Conversations useful to our cause

I love your comments and your “level-headed” attitude. In retrospect, however, before the USCCA became influential in our lives by defining “responsible gun ownership” and illuminating the proper path to preparedness for those of us who have always thought like ‘sheepdogs’, an exorbitant amount of ground was given-up to the radical sheep on the political Left and the wolves hidden among them who twisted words and meanings in a partially successful intimidating effort to turn our Conservative attitudes and bearing against us.

Regaining that lost ground will not be possible until we gain control of an educational system that has ‘dumbed-down’ two generations of Americans by destroying the concept of personal responsibility and its foundational connection to freedom and liberty. Recognizing the importance of Civics education, citizenship, and the study of our founding documents as the platform from which our totally unique American brand of freedom must be viewed is also linked and is a prism through which our individual responsibility each to one another in an effort to preserve that freedom becomes clear.

Everyone wants freedom. Everyone wants to be able to exercise their Rights. But few if any take the time to adequately define what those Rights are, why they exist … or even how to DEFINE the word “Rights”.

The “Court of Public Opinion” is staffed today by self-appointed judges … too many of whom are there only exercise power and to impose their will on others without concern for the chaos their centralized control creates in their “one-size-fits-all” world … where rules and laws replace the demand for tolerance for the Rights of others necessary to preserve freedom, and where individual Rights are sacrificed by imposing restrictions on law-abiding citizens in an unsuccessful effort to control the lawless ones.

The imbalance this has created makes the personal awareness, training and responsible attitudes of an armed populace at least as important today (if not more so) than it was at the time of our founding, and the requirement for instruction in good citizenship more clearly necessary. Together we can reverse the trend toward lawlessness and chaos we see happening and regain the Rule of Law.




Pay attention to illegal immigration. Many of these folks owe the cartels big bucks, the cartels want their money. The people will fear them and guns, and when they get the vote they won’t be pro 2A. This is part of the anti 2A plan.


Too much freedom? :thinking:


Yes. Over the years I have found that the majority of people favor some level of control and infringement, it’s just a matter of how much. In my experience the strongest correlation is simply the laws and policies a person grew up within. People often don’t trust or understand that which they have not personally extensively experienced.

See discussions on things like the following:

*Shall issue permits with no training requirement
*Wide open Permitless/Constitutional carry
*Open carry
*Minimum carry age of 18
*Carry at a bar
*Carry in schools
*College students carrying on campus, to bars, with no training
*Buying a new gun, even from a business, without any background check at all
*Deregulation of current NFA items
*Lawfully mail ordering a machine gun to your house by simply requiring an adult signature on delivery

And to really spice it up, allowing convicted felons who are not currently incarcerated to have their RKBA. Cross reference a list of laws that constitute felonies for this discussion to really get interesting.

And you’ll find more people than you might have expected arguing for control laws.

1 Like

Someone will invariably ask if a normal citizen should be allowed to own a tank or a fighter jet. …Or a nuclear weapon.

Honestly, I think it’s a fair question. Every freedom has its limits, what limits are will willing to accept on 2A? We’ve had these conversations here, so I won’t repeat them, but it’s important to be respectful when we have these conversations, or else people get defensive.

1 Like

I personally feel there is a demarcation around where arms cross over into ordnance.

General litmus test, anything that is commonly entrusted to a single man to deploy in a combat situation in the armed forces should be fair game.

Mass effect, wide area, indiscriminate types are out. No NBC should be an easy one for reasonable minds to concur as a starting point

1 Like

Citizens do own tanks and Jets. Besides that, every tank and jet and nuclear weapon belongs to the citizens. We already paid for them. There’s no such thing as too free.


All of which we currently are “allowed” to own. This is part of educating the public - even here - that we need to do to restore our rights.

This is true, and this is where we need to educate people. Remind them, firstly, that Letters of Marque that were issued to private citizens “allowed” them to attack British shipping, both trade ships and military ships. In order to do that, they needed to outfit their ships with all sorts of weaponry, including cannons. Also, remind them that private citizens purchased a lot arms, including cannons, that supported the Revolution.

The 2A states arms, not firearms. I, too, believed in “certain” gun control until I became enlightened. Learning our history is a big start to understanding our freedoms and rights. I recall years ago talking to a Turk and he mentioned that we in the USA have too many freedoms. I questioned what freedoms we had that were “too many”. Our individual, inalienable rights, where we have freedom to live as we please as long as we do not harm anyone else was his main source of complaint. He believed God/government needs to control our lives. Our discussion ended when he heard the adhan… j/k

1 Like

Right to all. I wasn’t trying to go off the rails about what the 2A does or does not limit. We’ve had those conversations before. I know where I am on the issue today, and my opinion has changed over the years. Because of that, I try to be too big of a jerk when someone else has a different opinion.

There will always be that person in the group who talks about owning tanks, thinking he has won the debate. And he’ll always get irritated when you tell him about private citizens who actually do own tanks. I’ve found that often, how we handle these conversations more important than what we say next.


Fiction, of course, but at the time this movie came out, I remember people discussing the fact that private citizens could own tanks.


Please be proficient with whatever arms you are free to bear…


It’s ok, I can’t find a tank holster, anyway.


Now, who hassles you if you open carry?
As long as you keep your tags current, and get your DL endorsement.

But remember, it will need to be all-electric by 2040.
Primers for the 76mm will probably still be in short supply by then.

I never figured out how to right-shoulder a tank, either.

1 Like

Well, the tank holsters you. You can park it in the hanger, and it comes with a 50 cal and an extra hatch for a wing man​:joy::sob::rofl:! Holster for a tank!? 76mm!! That’s Rich​:rofl::sob::rofl::laughing:! Good stuff!!

I take it you’ve never had frijoles?


Is that covered under nuclear, biologic or chemical? :rofl:



I have to say that is the first time I’ve heard an argument from an American saying we have “too much freedom.” Any freedom in particular that bothers you, or just freedom in general?

All the best,


I think we got some wires crossed.

Others accuse me of supporting “too much freedom”, which I put in quotes to mean it sarcastically or ironically, as the other people won’t ever call it that, but, that’s what it is. See my later list of firearm/carry topics of examples of things I support that others don’t.