Gun Rights and Common Sense

Not long ago a couple of 22 year old guys in Portland, Oregon decided to strap on their assault weapons and take a walk through town.   This caused some panicked calls to the police department as you can imagine. Ok, so it’s their constitutional right and within the law in that town, but common-sense wise I think these guys need to think a little harder about their actions.

By Jarhead Survivor

First of all the country has just seen a rash of shootings including the Sandy Hook shooting where a crazy man walked into a school and killed a bunch of children.  There have been other shootings as well and taken as a whole the majority of the country at this time is not in favor of our current gun laws.  As a matter of fact Preside Obama is – at the time of this writing – looking to put stricter gun laws into effect.

You Might Like: American Made Water Filters

I’ve got to admit if I saw someone walking down the road with an assault weapon on their back I’d be a little nervous too.  Unless that person is wearing a soldier’s uniform or is a cop I can’t see walking down to the grocery store toting an AR-15. Gun owners and preppers have already got a bad rap in this country for being kooks and maybe even dangerous.  Why make it worse?  Awhile back the New York Rag – I mean Post – ran a story about the shootings in Newtown.

I’ve read other stories on more reputable news sites (if there is such a thing) and in the comments people were seriously beating up on preppers.  You’d have thought we’re a bunch of psychopaths sitting around with guns and food piled to the ceiling in our bunkers waiting for the zombie hordes or the solar flare to wipe out civilization.  Sound familiar?  Check out Doomsday Preppers and you’ll see where a lot of the countries perceptions of preppers comes from.


Let’s think of the OPSEC side of this little stunt.  After parading around downtown with your assault weapons everybody in the world now knows that you have one.  Do you really want everybody to know where they can find an AR-15 when TSHTF?

Best Water Filter Pitcher

Just because you have a long gun doesn’t mean someone won’t be able to take it away from you.  If you’re sitting around your house thinking, “They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers,” someone is likely to take you up on that.  Have you ever tried to be on full alert 24/7 for days and weeks and months?  It’s hard.  Even in the military it’s hard and we were trained for it.  You WILL let your guard down at some point and someone will be waiting to exploit that little slip in your defenses.

 Making  a Point

Going back to the original idea of these guys making a point.  It is within the law to walk around downtown Portland with fully loaded assault weapons, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do.  The guy has a Youtube channel and when you listen to him talk you can tell he’s not a nut, or at least that’s my impression.  He’s just a young guy looking to make a point.  And maybe he’s on to something, but there’s got to be a better way to do it.

My opinion is that in our country’s current emotional environment he might want to back off for awhile.  He wants people to walk up to him and start talking, but if you were walking down the street with your kids would you walk up to a couple of young guys with assault weapons and strike up a conversation?

Top Selling Water Pitcher on Amazon: Invigorated Water

The local police seem to know him or at least of him, but it seems like this might be a good way to make the police nervous.  Any way you look at it the guy is getting a lot of attention.  OPSEC, folks, OPSEC.

If the government says, “We’re going to confiscate all assault weapons,” the cops are going to say, “Yeah, let’s start with that guy that walks around town with his AR-15.”

How about it?  Am I way off base here?

Sound off below!

-Jarhead Survivor



124 comments… add one
  • Denator January 21, 2013, 8:06 am

    Jarhead I think your right on. I carry concealed whenever I leave the homestead and I broadcast it to no one. The only place I carry open is here on the homestead and I am very seldom unarmed not because I’m some kinda nut but I was a boy scout and a Navy man so I just like to be prepared. In todays environment walking around open carry could easily bring on unintended consequences and making people uncomfortable does our cause more harm then good. Just my opinion. Fair winds……………………….

  • Ron January 21, 2013, 8:24 am

    I think you’re spot on. You’ve got the constitutional right to do a lot of things, but sometimes there are consequences to exercising them; other people got constitutional rights too. You got the right to go and shout out certain very offensive words in public, but leaving aside the possibility that someone may wind up punching you in the nose, other people got the right not to associate with you, not hire you, or ask you to leave the premises. You get a reputation as a ‘crazy person’ and there’s going to be consequences. Maybe it’s not fair, but it’s what’s going to happen.

    I’m a lawyer; and I see what happens when the police got an ‘eye out’ for someone; even for something as a trivial as a minor traffic violation; something that a cop would give most people passes on (say being a few miles an hour over the speed limit) may result in a traffic stop if the police know who you are. Or, gee, lawn’s getting a little long, normally it wouldn’t be a big deal, but if the township is looking hard at you, you may wind up getting a visit from code enforcement.

    And, I simply think it is wise to pick your fights; a large part of the problem is shouting by extremists on both sides of the issues; and of course the shouters tend to get the most coverage. Maybe the guy’s not a nut, but that is from your and my perspective; to some people, anyone with an AR-15 is pretty much by definition nuts; why would someone possibly want one of these things? Yeah, yeah, I know, but other people got other perspectives. And the facts don’t necessarily get in the way of opinions; it’s clear that the media cooked the George Zimmerman audio tape to make it look like he was focusing on Trayvon Martin’s race; the unedited tape makes it clear that he didn’t even mention his race till he was specifically asked by the police for a description; nonetheless, some people remember the edited tape and have concluded that this was all about race. The point is, impressions matter; emotion matters; headlines matter; people remember the headlines and not the details in the article, and backing off a little on the emotion and rhetoric and ‘making a point’ isn’t necessarily a bad thing. And, remember, laws change; you may have the right to parade a loaded gun in public now, but if you draw attention to that, legislature can always change the law. See what just happened in NY state.

    Picking your fights is smart; being ready to die for each and every hill will get you in trouble, eventually.

    • irishdutchuncle January 21, 2013, 10:23 am

      yeh, it’s the nail that’s sticking up that gets hammered…

      are you suggesting that RIGHTS come from the Constitution?

      when the law “changes”, and makes someone an
      “instant felon”, is it to be obeyed or enforced, just because it’s: “the Law”?

      • irishdutchuncle January 21, 2013, 1:08 pm

        … and especially in light of the “fast and furious” scandal, where they were caught feeding “assault rifles” to criminals in order to pad their numbers?

        That is a Conspiracy FACT, not a theory.

        • Ron January 21, 2013, 1:32 pm

          Folks; several points.

          First, everyone here is a grownup, you can do what you want. Just because you can do what you want does not necessarily make it a good idea; I can stay home all day, every day, and not make money; but sooner or later I’m going to run out of money.

          Second, I really suspect an assault weapons ban is going to be very tough going thru congress; particularly in the house. Which is not to say it can’t happen; I just think it’s unlikely but I’m not sure that parading AR-15’s in public helps so much as it hurts. You know dang well that this whole thing is based on making people afraid; it just seems to me that last thing we need to be doing is encouraging people on the fence to think that they have reason to be concerned. Look, I’m a lawyer, I know a lot of lawyers; a lot of whom, not all, but a lot, fall into the stereotypical bleeding heart liberal category. They know I shoot, they know I got guns. And I’ve got standing offer to any of them to take them out shooting, at my expense, using my guns and ammo. A few of them have taken me up on that; and it changes their minds about shooting; it’s fun, it’s kind of neat, it relieves stress, it shows that the gun doesn’t load itself, jump up and start shooting at people randomly. Maybe they don’t run out and join NRA, but a LOT of people who are afraid of guns *have never shot a gun*. At least they know what it’s about; they might not exactly wind up on our side, but once they shoot a gun they feel somewhat differently about them. I’d rather do that than make them scared snotless by open carry, talking about firepower, that sort of thing. Hearts and minds, people, hearts and minds.

          Third, make no mistake; you speak out, there is a risk someone is going to notice; that’s the whole point behind the Aaron Swartz stuff; in the grand scheme of things what he did was trivial; but he kind of taunted the federal government and they charged him with multiple felonies; and when he got all reasonable and asked them to drop them, they said no. He wound up killing himself over it. You want to draw attention to yourself, fine, you can; but don’t complain if you the type of attention you get isn’t what you wanted, and it can be kind of tough to stop the attention sometimes.

          • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 3:15 pm

            Spot on.

      • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 3:30 pm

        I was surprised to find that in the current interpretation of the Bill of Rights the amendments are principally seen as restrictions on the authority of the federal government and do not apply directly to the states.

        The first amendment, by some convoluted logic, is an exception to this rule, but the second amendment is not. This explains why every state imposed gun law is not subject to challenges on constitutional grounds.

        I’m not entirely clear on why the National Firearms ACT (NFA) that banned automatic weapons in 1934, and the federal Gun Contol Act (GCA) of 1968 that imposed all the background checks, have not been challenged as unconstitutional. I know that they were driven by broad public support, but suspect that it has more to do with the second amendment not being seen as granting an absolute right in legal circles.

        The first amendment is interpreted as granting an absolute right to free speech: you can say what the hell ever you want. The right to firearms granted in the second is seen as contingent, and therefore subject to regulation.

        It comes down to the fact that the U.S. Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means… and that was built into the system at its inception.

        Am I right, Lawyer Guy?

    • GARY January 22, 2013, 11:49 am

      those well meaning,but very misguided young men have only served to make certain that if the government starts actually grabbing guns they will be among the first stops.This is much like a poker game right now,the ones who give away the least about what they have will last the longest

  • Ray January 21, 2013, 8:56 am

    Well…I live in an open carry state; LIKE REALY open, I openly carry my .357 whenever I want. I often hear how we mussn’t offend the poor delicate minds of the weak kneed left ,Mostly from people who live behind the Yankee Curtain. As for OpSEC…My guess is that nine out of ten homes in my county have an AR , an AK ,a deer rifle ,a hand gun, a shotgun or all of the above. FYI the Commonwelth of Kentucky is one of the states where the law reads”I have no duty to retreat further than the wind at my back” If I feel that I or another is ” In iminent threat of death or grevis bodyly injury” at the point I get to shoot the SOB. ANYWHERE. and. I get to carry a firearm openly anywhere I can CC. If it offends one of the leftwing dog- vomit in New YAK or cornetticut or califonication WHO CARES. We will NEVER be dis-armed. And IF; God forbid; the Dumb ass Feds ever do decide to “come and take them” The should remember , It won’t be one house at a time in Ky .No Jarhead Its not time to hide the guns ,It time to take em out and let the Finestine’s the Schummer”s the Obamma’s and all the rest of our would be communist masters KNOW that to even TRY and limit the 2A is to invite death and ruin . If they had tryed that NY crap in Ky the govener and most of the state Gov. would be swinging from ropes. I think it time for the men in this country to grow some balls, not hide.

    • GW January 21, 2013, 9:24 am

      Ray, comments like this make you sound uneducated, radical, and dangerous. Even, dare I say, unstable.

      The exact type of person that shouldn’t have access to a gun.

      Hopefully that’s not the case, and instead you take your gun ownership seriously and with a heavy dose of responsibility and respect. I think Jarhead and Ron make very good points.

      No one is trying to take away your guns…yet. Be aware of how you come off, and don’t give them a reason to want to.

      • irishdutchuncle January 21, 2013, 11:22 am

        they want to. they want it so bad they can taste it.
        they regard any and all of us that same way you just described Ray. they can’t tolerate any diversity of thought from what is P.C…

        • GW January 21, 2013, 1:03 pm

          Diversity of thought is one thing, but intolerant and racially driven attacks is something entirely different.

          I also have respect for elected officials even if I don’t agree with all their decisions. I certainly fail to see how threats to lynch public officials helps Ray’s cause.

          Like many people, I’m torn between the need for gun control and the right to self defense. A reasonable discussion may sway my opinion, but hate-filled ranting will just make think you’re crazy.

          • irishdutchuncle January 21, 2013, 1:15 pm

            I didn’t see any Racism whatsoever in Ray’s posting.

            There is no need for additional gun control. Corrupt elected officials demand respect at the point of the same types of weapons they would deny to us.

      • Ray January 21, 2013, 12:03 pm

        If you think that being a zellous advocat for my god given right to own and carry any wepon I want when and how I want makes me any of the above then F***YOU. NO ONE has the right to limit my god given rights in ANY way. Want a civil war ,then pass another federal gun law you WILL get one. Beware of how YOU “come off” Gun control is TREASON. I will never be peacefully disarmed. If you try to pass “resonable gun laws” YOU ARE my ENEMY. I will NOT be silent, I will not be afraid,I will not do your bidding ,I will not disarm . Yes the satanic trash in DC DO want to disarm america – Look to the two legged cockroachs Bloomberg and Cuomo for proof (Or Shuemmer, Finestine, Levin ,Holder, Obama, Clinton ECT) . I happen to live in a place that has true open carry , and (lack of) gun laws. I live where self defence is a RIGHT not a privalage. Buy the grace of GOD I’m from Jackson COUNTY KENTUCKY . Come on down and tell those boys what you think , I’d love to see how that turns out. And FYI- OPEN CARRY- on any given saterday I’m one of hundreds you’ll see everywhere in the commonwelth openly packing a gun -If you are afraid to use your rights you don’t have any.- You know what the police say if they see you with a gun in Ky, “Nice pistol” and you guys that feel like targets if you openly carry FOR GODS SAKE MOVE!!!. As for me I don’t rant fume or even talk much, But on this I’ll stand fast. NOT ONE MORE INCH—-.And just to take the wind otta your sail, I don’t own -or want an AR-15, the newest wepon I carry is a S&W revolver. (A six shooter) My idea of home defence is an 1897 winchester trench gun and my rifle don’t take mags ,it takes clips. (bonus if you know the diff.)

      • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 3:07 pm

        Andrew Cuomo… he wants to take our guns. He said it openly before the legislation was passed. And he’s already planning to run for president in 2016.

        The SAFE Act was crafted in such a way that NY is coming for the guns, one piece at a time. (See Below)

        The AWB passed in 1994 was an entirely different animal, and was meant to phase the guns out over successive generations. The strategy of the anti-gun lobby is now different. They want to take them off the street ASAP, and are willing to risk the political backlash to accomplish that.

    • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 3:12 pm

      If you already live in the Wild West, by all means strap on your .357 every time you go out for a can of tuna.

      Apparently everyone is comfortable with that in Kentucky. The guys with the AR’s in Maine deliberately went to a place where people were not comfortable with guns in order to creep them out. That’s unproductive.

      Can you walk around the streets in Kentucky with an M4 without causing a fuss, or is it just the revolver that everyone is used to?

      • Ray January 21, 2013, 5:02 pm

        In my lifetime It used to be common for every pickup to have 2-5 shotguns or rifles in the rack .Now everybody has an ATV and an AR-15 Or AK-clone The SKS-45 and nagant are common too. Honestly I dont think folks would look twice at the kid next door walking buy with an AR. Me I just carry an .357 cause I’m realy old school. I think what sets us apart is the fact that most of Ky has a very stable population, My familily has lived in the same village for over 200 years, I am related to everybody for 20-25 miles in any derection. Growing up if I went to town and did anything my granny knew about it ‘for I got home. The county I am setting in right now has 20 cops, If I called them right now AT BEST they are 20-30 min. away. Same Same the medics. Down here guns are a way of life , If somebody went to the store with an AR outside Louisville or Lexington most people in the store would probably know his name.Or his mom,Or wife , and they would probably ask if the trunk lock broke (we have almost no gun laws so protest is REALY rare, so is violent crime outside louisville or lexington) .

        • Ray January 21, 2013, 5:43 pm

          A little PS You guys need to understand outside the two major cities(louisville and lexington there are VERY few cops. Jackson county has 10 for 12000 people with 2 state troopers(if they are in the county). Some places have far fewer. If I were to call the cops I would most likey get a state trooper in something under an hour(we hope)If the duty trooper or deputy is on the other end of the county he could be more than an hour away. I would NEVER carry in Lexington OR louisville for the same reason I don’t go there, They are war zones, 99% of the violent crime in Ky happens in Fayett Co.(Lexington) or Jefferson Co.(Louisville) Almost all that killing is done in the same 12 blocks in louisville and six blocks in Lexington. (lexington and Louisville are so violent that cops patrol in “da hood” with M-16a1s and M-4s) Where I live I see a cop on patrol maybe three time a year .

        • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 6:48 pm

          Yeah, I came from the backwoods in Maine. There were two general stores in the town, and one of them sold assault rifles… and pizza and crappy subs… and they had a pool table.

          A gun on Main Street wouldn’t have freaked anyone out around there either, so I know where you’re coming from.

          Most of the places I’ve lived in my adult life aren’t like that though. They have a lot of people and a lot of police, so there are different social rules.

          • Jarhead Survivor January 21, 2013, 6:55 pm

            You could almost be discussing Hussey’s Hardware. They sell shotguns and wedding dresses in the same store.

          • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 7:34 pm

            Heh, yeah. Wasn’t Hussey’s. Got to love the trading post general store though. I miss Maine.

          • Jason January 22, 2013, 1:04 am

            Jarhead – They sell shotguns and wedding dresses in the same store, eh? Well isn’t that convenient. Ha, ha.

  • Wild Weasel January 21, 2013, 9:20 am

    Really swinging from ropes? One must learn to win battles to be able to win the war. Not always have battles been won when you charged the hill. One must be logical and calculated in everything. Does it make sense to strap on your iron so the world an see it? My state is open carry but I CHOOSE not to carry openly as to not make my self a target. Remember the one the screams the loudest gets the attention first be that good or bad. So that’s fine scream as loud as you want when they pry that firearm from your hands gives me a heads up what’s coming down the road. Silent and calculated will win more battles that head on confrontation. And my balls are where I like them INTACT.

    • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 2:59 pm

      Open carry is great if you have a clear purpose that everyone understands.

      If you don’t have a clear reason, you’ll put people on edge… not because you’re breaking a law, but because you’re violating a social norm.

      I like guns, and am all in on the second amendment, but I’d prefer not to change the norm that says we shouldn’t be openly armed in Starbucks. I also don’t advocate swearing in church. It’s not illegal; it’s rude and unnecessary, and if everyone starts doing it then we don’t really have a church anymore.

      • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 3:13 pm

        Sorry, Wild. That was meant for Ray’s comment about the apparent utopia of Kentucky.

      • ORRN on LI January 21, 2013, 5:46 pm

        Very well put, ditto here

        • ORRN on LI January 21, 2013, 5:47 pm

          I’m ditto’ing Yikes!

      • T.R. January 21, 2013, 9:05 pm

        Open carry is a good thing , we have it in AZ ………..BUT like mentioned by others , a person should have a reason to do so , we have open carry …..but few people feel the need to do so . We also have constitutional carry , that people do use .

  • ORRN on LI January 21, 2013, 9:46 am

    You not only hit all the bases, you took home plate too. Your voice would do better for the 2nd Amm. than the ones walking around with their guns swinging and gums flapping. OPSEC, I’ve learned from this site, will get you further, than screaming about what you’ve got and how your gonna use it. You walk a very sensible line here Jarhead, keep it real……quiet.

  • irishdutchuncle January 21, 2013, 10:06 am

    yeh, OPSEC, that’s the ticket…

    (wish I didn’t have such a BIG MOUTH)

    • Cory January 21, 2013, 3:16 pm

      I completely understand the need for OPSEC and agree with excersizing it, however some people are hard line “I have the right to do this”, “I have the right to do that” and look at OPSEC as a cowarding away from your rights. To those whom feel it is your “god given right” to carry openly, I would say this; God did give you that right, but he also gave you the right to not carry. However, what he may not have given you is the common sence to figure out which you should do.

      • Cory January 21, 2013, 3:46 pm

        By the way IDC, thanks for your kind words at my fathers passing.

        • irishdutchuncle January 21, 2013, 4:29 pm

          I’d try to do as much for anyone. I’m glad if it gave you some comfort.

          • Michael January 21, 2013, 4:42 pm

            “I have the right to do this”, “I have the right to do that”

            Yep, and they’re communities have the right to get fed up with their nonsense and change the laws so that they can no longer do those things, like open carry.

  • sirlancelot January 21, 2013, 10:16 am

    sounds like it’s time to move to Kentucky :-) nice part of the country, great people !

    it’s a bit different east coast. glad nobody showed up at the local 2nd amendment rally this past saturday with a gun strapped to their back. the organizers asked no one wear camo or hunter orange and tahnkfully everyone was good about it. had a good looking, peaceful crowd with families, women, vets, cops, etc.

    for this we got zero media coverage :-(

    elsewhere across country people showed up with guns and that’s all the media focused on. i see no reason to give the liberal media anything to make us look bad.

    soccer mommies and the joe six-packs are watching. we have to keep a positive image for what looks like the fight of our lives the right to keep and bear arms .

    • irishdutchuncle January 21, 2013, 11:41 am

      we need to turn the soccer mommies, into prepper mommies.

      I’ve heard the term: “security moms” used before, but they might be inclined to give away our rights in favor of their security.
      WE need to get the message out, that: “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”.
      YOU are the Security. There is no one else.

  • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 11:08 am

    There’s no law against hammering a nail through your own foot, but there’s also no need to do it.

    I wonder if those are the same guys who strapped their pistols on and went walking down Congress Street in Portland and put the resulting conversations on YouTube. They were just pulling a stunt to get attention.

    And yes, it does unnecessarily damage the image of gun owners by illustrating a flaw in our system: there’s no background check for maturity.

    • T.R. January 21, 2013, 2:47 pm

      ” The beauty of the 2nd amendment , is that it will never be needed , until they try to take it away ”
      Thomas Jefferson

      • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 2:51 pm

        So you SHOULD try to hammer a nail through your own foot?

        • T.R. January 21, 2013, 5:26 pm

          Just sayin …….those that believe that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are obsolete documents ………….are in for a very rude surprise when they no longer exist . Ask any eastern european immigrant how it is under totalitarianism . The lazy and unproductive , look at government by what it can do FOR them in exchange for their liberty ………….not by what the government can do TO them with no recourse after that liberty is relinquished . Our system isnt perfect by any stretch of the imagination ………….but its better than what most nations have , we became great because of our freedoms …. not in spite of them . Do I need an automatic weapon ? no . Do I want an automatic weapon ? not really . Do I think we the people should have them if desired as a safety valve against the police state ? Absolutely . Besides , they are talking semi automatics , any ban will only affect law abiding citizens , crime will get worse ………..because the criminals dont obey the law ………….thats why they are criminals , they will still have them .

  • Mike January 21, 2013, 12:16 pm

    Even if they ban assault rifles there’s would be grandfathered in.

    • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 2:50 pm

      There is no guaranteed grandfather clause in any legislation that bans assault weapons.

      NY just passed the SAFE Act which limits magazine capacity to 7, and does not grandfather pre-ban mags that you already own. You have a year to dispose of them, and in the mean time it’s a misdemeanor to ever put more than 7 rounds in the “hi-cap” mags you’ve yet to dispose of.

      It’s all now required, as of Tuesday, to register your newly christened “assault weapon” with the police within a year if you intend to keep it. Now the state is at liberty to impose any sort of condition that they like on registration. If you don’t meet the criteria, they can take your gun. I fully expect the criteria to change arbitrarily and without the approval or knowledge of legislators over the next few years.

      They did the same kind of thing when they implemented the pistol permit process years ago. You need a permit to even look at a pistol here, and the process is long, difficult, expensive, and totally depends on the approval of the judge in your county. The state absolutely has taken away pistols that already belonged to someone because they couldn’t afford to go through the permit application process that was made up ex post facto. There’s more than one route to confiscation. NY is coming for he guns.

      That said, I don’t think anything will pass at the Federal level because the votes aren’t there in Congress.

  • Waterboy January 21, 2013, 1:18 pm

    Doubt if you would have the rifle for long if you did that here in CA…you’d have to prove that you are sane etc. An altogether bad idea on every level.

  • T.R. January 21, 2013, 1:32 pm

    Two things Communists MUST ACCOMPLISH , in order to take control . #1 . Disarm the population , #2 . Destroy the middle class ……………….this looking familiar ?

    • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 2:32 pm

      The Democrats want to take the guns; the Republicans have been destroying the middle class for years:

      Ross Perot was right! The U.S. is run by communists!

      • T.R. January 21, 2013, 2:44 pm

        Fascism works the same way , exsept they dont go after the middle class as much . Either way …..we dont need that here .

        • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 5:04 pm

          Ayuh. I’m pretty sure that everything you know about fascism and communism dropped straight out of a Glen Beck monologue.

          There are no communists that are relevant in the politics of the United States in 2013. You’re talking about federalists… who have been part of the American dialogue since 1776. It’s the federalists who want to take our guns away. Ask Thomas Jefferson.

          • T.R. January 21, 2013, 9:13 pm

            Im married to a Russian …………..and she has quite a few stories of how well Communism works . As far as Fascists go ……my father fought them from Italy to the end of the war …………he also has insite on that . Federalists ARE Fascists . Glen Beck ? cant stand the guy .

          • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 10:37 pm

            Being married to a Russian doesn’t make you an expert in communism, especially since there hasn’t been any communism in Russia since 1989. And I’ve got plenty of relatives who fought fascists in WWII as well as Communists in Korea and Vietnam but they really don’t know much about either sort of dictatorship. I think that they were mostly concerned with the tyranny of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps at the time.

            Frankly, not understanding the difference between federalism and fascism completely confirms my initial assessment.

            I get it though. You find it entertaining to spread misinformation and encourage paranoia. Have fun, man. I’ll leave you to it.

          • T.R. January 22, 2013, 3:21 pm

            SHE grew up in the SOVIET UNION , not the Russian Federation . Yes its much different now . Federalism and Fascism are both totalitarian in nature , one is just a lesser for of the other , but both are totalitarian . Both , like Communism , is undesirable . Hate to use movie quotes , but this one is good . ” why should I trade 1 tyrant a thousand miles away for 1000 tyrants one mile away ? ” Der Furher or Der Feds , whats the real difference .

          • Yikes! January 22, 2013, 5:24 pm

            Yep, I’ve been to the Soviet Union and I’ve heard all kinds of stories too… and read books and papers about communism in no less than a dozen different nation-states.

            You’re not helping us prevent oppressive gun control with a bunch of extremist rhetoric that’s off point though.

            Like I said, I’ll leave you to it. Best of luck.

        • T.R. January 22, 2013, 3:32 pm

          By the way , Communists and Fascists both start wars , persecute and kill their own people if they dont follow the party line or do exactly what they are told . When it comes down to it , what more do you really need to know about them than that .

          • Yikes! January 22, 2013, 5:18 pm

            You need to know how their systems actually work so that you can tell the difference between a fascist regime and a federalist representative democracy.

  • Pineslayer January 21, 2013, 3:17 pm

    Jarhead you are correct. Maybe the day will come when you can walk around openly armed in this country, we ain’t there. Here in CO, it is an open carry state, but some municipalities say no. To get to some trail heads from my house I can drive 1/2 mile or walk it. I have been known to sling my 22 or shotgun across my back and walk over to do some armed hiking or hunting as most people call it. I know all the LE’s around here, small community, and have lent a small 22 to them to let their kids shoot. I still would not stroll down to Main St with my black rifles. Those young men need better management/women in their lives. After all we all know who we answer to at the end of the day :)

    • T.R. January 22, 2013, 8:20 pm

      Thats just it , in AZ we have open carry , but hardly anybody does it . They prefer to avoid needless problems that it obviously causes to those around them . Those that do carry , do so in a discrete manor , taking advantage of our constitutional carry law . Let me put it this way , you can be armed and have the security of that …………and nobody wil ever know you are armed unless you are in a situation where you feel you need to produce it .

  • JaegeRanger January 21, 2013, 4:06 pm

    I carry concealed most of the time due to my profession (as does my wife), and we occasionally have necessary firepower to fight bigger battles with us. My first instinct was to respond, ‘Yes, Jarhead, you’re correct.’

    Then I read the comments.

    Despite Ray’s black-and-white-sounding comments, I agree with him. The fact that we’ve not exercised our right to bear arms legally, and we’ve let the ever-fascist LEOs dictate the laws, we’ve arrived to this situation. The PAFOA (PA) forum provides great examples.

    Here in Minnesota we’ve doubled the carry-permit-holder number due to the fact that certain people open carry even in the Twin Cities, where is leads to an attack by the local gestapo every single time. Some guys went to sit in a library just to commence a case that eventually lead to the fact that all libraries are now free carry zones. We’ve won every battle we’ve started to ‘increase’ our rights. I should mention that most of our ‘leaders’ open carry for that exact reason.

    It’s not abnormal to see a gun in Minnesota anymore thanks to open carry people and great lawyers who drafted out laws. We’ve got a Permit To Carry a Pistol Law that does not limit how one is supposed to carry the firearm(s).

    As to those who dare to question others’ right to bear arms, you are detrimental to the Second Amendment cause. I’m not even going to waste words to tell what I really think of you.

    In addition to military experience, I’ve been a competitive practical shooter for decades and a firearms instructor. If I’d create a yardstick to qualify or disqualify people from carrying or owning a firearm, most gun owners I’ve seen at the public ranges (and matches) would not qualify.

    I happen to read the Second Amendment as it was meant to be interpreted: a restriction to the federal government to have any say in the matter of firearms in the US. I think that everybody sans violent felons ought to have the right to bear arms.

    It’s so sad that gun-owners in America are so divided on every issue. We’ll lose this war for sure, unless people commence exercising their legal rights come hell or high water.

    The future is approaching fast, so decide now whether you’re ready to give up your God-given rights to posses and bear firearms with the rest of your rights as an American.

  • Michael January 21, 2013, 4:08 pm

    Yep, just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

    If for some reason you do need to walk somewhere with an uncased long arm, leave the the magazine out and open the chamber so people know the gun isn’t loaded and you more than likely don’t have a hostel intent.

    • irishdutchuncle January 21, 2013, 4:47 pm

      that only means something to people who aren’t ignorant about firearms. everyone else will still wet their panties.

      • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 5:07 pm

        Yeah, Mike’s rule is great at the range. In Walmart nobody knows the difference.

        We should be careful not to project the logic of our own worlds onto society at large.

  • Kiwi Mossberg Fan January 21, 2013, 5:06 pm

    Is any interested in a non-American perspective?

    I am a New Zealander and sitting here on Tuesday 22nd Jan 2013 at 11.00am writing this, all we get to see on our news, CNN, Reuters, ABC, BBC has to say about your 2nd Amendment (I did the research and am rather interested in what you guys and gals now face).

    1st: I don’t dispute your right to bear arms at all, I myself am a lawful and licensed firearms holder/owner here in New Zealand, and yes I had to have a background check and sit a test about firearm safety, I also had the Police inspect my property and the location where i stored my firearms to ensure it was to the letter of the law. I have no issue with this, I personally take pride in the fact that my government (whom I served in the military for) has me marked as a law abiding citizen, one whom they can call upon in time of need even! But at no point would I ever scream they can take my guns from my cold dead hands!

    2nd: If the government decided to change the law and remove the firearms from private people, 1st of all i would ask, is why the heck did we vote these individuals into parliament, are they not the people representatives?

    3rd: Our laws are set up for different licenses can get you different firearms and you must have a lawful reason to have them. Even our Neighbours in Australia have very similar rules on firearms ownership. To have a pistol or revolver we must have a lawful reason (home defense is not one of them, concealed carry or open carry is not permitted at all, even our police are unarmed in this country), even to own a Military Style Semi Automatic you need a different class of license and a lawful reason. My question (if you were living here in New Zealand) is what is your lawful reason to own a military style rifle? (beyond old bolt action WW1 or WW2 firearms now used for hunting).

    4th: Living in a built up city and having an arsenal (to me, this is my own personal opinion) is uncalled for. You cannot use them in and around your property, if you go to a gun club, you don’t get the true usage out of some of these weapons? so why have them?

    5th: Living in the country is where specific firearms can be utilised as they were designed for long range hunting of game to fill the pot, You can buy duck over the counter, but shooting your own is more fulfilling, just like fishing to get your own fish!

    6th: A firearm is a tool, just like a hammer, an axe, a knife. They are designed for a specific task, yes i understand that firearms were created for war and specific firearms still are designed for that reason. Yet roles change, and unfortunately they get used in ways they were not intended; crime, so a knife or a screw driver becomes a weapon of terror to a shop keeper as much as a pistol or a shotgun. The same can be said about cars!.

