Open Carry - Favor Please?

[dburkhead]

In indiana those long range rifles are not needed. Hey imagine that there is even a law saying you cant use them to hunt deer.

But you can use them to hunt squirrel. I'd have to check on Coyote and feral pig but I think they're legal there to.

But thank you for demonstrating that you are not pro gun. The "need" argument is strictly an anti-gun position.

But in other states the terrain varies. There are instances where you need that long range rifle or you will never get your prey. Try using that muzzleloader to hunt mountain goats

Can and has been done.

The only reason "high powered sniper rifles", oh, excuse me, bolt action hunting rifles isn't on the antis list right now is that there are other parts of the gun owners "herd" that they are working on "cutting out" to take down individually at the moment. Their turn will come.

 

[dburkhead]

And I am glad you are here. You have showed me why many people are anti-gun. Some of you are so extreme it is disturbing.

And so we should believe that you are "pro-gun" to the same extent that we should have believed this:

Ok I'm just post whoring now.......I'm outta here

 

[Joe Williams]

And I am glad you are here. You have showed me why many people are anti-gun. Some of you are so extreme it is disturbing.

You aren't the first person to call a belief in the Constitution as written "extreme."

 

[dburkhead]

You aren't the first person to call a belief in the Constitution as written "extreme."

And certainly wouldn't be the first anti to claim to be "pro-gun" (while making the anti's arguments right and left) and expecting nobody to notice.

Oh, and I quote Goldwater:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

 

[ATM]

Some of you are so extreme it is disturbing.

A little late in the discussion to be offering compliments


...but thanks!

 

[lashicoN]

And I am glad you are here. You have showed me why many people are anti-gun. Some of you are so extreme it is disturbing.

This is the only thing we can agree on. I'm just as extreme in my beliefs as the people who founded this country, and I take that as a great compliment. You may want to look into North Korea, I think you would love their Bill of Rights.

 

[Hornett]

The problem is that the arguments against "carry an AR" are also arguments against carry in general. If you validate them then you make it that much harder to refute them when they come after the gun you do carry.

That is not what I get out of your posts.
What I get is that if I don't carry my AR into the local Arby's to support 2A then I am unAmerican.
It's just not so.

The cops don't even carry their AR's into restaurants.

 

[dburkhead]

That is not what I get out of your posts.
What I get is that if I don't carry my AR into the local Arby's to support 2A then I am unAmerican.
It's just not so.

Then you haven't been reading very closely. Nowhere have I said everyone must carry that way. It's the tendency of nominally pro-gun folk to "sell down the river" those who do that I've been decrying.

What you are "reading into" my posts is like claiming that somebody who is extoling the virtues of the infantry at Omaha Beach is opposed to armor, artillery, air power, naval power, naval transport, logistics, or the folk in the factories making supplies and weapons. Instead I'm trying to warn people that if you sell out the infantry don't be surprised to find that pretty soon the artillery is overrun, the armor finds itself being ambushed with satchel charges, the navy starts learning how long they can tread water, and the factories back home find their new managers speaking German.

People look at Martin Luther King Junior's "non violent resistence" and forget that there's a lot of truth to "they're willing to talk to Martin because otherwise they'll have to talk to me." And while Gandhi gets all the press about the "liberation" of India from Great Britain there was plenty of violence involved there.

(I am not advocating violence here--just pointing out that there are other approaches, successful ones, than running around in abject terror of offending the antis and the "soccer moms" who are already the enemies of RKBA anyway, particularly since the latter approach has been losing for the last 75 years.)

The cops don't even carry their AR's into restaurants.

And the military do not carry their AR's, or any weapons for that matter, on base (in most cases). We all saw what that got them at Fort Hood.

The police are not paid to be proponents and supporters of the 2nd Amendment. Many are, but it's in their "off duty" time.

Don't look at what the police do as the "model" for supporting and winning back the RKBA.

 

[r.o.b.o.]

You are rediculous dburkhead

 

[dburkhead]

You are rediculous dburkhead

To which I simply remind you of your credibility:

Ok I'm just post whoring now.......I'm outta here

Oh, and the word is "ridiculous." If you are going to try the insult direct as your fallback when you are unmasked, you might want to learn to spell it right.

 

[ATM]

You are rediculous dburkhead

When debate fails... just call them "rediculous."

 

[r.o.b.o.]

rediculous I say, rediculous

 

[dburkhead]

rediculous I say, rediculous

Ok I'm just post whoring now.......I'm outta here

For somebody who was "outta here" you sure are long winded.

 

[IndyMonkey]

rediculous I say, rediculous

1 more hour and you will be able to sell all your guns on the forum.

 

[bigiron]

1 more hour and you will be able to sell all your guns on the forum.

realx, maybe hes got some good stuff to go cheap!

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

The cops don't even carry their AR's into restaurants.

I used to. Fairly often, in fact.

We weren't allowed to leave them in the vehicles.

