Great-great-grandparents had rights. Do we?

Basically, I mean that any who actually do have less rights (probably South Carolinians with aristocratic heritage, most likely, though there is some argument to be made for those of Middle Eastern descent) are of such a small percent (less than one, possibly less than 1/10th of one percent) as to be negligible in the big scheme of things.
60 years ago, white men didn't even have the right to representation.
Oh, and don't get smart. It doesn't make you look like a good person.

Click to expand...

This is a gun forum,Nolo.And I'm not getting smart. I'm being realistic,dreadfully so.
Are our gun rights in better shape today they they were in 1908?
I seriously doubt you and TAB can answer in the affirmative,
And who are you,young man, to tell me not to get smart?
And to tell me I'm not a good person because you have a problem with a little satire?
You better get a stronger coat of armor if you think that I was getting smart.I was only bantering.Shed that thin skin if you wish to move out into the real world.
I've been there and done that.
My apologies if I truly hurt your feelings.
That's not my Carolina nature.
Duke.

Can you say otherwise?

You say rights, but even back when this country was very young. Citys baned the use and carrying of firearms in town.

One could say that carrying a firearm has NEVER been a right. They would not be wrong, but they would also not be right.

This is a gun forum,Nolo.And I'm not getting smart. I'm being realistic,dreadfully so.
Are our gun rights in better shape today they they were in 1908?
I seriously doubt you and TAB can answer in the affirmative,
And who are you,young man to tell me not to get smart?
And to tell me I'm not a good person because you have a problem with a little satire?
You better get a stronger coat of armor if you think that I was getting smart.I was only bantering.Shed that thin skin if you wish to move out into the real world.
I've been there and done that.
My apologies if I truly hurt your feelings.
That's not my Carolina nature.
Duke.

Click to expand...

If you were kidding, look at my signature:

Use smileys... Save the Internet.

Click to expand...

Meaning I cannot tell you were kidding unless you give me some indication, the most common being smileys. There is a whole bar for them to the right of the "Reply" window.
You didn't hurt me, sir, and I didn't realize you were from the Carolinas. A very, very small percentage of South Carolinians would qualify for my previous statement, so I was by no means saying all Carolinians are... anything. Generalizations are dumb, and only occasionally useful.
I give a certain amount of respect to everyone equally. Certain people demonstrate they deserve more, others less.
Now, we could have avoided this whole thing if you'd have specified "gun rights" in the first place...
But, alas, I suspect for some of us that would still not be a true sweeping statement...
But I do not have the knowledge to say one way or another.

Zoogster, you know, and I know, that "carry" means "concealed carry of a firearm for protection."

However, depending upon the targeted individual, they may see the word "carry" and go "Carry? Carry what?"

First rule is to spell things out for your target audience.

As is, I think it's just fine for preaching to the choir. I think it would be stronger altered to push "protection." Because a lot of people think that "protection" is a good thing.

Can you say otherwise?

You say rights, but even back when this country was very young. Citys baned the use and carrying of firearms in town.

One could say that carrying a firearm has NEVER been a right. They would not be wrong, but they would also not be right.

Click to expand...

What cities,TAB?Dodge?
And can we get a translator on the last paragraph?
Or am I the only one confused?

Zoogster, you know, and I know, that "carry" means "concealed carry of a firearm for protection."

However, depending upon the targeted individual, they may see the word "carry" and go "Carry? Carry what?"

First rule is to spell things out for your target audience.

As is, I think it's just fine for preaching to the choir. I think it would be stronger altered to push "protection." Because a lot of people think that "protection" is a good thing.

Click to expand...

I think it is apparent what he means considering the lady in the photo has a firearm.

Now, we could have avoided this whole thing if you'd have specified "gun rights" in the first place...
But, alas, I suspect for some of us that would still not be a true sweeping statement...
But I do not have the knowledge to say one way or another.

Click to expand...

Sad,Nolo,even with my mea culpa you don't get it.
Don't you understand, I was not trying to belittle or hurt your feelings?
Forget the stupid emoticons,just read plain English.Here we go:
Duke Junior was not trying to embarrass or belittle Nolo on THR forum.
Now,is that as plain as I,a simple North Carolinian can make it?
Regards,Duke.

Duke what is there to explain...

Rights are not equal... never have been, never will be. Further more, most "rights" are actually privileges, People just feel they are rights. In the context of this web site, carring concealed falls under that catagory.