    In conclusion: I really hope you Americans can find mutual ground, My country has already implemented what people are trying to do in the USA now, and we have not had our guns taken from us. Maybe your politicians can look at what we In New Zealand and Australia have in place as an example to what you can do. In the end its your own choice!

    • irishdutchuncle January 21, 2013, 5:30 pm

      in the built-up cities here, where our firearms laws are even more restrictive than yours, real criminals: felons, have no problem obtaining any type of firearm. mostly they kill each other. the remainder of the population they plunder and terrorize because we law abiding are disarmed.

      • Kiwi Mossberg Fan January 21, 2013, 5:47 pm

        Thanks for the comment, as I have never experienced this, its trully hard to comprehend. The more I learn the the more I can understand. I hate to say it but the fact it has got to this level in the USA sadens me. The home of democracy and freedom does not sound free to me at all!

        • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 5:57 pm

          It turns out that freedom is kind of dangerous.

          Although, some people do exaggerate the actual danger of it in their minds from time to time. I’m still alive, for example, and I have never carried a gun anywhere but to the range or the woods.

      • irishdutchuncle January 21, 2013, 6:08 pm

        I’m told that we have the 2nd Amendment here specifically because James II of England attemped gun control there.
        (I will have to study-up a little more about that)

  • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 5:32 pm


    It’s good and interesting that you’re reading this stuff.

    I generally assume that the American firearms thing is incomprehensible to people in the rest of the developed world. Your observations are reasonable, and not unexpected.

    The thing that you’re missing is that firearm ownership and specifically the idea that regular people should have military weapons is deeply rooted in some American identities. It’s much less a matter of having an actual need for a pistol than the fact that we see ourselves as autonomous in certain ways from our government.

    This didn’t happen by accident. If you look at the history of our initial transition from a colony to an independent state, you will find that there was a federalist faction which wanted a strong centralized government and an opposing republican faction that was deeply concerned with limiting federal power. Thomas Jefferson was an important figure in the republican faction, and literally thought that people should individually have the capacity to defend their property and rights against a centralized military force.

    This sort of thinking is impractical in 2013, but a lot of Americans want to feel that it’s not. We don’t NEED the AR for a practical purpose. We WANT it because it makes us feel like Americans… and paradoxically free of America.

    People will disagree with me here for sure, but I think what I’ve said is fundamentally true. I grew up with it and it’s part of my identity, and that’s why it’s important. I don’t expect that to resonate with a Kiwi or an Briton, mostly because it’s counter-intuitive from the outside looking in. It does make sense though.

    • Kiwi Mossberg Fan January 21, 2013, 5:56 pm

      Yikes, your right Identity plays a huge part in who we are now today and even for our future! What you stand for, how you got to that point in time, it trully makes sense; And for the USA your identity is your constitution and what you as a nation have acheived in the past 250 odd years. All I can think of is how would I react if the same issue was happening here?

      • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 6:01 pm

        Is there an analogous issue in New Zealand?

        I’ve only known a couple of people from there, and couldn’t guess what the touchy issues are in your politics.

        • Kiwi Mossberg Fan January 21, 2013, 7:21 pm

          Currently they are looking at arming our police force (for everyday constables/officers) as only our Armed Offenders Squad (AOS) similar to SWAT curently are. This is due to a range of offences against the police here, soem of which have resulted in death! Big thing is our populace are not keen on jacked up power mad coppers armed! to many incedents could become fatal.

          • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 7:48 pm

            I’ve heard discussions like that coming out of the UK as well.

            I would have never imagined a police force that didn’t have guns when I was younger. Nobody would listen to them at all in the U.S.

            But then I looked up a couple of things for kicks: it seems that there are about three to four times the number of homicides per year in the the City of Los Angeles as there are in the entire country of New Zealand. You’re in a whole different world, man.

        • Jason January 22, 2013, 1:10 am

          Kiwi Mossberg Fan – it is all Kim Dotcom’s fault!

  • Joe Dirt January 21, 2013, 5:59 pm

    Kiwi, our Constitution says the federal govt. can not infringe on our right to bear arms.
    Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    The only way to change this is to change the Constitution. Anything else is illegal.

    • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 6:41 pm

      Would that it were that simple.

      • Kiwi Mossberg Fan January 21, 2013, 7:25 pm

        Does that mean if your a member of a militia you can bear arms? or have i lost something in translation??? Or is that the whole problem!

        • irishdutchuncle January 21, 2013, 7:43 pm

          “well regulated” is flowery 18th century language for
          properly functioning. all able bodied men (within the age limits) are the militia.

        • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 10:44 pm

          The militias that existed at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights were meant to actually be the main defense force for the U.S. They were entirely based on volunteerism, and principally under the control of the states, rather than the federal government.

          The Militia Act of 1903 converted these militias into state national guards that fell under the ultimate authority of a centralized, federal military. That effectively negated the practical argument underlying the second amendment.

          In recent years the term “militia” has come to refer to local volunteer paramilitary organizations in the U.S. I think that a lot of them are well intentioned, but some are really groups of extremists. Regardless of their intentions, these “militias” are distinct from the ones mentioned in the second Amendment.

      • Cory January 21, 2013, 8:55 pm

        It is that simple, what is not is the liberal mind that cannot accept what it disagrees with and will seek to over complicate in an attempt to discredit. It is said that he who does not study history is doomed to repeat it. May we all see the future through the eyes of our fore fathers in an attempt to preserve it for our children.

        • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 10:54 pm

          Read my posts and tell me that you’ve studied more history than I have.

          You can’t even recognize someone who is on your side. I think that the second amendment is important, and that it should protect the right of an individual to have an assault weapon, pistol, or shotgun. In fact, I’ll go you one better and say that the National Firearms Act of 1934, the one that outlawed fully automatic weapons, is unconstitutional.

          I looked into this history specifically so that I could better deconstruct the arguments at play and so better defend my rights under the second amendment.

          Maybe you’d like me better if I just spouted off some mindless dogma that will have no effect whatsoever on the national argument on gun control:

          They can have my machine gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hand! The tree of democracy must run red with the blood of patriots and tyrants! GET ‘ER DUN!

          • Jason January 22, 2013, 1:28 am

            Yikes! I would like your opinion. I understand the 2nd Amendment & am in full support of it but what but really don’t get is why should citizens be allowed to own assault weapons.

            I think the intent of the 2nd Amendment was for self protection & of course hunting but assault weapons seems to be excessive when viewed in that perspective. I own plenty of guns & became a gun owner late in life however, I can see the reasoning why many want to ban assault rifles because it does not make sense.

            Lastly, I understand the logic that they take the assault weapons it can begin a domino effect.

            So what is your argument for keeping them? BTW, this is not a debate rather, I am very curious & lack understanding.

          • irishdutchuncle January 22, 2013, 3:16 am

            “assault rifle” is a made-up term. the definition creeps with the whims of the anti-gunners. it’s the equivalent of the “straw man” in rhetoric. You should have one (if you want one) because it is effective for your self defense in ways which are superior to a pistol, or a shotgun.

          • irishdutchuncle January 22, 2013, 3:21 am

            Yikes! actually did answer your question himself.
            (see below)

          • Yikes! January 22, 2013, 10:28 am


            Yeah, I’m not debating either. I’m just talking.

            You’re a reasonable guy, and that’s a fair question.

            Having read a bit about the historical context in which the second amendment was written, and the more recent interpretations of it, I genuinely believe that its intent was to put a counterweight to domestic military force into the hands of the people.

            You’re probably thinking that times have changed and that no longer makes any practical sense. In all honesty, you’re probably right. In my own mind, the intense symbolic value of military style weapons to some forms of American identity outweigh the pragmatic issues. I expanded on this in my response to Kiwi.

            If gun control was just about the math, I would probably be on the other side… but if life was just about the math I’d never get in a car or go golfing in Florida either.

            I’m not sure if that’s a satisfying answer, but it’s all I’ve got at the moment. The fact that the state of New York just made some of my personal property illegal does factor into it.

          • Yikes! January 22, 2013, 11:04 am

            Jason! Addendum!

