Pro-Gun, Anti-NRA

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Here is my stance. It is  Constitutionally guaranteed. There is also a process to change the constitution. If they want it changed then go through the process. PERIOD. The constant sidesteps around the constitution are what I really have an issue with. Lay out what they want in detail and set it as the new standard. Let the people decide.

[Huntscreek]

Read all the posts and maybe you will get it.  It was a post in a string of responses I made to post 109.  Comparing cars to guns is as lame as it gets.  If gun owners can't come up with better examples to defend their reasons for owning them, then we are really in trouble

I driver having a legal License is a Privilege, A Hunting License is a Privilege, Owning a Firearm is a Right. No defense Needed or Reason needed to justify to anyone legally exercising their 2nd Amendment Right's. 

I see it this way, No Gun Grabber has legally shown reasonable proof as to why the right to bare arms Should/are being infringed with out breaking the Law.

Reason I own Firearm's is because I can, Reason you could choose to own is called Freedom, which many have fallen to protect.

Your Defense is What? Your Reason is what? You have a choice and making choice is a freedom & Right, but that doesn't explain how you think you have the Right to Stop others from the Freedom which is theirs, Guaranteed under the US Constitution.

[Curmudgeon]

THIS THREAD WAS A TEST. It was always a test. Read post #1 again. I explicitly stated it was a test in post #10.

 

I'm sorry I didn't stop this pissing match yesterday. I was just too tired. When I received a PM from a woman last evening calling the mob attitude "misogynistic", I figured I better put a stop to it today. Misogynistic is a big word guys, google it.

 

I set that tar baby out there and the mob couldn't resist. I knew Br'er Rabbit couldn't keep his hands off the tar baby. Papist tried to give him some cover in post #11 but that didn't work. What Br'er and the others didn't realize is that the tar baby was a woman. 

 

I've been referred to as a "sissy" and a "little boy". It was suggested that I might be a woman - as if that were a negative thing. So, the guy who stands up to the mob is the "sissy". The guy who offers himself as a lighting rod is a "little boy". This is supposed to be anonymous but that means nothing. Anyone taking key words from my posts and profile would have easily gotten my name in the majority of the top ten google posts. It's Tom Salo. So here I stand in front of a mob, calling them what they are "bullies", with a only a handful of people behind me, and they call me names as if I'm a coward. The members of the mob have no sisu. They are the cowards. They are hiding in the crowd. They are keeping this site from developing its potential. Its potential to be inclusive to all hunters. 

 

I want to thank Papist and Culver Creek for participating but not joining the mob mentality. When the going gets rough, I want you guys on my side - even if we disagree about some things.

 

I want to thank Belo, Wildcat - and few others I am missing - for trying to insert sanity into the discussion.

 

Mike Rossi - what can I say - you have my deepest respect.

 

Many of you met my expectations. My biggest disappointment is nyantler. I had been growing to respect him. That respect is gone.

 

Br'er Rabbit thinks he won. His blind spot is as big as his ego. He hasn't yet looked in the mirror to see what everyone else sees - he's covered with tar.

 

I am going to say goodbye for now. I will be back sometime. I need to recruit allies for trying to open Harriman Park to bow hunting. I may have some other interests to bring to the forum. I probably will be monitoring it at times. I don't expect to be participating in general discussions. If you are a friend, feel free to PM me. I will log in and respond. I will share my private contact information with those who have common interests. If you love wildlife, if you don't see them as just moving targets, you may want to read my article in the current Conservationist.

 

To the women on the site, I may have been the catalyst that exposed these raw emotions but they were there all the time.

 

Now that the mob knows who I am beyond a shadow of a doubt, you can hate me by name. Here's a photo of my granddaughters and me so you will even know what I look like.

 

 

Goodbye for now,

Tom Salo aka Curmudgeon

[steve863]

I driver having a legal License is a Privilege, A Hunting License is a Privilege, Owning a Firearm is a Right. No defense Needed or Reason needed to justify to anyone legally exercising their 2nd Amendment Right's. 

I see it this way, No Gun Grabber has legally shown reasonable proof as to why the right to bare arms Should/are being infringed with out breaking the Law.

