Where is OC going? What can be done to help the cause?

[XD-GEM]

imported post

nolacopusmc wrote:

You of course realize, that the 2nd amendment, when viewed in it's literal cvontext at the time it was written does not support open or concealed carry, it simply means having arms available should the need to join the military in the reserve against the government should arise?


Nowhere in there does it say anything about carrying arms. Literary scholars state that in the times it was written, "bear arms" simply refers tot he ability to have a weapon available, IE own, should it be needed, and their most likely atempt was to allow for the citizenery to be armed shoulda revolt be necessary against the government or the military need resevres?

Now, i am in now way saying that we should not have the right to "keep and bear" and "open carry and conceal" arms, but am sure an internet scholar such as yourself, while most likely reluctant to admit, is aware of this fact.

Actually, the US Supreme Court addressed this in the Heller decision and concluded that the original meaning of "bear" did mean "carry" in addition to what you have posted. They also noted, fleetingly, what you state about there being no difference between "open" and "concealed." That distinction did not really crop up until nearly a hundred years later.

 

[XD-GEM]

imported post

Thought I'd share this. The answer to the question is from me

Quote:




Originally Posted by Bayoupiper
What would be good ways to promote and advocate open carry?


.Thank you for asking. There are many ways which have been discussed in the main areas of the OCDO website. Groups in Virginia and Pennsylvania have had a great deal of success with Open Carry lunches, dinners, and picnics. Members in other states have done Adopt-a Highway programs and done an OC litter pickup. Our Louisiana members have been trying to organize a few things along similar lines, although some on this board have derided and belittled those efforts. We truely want to change public opinion about gun owners in a favorable manner and are willing to run the "tactical disadvantage" risk if it will mean an improved attitude from the general public towards gun owners in general.

These are some simple examples wherein the public who come into contact with the group get to see normal, average people - families in many cases - do ordinary things (they just also happen to be armed).

Wisconsin members have recently gotten the Attorney General to publicly back OC, and that is going a long way toward convincing people to loosen up that state's Concealed Carry laws. Unfortunately that effort has also engendered some stiff opposition from one big-city police chief who publicly proclaimed that he would order his "troops" (his word) to throw down to the ground anyone OCing. His reaction has stirred up a great deal of opposition to his views among the otherwise non-gun-rights aware public who rightly perceive such tactics as anathema to American ideals of fairness.

Finally, simply exercising the right to OC on a frequent basis and being ready to answer questions from the curious in a polite and friendly manner will go a long way toward winning a favorable opinion of ALL gun owners in the minds of the people we encounter.

 

[nolacopusmc]

imported post

XD-GEM wrote:

nolacopusmc wrote:

You of course realize, that the 2nd amendment, when viewed in it's literal cvontext at the time it was written does not support open or concealed carry, it simply means having arms available should the need to join the military in the reserve against the government should arise?


Nowhere in there does it say anything about carrying arms. Literary scholars state that in the times it was written, "bear arms" simply refers tot he ability to have a weapon available, IE own, should it be needed, and their most likely atempt was to allow for the citizenery to be armed shoulda revolt be necessary against the government or the military need resevres?

Now, i am in now way saying that we should not have the right to "keep and bear" and "open carry and conceal" arms, but am sure an internet scholar such as yourself, while most likely reluctant to admit, is aware of this fact.

Actually, the US Supreme Court addressed this in the Heller decision and concluded that the original meaning of "bear" did mean "carry" in addition to what you have posted. They also noted, fleetingly, what you state about there being no difference between "open" and "concealed." That distinction did not really crop up until nearly a hundred years later.

I am aware of Heller. And while the Supreme COurts decision is definitely in our favor and a good thing, I am speaking more along the lines of literary meaning. The supreme court, while infinite in it's wisdom , does not know jack about that.

Just pointing out a point of fact, or opinion depending how much weight you put on literary scholars.

 

[XD-GEM]

imported post

Sorry, I may have not been precise in my post. The USSC opinion examined the definition of each operative word of the 2nd Amendment in a rather lengthy way. The discussion of "bear" is on pages 10-12 of this pdf file from the Court. If you back up a few pages, you can read the analysis of "keep and bear arms" in its entirety. This is all way to long to post, but I hope everyone takes a moment to look at it.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[nolacopusmc]

imported post

XD-GEM wrote:

Sorry, I may have not been precise in my post. The USSC opinion examined the definition of each operative word of the 2nd Amendment in a rather lengthy way. The discussion of "bear" is on pages 10-12 of this pdf file from the Court. If you back up a few pages, you can read the analysis of "keep and bear arms" in its entirety. This is all way to long to post, but I hope everyone takes a moment to look at it.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Not disputing that, I am just saying that the USSC is probably not literary experts.

