|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Louisiana > Where is OC going? What can be done to help the cause?
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Louisiana > Where is OC going? What can be done to help the cause?
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
derf Regular Member
|
Realistically, where do you see OC going in the future? How would you like to see the laws change? What does the public perception of OC have to do with OC now and in the future? What would be your ideal American government? |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
Unfortunately, if people like we sometimes see on here keep making the spotlight and making a living suing the government, it may go away. Unlikely, but it could happen. i think it will be an all or nothing. I personally hope it becomes an ALL. More realistically, if we keep losing out rights, we may see them legislate OC away with all the firearms. Then MEM and his crew will have to kill all the cops who stop them to violate what rights they have left. i think the assualt on our firearms will not happen until Obama's second term. And yes, he will get it. That is when we will see the real fun start. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned 
|
nolacopusmc wrote: Unfortunately, if people like we sometimes see on here keep making the spotlight and making a living suing the government, it may go away. Unlikely, but it could happen. So the government either gets to terrorize you, or it takes all your rights away? i think the assualt on our firearms will not happen until Obama's second term. And yes, he will get it. That is when we will see the real fun start. It's not Obama or his ilk who worries me the most. And if he does something, say, ban all guns, just what do you think the citizenry should do? Last edited on Sat Jun 20th, 2009 02:34 am by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
derf Regular Member
|
And if he does something, say, ban all guns, just what do you think the citizenry should do? Elect you and MEM. |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
derf wrote: And if he does something, say, ban all guns, just what do you think the citizenry should do? While possible, it is highly unlikely that will happen. i think if a blanket ban were done, then that would most certainly result in the beginnings of a true revolution....excatly what the Second Ammendment was created for. |
|||||||||
|
Oscarr Regular Member 
|
nolacopusmc wrote: derf wrote:Yup, personally I think they're not that stupid, they won't ever out-right ban guns instantly, it'll be done like it was in Europe. Slowly chipping away at the lesser-used rights, until finally there's nothing left.And if he does something, say, ban all guns, just what do you think the citizenry should do? Edit: Which is another reason I OC, even if proven to be a detriment to my health (and we've already had that discussion) if we don't use it/defend it, they'll legislate it away. Last edited on Wed Jul 1st, 2009 05:40 pm by Oscarr |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
Oscarr wrote: nolacopusmc wrote:derf wrote:Yup, personally I think they're not that stupid, they won't ever out-right ban guns instantly, it'll be done like it was in Europe. Slowly chipping away at the lesser-used rights, until finally there's nothing left.And if he does something, say, ban all guns, just what do you think the citizenry should do? I understand and agree with that logic to an extent, but history has also proven that no matter how much we use a right, if they have it in their mind to do away with it, they will. kinda like the 1st. Try hangin a noose on your porch, or making a statement about Obama, and see if you do not get attention. |
|||||||||
|
XD-GEM Activist Member 
|
nolacopusmc wrote: derf wrote:And if he does something, say, ban all guns, just what do you think the citizenry should do? Quite right; which is why you will see only attempts at international treaties or national incremental steps, as happened in England, Australia, and Canada (although there has been some popular backlash in Canada). I remember reading somewhere a quote from one of the leading gun-banners saying incremental steps were the only way to do it. (If I could remember enough about the quote, I'd Google it and post. Maybe this jars someone else's memory?) |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
Shame on you, XD GEM, for making reference to something you read without providing at least 10 sources to confirm what you're saying is true !! At least a dozen anti-oc'ers will take you to task for that. This site's become a turdbowl. |
|||||||||
|
Dustin Regular Member 
|
XD-GEM wrote: nolacopusmc wrote:derf wrote:And if he does something, say, ban all guns, just what do you think the citizenry should do? That's how the government has been doing it all for hundred of years now. Look at how current taxes came about especially income tax. Our Gun Right freedoms have been under DIRECT attack for a few hundred years. In fact the NRA helped that along with the NFA of 1934 on Fully Automatic Machine Guns. It's been speeding along ever since ..... Just chip, chip chipping away at the foundation, eventually the house will collapse and all hell will break loose... |
|||||||||
|
IA-Pro Regular Member 
|
XD-GEM wrote: nolacopusmc wrote:derf wrote:And if he does something, say, ban all guns, just what do you think the citizenry should do? Here's one of many: "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." Janet Reno  |
|||||||||
|
Oscarr Regular Member
|
I also read a quote (I will have to try and find it of course, for proof) but it was from a professor at Harvard who was teaching other would-be teachers, and I'm paraphrasing here but he said: "You have to realize that when you're in school and teaching, all the kids coming to you have mental problems, they have been indoctrinated by religious people, gun rights people, and people 'proud' of being american - it's your job to prepare them and mold them to become world citizens". My jaw dropped when I read that, but that's how they're gonna do it, a 2-pronged attack: Slowly chip away at our rights over time, and indoctrinate our kids in public school, so the next generation will ASK for the rights to be taken away. As to the original post/questions: Realistically, where do you see OC going in the future?REALISTICALLY? I don't see it going much of any where, there's all this talk about a huge influx of CCW permit apps, why don't those people just OC (if nothing else, at least while waiting on their permit). Lots of people don't know it's legal - needs to be talked about openly more, on prime time, not just a few small local newspapers. HOPEFULLY more people will do it, and it'll become common place, and thus, a safer state. How would you like to see the laws change?No permit needed to carry concealed, carry a gun however you want, I honestly don't see why I need permission to put something UNDER my clothing, but it's ok to have it on TOP of my clothing. No restrictions on where you can carry either, I advocate personal responsibility. Let people do whatever they want, just hold them accountable to their actions. If someone is stupid enough to get drunk while carrying and shoots someone - execute them. But don't punish me cause of what someone else MIGHT do. I'm perfectly capable of going into a bar for a good time with some friends, having a couple drinks withOUT getting drunk, and then going home - I've done it plenty of times. Let me carry a gun to school, let the teachers carry. Ever heard the saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." If some nut-job walks into a school with the intent to kill people, he should only be able to get ONE shot off before everyone else turns on him and blasts him away. No words on a piece of paper will keep someone from going to a school and shooting people, it only keeps the law abiding people from being able to defend themselves. What does the public perception of OC have to do with OC now and in the future?Again, it needs to be practiced more or it will be legislated away. I think it was nola who said that regardless if they want to ban something, they will anyway. To a degree I agree, but we've seen the people cry out and stop stuff too - like when we overloaded the DC phone system with calls against ammnesty. But if only a FEW people are pro-OC then ya, it could be taken away from us without an upcry of protest from many people. What would be your ideal American government? Well, I honestly don't think we should discuss this here as it relates to mannnnyyy things other than just OC and is prolly just gonna lead to a lot of arguments / "heated discussions" buuuttt since you asked... The people that hate this country and are scared of personal responsibility/want the government to run their lives should just go to Europe. That won't happen so honestly I'd really like to see the country split assuming we can't get rid of the federal . For lack of better terms you'd have the "liberal states of america" and the "traditional/conversvative/founding-principle states or america". We really are too big, with too many things that people will NEVER agree on, not just gun rights, but things like homosexuality, abortion, foreign policy, environment, etc etc. IDEALLY I would like to see each state be it's own country. And "The United States" would be only for the states coming together to DEFEND against attacks on any of the states by a foreign country. That's it. Everything else is up to each individual state, and people could move to whichever state was more inline with their personal views. Everyone wins. Edit: Sorry for all the edits, trying to refine some thoughts, catch spelling errors, etc. This is really only the tip of the iceburg on these subjects, an introductory 'sentence' in a 1000 page essay.  Last edited on Wed Jul 1st, 2009 07:57 pm by Oscarr |
