Nuts, pushing the limit, or exercising 2A ?

Once again, read it slowly. He was perfectly legal, its his right and he exercised his right. The "strategy" you speak of has been tried by the NRA for many years and it amounted to jack. Liberal antis don't give us extra credit for pissing down our own legs . The law is the law and anyone who can't deal with that its their problem not mine.

SO to you strategy is just a synonym for rolling over and taking it? That line of thinking would be funny if it weren't so sad. As gun owners, we obey the law. If you look round, and look at the public overall, it doesn't matter to them. There is a psychological front that we have to break through, and just yelling "its our right!" doesn't do that, as much as we would like to think it would. We need to start realizing that.
 
SO to you strategy is just a synonym for rolling over and taking it? That line of thinking would be funny if it weren't so sad. As gun owners, we obey the law. If you look round, and look at the public overall, it doesn't matter to them. There is a psychological front that we have to break through, and just yelling "its our right!" doesn't do that, as much as we would like to think it would. We need to start realizing that.

Most cant be convinced through logic, reasonableness, or any other means. Reasonable got us 1986, 1994, ...

Its time to stop caring and otherwise just ignore them accept when they try and infringe on our rights. The strategy of appeasement has failed.
 
Look at what is being done by federal bureaucracies, things like itar, restrictions on import, export, and manufacture. Maybe my tin foil is too tight, but it seems to me that the framework for much larger restrictions is being set up and not being dismantled. Dealer background checks should have removed the restriction on out of state handgun sales. It didn't. There is a ratchet effect occurring

Your tinfoil is a bit too tight, other than some fringe stuff controlled by the Obama Admin (like CMPs imports, atf AK barrel part bans and silly shit like that), ATF 41P, pretty much nothing has changed much in the past two decades... well, other than things gradually improving in a number of cases. (someone will bring up
various things happening in anti shithole states, but that shouldn't be a surprise... they're anti shithole states. )

The handgun bullshit you speak of is welded into federal law. In order for it to be undone, legislation would have to be filed to amend US code.

If you want something to be afraid of a very real problem is the antis trying to incrementally destroy various elements of american gun culture. They know they will not win on the front end, so now they've moved to the back and the flanks. The bullshit that Waynes Weaponry etc went through is a prime example. More and more of this will happen as the antis change up their strategies.

-Mike
 
SO to you strategy is just a synonym for rolling over and taking it? That line of thinking would be funny if it weren't so sad. As gun owners, we obey the law. If you look round, and look at the public overall, it doesn't matter to them. There is a psychological front that we have to break through, and just yelling "its our right!" doesn't do that, as much as we would like to think it would. We need to start realizing that.

Rolling over and taking it has been the strategy for decades and it has failed miserably. The fact that you think it works is sad. We dont yell anything , we simply live our lives and if others dont like it then thats their problem not ours . you dont grasp the concept at all .
 
You should care as a gun owner. Irresponsible behavior, legal or not, can be used as ammo against our cause. This doesn't mean you support any sort of government action against him, but you are safe to acknowledge him as a retard looking for his 15 minutes.

Mike

I do not think someone exercising their constitutional rights is irresponsible. Quite the contrary. I have been totally Massified so this should be concerning to me. But it's not. Nor do I think he is a retard. The only reason why we are talking about this is because others were uncomfortable seeing him their with a rifle. The constitution does not say I have to make anyone feel comfortable.

This is why I think that more open carry (starting with handguns) could be a very good thing. People don't freak out over cops carrying guns. People shouldn't freak out about the rest of us carrying guns either.


If it were more common ther would be less freaking out. But this is the anti agenda and this is how they get people to play into their fears. And then others rationalize their rights away in the interest of not wanting to make someone uncomfortable. Even gun owners do not support his rights. This is why we lost....at least here in the northeast.

thats a great sentiment and all, but his, or yours, or anyone else's actions do NOT exist in a vacuum.

It is not sentiment. We are talking about our constitutional rights. The sentiment is the weapon of the anti. My rights should not be governed to comply with fear-mongers.


S we'll just have to agree to disagree...[smile]
 
Last edited:
The guy is not breaking any laws and is on his property! This is not being nuts this is a citizen using his freedom! The issue is NOT with this man but those who attack/ insult him for using his rights while they hide in the shadows so nobody see's them using theirs.
 
Most cant be convinced through logic, reasonableness, or any other means. Reasonable got us 1986, 1994, ...

Its time to stop caring and otherwise just ignore them accept when they try and infringe on our rights. The strategy of appeasement has failed.

for **** sake, appeasement or rolling over is not what I am talking about!

Is this forum really that effing retarded?! IT would appear so....
 
Rolling over and taking it has been the strategy for decades and it has failed miserably. The fact that you think it works is sad. We dont yell anything , we simply live our lives and if others dont like it then thats their problem not ours . you dont grasp the concept at all .

And I am not advocating for rolling over it and taking it to be the strategy? What the **** do you not get??? Do I need to make my words simpler? Would less syllables help you understand?