Reason I own Firearm's is because I can, Reason you could choose to own is called Freedom, which many have fallen to protect.

Your Defense is What? Your Reason is what? You have a choice and making choice is a freedom & Right, but that doesn't explain how you think you have the Right to Stop others from the Freedom which is theirs, Guaranteed under the US Constitution.

 

 

Then they should use arguments like yours, and not make comparisons between cars and guns, or hammers and guns.  Using such comparisons is idiotic.  You guys do FAIL to address the high murder rate with firearms in this country, however.  This is what keeps the anti-gunners on the attack.  You keep sweeping it under the rug, and they continue to use the numbers.  Numbers that are off the charts compared to any other civilized nation.  Making claims that things as simple as background checks are a waste of time will not win many over to our side.  No background checks are not foolproof, but what is these days?  You guys claim that it's a right, but rights do come with responsibilities.  You don't want to give in to the simplest of safeguards, so the other side continues to attack.  What can I tell you guys then?  You make your beds, so you need to sleep in them.  I only point things out.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Then they should use arguments like yours, and not make comparisons between cars and guns, or hammers and guns.  Using such comparisons is idiotic.  You guys do FAIL to address the high murder rate with firearms in this country, however.  This is what keeps the anti-gunners on the attack.  You keep sweeping it under the rug, and they continue to use the numbers.  Numbers that are off the charts compared to any other civilized nation.  Making claims that things as simple as background checks are a waste of time will not win many over to our side.  No background checks are not foolproof, but what is these days?  You guys claim that it's a right, but rights do come with responsibilities.  You don't want to give in to the simplest of safeguards, so the other side continues to attack.  What can I tell you guys then?  You make your beds, so you need to sleep in them.  I only point things out.

Do you believe these same folks could apply that logic to say, Voter ID's?  It is our right to vote but should take some responsibility to prove we are who we say we are? I have heard the argument that that would unfairly put burden on the poor or urban population. The same clams could be made for things like pistol and gun permits and those have real costs but one could argue are more needed by the urban poor than any other demographic. I am just so sick of all politics that is done under the cover of night and behind closed doors. I would have more respect for the "Anti's" if they laid out there proposal, tapped one of their "bought and paid fors" on the shoulder to sponsor it and changed the Constitution, rather than side stepping it. If the support they claim is there, is really there, it shouldn't be a problem. THAT is how our government is supposed to work. (OK, I interrupt my delusional fantasy with our regularly scheduled posts)

[WNYBuckHunter]

Not talking about mind melding rather keeping ones head & if you go back & re-read my post i tnink I included the use of a firearm in that same subject.

 

So, what if you are caught in a situation where you don't have your weapon?  A TV tray or clock radio would be poor choices & would not be an effective weapon.

 

Now, the sharp corner of a conter top, a refridgerator, a heavy glass ashtray or the iron grate from a gas range would be quite effective. Stun the opponent, then incapacitate immediately.

 

The eliment of surprise would be paramout & using the assailants wieght to his disadvantage. Being percieved as an "old vulnerable person" would work well as far as the assailant expecting a ruthless, incapacitating action.

 

Even when armed with a gun, if you hesitate, you have lost the advantage.  The same mind factor applies to surviving/escaping any perilous situation be it an accident or natural disastor. Take your time to think quickly under pressure. Ever hear of the sensation of things happening in slow motion? I have seen some scientific explanations for that. Survivors usually have that ability, victims often don't.

 

I doubt if my wife could effectively use a firearm in a tense situation to defend herself, she fold under pressure.

 

But she would have a better chance than if she had nothing to work with other than a kitchen knife, counter top or TV tray.

[steve863]

Do you believe these same folks could apply that logic to say, Voter ID's?  It is our right to vote but should take some responsibility to prove we are who we say we are? I have heard the argument that that would unfairly put burden on the poor or urban population. The same clams could be made for things like pistol and gun permits and those have real costs but one could argue are more needed by the urban poor than any other demographic. I am just so sick of all politics that is done under the cover of night and behind closed doors. I would have more respect for the "Anti's" if they laid out there proposal, tapped one of their "bought and paid fors" on the shoulder to sponsor it and changed the Constitution, rather than side stepping it. If the support they claim is there, is really there, it shouldn't be a problem. THAT is how our government is supposed to work. (OK, I interrupt my delusional fantasy with our regularly scheduled posts)

 

 

Just for the record, I for one would have NO problem with voter ID's.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Just for the record, I for one would have NO problem with voter ID's.

