NRA/ORA stand on open carry?

[Michael Brown]

Michael -

I'm curious as to where you believe the line exists. I'm not sure I agree that "arms" includes Javelins, Apaches, and JDAMs, but I also believe that there is nothing wrong with citizens owning and freely transferring machineguns. Where I have difficulty is articulating where the limits are.

I would define that line in a fashion that is similar to how I would describe pornography; It's tough to define but I know it when I see it.

For instance, I agree that there's nothing wrong with owning a full-auto.

However I have strong reservations about a citizen owning a tank or an ICBM.

I also believe that open vs. concealed carry is not an infringement and should be decided by individual states.

I believe that prohibition of carry on public buildings or grounds, with the exception of prisons is an infringement.

I certainly believe that prohibition of carry of all types is an infringement.

So, where the definition of the line lies is certainly up for debate IMO.

Michael Brown

 

[Michael Brown]

I also am curious about where you draw the line. Considering the arms that were available at the time the 2A was drafted it's pretty clear that the framers wanted us to have the same level of armament as the government. If "we" are armed with inferior technology compared to the .gov, it kinds of makes the whole concept of the 2A moot, does it not?

I do not believe that our forefathers were so foresighted that could have any idea of where we would go as a society.

I believe the founders devised the constitution for a moral population in which the document is more likely to be read as absolute.

I do not believe the constitution to be devinely inspired and believe that any document written by men invariably has severe flaws.

I believe the constitution to be the best set of guidelines one can find in terms of governmental affairs, with the exception of the founders substituting "pursuit of happiness" for "property" which I believe is much more appropriate.

I believe the founders could not have foreseen the level of weaponry that exists today and would not have written the constitution the way they wrote it if they lived today and saw the world as it is today.

I believe any man-made document has to be applied to the present time and not by standards that were applicable 200 years ago.

While I respect others' right to disagree with my opinion on this matter, I do not find the opposing viewpoint to be persuasive anywhere except in a hypothetical discussion about a moral population.

Michael Brown

 

[rlongnt]

I will return each prepaid envelope the NRA sends me with a printout that states the following:

I take a neutral stance on the NRA. I will neither support nor oppose them just like they did on HB3354. If they are neutral on what matters to Okies just because they have nothing to gain then their true nature has been exposed. I would rather have an honest enemy than friends like this!

I have a CCW permit and would not carry in the open. Still; I would celebrate the rights of others to do so and I will always support anything that empowers the people. This would have empowered the people with absolutely no cost to anyone else in terms of personal liberty or even funding.

 

[Glocktogo]

I do not believe that our forefathers were so foresighted that could have any idea of where we would go as a society.

I believe the founders devised the constitution for a moral population in which the document is more likely to be read as absolute.

I do not believe the constitution to be devinely inspired and believe that any document written by men invariably has severe flaws.

I believe the constitution to be the best set of guidelines one can find in terms of governmental affairs, with the exception of the founders substituting "pursuit of happiness" for "property" which I believe is much more appropriate.

I believe the founders could not have foreseen the level of weaponry that exists today and would not have written the constitution the way they wrote it if they lived today and saw the world as it is today.

I believe any man-made document has to be applied to the present time and not by standards that were applicable 200 years ago.

While I respect others' right to disagree with my opinion on this matter, I do not find the opposing viewpoint to be persuasive anywhere except in a hypothetical discussion about a moral population.

Michael Brown

While I agree with most of what you're saying here, the bolded sentence gives me pause. Are you saying that because the morality of America is in decline, you believe the BoR should be applied differently? If so, how?

 

[Shadowrider]

I do not believe that our forefathers were so foresighted that could have any idea of where we would go as a society.

Actually, I believe that they didn't think we would make this far. I think I remember reading that one of them thought it to be around 60 years or so.

I believe the founders devised the constitution for a moral population in which the document is more likely to be read as absolute.

Agreed, except I don't think they intended it to be any different with changing time. If it weren't absolute, it has no foundation to stand on philosophically speaking.

