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

[PointofView]

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.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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!:lol:

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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.

 

[SouthernBoy]

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?

 

[Butch00]

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.

It sounds like you trust your government...I don't hence the need for high capacity magazines...(Mandate from founding fathers) protection against a tyrannical government....I also carry a handgun for protection...There should be no limits on the second Amendment...I have magazines from 5 to 32 rds...and drums of 90 and 100 rds....I have never committed a crime with them ...I have had a lot of fun with them....my tec-9 with a 32 rd mag has killed less people than ted Kennedys car....so why should I be punished because a loony committed a crime with a gun with a high cap mag... He violated the Law punish him....I will not give up my right to bear arms....Remember 85 million Gun owners committed no crime on Jan. 8, 2011....By the way I spent 2 years in Vietnam as a Marine....So I paid my dues for this country.

 

[Venator]

Point of view is young and trying to find his way. Add a decade or so and I hope his point of view changes.

As to magazine size. I have never heard a person after a fire-fight say. "you know after that exchange I wish I had had less ammo and a smaller caliber."

 

[rushcreek2]

The U.S. military has been a noble experiment in socialistic autocracy. There is no hunger, 100 % employment, no income disparity, universal health care, equal treatment for all, etc. The military model functions because the civilian free market system SUPPORTS it financially- BUT - IT IS NOT an example of the enjoyment of liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. You DO NOT ENJOY 2nd Amendment protection while serving in the U.S. armed services- so it is not surprising that you cannot relate to same.

There's much to be said for the military life , if a person is willing to trade their liberty for security. The utopian aspect of the military "bubble" is a unique phenomenum that thrives -no REQUIRES 100% regulation of EVERYTHING. Exposure to this societal model will influence one's perspective regarding liberty vs security.

It has been accurately stated that all criminal offenses boil down to THEFT. Regardless of the particular details of crime SOMETHING IS ALWAYS STOLEN. It may be property, life, health/vitality, security, privacy, virginity, and even LIBERTY.

Murder, rape, robbery, assault, kidnapping, etc- ALL ARE ALREADY against the law.

Micro-regulation intended to " strangle-off" opportunity, ability, accessibility that enhances criminal conduct short of incarceration behind bars- or administration of the death penalty - will never stop crime in society -because the criminal will ALWAYS find some object that can be employed as a weapon.

I was watching one of those "crime documentary" programs yesterday. This woman was being stalked and harrassed by a former boy friend. She was finally able to bring misdemeanor charges against the perp after being subjected to months of this stalking and harrassment. Fearing for her safety while the perp was out on bail awaiting trial - she relocated from New Mexico to California in an attempt to hide from this nut.

He hired a P.I. who located her. He broke into her residence in California, and murdered her. It was noted in the epilogue of the program that "progress" was made in addressing the crime of stalking via the passage of a law in California "making it illegal" for a stalker to hire a private investigator to track down their victim ! Typical for Kalifornia !
Laws like that are really going to stop a stalker cold ????? That's feel-good regulation.

The woman who fell victim to this murderous nut LEFT NEW MEXICO where she had no California style gun restrictions. No - apparently she never thought to strap a handgun on her waist. Had she actually armed herself with a handgun - should she have been barred from possesssing a 30 round mag ? Who besides the intended victim should be allowed to decide how much defense will be needed to stop an attack ?

Laws and regulations are like water added to ready-mix. Eventually all freedom of movement ceases.

 

[Walt_Kowalski]

First, thank you for your service to this country. I will quickly rebut some of your points...

As a very active shooter, I'm on range at minimum every 2 weeks, and participate in IDPA, and 3 gun matches. The volume of ammo, in varying calibers, that I use is high. I would need to keep registering that ammo over and over again? What about folks that reload at home? Will the government then need to violate out 4A rights, to come into our homes, to catalog all the ammo that we have or have made? What about the criminal, will he/she register THEIR ammo?

Extended or 30 round magazines... More 33rd Glock magazines are used in a safe, legal manner every day in this country than used by a criminal to commit crimes. Its a great time saver to be able to load up a few 33rd'ers before I get to the range. I also keep a 33rd loaded in one of my Glocks at home for home defense. Am I a good shot?... sure... but I know that if a 2 way shooting range occurs, I'd like to have every advantage to ensure my safety, and my families safety. Banning High capacity magazines only creates a market for criminals to exchange them freely, and removes them from honest, law abiding citizens.

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

 

[NRAMARINE]

"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.

LOL, that's true. However, he believed in never running out of ammo, and clean socks. He used to say, " If you can carry that ugly face around, you can carry another 500 rounds".

 

[NRAMARINE]

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.

+1 and Amen.

