• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

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

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
This is an interesting thread that I spent some time reading and considering...

I have quite a lot of sympathy with some of what POV said up there and the bits that struck a chord with me ring true on other internet communities too, however, as I will mention further on, I have also seen quite a lot of distasteful stuff from the other side of 'the debate'.

I, too, sometimes feel distinctly uncomfortable at the behaviour and apparent attitude of some people in 'gun nut' (handy term, not intended derogatorily) communities like this. I maintain that any firearm is a tool, its purpose depending mostly on the user but clearly some types are better suited to some tasks. I fail to see any justification, for example, for ownership of a Barrett "Light Fifty" (M82/M107) rifle on grounds of hunting or self-defence, as it's clearly a weapon intended for a battlefield role and eminently unsuited to practical use in either of those categories. I do understand the 'gun porn' aspect of such things and I have a fascination with firearm mechanics that way well take me down the route of formally qualifying in the field of gunsmithing, but I honestly don't feel comfortable with the idea of a neighbour buying one, just because he can or worse "for home defence" (let's not even touch on people who mutter stuff about "To fight off the Feds when they come...").

The separation, however, must be made between what I feel makes sense and what is legal or intended to be legal. I'm quite happy to distance myself from people who feel they need to walk the streets of major cities with a couple of concealed guns and an openly carried one, merely to buy their groceries BUT it's clear to me, from reading the laws and documents, that so long as such a person complies with the relevant laws (CCW permit, if required, etc) I don't have to like it, it's quite legal and they're free to do it.

Furthermore, it's actually clear to me that many laws surrounding this issue do, in fact, infringe upon the rights the Second Amendment was intended to protect; some moreso and more unreasonably than others, to be sure. These laws may or may not be sensible in intent but I have to agree that the only LEGAL thing to do is roll them back and then hold honest public debate about the entire topic.

On the other side, as I mentioned, I find it deeply disturbing to see people hysterically pointing at guns as they will jump out and shoot them and then chanting some nonsense about killing children. I'm not exaggerating, I have witnessed this and it's every bit as unreasonable, uncomfortable and disturbing as the people who give their guns names and fantasize about 'street encounters' where they dispatch hordes of thugs.

In closing, will I (when the time comes, not in the USA at the moment) carry firearms? Aye, certainly. Will I carry a concealed firearm? Probably at some time, although I have reservations about permitting it, to be honest. Will I carry openly, as an exercize of my rights and for no other purpose? Aye, I will, from time to time, until we have calmed down a lot of irrational notions and restored the idea that responsible Americans can carry firearms legally, openly and not be presumed guilty of some undetermined crime.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I have quite a lot of sympathy with some of what POV said up there and the bits that struck a chord with me ring true on other internet communities too, however, as I will mention further on, I have also seen quite a lot of distasteful stuff from the other side of 'the debate'.

I, too, sometimes feel distinctly uncomfortable at the behaviour and apparent attitude of some people in 'gun nut' (handy term, not intended derogatorily) communities like this. I maintain that any firearm is a tool, its purpose depending mostly on the user but clearly some types are better suited to some tasks. I fail to see any justification, for example, for ownership of a Barrett "Light Fifty" (M82/M107) rifle on grounds of hunting or self-defence, as it's clearly a weapon intended for a battlefield role and eminently unsuited to practical use in either of those categories. I do understand the 'gun porn' aspect of such things and I have a fascination with firearm mechanics that way well take me down the route of formally qualifying in the field of gunsmithing, but I honestly don't feel comfortable with the idea of a neighbour buying one, just because he can or worse "for home defence" (let's not even touch on people who mutter stuff about "To fight off the Feds when they come...").

Appreciate your thoughts and the demeanor.

Just a quick "cliff note" - in my observation the primary owners/user of the Barrett .50 cal are long range (sport) shooters + LEAs sometimes. The average "Gun Joe" can't afford the entry fee + the costs to feed it.
 

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
M82

Thanks! And sure, I chose that as a deliberately unlikely example, rather than arbitrarily pick a weapon that I might feel is a bit 'overpowered' or whatever and inadvertently insult a forum user who owns one in perfectly good faith. :¬)

Also, I can see, now I think about it, the weapon being useful to that niche ([very] long distance) of sports user, so I failed slightly but, oh well!

P.S. I think they are an awesome weapon and quite an achievement of firearms design and engineering.
 
