MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,410
- Likes
- 17,599
Don't call them progressive "idiots".....they're smart, and know how to warp public opinion.
Use another pejorative.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Use another pejorative.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
More Open Carry Fun
- Thread starter In God We Trust
- Start date
There are two flavors of progressive. 9.999/10 of them are idiots who speak of "30 caliber clips" and "the more GBs" and spew whatever "nah, nah, nah, leader!" -Homer Simpson tells them to say at any given moment even if it conflicts with that they said 2 seconds ago.Don't call them progressive "idiots".....they're smart, and know how to warp public opinion.
Use another pejorative.
Just look at MDA. Mouth-breathers a-plenty...
Then there is the 0.001 (it is even less than that) who speak of class warfare from penthouses, from behind gated communities and houses with annual property tax bills that are greater than the average American home (unless you are really elite and can Rangle Rule, or Geithner your way out of them).
They know full well what they are saying is nonsense, but they also know what sells and what sells are empty promises of unearned benefit that will never come, but instead will be papered over with another promise even more ridiculous.
They know crisis and fear sell.
They know if they can keep people dumb and scared they will hand over their power and no matter what label the academics end up putting on your regime, fascism, socialism, communism, monarchy, etc... Those in the inner circles of power will keep their power and wealth far more often than not.
In fact, crisis, chaos and tyranny present awesome profit potential for the corrupt and well connected.
These are the really dangerous ones. Bloomberg is one of them, but too greedy for power to be as subtle as most.
I don't accuse those ones of being dumb, they are anything but...
FREEDOM !!!! Thread fail on everyone who thinks open carry should not happen. if you think open carry should not happen then line up with Bloomberg. it's a choice to open carry or not, if it's legal then go for it. if you are the one saying not don't do it then you are just as bad as the corrupt politicians. America is about freedom of the people and choice. Don't say "oh your only hurting our freedoms" because in the truth of it all your the one who is betraying our freedoms!! Its a right !! Don't forgot it.
A RIGHT !!![[iwojima]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/030.gif "IwoJima [iwojima]")
Since another video of someone I think hurts the cause was posted, I'll say it again:
Open carry BBQ in a public place (go and get a permit even, secondary importance that cops know what is going on if calls start coming in). Everyone dress business casual and have your guns. Interact with the community in a respectful way. Someone see's their CPA, doctor, neighbor with a gun and the stigma of 'gun nut' goes away.
dcmdon
NES Member
Cekim - I agree with you about government and human flaws 100%. The ethos I described above is mine. I may try to convince someone not to ever drink and carry using ethical arguments. But i would never advocate a governmental prohibition on it.
re your 99.999% and you .001 percent.
Thats good. But what about statists like Gabriel Gomez (you know he's hispanic, right?, if you didn't, he'll tell you)
The guy is ex-military (you know he was a SEAL right?) He knows a clip from a mag. Would you say he falls into that .001%, or someother group?
re your 99.999% and you .001 percent.
Thats good. But what about statists like Gabriel Gomez (you know he's hispanic, right?, if you didn't, he'll tell you)
The guy is ex-military (you know he was a SEAL right?) He knows a clip from a mag. Would you say he falls into that .001%, or someother group?
Here's the final analysis: Others can do only what I think is right, proper, and/or smart.
Of course, picking the "I" is the tough part.
Yup, there are way too many people that want to dictate what others can do.
dcmdon
NES Member
Jerry Patterson said the following when rebutting Moms Demand . . in their opposition to OC coming to Texas
"There is no reason to restrict liberty in any way if exercising that liberty is not hurtful. Open carry is not hurtful," he said.
Hmm. That sounds pretty libertarian.
I wonder if that sentiment extends to pot, hookers, and homosexual marriage? I'm guessing it doesn't.
And that, my friends, is the difference between a libertarian and a conservative or a liberal.
"There is no reason to restrict liberty in any way if exercising that liberty is not hurtful. Open carry is not hurtful," he said.
Hmm. That sounds pretty libertarian.
I wonder if that sentiment extends to pot, hookers, and homosexual marriage? I'm guessing it doesn't.
And that, my friends, is the difference between a libertarian and a conservative or a liberal.
Is there a specific law that gives law enforcement the right to open carry or is it the same law, or lack of a law, allowing or not restricting the rest of us to open carry in Massachusetts?
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,410
- Likes
- 17,599
There is no statutory prohibition against open carry of a firearm (meaning handgun) in the Mass. General Laws. It just "Isn't done" by most folks.
There is a statutory prohibition against open carry of a long gun unless lawfully engaged in hunting.
There are numerous carve-outs for all of the prohibitions - parades, law enforcement, etc. etc.
Go read Ch. 140, take two bottles of aspirin, and post again in the morning.
There is no statutory prohibition against open carry of a firearm (meaning handgun) in the Mass. General Laws. It just "Isn't done" by most folks.
There is a statutory prohibition against open carry of a long gun unless lawfully engaged in hunting.
There are numerous carve-outs for all of the prohibitions - parades, law enforcement, etc. etc.
Go read Ch. 140, take two bottles of aspirin, and post again in the morning.
I get all that. I am just trying to figure out if the same lack of a law restricting us is the same "reference" if you will, that is not restricting them as well, in regards to open carry.
I assume that states that restrict open carry exempt law enforcement, military, etc.
It is legal for all LTC holders, including police, to open carry.
In other words, yes.
In the old days, it was the other way around. You always had to make sure the butt or some other part of your pistol was showing, or else you were trying to hide something.
In other words, yes.
