• 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.

John Pierce quoted by Philly.com

luv_jeeps

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
136
Location
Thornton, Colorado, USA
Snip....

It could be argued that Fiorino should have stopped openly carrying his gun because it invited police scrutiny. But that argument couldn't be more wrong, said John Pierce, co-founder of OpenCarry.org.

Pierce, of Minnesota, said his website offers information on gun rights "from a legal perspective, a public-policy perspective, not from a 'my cold, dead fingers' viewpoint."

"According to the Pennsylvania and U.S. constitutions, open carry is Mark's right," he said.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/2...l_gun_was_also_armed_with_audio_recorder.html
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
John, you are being one of the most rational 2A advocates in the nation. One of the reasons I like your site so much is because it operates "from a legal perspective, a public-policy perspective, not from a 'my cold, dead fingers' viewpoint."

Would that all the influential advocates act in such a rational way. Such would knock years off the battle for our rights.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,854
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
John, you are being one of the most rational 2A advocates in the nation. One of the reasons I like your site so much is because it operates "from a legal perspective, a public-policy perspective, not from a 'my cold, dead fingers' viewpoint."

Would that all the influential advocates act in such a rational way. Such would knock years off the battle for our rights.

--Moderator deleted inappropriate remarks--
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
--Moderator deleted inappropriate remarks--

I carry with the intent never to use. If the need arises, I will use it--but only if the need arises.

Your attempted implication about my anatomy is duly noted--and not surprising, considering your recent behavior.

Moving on from this distraction, once again, kudos to John for his rationality and his (usually) rational site.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,854
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
I carry with the intent never to use. If the need arises, I will use it--but only if the need arises.

Your attempted implication about my anatomy is duly noted--and not surprising, considering your recent behavior.

Moving on from this distraction, once again, kudos to John for his rationality and his (usually) rational site.

There was no implication as to your anatomy or anything else concerning you. Simply my opinion that rational discussions are fine, to the extent they work. But the time will come when the words from one of my favorite movies will ring true.

"They expect in the end to haul down the flag in shame and disgrace. We will not let them do that. When the time comes, we will defend our flag with our life's blood."

The "flag" is our country as it once was.


--Moderator Comment--

While your fervor is appreciated, OCDO supports only changing conditions through the courts, legislatures and public relations. We do not entertain/condone violence as a means.

This thread was intended to thank John for his contribution and does not deserve to be so redirected. Let it end here.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,945
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
There was no implication as to your anatomy or anything else concerning you. Simply my opinion that rational discussions are fine, to the extent they work. But the time will come when the words from one of my favorite movies will ring true.

"They expect in the end to haul down the flag in shame and disgrace. We will not let them do that. When the time comes, we will defend our flag with our life's blood."

The "flag" is our country as it once was.


--Moderator Comment--

While your fervor is appreciated, OCDO supports only changing conditions through the courts, legislatures and public relations. We do not entertain/condone violence as a means.

This thread was intended to thank John for his contribution and does not deserve to be so redirected. Let it end here.

Much of this thread has been deleted, but as a 2A forum we must acknowledge that the reason for the 2A is to ensure that when the soap box is silenced, the jury box is tainted and the ballot box is rigged by the forces of tyranny that we still have one box left as an answer to the tyrant, that being the ammo box!

The 2A isn't about hunting!
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Much of this thread has been deleted, but as a 2A forum we must acknowledge that the reason for the 2A is to ensure that when the soap box is silenced, the jury box is tainted and the ballot box is rigged by the forces of tyranny that we still have one box left as an answer to the tyrant, that being the ammo box!

The 2A isn't about hunting!

I don't know why some threads seem to present an opportunity to step up on a soap box and push the limits of the rules and precepts of OCDO. OCDO is NOT a broad spectrum 2A forum, but one focused on OC. There is no valid reason for bringing the thread back to that point after a polite warning.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Much of this thread has been deleted, but as a 2A forum we must acknowledge that the reason for the 2A is to ensure that when the soap box is silenced, the jury box is tainted and the ballot box is rigged by the forces of tyranny that we still have one box left as an answer to the tyrant, that being the ammo box!

The 2A isn't about hunting!

I see a "personal attack" followed by "inappropriate remarks" followed by suggesting illegal activities. Those are reasonable things to delete as they go against the rules of the forum. As Grapeshot said this forum is specifically about OCing (and OCing pistols at that; so don't bring up rifles/shotguns unless you want to get in trouble), not about potentially over-throwing the government should things get bad enough (which most people here don't think is the case yet...most people).

And the 2A is about many things and yet one thing. It is about the right to keep and bear arms, and the reasons for that are many.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
Everyone would do well to remember this quote

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

-Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Note the words "Exceptionally rare" and the examples given. He's right on the money, as usual.

This forum is not for plotting an overthrow. Not only is it just dumb at this point and time, it is exceptionally stupid.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,945
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

-Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Note the words "Exceptionally rare" and the examples given. He's right on the money, as usual.

This forum is not for plotting an overthrow. Not only is it just dumb at this point and time, it is exceptionally stupid.
Glad we agree Gray!
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

-Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Note the words "Exceptionally rare" and the examples given. He's right on the money, as usual.

This forum is not for plotting an overthrow. Not only is it just dumb at this point and time, it is exceptionally stupid.
First time I had seen this quote, so I looked it up... it's very interesting.

This quote is from the dissent of Judge Kozinski on the losing side of the request to rehear the Silveira v. Lockyer decision en banc. In the original 3 judge decision, the Ninth Circuit in 2002, declared that the Second Amendment did not provide for an individual's right to bear arms. Fortunately as we all know now, Heller corrected this horrendous ruling.

Judge Kozinski's entire dissent is well worth the read, starting on Page 2 of the PDF located here.

His dissent concludes with these words... which very much remind me of what it's like when trying to read through the absolutely ridiculous dissents of Heller and McDonald:

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

The sheer ponderousness of the panel’s opinion—the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text—refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel’s labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it—and is just as likely to succeed.​

TFred
 
Top