 

[Deanimator]

What a coincidence. I'm a liberal too. Of course I'm probably quite a bit older and remember when liberals were SUSPICIOUS of government power. Unfortunately, the current crop of "liberals" don't mind government power, even the most horrific abuses of government power, so long as it's THEIR government power.

"Reasonable" amount of ammunition in a magazine? Who determines THAT? As I recall, the ORIGINAL versions of the AWB said FIVE rounds. Of course, I've heard people with opinions similar to yours say that no "civilian" should be able to have anything more than a single shot shotgun. Why are they wrong and you right?

Too much interest in guns? I feel the same way about cars. It's a tool that gets me to and from the gun show and the range. Oddly, that doesn't make me want to impose my will on car enthusiasts. What your comments reflect is a desire to impose your will on those who think differently than you without actually HARMING you or anyone else. Gun control fills the same psychological niche for some liberals that anti-sodomy laws fill for some conservatives. People HAVE to like and do what YOU like and do. If they won't, they have to be MADE to, at GUNPOINT if necessary.

If you want to be around others with a similar desire to limit the 2nd Amendment rights of others while pretending to protect them, I suggest you join AHSA... if you're not already a member. Think of them as "Negroes for Jim Crow" or "Gays for Anti-Sodomy Laws".

 

[NRAMARINE]

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.

Now you compare nukes to firearms? Get serious, we are all aware of the founders intent to protect the right to keep and bear ARMS. Not weapons of mass destruction. Big difference.Typical anti speech, "reasonable regulation"? By who's definition? For the record, the "MIB" have no more interest in personal liberty than an elephant cares about the grass. I've been around enough "Virginia farm boys" to know not to trust them. Paranoid? It's called a constant state of suspicious alertness. I would expect you to know that. I would however rather be called paranoid, and be wrong, than unaware and blindly trust those who have proven time and again how untrustworthy they are. BTW, you do know that every liberal politician is putting gun control, registration, and "Regulation" bills to paper as fast as they can right? You are paying attention right? Also, consider this, if they do regulate mags to 10 rounds, what's to stop them there? In a few years,they could then make it six, and if it's six, why do you need a semi-auto? Only revolvers, are "needed". Then rifles, why do you need more than 5 rounds? Why a semi-auto? You'll do fine with a single shot .410. You see they never try to take it all at once. They slowly fence you in, like wild hogs. Before you know it, you're trapped. I personally don't need a .500 magnum S&W, but that doesn't mean because I don't you don't either.

Ps. I don't know anyone who raises lions, however my Uncle Harold has run an alligator farm since I was in diapers. We played there all the time, but he took all proper precautions, as did we. We were taught to be aware of our surroundings, and take responsibility for our actions and safety.

 

[NRAMARINE]

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.

BTW, I don't recall the right to own lions in the CONSTITUTION. It's not a constitutionally protected right. The 2A is.

 

[NRAMARINE]

What a coincidence. I'm a liberal too. Of course I'm probably quite a bit older and remember when liberals were SUSPICIOUS of government power. Unfortunately, the current crop of "liberals" don't mind government power, even the most horrific abuses of government power, so long as it's THEIR government power.

"Reasonable" amount of ammunition in a magazine? Who determines THAT? As I recall, the ORIGINAL versions of the AWB said FIVE rounds. Of course, I've heard people with opinions similar to yours say that no "civilian" should be able to have anything more than a single shot shotgun. Why are they wrong and you right?

Too much interest in guns? I feel the same way about cars. It's a tool that gets me too and from the gun show and the range. Oddly, that doesn't make me want to impose my will on car enthusiasts. What your comments reflect is a desire to impose your will on those who think differently than you without actually HARMING you or anyone else. Gun control fills the same psychological niche for some liberals that anti-sodomy laws fill for some conservatives. People HAVE to like and do what YOU like and do. If they won't, they have to be MADE to, at GUNPOINT if necessary.

If you want to be around others with a similar desire to limit the 2nd Amendment rights of others while pretending to protect them, I suggest you join AHSA... if you're not already a member. Think of them as "Negroes for Jim Crow" or "Gays for Anti-Sodomy Laws".

That is one of the most insightful statements I have heard. That just proved to me that Conservatives like me and liberals like you who are intilectually honest can find common ground.


For the record, I love all of my tools. I'm as giddy at Sears during a sale as I am at the gunshow. Tools of every kind allow the user to accomplish a nessecary task, that without said tool would be impossible.