|||||||||
|
CaptainDan Regular Member 
|
WHAT CAN BE DONE TO HELP THE CAUSE ? Here is my .02 Every OCer take responsibility for His own community. Carry your gun EVERY WHERE you go. Let every one see it, every time. Be a walking bill board. Advertise, T-shirts, hats, etc. are available on this very site that convey our message (OC is legal) And no I don't work for this site and make no profit off their sales. Lets get together, decide on a symbol, or standard, whatever and print bumper stickers then slap one on your vehicle. I can print them on my computer, T-shirts too. As any one with a printer and a screen print program can. It just needs to be a recognizable symbol (the NRA does it, you see NRA stickers,hats,shirts every where) Organize 2 meet ups a year, one during the week and one on a weekend.If we had 400 OCers at a cook out I GAURANTEE the media would notice. Take out an add in the paper (what $12.00 ?) announcing the event. Just like it has heen said many times, seeing the same thing over and over "desencatizes" the act, making the odd common place. Every one of us is allready OC loyal, WE are not the problem. Educating the masses should be the mission. If you don't mind being hassaled, do nothing. I don't like it , I got a couple of OC shirts and will sport them every where I can . Would like to do more but can't do it alone, we need to be more organized. If the spotted oh no bird can have it's own organized foundation, why can't WE? (I made the oh no bird thing up as an example, but you know what I mean) |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
I'm all for it, but I seriously doubt Louisiana has 400 OC'ers. You may have 400 WANNABES and POSERS, but when you get down to the genuine article, naw. If you want to acclimate the sheeple of Amerika to OC, try visiting "public" places, such as, say, BASS PRO SHOP, or WALGREEN'S. For an even better impression, do it in a GROUP. I'll end now so the smallminded bayoushooter, CC types can attack. |
|||||||||
|
Oscarr Regular Member
|
If it's going to be 2 meets a year, can we have one in north LA? or at least towards the middle. |
|||||||||
|
derf Regular Member
|
No attack from me. I don't think I fall into "the smallminded bayoushooter, CC types" category. I don't see myself as small minded. I do post on bs.com sometimes. I do CC sometimes, but I do not have a CC permit. I OC sometimes. That doesn't make me a wannabe or poser. I think public perception is important. I think irresponsible behavior by OCers will have a negative effect on OC. I think if a few nutcases cause trouble while OCing then the anti-gun lobby will use them as an excuse to close "the OC loophole". That is why I am so very critical of planned trips to businesses and sensationalized accounts of those visits. I agree "A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost" but I also think a right abused will be a right taken away. "Acclimating the sheeple of Amerika" while spouting anti-government rhetoric is not going to work. Striking fear into "the sheeple" will not carry the flag for OC. What is best for OC is OCers who behave responsibly and respect others ("the sheeple") and the authorities. |
|||||||||
|
FreeCitizen Regular Member 
|
I believe that the fourth question the OP asked was the key question to answer the other three. The ideal Government would be the one that those great Men created - a Republic based on the Constitution of the United States of America. |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
Derf, People need to quit getting their panties in a twist over what some boneheaded nimrod thinks about YOUR rights. If you're running for office, yea, you may want to polish your image. But going about your daily life doing what you have a RIGHT to do? "Irresponsible behavior." Again, you won't come right out and say it, but I will. No, exercising a right is NOT that at all. Go ahead, refer to me, Anthony and Double J as "nutcases." Your opinion doesn't matter at all. There is no "OC loophole." That's about what I've come to expect from CC / bayoushooter-type folks. Open carry, unlike CC, is a RIGHT, get over it. Lots of organizations plan outings to forward their causes. But, in true NRA (negotiate rights away) form, you cringe at the very mention of such. BTW, would you go ahead and come out of the closet and admit you're a LIFETIME member of the NRA? You certainly sound like one. Let's see. I should OC only in my closet, at night, when no one's around. You, like most statist/flag worshippers, wouldn't dare speak ill of Mother Government. Which is part of why this once-great Republic is going down the turdbowl. Authorities? LOL, your kind will never comprehend we ARE the authorities. There's no shame in BEIN stupid, the shame's in STAYIN stupid. |
|||||||||
|
CaptainDan Regular Member
|
Man, you guys are killing Me. This is probably OC's biggest obstacle. Instead of Rallying to the cause We rip each other to shreds. I agree the meet ups need NOT BE political ,or anti government , or anti anything for that matter. Instead , like minded free men(and women) having a cook out, turket shoot, whatever! Just Open carrying. Why not organize events, outings etc.? Not to piss any body off but to be seen as regular people who choose to excersize our right to OC. We are so busy with petty name calling and bickering We have lost sight of a REAL issue. I'm not casting stones and am in no way singleing any one out but JEESE! Wanna OC with out B.S. or not? Lets make people see us in a positive light instead of a bunch of whack jobs. Hate the Gov? Great ! Love the Gov? wonderful! Can't We have a get together as just OCers ? Not a rally, just a meet up. How many company picnics have you ate potatoe salad standing next to a muslum? Hindu ? Whatever. |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
You're correct. We SHOULD rally behind OC, but not the NRA sanitized version. I just cannot understand why so many who CLAIM to support OC get so worked up when we DO oc. Either you support OC or you don't, get your arse off the fence. Anyone who still supports the government of THIS country cannot, with a straight face, claim to be a real, genuine, honest-to-goodness supporter of gun rights. Are you referring to the very government which is trying to SQUASH your right to carry? LOL, just too funny. Whack jobs? Yea, most Amerikan sheeple would consider me to be just that. I wear that title proudly. |
|||||||||
|
CaptainDan Regular Member
|
I wasn't calling you a whack job nor insulting your views, I merely meant if we gather and act like asses, it will hurt our cause. I suggest we all leave other agendas at the door and have an OC meet up for the purpose of OC and nothing ealse. |
|||||||||
|
CaptainDan Regular Member
|
I hate cats but do not condem you for loving the worthless, smelly, rat lookin wastes of fur, however we , as far as I know don't carry cats on our belts in public. Therefor our difference on cats doesn't matter, does it? |
|||||||||
|
derf Regular Member
|
"Irresponsible behavior." Again, you won't come right out and say it, but I will. No, exercising a right is NOT that at all. An example of irresponsible behavior would be OCing in Wal Mart and not leaving when asked to leave. I can point to a recent case. The OCer did not understand his right to OC and where the boundaries are. He acted irresponsibly and was arrested and prosecuted. I know you, Mr. M, know better. But, this isn't alwasys about you. Go ahead, refer to me, Anthony and Double J as "nutcases." Your opinion doesn't matter at all. There is no "OC loophole." That's about what I've come to expect from CC / bayoushooter-type folks. Open carry, unlike CC, is a RIGHT, get over it. I did not directly refer to you or anyone else specifically as nutcases, although I admit my opinion leans that way sometimes. There are some nutcases on bayoushooter, too, I'm sure. Legally there is no "OC loophole" but you can bet the farm that "the sheeple" see OC as a loophole or throwback from the days of the Wild West. If you don't think some negative publicity could sink OC for all of us then you are just in denial. Articles, sections, laws, verdicts, opinions, and sentiment will be useless if the issue is thrust upon the legislature and they vote to end OC in LA. I don't think a majority of "the sheeple" are pro-OC and therefore I think we (OCers) should tread lightly. Otherwise there will come a day when we have the OC right taken from us. I hope I'm wrong and it never happens. |
|||||||||
|
CaptainDan Regular Member
|
If we turn a friendly law abiding OC meet up into an anti Gov Rally, were all fuc%@# Not going to the meet up to over throw the Gov. just have lunch with good people who think like me. We'll over throw the Gov. next time. |
|||||||||
|
derf Regular Member
|
You're correct. We SHOULD rally behind OC, but not the NRA sanitized version. I just cannot understand why so many who CLAIM to support OC get so worked up when we DO oc. Either you support OC or you don't, get your arse off the fence. I support OC. But I don't support it in exactly the same way you do. I don't get worked up when you do it. It is what you do WHILE you are OCing that affects others' right to OC. Anyone who still supports the government of THIS country cannot, with a straight face, claim to be a real, genuine, honest-to-goodness supporter of gun rights. Are you referring to the very government which is trying to SQUASH your right to carry? LOL, just too funny. Sorry, but I still believe America (with Obama) is still better than most other places I could go. Otherwise, we are all free to leave America. Whack jobs? Yea, most Amerikan sheeple would consider me to be just that. I wear that title proudly. You said it. I can agree with that somewhat. |
