Cal-gun Fan
Member
Yes, but that was because of RACISM. Being discriminated against because of your race is not the same thing as being discriminated against because you have a misdemeanor.
Guy open carries an AK, stopped breifly by cops.
- Thread starter FourteenMiles
- Start date
- Status
Cal-gun Fan
Member
Agreed. People chant the "god-given" line a bit too much.exactly what I was going to bring up...
In Jesus's country of origin you cannot own a gun period.... Surely he would have granted his son those rights....
I love the ones who say that it is a human right, too
84B20
Member
I hadn't planned on adding to the thread until I read two different replies calling the AK an "assault weapon." I highly doubt the guy could afford a full auto firearm, especially and AK47. We have enough trouble with antis calling them assault weapons and I assume pretty much all members here and pro 2A. So we should try to be a little more precise in our descriptions at least as this type of firearm is concerned. IMHO.
I prefer inherent or innate, but it is the same idea.
Not really contradictory, unusual would be a better descriptor. I guess your perspective would hinge upon whether or not you believe that the State grants rights or not. We here in America believe that some rights are innate, for those who believe otherwise; there's California.
Cal-gun Fan said:
Not really contradictory, unusual would be a better descriptor. I guess your perspective would hinge upon whether or not you believe that the State grants rights or not. We here in America believe that some rights are innate, for those who believe otherwise; there's California.
Cal-gun Fan
Member
Well...an AK is in many ways the definition of an Assault Rifle (Don't mean to upset the term nazis, I am one myself a lot of the time). Thats exactly what it was designed for, not as a range rifle or a plinker. It was designed to kill people and throw a bunch of bullets
armoredman
Member
Israelis can own firearms, pain to do so, but last time I asked a buddy of mine in Israel they can go to the police station and check out a full auto UZI if need be. Try doing that in your home town.
Something that seems to be cropping up here is there is a blurring of a line - carrying and slung. If he is carrying the rifle in his HANDS, as some have posted, perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not, then YES, he is the same as any guy walking around with a gun in his hand - something is going on that requires a look see. If he has the rifle slung over his shoulder, yes, people will look, many will consider action/reaction plans, (which you should be doing anyway), but if he merely has it slung over his shoulder it is the same as being holstered.
As for rifles not being practical for self defense, seems to work pretty well for the military all these years. Patrol cars in many cities and states have rifles in the trunks for bad situations, I doubt they would have them if they weren't useful. I would hazard a guess that long guns are less PRACTICAL for casual dress, not active defensive use. A slung rifle can get in the way of many things, be a pain to keep on one shoulder all day long, heavy and awkward to manipulate if you are doing normal day to day activities that aren't commensurate with military work. (I do have to say i have seen a lot of pictures over the years of Israeli civilians and off duty reservists walking around in civilian clothes with slung M-16s. Hmmm.)
A holstered handgun is far more practical for non combat zone use in civilian applications, but a rifle can definately be useful for defensive use if needed and available. Just a pain to keep close if going to day care and the movies.
I still think the guy was over the top and an arse in public for pushing the envelope with the LEOs, but apparently he broke no laws. I could do the same down here, but I realize rarely is it PRACTICAL, for instance, to go to WalMart with a slung rifle - wants to slip right on down when you push the cart. But is it legal in many places, has been legal for a very long time in many places, it's just rarely practical outside of hunting season.
edit to add,
Something that seems to be cropping up here is there is a blurring of a line - carrying and slung. If he is carrying the rifle in his HANDS, as some have posted, perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not, then YES, he is the same as any guy walking around with a gun in his hand - something is going on that requires a look see. If he has the rifle slung over his shoulder, yes, people will look, many will consider action/reaction plans, (which you should be doing anyway), but if he merely has it slung over his shoulder it is the same as being holstered.
As for rifles not being practical for self defense, seems to work pretty well for the military all these years.
Patrol cars in many cities and states have rifles in the trunks for bad situations, I doubt they would have them if they weren't useful. I would hazard a guess that long guns are less PRACTICAL for casual dress, not active defensive use. A slung rifle can get in the way of many things, be a pain to keep on one shoulder all day long, heavy and awkward to manipulate if you are doing normal day to day activities that aren't commensurate with military work. (I do have to say i have seen a lot of pictures over the years of Israeli civilians and off duty reservists walking around in civilian clothes with slung M-16s. Hmmm.)A holstered handgun is far more practical for non combat zone use in civilian applications, but a rifle can definately be useful for defensive use if needed and available. Just a pain to keep close if going to day care and the movies.
I still think the guy was over the top and an arse in public for pushing the envelope with the LEOs, but apparently he broke no laws. I could do the same down here, but I realize rarely is it PRACTICAL, for instance, to go to WalMart with a slung rifle - wants to slip right on down when you push the cart.