I know, we have had that discussion. I was simply drawing a parallel.

[nyantler]

perhaps I dind't do a great job of explaining my stance. I never once advocating for taking anything away. I have an NRA membership. I'm pro gun, I vote for pro gun. I left the f'n state and one of the reasons were the gun laws.

 

What I'm saying is there's a line where you do not need to flaunt your "rights". It turns the voting population off. Weak man may be your opinion, but I get one vote and so do you. So if your pride allows you turn 5 voters off? How much did you accomplish? You're now out voted.

 

Target-assault-weapons.jpg

Being out voted by the anti's is not my concern... having all our votes cancelled out because other gun owners didn't think it was important enough  to vote is the real problem... flaunting my right to openly carry is a statement of protest.. the same as holding up a sign... and won't turn off the smart people who get it, only those that will never be on my side anyway. My pride tells me to stand up proud and defend my 2nd amendment right as big and loud as those standing up against it. Passivism has never worked for making a point.

[Five Seasons]

Being out voted by the anti's is not my concern... having all our votes cancelled out because other gun owners didn't think it was important enough  to vote is the real problem... flaunting my right to openly carry is a statement of protest.. the same as holding up a sign... and won't turn off the smart people who get it, only those that will never be on my side anyway. My pride tells me to stand up proud and defend my 2nd amendment right as big and loud as those standing up against it. Passivism has never worked for making a point.

 

normally you and I can meet in the middle when we disagree. I do not believe for one second that "smart people" believe it's ok to bring your AR into target and starubkc. It's freaking scary to a family whether it's scary to you or not. I for one would feel uncomfortable, so I can't imagine what most "smart people" would feel like.

 

Put your pistol in you IWB and be happy about it. geez. If you're going to argue that you need your AR for self defense than I'm going to bow out of this argument a .45 will handle 98% of situations you run into.

 

Edited December 18, 2014 by Belo

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Weird, Place I felt the safest in years was at the Albany march against the Safe act and I only knew a handful of folks there.

[Five Seasons]

Weird, Place I felt the safest in years was at the Albany march against the Safe act and I only knew a handful of folks there.

 

the majority of americans with 2 little kids would not. don't pretend that they would.

 

"oh hey look honey that guy over here with the mullet and fatigues is walking around with an assault rifle" Lets ask him if he knows where the toasters are.

[nyantler]

normally you and I can meet in the middle when we disagree. I do not believe for one second that "smart people" believe it's ok to bring your AR into target and starubkc. It's freaking scary to a family whether it's scary to you or not. I for one would feel uncomfortable, so I can't imagine what most "smart people" would feel like.

 

Put your pistol in you IWB and be happy about it. geez. If you're going to argue that you need your AR for self defense than I'm going to bow out of this argument a .45 will handle 98% of situations you run into.

 

 

First you failed to mention the pro open carry rally that was going on outside the Target store led by Open Carry Texas at the time of this photo... everyone in the store knew why the guys were in the store with their weapons... the only opposition to the rally was the group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense who were not at the event... planned event.. nobody walked in unexpectedly carrying an AK47.. Target was aware of and notified of the rally... I'm surprised a gun owner would take a stance based on a photo without telling the whole story.

 

I have no interest in owning an AR... but who are you to tell anyone what they need to protect themselves?... If you're going to argue that we all only need only 45's when an AR, or any other weapon of choice, can handle the same 98% of situations... then maybe you better bow out .. your stance is getting to sound a little pro gun control anyway.

Edited December 18, 2014 by nyantler

[wildcat junkie]

While some may consider "open carry" at the local department store or Kroger a right, you also have a right to go without a shower & changing clothes for months & visit the same places.

 

Neither shows good judgement or consideration for our fellow citizens.

 

Which bring up another point. Ohio is an 'open carry" state isn't it?

 

What about John Crawford's right to open carry a BB gun that he picked up from a shelf in an Ohio Walmart?