In the old days, it was the other way around. You always had to make sure the butt or some other part of your pistol was showing, or else you were trying to hide something.
DispositionMatrix
NES Member
If LTC holders in MA start open carrying regularly, there most certainly will end up being a statutory prohibition against open carry. I assume most MA LTC holders do not want their suitability called into question and prefer to continue to carry concealed exclusively rather than having all their firearms confiscated and ultimately stolen by the state for not breaking the law.There is no statutory prohibition against open carry of a firearm (meaning handgun) in the Mass. General Laws. It just "Isn't done" by most folks.
There is a statutory prohibition against open carry of a long gun unless lawfully engaged in hunting.
There are numerous carve-outs for all of the prohibitions - parades, law enforcement, etc. etc.
Go read Ch. 140, take two bottles of aspirin, and post again in the morning.
Either of those things you mentioned will never happen. Buy a powerball ticket instead, your odds are far better. This has nothing to do with suitability, either, and everything to do with wanting to fly below the radar.
-Mike
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, it's about as "big" as presuming that pigs will start flying out of logan tomorrow.
-Mike
I'd put him in the 0.001 group, he knows the game so he's trying to get in. I guess it is fair to say that Bloomberg and his sycophants like Shannon watts aren't quite the same, but it's really just an expression of their distance from the circles of power.
The question, for me is your motive.
Do you actually want to make things better for everyone and are just. Too dumb to realize you are hurting people or are you just playing the game to win for yourself and don't care how many mass graves you have to dig?
People need to step back and realize that big, open naked power grabs are much, much easier to combat at every level and with every tool at our disposal.
It is the incremental ones that present the true and effective evil of progressivism.
That we presently have courts that REQUIRE you to face an absolute prohibition of your exercise of a right before they even begin to get concerned should tell you that...
They are fine if you can still exercise your rights on odd Tuesdays of odd months, when it rains, while balancing of your left foot, if you have applied for and received a permit of course...
Last edited:
The fact that their existing laws have so effectively "chilled" people from exercise of their rights is the best evidence of their unconstitutional nature I can imagine...
When a "reasonable person" is too afraid to exercise their right, they have violated your rights... Period, end of story.
When a "reasonable person" is too afraid to exercise their right, they have violated your rights... Period, end of story.
DispositionMatrix
NES Member
Hence the use of the conditional if, thus "presumption" and "presuming" do not apply.
dcmdon
NES Member
And in case anyone can't make the jump, there are 2 laws that effectively prohibit OC in MA.
1) Suitability - If you are open carrying and you simply piss off your issuing authority, they can pull your LTC.
2) The need for an LTC to merely possess - In CT in the early days of OC, people got arrested and their pistol permits temporarily pulled. This affected the carrier's ability to carry, but not to own or possess. Their firearms were not taken from them.
So the jeopardy in MA is that OC will get your LTC yanked and all of your firearms taken from you.
In even relatively anti-gun states like CT, you still have a RIGHT to own firearms. So until someone litigates and wins against this in light of Heller/McDonald, thats the way it it in MA.
Also, notice, that we are talking about a Government taking your property without any due process, in clear violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Last edited:
the_shootist
Banned
The simple solution is to leave the state, then nuke the site from orbit...it's the only way to be sure 
They are taking liberty and property without due process. You are presumed guilty as all gun ownership in MA is illegal, unless you are granted a revokable exemption from breaking this law (called an LTC) the burden of suitability - according to the SJC - is "on the applicant".
The harm to your civil rights is not theoretical, or hypothetical, it has already happened to each and every gun owner in this state and any American who has driven through.
It has also happened to 1M people who used to have a license and no longer do...
dcmdon
NES Member
I don't like confrontation either. But a few years ago, when there was a ton of state and fed money flooding CT for DUI roadblocks, I would make a point of driving through the one that was set up in my town about every 2 weeks in the summer. At first, I was a nervous wreck. It got progressively easier as time passed. Low risk encounters with LEOs are a great way to reduce anxiety.
In all cases I refused to answer questions from LEOs and declined requests to submit to field sobriety tests. (politely) In some case, mostly local, cops got semi-belligerent. In every case, CT Troopers were courteous and professional.
I have a serious constitutional problem with DUI checkpoints. It got to a point where I'd roll in towards one, stop and make a 3 point turn and drive away. That would get them really fired up. One of the arguments made that the roadblocks are constitutional is that by entering the roadblock you are agreeing to the "search", and that you always have the freedom to not enter the checkpoint by turning around. In practice, cops don't like that.
Don
the_shootist
Banned
How is that legal? I always thought an 'agreement' like that would need to be in writing and signed to be enforceable. Is there no law anymore or is it all made up as they go along?
dcmdon
NES Member
Thats not true at all. If an officer says "do you mind if I come in your house" and you say "Yes" you are giving consent. You are WAIVING your 4A and 5A rights.
The argument is that by continuing into the checkpoint, you are consenting to be questioned. Since there is no RAS yet, you can always decline. By turning around.
Don
dcmdon
NES Member
Absolutely. Its almost become a joke among libertarians and even ACLU types, but the statement is "I don't consent to any searches".
Ok so lets see...
Guy has rifle.
Guy walking in public way.
Guy has cell phone out of course just waiting for the police to arrive.
SMH to anyone who thinks that people like this guy helps our cause. Yes Yes I know he has rights.
Guy has rifle.
Guy walking in public way.
Guy has cell phone out of course just waiting for the police to arrive.
SMH to anyone who thinks that people like this guy helps our cause. Yes Yes I know he has rights.