True or false, open carry is legal in the US?

True or false, every where in the US has the same laws about who and who can not own firearms?


As far as citys that had laws against firearms... you name the city, I can asure you that had some Law about firearms.

Sad,Nolo,even with my mea culpa you don't get it.
Don't you understand, I was not trying to belittle or hurt your feelings?
Forget the stupid emoticons,just read plain English.Here we go:
Duke Junior was not trying to embarrass or belittle Nolo on THR forum.
Now,is that as plain as I,a simple North Carolinian can make it?
Regards,Duke.

Click to expand...

Um, sir, with all due respect, you never hurt my feelings. I said you didn't. And you certainly haven't been successful in belittling me.
Really, though, the majority of what we say is body language. In English, plain English, body language is even more important.
On the Internet, there is no body language. At least, not without a webcam set up, and even those are terrible at conveying it. Thus we must make a substitute. The best we have as of yet are smileys (emoticons). I am serious when I tell people to use them.
So, unless you give me indication otherwise, sir, I will take what you say as being entirely serious. It is part of the respect I give to everyone I meet.

Rights are God Given and/or natural if that is your belief system.

I like the poster. Thank you.

The 'modern woman' without the gun shows that in many states, counties, towns and 'cities' that a woman (Or a man.) is STILL not allowed to conceal or open carry due to the 'laws' of said place.

Rights are God given or natural however a person believes.

The 'man made' and/or Unconstitutional over 20,000 (According to the old NRA and other gun org figures.) GUN LAWS have restricted many of those 'rights'. It is government that has taken away your God given and/or natural RIGHTS in my opinion in any issue especially in GUN LAWS and recently in liberty issues. NOT allowed here - politics.

Some of us have more 'things allowed or given or given back to us by a government', here in the USA for example but it was that VERY government or society or country or tyrant that TOOK AWAY those God Given and/or Natural RIGHTS away from us from the gitgo aka beginning! The right to vote or WHERE to sit on a bus or use a colored only bathroom or whites only restaurant or drinking fountain or fill in the blank situation or 'law passed'.

When it comes to MANY other old and NEWER laws, regulations, restrictions, 'acts', etc. passed by Congress, City Hall, your city, your county, your state, signed by your President or whoever... you have far LESS RIGHTS than you did back in the olden days. You have FAR more GUN LAWS in this day and age along with other stupid/wrong and UNconstitutional laws in my not so humble opinion - female or male. I think that you have 'less rights' and more intrusion in ALL ways in your daily life especially with the rise of the 'police state' as we know it.

Yes, you have more states that allow you as a mere SERF to conceal carry but ask yourself this question:

WHY the heck should YOU (Female or male of any color.) have to ask the 'State' about your basic right to SELF defense with any TOOL be it a GUN or jack squat? Freedom? I don't think so... you should not have to get a PERMIT or deal with shall issue, may issue or NO issue for OPEN or CONCEAL CARRY! Furthermore... it should not matter what your TOOL or object aka your firearm LOOKS like or who makes it or how many cartridges it holds!

In the states such as IL, WI, etc. that still have Nazi Like Laws... that do not allow the mere citizenry to pack heat... well... what makes their LIVES worth LESS to the law makers than the 'allowed ones=police' or the ones with PAID protection aka body guards = politicians?! They are ALL equal in the eyes of God to have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms = self defense! Backed up by the Second too. The police who enforce those laws are Constitution breakers too. Those law makers are Constitution breakers too! Rights are rights and 'man' or tyrants STOLE those rights from the PEOPLE!

Good poster... thanks again.

Catherine

Um, sir, with all due respect, you never hurt my feelings. I said you didn't. And you certainly haven't been successful in belittling me.

Click to expand...

With this quote,Nolo,I realize that with all my qualifications,you are beyond reach.I never tried to belittle you.My deepest sympathies.I tried to apologize.

Duke what is there to explain.

Click to expand...

TAB,there is nothing to explain.At least you've got some commonsense.

With this quote,Nolo,I realize that with all my qualifications,you are beyond reach.I never tried to belittle you.My deepest sympathies.I tried to apologize.

Click to expand...

Ummm...
Sir, you attempt to belittle me by saying things like "I am beyond reach", as if I were a head case!
I thank you for your apology, and I will accept it as an apology for the attempted belittlement.
(I am not following my own rules! I am spamming a thread with needless personal back-and-forth! I should have used the PM function...)