            I have to add that there’s another line of reasoning which is entirely contingent on your personal level of paranoia.

            In the event of a raging disaster, there is the possibility of chaos and looting by groups of people. In such a case there could conceivably be a practical need for an assault weapon.

            This argument is just left of batshit crazy in my opinion, but I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t in the back of my mind someplace. We’re talking on the SHTFblog, afterall.

            And I have been through two minor disasters. The first one made me think I should always keep a month’s worth of food and water on hand. The second kind of made me think that I should keep an Uzi on hand. That’s probably why I entertain the possibility in the first place.

          • Jason January 22, 2013, 1:48 pm


            You said: “Having read a bit about the historical context in which the second amendment was written, and the more recent interpretations of it, I genuinely believe that its intent was to put a counterweight to domestic military force into the hands of the people.”

            I could not agree more & the operative word you used is “interpretations” which is the basis of solicitation of your opinion & the problem I have with it – it being the push by government to seize our guns not your opinion.

            After I made my post, Irish clarified things for me because it has become about definitions. So the question becomes – what is an “assault weapon”? This is the most dangerous question to our freedom because I believe it puts the entire Constitution ask risk.

            The 1st & 2nd Amendment are the most pivotal amendments regarding our freedom. These are 2 primary reason we sought independence from not so Great Britain. I wholeheartedly believe the intention of the 1st & 2nd Amendments were clear & I do believe there is a level of appropriateness & reasonability that must be exercised.

            That being said is a AK 47 or AR 15 reasonable for a citizen to own? I say no because there is no threat or has been that can justify ownership by a citizen, in fact I believe the temptation associated with owning it is far greater. I am about to contradict myself because I need to lay out one side of the equation & am changing points of view.

            **BUT** we have been given the right to bear arms for the primary reason given by Thomas Jefferson – “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” This point is key because as they attempt to put us under their (government) thumb, they arm themselves with those weapons they are trying to take away from the citizens.

            This is a complete violation of our rights, reminiscent of the Revolution War.

            What Irish said was right on the money – “assault weapon” is a made up term. It is a phrase that invokes fear & when the MSM gets in on it, they slant things by showing weapons of war & dead bodies laying in the streets of Mexico, leading people to believe that they were all mowed down by a hail of fire from a lone gunman.

            To extrapolate & back to my question, what is an assault weapon, it can be determined to be anything that can propel metal at some future point.

            So my point is to set the guns aside for a moment & look at the baseline intent of the 2nd Amendment & that is clear – freedom & the right to protect yourself, period. As far as the AK’s & AR’s, it is a moot point in my opinion. The interpretation of those types of weapons as to what they can do in the hands of citizenry is unsubstantiated by the powers that be & like the term assault weapon, it is purely made up.

          • Yikes! January 22, 2013, 2:56 pm


            Ayuh, that’s pretty much the situation. I wrote this about the definition of assault weapons lower down in the thread:

            An “assault rifle” is one that is capable of selective or fully automatic fire.

            An “assault weapon” is a semi-automatic rifle or pistol that has military-like features, and the technical definition keeps changing with every new set of laws.

            The difference is an artifice of the gun control lobby.

            I have a rifle, for example, that was legally not an “assault weapon” two weeks ago. The state of New York passed the SAFE act which redefined the term, and now my rifle is legally an “assault weapon.” This rifle was never an “assault rifle,” because it has more or less been illegal for a civilian to own one of those since 1934.

            Sorry to re-post it,m but I can’t put it any better than that and the thread’s long and confusing at this point.

            You’re giving the slippery slope argument… once the government puts a mechanism for confiscating weapons in place, they’ll just re-bake the rules over and over until they get everything.

            They have been doing that in New York for years . Even the most extreme guy nuts in NY are habituated to the idea that there’s a prohibitively expensive and complicated process in place for anyone who even wants to own a handgun… not to carry, just to touch one. I blew a guy’s mind the other day when I told him that you could buy a pistol like a rifle in some places.

            That said, the state always confiscates pistols when you don’t renew your permit properly or when you die and will them to someone without a permit. Since everyone rolled over for that, they’re beginning to put a similar rule in place for assault weapons. Read the SAFE ACT information. it really is an infringement. The next step will be banning semi-autos entirely, then pump guns.

            Whether you care about ARs or not, I think we’re kind of on the same page. The New York history is instructive.

          • T.R. January 22, 2013, 3:46 pm

            Jason , You must also remember that all weapons in question are SEMI automatic . Yes you can own a fully automatic , but as it is right now , you have to go through a lot of hoops to get a license . Most people , including myself do not have any problem with that . Like you said , the best way for those with ill intent to get rid of the bill of rights and Constitution is by sub legislation …….chipping away at it little by little until you have what amounts to totalitarian government . The 2nd amendment I believe was intended for the people to resist tyranny , this is NOT outdated , matter of fact , knowing the lack of morals and character of modern people , its even more necessary today , than it was then . Freedom is like wealth , there is always somebody that wants to take it from you . Live and let live ? I’m all for it , unfortunately , there are some groups and individuals that dont want that to happen .

          • Yikes! January 22, 2013, 4:44 pm

            Yeah, some people are still thinking they’ll shoot up the revenuers when they come for the guns or take on the military with their ARs.

            The Whiskey Rebellion pretty much settled that question generations ago. You simply cannot shoot at the government… not anymore, and not in my lifetime.

            That’s just a quick trip to prison.

          • Yikes! January 22, 2013, 4:49 pm

            And yeah, TR, technically you can have a full auto assault rifle in some states. The way that ban was constructed is that they made it prohibitively expensive to own one. They were not made completely illegal.

            Whatever the mechanism, the ban worked. I have never personally met anyone who went to the trouble to get a Title II weapon.

          • Jason January 22, 2013, 8:16 pm

            Yikes! & T.R. –

            Thank you for the input. My point was to examine the 2nd Amendment itself, for what it is – independent of the guns. What does it say? It is clear.

            The part that spooks me is the injection of what & how arms are becoming defined. The 2nd Amendment does not say or specify types of guns but the government now wants to whittle it away. I do not care if they are full auto, semi auto or single shot, that has no bearing – it is the citizen’s right to bear arms, period.

            “Let’s take away the assault weapons before we lose another child to a hollow point bullet to the head”. A powerful, stirring statement that is reasonable & gains much agreement while putting the NRA on its heels, forced to react. That is the problem – blur, confuse & distract from the 2nd Amendment with a skirmish of definitions. Nothing to do with the right to bear arms.

            I do not believe it is possible to cut off a segment of weapons while leaving the integrity of the 2nd Amendment intact. If “they” succeed in removing any weapon, the rest will go in time – guaranteed because the integrity will be eliminated. But the bigger problem is our freedom in America will be compromised forever if they nationally pass any restrictions on gun ownership, just like they have done in NY.

            Sorry if it seemed like I flip-flopped on the “assault weapons” thing, I sat & began to think it through completely.

          • T.R. January 22, 2013, 8:40 pm

            Jason , you got it !!!!!!!!! There is a bigger issue than the type of gun . That is irrelevant , Criminals will still have them in every form . Its like a poor doctor attacking the symptom and not the disease . Its a societal problem that needs to be addressed ……..why cant people find a way to cope , what is environmental and societal problems are producing those that do the shootings ? Then take steps to correct those issues .
            it is already illegal for mentally ill people to buy a firearm ……..the weak link is that doctors treating a person are not required to report that person so that the person can be denied access . Its not the gun , that is irrelevant . Spoons make you fat by the same logic .

  • Robert January 21, 2013, 7:12 pm

    Well said. We tend to be our own worst enemies when it comes to advocating for ourselves.

    Most gun owners/gun rights advocates don’t understand the normal person opposed to firearms. We decided long ago to not be victims, where as they either are victims or identify as such.

    Now, I am not talking about the Feinsteins, Shumers, and Obamas out there, they are playing on the fears of the victim class within our society. The victim class needs to be dealt with in a calm, soothing, and non-confrontational manner. They can be reasoned with (normally), but if we get in their faces about things their panic subroutine kicks in and they won’t listen.

    • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 11:08 pm

      Excellent observation. Rob.

      Gadsen flags aren’t going to solve this one.

  • MIke January 21, 2013, 8:31 pm

    I live in NY and need to carry for my living. The new “gun grabbing law” has made every firearm I own now illegal under current law. Furthermore, one can’t buy ammo because Federal background checks are now required and ammo purchases have to be logged and registered with the NYS Police. The catch is that there is no governing body to complete these background checks or log the purchase. Every gun shop within a 100 mile radius of my home is shut down because they can’t make a sale. I myself have been calling the Governor’s office for a week for clarification on the law and can’t get a single question answered. I can tell you one thing with 100% certainty; THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR GUNS! In NY if you decide to register your “grand fathered in” newly “illegal” firearms, when you die, those weapons must be turned over to the state. They are going to try and make this the status quo across the nation. We are facing the largest and best organized oposition to our Constitutional Rights ever constructed by our governement. A

    • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 11:06 pm


      I’m in NY, and can absolutely confirm that your assessment of the new law is correct. The state is openly maneuvering to confiscate or otherwise destroy our property by the enactment of a law ex post facto. There is at least one class action suit in process at the moment to fight this, insofar as I am aware, and two state senators have started petitions to repeal the SAFE Act.

      I agree that there are people who would like to do the same thing at the federal level, but I think that the Republican majority in the House, and the potential for a filibuster in the Senate, will ultimately prevent any egregious law from being passed at this time.

      What’s going on in New York is wrong.

  • Bill Fitzgerald January 21, 2013, 9:35 pm

    Unless they were carrying fully automatic machine guns, THEY WERE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS. How do people expect the media to get it right if regular folks can’t get it right?

    • Yikes! January 21, 2013, 10:59 pm

      An “assault rifle” is one that is capable of selective or fully automatic fire.

      An “assault weapon” is a semi-automatic rifle or pistol that has military-like features, and the technical definition keeps changing with every new set of laws.

      The difference is an artifice of the gun control lobby.

      I have a rifle, for example, that was legally not an “assault weapon” two weeks ago. The state of New York passed the SAFE act which redefined the term, and now my rifle is legally an “assault weapon.” This rifle was never an “assault rifle,” because it has more or less been illegal for a civilian to own one of those since 1934.

  • Rain23 January 21, 2013, 11:53 pm

    I carry a Leatherman. I have the right to carry it. I don’t walk around with the blade open. I use it when necessary and if someone asks about it, I gladly tell them where I got it and how it works. The few time I’ve open carried I made sure the weapon was visible to someone who’s alert for it, but I’m not a walking advertisement for mall ninjas.

    Part of being a responsible gun owner is knowing when a show of force is justified. I’m just guessing, but do some formerly ambivalent people who called 911 now have an opinion not only about “assault rifles” but open carry and the common sense of gun owners in general?

  • Yikes! January 22, 2013, 12:44 am

    Last I knew, there was no law against carrying a Leatherman because it’s not a weapon. It’s a pair of pliers with a pen knife on it.

    I’ve called 911, and I’ll do it again… because you can’t just go around shooting people who creep you out. I’ve also been shooting for years, and I think the Second Amendment protects my right to have an assault weapon. I know lots of gun owners, and know that some of them have more sense than others. I don’t quite get your question.

  • Wally January 22, 2013, 1:00 am

    Cool, vigorous conversation! Great topic Jarhead; we all need to be involved in more discussions like this. I’d rank these guys in Oregon at the same level as Alex Jones in his “debate” with Piers Morgan. The three might have had good intentions , but have hurt the cause more than have helped it.

    • Jason January 22, 2013, 1:34 am

      Piers Morgan is a pompous ass & knows it. He loves controversy. What gets me is the MSM values his position on a weapons ban & he isn’t a citizen here.

      Imagine some heavy weight newscaster going to the UK & start preaching gun ownership. They would be tarred & feathered. This pussy, PC America is making me sick.

      • Cory January 22, 2013, 7:21 pm

        This is the best opinion Ive seen posted so far,

  • Will I Am January 22, 2013, 10:18 am

    Jarhead Survivor,

    I fully understand the concept you are attempting to bring across, however when you begin with and use Chuck Schumeresk/Susan Collins radical left wing, Marxist, extremist, propagandist, euphamistic terminology like “assault weapon”…………you clearly undermine your point and argument.

    The firearms these two knuckleheads were carrying were SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES………..NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS.

    I agree, although open carrying in this manner is their right and legal, it is not smart for a number of reasons which you discussed.

    What you DID NOT discuss on this point is what gives me cause to grimmace. One the one hand you consider it foolish and unwise for these two knuckleheads to open carry as they did yet you (I take by inferral) readily accept, condone, and support costumed tax feeders (aka law enforcement) doing EXACTLY the same thing without the least bit of reserve or hesitation in thought. They are after all CIVILIAN, American citizens, just like you and I.

    The police are carefully vetted and trained…….they are not the problem you may say???

    There are approximately 1 MILLION law enforcement officers in the U.S. Each and EVERY year, they account for more deaths and injury criminally and as well as in questionable duty situations than ALL of the mass shootings that have ever occurred combined. Yet narry are peep about all of the death and destruction.

    So, PLEASE……….let us NOT villify the weapon or endorse classes of citizenship. After all the firearm is nothing more than an inanimate tool designed by man for a specific purpose that can do NOTHING without the operator pulling the trigger. I think it reasonable to take that the law applies to ALL citizens the same.

    Secondly, the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights grants and does absolutely NOTHING with respect to “granting” or creating ANY true right. (aka natural born right) BOTH documents do nothings more that either codify the powers of each branch of goverment, how they shall operate…………and what they SHALL NOT DO.

    Each and EVERY human being born into or naturalized as an American citizen is BORN with these natural born rights that are very clearly enumerated in the Declaration of Independence as Unalienable Rights. Rights endowed to us by our creator by virtue of his having created us in His image if you are a believer and rights endowed to you by virture of your humanity if you are not.

    So………..why all of this when you mearly asked for everyone to “sound off” about the two knuckle heads open carrying SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles? The issue is NOT that simple………it never is.

    In order to have a clear and accurate world view, one must be situated/grounded in a clear understanding of from what & where one has come from and what one is looking at.

    Understand your Naturalborn rights and the founding concept of the documents we ALL (in theory) accept as the law of the land……….now understand how far gone the republic (NOT democracy) is and the culture that MILLIONS of “low information voters” (aka Marxist Morons) have brought us to.

    Perhaps you may want to recalibrate your world view and more carefully choose your words.

    Good blog entry, I agree with your other points. It is important to use the Marxist, anti-gun, hoplphobic, anti-liberty terminology and language in making those points.

  • riverrider January 22, 2013, 10:39 am

    i think a lot of you guys, while well meaning, are wrong. how are the sheep going to get used to the gun if they never see one responsibly carried, and are told by the media/president that guns are evil? back in my day open carry was accepted as a part of life. we had our guns in the window of our trucks in the hs parking lot for gosh sakes. nobody freaked out and called the swat team. we carried everywhere except court. the judge made us check our weapons at the door. as a teenager i carried a ruger mk2 everywhere i went, nobody thought anything of it. our “society” in its effort to be “civilized” has hidden the gun away and allowed the left to demonize an inanimate object. i think the more the general public sees guns responsibly carried the better off we will be when the liberal lie machines kick on. jm2c

    • Yikes! January 22, 2013, 11:12 am

      I remember the 1970s too, RR. And even then, you couldn’t do any of that in a city.

      The trouble is that we’re living in a democracy and like 47% of people disagree with you vehemently. Like 40% of them are on your side whether they precisely agree with you or not. Most crucially, the 13% in the middle will decide whether you get to have a gun at all in the next decade.

      If this were a dictatorship, you’d be right. We’d just need to habituate everyone to the guns. As it stands, we need to convince the ambivalent 13% to let us keep our guns.

      The only way around democracy is to get everyone who thinks like you to reproduce more.

      • irishdutchuncle January 22, 2013, 3:30 pm

        actually we are a constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

        • Yikes! January 22, 2013, 4:34 pm


          Sure, we’re a constitutional republic with political system based on representational democracy.

