SECOND AMENDMENT - What do you think? - Page 5

SECOND AMENDMENT - What do you think?

This is a discussion on SECOND AMENDMENT - What do you think? within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by HardCorps79 There is no right in the Constitution to not be offended. However, I do have a right to freedom of speech ...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 101
  1. #61
    Member Array PaxMentis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    S. Oregon (aka Paradise)
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by HardCorps79 View Post
    There is no right in the Constitution to not be offended. However, I do have a right to freedom of speech and to bear arms. The fact that I choose to limit myself does not mean that I support limitations on others. The way the founders framed it, we should be able to keep artillery pieces on our property. When the people are disbarred the use of arms that the government is allowed, the government may use its superior arms to intimidate the people. This is the very antithesis of the founders intent. The intent as articulated by Jefferson was to remind the government that the people had the capability of resistance to tyranny.

    Unfortunately by way of 100 years of slippery slope infringements, we have abdicated our liberties in the name of temporary security. Benjamin Franklin forewarned us, but we have fallen prey to tyrants through our own weakness of character.

    I don't suggest any answers, just pointing out that here were are debating things that our founding fathers never questioned. It's really our own damned fault.

    (I realize this logic stretched out implies that private citizens could thus also produce and possess nuclear weapons. The fact that our founders did not conceive of certain technological advances does not imply that the principles are void. This means that "the people", represented by the House and Senate, rather than the executive, ought to retain control of these items. Again, it's our own fault for blindly electing the most "electable" candidate as opposed to voting our conscience and liberty.)

    I will die to protect your right to say things with which I disagree and to do things which I may find deplorable, so long as they are consistent with the vision cast by the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and its accompanying amendments.

    The people get the government they deserve. Unfortunately as long as the majority are sheep, we will be ruled by wolves. We may well have lost the American spirit. We have certainly seen the beginning of the end of our great Republic. A democracy it was never intended to be.

    Semper Fi 'til I Die
    + A bunch...

    Very well put.

    I'll shut up now...


  2. #62
    Member Array charliej47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Middletown, Ohio
    Posts
    72

    Wink Right or Wrong or PC

    Immature: Lacking complete growth
    Stupid: lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity
    Radical: extremist: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm
    Extreme: of the greatest possible degree or extent or intensity

    These and other words have been used to describe his actions. I would say that "Radical" best describes him.

    Is he affecting the rest of us? This is the article we have been debating. If you listen to the "Antis" then anything we do or say is "Immature" or "Stupid" or "radical". If you listen to the :Nay-Sayers" then anything we do that is outside of the conservative norm is "incorrect", "stupid" or some other derogatory comment.

    I believe that he is "wanting to make a statement". I believe that he is "Extreme". I believe that he knew what he was doing and the consequences of his actions. Therefore I do not believe that is is "Stupid" or "Immature".

    I applaud his actions as for what he is trying to do.
    The Second Amendment is about the right to be able to protect oneself from all who would do us harm including Legislators!

    I came into this world screaming and covered in someone Else's blood, don't care if I go out the same way

  3. #63
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by charliej47 View Post
    Immature: Lacking complete growth
    Stupid: lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity
    Radical: extremist: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm
    Extreme: of the greatest possible degree or extent or intensity

    These and other words have been used to describe his actions. I would say that "Radical" best describes him.

    Is he affecting the rest of us? This is the article we have been debating. If you listen to the "Antis" then anything we do or say is "Immature" or "Stupid" or "radical". If you listen to the :Nay-Sayers" then anything we do that is outside of the conservative norm is "incorrect", "stupid" or some other derogatory comment.

    I believe that he is "wanting to make a statement". I believe that he is "Extreme". I believe that he knew what he was doing and the consequences of his actions. Therefore I do not believe that is is "Stupid" or "Immature".

    I applaud his actions as for what he is trying to do.
    He indeed did know what he was doing but you can bet he didn't do it on your behalf or mine. Don't give this exhibitionist hero status. He's an attention seeker Charlie, nothing more. His motives are selfish. If he is "wanting to make a statement" as you say that statement is simply "Look at me". Of course I too could be giving him too much credit and maybe he's simply stupid. Actually I think I've wasted enough time thinking about this guy. Those who think he deserves a pedestal to perch on are not likely to change their opinions anyway.

  4. #64
    Member Array B94's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    42
    I support the Second Amendment and the people that also legally do.

    The Second Amendment:
    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.

    Do you think that the Second Amendment is only for people you agree with?
    Do you think that the Second Amendment is only for certain hand guns?
    Do you think that the Second Amendment is only for guns of a certain color?
    Do you think that the Second Amendment is only for people whose motives you approve?
    Do you think that the Second Amendment is only for people of certain skin colors or religions?
    Do you think that the Second Amendment is only to be legally exercised by others when you want?
    Do you think that the Second Amendment is only to be legally exercised by others the way you want?