Last edited:

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
:¬)

On the battlefield, that sounds ideal. You become my neighbour and walk around petting 'Bessy' your trusty 30-06 rifle and I'm calling BATFE! ;¬)
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.

We? I think Grapeshot is just taking an opportunity to lie about his age. :)

The militia age in this state is 16-54 yrs old:

§ 44-1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+44-1

Now, having sailed with Agamemnon to repatriate Helen from Troy, Grapeshot might fall under a naval militia exception. Otherwise, he's lyin'.

:D


5...4...3...2...
 

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
Psst!

The language about militia is a bit of a red herring, y'all!

The sentence in question amounts to:

"Since we need armed forces to protect our country, just like any other but in light of why we are making this document at all and being shot at by people in 'red' coats, Americans must be free to own, carry and use firearms, potentially to defend themselves from a future tyranny using those same armed forces against them"
 

frommycolddeadhands

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
448
Location
Knob Noster, MO
Simple

To the OP:

PointofView I read your post and all the responses that have been posted to you. My .02 boils down like this:

If you don't like being surrounded by gun enthusiasts, and you don't like to partake in discussions about different types of firearms, weaponry, and gun culture in general, then you are more than free to excuse yourself from the conversation and move on to greener pastures. Don't feel bad about it, I'm the same way about cars. Some people can sit around and talk about engines and paint jobs and rims all day. Not my cup of tea. Funnily enough I don't hang out in muscle car chatrooms.

I think people have already covered the angels on the 2A and why we all generally feel it should be left just like it is. As far as felons and children, well if people are dangerous (felons) perhaps we should lock 'em up and not let them out. If they've done their time then they are free as anyone else. Fix the prison system, don't mess with my individual liberties. As far as children, well I've had a gun since I was pretty young. Pellet guns, .22 rifle, and a semi-auto shotgun when I was 14. Leave the young'uns to their parents. You can't regulate common sense.

Also, if I want a 30 round clip in my AR-15, then I will have one. If you feel that it's too much ammo for you to be carrying then you can feel free to tote around a ten round clip and I won't say nothing to you to make you feel bad about it. You do your thing, I'll do mine. Welcome to the free world.

Finally, I'm a military member also. Done my time overseas and back. I don't particularly worry about the 'MIB' coming to take my guns, but I am aware of the gun grabs during Hurricane Katrina, the draconian bans in DC, Chicago, New York, and Kalifornia. Yes, the gov't will happily legislate all of your rights away if they think they can get away with it. And yes, I am one of those 'crazies' who will be hiding with my gun in the mountains when push comes to shove. :)

Long story short- Just because you are willing to give up precious liberties for no good reason doesn't mean that the rest of us are.

Go in peace, Friend.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
To the OP:

PointofView I read your post and all the responses that have been posted to you. My .02 boils down like this:

If you don't like being surrounded by gun enthusiasts, and you don't like to partake in discussions about different types of firearms, weaponry, and gun culture in general, then you are more than free to excuse yourself from the conversation and move on to greener pastures.


I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

I'm a graphic designer and letterpress printer. I'm on several forums relating to those interests where people discuss--sometimes to mind-numbing length--the intricacies of various printing presses, the attributes, challenges, and joys of certain paper, the chemistry, viscosity, and general performance of various inks, and the subtle philosophical implications of typefaces.

I'm sure that the OP (and the VAST majority of people on OCDO) would find those forums to be silly, boring, and incredibly tedious.

But I enjoy them. I learn from them. I contribute to them. I'm a printing geek, and I ENJOY talking about that sort of stuff, because I enjoy DOING that sort of stuff.

Same goes here.

I ENJOY owning, modifying, customizing, and shooting firearms. I am a member of USPSA, and I look forward to each match--the comraderie, the competition, the tips and learning experiences I get--are all part of the attraction to that sport for me. If the OP doesn't like competitive practical shooting, then he doesn't have to come to matches. But on that same note, he DOES NOT have the right to slam people who do.

I'm not even going to waste my breath on his "Militia" comment, re: the 2A. He is obviously NOT well-read or educated as to the intricacies of 18th century grammer and context, nor has he apparently taken the time to research the thoughts and writings of the Drafters of the Constitution to try and understand what they meant.

In closing, I would remind the OP that according to MANY of the Founding Fathers, his job (a member of a professional, standing army) is in fact the GREATEST THREAT to a free society. He would do well to remember his own place, in the context of Liberty, Freedom, and the Republic...

