Why We Can't Have A "Reasonable Discussion" On 2A

[ModernGunner]

Couldn't just make your point without taking a shot at OC'ers? Your obsession with them seems unreasonable.

I COULD have. But since I began watching the board, I've seen SOME OC'ers constantly and consistently take shots at CC'ers, berate those who may choose to have a LTCH badge, etc. So much so, it's reasonable and fair to 'return fire'.

In fact, is there not an entire, stickied thread on "The Open Carry Argument"? IF it's not such a 'big deal', why is there a permanent thread for it? Is that reasonable?

Do we not constantly have threads with someone or other complaining about being 'harassed' about OC'ing and ranting that they're being 'discriminated against', and wanting ALL of us, OC'er or not, to boycott this or that business? Is that reasonable?

If it's 'okay' for one side it's reasonable for the others to return in like kind, is it not?

Maybe BOTH sides should let it go and JFC. THAT would be reasonable.

 

[ATM]

...Is that reasonable?...

Yes.

No, wait... what the heck are you even talking about?

 

[Mark 1911]

I COULD have. But since I began watching the board, I've seen SOME OC'ers constantly and consistently take shots at CC'ers, berate those who may choose to have a LTCH badge, etc. So much so, it's reasonable and fair to 'return fire'.

I'm glad you clarified your remark by using "SOME". Many of us simply choose not to participate in the argument, there are much more important issues facing all folks who wish to exercise their 2A freedoms without getting lost in the minutia. It isn't worth it. Exercise your right the way you see fit, but why criticize someone for exercising the right to carry? We are on the same side!

Do we not constantly have threads with someone or other complaining about being 'harassed' about OC'ing and ranting that they're being 'discriminated against', and wanting ALL of us, OC'er or not, to boycott this or that business? Is that reasonable?

Actually no, they are not being harassed for OC, they are being harassed for carrying, period. That's the point. They have every right to carry openly if they choose to, it is their right. The harassment is what's wrong, not the manner of carry. Granted if they were CC, it would go un-noticed, but the fact that the discrimination exists is not about whether someone is open or concealed. The anti-gun attitude will not change unless there are people willing to confront it. I'm not criticizing those who choose not to OC, but I wouldn't criticize someone for being willing to stand up and openly defend a right that you prefer to enjoy secretly.

If it's 'okay' for one side it's reasonable for the others to return in like kind, is it not?

What is unreasonable is to create issues that do not exist. There are no two sides. We are all on the same side. We have enough real enemies who would strip us of our rights, no need to pick fights with windmills like some modern day Don Quixote.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I've came across people arguing the nuke, grenades, rpg's...


As it's been said earlier nukes are WMD as are biological weapons, grenades and rpg's are explosives...none of them are same as firearms.

But the 2A does not specify "firearms". It says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now of course, the Founders' frame of reference would have included knives, swords, handguns, muskets, rifles, cannon, bombs, rockets, and possibly shotguns, not the semi-autos of today nor any of the other modern or yet-to-be-developed weapons of which they could not have specifically conceived. That said, though, it doesn't matter: They were wise enough to know that technology would advance. Hell, the 7A specifies the amount of "twenty dollars" as the amount at which the right of trial by jury must be available. Court costs alone, today, are double that at a minimum, and attorney's fees begin about ten times that figure. The person who would go to court for a twenty dollar matter and not expect it to be dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit would be pursuing a fool's errand, yet no one has ever, to my knowledge, said that the Founders' intent was that the right to a jury trial should have expanded with inflation.

So... Should the RKBA apply to any and all items that can be used as "arms"? I say yes, it should. I don't want my neighbor having nuclear weapons, sarin gas, computer-controlled, roof-mounted machine-guns, or land mines in his flower beds... but it's not my place to tell him what he can and cannot buy. I have the option of talking with him, of persuading him to my point of view, or of leaving and relocating elsewhere. I do not have the right (nor the desire) to compel another person to arm himself only to the limits with which I am comfortable.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[beararms1776]

But the 2A does not specify "firearms". It says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now of course, the Founders' frame of reference would have included knives, swords, handguns, muskets, rifles, cannon, bombs, rockets, and possibly shotguns, not the semi-autos of today nor any of the other modern or yet-to-be-developed weapons of which they could not have specifically conceived. That said, though, it doesn't matter: They were wise enough to know that technology would advance. Hell, the 7A specifies the amount of "twenty dollars" as the amount at which the right of trial by jury must be available. Court costs alone, today, are double that at a minimum, and attorney's fees begin about ten times that figure. The person who would go to court for a twenty dollar matter and not expect it to be dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit would be pursuing a fool's errand, yet no one has ever, to my knowledge, said that the Founders' intent was that the right to a jury trial should have expanded with inflation.

So... Should the RKBA apply to any and all items that can be used as "arms"? I say yes, it should. I don't want my neighbor having nuclear weapons, sarin gas, computer-controlled, roof-mounted machine-guns, or land mines in his flower beds... but it's not my place to tell him what he can and cannot buy. I have the option of talking with him, of persuading him to my point of view, or of leaving and relocating elsewhere. I do not have the right (nor the desire) to compel another person to arm himself only to the limits with which I am comfortable.



Blessings,
Bill

Exactly. To do so, one would be under the false assumption that the rest of the world is completely safe and would void their own purpose for personal protection.

 

[KG1]

Maybe BOTH sides should let it go and JFC. THAT would be reasonable.

I'm all for that. I believe if someone like yourself wouldn't take it upon yourself to chastise OC'ers every chance you get, even when the thread doesn't warrant bringing it up (which you chose to do needlessly) then there wouldn't be a problem.

OC'ers don't care if you choose to CC. They are the ones more in tune with JFC IMO and don't wanna be hassled for exercising their legal right, especially by other gun owners.

 

[jve153]

why is it that when i go onto a forum full of "gun nuts" i find some of the most reasonable people to associate with?

 

[Hammerhead]

why is it that when i go onto a forum full of "gun nuts" i find some of the most reasonable people to associate with?

One of us! One of us!