    The Second Amendment doesnít say any of the above. It says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This means your right shall not be infringed.

    1 - Do you support the Second Amendment?
    2 - Are you legally exercising your Second Amendment right?

    If you say yes to the above I support you.
    Does my support for you always mean I agree with you? No
    If I donít agree with you why would I support you? Because your are not breaking any laws and I support the Second Amendment - your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    If you are knowingly breaking laws when exercising your Second Amendment right I will no longer support you.

    When you are exercising your Second Amendment right you are not my enemy because this is what the Second Amendment is all about. Some may perceive your legally exercising your Second Amendment right as fuel for the antiís but the antiís would say this no matter what you do, so this cannot be true. Some would say that by you legally exercising your Second Amendment right you will scare some of the sheep but some of the sheep will always be scared until they get used to seeing you legally exercising your Second Amendment right. The antiís are the ones trying to infringe on your rights. A supporter of the Second Amendment wouldnít do this.

    To the gun owners that donít support kwikrnu, (or people you take exception too) you are the ones fueling the antiís not them. By your lack of support the cause is divided. Just what the antiís want. Since you donít support a man legally exercising his second amendment rights why should anyone else? Maybe he shouldnít be allowed to exercise his second amendment rights. Isnít this the next logical step? Isnít this the antiís position? By not supporting a man legally exercising his second amendment rights you are only one step from becoming the antiĎs. Stop dividing the cause. Stop fueling the antiís. Support your brothers that believe in the Second Amendment whether you agree with them or not.

    How do you support your brothers that support the Second Amendment?
    There could be many ways. Iíll suggest 2 -
    1 - Donít bash them in public.
    2 - In kwikrnuís case join him on his next outing.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Array rmodel65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    934
    +1 B94
    S&W M&P40/M&P9c OC rigs
    S&W 640-1 or Sig P238 as a CC rig
    proud www.georgiacarry.org member
    Second Amendment Foundation Life member

  6. #66
    Member Array charliej47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Middletown, Ohio
    Posts
    72

    Talking

    Myself I do not put him on a perch. I applaud what he did. During warm weather I usually OC everywhere I go.

    Again I do not like the weapon he chose it is awkward and difficult to handle. If I was in his area and had the opportunity I would walk with him.

    Did he look for trouble, I believe so. Those that look for trouble usually find it very easily.

    I do not know this person and he very well may be a "problem child".

    But as I have said I defend his right to legally exercise his constitutional rights.

    I believe his "Civil Rights" were violated and as long as those in authority ignore his "Civil and Constitutional Rights" they will do the same to you and yours when it suits them.
    The Second Amendment is about the right to be able to protect oneself from all who would do us harm including Legislators!

    I came into this world screaming and covered in someone Else's blood, don't care if I go out the same way

  7. #67
    Distinguished Member Array JerryM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,999
    I'll close my discussion in this thread by quoting the Apostle Paul.

    1 Corinthians 6:12 *∂All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
    1 Corinthians 10:23 *∂All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

    Being legal does not make a thing expedient or edifying. That is the way I see this. Even though legal it can be counter productive for our cause, and I won't let the fact that it was legal cause me to support it.

    Happy New Year, All.

    Regards,
    Jerry

  8. #68
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by JerryM View Post
    I'll close my discussion in this thread by quoting the Apostle Paul.




    Regards,
    Jerry
    Good idea. I think kwikrnu has had more than enough attention here.

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array TN_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shelby County TN
    Posts
    11,118
    He isn't helping our cause is the first thing that comes to mind. But, if he isn't breaking the law, then he is within his rights to do it.
    Last edited by HotGuns; February 25th, 2010 at 09:51 PM. Reason: bad words
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_)

  10. #70
    Senior Member Array Bubbiesdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by wmhawth View Post
    Good idea. I think kwikrnu has had more than enough attention here.

    Don't worry, he always finds a way to get banned from discussion boards.
    Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
    Richard M Nixon
    Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.Ē
    Jeff Cooper

  11. #71
    Ex Member Array maddyfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    nKy.
    Posts
    450
    This entire debate is interesting. Most of you agree that Kwik was within his rights. Those of you who object to his actions due so primarily on the basis of the type of weapon he chose.

    What you should realize, is that to many non-shooters and many persons not familiar with weapons, your 1911 on your hip is just as scary as his AK.

    Me, I do agree with the current OC movement, and I think this guy (Kwik) is a showman asking for trouble. BUT I support his right to open carry his AK, and your right to open carry your 1911 (or whatever). Even though I don't really agree with it.