Edited December 18, 2014 by wildcat junkie

[wildcat junkie]

Getting back to my original point here:  We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.

 

 

 

Seems that I remember seeing the word "neccessary" in the 2nd ammendment.

[wildcat junkie]

Because even the smallest of concessions is immediately trumpeted as a huge win by the anti's who have absolute control over most media outlets in this country. The average Joe with no horse in the race is going to side with whoever seems to be winning. Tiny steps turn into huge victories. Never give an inch.

Criminals generally don't use legally purchased firearms anyways.

The aveage Joe in this country is going to go against the side that seems like radical extremists.

 

Now if we turn this country into a religious theocracy controled by extremeists, then intimidation will work. There are people working towards that right now. Hopefully, the 1st amendment will prevent that.

[Mr VJP]

Please continue.  I do sooo want to hear this.

 

The 2nd Amendment part that is

 

Edited December 18, 2014 by Mr VJP

[wildcat junkie]

Getting back to my original point here:  We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.

 

 

 

 

Seems that I remember seeing the word "neccessary" in the 2nd ammendment.

 

Please continue. I do sooo want to hear this.

 

The 2nd Amendment part that is

 

 

I know it's difficult for you, but those big words are made up of what is known as syllables. Syllables allow you to break those big, long, hard to say words down into sounds.

 

 

In order to make it easier for you, I enlaged the word you seem to be having difficulty with & highlighted it in RED.

 

Now say the syllables along with me. ne- se-sare-ee.

 

 

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms.

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.

 

Edited December 18, 2014 by wildcat junkie

[nyantler]

 

 

I know it's difficult for you, but those big words are made up of what is known as syllables. Syllables allow you to break those big, long, hard to say words down into sounds.

 

In order to make it easier for you, I enlaged the word you seem to be having difficulty with & highlighted it in RED.

 

Now say the syllables along with me. ne- se-sare-ee.

 

 

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms.

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.

 

 

To be fair... the "necessary" refers to the Militia not the arms... The Militia is what is necessary.. leading to.. THE RIGHT to keep and bear arms by the people.

 

You are correct in that it is in the Amendment.

Edited December 18, 2014 by nyantler

[wildcat junkie]

To be fair... the "necessary" refers to the Militia not the arms... The Militia is what is necessary.. leading to.. THE RIGHT to keep and bear arms by the people

It still refers to a need.

 

If you don't need a militia, you don't need the right.

 

Beside I just posted that the word neccessay was in the amendment, nothing more.

 

I'm not arguing the validity or the need for the 2nd amendment. I was just pointing out that there is a "need"

 

If you argue that there isn't a need, then aren't you arguing that we don't need the 2nd amendment or a bill of rights.

 

The Bill of Rights most  certainly is a bill of needs. If they weren't we wouldn't need it.

 

What's so entertaining is that for me being so insignificant to Mr VJP, he certainly seems to have a hard time resistig the bait.

[Mr VJP]

Not only did his post not explain how he believes we have a Bill of Needs attached to the US Constitution, it perfectly illustrates that junkie has trouble with the meaning of the written word when used in a sentence.  

 

To him, that one word must mean the government can decide what rights you need and ban any they feel you don't.  It's scary any American would think like that.  Must've been told to think that by someone somewhere.

 

[Huntscreek]

While some may consider "open carry" at the local department store or Kroger a right, you also have a right to go without a shower & changing clothes for months & visit the same places.

 

Neither shows good judgement or consideration for our fellow citizens.

 

Which bring up another point. Ohio is an 'open carry" state isn't it?

 

What about John Crawford's right to open carry a BB gun that he picked up from a shelf in an Ohio Walmart?