 

[Hornett]

Instead I'm trying to warn people that if you sell out the infantry don't be surprised to find that pretty soon the artillery is overrun, the armor finds itself being ambushed with satchel charges, the navy starts learning how long they can tread water, and the factories back home find their new managers speaking German.

dburkhead,

Ponderosa is not exactly a war zone.
You are grandstanding again.
I am not saying don't own 'em.
I am not saying peaceful rebellion is better than an armed revolution against an evil dictator.
I am not saying that we don't need the infantry.

You are putting words in my mouth.
and posturing...
It's a debate tactic designed to keep the opponent on the defensive.

I am not afraid of offending soccer moms, or anyone for that matter.

My solution to grandstanding is repeating my point over and over until you actually acknowledge it...

A pistol on your side implies preparedness.
A rifle in your hands implies imminent action.
I believe that is a fact that cannot be avoided.

I used to. Fairly often, in fact.

We weren't allowed to leave them in the vehicles.

I've never seen it.
I would like to hear from others that have actually seen people carrying a long gun into a restaurant.

 

[dburkhead]

dburkhead,

Ponderosa is not exactly a war zone.

When it comes to RKBA the whole country is a "war zone" (it was a metaphor, not a literal call for war.

You are posturing again.

Thank you for your opinion. You are entitled to it. Ain't freedom grand.

I am not saying don't own 'em.

But others are and you are giving them ammo.

I am not saying peaceful rebellion is better than an armed revolution against an evil dictator.
I am not saying that we don't need the infantry.

For purposes of the metaphor you are doing exactly that. Do you really think there weren't people on the "pro civil rights" side who were critical of Rosa Parks for deliberately "stirring up trouble"?

You are putting words in my mouth.
more posturing...

What words, exactly, am I supposed to have "put in your mouth." Here's a hint: predicting that the course you appear to be advocating--gun owners continuing to not "rock the boat"--will have the same effect that it's had for the past 75 years (i.e. losing by stages) is not "putting words in your mouth."

It's not like I'm saying that you want us to continue to lose our rights--its just that I'm hoping you'll realize that that's the most likely action of continuing the same tactics that gun owners have been losing for the past 75 years can only be expected to continue to do so.

I am not afraid of offending soccer moms, or anyone for that matter.

Then either A) losing our rights is not something you fear, B) you don't really think that offending soccer moms will lose us our rights, or C) you're engaging in sophistry like the guy who claims it's not falling he fears but the sudden stop.

A pistol on your side implies preparedness.
A rifle in your hands implies imminent action.

Or it implies assertion of one's right to do so and recognition that a right unexercised is a right already lost (whatever the actual letter of the law might say at that time).

I believe that is a fact that cannot be avoided.

And it is also a fact that cannot be avoided that acting as if you don't have a right is no different from not having it.

The other metaphor also applies: a person who doesn't read has no benefit over a person who can't.

If you don't wish to exercise your RKBA in that manner that's fine. But if you're willing to sell down the river those who do, then don't be surprised if there's nobody left to come to your support when the antis finally get around to rights you do care about.

"We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang separately." It is as true today as it was when Benjamin Franklin first said it.

I've never seen it.

I've never seen anybody actually draw a gun in self defense either.

I would like to hear from others that have actually seen people carrying a long gun into a restaurant.

You seem to have this strange idea that just because something isn't an everyday occurrence it's not a valid means of political protest. I've never seen people line up and march to the sea simply to make salt, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't valid political protest for Gandhi to do so. I've never seen somebody refuse to move to the back of the bus because of their skin color but that doesn't mean Rosa Parks doing so wasn't valid political protest. And so on.

Political protest is actually kind of worthless if nobody notices. And if it's something worth protesting over then it's kind of hard to have political protest, especially effective political protest, without upsetting the status quo and offending the powers that be.

Are there dangers? Of course. But there's also danger (IMO greater) of not taking stronger action. The "offend nobody" approach has been losing and I see no reason why it will suddenly start winning now. As for the risk, I'll simply refer to another historical quote by John Paul Jones, not his most famous one, but one that should get a lot more "press" than it gets: "He who will not risk, cannot win."

 

[r.o.b.o.]

As for the risk, I'll simply refer to another historical quote by John Paul Jones, not his most famous one, but one that should get a lot more "press" than it gets: "He who will not risk, cannot win."

Since you were so worried about my spelling I would like to inform you that you just misquoted John Paul Jones

 

[samwathegreat]

I was once put in handcuffs for legally carrying, "for the officer's safety" whilst she rifled through my wallet to find my CC Permit, and then proceeded to empty my clip (counting the rounds) right in front of me.

When it was all said and done, the officer's left, telling me "Don't put those [bullets] back in until we get out of sight."

I don't care to have my rights trampled. Granted, I'd be more cooperative than several of the guys in the video, but they were violated also. It's always a bad feeling to be harassed when you've done nothing wrong.