- - - Updated - - -

Most cant be convinced through logic, reasonableness, or any other means. Reasonable got us 1986, 1994, ...

Its time to stop caring and otherwise just ignore them accept when they try and infringe on our rights. The strategy of appeasement has failed.

So there are only two strategies, in your mind? Great, another simplistic viewpoint......
 
And I am not advocating for rolling over it and taking it to be the strategy? What the **** do you not get??? Do I need to make my words simpler? Would less syllables help you understand?

- - - Updated - - -



So there are only two strategies, in your mind? Great, another simplistic viewpoint......
Could you please share with us the strategy you think helps or advances our right.
 
Could you please share with us the strategy you think helps or advances our right.

It is something I think about frequently, and there is not an easy answer. We obviously know that kowtowing has gotten us nowhere, but forcing guns (literally or figuratively) in the faces of our weak-minded anti-gun oxygen thieves has only had success in certain pockets. As for coming up with a new strategy? If one person could come up with an effective one, that would be great, but it requires a lot more than one person. My point of contention this entire time is that no one wants to actually THINK things through. Applying a little game theory never hurt anyone, yet no one seems to want to do that. I don't have the answer, and I don't believe that one person can come up with it (which goes back to my original gripe about gun owners being a severely disjointed group, and that being a problem). But what I do believe is that we need a better way. The main part of it that I struggle with is whether you just write of certain states as lost causes, but when you look at the people from those states, it is them that all the o there antis follow. So do you go after them after all, even though its one hell of an undertaking, or do you work from the friendlier states and try to spread from there? I see benefits and drawbacks to both ways, but I don't think that just one blanket "we do X" will work everywhere, yet most people want to approach it that way. The part I struggle with is, how far down the chain do you go to find the entry point? The further down you go, the more work gun owners have cut out for themselves in my mind, but maybe not. I don't have an answer to the strategy, but I do know the shit so far hasn't been as successful as we all hoped.
 
And I am not advocating for rolling over it and taking it to be the strategy? What the **** do you not get??? Do I need to make my words simpler? Would less syllables help you understand?

- - - Updated - - -



So there are only two strategies, in your mind? Great, another simplistic viewpoint......

On this topic there is only black and white. Any compromise results in incremental loss of rights. No more. So yes. Only two strategies.

I negotiate for a living. Negotiation only works when both parties engage. When one party compromises and the other won't then the one who wins is predictable.

On this topic we keep compromising and the other side keeps chipping away. It's time to reset the field.

I no longer believe appeasement, compromise, avoidance, etc are viable.

Assuming that because people don't see or agree with your view means they don't think or are stupid is unlikely to advance your cause.
 
On this topic there is only black and white. Any compromise results in incremental loss of rights. No more. So yes. Only two strategies.

I negotiate for a living. Negotiation only works when both parties engage. When one party compromises and the other won't then the one who wins is predictable.

On this topic we keep compromising and the other side keeps chipping away. It's time to reset the field.

I no longer believe appeasement, compromise, avoidance, etc are viable.

Assuming that because people don't see or agree with your view means they don't think or are stupid is unlikely to advance your cause.


100%
 
On this topic there is only black and white. Any compromise results in incremental loss of rights. No more. So yes. Only two strategies.

I negotiate for a living. Negotiation only works when both parties engage. When one party compromises and the other won't then the one who wins is predictable.

On this topic we keep compromising and the other side keeps chipping away. It's time to reset the field.

I no longer believe appeasement, compromise, avoidance, etc are viable.

Assuming that because people don't see or agree with your view means they don't think or are stupid is unlikely to advance your cause.

Go ahead then keep doing the same crap over and over, but know doing "black" didn't work and doing "white" hasn't yielded much worth writing home about either.

Perhaps negotiating involves finding the angle to exploit to force them to engage....
 
On this topic there is only black and white. Any compromise results in incremental loss of rights. No more. So yes. Only two strategies.

I negotiate for a living. Negotiation only works when both parties engage. When one party compromises and the other won't then the one who wins is predictable.

On this topic we keep compromising and the other side keeps chipping away. It's time to reset the field.

I no longer believe appeasement, compromise, avoidance, etc are viable.

Assuming that because people don't see or agree with your view means they don't think or are stupid is unlikely to advance your cause.
THIS. IMO the one strategy that hasn't been tried is shoving it straight in their faces. We give and give, and lose and lose. Time to show them the law, and that it is on our side, en mass. Being disjointed IS an issue with our side. Being out-screamed IS an issue on our side. Yet we have the law. Organization is needed, and then an eff it, we're RIGHT mentality. No more compromise.
 
Right, but Kansas is not Kalifornia and never will be....

[rofl] Might wanna do a quick search of the Dodge City history books, Hoss. And history is circular in nature.

You know, those big gay pride parade's where just attention whores who did harm to the lgbt movement. They should have all just stayed home and been been quiet. [\sarcasm off]

Every time this happens and there is no mass shooting it clues a few more people in that guns dosnt egual evil

It helps when the press is on your side.



The guy isn't too bright. But there are at least 2 more that were even dimmer:

But Kyle said he’s had two people confront him, threatening him because he had a firearm.

