• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

My turn to say adios.

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
How the devil can it dominate the site if its all channeled into one sub-forum?

And, you--of all people!--the master of 'moving on' are griping about it? And how the devil can it take the focus off of OC? Its dots on a computer screen, for pete's sake. You control your focus--I hope. If you don't like it, don't look at it.

He has never really mastered the art of "Moving on".
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
My point being that it seems to dominate the site, taking the focus off OC. We even seem to attract posters who don't care a whit about OC or even carry. They just bring their pet crap here.

Oh, and if "pet crap" takes off as come kind of craze, leading to commercial success that rivals rocks, I expect a nickel for each turdle sold.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I can see that a disproportionation amount of on-topic to off-topic conversation seems like a bad thing, but I don't think that prohibiting off-topic conversation will help increase on-topic conversation - it'll only reduce overall activity, which is generally not good for forums in my opinion. If something needs to be done to improve proportions, it should be something other than restricting off-topic conversation, in my opinion.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
How the devil can it dominate the site if its all channeled into one sub-forum?

And, you--of all people!--the master of 'moving on' are griping about it? And how the devil can it take the focus off of OC? Its dots on a computer screen, for pete's sake. You control your focus--I hope. If you don't like it, don't look at it.

It dominates the site because a tremendously large number of the new posts, my chosen way to view the site, are off the topic of OC.

I am not bemoaning any one individuals ability to focus. If you read carefully, it is the site whose focus is being lost.

Anyway, moving on is a rational way to deal with individual sub-discussions when the posts or the posters have become annoying and the discussion is no longer worth my effort. This being the current case, I will move on to discussing this and other topics with other people.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I can see that a disproportionation amount of on-topic to off-topic conversation seems like a bad thing, but I don't think that prohibiting off-topic conversation will help increase on-topic conversation - it'll only reduce overall activity, which is generally not good for forums in my opinion. If something needs to be done to improve proportions, it should be something other than restricting off-topic conversation, in my opinion.

Wow. A post discussing a comment without stooping to discussing the poster instead. Refreshing!

Seriously. Thank you.

My point is that, before the Social Lounge, there was no problem with the volume of posts. They just tended to be more about OC.

Anyway, I'll live with the Social Lounge. Just making a passing comment about something I thought made the site a little bit worse.
 

Jamesm760

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
429
Location
Salisbury, NC
Strange, I started OCing only AFTER coming to OCDO and becoming enlightened to my rights and the cause. Further, I got my first AR15 only after going to an OCDO dinner and becoming enlightened to my rights and the cause.

I completely agree with you, and disagree with the OP of the thread. I am the first person in my family that isn't "anti" gun; because of this website I got the courage to start exercising my 2nd A right. Enlightened is definitely a good word. Like walkingwolf said, I too believe this is a family (even though sometimes people come across as a$$holes... not mentioning any names **cough** walkingwolf **cough**) and disagreements and arguments can happen. That being said I would like to thank everyone that has answered my questions and voiced their opinions on many of the threads, even if I did not agree with them. This community is the only reason that I am now a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Like I said, I am the first one in my family that isn't "anti" gun... and if it wasn’t for this community, I wouldn't have any support at all. Thank you mods and members for everything... Sharkey, I too ask that you reconsider.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Cry me a river.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...n-Washington-07-04-2013&p=1943675#post1943675

The bottom line, for me anyway, is that OCDO is good for introducing "newbies" to open carry of a properly holstered handgun and where this activity is not infringed. Where the activity is infringed, by statute or by deed the specific state subforums provide a valuable networking resource to work to remove those infringements regardless of their source.

OCDO is valuable in that our seasoned citizen members may attempt to impart their wisdom, gained from experience, to us young pups.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't. Sometimes the wisdom is not worth the time it took to read it. But, read it we are encouraged to do, use the experience of others to gain wisdom without the slings & arrows that sometimes comes with gaining wisdom and experience.

Side note: Unsophisticated, jingoistic pap about Founders and Bill of Rights regularly dripping from our screens is not necessarily a bad thing.

That unsophisticated, jingoistic pap about Founders and Bill of Rights is/was motivated by what we here have that the Brits do not have, even to this day. How sophisticated is that?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Side note: Unsophisticated, jingoistic pap about Founders and Bill of Rights regularly dripping from our screens is not necessarily a bad thing.