Ummm...
Sir, you attempt to belittle me by saying things like "I am beyond reach", as if I were a head case!
I thank you for your apology, and I will accept it as an apology for the attempted belittlement.
(I am not following my own rules! I am spamming a thread with needless personal back-and-forth! I should have used the PM function..

Click to expand...

Good nite,Nolo.Sweet dreams.
May you always have your gun at hand, but never need to use it.

Best Regards,Duke.A truce,I hope.

Nolo, assuming you are a gun person, it is immediately apparent to YOU...

"Carry" has different definitions, depending on different groups. In the picture she is not "carrying" anything. She's holding something.

IMHO, one of our goals is to have society equate what she is holding with "protection."

Well said Catherine!

in 1908 anyone could by a handgun in their local hardware store. heck once upon a time you could buy a full auto thompson subgun in a hardware store.
in 1908 a man could go up to a little kid he found crying on the street to see what was wrong and merely be called a "good samaritan", do that now and you end up on a state run pervert list when you get out of jail.

Oleg, did you consider doing the left side in sepia tone rather than black and white? It might add to the "nostalgia" effect, and add a little warmth.

Oleg, did you consider doing the left side in sepia tone rather than black and white?

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. One thing I also notice in pictures from about that era is the people in them never seem to be smiling.

It still looks good, though, and gets the point across.



As for the rest of the thread contents,

If you don't think we have more rights now then we did 100 years ago... you are very much mistaken.

Click to expand...

Property rights for example are virtually non-existant. 'The right to live' via self defense is gone in many areas. Right to be secure in your homes and papers is a joke compared to two hundred years ago. Habeas corpus is on the hit list as we speak.

We may have more 'protections' now but hardly more rights. But who will protect us from our protectors?

Selena

Nit pickers can ruin a perfectly good point on any subject. Considering the forum it was perfectly obvious to anybody here the poster was referring to our diminished rights to defend ourselves with firearms. My Grandmother could have carried a revolver in her purse and knowing her probably did considering where she was born and raised. If I put one in my pocket I would be arrested if caught and lose my rights to own guns period since I live in the great state of Wisconsin.

By taking a perfectly good statement and beating it to death by asking for specifics it became obvious you were beating the Civil Liberties drum, the one saying No Catholics here, no Irish here, no Chinese here, water fountains designated for colored, Louis Armstrong not being able to eat or sleep in the hotel he and his band were playing in. Things are better on that front but that wasn't the subject, gun carry was. When things got better on the civil rights front one of our civil liberties was being taken from us ie. 1934, 1968, 1998 and that was what the poster was referring to. Not voting rights, equal pay or religious intolerance. You are on the wrong forum if thats what you are trying to drag into the debate. Try a Harvard or Princeton site where they delight in liberal flights of fantasy and intolerance at the same time.

I was thinking the same thing. One thing I also notice in pictures from about that era is the people in them never seem to be smiling.

Click to expand...

There's a reason: it's very hard to smile and not move for 3 minutes. Try it.

People didn't smile because they had to stay still while the camera took the picture. It wasn't instantaneous.

There's a reason: it's very hard to smile and not move for 3 minutes. Try it.

Click to expand...

Well, that would explain it

I'd make the year as part of the caption to highlight the changes over the last century
1910: Women could legally carry anywhere in the country
2008: Don't we deserve the same right

or maybe add in a reference to voting rights, something like:
1910: We can't vote, but we can legally carry anywhere in the country.
2008: We can vote, but we have no right to self defense.

1. 1. 
      

      One could say that carrying a firearm has NEVER been a right. They would not be wrong, but they would also not be right.----TAB

      Click to expand...

Simply writing the words..."one could say" does not substantiate a fact.

"One could say".....anything at all.

As a consequence, Tab, you have made no definitive determination as to rights, whatsoever.

/

/

Now, we could have avoided this whole thing if you'd have specified "gun rights" in the first place...---NOLO

Click to expand...

I take exception to that NOLO.

(1) "we" are under no obligation to avoid anything

(2) Nobody is under legal or moral obligation to qualify "gun rights" to you.

Gun Rights exist objectively as a matter of Constitutional Law, rather than as a moral proposition.

As you are not arguing Law, you aren't arguing any substantial fact. Which is, by objective identification, the problematic nature of your vague argument.

/