ROFL!!!!!!!
 
On this topic there is only black and white. Any compromise results in incremental loss of rights. No more. So yes. Only two strategies.

I negotiate for a living. Negotiation only works when both parties engage. When one party compromises and the other won't then the one who wins is predictable.

On this topic we keep compromising and the other side keeps chipping away. It's time to reset the field.

I no longer believe appeasement, compromise, avoidance, etc are viable.

You're right 99 out of 100 times with this, but there are exceptions - if there was absolutely no compromise, and a bunch of states asked for con carry out of the gate, they'd still be sitting there with their ass in their hands, when instead minor concessiosn were made and millions ended up carrying guns in public as a result of those minor concessions. It's usually a bad idea but occasionally a minor sacrifice has to be made. I don't think the wave of desire for con carry would have happened without the shall issue CCW era. (It gets much easier to sell con carry when you can show that shitloads of people carry guns in public without a problem so why do we need permits?).

Minor compromises were made to ensure that cases like Heller and McDonald would actually "grow legs". Would you just throw those cases away because we didn't "win everything at once" ? [laugh]

Sometimes tactical considerations must be made. That said, all of this isn't really relevant to this "issue" which is some guy holding his gun on his porch...

Assuming that because people don't see or agree with your view means they don't think or are stupid is unlikely to advance your cause.

I think the huge flaw some people are making in this thread is that:

-This guy on the porch with his gun is meaningful to RKBA advocates
-This guy on his porch with a gun actually gives a shit about RKBA activism. He probably doesn't give two ****s.

We need to get away from this nostrum that assumes that every gun owner is some kind of puritanical pro rights crusader or something. It's dumb- it's like saying that a car owner cares about motorists rights, when in reality, maybe .02% do. It's easier to just accept the fact that "some people are stupid" and move on with life. There have always been stupid gun owners, that isn't news. Just because someone doesn't use their right in the most saintly/pious way doesn't magically change everything. I mean even if everyone here thought that he was damaging to our cause, what are you going to do? shoot the guy? [laugh] I never thought that getting worked up over things that are difficult (read impossible) to change was very productive.

FTR, I think this guy is within his right to hug his gun on his porch if he wants to. That said, he's probably a weirdo whose elevator doesn't go to the top, but it's not something, by itself, worth calling the kopsch on. I think this likely got out of hand because of the parking bullshit. There is a 2nd facet to this story that is probably not being told. (probably altercations with people parking in his driveway, etc. Then he decides "I'll loaf with gun out on the porch and see if they **** with me now." even if he didn't admit that being the reason... )

-Mike
 
Last edited:
People need to be reminded that it's a RIGHT ! . It's a RIGHT that keeps getting stepped on and they will NEVER stop until it's gone.

It's a RIGHT ! It's the 2nd on the list for a GOOD reason. You have a right to not like or to disagree with it, but you have no right to infringe upon it. Any law no matter how small or large against it, is an infringement upon that right !

What if he was sitting on the front drinking a 40?
 
Last edited:
There's a lot of I support the 2nd. amendment (but) here. [sad] That's why we've lost a lot of our rights in places and why we have to fight so hard because people are willing to accept and even support infringements which benefit no one but tyrants, criminals, terrorists and madmen.
If all the gun owners would stand as one we wouldn't have to deal with all these infringements.
 
Last edited:
I haven't read all 116 posts, but here's my take.

He's well within his rights, but he's an idiot. If he was actually DOING something with his rifle, like cleaning or it, or ANYTHING, then fine. He's going about his business.

But he seems to be doing this SOLELY for the purpose of drawing attention to himself and alarming others. Now that I write this, I realize its actually the textbook definition of breach of peace. I mean for gods sake, he's just SITTING there with a gun across his lap.

It does us no good. I applaud law enforcement for their recognition of his rights.

He's also not being irresponsible. Unless he's sweeping people with the muzzle. He's just really being stupid.
 
Peicemaker summed it up nicely. Of course me being in Mass this is a no-no. Heck, I back my car into the garage to load my stuff for the range. Talk about paranoid....lol

Nothing wrong with that. Why announce to people that you have firearms, free state or not, you never know who is looking. Lots of guns get stolen every year.
 
I haven't read all 116 posts, but here's my take.

He's well within his rights, but he's an idiot. If he was actually DOING something with his rifle, like cleaning or it, or ANYTHING, then fine. He's going about his business.

But he seems to be doing this SOLELY for the purpose of drawing attention to himself and alarming others. Now that I write this, I realize its actually the textbook definition of breach of peace. I mean for gods sake, he's just SITTING there with a gun across his lap.

It does us no good. I applaud law enforcement for their recognition of his rights.

He's also not being irresponsible. Unless he's sweeping people with the muzzle. He's just really being stupid.
What you call being stupid some would call being free. He can do whatever he wants to that is within the law and his right on his own porch. If you don't like it tough shit. Quite saying "us" as well. Some of "us" don't agree. Just like everyone else not all gun owners think alike.
 
Back
Top Bottom