Intent

I'm interrupting my regular posts to bring you this special message. I'm a trifle dumbfounded by a recent thread on a list I frequent.

Originally, it dealt with a national reciprocity bill introduced recently in Congress. There was talk about how it would affect various states' permit systems. Now I know what the gov gives it can take away. The talk was in the parameters of that 'permit' system most states have to some degree. Under this system, it would be a solution toward what I would hope someday would be disbanding permits and reverting to simply the basic right to keep and bear arms. Maybe I dream. How to get gov to suspend de facto registration? As I have suggested, 'bit by bit' to undo the web gov has weaved is a start. Opposing and exposing the antis outright as well. Staying armed so we may be prepared to fight tyranny. And waking up as many as possible.

At any rate, I wasn't participating in this thread. Too many prags and too little time for me to p*** against the wind in many conversations there. I wasted enough time in the past arguing against 'my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts'. And yes most of these folks are good people. There are some absolutists, Constitutionalists, restorationists etc., including some (suspected) three per centers. However, there is of course that small group whose opinions predominate. I let em go at it. I'm accustomed to deep sixing most of their views. The main reason I stay is the tech info and growing unrest with 'gov' which are valuable and the eclectic topics are entertaining. I have noticed say in the last two years certain topics have disappeared or been quieted down. Most conversations are now offlist pertaining to what is freely discussed here, at War on Guns, Sipsey Street etc. I relay some info with no response, though I know there are some who find it useful.

What I noticed next was interesting. One of the guys wants to see a 'Vermont style system of licensing'. Sheesh. OK it's a start? Then this. 'Like the Founding Fathers meant it to be.' Ye gods! Then the response from one of the guys questioned how the Founders felt about concealed carry. Yikes! Next, a comment that if we say they advocated concealed, it could be challenged. OMG!

My reply was simple. I said it wasn't something important enough to specify. Common sense at the time and now say how one should carry. Too much fear has been engendered. We must 'unfear'. Then it can be made plain if you don't want to carry or even have any guns. As for those of us who do, leave us alone. Results would and actually already do speak for themselves. I don't think it can be clearer than that. The antis we will have with us always. Let the chips fall where they may.

The one guy was still worried about credibility. He's afraid of saying 'this is what the Founders meant' without proving it beyond any doubt. WTF? I understand credibility well. Though sometimes I don't include cites for some of my views here, I encourage people to find out for themselves. I do this on purpose so that folks have a hand in their own education. He mentioned some stuff floating on the web re Hitler and gun control. Here he didn't specify. Hopefully, that I do myself. All I ask is for the reader to do some research him/herself.

What puzzles me a little is his insistance on 'what the Founders said'. OK. Again he asks that all quotes be varified by several sources. Alright.

My reply was again simple.

Much was left to the individual. That is the beauty of a Constitutional Republic. As for attitudes at the time re how to carry, open carry was endorsed. Concealed was considered underhanded vis a vis highwaymen etal (For some 'special' or intel jobs during the War for Independence, I wager some weapons were concealed). There is plenty of credibility concerning the Founders' intent. Volumes by Jefferson etal are available. Many other Founders have similar writings. The credibility problem is only one for our enemies. They have the burdern of proof. We readily and always supply proof. If something is in doubt, then we acknowledge that. Try the DoI and the BoR for starters. Go for the Federalist and Antifederalist papers among others. Then as I said, much was left up to the individual.

I left it at that and he shut up. Maybe he wanted to see what I'd say. Good for him. I say what I mean and mean what I say. I hope I am at least SOMETHING like our ancestors.

And as they were, I'm willing to hear criticism and debate. Openly factually concerning truth presented plainly. Was that not what the Founders intended?