|||||||||
|
derf Regular Member
|
CaptainDan wrote: If we turn a friendly law abiding OC meet up into an anti Gov Rally, were all fuc%@# LOL, next time. I agree with that. |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
It's quite easy to consider people like me whackjobs or nutjobs. That's due to your own lack of knowledge and/or worship of the institution of state. HOPEFULLY, after much real life experiences and living with eyes wide open, you TOO, will realize I've been speaking the truth all along and it won't sound or come across as so "far out." If I don't teach you kids anything else, let it be this: the legislature CANNOT "close the OC loophole" for two reasons. 1. it's a right beyond their reach; 2. it would require a constitutional convention, with a very, very, very, very, an almost non-existent chance of happening. Just admit it. We (me and the few other real OC'ers) have a RIGHT guaranteed under article 1 sec 11 to bear arms, not owing it's existence to anyone. Nobody has to approve of OC in order for any of us TO OC. Quit whining about jeopardizing anything, this is beginning to sound like an NRA forum. Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 02:31 am by mark edward marchiafava |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: It's quite easy to consider people like me whackjobs or nutjobs. We will see about that. Many things were out of their reach, and they still happened. |
|||||||||
|
NAT Regular Member 
|
The way you are informing a business that open carry is your constitutional right we will start seeing them exercise their rights ---NO SMOKING-NO OPEN CARRY Then you can open carry at home and in your truck but no where else |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
NAT wrote: The way you are informing a business that open carry is your constitutional right we will start seeing them exercise their rights ---NO SMOKING-NO OPEN CARRY According to mem, and he is never wrong, we are all just crazy, private property owners have no rights. His right to OC trumps what you can tell him to do or not do on YOUR property. |
|||||||||
|
x-sheeple Regular Member 
|
I have enjoyed reading the posts here for a couple of months now and decided to put in my .02. There are many opinons here about OC and CC, but we all need to realize that our common ground is "the right to keep and bear arms". MEM, I have read all of your comments and learned of your past, speaking of OCing. I have to say that I agree with you on many issues. Many Americans are asleep and unaware that this country is under attack from within by the far left. Our constitution is slowly being eroded away and interpreted by the left as it fits "their" agenda. I understand your stance on OCing to which it is our constitutional right but there are those in government, I know you're well aware, who don't agree. I am an OCer myself but I also have CCW permit for when I want to conceal carry. I do not agree with this law but I do not want to go to jail if caught CC without it. It is an improachment on our 2nd amendment rights, but it is the law in LA. Sorry about being so long, but I guess my point is that we all need to work together to change these un-constitutional laws. |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
LOL, just LOVE your nickname. At least you're man enough to admit you're an EX. Keep reading, studying and asking questions, then you'll agree with me on just about ALL issues. The truth IS out there, for those who truly want to learn, unlike most here. Slowly being eroded? Naw, check the speedometer, it's whizzing on down the road to serfdom. Most of "those in government" don't agree with me on just about anything, which explains the mess this once-great Republic is in. If they DID agree with me, well, it wouldn't be this way at all. CCW permits: the state is the enemy of liberty, plain and simple. It no longer even attempts to present the image of being there to protect your rights or "serve" you. The gloves are off. To stoop, beg and whimper for a permission slip only further empowers them. I'd love to see the day when ZERO permits are issued, everyone is OC'ing instead. I can just hear the NRA types now................... |
|||||||||
|
turbodog Regular Member 
|
derf wrote: +1 Well said. |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, Rosa Parks would be in jail, there would still be "whites only" water fountains and blacks would not be allowed to vote. The only reason I can come up with for such stiff opposition to OC'ing is cowardice. The NRA should pay for a banner ad on this site, with so many potential recruits present. |
|||||||||
|
turbodog Regular Member
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: The only reason I can come up with for such stiff opposition to OC'ing is cowardice. Mark, Who here, on these boards, opposes OC? Yes, some people on the BayouShooter boards do, but this is an OC forum. Most of what we talk about here has to do with OC, wether it's about laws, people, places, experiences, it's in some way about Open Carry. Unless it's a new guy just getting into this movement, most have carried a firearm openly while about our daily business, or if not, have already expressed support for the option of OC. What oposition? You OC, we OC. Unless you're refering to something other than the act of open carry, where is the cowardice? I mean these as honest questions, not MEM bashing. |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
Have you ever noticed the NRA openly supporting OC? I haven't. Most NRA types claim to support the right to bear arms, but not openly. They give the concept of bearing arms lip service, but are offended by someone like me who actually DOES bear arms. They use the excuse of "public perception" to shield their cowardice. You'll never see THEM actually bearing arms OC style. It is THOSE people who I consider cowards. Bear arms, just not in public. |
|||||||||
|
x-sheeple Regular Member
|
I agree with that. |
|||||||||
|
turbodog Regular Member
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Have you ever noticed the NRA openly supporting OC? I haven't. Thank you for clearing that up. For the record I'm a long-time NRA member. But then, you did say "most" not "all".  |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
IF, IF, IF OC is to move forward, it's going to be done by the man on the street, withOUT the assistance of the NRA (negotiate rights away). OC'ing in private, OC'ing only where it's "approved," is NOT going to "carry the flag." The push needs to take place where OC'ing is NOT met with open arms. Am I advocating knowingly entering places where it's legally not allowed? Not necessarily. But to purposely avoid possible confrontation is cowardice. |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: IF, IF, IF OC is to move forward, it's going to be done by the man on the street, withOUT the assistance of the NRA (negotiate rights away). You of course realize, that the 2nd amendment, when viewed in it's literal cvontext at the time it was written does not support open or concealed carry, it simply means having arms available should the need to join the military in the reserve against the government should arise? Nowhere in there does it say anything about carrying arms. Literary scholars state that in the times it was written, "bear arms" simply refers tot he ability to have a weapon available, IE own, should it be needed, and their most likely atempt was to allow for the citizenery to be armed shoulda revolt be necessary against the government or the military need resevres? Now, i am in now way saying that we should not have the right to "keep and bear" and "open carry and conceal" arms, but am sure an internet scholar such as yourself, while most likely reluctant to admit, is aware of this fact. |
|||||||||
|
XD-GEM Activist Member
|
nolacopusmc wrote:
Actually, the US Supreme Court addressed this in the Heller decision and concluded that the original meaning of "bear" did mean "carry" in addition to what you have posted. They also noted, fleetingly, what you state about there being no difference between "open" and "concealed." That distinction did not really crop up until nearly a hundred years later. |
|||||||||
|
XD-GEM Activist Member
|
Thought I'd share this. The answer to the question is from me
|
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
XD-GEM wrote: nolacopusmc wrote: I am aware of Heller. And while the Supreme COurts decision is definitely in our favor and a good thing, I am speaking more along the lines of literary meaning. The supreme court, while infinite in it's wisdom , does not know jack about that.Just pointing out a point of fact, or opinion depending how much weight you put on literary scholars. |
|||||||||
|
XD-GEM Activist Member
|
Sorry, I may have not been precise in my post. The USSC opinion examined the definition of each operative word of the 2nd Amendment in a rather lengthy way. The discussion of "bear" is on pages 10-12 of this pdf file from the Court. If you back up a few pages, you can read the analysis of "keep and bear arms" in its entirety. This is all way to long to post, but I hope everyone takes a moment to look at it. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
