Defensive Carry banner

101 - 120 of 150 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,185 Posts
You do know that anything less than Constitutional Carry where no permit is needed is still the government infringing on the right to bear arms by requiring us to get it's permission? You do understand that if something is a right one doesn't need to have the government's permission? And I would say that with what is going on in Virginia where the anti gunners didn't get everything they wanted but they still got some of what they wanted, and what they wanted was NEW gun control measures, as the sky really is falling. And falling hard in Virginia.
No, the sky is not falling. Yes, there are new gun control measures. They amount to nuisances, and in a few years the government will change hands again, and there will be a chance to change the law, or challenge it in court.

I agree, one shouldn't need a permit to carry. But in a shall-issue state, it again amounts to a nuisance.

You seem to want a government that never infringes on anyone's rights. It's not possible, never has been, never will be. No matter how constituted or well-intentioned, through simple human fallibility, people's rights will always be violated. The danger of your way of thinking is that it makes the perfect the enemy of the good. If we can't accept that government is imperfect, it implies that we must take the most desperate action in response to the most trivial infringement, which can't make things better and will likely make them worse.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,100 Posts
Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
You do know that anything less than Constitutional Carry where no permit is needed is still the government infringing on the right to bear arms by requiring us to get it's permission? You do understand that if something is a right one doesn't need to have the government's permission? And I would say that with what is going on in Virginia where the anti gunners didn't get everything they wanted but they still got some of what they wanted, and what they wanted was NEW gun control measures, as the sky really is falling. And falling hard in Virginia.
No, the sky is not falling. Yes, there are new gun control measures. They amount to nuisances, and in a few years the government will change hands again, and there will be a chance to change the law, or challenge it in court.
So infringements are nothing more than "nuisances"? Tell that to the mother who is trying to protect her 3 kids from a stalker exhusband while she works as a waitress and can barely afford a Hi Point pistol much less pay for the required carry permit class, the permit fees, and lose the time off work to attend. Ask her if her natural right to carry a gun being restricted is just a "nuisance".

And History has shown that new people in government after elections are still the same anti gun agenda and that new batch will add to the existing ... ummm.... nuisances with more of the same.

I agree, one shouldn't need a permit to carry. But in a shall-issue state, it again amounts to a nuisance.
If you think infringements on rights are merely nuisances then you do not understand what a right actually is.

You seem to want a government that never infringes on anyone's rights.
You damn right that is what I want! The Bill of Rights is the law that (supposedly) constrains the government from infringing.

It's not possible, never has been, never will be. No matter how constituted or well-intentioned, through simple human fallibility, people's rights will always be violated. The danger of your way of thinking is that it makes the perfect the enemy of the good. If we can't accept that government is imperfect, it implies that we must take the most desperate action in response to the most trivial infringement, which can't make things better and will likely make them worse.
And with that defeatist attitude the government will always infringe.

Edited to add:
Good thing the Founding Fathers didn't take the attitude that Kings will always be imperfect and imperfect Kings will always violate people's rights so ... get used to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
You seem to want a government that never infringes on anyone's rights.
Did someone actually say this? :wink:

Wow! Except for my views on woolly mammoths and who came first, I think my views are quite in line with a Constitutionalist!

I will still keep supporting people that do 1A and 2A audits and will ALWAYS tell anyone in the Government what my rights are and the existing law. Just call me a crazy guy:smile:

Never quit, never give in, and never let someone say "well...let us handle it later and just comply for right now". History has shown that complying has never really gone well for most people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
Not true at all, I believe as strongly in the 2A as anybody here. What's different is that I realize it's not the word of God, it's one sentence in the law, and it's very easy for it to lose its meaning if the people want it to. Protecting it means convincing citizens it should be protected. That's the only way.

So, did this guy's actions help to convince people that it should be protected, or the opposite?
I remember when we had the dicussions we had about bump stocks, and then again about suppressors, and how your tune changed as soon as it was something you cared about. You want to talk about the past decades and how great they have been. Aside from having state governments that will now take bribes to not arrest people for exercising their rights, what do we really have now that we didn’t before? We have background chdcks(which they want more of), waiting periods, entire types of guns have been banned. We still have to bribe the government to own certain types of guns. At the federal level, the best we have done is a SCOTUS ruling that acknowledges what we already knew, but came with a caveat that is being used as the basis to justify many gun control laws. You say they are “barely making a dent” with their anti gun laws in Virginia, but I doubt the people who are there feel the same way as you do. Their rights are being restricted. Doesn’t matter how much. It’s all bad. Conservatives are fed up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,335 Posts
So infringements are nothing more than "nuisances"? Tell that to the mother who is trying to protect her 3 kids from a stalker exhusband while she works as a waitress and can barely afford a Hi Point pistol much less pay for the required carry permit class, the permit fees, and lose the time off work to attend. Ask her if her natural right to carry a gun being restricted is just a "nuisance".