          Are you suggesting that we don’t need to convince a majority of our representatives that we should have guns in order to prevent new legislation?

          • Cory January 22, 2013, 8:16 pm

            Yikes, we dont need to convince anybody that we have the second amendment. The problem with having something is that you cant gain it only lose it. We have the right to bear arms and wont lose it unless we forget what protects it, the supreme court. We are always going to be challenged for that right, but getting caught up in an arguement with antigunners only serves to embolden them in their beliefs. Anything that has to be defended can be taken. We dont need to try to convince representatives that they need to decide wether or not that we should have guns. This will only serve to convince them that they can decide. We need to convice them that we have the right and that they have no decision to make. By the way, I do not question your history skills and am impressed with them. We are on the same side.

          • Cory January 22, 2013, 8:32 pm

            Ooh, and remember “United We Stand”.

          • Yikes! January 23, 2013, 8:05 pm


            All good, man.

            But I am dealing with a stark reality in new york. They have passed a law that undermines the second amendment entirely. Pretty much any semi-auto with a detachable mag is now an assault rifle. All AR variants are banned. ALL mags with a capacity over 7 rounds are banned and it’s a misdemeanor to posses one after January 2014. All the newly declared assault rifles have to be registered within a year, subject to approval of the local police, and that has to be renewed every 5 years. Every ammunition purchase will require a full background check. You can no longer buy ammo online. Private sales require background checks… and there are a bunch of other new rules that I haven’t yet internalized.

            None of this is speculation. It is the new reality in New York. Whether I happen to think that my rights can be questioned or not simply doesn’t enter into it.

            You can say it’s unconstitutional all day and night, but the prevailing interpretation of the second amendment in the supreme court will most likely not allow the reversal of this set of laws on constitutional grounds. I looked into that too, and the second is not seen as a constriction on the rights of states to regulate guns at present. It is seen only as preventing the federal government from doing it.

            So I’m concerned with something that is actually happening in front of me. I did try to convince my state representatives to vote against the SAFE Act, as did a lot of gun owners, and the thing flew through the state assembly and the senate in less than a day. I think that they needed more convincing.

          • Cory January 23, 2013, 9:39 pm

            Yikes; I see, understand, and sympathise with the situation you are facing. You don’t have any decent legal options. Not sure what I would do in your situation, and hope I never have to find out.

          • Yikes! January 23, 2013, 11:45 pm


            Thanks, man.

            I’m kind of at a loss, myself. That’s why I’m on here venting about it.

            It comes down to the fact that the majority of people in New York State could give a toss about gun rights. The majority vote was overwhelming in the state senate and assembly. This whole thing happened democratically.

            I don’t know what state you’re dealing with, but pay attention to the local politics. The PA border is looking pretty close about now.

          • irishdutchuncle February 3, 2013, 8:37 pm

            Does your employer require you to be a NY State resident? PA Real Estate will never get much cheaper.
            you could get yourself a “vacation home” here. do you have to stick it out up there ’til you get tenure?
  , Yahoo Real Estate, Zillow, Trulia…
            (there are loads of academic institutions in PA too)

  • lee January 22, 2013, 2:21 pm

    Eather he has the RIGHT. Or he dose not.
    He dose not have to justify his RIGHT.

    • Yikes! January 22, 2013, 3:00 pm

      And that is how new local gun laws get made.

  • sirlancelot January 22, 2013, 7:10 pm

    why does the government want to outlaw firearms so badly ? sure, it’s the “bad” guns first, but guess what ?

    pretty soon ALL guns are bad !!!

    more people are killed in car wrecks. you don’t need that fast sports car. the speed limit is only 65 mph yet nobody is outlawing corvettes. i wonder why ?

    • Cory January 22, 2013, 7:39 pm

      Sirlance, there is an old saying that gun control is not about guns, its about control.

  • Jeremiah January 22, 2013, 10:09 pm

    I respect you for all of the information you post on here. I think it is an excellent site. But would please stop referrring to these rifels as “assault rifels”. They are sporting rifels or hunting rifles or plinking rifles. The only thing that makes a weapon anything remotely “assault” is the individual using it at the time. Thank you

  • Ron January 23, 2013, 3:14 pm

    First, I suspect we are all more or less on the same side; nonetheless, these ‘doctrinal’ squabbles don’t advance our over all cause (fights over terminology of ‘assault weapons’; who’s more anti communist, anti fascist, automatic vs. semi auto; sure I know the difference but the general public doesn’t).

    Second, recognize that laws can change; and even in some ‘safe’ states you can have some changes in law; Florida is generally pretty gun friendly, but about 20+ years ago we had a 3 day wait period for handguns put into our constitution; it was done by referendum, not legislative action.

    Third, not everybody in this country is comfortable with guns; in fact, I dare say there’s some people who probably shouldn’t own guns; that’s fine; I don’t tell anyone they should own a gun; but the point is the person whom some denigrate as “sheep” because they don’t like guns got the exact same vote as you do; you make enough of them uncomfortable with open carry and you are likely to see some changes in the law that we really don’t like. A lot of us are what many people would call ‘gun nuts’; maybe it isn’t fair, or accurate, but there is public perception of firearms enthusiasts as being just a little off kilter; and most of the media is more than happy to depict people who own guns as a little bit nutzoid; it does not help to reinforce that view in the eyes of the public. A certain amount of discretion and cognizance of other peoples sensibility can go a long way to convincing them that not every gun owner is a threat, a nutjob, or someone they’ve got to be careful what they say something to. Aside from OPSEC concerns, there’s a lot of people who are hostile towards firearms owners; see the recent Gawker episode when they published the names of every single gun owner in New York City under the title Here Is a List of All the Assholes Who Own Guns in New York City. You know there are people who will distort the truth, who will jump on anything to make their point, why in the world would you want to give them ammunition as it were to lobby for increased gun regulation?

    • Yikes! January 23, 2013, 11:35 pm

      Are you just objecting to the entire thread?

      Is the anti-gun lobby reading this? Shit. They’re going to cite Yikes! in the congressional hearings.

      I’m center-left, politically, brother. It just happens that I also care about my second amendment rights enough to read up on them.

      Engaging in this discussion serves two purposes for me: entertainment, and clarifying what I see as misapprehensions about the current dynamic of gun regulation.

      There’s all sorts of craziness on here, which is fun, but there’s also a fair amount of reasoned thinking mixed in. I don’t think it’s a useless exercise at all. That said, this discussion should not take place on the front steps of the state capitol when people go to make their case about gun rights. We’re in agreement there.

      Remember that Wayne LaPierre (NRA head) came out in public after the mass shooting and said that we should just put some guys with machine guns in all the kindergartens. The pro gun lobby has much bigger PR problems than a 120 post lark on the SHTF Blog. (No offense ranger, jar and cal… you guys are doing a great job.) The Cuomo and Bloomberg crowd have all the ammunition they need, I think.

      • Ron January 24, 2013, 6:26 am

        No, I’m not talking about the thread, I’m talking about open carry in places that scare people; my point is that a lot of people are going off on side issues, doctrinal issues, when the question comes down to whether these guys walking down Main Street with ar15s is a Wise idea.

        • Yikes! January 24, 2013, 1:45 pm

          But it’s the internet.

          That’s what people do on the internet.

          Most people did answer the question though. I think most of us were against ARs around in the street for no discernible reason.

          • Ron January 24, 2013, 1:50 pm

            Yikes! said:
            That’s what people do on the internet.

            Yeah, get in arguments with strangers and……Oh, Look, Cute Pictures of Kitties!………

            Hunh? You were saying?

  • ThatguyinCA January 23, 2013, 5:51 pm

    Spot on Jarhead. Guys like this think they are helping but they are doing the exact opposite. I’d keep an eye on that town to see if an ordinance comes out of his stunt. Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you should.

    The guy is trying to get people to talk and I am sure they are . . . the problem is . . . what are they saying?

  • Anonymous January 26, 2013, 1:16 am

    These guys did the right thing. They made their point and got good coverage. It’s beyond time to stand up and be heard and that’s in a way what they did. What we have been doing isn’t working.

  • Wanita April 17, 2016, 3:33 pm

    Inarmoftion is power and now I’m a !@#$ing dictator.


Leave a Comment