But is it legal in many places, has been legal for a very long time in many places, it's just rarely practical outside of hunting season.edit to add,
That's anti-rights trash right there. That semi auto rifle was no more designed to kill people than my sons CZ 452 Scout single shot 22 rifle was made for killing people. The select fire firearm was originally designed for military use, the semi auto version was made for civilian use.Thats exactly what it was designed for, not as a range rifle or a plinker. It was designed to kill people and throw a bunch of bullets
Last edited:
Cal-gun Fan
Member
But see, really, if it is inherent or innate then it should be for all. That just seems to imply that we are not created equal as the idea goes.
@above: Yes, but from the point of anyone who isn't infatuated with firearms, when you SEE someone walking down the street with an AK do you think, Huh, it is a semi auto range rifle designed for the civilian market.
fallout mike
Member
If u watch the entire video he starts out by saying "this might get exciting if someone calls the cops. They should have given me my f-ING ccw and I wouldn't be doing this." That's not verbatim but close enough for this discussion.
Cal-gun Fan
Member
Sorry-let me clarify that.
Human Rights are innate rights by definition-that is not disputable. Civil Rights are rights granted by the government by definition-and RKBA is a civil right.
EDIT: I know that people will debate this statement by saying that it says that these civil rights are endowed by the creator. However, Civil rights are not innate rights by definition.
Last edited:
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,709
Houghton, MI. Upper Peninsula. Population approx 7500. Small-town America.
Civil disobedience is a time-honored American tradition. This doesn't even really qualify, because he's not breaking any laws.
I wouldn't do it, but I support him all the way. He knows his rights, and he was not discourteous to the officers.
I think he should have advised the officers that educating ignorant citizens might be more productive than harrassing a law-abiding citizen, but taht's just my opinion.
Civil disobedience is a time-honored American tradition. This doesn't even really qualify, because he's not breaking any laws.
I wouldn't do it, but I support him all the way. He knows his rights, and he was not discourteous to the officers.
I think he should have advised the officers that educating ignorant citizens might be more productive than harrassing a law-abiding citizen, but taht's just my opinion.
Last edited:
Cal-gun Fan
Member
No misimpression-I know that the Bill of Rights describes rights given by the Federal Government for ALL citizens. However, the idea behind inherent rights is that they are endowed upon all human beings simply for being human. Now, judging by the fact that most of the free world (un-oppressed? For lack of a better word) does not have a similar right, I believe that it is unfair to call it a god-given right.
Cal-gun Fan
Member
Well, to protect the rights of the people from infringement by the government.
armoredman
Member
SuperNaut, I believe you nailed it, especially with the language he has been using,
Have a nice night, everyone.
, and such, I would have to believe he could be definately far more anti rights than pro rights. Too bad.
Have a nice night, everyone.
Cal-gun Fan said:
Yep, our innate human rights. People and their attendant inherent rights existed before government, government is just a system. A social machine that we the people created and control. It grants nothing; the government serves at the behest of the people.
Cal-gun Fan
Member
I assure you, I am FAR from an anti. However, I try to have an open mind on gun-issues and political issues. I would think that that is what a forum called The High Road is about.
Listen-I understand people's want for open carry. I understand people's want for high-cap magazines. I understand people's desire for more and more gun rights, and I support them. However, I take issue when people start thinking they are entitled to these rights necessarily. The 2nd amendment was intended for a somewhat different purpose originally. That does not mean it should not be adapted for the current purpose, but I strongly feel that people should understand the situation with these laws not just here, but in the rest of the world as well.
Cal-gun Fan
Member
But are they inherent just because we say they are inherent? That is the question!
Many people in America today believe that RKBA should NOT be inherent. I feel it should, but I can also UNDERSTAND the views of the antis. I dont agree with it, but is important to understand it.
Cal-gun Fan
Member
Not necessarily incorrect. This is where understanding the views of the anti's comes into the equation. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is essentially, so that people can defend themselves, whether that be from infringement of their rights, someone intent on causing them bodily harm, or from an invading nation. The antis argue that it does NOT protect people owning fully automatic weapons, having silencers, and all these fun gadgets for shooting at the range and simply enjoying our hobby.
EDIT: Damn, double post, sorry.
Cal-gun Fan said:
They cannot be anything else.
The right to self-ownership and self-determination demands that these inherent rights are also able to be defended. These rights exist independent of any government and certainly independent of any sophistic pretenses.
Cal-gun Fan
Member
Alright, I agree. For the citizens of the United States of America, these rights are unalienable and irrefutable. The issue this stemmed from is the labeling of them as "God-Given Rights", which is what I take issue with.
- Status