And History has shown that new people in government after elections are still the same anti gun agenda and that new batch will add to the existing ... ummm.... nuisances with more of the same.

If you think infringements on rights are merely nuisances then you do not understand what a right actually is.

You damn right that is what I want! The Bill of Rights is the law that (supposedly) constrains the government from infringing.

And with that defeatist attitude the government will always infringe.

Edited to add:
Good thing the Founding Fathers didn't take the attitude that Kings will always be imperfect and imperfect Kings will always violate people's rights so ... get used to it.
I think that Saul Alinsky's 8 steps to socialism explain a lot of what is happening. Gun control is part of their solution to the problem of citizens having too much say and power in how they are governed(controlled).

1 HEALTHCARE- Control healthcare and you control people.
2 POVERTY- Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you provide everything for them to live.
3 DEBT- Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. that way you can increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4 GUN CONTROL- REMOVE THE ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM THE GOVERNMENT. THAT WAY YOU CREATE A POLICE STATE.
5 WELFARE- Take control of every aspect of their lives (food, housing, income).
6 EDUCATION- Take control of what people read and listen to. Take control of what children learn in schools.
7 RELIGION- Remove the belief in the God from the government and the schools.
8 CLASS WARFARE- Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Many of today's politicians grew up in the '60s and learned these as truth. Now that they are in power they are trying in implement it.
Gun Control is but a small step in the socialism process, but a most important step.
In my opinion without gun control the other 7 steps can be checked when the citizens finally wake up and see what is happening to them.
Without our 2nd amendment rights as stated in the constitution, not the watered down version that they are trying to appease us with we are all just like that frog in the boiling water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
No, the sky is not falling. Yes, there are new gun control measures. They amount to nuisances, and in a few years the government will change hands again, and there will be a chance to change the law, or challenge it in court.

I agree, one shouldn't need a permit to carry. But in a shall-issue state, it again amounts to a nuisance.

You seem to want a government that never infringes on anyone's rights. It's not possible, never has been, never will be. No matter how constituted or well-intentioned, through simple human fallibility, people's rights will always be violated. The danger of your way of thinking is that it makes the perfect the enemy of the good. If we can't accept that government is imperfect, it implies that we must take the most desperate action in response to the most trivial infringement, which can't make things better and will likely make them worse.
A nuisance is an infringement. Period. Here you are justifying gun control again. And yes, we want a government that will not infringe on rights. That’s the point. This is another example of posts that are evidence that not everyone is on the same level of pro 2A.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RScottie and Osprey

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,352 Posts
Despite this being a dubious claim, your overall post gets a like.
I can accept that.

The whole 3% notion has been around for a long time so if it is not fact it is likely that it cannot be documented with actual proof. Thus it is no more true than false! :wink:

But the claim does make some sense as many that did not want to be ruled by the King also did not wish for it to be known what their actual views were. Some were able to use this anonymity to actually help the cause in their own way behind the scenes.

As it is today, it would seem the 3% are the ones that want to bend over and take any and all infringements upon our rights as long as these infringements allow them the privilege to still partially exercise their right as long as they are obeying the rules and not offending anyone.

I think Samuel Adams said it best:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
~Samuel Adams, Speech to the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
I can accept that.

The whole 3% notion has been around for a long time so if it is not fact it is likely that it cannot be documented with actual proof. Thus it is no more true than false! :wink:

But the claim does make some sense as many that did not want to be ruled by the King also did not wish for it to be known what their actual views were. Some were able to use this anonymity to actually help the cause in their own way behind the scenes.

As it is today, it would seem the 3% are the ones that want to bend over and take any and all infringements upon our rights as long as these infringements allow them the privilege to still partially exercise their right as long as they are obeying the rules and not offending anyone.

