Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

Status
Not open for further replies.
Glenn,
Well said! Even more recently I have asked many of the 2A absolutists if the fact that citizens of New Orleans being armed stopped Ray Nagin from taking their guns. Of course we know that an injunction from the NRA/GOA did so and no citizens violently resisted the confiscations.

Did the "people's militia" storm the NO Police warehouse and retrieve their illegally obtained property? Heck no, they waited for Ray No-guns to be held in contempt of court and that forced the NO Police to return the guns.

jimpeel said:
There is no knowing where the tipping point would occur. One thing is for sure, though. There comes a point where they will no longer be pushed.
Click to expand...

Here is what I know. Any person who takes up arms against a lawfully elected government commits treason and will face the full fury of the law. I for one would be one of the first to oppose with force if necessary any such action. If you don't like what the government does, vote 'em out as Glenn has said. You will not achieve with a gun what you cannot get at the ballot box.
 
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman,

Here is what I know. Any person who takes up arms against a lawfully elected government commits treason and will face the full fury of the law. I for one would be one of the first to oppose with force if necessary any such action. If you don't like what the government does, vote 'em out as Glenn has said. You will not achieve with a gun what you cannot get at the ballot box.
Click to expand...

First, did you read the first line of my post?

Second, were THESE MEN men treasonous when they took up arms against the lawfully elected government? After all, the election was lawful; it was the results which were tainted.

So if our lawfully elected government started throwing prisoners off of tall buildings ala Iraq or;

The government started forming death squads ala Argentina or;

The government starts cleaning up the homeless with death squads ala Brazil or:

The government allows dissident militants to seize a foreign embassy and hold that country's citizens for 444 days ala Iran; would you simply stand and spectate?

That's what the people of these countries did; because they were forced to by their lawfully elected governments.

All of the above were "lawfully elected governments".

The elections were legal. The governments were lawfully elected. The electorate stood and watched. Those who tried to act disappeared.

Your post assumes that there will be elections. What do you do if there are not? What do you do if there is a collapse of the rule of law? What do you do if government anarchy ensues?

Do you flee your country as those who fled to America to escape the tyranny of their countries did? Problem: This is the last place left to flee. America is the last bastion for the oppressed. When that is gone ...

The reason that there will be no necessity for an armed uprising here in the United States is, unlike the countries cited above, the citizenry has the firearms; the citizenry has the ammo; and the citizenry has the wherewithal to keep the "lawfully elected government" in check by deterrence alone.

You can bet your sweet one that if this country's government started to openly operate like the ones mentioned above, regardless of party stripe, the American people would spend an endless amount of treasure to stop it. But if the law collapsed, elections were suspended, and dictatorship and anarchy ensued those same people would not take up arms to take over the government. They would take up arms to restore the government.

That is the difference. Know it, live it, love it.

Work with all of your heart, your mind, and your very being to make all of the above impossible. More and more Americans are becoming apathetic, lazy, uneducated, and greedy. That is your true enemy. The government is merely a reflection of that electorate.
 
Glenn,

The problem with the argument that the 2nd Amend protects our liberty is that we have not seen it actually do such in many cases.
Click to expand...

I have cited the Battle of Athens, TN so I will not link to it again.

Not to insult folks but many of the classic gun culture have been quite supportive of many infringements of the liberties of citizens as those have clashed with a controlling social conservative world view.
Click to expand...

Because the classic gun culture associations have taken the stance that if they "compromise" with the oppressors they will appease them.

1. A compromise means that both parties receive something. We give, they take, and we receive nothing in return but the next "good first step" legislation.

2. Appeasers throw everyone else to the lions hoping to be eaten last.

Despite the wailing and lamentation - current gun rights are important as a last bulwark against a right that would institute a world view that is antithetical to liberty.
Click to expand...

TG would disagree with you and has stated that he would take up arms against you. That is treasonous talk.

But, most changes today can be instituted by the electoral and judicial process.
Click to expand...

True.

Stewing about armed revolution or how the 2nd brought major increases in liberty just are not true.
Click to expand...

Only if you ignore the American Revolution and the War Between the States.

I received the right not to be discriminated against on basis of religion because of the electoral and judicial process. I did not see one classic member of the conservative gun world rise in rebellion so my mother could get a job denied her because of religion. In fact, most of that group, in those times, would probably support the discrimination.
Click to expand...

Two words: Mordechai Anielewicz. He did more in his short 24 years than most do in a long-lived lifetime. Maybe he was just an idealist.

To conclude - I think that the gun carry was not an effective means of communication. Signs saying we support the 2nd Amend by large numbers of polite folks probably would work better. But we know the gun world isn't much for that. Organized demos are chortled about but don't come off. The NRA works more effectively and law suits like Heller work much better.
Click to expand...

I agree with that in part. It may not have been the best way to demonstrate.

The problem is that those who advocate concealed carry and lament that "Our right to bear arms does not end at the <enter boundary here>" are some of the same ones who are saying that the right to bear arms ends when the wrong person approaches their location.

The 2nd and arms of the civilian are important to large groups of us as a last bulwark if we went the way of something like Reich.
Click to expand...

Which is what I was speaking to.

But the claim that the 2nd has brought about liberties in a major fashion isn't true now.
Click to expand...

Yet you mentioned the display of arms of the Black Panther Party. That one act, coupled with many others, forced attention on the civil rights movement which brought freedom to millions without firing a single shot.
 