That unsophisticated, jingoistic pap about Founders and Bill of Rights is/was motivated by what we here have that the Brits do not have, even to this day. How sophisticated is that?

My point was that OCDO has come a long ways, and the arguments are more thoughtful, more reasoned. That is to say, its moved from parroting to understanding. Or, shifted in that direction anyway.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
My point was that OCDO has come a long ways, and the arguments are more thoughtful, more reasoned. That is to say, its moved from parroting to understanding. Or, shifted in that direction anyway.

What have you done with Citizen?

We demand his immediate release :lol:


Indeed we have come a long way and that is a result of the collective efforts of so many good people.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
My point was that OCDO has come a long ways, and the arguments are more thoughtful, more reasoned. That is to say, its moved from parroting to understanding. Or, shifted in that direction anyway.
Thanks for the clarification.

I would not have been motivated to respond to your post that included "jingoistic pap" if you had not associated "jingoistic pap" with The Founders and our Bill of Rights. I am jingoistic about our Founders, even with their flaws, and I am especially jingoistic about our Bill of Rights, even with its flaws. Some here are "jingoistic-ish" about a bunch of long dead Brits, who The Founders stole ideas from regarding liberty and basic rights. Those long dead Brits had the ideas, sure, but being good subjects of the Crown as they were, they did not take that one extra step that our Founders did take.

Anyway, I'll take our Founders and our Bill of Rights as the last word on liberty and rights if you don't mind. This is very jingoistic, I know, but I am comfortable with this flaw in my character.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Thanks for the clarification.

I would not have been motivated to respond to your post that included "jingoistic pap" if you had not associated "jingoistic pap" with The Founders and our Bill of Rights. I am jingoistic about our Founders, even with their flaws, and I am especially jingoistic about our Bill of Rights, even with its flaws. Some here are "jingoistic-ish" about a bunch of long dead Brits, who The Founders stole ideas from regarding liberty and basic rights. Those long dead Brits had the ideas, sure, but being good subjects of the Crown as they were, they did not take that one extra step that our Founders did take.

There is nothing per se wrong with being jingoistic regarding liberty. At least a fella is on the right side. It just has a limited persuasion factor. And, leaves the door open to a fella having plenty of contradictory opinions. For example, the recent thread by the fella who felt conflicted by the cop assaulting the smart-mouth Marine. I'll bet that poster is plenty patriotic about the Bill of Rights, yet he did not instantly recognize the rights violation. Meaning, he was, I'm guessing, still using some sort of just-desserts standard or something, instead of a making a straight-up comparison between the behavior of the government agent and the Bill of Rights.

Same thing happens when posters who are otherwise patriotic gripe that a youtube video poster was rude or smart-alecky to a cop, while there is no requirement in the Bill of Rights that rights be exercised politely (except the original petition for redress of grievances, a petition being by definition a respectful supplication).

Another example. Its very rare anymore. But, we've had posters complain about bad guys getting off on technicalities. I'll bet those posters were plenty patriotic. They just didn't carry their self-education and thinking far enough. They didn't recognize that those "technicalities" are the rules deriving from the 5th Amendment precious right to due process. They failed to connect that if a judge is letting off a bad guy on a "technicality", the judge was doing his job. It was the goddam cops or prosecutor who screwed up and deserve the blame. Here, also, is a side consideration. WHO in our society is going around planting the idea that due process rights are "technicalities"? How do they benefit? Why are they doing it?

So, another way of clarifying: jingoistic is not in itself bad when siding with liberty. Understanding is even better; it engenders a facility with the ideas that permits one to create persuasive examples and persuasive arguments.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
There is nothing per se wrong with being jingoistic regarding liberty. At least a fella is on the right side. It just has a limited persuasion factor. <snip>
I must apologize for running off into the weeds and dragging you along with me on this jingoistic stuff. It was not my intent. I get what you are saying re OCDO and where it was to where it is today.

The OP is about a thug cop not putting up with a uppity citizen. As you correctly point out some OCDO members are "OK" with that uppity citizen getting a lesson in proper OCer manners administered by that thug cop. It's just that the thug cop did it the wrong way.

Will that thug cop experiences any significant consequences for breaking the law, only time will tell. Though, if I was a betting man I suspect that thug cop will not experience any significant consequences for his unlawful acts.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Anyway, I'll take our Founders and our Bill of Rights as the last word on liberty and rights if you don't mind. This is very jingoistic, I know, but I am comfortable with this flaw in my character.

OK.

But, what if there is something else going on? A hidden false premise that, accepted, limits your thinking?

Its a big step. Gotta hold your breath, man-up, and be willing to let ago of long-held ideas. (You can always take them back.)

What if the constitution and Bill of Rights are just a milestone on the road to Liberty? A checkpoint on the path? It would be kinda sad if we stopped where the Founders left things and didn't take it any further, wouldn't it?

Consider:

The constitution either gave us the government we have or was powerless to stop it. Lysander Spooner 1870.

The same wonderful Framers insisted a Bill of Rights was not necessary. For example, that scumbag Alexander Hamilton actually argued a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because powers not granted/delegated couldn't be exercised. Then a few years later, that jerk had a huge hand in establishing the implied powers doctrine. He was on record as wanting a heiarchical society just like the mother country; he knew what he was doing. He knew he was lying about the reasons a Bill of Rights was unnecessary.

Within a few years of ratification the Federalists--the party who worked so hard for the constitution--passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. The anti-sedition part made it an offense to criticize the government and the president. This was an obvious violation of freedom of speech and press. Men actually went to jail for that. John Adams himself was involved in this violation of the Bill of Rights.

The constitution contains an obvious and bald-faced lie in the very first clause. The writers and ratification supporters portrayed it as "we the people". History shows that wasn't even close to correct. Lots and lots of people were opposed to the constitution because they correctly foresaw the fedgov growing into a monster or knew enough not to trust any such broad national government. "We the people"? Ha! "We Some of The People" who want to impose our will on others is more like it.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson gave us the clue to continuing along the path to liberty, telling us which direction to follow: "...to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (emphasis by Citizen) Ahhh. Consent. Of the governed.

Government has been lying to us for quite a while. Pretending its "we the people" when it clearly isn't the people, just some of them. Another lie is the portrayal of consent. Government pretends to govern by consent of the governed. Yet, there is no way to opt-out or withdraw consent to be governed. I'm sure there are plenty who do actually consent, but its quite a stretch (aka a lie) to claim to be governing by consent when plenty do not consent.

So, all one has to do is look over the subject of consent for a while, and the distortions and exaggerations start coming into focus real fast.

Realize that there are lots of rights not covered in the Bill of Rights. For example, a right to stable money so your savings are not devalued by government and banking machinations. Some rights are mentioned but need a lot more reinforcement. For example, the right to contract. Its mentioned in the constitution itself, saying congress may not impair the right of contract. Yet, government tells people who they can or must contract with, and then regulates the hell out of those contracts. That right needs lots more strengthening.

The Bill of Rights was at best a waypoint on the road to liberty. If you take the whole picture, starting way in the English past, you see chieftains morphing into petty kings by might. A few by murder or war. "Just because I say so and because I have the swords to back it up."

Then come the waypoints on the road to liberty--people trying to wrest freedom from government. Magna Carta. The Ordinances of Clarendon. The abolition of the Star Chamber court. The 1689 Declaration of Rights. Turning the king into a constitutional monarch, and then a figurehead (while carefully leaving him in place as the so-called repository of power upon whose sovereignty the rest of the power-hungry could justify their own power.) Its just one long story of people working to get more freedom and keep it.


So, the Bill of Rights cannot possibly be the final word on rights, the final stop. It necessarily must be a waypoint along the way.

Would not the final waypoint on that path be genuine government by consent? No more pretexts. No more false portrayals of the principles involved. A fella is only governed if he consents to be governed.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Uhhhh....I like OCDO for it's entertainment value, too. ;)



If one wants to leave the forum because the forum doesn't meet their agenda and it won't change for them....then all I can say is.......ADIOS!? :cool:
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
OK.

<snip> The constitution either gave us the government we have or was powerless to stop it. - Lysander Spooner 1870. <snip>
I contend that TJ addressed Mr. Spooner's concern before Mr. Spooner raised his concern. I get what you are saying and you do make some very compelling points.

If we are faithful to our country, if we acquiesce, with good will, in the decisions of the majority, and the nation moves in mass in the same direction, although it may not be that which every individual thinks best, we have nothing to fear from any quarter. -- Thomas Jefferson to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME 16:321
The consent of the governed works in my view. Sometimes it works against liberty and sometimes it works for liberty.

I think that TJ's view on our form of government can be summed up in with this observation.
We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.

It is not the Constitutions fault, or the Founders fault for that matter, that half of the governed do not participate. It just sits in its little glass case and awaits for the governed to participate.

The simplicity of the Constitution is what makes it the last word on liberty in my view. Since its ratification those who participated in our republican form of government amended the constitution for the better or worse depending on your particular issue. It is not the Constitutions fault that the governed who chose to participate may have got it wrong a time or two.

The constitution is by far the most perfect document that recognizes liberty ever written. Now, all we have to do is to get the governed to participate and to then participate in a manner that restores and expands liberty for all of the governed.

Side note: Ya ever wonder why "liberty" is "less eroded" in red states vs. blue states?
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
...I wish you all the best.
Your melodramatic departure note and your absence after posting it tells me that a) you think you are/were somebody special and/or b) you don't seem to have paid attention to what has gone on, and what goes on around here.

I didn't know you and I don't know you, but all I can say is "buh-bye".

Despite all this, good luck on your future memberships and endeavors.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
OK.

But, what if there is something else going on? A hidden false premise that, accepted, limits your thinking?

Its a big step. Gotta hold your breath, man-up, and be willing to let ago of long-held ideas. (You can always take them back.)

What if the constitution and Bill of Rights are just a milestone on the road to Liberty? A checkpoint on the path? It would be kinda sad if we stopped where the Founders left things and didn't take it any further, wouldn't it?

Consider:

The constitution either gave us the government we have or was powerless to stop it. Lysander Spooner 1870.

The same wonderful Framers insisted a Bill of Rights was not necessary. For example, that scumbag Alexander Hamilton actually argued a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because powers not granted/delegated couldn't be exercised. Then a few years later, that jerk had a huge hand in establishing the implied powers doctrine. He was on record as wanting a heiarchical society just like the mother country; he knew what he was doing. He knew he was lying about the reasons a Bill of Rights was unnecessary.

Within a few years of ratification the Federalists--the party who worked so hard for the constitution--passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. The anti-sedition part made it an offense to criticize the government and the president. This was an obvious violation of freedom of speech and press. Men actually went to jail for that. John Adams himself was involved in this violation of the Bill of Rights.

The constitution contains an obvious and bald-faced lie in the very first clause. The writers and ratification supporters portrayed it as "we the people". History shows that wasn't even close to correct. Lots and lots of people were opposed to the constitution because they correctly foresaw the fedgov growing into a monster or knew enough not to trust any such broad national government. "We the people"? Ha! "We Some of The People" who want to impose our will on others is more like it.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson gave us the clue to continuing along the path to liberty, telling us which direction to follow: "...to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (emphasis by Citizen) Ahhh. Consent. Of the governed.

Government has been lying to us for quite a while. Pretending its "we the people" when it clearly isn't the people, just some of them. Another lie is the portrayal of consent. Government pretends to govern by consent of the governed. Yet, there is no way to opt-out or withdraw consent to be governed. I'm sure there are plenty who do actually consent, but its quite a stretch (aka a lie) to claim to be governing by consent when plenty do not consent.

So, all one has to do is look over the subject of consent for a while, and the distortions and exaggerations start coming into focus real fast.

Realize that there are lots of rights not covered in the Bill of Rights. For example, a right to stable money so your savings are not devalued by government and banking machinations. Some rights are mentioned but need a lot more reinforcement. For example, the right to contract. Its mentioned in the constitution itself, saying congress may not impair the right of contract. Yet, government tells people who they can or must contract with, and then regulates the hell out of those contracts. That right needs lots more strengthening.

The Bill of Rights was at best a waypoint on the road to liberty. If you take the whole picture, starting way in the English past, you see chieftains morphing into petty kings by might. A few by murder or war. "Just because I say so and because I have the swords to back it up."

Then come the waypoints on the road to liberty--people trying to wrest freedom from government. Magna Carta. The Ordinances of Clarendon. The abolition of the Star Chamber court. The 1689 Declaration of Rights. Turning the king into a constitutional monarch, and then a figurehead (while carefully leaving him in place as the so-called repository of power upon whose sovereignty the rest of the power-hungry could justify their own power.) Its just one long story of people working to get more freedom and keep it.


So, the Bill of Rights cannot possibly be the final word on rights, the final stop. It necessarily must be a waypoint along the way.

Would not the final waypoint on that path be genuine government by consent? No more pretexts. No more false portrayals of the principles involved. A fella is only governed if he consents to be governed.

All looks good to me :thumbsup:
 
Top