I think Samuel Adams said it best:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
~Samuel Adams, Speech to the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776
The same people who think we should just act like good boys and remember our place at the bottom of the food chain to avoid angering the left into taking more of our rights away are the same type of people who would have said fighting back against the red coats would only make things worse.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,335 Posts
A nuisance is an infringement. Period. Here you are justifying gun control again. And yes, we want a government that will not infringe on rights. That’s the point. This is another example of posts that are evidence that not everyone is on the same level of pro 2A.
I do not consider Red Flag Laws as a nuisance. It is a most blatant in your face type of gun control.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
957 Posts
The neutering or outright abolishing of the second will allow the final coup d'etat on our rights and freedoms that's been waged since the beginning of the twentieth century.
Plenty of voices sounding the warning up to this point, ignored and forgotten as long as the good times rolled.
And now people want to get their founding father game on (or talk about getting it on)after spending decades ignoring the growth of an all powerful militarized surveillance central swamp government.
A communist seems poised to win a major shot at the presidency of these "United States".

I don't think were in Kansas anymore.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,335 Posts
I can accept that.

The whole 3% notion has been around for a long time so if it is not fact it is likely that it cannot be documented with actual proof. Thus it is no more true than false! :wink:

But the claim does make some sense as many that did not want to be ruled by the King also did not wish for it to be known what their actual views were. Some were able to use this anonymity to actually help the cause in their own way behind the scenes.

As it is today, it would seem the 3% are the ones that want to bend over and take any and all infringements upon our rights as long as these infringements allow them the privilege to still partially exercise their right as long as they are obeying the rules and not offending anyone.

I think Samuel Adams said it best:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
~Samuel Adams, Speech to the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776
There is probably no way to determine the exact number of colonists who supported the revolution, all the reading i have done on the subject I believe that 1/3 supported the revolution, 1/3 were loyalists, and 1/3 went whichever way the wind blows.
Al;so support was not stable, it wavered quite a bit depending how the war was going.
Very high after Lexington, Concord and Breeds Hill.
Not so much after the Battle of Long Island.
Pretty good after Saratoga.
It varied
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,185 Posts
So infringements are nothing more than "nuisances"? Tell that to the mother who is trying to protect her 3 kids from a stalker exhusband while she works as a waitress and can barely afford a Hi Point pistol much less pay for the required carry permit class, the permit fees, and lose the time off work to attend. Ask her if her natural right to carry a gun being restricted is just a "nuisance".
Is there such a person, or are you making up a hypothetical? Because the antis can make up hypotheticals too. "They say have guns for self-defense? What about the waitress who can't afford a gun? We should make sure nobody has a gun so she's safer."

And History has shown that new people in government after elections are still the same anti gun agenda and that new batch will add to the existing ... ummm.... nuisances with more of the same.
Yeah, that's how elections work. You have an alternative?

You damn right that is what I want! The Bill of Rights is the law that (supposedly) constrains the government from infringing.
And yet it does infringe, because law is imperfect, government is imperfect, man is imperfect. If the 2A isn't working to your satisfaction, how would you improve it?

Edited to add:
Good thing the Founding Fathers didn't take the attitude that Kings will always be imperfect and imperfect Kings will always violate people's rights so ... get used to it.
No, but they knew full well that the system they would implement would violate people's rights. That's why they put in checks and balances - so that when it happened, it could be corrected.

Yet still, they implemented it, because it was an improvement. So again - what's your big solution? How do you guarantee that government won't violate rights? It's easy to point out that it does so, not so easy to point towards a better system than what we have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
I do not consider Red Flag Laws as a nuisance. It is a most blatant in your face type of gun control.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
I agree. I was referring to the concept of a permit. A permit is just a fancy way of saying the government will take bribes to not jail you for doing something you have a right to do. Being ok with permits means being ok with infringements. I don’t really understsnd people justifying their reason for supporting gun control. I don’t really care why people support it. It is their 1A right to have that opinion, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are supporting the violation of constitutionally protected rights.

To look at it from a different perspective, I’ll use gay marriage as an example, the left does not care what anyone’s reasons are for opposing gay marriage. They don’t care if your religion(that isn’t theirs) opposes it. They don’t care if their insistence on legalizing gay marriage will make Republicans more likely to vote democrat or not. They care that they can marry who they want. And guess what? That subject is now settled, whether anyone likes it or not. The people who can’t grasp this strategy would be wise to either get on board or stay out of the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
Is there such a person, or are you making up a hypothetical? Because the antis can make up hypotheticals too. "They say have guns for self-defense? What about the waitress who can't afford a gun? We should make sure nobody has a gun so she's safer."



Yeah, that's how elections work. You have an alternative?



And yet it does infringe, because law is imperfect, government is imperfect, man is imperfect. If the 2A isn't working to your satisfaction, how would you improve it?



No, but they knew full well that the system they would implement would violate people's rights. That's why they put in checks and balances - so that when it happened, it could be corrected.

Yet still, they implemented it, because it was an improvement. So again - what's your big solution? How do you guarantee that government won't violate rights? It's easy to point out that it does so, not so easy to point towards a better system than what we have.
I see posts on a regular basis, mostly on Facebook of people wanting to buy some cheap Taurus or whatever gun for protection because it’s all they can afford, and you’re over here justifying an increased cost that is several hundred dollars and weeks, or more of time before they can carry that gun on their body, because it’s just a “nuisance”. We hear all the time about people being killed by someone they had a restraining order against. Not everyone realizes they need a gun until it’s to late. People who view the permit process as a “nuisance” cause that “too late” time to be much sooner than if there was no permit needed. Be killed by a crazy ex or go to jail for illegally carrying a weapon that you have a right to carry...tough spot.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,100 Posts
Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
So infringements are nothing more than "nuisances"? Tell that to the mother who is trying to protect her 3 kids from a stalker exhusband while she works as a waitress and can barely afford a Hi Point pistol much less pay for the required carry permit class, the permit fees, and lose the time off work to attend. Ask her if her natural right to carry a gun being restricted is just a "nuisance".
Is there such a person, or are you making up a hypothetical? Because the antis can make up hypotheticals too. "They say have guns for self-defense? What about the waitress who can't afford a gun? We should make sure nobody has a gun so she's safer."
Is there such a person? Please take note of the previous post by Havok.

As far as the left thinking up hypotheticals? Jumping Jesus in a wheat field! That is exactly what they have been doing to validate their anti gun propaganda all along!

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And History has shown that new people in government after elections are still the same anti gun agenda and that new batch will add to the existing ... ummm.... nuisances with more of the same.
Yeah, that's how elections work. You have an alternative?
Yes, educate the public about how rights work. That alone can change how the public votes. But in order to educate one must actually have the courage to exercise those rights. Oddly enough it seems that many lack the courage to bear arms in plain sight even where it is legal to do so.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
You damn right that is what I want! The Bill of Rights is the law that (supposedly) constrains the government from infringing.
And yet it does infringe, because law is imperfect, government is imperfect, man is imperfect. If the 2A isn't working to your satisfaction, how would you improve it?
I refuse to accept that I have to accept infringements just because the government, the law, and people themselves are imperfect.

I'll tell you what I have done to improve it. I have open carried a pistol while attending local area board meetings to protest illegal gun control ordinances. That means I've attended meetings for my own township and other townships too. I have spoken with government officials in their offices while peacefully open carrying politely demanding they change illegal ordinances. I have been instrumental in getting those illegal gun control ordinances changed to comply with State law. That may be a very small effort but it is the same playbook the anti gunners use.. a little change at a time adds up to changing things in a big way.

Now the question isn't what would I do to change the constant onslaught of anti gun laws... the question is what are YOU going to do about it? From your responses so far it appears that you would gladly suffer .... nuisances... as long as those nuisances don't inconvenience you.. everyone else be damned.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
You damn right that is what I want! The Bill of Rights is the law that (supposedly) constrains the government from infringing.
And yet it does infringe, because law is imperfect, government is imperfect, man is imperfect. If the 2A isn't working to your satisfaction, how would you improve it?
There is no need to improve the 2nd Amendment. All that is necessary is to understand these 5 words:

"shall not be infringed"

and to actually stand up to defend them.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Edited to add:
Good thing the Founding Fathers didn't take the attitude that Kings will always be imperfect and imperfect Kings will always violate people's rights so ... get used to it.
No, but they knew full well that the system they would implement would violate people's rights. That's why they put in checks and balances - so that when it happened, it could be corrected.
Settling for little ... nuisances.. in hopes of avoiding big gun laws isn't correcting anything.