Last edited:
Jim enough with the polemics already, this isnt 1944 Generalgouvernement, 1920's Cicero or 1940s Tennesee. The JBTs arent coming, nor the Black helicopters. A bunch of armchair commandoes with personal weapons aint gonna fight off the government, hasnt happened in the past and wont happen in the future. The 2nd Amendment didnt win the War of Independence or the Civil War. We have all sorts of judicial and political remedies. Lets deal with reality here:rolleyes:

WildanddontgetmestartedaboutmordecaiAlaska TM
 
Last edited:
MWB,

i don't think i'd have the guts to basically get myself killed over my guns if someone came to collect them. just being honest with myself.
Click to expand...

Just sittin' here cogitatin' and not meaning to slam you; but there is a saying that goes with that thinking:

You can die on your feet; or live on your knees.

Your, and only your, choice.

Submission brings no notoriety. Resistance makes the headlines.

You don't have to die to do either.
 
in a case like new orleans, i do beleive an outright refusal to surrender your weapons would require a stand where someone would die. i don't have a strike team on standby and a bunch of armor...
 
Wild,

Why is it that every time someone posts a rhetorical scenario based upon history people like you paint them as wild eyed heavily armed wackos, with a grenade pin in their teeth, heading out the door to do battle with the government?

Yes, this is none of what you posited which, by the way, you left out 1920s Tulsa, OK, 1923 Rosewood, FL, and 1917 East Saint Louis, IL.

I don't use the term JBT and I don't believe in black helicopters. You simply made that up and threw it out there to use as a disparagement against me. Nice ad hom, though.

This forum was created because of the people who got the L&P forum closed forever. Posts like yours were the reason.

Do you have any lucid, thoughtful, respectful contentions to actually counter what I have posted?
 
Why is it that every time someone posts a rhetorical scenario based upon history people like you paint them as wild eyed heavily armed wackos, with a grenade pin in their teeth, heading out the door to do battle with the government?
Click to expand...

Because thats what they sound like.:rolleyes:

This forum was created because of the people who got the L&P forum closed forever. Posts like yours were the reason.
Click to expand...

LOL....whatever:rolleyes:

Do you have any lucid, thoughtful, respectful contentions to actually counter what I have posted?
Click to expand...

Yeah...

Jim enough with the polemics already, this isnt 1944 Generalgouvernement, 1920's Cicero or 1940s Tennesee. The JBTs arent coming, nor the Black helicopters. A bunch of armchair commandoes with personal weapons aint gonna fight off the government, hasnt happened in the past and wont happen in the future. The 2nd Amendment didnt win the War of Independence or the Civil War. We have all sorts of judicial and political remedies. Lets deal with reality here

Put the tricorns away kiddies, personal weapons meant very little in the War of Indepence and mean little as a check on the government now. I'll take my chances with the Courts and keep voting. Give me a ring when Habeas Corpus gets suspended as well as the right to vote.

WildanddemonstrationsareoutlawedandthenetshutdownAlaska TM
 
Yet you mentioned the display of arms of the Black Panther Party. That one act, coupled with many others, forced attention on the civil rights movement which brought freedom to millions without firing a single shot.
Click to expand...
Again, the disconnect is astounding.

First of all, there were shots fired both by and at the Black Panthers. One shootout with police took place on October 28, 1967. An officer was killed and another was badly injured. On December 28 of the same year there was another armed encounter with police resulting in injuries to 13 officers. That's just two of the more notable incidents where Black Panthers were involved in shootings with the police.

Second, open carry by the Black Panthers resulted in the the introduction of legislation RESTRICTING open carry, just the opposite of what we want. Look up the Mulford Act.

They are HARDLY a group that we should emulate; (or cite as an example of the benefits of open carry as protest) among other things they demanded that all black men be exempt from military service and that ALL black men in local, state or federal prison be released summarily.
Why is it that every time someone posts a rhetorical scenario based upon history people like you paint them as wild eyed heavily armed wackos, with a grenade pin in their teeth, heading out the door to do battle with the government?
Click to expand...
Perhaps because in this case the person in question held up as a group to be emulated an organization (the Black Panthers) that could very accurately be characterized as "wild eyed heavily armed wackos, with a grenade pin in their teeth, heading out the door to do battle with the government".
 
The point at which I would find armed action against the government acceptable is the point when all of our democratic institutions have broken down. As long as we still get to vote you will have much more sucess and a much easier time acomplishing your goals at the ballot box.

You will find it much easier to convince a majority of people to vote for your ideas than you will convincing a sufficient number to follow you to revolution.

If you can't convince enough people to vote for your ideas what makes you think you can convince enough people to fight and bloody themselves for your ideas?

What percentage of the population supporting an armed revolution do you think would be necessary for it to be successful? And if you say anything less than a majority aren't you essentially saying that a minority of the population would impose its will on the majority. Isn't that tyranny? And if you say a majority isn't it unnecessary as that is what is required at the ballot box?
 
Yeesh. So this thread started as a post about a guy openly carrying a rifle to a political event, and now we're down to discussing the 2nd American Revolution.

Whenever open carry comes up, it turns into this. The same tiresome cliches get trotted out yet again. Let's bring up Auschwitz, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao as shaky analogues to what could happen. In fact, let's claim that it's going to happen right here tomorrow unless someone takes radical action.

I've probably had this same conversation dozens of times this year alone. It's always the same. Carrying a gun isn't activism. The gun is a weapon, nothing more and nothing less. In the eyes of gun people, it's nothing scary, but to the people we're supposed to be converting, it is.

Activism takes a great deal of boring and tedious legwork. It's not sexy, and it doesn't make for good soundbites on the evening news. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Skip the Unintended Consequences book club meeting and use that time to research pending legislation and court cases. Write some letters. It'll do far more good.

The plain fact is, the guy isn't a symbol of anything. His actions will lead to no change in policy or law. He's just someone who thought it was a good idea to walk around a political function with an exposed firearm. The vast majority of observers scratch their heads and wonder what he was trying to achieve. I'm one of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top