  12. #72
    Ex Member Array kwikrnu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    tennessee
    Posts
    27
    I don't think the best details were posted. The Radnor Lake State Park is a close to my house. It is not a traditional park with playgrounds. It has several hiking trails. The park is legal to carry, but is posted no carry (including handgun carry permit holders).

    Sign prohibiting carry



    Map of trail I walked
    I started at about 3:30pm and walked from the west parking lot along the lake trail where I met the first ranger who I did record (orange mark). He let me go after I showed him my carry permit and I continued to walk until I got to my car at about 4:30pm. A white ranger truck pulled into the lot and ranger Ward jumped out and point a shotgun at my head yelling at me to drop the gun.




    Audio of me speaking with first ranger (walsh) at about 4:00pm

    radnor lake ranger edited.WMA - 1.40MB



    Audio of call from ranger Walsh to metro police department after our conversation.

    Ranger's call to metro police after I spoke with him



    Audio of my call to metro nashville police after I had been detained at gun point 4:52pm.

    My call to police at 4:52


    I was told to sign an arrest citation for violation of TCA 39-17-1311 at about 5:45 which I refused. I was searched and cuffed and stuck in the back of a police car at about 6:30. At that point I was held until about 7:00pm when I was released and given back my ak pistol.

    They put out a BOLO on me



    Federal Lawsuit 3:2010cv00126






    It has even made it hard for me to get a suppressor for my AK pistol. I bought one and the dealer said I was a criminal and said he would not honor the contract. So, I had to buy one from another dealer and am now waiting for the sheriff approval. Lucky in TN we have TCA 39-17-1361 that says the sheriff shall sign the paperwork within 15 days.


  13. #73
    Member Array Vegas Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    16
    Forgive the timid and intolerant here, law enforcement has to be helped to understand there are legal/constitutional lines they must respect. For that, you have my sincere appreciation.

    LEO conduct is too often outrageous and excessive. I see this common thread in your and others experience with law enforcement -- efforts to discourage future actions by making the stop onerous. What should take a very few minutes to check out, and send the citizen on his way, is dragged out sometimes for hours. Most people have no problem with LEO's checking them out as long as they are reasonable. Drawn guns is not reasonable without RAS. Cuffing and stuffing, no matter how temporary, is intimidation.

    I think many LEO's don't realize they are dealing with more than just the "suspect" in front of them. Bad encounters get spread around the net and incrementally build resentments. I never had an ambivalent opinion of LEO's until I started reading about individual encounters that greatly offended my feelings of justice. They foster the "us versus them" atmosphere, which I hate to see. We're on the same side of law and order!!!!

    This LEO offensive behavior has to be intentional. I can't believe the officers haven't anything else to do than stand around so long with you. I have too much respect for law enforcement to think they are so stupid. I have a hard time accepting that LEO's are so ignorant of OC and CC issues in this day and time. Dragging our the process is either ignorance or intentional, and common sense comes down on the side of intentional. Just IMHO.

    The separate issue of getting unconstitutional laws changed and/or rationalized is important but not as much as preventing abuses of lawful practices and procedures. Many people can disagree with you about what you do for the political arena. That doesn't mean you should stop representing lawful conduct between 2A and LE.

    What you do is just and, in the long run, beneficial to preserving our liberties. Thank you.

  14. #74
    Member Array HockeyTrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    15

    Making a point??

    I like to make a point as much as the next guy. I ask you this:

    If you are carrying - concealed or open but in a more typical manner- while playing in the park with your child or grand child and someone walks by carrying a rifle or large pistol on a sling - will you not give it another thought or will you pull your child closer and double check your carry piece?

  15. #75
    Senior Member Array Frogbones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by jahwarrior72 View Post

    i'm saddened by some of the responses i'm reading here.
    You got that right....

    I give props for doing what he did. Many here would just prefer to keep emailing political figures instead of going raw, and getting thier hands dirty.


    I think the Rosa Parks relation is perfect.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. WA Supreme Court: Ď2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  2. 1st Amendment vs. 2nd Amendment in private forums
    By ShawnMoncali in forum Forum News, Feedback, Problems & Comments
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: March 15th, 2010, 11:54 AM
  3. New 2d Amendment?
    By SIGguy229 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2007, 02:20 PM
  4. "Applying 2nd Amendment restrictions to the 1st Amendment ;-)"
    By goawayfarm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: June 16th, 2007, 09:19 AM
  5. What does the 2nd Amendment mean to you?
    By cagueits in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 20th, 2007, 01:00 AM

Search tags for this page

second amendment, what do you think?

,

which one do you think is better the 13 amendment or the 14 or 15

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors