Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Nightmare in Ohio

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by fowl intent, Oct 7, 2012.

  1. superlarry


    May 25, 2002
    South Africa
    Since when does a free man need a "reason" to carry a gun?

    I know better than to argue with this kind of mentality, but here I go... I would love to see how comfortable you are engaging a pack of feral dogs (or baboons in my case) at close range in thick riverine bush with a 4 shot bolt action hunting rifle with high powered scope. Luckily my GLOCK 22 wasn't "unloaded and packed in a case" in my car, and I was able to save my dog's life (and perhaps myself from serious injury). But maybe that's just make believe.. This is the Interweb after all...
  2. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist Lifetime Member

    Apr 30, 2005
    Untrue, The definition I posted is from Noah Websters dictionary which Webster began work in in 1808 and completed in 1828. Webster himself was a contemporary of the Founding Fathers. Born 1858 died 1843. in 1776 he was 18 years old at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the BOR he was 31.

    Any claim that Webster was clueless about what the word regulated meant in his own time (the same time as the FF and the constitution) is simply nonsense.

    I have little doubt that the Founding Fathers had no intention of authorizing unregulated Militia subject to no authority, rules or regulations.

    The nail in the coffin of a fantasy unregulated militia is that even colonial legislature enacted laws regarding where the arms and ammunition of the militia was to be stored and secured.

    This has nothing to do with a "Collective argument". the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. this was the thinking of the founding fathers and is also what the SCOTUS has ruled.

    It is about the fact that the States most certainly DO have the regulatory power to decide who, (No felons) where, and how firearms are carried. if you are expecting the SCOTUS to rule otherwise in any future rulings you are doomed to disappointment.

    Outright bans on firearm ownership will be struck down. regulations and restrictions Won't. (unless the restriction is so onerous as to constitute a ban.)
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2012

  3. dbcooper


    Mar 2, 2011
    I don't expect no regulations, I got no problem with no violent felons, no nut cases when we can help it, etc.
    The term "reasonable restrictions" is a dangerous one though.

    I do believe that an outright ban will happen eventually, just a few justices is all it would take.
  4. frizz


    Jul 6, 2012
    That may be your opinion, and others may share it, but the vast majority of people are more traumatized by the murder of a loved one than by accidental or natural death.

    That's just human nature.
  5. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    Apr 23, 2008
    You've interviewed the vast majority of people?
  6. frizz


    Jul 6, 2012

    Some things are just obvious to anyone who has lived into late early adolescence. Have you interviewed the vast majority of people to see if having a close family member die is emotionally traumatic?

    I suppose you'd demand worldwide photometer tests to prove that it gets dark after sunset everywhere in the world.

    Common sense. What a concept. You should look into it.
  7. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist Lifetime Member

    Apr 30, 2005
    Very true, if for no other reason than what is "reasonable" can change from one generation to the next.

    I am not that pessimistic, given the SCOTUS has never even come close to ruling outright bans permissible. The Danger is not an outright ban, the danger is an overly broad interpretation of what is "reasonable that would constitute a in practice a ban.
  8. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    Apr 23, 2008
    Congratulations on reaching late adolescence. Puberty is really something isn't it?

    Other than that, you offer nothing but conjecture.
  9. SC Tiger

    SC Tiger Big, educated kitty cat!

    Aug 27, 2011
    South Carolina
    This is precisly why guns like the .475 Linebaugh and .500 Linebaugh were developed, except for larger animals (African animals - both game and just ill-tempered).
  10. PEC-Memphis

    PEC-Memphis Scottish Member

    Oct 19, 2006
    Doh ?
    I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but.....

    The book A Grief Like No Other: Surviving the Violent Death of Someone You Love (O'hara) seems to support Frizz's claim.
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2012
  11. I agree.
  12. Its not the woods. Its the Goblins on the way!
    Know the laws of where you travel! Sorry bout your friend, OP
  13. philipk


    Mar 12, 2000
    NE Ohio

    (Please note I am not saying to following is right or should happen. Also I am using the common media definition of assault weapons.)

    IMHO The current SCOTUS would rule the following reasonable.

    1. Ban on high capacity magazines.
    2. Ban on assault weapons.

    Might rule reasonable.

    1. Ban on semi-automatic firearms.
    2. Ban on pump firearms.
    3. Limits on the amount of ammunition you can store.

    Would not rule reasonable.
    1. Ban on handguns
    2. Ban on long guns.
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2012
  14. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    Jul 12, 2007
    When you got a guy that reads "Danger Elk urine. Do not spray on body, and he sprays it in his mouth, you can be sure hilarity will result sooner or later.

    He's lucky the buck wanted to fight him, it could have smelled the elk urine on his breath and figure he was down for some kinky stuff.

  15. maximus1079


    Oct 3, 2012
    New England
    Perfectly worded! Too bad what you're saying makes sense ;) and apparently none of these people who claim to support the 2nd amendment are sticking up for their fellow countrymen who have every right to carry whatever they want wherever they want (except for the guy in the original post). I am from Mass......worst gun laws in the country hands down....and the hoops you have to jump through/egg shells to walk on just to be able to exercise that right is insane. All you gun aficionados across the country don't realize just how good you really have it, so how about we all drop the whole "you'd get laughed at for carrying a handgun in the woods" B.S and just support each other instead of arguing pettily like a bunch of old hens....k thanks
  16. RonS

    RonS Millennium Member

    May 27, 1999
    Oh, USA
    I bet the Australians never thought to see an outright ban.

    Or the descendents of the people who wrote and fought for the Magna Charta.

    Under enough pressure the supreme court would rule for almost any kind of stupidity. Look at the New Deal and what went into engineering that. Look at the thread on the interment of Japanese Americans during WWII, before the Nazis gave them a bad name the actually called them Concentration Camps. Which is what they were in the same sense of the term as used by the Spanish and British in prior decades.

    If it happens it will be incremental. Ban self defense for citizens and thus no legitimate reason for handguns, etc.
  17. shooter1234


    Mar 12, 2008
    Originally Posted by Jonesee:
    I have hunted all my life and have never seen a reason to carry a handgun in the woods or back country. Sure sign of someone who is uncomfortable there or just trying to play make believe.

    Yea, because you know, the rifle in your hands with ten trillion times the destructive power of any pistol usually isn't good enough for "feral" dogs or shooting a meth lab worker. It ONLY works on deer and nothing else. Hell, for that matter ya mind as well carry your bullet proof vest on the hunt as well. Screw it, why go in half prepared? Right?
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2012
  18. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist Lifetime Member

    Apr 30, 2005
    I don't know why not, Australia was an English colony and England had no history of the right to keep and bear arms by the common English subject. That right was restricted to the nobility.
  19. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    That is exactly why i said Leo without looking at the morality of following an order is simply an order away from a KZ guard.

    But let summarize rebuttal "our friends" in Leo will have.

    1). That was different

    2). You people are stupid

    3). You can't judge us unless you have walked in our shoes.

    I think it's a good summary

    So, how would one judge the KZ guards if they never walked in their shoes ?

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
  20. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    10 pound sterling bet I can find an instance where an "educated" and "intelligent" Leo on GT will/has made a stupid post showing that they don't even know US law and rights are based upon upon the magma carta. They will probably even say only nobles were afforded right but then are uneducated to the point they have never read it.

    10 pound sterling bet anyone?

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine