slowfiveoh
Regular Member
imported post
ItTakesAWolf wrote:
I never implied to shake, or scream at anybody. That would be counterproductive. Indeed as counterproductive as shaking and screaming at people who elect to exercise their rights how they see fit, and not how you see fit.
Please take note that I even implied peaceable demonstration of carrying one of these "showboating" firearms in a prior statement.
ItTakesAWolf wrote:
I am simply saying that the absolute lack of any sort of meaningful presentation of these types of firearms automatically excludes them from the whole "open carry" movement, and by that same token, relegates them to "different" or "scary" status.
Which you substantiate every time you perform telepathy, and tell us what purpose a person elected to carry a AR based pistol for. Obvious "showboating", correct?
If not to showboat, then what plausible reason can you equate all the vilification to, in regards to demonizing the carry of such a firearm?
Appearance?
Better keep those firearms under wraps! Wouldn't want to show people that they are also peaceably carried, by some of the nicest people you could meet.
That would be bad. Right?
ItTakesAWolf wrote:
So, what is the point? That the populace sees one of the most utilized and life-saving firearms in US History, and automatically equates it with villainous activity?
That's a pretty good point. So why don't we carry them, peaceably, respectably, and safely amongst our cities and towns to vindicate them. Or, is "stay in the closet" the right way to do it?
ItTakesAWolf wrote:
Let's not remove the vilifying stereotype unfairly attached to the EBR derived firearms, let's instead place them in the closet because people have been brainwashed to believe they are "menacing". That way, in the future, any firearms advocate who decides to wear one, whether a laughable, lovable, law-abiding guy or not, it will be cause for panic and concern!
Why not carry a .45 pistol?
Instead of allowing people to carry what they like, let's instead regulate each other and be unsupportive and hypocritical.
Please give me a list of your firearms, so I may dictate to you which ones are:
A.) Not "Menacing".
B.) Effective
C.) The best for your protection
Your last comment there troubles me greatly.
DeepDiver,
My comments were not particularly directed towards you, and I apologize for not clarifying!
I understand your position, but I am simultaneously interjecting that sweeping these types of firearms under the rug is not acceptable either. It is wholly supportive of anti ideology.
My argument is that there is a clear, concise statement in the 2nd Amendment, in that at the root of all the firearms laws, it is nothing more than blatant infringement. Lending credibility, as firearms enthusiasts and more importantly, RTKBA advocates, to the idea that a firearm is "menacing" is not really appropriate, and does come off substantially as supportive to anti-type theology.
Using the "social standard" for what is acceptable is erroneous. I understand that , erroneous as it may be, that it is present.
I simply disagree that "sweeping it under the rug" is the appropriate solution. In fact, in doing so, it's almost as if one were as I stated, being thrown under the societal bus. Not even by those who are against them. By their own brothers and sisters.
Fratricide at its worst.
We will not all agree on all points, but I can hardly think that blatantly evading any of the stereotypes thrown at firearms will be ultimately helpful.
ItTakesAWolf wrote:
I understand precisely what you are saying. I have interpreted the meaning behind your commentary, as well as the implied purpose behind the same, and simply come to the conclusion that your response, is entirely emotive, and your reasoning for implying that one must be "showboating" is entirely emotive as well.I have a good feeling that your not even trying to understand what where saying...you just have some idea that everybody just needs to be grabbed, shaken and screamed at and some how thats gonna make them understand that people with guns arnt scary...you just forget one thing.
I never implied to shake, or scream at anybody. That would be counterproductive. Indeed as counterproductive as shaking and screaming at people who elect to exercise their rights how they see fit, and not how you see fit.
Please take note that I even implied peaceable demonstration of carrying one of these "showboating" firearms in a prior statement.
ItTakesAWolf wrote:
I am so very sorry you feel that being "nervous" is a reason to trample other peoples rights. I am not saying to holster a firearm, and blatantly trample around town like a hillbilly in heat. Got that?THE PEOPLE THAT ARE NERVOUS AROUND GUNS ARE STILL PEOPLE, AND THEY STILL DESERVE RESPECT... they are fellow Americans... if where going to make progress and expand our rights we need them on board.
so the
"F you, ill do what I want, I dont care what you think, you can kiss my a**"
attitude isnt gonna get us too far
I am simply saying that the absolute lack of any sort of meaningful presentation of these types of firearms automatically excludes them from the whole "open carry" movement, and by that same token, relegates them to "different" or "scary" status.
Which you substantiate every time you perform telepathy, and tell us what purpose a person elected to carry a AR based pistol for. Obvious "showboating", correct?
If not to showboat, then what plausible reason can you equate all the vilification to, in regards to demonizing the carry of such a firearm?
Appearance?
Better keep those firearms under wraps! Wouldn't want to show people that they are also peaceably carried, by some of the nicest people you could meet.
That would be bad. Right?
ItTakesAWolf wrote:
The "ballistic debate" is commonly used by other "firearms advocates" to lend credulity to the idea that "carrying a .223 pistol is bad, mmmk!". Perhaps that portion of the conversation means nothing to you, I don't really care. it has presence in the debate itself.and WHO CARES ABOUT THE BALLISTIC DEBATE.
I dont care if that gun is chamber in 22lr
THATS NOT THE POINT
So, what is the point? That the populace sees one of the most utilized and life-saving firearms in US History, and automatically equates it with villainous activity?
That's a pretty good point. So why don't we carry them, peaceably, respectably, and safely amongst our cities and towns to vindicate them. Or, is "stay in the closet" the right way to do it?
ItTakesAWolf wrote:
Oh beautiful! Great idea!AND ANYWAY
IF THE GUN IS IN .45, then why not carry a hi cap .45 pistol for the same effect but its not as menacing
if its in .223 and you claim its no more effective then .45....
THEN WHY NOT JUST CARRY A .45 PISTOL???
Let's not remove the vilifying stereotype unfairly attached to the EBR derived firearms, let's instead place them in the closet because people have been brainwashed to believe they are "menacing". That way, in the future, any firearms advocate who decides to wear one, whether a laughable, lovable, law-abiding guy or not, it will be cause for panic and concern!
Why not carry a .45 pistol?
Instead of allowing people to carry what they like, let's instead regulate each other and be unsupportive and hypocritical.
Please give me a list of your firearms, so I may dictate to you which ones are:
A.) Not "Menacing".
B.) Effective
C.) The best for your protection
Your last comment there troubles me greatly.
DeepDiver,
My comments were not particularly directed towards you, and I apologize for not clarifying!
I understand your position, but I am simultaneously interjecting that sweeping these types of firearms under the rug is not acceptable either. It is wholly supportive of anti ideology.
My argument is that there is a clear, concise statement in the 2nd Amendment, in that at the root of all the firearms laws, it is nothing more than blatant infringement. Lending credibility, as firearms enthusiasts and more importantly, RTKBA advocates, to the idea that a firearm is "menacing" is not really appropriate, and does come off substantially as supportive to anti-type theology.
Using the "social standard" for what is acceptable is erroneous. I understand that , erroneous as it may be, that it is present.
I simply disagree that "sweeping it under the rug" is the appropriate solution. In fact, in doing so, it's almost as if one were as I stated, being thrown under the societal bus. Not even by those who are against them. By their own brothers and sisters.
Fratricide at its worst.
We will not all agree on all points, but I can hardly think that blatantly evading any of the stereotypes thrown at firearms will be ultimately helpful.