XD-GEM wrote: Sorry, I may have not been precise in my post. The USSC opinion examined the definition of each operative word of the 2nd Amendment in a rather lengthy way. The discussion of "bear" is on pages 10-12 of this pdf file from the Court. If you back up a few pages, you can read the analysis of "keep and bear arms" in its entirety. This is all way to long to post, but I hope everyone takes a moment to look at it. Not disputing that, I am just saying that the USSC is probably not literary experts. Admittedly, I have not read the decision in it's entirety. Will do soon though. |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
* |
|||||||||
|
x-sheeple Regular Member
|
nolacopusmc....just wondering, If and when the government comes for our guns, whose side are you going to be on.....will you obey your superior or stand for the constitution? No offense..just wondering |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
x-sheeple wrote: nolacopusmc....just wondering, If and when the government comes for our guns, whose side are you going to be on.....will you obey your superior or stand for the constitution? No offense..just wondering That is a good question. i honestly cannot answer that right now. I am probably 75% on the side of saying I would not do it, but to be honest, it depends on the circumstances. COmplete ban on guns, door to door to take from people, absolutely not. |
|||||||||
|
x-sheeple Regular Member
|
Thanks for your honest answer. |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
x-sheeple wrote: Thanks for your honest answer. Anytime. That's how I roll. LOL |
|||||||||
|
Dustin Regular Member
|
All Military folks swear the whole defend against Foreign and Domestic etc.etc, but I can tell you one thing, is the @#$% hits the fan, that's going right out the window. Troops are Americans first, not AmeriKans or Liberal demogods. We're not brainwashed dummies that listen to the President. I wouldn't count on EVER seeing an all out Ban & Confiscation of Firearms. At least I wouldn't plan on living through it. |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
Dustin wrote: All Military folks swear the whole defend against Foreign and Domestic etc.etc, but I can tell you one thing, is the @#$% hits the fan, that's going right out the window. Troops are Americans first, not AmeriKans or Liberal demogods. We're not brainwashed dummies that listen to the President. I wouldn't count on EVER seeing an all out Ban & Confiscation of Firearms. At least I wouldn't plan on living through it. That is pretty much it. |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
* |
|||||||||
|
jimmyb Regular Member
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: * here is that same eloquent mark from mark. Has he finaly shut up? we will see |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
jimmyb wrote: mark edward marchiafava wrote:he obviously lacks the intelligence to explain himself.* Must be something only Teir 3 memonite cult members know. G14 classified. |
|||||||||
|
Oscarr Regular Member
|
Prolly just a mark to remember to come back and post something later. Anyway, I know lots of people in the military that wouldn't follow an unconstitutional order -- as you said, defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, if the POTUS ever ordered something against the constitution done, wouldn't that make him an enemy by default? Most people in the military are there cause it's a job to pay the bills, very very few are brain-washed zombies that do what they're told no matter what. I'd assume the same goes for most LEOs. |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
Oscarr wrote: Prolly just a mark to remember to come back and post something later. You would be correct. Also correct about mem's mark maybe being a way for him to save a space and come back to post as his alter ego smokingcrack24/7 once his meds wear off. |
|||||||||
|
charlie12 Regular Member
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, Rosa didn't do anything for me. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Icharlie12 wrote: mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, I can't stop you from spouting your pro-cop anti-Americanism. All I can ask is that you save your attacks on great Americans until after the Fourth of July weekend. Remember, the cops arrested Rosa Parks. Sadly, some occupations are paid to destroy America, sadder, with American tax dollars. |
|||||||||
|
jimmyb Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Icharlie12 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, what a wack job you hate the military but you want to celebrate the day we set aside to celebrate our independents that was won with military |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
jimmyb wrote: smoking357 wrote:Icharlie12 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, Please for give him. It takes a couple hours for his meds to kick in and for him to realize what personality he is typing from. |
|||||||||
|
Dustin Regular Member
|
jimmyb wrote:
|
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
The first American revolution was a struggle to free ourselves from an oppressive government. What we have today is FAR worse that what our predecessors had to overcome. The "military" of that era wasn't what we have today. What we DO have now is not a DEfensive force, but an OFFensive force which trots around the globe violating other sovereign nations with NO declaration of war. You're comparing apples to watermelons. |
|||||||||
|
jimmyb Regular Member
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: The first American revolution was a struggle to free ourselves from an oppressive government. What we have today is FAR worse that what our predecessors had to overcome. Where is the ************* at? Oppressive government is what our Military is still fighting today. Iraq, Afghanistan was that not Oppressive governments? what kind of hole do you live in? We are giving the people of those country's the chance to have the same thing that we have here. In the end it is there choice what thay do with it.  Your stupid post make my blood boil.  9-11 was not a declaration of war? did Al Qaeda not attack us was Al Qaeda not running Afghanistan at the time? I am calmer now. Look if you dont like the way this country is ( I love the USA) I am willing and I am sure others will chip in to fly you to Canada or Mexico to live get the hell out of here. and o yea some apples are green on the outside so are watermelons and some are red and watermelons are red on the inside!! |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
That was a predictable, futile attempt to teach you something you either don't know or refuse to learn. But it won't happen again, |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: That was a predictable, futile attempt to teach you something you either don't know or refuse to learn. promise? |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: The first American revolution was a struggle to free ourselves from an oppressive government. What we have today is FAR worse that what our predecessors had to overcome. i actually agree with the crazy guy to some extent on this point. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
jimmyb wrote: smoking357 wrote:Icharlie12 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, The militia won the war, you flunkout, and Washington's army is not on duty today. Are you so ignorant that you'd conflate an army of defence and an army of foreign aggression? You Liberals love your big government military. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
jimmyb wrote: I am calmer now. Look if you dont like the way this country is ( I love the USA) I am willing and I am sure others will chip in to fly you to Canada or Mexico to live get the hell out of here. Better yet, why don't you improve the country and take your Leftist a$$ to another country where your socialism is more welcome? |
|||||||||
|
jimmyb Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: jimmyb wrote:where should thay put there agression if not foreign? The miltia was part of the military.smoking357 wrote:Icharlie12 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, |
|||||||||
|
jimmyb Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: jimmyb wrote:I am calmer now. Look if you dont like the way this country is ( I love the USA) I am willing and I am sure others will chip in to fly you to Canada or Mexico to live get the hell out of here. I am not the one complaning about the country and everything in it. That would be where you and mark come in. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member 
|
jimmyb wrote: smoking357 wrote:Do you have a cite for that? Well, a cite for "the militia was part of the military."where should thay put there agression if not foreign? The miltia was part of the military. |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
smoking357 wrote: jimmyb wrote:smoking357 wrote:Icharlie12 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, PERSONAL ATTACK |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
smoking357 wrote: jimmyb wrote:smoking357 wrote:Icharlie12 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, PERSONAL ATTACK |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
nolacopusmc wrote: smoking357 wrote:jimmyb wrote:smoking357 wrote:Icharlie12 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, What's the matter, chicken$hit, can't fight back with an argument? Can't draw a cogent thought from that hate-addled tyrant's brain? Don't cry, boy. Now clean the tears off this thread before I rub your nose in it some more. |
|||||||||
|