Wild Cat you are confused Rights and Showering is a choice and people have freedom to do what they want with hygiene. I don't go around smelling people and its not written in the Constitution clearing up Hygiene but I see now why you don't get it Now. I clarify a little bit If a person wants to support the NRA or GOA or any other organization that's up to them they are free to do what they like with there money. Now The 2nd Amendment is LAW, not choice. Its like if someone in your town said boy the guys beard is dirty looking & his Lever action 336 is beat looking and I don't Like it. Its Freedom brother we all don't live by your view and how the Anti want, but when it comes to guns you can try to give your 2 cents that's protected under the 1st Amendment speak away. Do you Know Wal-Mart can have store policies under the Constitution and Law its a fact as long as those policies don't Violate Your Rights, Can't help you on the smelly people thing just walk another way or start a petition that they have to smell good and dress the way you would like to be out in public. Now Take a short trip over the boarder and see what Gun control is like, or the UK. embrace your fellow gun owner not try to rule over him as to what you feel he should and should not have or do. Hell what about a clean guy that smells good could have such & such and a Smelly guy is out of luck LOL. 

Edited December 18, 2014 by Huntscreek

[nyantler]

It still refers to a need.

 

If you don't need a militia, you don't need the right.

 

Beside I just posted that the word neccessay was in the amendment, nothing more.

 

I'm not arguing the validity or the need for the 2nd amendment. I was just pointing out that there is a "need"

 

If you argue that there isn't a need, then aren't you arguing that we don't need the 2nd amendment or a bill of rights.

 

The Bill of Rights most  certainly is a bill of needs. If they weren't we wouldn't need it.

 

What's so entertaining is that for me being so insignificant to Mr VJP, he certainly seems to have a hard time resistig the bait.

Aside from VJP... Not speaking for him... just offering up my respectful disagreement with your statements...Yes there is a need... but the bill doesn't give you the need... you already have that... the bill gives you the right which allows you to meet that need... the bill is not issuing you a need

the real need is freedom... the amendments are the rights given to maintain that need... so technically it is a Bill of RIGHTS... issued to protect a need...Freedom... which is already ours and we are trying to protect.. just my thought

[Mr VJP]

Aside from VJP... Not speaking for him... just offering up my respectful disagreement with your statements...Yes there is a need... but the bill doesn't give you the need... you already have that... the bill gives you the right which allows you to meet that need... the bill is not issuing you a need

the real need is freedom... the amendments are the rights given to maintain that need... so technically it is a Bill of RIGHTS... issued to protect a need...Freedom... which is already ours and we are trying to protect.. just my thought

 

This is not directed at nyantler:

 

I think it's very important to point out RIGHTS are something you're born with.  The Bill of Rights simply outlines what they are.  If you think the government can remove a RIGHT by determining there is no longer a need for it, you are incorrect.

 

This kind of convoluted thinking may be why some gun owners are anti-NRA though.

 

Edited December 19, 2014 by Mr VJP

[wildcat junkie]

You sound like you have have had some training in Judo, Karate or some other form of hand to hand self defense method. Thats great. My father in law was a boxer back in the 50's and a tough SOB when I first met him. He is 83 now. He needs a gun if he stands a chance against a younger assailant. My wife is 5 feet tall, stretched, and weighs maybe 100lbs. she is a wuss. she needs a gun to defend herself against a bigger assailant. Different strokes for different folks.

Well, your right & I didn't mean to come off as saying that an elderly person might not need a firearm for defense.

 

I'm quickly getting to that age myself. The point is, if a person is caught W/O a weapon strength isn't neccessarily a prerequisite to do enough harm to a person to incapacitate them long enough to do even greater harm. Fist fights are physically draining & I would most certaily get my old a$$ handed to me engaging a younger, stronger opponent in a "fight" if they were the least bit capable. My course of action would be to avid gettimg into a "fight".

 

One thing I learned in my limited training in martial arts, a "belt" doesn't mean squat. Many times, all the belt means is that the person has learned a certain set of  sequenced moves. Putting those moves into use in a street situation is a whole nuther ball of wax. Notv saying that some of those "belt" holders aren't bad a$$, but a lot of 'em ain't. Just like using a firearm in a tense situation. ome are capable, some aren't

 

I sought training because my employment required that I had to work & sleep among armed thugs & there were times when I was not armed with my .380. When I could, I carried it. I never earned any "belts" but when sparring, I was always put up against brown belts & above, most of them very capable. I certainly took a lot of lumps, but I also saw some pretty slick moves put on me. Nothing like a foot up side the head to make a lasting impression.

Edited December 19, 2014 by wildcat junkie