I do not believe the constitution to be devinely inspired and believe that any document written by men invariably has severe flaws.

Divinely inspired doesn't necessarily mean divinely written.

I believe the constitution to be the best set of guidelines one can find in terms of governmental affairs, with the exception of the founders substituting "pursuit of happiness" for "property" which I believe is much more appropriate.

This just reflects your opinion, which is fair. I don't think "pursuit of happiness" means anything other than what it says. Only the chance to pursue it is intended to be guaranteed, not obtaining it. For a lot of people property equates happiness. A reflection of man's nature. It is what it is.

I believe the founders could not have foreseen the level of weaponry that exists today and would not have written the constitution the way they wrote it if they lived today and saw the world as it is today.

Perhaps. This is the conundrum. We will never know, but I have to assume that the weapons available at the time gave the government no technical or tactical advantage over the population and they had no problem with that. They seemed to even embrace the "equality" in their writings.

I believe any man-made document has to be applied to the present time and not by standards that were applicable 200 years ago.

This is where I have to depart. I don't see the BoR as a "living breathing" concept to be adjusted as the situation warrants. It is always "adjusted" to the advantage of the "adjuster(s)." It started out great. And the more we "adjust it" the more society degrades IMO.

While I respect others' right to disagree with my opinion on this matter, I do not find the opposing viewpoint to be persuasive anywhere except in a hypothetical discussion about a moral population.

Michael Brown

All the above were said with this context in mind.

 

[Michael Brown]

While I agree with most of what you're saying here, the bolded sentence gives me pause. Are you saying that because the morality of America is in decline, you believe the BoR should be applied differently? If so, how?

I believe the BoR must be applied differently given some of the modern technology we have i.e. the automobile and the fact that we interact with each other so much more than we did in the 1700's.

If we rarely interacted with each other or subsisted on our own, little of these discussions would matter and I believe that is how the framers saw it.

IMO, the differences in society today and in the 1700's are so great that the number of differing applications is too numerous to discuss here.

In fact, I am confident that given your job, you deal with numerous adjusted applications of the BoR.

Surely you see that......

Michael Brown

 

[Glocktogo]

I believe the BoR must be applied differently given some of the modern technology we have i.e. the automobile and the fact that we interact with each other so much more than we did in the 1700's.

If we rarely interacted with each other or subsisted on our own, little of these discussions would matter and I believe that is how the framers saw it.

IMO, the differences in society today and in the 1700's are so great that the number of differing applications is too numerous to discuss here.

In fact, I am confident that given your job, you deal with numerous adjusted applications of the BoR.

Surely you see that......

Michael Brown

Actually, I see a lot of misguided encroachments on the BoR by my employers. I do what I can to offset that mentality, which is difficult at times. For all the training we get, we get none on the BoR, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, etc. When fusion centers are listing the flying of the American flag as a possible sign of anti-government types, we have a problem.

I do not believe the BoR to be a living document. I do not believe in watering it down, altering its application, etc. based on current events. There's a perfectly good mechanism in place to modify or alter it. Its called the Amendment process, and its tough to implement on purpose.

In the time of the Founding Fathers, there were privateers with merchant warships. That's more firepower than the current state of the 2nd Amendment allows without heavy regulation. Mike Dillon has a Navy jet fighter with a live 20mm cannon, do you think it should be illegal for him to own it?

I think the founders interacted plenty. They weren't all isolated on their farms. Many of them sat down regularly, in taverns and other establishments. Tun Tavern saw plenty of activity, being the place of origin for the St. George's Society, St. Andrew's Society, the Pennsylvania Militia, some of the first meetings of the Masons and the Continental Congress. Let's not forget the birthplace of one of the greatest organizations ever invented either, The United States Marine Corps!

The automobile replaced the horse, but I believe the founders would be mounting weapons on them today if they were around. They would marvel at the destructive power of our weapons, and probably wonder why we were still at war. But these are merely differences of scale and scope, not ideals or beliefs.