Admittedly, I have not read the decision in it's entirety. Will do soon though.

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

*

 

[x-sheeple]

imported post

nolacopusmc....just wondering, If and when the government comes for our guns, whose side are you going to be on.....will you obey your superior or stand for the constitution? No offense..just wondering

 

[nolacopusmc]

imported post

x-sheeple wrote:

nolacopusmc....just wondering, If and when the government comes for our guns, whose side are you going to be on.....will you obey your superior or stand for the constitution? No offense..just wondering

That is a good question. i honestly cannot answer that right now. I am probably 75% on the side of saying I would not do it, but to be honest, it depends on the circumstances. COmplete ban on guns, door to door to take from people, absolutely not.

 

[x-sheeple]

imported post

Thanks for your honest answer.

 

[nolacopusmc]

imported post

x-sheeple wrote:

Thanks for your honest answer.

Anytime. That's how I roll. LOL

 

[Dustin]

imported post

All Military folks swear the whole defend against Foreign and Domestic etc.etc, but I can tell you one thing, is the Shit hits the fan, that's going right out the window. Troops are Americans first, not AmeriKans or Liberal demogods. We're not brainwashed dummies that listen to the President. I wouldn't count on EVER seeing an all out Ban& Confiscation of Firearms. At least I wouldn't plan on living through it.

 

[nolacopusmc]

imported post

Dustin wrote:

All Military folks swear the whole defend against Foreign and Domestic etc.etc, but I can tell you one thing, is the @#$% hits the fan, that's going right out the window. Troops are Americans first, not AmeriKans or Liberal demogods. We're not brainwashed dummies that listen to the President. I wouldn't count on EVER seeing an all out Ban& Confiscation of Firearms. At least I wouldn't plan on living through it.

That is pretty much it.

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

*

 

[sandman]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

*

here is that same eloquent mark from mark. Has he finaly shut up? we will see

 

[nolacopusmc]

imported post

jimmyb wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

*

here is that same eloquent mark from mark. Has he finaly shut up? we will see

he obviously lacks the intelligence to explain himself.

Must be something only Teir 3 memonite cult members know. G14 classified.

 

[Oscarr]

imported post

Prolly just a mark to remember to come back and post something later.

Anyway, I know lots of people in the military that wouldn't follow an unconstitutional order -- as you said, defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, if the POTUS ever ordered something against the constitution done, wouldn't that make him an enemy by default? Most people in the military are there cause it's a job to pay the bills, very very few are brain-washed zombies that do what they're told no matter what. I'd assume the same goes for most LEOs.

 

[nolacopusmc]

imported post

Oscarr wrote:

Prolly just a mark to remember to come back and post something later.

Anyway, I know lots of people in the military that wouldn't follow an unconstitutional order -- as you said, defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, if the POTUS ever ordered something against the constitution done, wouldn't that make him an enemy by default? Most people in the military are there cause it's a job to pay the bills, very very few are brain-washed zombies that do what they're told no matter what. I'd assume the same goes for most LEOs.

You would be correct.

Also correct about mem's mark maybe being a way for him to save a space and come back to post as his alter ego smokingcrack24/7 once his meds wear off.

 

[charlie12]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you,
Rosa Parks would be in jail, there would still be "whites only" water fountains and blacks would not be allowed to vote.

The only reason I can come up with for such stiff opposition to OC'ing is cowardice.
The NRA should pay for a banner ad on this site, with so many potential recruits present.

Rosa didn't do anything for me.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Icharlie12 wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you,
Rosa Parks would be in jail, there would still be "whites only" water fountains and blacks would not be allowed to vote.

The only reason I can come up with for such stiff opposition to OC'ing is cowardice.
The NRA should pay for a banner ad on this site, with so many potential recruits present.

Rosa didn't do anything for me.

I can't stop you from spouting your pro-cop anti-Americanism. All I can ask is that you save your attacks on great Americans until after the Fourth of July weekend.

Remember, the cops arrested Rosa Parks. Sadly, some occupations are paid to destroy America, sadder, with American tax dollars.

 

[sandman]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Icharlie12 wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you,
Rosa Parks would be in jail, there would still be "whites only" water fountains and blacks would not be allowed to vote.

The only reason I can come up with for such stiff opposition to OC'ing is cowardice.
The NRA should pay for a banner ad on this site, with so many potential recruits present.

Rosa didn't do anything for me.

I can't stop you from spouting your pro-cop anti-Americanism. All I can ask is that you save your attacks on great Americans until after the Fourth of July weekend.

Remember, the cops arrested Rosa Parks. Sadly, some occupations are paid to destroy America, sadder, with American tax dollars.

what a wack job you hate the military but you want to celebrate the day we set aside to celebrate our independents that was won with military