charlie12 Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Icharlie12 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, I never attack great Americans. What does Rosa have to do with great Americans? She can have the bus nobody in their right mind rides a bus anymore. Too much crime on them, that's why you need to OC on the bus. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
charlie12 wrote: smoking357 wrote:She helped make it possible for every american to choose their own seat on the bus, if they choose to ride one. Including those who conduct lawful activity such as OC or CC.Icharlie12 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, |
|||||||||
|
FreeCitizen Regular Member
|
nolacopusmc wrote: mark edward marchiafava wrote: I'd like to know where you get your information. Webster's Dictionary - bear: transitive verb 1 a : to move while holding up and supporting b : to be equipped or furnished with c : behave, conduct <bearing himself well> d : to have as a feature or characteristic <bears a likeness to her grandmother> e : to give as testimony <bear false witness> f : to have as an identification <bore the name of John> g : to hold in the mind or emotions <bear malice> h : disseminate i : lead, escort j : render, give 2 a : to give birth to b : to produce as yield c (1) : to permit growth of (2) : contain <oil-bearing shale> 3 a : to support the weight of : sustain b : to accept or allow oneself to be subjected to especially without giving way <couldn't bear the pain> <I can't bear seeing you cry> c : to call for as suitable or essential <it bears watching> d : to hold above, on top, or aloft e : to admit of : allow f : assume, accept 4 : thrust, pressintransitive verb 1 : to produce fruit : yield 2 a : to force one's way b : to extend in a direction indicated or implied c : to be situated : lie d : to become directed e : to go or incline in an indicated direction 3 : to support a weight or strain —often used with up 4 a : to exert influence or force b : apply, pertain —often used with on or upon<facts bearing on the question> — bear a hand : to join in and help out — bear arms 1 : to carry or possess arms 2 : to serve as a soldier — bear fruit : to come to satisfying fruition, production, or development — bear in mind : to think of especially as a warning : remember — bear with : to be indulgent, patient, or forbearing with To have something available if the need should arise is to store: to place or leave in a location for preservation or later use It doesn't say " to keep and store arms. |
|||||||||
|
jimmyb Regular Member
|
wrightme wrote: jimmyb wrote:smoking357 wrote:Do you have a cite for that? Well, a cite for "the militia was part of the military."where should thay put there agression if not foreign? The miltia was part of the military. let me dust off my books from 1812 and I will see. I havent had time to tranpose them onto the internet yet. |
|||||||||
|
jimmyb Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: nolacopusmc wrote:smoking357 wrote:jimmyb wrote:smoking357 wrote:Icharlie12 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, MEM run over and give him his suppository meds please I think he didnt take them or he ran out |
|||||||||
|
Jerry McBride Founder's Club Member
|
wrightme wrote: She helped make it possible for every american to choose their own seat on the bus, if they choose to ride one. Including those who conduct lawful activity such as OC or CC. Nice try with the OC/CC tie in. |
|||||||||
|
x-sheeple Regular Member
|
I believe we all love our country and are willing to die for it (the principles on which it was founded). But I fear that our country is changing fast and I don't like the direction we are headed. We are slowly loosing our rights...just look at the states that do not allow carrying of handguns at all because of pressure by the liberal anti-gun activists groups. Our rights are "owning and carrying guns in any fashion in which we choose"... provided you are a law abiding citizen to the United States Constitution. I say loyal to the constitution because there are corrupted elected officials in our government who do not care about our constitutional rights. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
jimmyb wrote: smoking357 wrote:nolacopusmc wrote:smoking357 wrote:jimmyb wrote:smoking357 wrote:Icharlie12 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, You want to orally insert a suppository in Mark? Ewww, you're sick. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
charlie12 wrote: smoking357 wrote:Icharlie12 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, A Real American would know. |
|||||||||
|
Jerry McBride Founder's Club Member
|
Welcome to OCDO. |
|||||||||
|
jimmyb Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: jimmyb wrote:smoking357 wrote:nolacopusmc wrote:smoking357 wrote:jimmyb wrote:smoking357 wrote:Icharlie12 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, nice try but sleep on it you might come up with a better one in the morning. |
|||||||||
|
x-sheeple Regular Member
|
As far as standing in opposition to "government control over our lives", I am with MEM. We are citizens of the U.S. NOT SUBJECTS. We have rights... If I am minding my own business and not committing a crime,I should not have to "show my papers" to anyone....If we don't stand up for our rights...we will loose them! |
|||||||||
|
Jerry McBride Founder's Club Member
|
x-sheeple wrote: As far as standing in opposition to "government control over our lives", I am with MEM. We are citizens of the U.S. NOT SUBJECTS. We have rights... If I am minding my own business and not committing a crime,I should not have to "show my papers" to anyone....If we don't stand up for our rights...we will loose them! International travel, driving, secure areas, etc. may require papers. Commit a crime or not, minding your own business or not, no papers required. Same for standing up for your rights, no papers required. |
|||||||||
|
x-sheeple Regular Member
|
Yes, I understand that...in Monroe, LA there is a city ordinace which states you must have an I.D. on your person if you are walking down the sidewalk. In other words if you are walking in town and a police officer stops and asks to see your I.D. and you don,t have one...you could go to jail...at his discretion |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
Jerry McBride wrote: wrightme wrote:Yeah, hopeful to refocus. It failed.She helped make it possible for every american to choose their own seat on the bus, if they choose to ride one. Including those who conduct lawful activity such as OC or CC. |
|||||||||
|
Jerry McBride Founder's Club Member
|
A cite of that ordinance might help those of us who sterile carry. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
x-sheeple wrote: Yes, I understand that...in Monroe, LA there is a city ordinace which states you must have an I.D. on your person if you are walking down the sidewalk. In other words if you are walking in town and a police officer stops and asks to see your I.D. and you don,t have one...you could go to jail...at his discretionCite please. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum1/1.html Rule 7. Help others by introducing the statute of which you speak. |
|||||||||
|
x-sheeple Regular Member
|
I will get a copy and post. |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
smoking357 wrote: nolacopusmc wrote:smoking357 wrote:jimmyb wrote:smoking357 wrote:Icharlie12 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Had the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's followed the lead of most of you, PERSONAL ATTACK *** |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
FreeCitizen wrote: nolacopusmc wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote: Had you taken the time to actually read....... made it a little bigger for you. |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
x-sheeple wrote: Yes, I understand that...in Monroe, LA there is a city ordinace which states you must have an I.D. on your person if you are walking down the sidewalk. In other words if you are walking in town and a police officer stops and asks to see your I.D. and you don,t have one...you could go to jail...at his discretion Would not pass the first round in a court of law. |
|||||||||
|
x-sheeple Regular Member
|
Yes, you are right....I'm just saying.....look at where this country is heading...we have to STAND UP |
|||||||||
|
Jerry McBride Founder's Club Member
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: x-sheeple wrote:Yes, I understand that...in Monroe, LA there is a city ordinace which states you must have an I.D. on your person if you are walking down the sidewalk. In other words if you are walking in town and a police officer stops and asks to see your I.D. and you don,t have one...you could go to jail...at his discretion True. Getting arrested should not be a requirement to prove it. |
|||||||||
|
x-sheeple Regular Member
|
I agree...I just want to open the eyes of as many as I can and voice my opposition to anything to try to infringe on our freedoms....I am not anti-cop or anything like that.....just for the record... |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: x-sheeple wrote:Yes, I understand that...in Monroe, LA there is a city ordinace which states you must have an I.D. on your person if you are walking down the sidewalk. In other words if you are walking in town and a police officer stops and asks to see your I.D. and you don,t have one...you could go to jail...at his discretion Wrong again Bucko. Almost any major city has a similar ordinances. Don't have access, but I am pretty sure there is also a state law similar to that. i watch it get prosecuted in court every week. Not saying it is right, but it does happen. Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 05:36 pm by nolacopusmc |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