While I respect your opinion, I do not agree with it. It's these very encroachments that devalue our morals and ethics. The slope has become ever more slippery since the industrial revolution began. Perhaps if we had stayed true to the founders all these years, we wouldn't be in the predicament we are today?

 

[1shot(bob)]

Actually, I see a lot of misguided encroachments on the BoR by my employers. I do what I can to offset that mentality, which is difficult at times. For all the training we get, we get none on the BoR, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, etc. When fusion centers are listing the flying of the American flag as a possible sign of anti-government types, we have a problem.

I do not believe the BoR to be a living document. I do not believe in watering it down, altering its application, etc. based on current events. There's a perfectly good mechanism in place to modify or alter it. Its called the Amendment process, and its tough to implement on purpose.

In the time of the Founding Fathers, there were privateers with merchant warships. That's more firepower than the current state of the 2nd Amendment allows without heavy regulation. Mike Dillon has a Navy jet fighter with a live 20mm cannon, do you think it should be illegal for him to own it?

I think the founders interacted plenty. They weren't all isolated on their farms. Many of them sat down regularly, in taverns and other establishments. Tun Tavern saw plenty of activity, being the place of origin for the St. George's Society, St. Andrew's Society, the Pennsylvania Militia, some of the first meetings of the Masons and the Continental Congress. Let's not forget the birthplace of one of the greatest organizations ever invented either, The United States Marine Corps!

The automobile replaced the horse, but I believe the founders would be mounting weapons on them today if they were around. They would marvel at the destructive power of our weapons, and probably wonder why we were still at war. But these are merely differences of scale and scope, not ideals or beliefs.

While I respect your opinion, I do not agree with it. It's these very encroachments that devalue our morals and ethics. The slope has become ever more slippery since the industrial revolution began. Perhaps if we had stayed true to the founders all these years, we wouldn't be in the predicament we are today?

One of the biggest AMENS ever to this!

 

[elcaBob]

The automobile replaced the horse, but I believe the founders would be mounting weapons on them today if they were around. They would marvel at the destructive power of our weapons, and probably wonder why we were still at war. But these are merely differences of scale and scope, not ideals or beliefs.

Fantastic!

 

[Michael Brown]

Actually, I see a lot of misguided encroachments on the BoR by my employers. I do what I can to offset that mentality, which is difficult at times. For all the training we get, we get none on the BoR, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, etc. When fusion centers are listing the flying of the American flag as a possible sign of anti-government types, we have a problem.

I do not believe the BoR to be a living document. I do not believe in watering it down, altering its application, etc. based on current events. There's a perfectly good mechanism in place to modify or alter it. Its called the Amendment process, and its tough to implement on purpose.

In the time of the Founding Fathers, there were privateers with merchant warships. That's more firepower than the current state of the 2nd Amendment allows without heavy regulation. Mike Dillon has a Navy jet fighter with a live 20mm cannon, do you think it should be illegal for him to own it?

I think the founders interacted plenty. They weren't all isolated on their farms. Many of them sat down regularly, in taverns and other establishments. Tun Tavern saw plenty of activity, being the place of origin for the St. George's Society, St. Andrew's Society, the Pennsylvania Militia, some of the first meetings of the Masons and the Continental Congress. Let's not forget the birthplace of one of the greatest organizations ever invented either, The United States Marine Corps!

The automobile replaced the horse, but I believe the founders would be mounting weapons on them today if they were around. They would marvel at the destructive power of our weapons, and probably wonder why we were still at war. But these are merely differences of scale and scope, not ideals or beliefs.

While I respect your opinion, I do not agree with it. It's these very encroachments that devalue our morals and ethics. The slope has become ever more slippery since the industrial revolution began. Perhaps if we had stayed true to the founders all these years, we wouldn't be in the predicament we are today?

It is a fine argument for the internet or a philosophy class.

I disagree completely in the real world and if you TRULY bought what you are writing, you wouldn't participate in the misguided encroachments by your employer but you do on a daily basis.

I simply believe that anything written by man is inherently flawed and open to interpretation. To what degree is the question.

Michael Brown