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen”
--James Madison
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
We? I think Grapeshot is just taking an opportunity to lie about his age. :)

The militia age in this state is 16-54 yrs old:

:D


5...4...3...2...


No sir, those define the limits on impressment, not that of a volunteer.
Ye must come sail with me and learn the difference.

You're doing well with your numbers. Next time we meet, young Cit, I trust thee will be able to count backward from 10. :lol:
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The language about militia is a bit of a red herring, y'all!

The sentence in question amounts to:

"Since we need armed forces to protect our country, just like any other but in light of why we are making this document at all and being shot at by people in 'red' coats, Americans must be free to own, carry and use firearms, potentially to defend themselves from a future tyranny using those same armed forces against them"

The language is not a red herring, it is just inconsequential to the right. The only language that matters to the enumeration of the right is, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The introductory clause merely explains one of the reasons that the individual right is necessary. Nothing more, nothing less.
 

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
I'd say 'Red Herring' because some people get caught up on the notion of being in a militia and how that is meant to apply to it (it doesn't, the 'well regulated militia' would today be better phrased as 'properly supplied armed forces').

However, I take your point that regardless, it guarantees the right 'to keep and bear arms' which would again be better phrased as 'own and carry on their person, firearms' in modern language. The "shall not be infringed" is crystal clear, even today, of course.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
A red herring is something that is set to lead folks astray--deliberately. That was not the intent of the clause, just an unfortunate side-effect.
 

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
I'd disagree, I am afraid

However, that might simply be differing usages in different places. A red herring would be anything that misleads, particularly (traditionally) when following a line of enquiry, intent or even an actor need not be present. Regardless, it's a fairly trivial thing to argue over. :¬)
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Disagreeing with an opinion is reasonable. Disagreeing with reality is...well I'll let everyone finish that sentence for themselves.

Here is the definition of "red herring" with the appropriate parts bolded:

red herring

–noun
1.
a smoked herring.
2.
something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.
3.
Also called red-herring prospectus. Finance . a tentative prospectus circulated by the underwriters of a new issue of stocks or bonds that is pending approval by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: so called because the front cover of such a prospectus must carry a special notice printed in red.
4.
any similar tentative financial prospectus, as one concerning a pending or proposed sale of cooperative or condominium apartments.
Use red herring in a Sentence
See images of red herring
Search red herring on the Web
Origin:
1375–1425; late ME
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.
Cite This Source
|
Link To red herring
World English Dictionary
red herring

— n
1. anything that diverts attention from a topic or line of inquiry
2. a herring cured by salting and smoking

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite This Source
Word Origin & History

red herring
"smoked herring" early 15c. (they turn red when cured). Supposedly used by fugitives to put bloodhounds off the scent (1680s), hence metaphoric sense (1884) of "something used to divert attention from the basic issue."

The point is that it is not a red herring unless the person using the device intends it to be a diversion, such as when a real red herring is used to put hounds off the scent.

If one uses the term incorrectly, he can unintentionally imply intent to divert on the part of the Framers. We should try to know the terms we use. When we misuse a term and another points that out, we should react graciously, not defensively.

Moving on.
 

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
Lol

Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive, which is to say they track usage and definitions they don't make usage or definitions. Sorry, that's an American dictionary source, although there is mention of Collins, detailing a phrase of British origin which remains widely in use, so even if they did do so, it'd be a moot point.

Meet reality, yourself! ;¬)

Seriously, though, it really doesn't matter that much and it touches on the point that the language of the constitution is now ambiguous without research (and even then, depending on what sources you rely on) which is precisely why people are able to argue very strange things from it.
 

PointofView

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
118
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
Well said! This also coincides with the historical reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment which Thomas Jefferson spoke about.

Well every supreme court justice disagreed with you until the ruling in 2008. Everyone here seems to be a constitutional lawyer and the pro opinion in this verdict was that the interpretation up to that point was incorrect and the framers were stating for self defense. The opposing opinion did state that the interpretation was speaking to militia and weapons rights for them. Odd how everyone in here is so sure yet, even supreme court justices cannot agree on this.

The historical reasoning behind 2A stood as for militia until 2008 which is much longer than the current 3 year verdict. I cannot claim to know the true reasoning behind the wording or how much thought went into the exact intent of the constitution but I will state the fact that many will disagree with and that is the framers were man and not infallable. Hence regulation may be needed as semi auto weapons with 30 round mags did not even exist at the time. Times and technology change and we must be careful to ensure the law mirrors this. Including Rights.
 
Top