 

[c45man]

Point of view loses all credibility when he uses the age old anti-gun argument comparison between nuke weapons and firearms. A tired and old pathetic argument used by anti-second amendment types for time and memorial. It is especially disturbing that a military man doesn't know the difference between an explosive, which is not protected under the 2nd amendment, and a firearm that is. This logic is even more bent than using the magazine capacity argument. Point of View is really young or has a limited memory of the clinton awb. which outlawed hi cap. magazine production.... total failure in reducing the crime rate and keeping such devices out of the wrong hands.

 

[Deanimator]

Point of View is really young or has a limited memory of the clinton awb. which outlawed hi cap. magazine production.... total failure in reducing the crime rate and keeping such devices out of the wrong hands.

OR he's AHSA troll number 15,368 here, with the same facile "arguments" about why a right isn't really a right and how you protect rights by taking them away. Been there, done that.

 

[Vegassteve]

Good Evening,

.

Now go pound sand.

 

[Motofixxer]

Well most of the thoughts I had, have been addressed with great eloquence already but here is one I do wish to add. This is not an attack on the OP, but simply an example of things we think won't happen, but really DO happen.

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.

After hurricane Katrina the MIB's showed up disguised as US Marshall's, Military, or private firms seizing firearms that still have not been returned.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/hard-times-in-the-big-easy
"Law-abiding citizens were subject to confiscation of their firearms during the Katrina catastrophe.
By John Hay Rabb Posted: 2006-07"

History has shown that once Govt gets involved costs go up, liberties go down. Like somebody already stated. It's not all at once things will disappear. You will wake up one day and realize that you have no more rights. Why, because you slipped into the slowly boiling pot of water called "Safety" or "Public Interest"
We don't need more legislation, the approximately 70-80,000 Statutes, Acts, and Codes etc are excessive already. What we need is more Personal Responsibility. Someone commits an unlawful act against somebody. They need to be held accountable. Each individual is also responsible for themselves and their safety. Law enforcement and the courts need to acknowledge and uphold that basic human right and responsibility.

 

[Superlite27]

I personally find Point of View's appearance just to pontificate and offer unwanted opinions mildly arrogant and more than just a little offensive.

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.

What's it to you? Who the hell are you? Would you find it appropriate to appear on a First Amendment forum and pontificate about your agreement with folks freedom of speech, but offer condescension about their foolish attraction to a particular computer they use, or how they're strangely obsessive about a pen or pencil they write with? Who the hell are you to judge how I choose to express my Second Amendment freedom? Why don't you go over to a Jewish website and complain about how they wear their yarmulkes? How about hitting a Catholic forum and complaining about how gaudy their gold plated candelabras are? According to you, freedom of religion is probably just fine, but the way folks express it is open for judgement according to your rigidly applied standards.

And you call yourself liberal. I can agree with that: Freedom is great as long as people use their freedom to agree with you, and enjoy their freedom in a manner you approve of. Yup. Definately liberal.

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.

Nice try. However, your use of multiple tactics fails. You can neither make your argument acceptable to me by appealing to any sense of cameraderie, nor can you use an appeal to authority. Point out how you also carry just like me, all you want. Point out how you are in the military all you want. You are neither a friend of open carry, nor any type of authority on the subject. Trying to influence my acceptance of either idea by making these appeals = FAIL.

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.

.....and you are the authority on how to define the term "reasonable", right?

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

I agree. Had Loughner used a standard mag, the woman who was able to grab the extended one would have probably failed. Although, you do agree that legislating inanimate objects such as firearms fails to decrease crime. After all you're a fellow OC'er. I simply wonder why your agreement that regulating inanimate objects suddenly applies when it comes to magazines? Why does the regulation of firearms fail at preventing crime, but the regulation of the magazine that goes into them suddenly work? How do you propose to get this bloodthirsty killer to agree NOT to use an illegal hi-cap magazine? Are magazine restrictions the only type of law that criminals are strangely compelled to follow?

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.

Uh.....someone there did have a gun. Haven't you payed attention to the news about Joseph Zimudie? You know? The CCW holder who was there, but didn't draw his weapon because he was responsible and determined that it was unneccessary?

You were preaching about responsibility. Too bad you chose to ignore an obvious case of it in order to preach to the folks who exercise it.

BTW: In order for law enforcement to be able "to catch bad guys", don't the bad guys have to commit a crime first?

Maybe you could explain to us how expecting other human beings (law enforcement officers) to come running at your beck and call in order to risk their lives to save yours (after something happens) is more responsible than undertaking to do it for yourself beforehand?

After all, you do elect to show up here and educate us showoffs about responsibility.

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.

You're quite welcome. Please don't confuse my indignation at your point of view and offense at your pontification as disrespect. I thank you for your service, and wish you nothing but the best. I simply disagree with your views and the manner in which you choose to communicate them.