nolacopusmc wrote: mark edward marchiafava wrote:Then in accord with OCDO forum Rule 7 you should be able to provide citations of statute for this "show us your papers" law?x-sheeple wrote:Yes, I understand that...in Monroe, LA there is a city ordinace which states you must have an I.D. on your person if you are walking down the sidewalk. In other words if you are walking in town and a police officer stops and asks to see your I.D. and you don,t have one...you could go to jail...at his discretion |
|||||||||
|
Jerry McBride Founder's Club Member
|
Local ordinances that may require ID could be posted. That info could keep some people out of trouble. There is not a LA state 'stop and ID' statute that I can find. Can't find a St. Tammany parish or Slidell city ordinance. Sterile carry couldn't work if the law/ordinance existed (RAS to PC in one quick step). That means, for me, if I'm being detained and if it is demanded, I'll verbally provide name, address, and answer as to my travel/activity. I believe I am legally required, if it is demanded, to do so. If a LEO reaches for his taser, I'll also provide DOB. If he draws his taser I'll... |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you? Try approaching it from the opposite direction. Do you or do you not have the RIGHT to do such and such? If you have the right to exist without being ID'd by any government entity, how can there possibly be a "law" demanding you produce ID? Thanks to the fairly recent and absurd Hibbell ruling, it appears you may have to ORALLY identify WHO you are, by name. Anything beyond that is a stretch, including DOB. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?No. The state-believers reject natrual law. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?No. The state-believers reject natrual law. |
|||||||||
|
Jerry McBride Founder's Club Member
|
What I posted is a decision I made solely for myself, so I'm not advocating others do anything they aren't comfortable doing. Part of my choice is from the Hibel case and that is why I would provide ID verbally. The DOB would be provided in an attempt to avoid being tased. A joke. XD-GEM was right, I should use those yellow things. corrected Hibbell Last edited on Sun Jul 5th, 2009 12:03 am by Jerry McBride |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must. Even IF a person is willing and able to place themselves in the position of "test case," knowing the statute is wise. In this case, no one has even shown that there is a valid statute. |
|||||||||
|
XD-GEM Activist Member
|
nolacopusmc wrote: mark edward marchiafava wrote:x-sheeple wrote:Yes, I understand that...in Monroe, LA there is a city ordinace which states you must have an I.D. on your person if you are walking down the sidewalk. In other words if you are walking in town and a police officer stops and asks to see your I.D. and you don,t have one...you could go to jail...at his discretion I am fairly certain the the US Supreme Court has ruled that to be unconstitutional. I think it may be part of the Terry v Ohio ruling on which Louisiana's CCRP 215.1 is based. I believe that the logic behind the USSC decision is that it violates both the 4th and 5th amendments; those amendments have already been incorporated against the states (and the municipalities as sub to state). Another poster in a different forum talking about this issue in New York has quoted two other USSC decisions which I am not familiar with. Jared wrote: You should NOT carry ID at all times. You are only obligated to have ID when doing something that would otherwise be illegal without a license ie. driving a car, carrying a pistol etc. The Supreme Court has rules TWICE on this matter. Kolender v Lawson and Hibel v. 6th Judicial Cir. of Nevada. NYPD's "policy" of taking people in who do not have ID on them can subject them to a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit. I hope this guy drains the bank accounts of every officer involved in this nonsense. NYPD is not above the law. The Supreme Court has spoken.... not once but TWICE on this issue. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=26092&forum_id=40&highlight=Supreme+Court+ID If Jared is correct, any smart LEO will not ask for a driver's license if the person he stops is not doing something for which a driver's licens is required. Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 11:57 pm by XD-GEM |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
XD-GEM wrote: nolacopusmc wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:x-sheeple wrote:Yes, I understand that...in Monroe, LA there is a city ordinace which states you must have an I.D. on your person if you are walking down the sidewalk. In other words if you are walking in town and a police officer stops and asks to see your I.D. and you don,t have one...you could go to jail...at his discretion you might be right. I wasn't looking at it. I may have been thining of the "verbally identifying yourself". but i do remember, and it may have been a local ordnance, but I thought it was a state code, that you had to have ID on your person at all times. Will look it up when I get a chance. |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
wrightme wrote: mark edward marchiafava wrote:Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must. I actually agree with you 100%. I do believe government has become too big in many areas. SOme people lack the courage to be the test case and instead settle for a check. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
nolacopusmc wrote: wrightme wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must. It's sad the government employs morally bereft murderers and tyrants who create the need for test cases. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
nolacopusmc wrote: wrightme wrote:You simply cannot prevent the personal digs in your posts, can you. I suppose you can rationalize that obvious character flaw in some way.mark edward marchiafava wrote:Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must.  |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
wrightme wrote: nolacopusmc wrote:wrightme wrote:You simply cannot prevent the personal digs in your posts, can you. I suppose you can rationalize that obvious character flaw in some way.mark edward marchiafava wrote:Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must. I rationalize it by realizing no matter what i do in life, at least I am not you, smokingcrack24/7, or THE mem. As long as I never fall into on e of those categories, I think I will be OK. You know the saying...Birds of a cuckoo's nest, post together. |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
smoking357 wrote: nolacopusmc wrote:wrightme wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must. That is correct. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
nolacopusmc wrote: wrightme wrote:You really know nothing of me to jump to your false conclusion. More the pity.nolacopusmc wrote:wrightme wrote:You simply cannot prevent the personal digs in your posts, can you. I suppose you can rationalize that obvious character flaw in some way.mark edward marchiafava wrote:Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must. |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
wrightme wrote: nolacopusmc wrote:wrightme wrote:You really know nothing of me to jump to your false conclusion. More the pity.nolacopusmc wrote:wrightme wrote:You simply cannot prevent the personal digs in your posts, can you. I suppose you can rationalize that obvious character flaw in some way.mark edward marchiafava wrote:Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must. But yet you know so much of me to make the comments and assumptions you do. More more the pity. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
nolacopusmc wrote: wrightme wrote:What you post here provides quite a window into your psyche. So does what I post here. Viewing those two objects with an open mind will open your mind.nolacopusmc wrote:wrightme wrote:You really know nothing of me to jump to your false conclusion. More the pity.nolacopusmc wrote:wrightme wrote:You simply cannot prevent the personal digs in your posts, can you. I suppose you can rationalize that obvious character flaw in some way.mark edward marchiafava wrote:Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must. Even when you are not provoked in a thread, you freely lace any response you give with putdowns to those you do not agree with, even when they are not participating in the thread. You are nothing but a troll when it comes to these forums. Your inability to stop this act does say quite a bit about your character. Lumping me in with those who trade insults with you is not accurate. |
|||||||||
|
nolacopusmc Banned
|
wrightme wrote: nolacopusmc wrote:wrightme wrote:What you post here provides quite a window into your psyche. So does what I post here. Viewing those two objects with an open mind will open your mind.nolacopusmc wrote:wrightme wrote:You really know nothing of me to jump to your false conclusion. More the pity.nolacopusmc wrote:wrightme wrote:You simply cannot prevent the personal digs in your posts, can you. I suppose you can rationalize that obvious character flaw in some way.mark edward marchiafava wrote:Why is it most discussions begin with the search for some "law" which prohibits or demands something of you?Because, unfortunately, many regulations are in place that are violations of our rights. Stating that they are Rights is currently insufficient. For those who are willing to stand on principle and risk arrest, that is fine. For those who are not willing (or financially unable, or unable due to employment constraints), being aware of relevant statutes is a must. Others do the same that you are accusing me of, yet you do not attempt to impose your opinions upon them. If you do not like my posts, can you not just ignore them and not respond. Didn't your mother ever teach you if you ignore them, they will leave you alone. If you believe that the internet is a window into someone's pysche'. then you definitely belong to the group of instables like those you defend so vehemently. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
