suggest you lead the way by focusing on OC and leave counter-revolutionary operations to the experts.
I have yet to witness anyone specifically and more importantly, credibly, calling for a revolution. For the last eight months, however, I've seen very serious evidence of misguided and unwelcome in-fighting antics which does indeed cast the OC movement in a bad light.
He called about half an hour later, still chuckling, and thanked me for the link. He said he'd shared it with a few of his buddies at work, and asked me to convey a simple message to the OP of this thread: "Good one!"
Folks, lest we take ourselves too seriously, perhaps it would be wise to remind everyone here that our First Amendment exists for several reasons, not the least of which is as a pressure release valve on the proverbial steam kettle known as American politics.
These folks could care less about calls for government reform on message forums, particular if it's all about getting back to the foundations of our government. Remember, they take the same or nearly the same oaths to protect and defend our Constitution as do most members of the military and all senior government officials. Some may not take that oath seriously, but most do.
All they really care about are actual acts against our country or its citizens and specific and credible threats against the same, none of which are in evidence either here or in the other thread.
My friend asked me to convey one additional message to the OP, including its formatting:
"Noted"
I got the distinct impression he was not referring to Glock34's response in the other thread.
Then I suggest you lead the way by focusing on OC and leave counter-revolutionary operations to the experts.
I have yet to witness anyone specifically and more importantly, credibly, calling for a revolution. For the last eight months, however, I've seen very serious evidence of misguided and unwelcome in-fighting antics which does indeed cast the OC movement in a bad light.
SavageOne
Regular Member
You can forward a post to the FBI, but won't cite examples of the posts you describe here when repeatedly asked?
You make statements that you are only interested in replying to members of staff, then reply to a member who has just over 110 posts. You choose to ignore all others who continue to question you on this thread. Obviously, you intend to only make responses that you believe will strengthen your argument. This is not discourse, this is your attempt at an essay.
You make statements that you are only interested in replying to members of staff, then reply to a member who has just over 110 posts. You choose to ignore all others who continue to question you on this thread. Obviously, you intend to only make responses that you believe will strengthen your argument. This is not discourse, this is your attempt at an essay.
eye95
Well-known member
I spoke to a friend of mine at a three-letter agency.
He said most people who claim the expertise of a friend of theirs in a three-letter agency are talking through their hat. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
I will continue to report any posts that call for the overthrow of our government to the staff. If they fail to act, I will forward them to the FBI.
Whether or not they act on any one of them, do we really want the kind of attention that would bring? The tin-foil types think the agencies that you dismiss so easily are not to be taken lightly.
So, go run to a neighbor's apartment with a gun. Tell them that they need you.
He said most people who claim the expertise of a friend of theirs in a three-letter agency are talking through their hat. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
I will continue to report any posts that call for the overthrow of our government to the staff. If they fail to act, I will forward them to the FBI.
Whether or not they act on any one of them, do we really want the kind of attention that would bring? The tin-foil types think the agencies that you dismiss so easily are not to be taken lightly.
So, go run to a neighbor's apartment with a gun. Tell them that they need you.
wrightme
Regular Member
qft
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Actually, I know people at various 3 letter agencies. And one two letter; and 2 four letter. And 3 five letter. So what? Let's not get carried away when our noses get bent out of shape. Sure, I do--but I keep it in the forum. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any call for violations of the Smith act.