Open Carry

[mausermike]

Skeptic-
Since the Commonwealth of Virginia does open carry with little regulation one would think thousands are open carryin around the state...

Besides one story of a small group eatin dinner with pistols in the open, ya have any figures on just how many open carry???

Ya would think Virginia would be crawlin with 'gun totters'.

1shott-
Its not just today's world, the old west, yanno the six gun shoot em up days where real men packed n drank redeye....

Many frontier towns restricted open carry. Weapons were routinely confiscated at the town limits. The Right to Keep n Bear was bein infringed before Oklahoma was a state. Before the commie excuse, some here love to use, was even a twinkle in Mr. Marx's eye the now enshrined Gawd, guts n guns crowd were infringin the 2nd A.


Now I see the problem is a strict constructionist review of the 2nd A includes the ENTIRE sentence, not just one part. Before the Founders declare the no infringe bit they state a well regulated militia. IF they had made two sentences out of the deal, n they could have easily enough, then perhaps ya could try n decouple them. But our Founders didnt, they JOINED the two ideas.

Makes for a tricky just want one half of the sentence that is AFTER the well regulated part to be the primary part.

Combine that with the very first paragraph of the Constitution n its gets to be a tad bit sticky on just how free the Founders really thought gun ownership should be. I'm pretty sure the much quoted Federalists werent keen on so many 'commoners' runnin around with weapons.

Seems we cant see the entire forest for one lone tree...

 

[DBW]

Combine that with the very first paragraph of the Constitution n its gets to be a tad bit sticky on just how free the Founders really thought gun ownership should be. I'm pretty sure the much quoted Federalists werent keen on so many 'commoners' runnin around with weapons.

The Federalist were a group of elites that believed that government was the answer to all of our problems. They pushed for ditching the Articles of Confederation and the ratification of the Constitution. The AoC worked pretty well for the most part except when it came to foreign concerns. In my opinion of late the Constitution reduced the freedom of Americans while attempting to dismantle the original power of the individual states.

Had it not been for the Anti-Federalist, there would be no Bill of Rights. They advocated that all people held natural rights that no government could take away regardless of whatever law was legislated and forced upon the people. The Anti-Federalist were the group that envisioned a truly free people.

No doubt that there are intelligent people on this forum. I don't happen to be one of those as I'm dumb as dirt. I do believe that many of the "intelligent" members of this forum hold the same view as the early Federalist which I view as a force intent on actually reducing the freedom of the people to a level that government can manage and find acceptable. These people tend to defend the 2nd Amendment at all cost... while completely ignoring that there are nine other Bill of Rights that are equally important if not more so in limiting the abuse by the central government on the natural rights of people.

I rarely see these 2A advocates challenging the government for violating the 9th and 10th Amendments for instance. Upholding the 10A would certainly resolve many concerns we have with what the central government is allowed to do. But it's been ignored pretty much from the beginning and the result is that the US is not a nation comprised of individual sovereign states but a nation comprised of states indebted to obeying the will and mandates of the central government. The states essentially are useless entities which is what the Federalist wanted.

 

[Hugh]

What would happen if someone open carried around Target, for instance, and they couldn't, according to the law? Would the police be called or would everyone assume "officer?"

 

[mausermike]

DBW-
Preachin to the chior on the Federalist agenda. There are many here who drag the Federalist Papers in here like it is the Constitution. Like the delegates ratified that rather than what we do have.

There was n contines today the debate between the 'federalists' n the 'Jeffersonians'. The Feds believed if ya gave congress the right to bring home the bacon elections would be bought by panderin to the masses. The Jeffersonians believed if the people, through their representitives, didnt have a say in the spendin then only those with deep pockets would have influence.

The federalists believed only the 'landed' should have a vote, the Jeffers thought every man, well at that time every freeborn white man, should have a vote.

Course most the Federalists were wealthy men who came from wealthy families. They had far better educations than most of colonial america. As the poorer americans took the first tentative steps on the path later called 'Manifest Destiny' in rudamentary log cabins, the federalists lived in rather lavish mansions.

So our liberal/conservative battle has gone on since the very beginnin. It does give me a wry smile to see some of the modern day 'federalists' pick n choose their embrace of our first power elite's policy of noblise oblige...

 

[J.P.]

There is the problem.

The firearm community is a house divided. If it continues on that path, the house of cards will fall.

The part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, is lost, over looked and deemed not meaningfull in todays world.

Why is it that those who support a un waivering stand on the second are called extremist, yet if it was the first being attacked and picked apart by pieces there would be an uproar if a person could not go to a church of their choosing or read a paper, or just expressing their views on a street corner.

I agree with you

 

[mausermike]

Well the 1st amendment has been infringed, regulated n codified since the ink dried. The gubment routinely involves itself in religious matters. The Supreme Court routinely upholds curtailment to the freedom of speech, assembly and what constitutes legal redress.

Many religions, some huge in their followin, believe in multiple wives- but thats illegal in this country. Ya cant use 'hate speech' or shout fire in a crowded buildin, ya cant hold a rally without permits n those permits can be denied if the local Gubment decides it MIGHT cause violence. Those wackos from Topeka, those fundimentalist churchies who picket military funerals got banned from non-violent assembly, n protest.

The litmus test for those dont hold extremists views on any one issue is the first paragraph of the Constitution...

Try readin it a few times, sleep on it, re-read it a few times more, look at more than one issue n see if the First paragraph, for better or worse, guide the Moderate interpratation of the rest of the document...

Justa thought for those who can only quote one phrase in one amendment of that Document.

 

[J.P.]

I'm familiar with it, thanks.

 

[mausermike]

familiar???

Like I know Jessica Alba from her big screen movies-

orrrrrrrrr...

Like I know Jessica Alba from a drunken night in TJ???

I think there would be more honest discussion n alot less one issue posturin if we all either read the entire document our nation was founded on n pondered it a might...

Or had our drunken night in TJ with Jessica on tape to ponder for the rest of our miserable dull lives....

Justa thought...

 

[J.P.]

Okay, then you're right.... I've never read it.

 

[mausermike]

My video recorder ran out of battery that night... whats yur excuse