nolacopusmc wrote: Others do the same that you are accusing me of, yet you do not attempt to impose your opinions upon them. If you do not like my posts, can you not just ignore them and not respond. Didn't your mother ever teach you if you ignore them, they will leave you alone.So far it is working well as a window. You held true to form there. You tell me I could simply "ignore your posts," yet you do not do the same with those who you disagree with. But, I sure do see it is useless to even respond to you. It results in back/forth like this. |
|||||||||
|
smokingmem Banned
|
wrightme wrote: nolacopusmc wrote:Others do the same that you are accusing me of, yet you do not attempt to impose your opinions upon them. If you do not like my posts, can you not just ignore them and not respond. Didn't your mother ever teach you if you ignore them, they will leave you alone.So far it is working well as a window. You held true to form there. Do you lack the ability to ignore others' posts as well. it appears that you are only promulgating that which you detest. |
|||||||||
|
Oscarr Regular Member
|
smokingmem wrote: wrightme wrote:Yes nola, we can ignore you, but when you are non-stop spamming threads and filling them up with your junk, it's hard to find the stuff worth reading. That's why pretty much everyone has asked you to stop being a troll. While I didn't agree with a lot of your previous stances/posts, at least they were your own thought-out opinions, and I can respect that. The trolling posts are worthless though.nolacopusmc wrote:Others do the same that you are accusing me of, yet you do not attempt to impose your opinions upon them. If you do not like my posts, can you not just ignore them and not respond. Didn't your mother ever teach you if you ignore them, they will leave you alone.So far it is working well as a window. You held true to form there. Why did you make a new forum name by the way? Edit: Maybe we could convince the mods to add an ignore-function, that'd get rid of 99% of the troll posts on the forum, then everyone would be happy. Last edited on Sun Jul 5th, 2009 11:47 pm by Oscarr |
|||||||||
|
smokingmem Banned
|
Oscarr wrote: smokingmem wrote:wrightme wrote:Yes nola, we can ignore you, but when you are non-stop spamming threads and filling them up with your junk, it's hard to find the stuff worth reading. That's why pretty much everyone has asked you to stop being a troll. While I didn't agree with a lot of your previous stances/posts, at least they were your own thought-out opinions, and I can respect that. The trolling posts are worthless though.nolacopusmc wrote:Others do the same that you are accusing me of, yet you do not attempt to impose your opinions upon them. If you do not like my posts, can you not just ignore them and not respond. Didn't your mother ever teach you if you ignore them, they will leave you alone.So far it is working well as a window. You held true to form there. Why is it OK for some people to do things on here that others get banned for? Do we not also have others "trolling" , personal attacks? ETC? |
|||||||||
|
Oscarr Regular Member
|
The difference is you're being hypocritical about it - you whine about them doing it, then turn around and do it yourself. Also, I didn't mention personal attacks, just POINTLESS posts. * * * Digging up year old threads, etc, what's the point of that? I'm actually curious as to what you thought/think that is going to do. Plus, fair or not, people expect more from cops, expect them to keep their cool and have a level head. If you think someone else is trolling, and ruining the board, you think the best way to fix it is by doing it back? 2 wrongs make a right? Why don't you just report them to a mod? Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 12:14 am by Oscarr |
|||||||||
|
smokingmem Banned
|
Oscarr wrote: The difference is you're being hypocritical about it - you whine about them doing it, then turn around and do it yourself. Also, I didn't mention personal attacks, just POINTLESS posts.First, what does one being on the internet on their personal time have to do with what they do for a living. Unless one is better than you becasue of their profession, how can you hold them to a higher standard. That is hypocritical. I do not care what people do. Why can MEM post **, but other people are called out for it. MEM was the first person to use ***. Why is he not banned like others. The mods are fascists. that is why they do not make people like SMOKING257 be banned. Here you are again engaging in the back and forth you criticize for. Shut up and let it go. If you want it to stop, stop responding. Lastly, and most inportantly, does not everyone, regardless of what standard you hold them to, have a freedom of speech? If me or anyone else posts something you think is useless, do i have less of a right to post what I want against what you may be posting that most think is ignorant? I guess on this site, people only have rights if the MODS and their lackeys want them to. Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 12:37 am by smokingmem |
|||||||||
|
Oscarr Regular Member
|
smokingmem wrote: Oscarr wrote:Search all my posts, I've never once called someone a facist. I also didn't say -I- hold you to a higher standard (I don't), you're a human just like everyone else -- if cops/government/etc acted to a higher standard, I wouldn't be worried about needing a gun to protect myself.The difference is you're being hypocritical about it - you whine about them doing it, then turn around and do it yourself. Also, I didn't mention personal attacks, just POINTLESS posts.First, what does one being on the internet on their personal time have to do with what they do for a living. Unless one is better than you becasue of their profession, how can you hold them to a higher standard. That is hypocritical. I just said some other people, FAIR OR NOT, hold them to a higher standard. As for why it matters -- you go well out of your way to point out the fact you're a LEO here on the forums, so it does matter how you act, it affects peoples perceptions of LEOs -- much like how you criticize how mark acts, and say it affects peoples perception of OCers.I like how you tell me "Shut up and let it go" and in the VERY next sentence cry about your "Freedom of speech" on a PRIVATELY OWNED forum, so to answer your question, no, NONE of us have ANY freedom of speech here. Speaking of answering questions, you ignored most of my questions, I still am curious why you were posting a bunch of *** in year old threads - is it because you can't give any other answer than "I wanted to be annoying." ? What about the 2 wrongs make a right question? Do you feel that way? (It's the way you're acting) - either you DO feel that way, which is a really interesting (read: scary) way for a cop to feel about life, OR you're just acting like a troll. I respected your non-troll posts, and found them informative, why don't you go back to that style of posting? I'm not TELLING you to, im just asking why don't you? If you think mark/smoking are acting so bad, let their actions speak for themselves - as your actions are speaking for you. You're right though, the back and forth here is pointless, and ultimately has nothing to do with OC, so i'll leave it alone, and hope you make the mature choice. I'm more than happy to discuss more with you on AIM (I tried IM'ing you, but you weren't online). Cheers |
|||||||||
|
smokingmem Banned
|
So now the spineless mods who refuse to identify themselves are removing my posts. very mature. Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 02:38 am by smokingmem |
|||||||||
|
Oscarr Regular Member
|
smokingmem wrote: So now the spineless mods who refuse to identify themselves are removing my posts. very mature.To be fair, they removed the whole thread - you weren't singled out. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
smokingmem wrote: So now the spineless mods who refuse to identify themselves are removing my posts. very mature.But posting the same comment about the mods in multiple threads will not be likely to provide them any incentive to not act.  |
|||||||||
|
smokingmem Banned
|