Yet still, they implemented it, because it was an improvement. So again - what's your big solution? How do you guarantee that government won't violate rights? It's easy to point out that it does so, not so easy to point towards a better system than what we have.
What's my big solution? Fight against every proposed infringement no matter how small. And stop thinking you are winning by settling for little infringements in hopes of avoiding big ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,185 Posts
I see posts on a regular basis, mostly on Facebook of people wanting to buy some cheap Taurus or whatever gun for protection because it’s all they can afford, and you’re over here justifying an increased cost that is several hundred dollars and weeks, or more of time before they can carry that gun on their body, because it’s just a “nuisance”. We hear all the time about people being killed by someone they had a restraining order against. Not everyone realizes they need a gun until it’s to late. People who view the permit process as a “nuisance” cause that “too late” time to be much sooner than if there was no permit needed. Be killed by a crazy ex or go to jail for illegally carrying a weapon that you have a right to carry...tough spot.
I agree 100% that no permit should be required, but at least in my state, this situation still amounts to a nuisance, because one can apply for an emergency permit for 30 days with no fees or testing requirements. And if that doesn't work, and one has to explain to a jury why they were carrying without a permit, no way are they going to jail for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,185 Posts
I refuse to accept that I have to accept infringements just because the government, the law, and people themselves are imperfect.
You don't have to accept infringements, you can and should fight them. I'm saying you have to accept that you can't actually stop every form of infringement. Because you can't. No matter how many victories we win, in some cases we will lose, whether by legislation, enforcement, or adjudication.

I'll tell you what I have done to improve it. I have open carried a pistol while attending local area board meetings to protest illegal gun control ordinances. That means I've attended meetings for my own township and other townships too. I have spoken with government officials in their offices while peacefully open carrying politely demanding they change illegal ordinances. I have been instrumental in getting those illegal gun control ordinances changed to comply with State law. That may be a very small effort but it is the same playbook the anti gunners use.. a little change at a time adds up to changing things in a big way.

There is no need to improve the 2nd Amendment. All that is necessary is to understand these 5 words:

"shall not be infringed"

and to actually stand up to defend them.

Settling for little ... nuisances.. in hopes of avoiding big gun laws isn't correcting anything.

What's my big solution? Fight against every proposed infringement no matter how small. And stop thinking you are winning by settling for little infringements in hopes of avoiding big ones.
That's all fine. We might disagree about political tactics, and we might both be right in different circumstances. But what we're talking about here is intimidation, making an opposed politician fear for his physical safety. That is not something to be defended or congratulated, like I see happening here. That is never an acceptable tactic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,847 Posts
I agree 100% that no permit should be required, but at least in my state, this situation still amounts to a nuisance, because one can apply for an emergency permit for 30 days with no fees or testing requirements. And if that doesn't work, and one has to explain to a jury why they were carrying without a permit, no way are they going to jail for it.
The issue here is that someone still has to apply for it. It’s a a RIGHT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osprey and Bikenut

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,100 Posts
You don't have to accept infringements, you can and should fight them. I'm saying you have to accept that you can't actually stop every form of infringement. Because you can't. No matter how many victories we win, in some cases we will lose, whether by legislation, enforcement, or adjudication.
I refuse to give up just because I didn't win.... this time. That is how the anti gunners/leftists approach things so why shouldn't I use that same playbook?


That's all fine. We might disagree about political tactics, and we might both be right in different circumstances. But what we're talking about here is intimidation, making an opposed politician fear for his physical safety. That is not something to be defended or congratulated, like I see happening here. That is never an acceptable tactic.
Intimidation is in the eye of the beholder. Was that politician's actual physical safety really in danger? Or did he just... feel... like it might be?

If we allow what someone else might feel to determine how we fight, or even whether we fight or not, for rights .... then the fight is already lost.

And I strongly suggest that many folks, especially those in positions of power, hide their indignation and their being offended by having their agenda exposed behind the protestation of being intimidated. A politician hollering intimidation immediately elevates themselves to the position of a victim (the righteous one) to be pitied and the one standing up for rights as the aggressor (the one doing wrong) to be reviled when the truth is the one who wants to use the might of the government as a weapon to infringe upon the rights of others is the actual aggressor. But sadly very few folks are able to see it in that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,931 Posts
The answer to intimidation from some guy with a gun in front of your house is to have a bigger gun and more ammo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arejay and Hoganbeg
101 - 120 of 150 Posts
Top