This is going to pi$$ off a lot of people, but

[.45 Dave]

This is the goal. The biggest problem we face in getting there is that too many sheep see armed civilians as the threat to be handled, not the solution to be embraced. I think that within 5 years, we will see either this, or we will see a complete police state. It could go either way.

WOW!! Just wow!! if we have a vote, I vote for this! At least from the back that is one sexy chick!!!!

 

[.45 Dave]

We live in a Representative Republic but sadly we act like a democracy

That may be the most sensible thing I have heard on this entire site Bunnykid!!
Few here and in the general public have any idea what the difference is between a Democracy and a Republic!!
+1

 

[IndyDave1776]

That may be the most sensible thing I have heard on this entire site Bunnykid!!
Few here and in the general public have any idea what the difference is between a Democracy and a Republic!!
+1

Very true. Scary, isn't it?

 

[rugertoter]

There are threads running around talking about our gun rights and if we don't exercise them we will lose them. I want to know what you consider the threshold that should not be crossed. Most of us know we can openly carry a long arm. BUT where does the carrying of one cross the line?

Examples: I can legally sit at the Four Freedoms monument on the riverfront in Evansville in a lawn chair, in camo with an AR loaded with a 30 round magazine and not be breaking the law. A person can march around Monument Circle in downtown Indy with a shot gun cradled in their arms. Someone can sit in a chair outside the mayor of their city's home with a scoped bolt action rifle and binoculars. All these things are legal. But should they be done? I don't think so. Why? Because they all probably cross the line with the public on what is perceived as a perfectly legal activity versus a threatening action.

Some of you will say this shouldn't be a problem. But I'll say right now that if things like this happen there will be a big problem. The public will soon scream for something to be done to outlaw those activities. The political pressure will be so intense eventually that our friends won't stand a chance at the polls and real anti's will be elected and laws WILL be enacted that will hurt.

So, what is your idea of a threshold that shouldn't be crossed?

I would say this falls under the category of common sense, so why would some people do stuff like what you are describing? Whats the point?

 

[mrortega]

So Ortega, where did you find the "normal" person?

I might have been in the mirror but I notice that guy is getting older and heavier. Definitely not me.

 

[.45 Dave]

Very true. Scary, isn't it?

OMG! You betcha!!!

 

[IndyDave1776]

OMG! You betcha!!!

My position on the matter is that no invention of man can continuing to function indefinitely if it is not operated and maintained by people who understand its proper function and operate and maintain it accordingly. The republic cannot survive being operated as a democracy by morons both voting and holding office who either do not understand the difference, do not realize that there is a difference, or for nefarious reasons choose to obfuscate concerning the difference.

 

[mrortega]

I would say this falls under the category of common sense, so why would some people do stuff like what you are describing? Whats the point?

What a person who is aware of their surroundings, the potential danger and is ready to act to defend himself considers "common sense" and what your very average person who doesn't have a clue of what's going on in the real world considers it are very different.

 

[Survivalcookie]

There are threads running around talking about our gun rights and if we don't exercise them we will lose them. I want to know what you consider the threshold that should not be crossed. Most of us know we can openly carry a long arm. BUT where does the carrying of one cross the line?

Examples: I can legally sit at the Four Freedoms monument on the riverfront in Evansville in a lawn chair, in camo with an AR loaded with a 30 round magazine and not be breaking the law. A person can march around Monument Circle in downtown Indy with a shot gun cradled in their arms. Someone can sit in a chair outside the mayor of their city's home with a scoped bolt action rifle and binoculars. All these things are legal. But should they be done? I don't think so. Why? Because they all probably cross the line with the public on what is perceived as a perfectly legal activity versus a threatening action.

Some of you will say this shouldn't be a problem. But I'll say right now that if things like this happen there will be a big problem. The public will soon scream for something to be done to outlaw those activities. The political pressure will be so intense eventually that our friends won't stand a chance at the polls and real anti's will be elected and laws WILL be enacted that will hurt.

So, what is your idea of a threshold that shouldn't be crossed?

My question would be why would a sane person do those things...most including the law would think you were there to cause trouble...we have a right to carry, but we do not have the right to cause fear in those around us just because we have the right to carry.

 

[IndyDave1776]

My question would be why would a sane person do those things...most including the law would think you were there to cause trouble...we have a right to carry, but we do not have the right to cause fear in those around us just because we have the right to carry.

You have run into a rather fine line, particularly with 'causing fear'. To do so intentionally, particularly with the expressed or implied threat to use illegal force constitutes intimidation which is illegal. No one has any legal protection from 'fear' they may feel because of our presence, appearance, size, things we are doing unconnected with the bystanders in presence (including OC), or simply being ugly in public. There is no such thing as a 'freedom from being afraid' because someone chooses to assign qualities to someone else which lack any direct action or provable intent.

I should also add that what others think including but not limited to the police to which you made reference, is completely irrelevant. If an illegal act has not occurred, their personal opinion is not part of the equation.

 

[.45 Dave]

My position on the matter is that no invention of man can continuing to function indefinitely if it is not operated and maintained by people who understand its proper function and operate and maintain it accordingly. The republic cannot survive being operated as a democracy by morons both voting and holding office who either do not understand the difference, do not realize that there is a difference, or for nefarious reasons choose to obfuscate concerning the difference.

I agree with this,
I think most Americans do not realize we have a Republic or what that means.
Most think we have a Democracy based on what politicians have said from both sides of the aisle. I always cringe a bit when I hear Republicans talk about a Democracy. When I hear the Democrats talk about it I think "Well, hey, they are Democrats after all!"

Someone, and it may have been Beck, described it best for me. They said, imagine if a criminal in the old west robbed a bank and fled town and was pursued by posse that caught up to a man who fit the description, then they took a vote on hanging the offender from the nearest tree. Suppose the vote was 8 to 7 to hang him. In a Democracy he would be hanged.
Now suppose the same scenario and the vote is the same but a man comes riding up who is the Marshall and he says the vote doesn't matter, this man has rights and must be tried before being sentenced.

That Marshall represents the Constitution of the United States. So the man is taken back to town to stand trial.
It matters that we have rights. What if the posse had the wrong man? A Democracy acts on emotion, a Republic acts on law.
And that's the difference between a Democracy and a Republic.

Thomas Jefferson once said that a democracy is where 51% of the people take away the rights of the other 49%.

In a Republic, we ALL are the same before the law, and thus, upholds the right not of the majority--but of the individual!

 

[NDguido]

Outlawing the bearing of arms would be illegal.

The mob can't just get whatever the mob demands on any particular day and they can't elect anyone with the authority to do so.



I speak for millions.

Yet, the government has done so, and will again. They've outlawed the bearing of arms containing high capacity mags, they've outlawed the bearing of arms that are fully automatic. They will always find a way around banning the bearing of arms completely by making the arms you do bear much less significant.

 

[thebishopp]

The Republic is Dayyed.... It died a long time ago.

The truth is the majority just doesn't care. Whatever constitutionally protected "right" that isn't convenient for them or they don't agree with isn't supported.

All this talk about "reasonable restrictions" is just bull hockey. You either support it or do not. There is no middle ground with "Inalienable/Unalienable rights". That's what makes them so.

 

[BrianJacobsen]

Tell that to Illinois, California, and Washington D.C.

Oh Rookie: we were talking about America in this thread. If you want to talk about third world hell holes you'll need to start a new one.

 

[BrianJacobsen]

We are told constantly that average Americans are afraid of guns so we better tip toe around and not upset them. I don't understand this attitude, what are you seeing that I'm not?

When I look around I see pro-gun liberty kicking some serious anti-gun anti-2a ass. Everywhere you look states are adding stand your ground laws, adding open carry and making it easier for regular folks to be armed. What's not to like about this?

I think sometimes we take our enemies lies to heart. We should always remember that the anti-gun folks owned every media source in this nation for the better part of forty years and still lost badly. This is the time to be bold, not timid.

Every week as I open carry at least one person asks me how they can get armed. A conversation that could not and could not happen if I didn't OC. Let's stop believing our enemies propaganda and recognize that this is the time to consolidate our victories which have been many and manifold. No we shouldn't rest on our laurels but you talk as if we've been losing for the last umpty years when in fact we have been kicking ass and taking names.

 

[beararms1776]

I agree with this,
I think most Americans do not realize we have a Republic or what that means.
Most think we have a Democracy based on what politicians have said from both sides of the aisle. I always cringe a bit when I hear Republicans talk about a Democracy. When I hear the Democrats talk about it I think "Well, hey, they are Democrats after all!"

Someone, and it may have been Beck, described it best for me. They said, imagine if a criminal in the old west robbed a bank and fled town and was pursued by posse that caught up to a man who fit the description, then they took a vote on hanging the offender from the nearest tree. Suppose the vote was 8 to 7 to hang him. In a Democracy he would be hanged.
Now suppose the same scenario and the vote is the same but a man comes riding up who is the Marshall and he says the vote doesn't matter, this man has rights and must be tried before being sentenced.

That Marshall represents the Constitution of the United States. So the man is taken back to town to stand trial.
It matters that we have rights. What if the posse had the wrong man? A Democracy acts on emotion, a Republic acts on law.
And that's the difference between a Democracy and a Republic.

Thomas Jefferson once said that a democracy is where 51% of the people take away the rights of the other 49%.

In a Republic, we ALL are the same before the law, and thus, upholds the right not of the majority--but of the individual!

Fantastic and very true post. However, I won't go into examples but, we are a democracy. BTW, great Jefferson quote.

 

[beararms1776]

Some of you will say this shouldn't be a problem. But I'll say right now that if things like this happen there will be a big problem. The public will soon scream for something to be done to outlaw those activities. The political pressure will be so intense eventually that our friends won't stand a chance at the polls and real anti's will be elected and laws WILL be enacted that will hurt.

So, what is your idea of a threshold that shouldn't be crossed?

Use common sense (if there is any) and don't go marching around town with a long gun strapped to your back like a mob of anti's trying to sway opinions. Practice with caution.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

Tell that to Illinois, California, and Washington D.C.

You forgot New York and those M*******'s in Massachusett's.. God, just reading these States names makes me want to puke.

 

[Survivalcookie]

You have run into a rather fine line, particularly with 'causing fear'. To do so intentionally, particularly with the expressed or implied threat to use illegal force constitutes intimidation which is illegal. No one has any legal protection from 'fear' they may feel because of our presence, appearance, size, things we are doing unconnected with the bystanders in presence (including OC), or simply being ugly in public. There is no such thing as a 'freedom from being afraid' because someone chooses to assign qualities to someone else which lack any direct action or provable intent.

I should also add that what others think including but not limited to the police to which you made reference, is completely irrelevant. If an illegal act has not occurred, their personal opinion is not part of the equation.

Never the less if you were walking around the circle with a shot gun...most likely you would be arrested first, then question... guilty until proven innocent.

 

[.45 Dave]

Fantastic and very true post. However, I won't go into examples but, we are a democracy. BTW, great Jefferson quote.

I don't agree with you, but I will say that you're disagreement with my post is the nicest one I have ever received!