No they didn't. My reply to your abpove posts Search all my posts, I've never once called someone a facist. Never said you did. that is actually mem's fav word. I also didn't say -I- hold you to a higher standard (I don't), you're a human just like everyone else -- if cops/government/etc acted to a higher standard, I wouldn't be worried about needing a gun to protect myself. I just said some other people, FAIR OR NOT, hold them to a higher standard. FAIR ENOUGH. As for why it matters -- you go well out of your way (HOW. Other than my username, which I have used for years on other forums and such, other than speaking from that perspective, I have never went out of my way)to point out the fact you're a LEO here on the forums, so it does matter how you act, it affects peoples perceptions of LEOs -- much like how you criticize how mark acts, and say it affects peoples perception of OCers. (Fair enough comparison, but what they are doing is affecting our mutual rights. They obviously already have their oipinion of LEO's , which is a occupation, not a right)I like how you tell me "Shut up and let it go" and in the VERY next sentence cry about your "Freedom of speech" on a PRIVATELY OWNED forum, so to answer your question, no, NONE of us have ANY freedom of speech here. I told you to shut up and ignore it because you were the one griping about my speech. Just like you have a right to gripe, I have a right to speak. If it is so heinous, just ignore it. I agree this is a private board, but being a board that allegedly supports ne of our most fundamental rights, I would think it would extend to all rights. I was wrong. Speaking of answering questions, you ignored most of my questions, I still am curious why you were posting a bunch of *** in year old threads - is it because you can't give any other answer than "I wanted to be annoying." ? Nope, mem did the same thing in active threads, and nothing was done. I knew if someone else did it, they would be banned. i was correct. I was just illustrating the double-standard and lack of integrity some of the trolling mods from other states have on this forum. What about the 2 wrongs make a right question? Do you feel that way? (It's the way you're acting) - either you DO feel that way, which is a really interesting (read: scary) way for a cop to feel about life, OR you're just acting like a troll. It's the internet. How one is in their chosen profession, personal life, internet, etc. is not always the same. WHile often comaprisons can be made, it is not always the case. While you wouldn't believe it, becasue you and others have already made your ill-informed oipinions, i am one of the most professional, polite, yet tacitcally sound LEO's you will find. Hence the reason I train others. People often have a professional persona for that enviroment, and a personal one for those they choose to surround themselves with. I respected your non-troll posts, and found them informative, why don't you go back to that style of posting? I'm not TELLING you to, im just asking why don't you? If you think mark/smoking are acting so bad, let their actions speak for themselves - as your actions are speaking for you. i have. Go look at the NRA thread I just made and look at the individuals that immediately attacked me. Did I do that? I said nothing to solict that response, yet they choose to respond that way. WIll they be banned. i think not. WHat do you think about that? You're right though, the back and forth here is pointless, and ultimately has nothing to do with OC, so i'll leave it alone, and hope you make the mature choice. I'm more than happy to discuss more with you on AIM (I tried IM'ing you, but you weren't online). Sorry, do not have AIM. Cheers |
|||||||||
|
Oscarr Regular Member
|
I got your PM nola, and I replied. |
|||||||||
|
smokingmem Banned
|
wrightme wrote: smokingmem wrote:So now the spineless mods who refuse to identify themselves are removing my posts. very mature.But posting the same comment about the mods in multiple threads will not be likely to provide them any incentive to not act. because they deleted in several posts. WHy can't you mind your own business? |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
smokingmem wrote: wrightme wrote:LOL, you have no authority to define that. I choose my business, NOLA does not.smokingmem wrote:So now the spineless mods who refuse to identify themselves are removing my posts. very mature.But posting the same comment about the mods in multiple threads will not be likely to provide them any incentive to not act. Do you mean to say, "because they deleted in several threads." ? Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 02:54 am by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member 
|
I was accused of the same thing, wrightme. It's hard to "leave him alone" when he's all over the forum, trying to rile us up. I use the "recent posts" feature. Guess whose posts I keep seeing as a result of that use? Edit: smokingmem wrote: then why don't you engage me in intellectual argument instead of posting useless pics in my threads and calling me names. You have yet to post anything resembling and "intellectual argument". The couple "real" posts you've made have been riddled with malapropisms and fallacious reasoning. I've already taken you to the cleaners in just a few words. Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 03:11 am by marshaul |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
smokingmem wrote: sand in your clit Pure class. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
smokingmem wrote: marshaul wrote:Because you usually add in some snide hack at mem or smoking, your usernamesakes, or add a comment as the one in your last sentence. You simply cannot prevent yourself from doing it. I mentioned it before, and you prove it over and over. Maturity comes with age. Most of those younger than 40 or so are still learning that. Those who arrive at the upper side have likely learned it.I was accused of the same thing, wrightme. It's hard to "leave him alone" when he's all over the forum, trying to rile us up. Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 04:17 am by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
smokingmem wrote: smoking357 wrote:smokingmem wrote:sand in your clit Ah, so your username is a homophobic reference to some union of Mark and myself. While I'm flattered Mark would have me, I'm yet perplexed why you're not banned? Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 03:21 am by smoking357 |
|||||||||
|
smokingmem Banned
|
smoking357 wrote: smokingmem wrote:smoking357 wrote:smokingmem wrote:sand in your clit Nope, i viewed it, in one regards, as a possible melding of the two greatest minds on the OC front. i considered it a compliment. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
smokingmem wrote: smoking357 wrote:smokingmem wrote:smoking357 wrote:smokingmem wrote:sand in your clit So mental unions can sire offspring? Nice try. Come on, admit it. You're trolling, and your homophobic username was meant to be degrading and insulting. It will be gone, soon enough. What I don't get is why do you need attention from this board? There's thousands others out there. Why this fascination with Mark? |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: smokingmem wrote:Oedipal?smoking357 wrote:smokingmem wrote:smoking357 wrote:smokingmem wrote:sand in your clit |
|||||||||
|
smokingmem Banned
|
smoking357 wrote: smokingmem wrote:smoking357 wrote:smokingmem wrote:smoking357 wrote:smokingmem wrote:sand in your clit |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
smokingmem wrote: smoking357 wrote:But, in this case, you are causing the train wreck. Similar to the fascination an arsonist gets with the fires he lights. You cause the wreck, and enjoy the show.smokingmem wrote:smoking357 wrote:smokingmem wrote:smoking357 wrote:smokingmem wrote:sand in your clit |
|||||||||
|
smokingmem Banned
|
wrightme wrote: smokingmem wrote:smoking357 wrote:But, in this case, you are causing the train wreck. Similar to the fascination an arsonist gets with the fires he lights. You cause the wreck, and enjoy the show.smokingmem wrote:smoking357 wrote:smokingmem wrote:smoking357 wrote:smokingmem wrote:sand in your clit Oh no buddy. the "mem incident" was a train wreck long before i got here. The problem is until recently, this board was full of mem Kool-Aide drinkers. A few people with different views of the same argument came on, and people got their feathers ruffled. My arguments on here have very little to do with the man, the myth, the legend, mem. However, becasue so many here idolize him, in this area, he has become the prima facea face of OC. My opinon is that is a negative thing for OC and gun owners. Until someone with more tact and oratory skills comes along, i guess we are stuck with hi,m. because of his cult status with a few, they bandwagon togather to defend him whenever someone opposes his views. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
smokingmem wrote: Oh no buddy. the "mem incident" was a train wreck long before i got here. The problem is until recently, this board was full of mem Kool-Aide drinkers. A few people with different views of the same argument came on, and people got their feathers ruffled.Your opinion is simply that. An opinion. It does not make it better or worse than mine or that of another. And when you present in the manner which you use here, you surely ARE going to "ruffle feathers." You are the train wreck, and your failure to recognize how you look in this forum is a lack of self-examination. Do go and attempt to look at your content in your posts here and see if you can identify where you have presented yourself as an  In addition, you did it under the identity of LE in LA, as a representative of that group. Whether you admit it or not, you are perpetuating the stereotype of LE as egotistical strong-arms who trample on the Rights of law-abiding citizens.Your continuation here after a ban, with a moniker that identifies as a blend of two persons who you have reviled in these very threads doesn't provide you in a better light. Your continual snide comments do not help either. I would not be surprised if those in your neck of the woods hope to never need to deal with you in any official capacity after the way you have presented yourself here. Should that not matter to you one wit, continue. Should it matter to you how others view cops, change. Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 04:03 am by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
jimmyb Regular Member
|
* |
|||||||||
