Snowflakes guide to dealing with open carriers

[Old Man Winter]

The linked article came across my radar from something a buddy responded to via Instagram.

https://medium.com/@SarahWoodwriter/heres-the-one-question-guns-everywhere-advocates-can-never-answer-ever-661a1aa46ab2

For those that don't want to click the link, the author asked the question: How do we discern a person who is open carrying from a person about to open fire?

Well, not having the business end of the firearm pointed at you is a pretty clear indicator between someone open carrying and a person about to open fire.

While she’s at it maybe she can ask the following questions as well:


How do we discern a person who is driving from a person who is driving drunk before they hit us head on?
If we see John Wick open carrying a pencil, is he gonna sign his name or stab a mf'er in the neck with it?
Will god forgive those of us who ditched the 45acp for 9mm?

She then tweets out the following: "If I see some white dude open carrying a rifle, or for that matter, any gun, I’m going to assume you are hostile and police intervention is needed. How are we as citizens supposed to know the difference between a domestic terrorist and a wannabe vigilante with a small dick?"

Perhaps this lady is worked up because some white dude with a small dick left her unsatisfied? Regardless, I'll be watching to see if crying wolf around open carriers becomes a tactic used by freedom haters after the Missouri Walmart moron was charged with a terroristic threat.

Snowflakes guide to dealing with open carriers:


Notice scary gun.
Convince yourself the open carrier has bad intentions and might shoot the joint up.
Cause a scene and/or pull the fire alarm so people run for the hills resulting in police response.
Watch as open carrier is shot by responding police or hauled away in cuffs for making a terroristic threat.
Earn bonus points for live streaming and selling your footage to fake news source.

[Zincwarrior]

She then tweets out the following: "If I see some white dude open carrying a rifle, or for that matter, any gun, I’m going to assume you are hostile and police intervention is needed. How are we as citizens supposed to know the difference between a domestic terrorist and a wannabe vigilante with a small dick?"



Am I in the woods, near a sporting goods store or shooting event? If not then,
Am I near a grocery, church, school, or Walmart? if yes then,

I agree with her. If its out of place with the location then treat it like a potential situation. I am told see something, say something.


Well, not having the business end of the firearm pointed at you is a pretty clear indicator between someone open carrying and a person about to open fire.
At that point you're kind of dead though.

[JHC]

I'll be watching to see if crying wolf around open carriers becomes a tactic used by freedom haters after the Missouri Walmart moron was charged with a terroristic threat.



I hope that drives them to learn to conceal their gat and give up their long gun strut.

[Trukinjp13]

Guess if he is any color but white she has nothing to worry about according to her logic. Feel bad for any plain clothes police officer nowadays.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Duke]

As stated elsewhere

- if you’re open carrying a rifle and your plate Carrier doesn’t say “police” “sheriff” or “swat” and you’re not dressed like nor behaving in a manner consistent with those jobs - I’m likely to toast you also.



I’ve said it before - open carry is fucking weird. And since we think so and are so reactive to it, how can we blame others for not being alarmed ?

[LittleLebowski]

I hope that drives them to learn to conceal their gat and give up their long gun strut.

#MeToo (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=MeToo)

[Zincwarrior]

Guess if he is any color but white she has nothing to worry about according to her logic. Feel bad for any plain clothes police officer nowadays.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Plain clothes police walk around with long guns in urban areas?

Good open carry of a long gun. https://c8.alamy.com/comp/B648W5/a-cowboy-taking-aim-with-his-rifle-while-on-horseback-B648W5.jpg

Bad open carry of a long gun.
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/04/66/07/18047465/9/420x0.jpg

Best open carry!
https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Baby-Holster.jpg

[WobblyPossum]

The right to open CARRY is protected by the second amendment. Open CARRIERS are going to ruin things for everyone else. It’s a crappy situation, especially since so few open carriers seem to understand why it’s a bad idea.

[blues]

The right to open CARRY is protected by the second amendment. Open CARRIERS are going to ruin things for everyone else. It’s a crappy situation, especially since so few open carriers seem to understand why it’s a bad idea.

It's sort of like the right to vote (for actual non-felonious citizens). Just because they can doesn't mean they should. (In some cases.)

/sarcasm over...kinda

[Jay Cunningham]

Best open carry!
https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Baby-Holster.jpg


AIWB would be weird, tho.

[Zincwarrior]

Yes it would. :eek:

[JHC]

The right to open CARRY is protected by the second amendment. Open CARRIERS are going to ruin things for everyone else. It’s a crappy situation, especially since so few open carriers seem to understand why it’s a bad idea.

+1

It is pretty much in many places; for now. But there is such a long history of it being restricted and what with clear SCOTUS rulings being OK with some restrictions on carrying . . .

I fear that the OC crowd is a big risk to undoing gains made in the "shall issue" reforms of the last 20 years.


I don't think we are not going to win this one if push comes to shove after OC triggers revanchist laws.

Opponents have a lot of historical precedent to reigning it in.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/

[Hambo]

Well, not having the business end of the firearm pointed at you is a pretty clear indicator between someone open carrying and a person about to open fire.

That's an overly simplistic and inaccurate answer.

[the Schwartz]

Snowflakes guide to dealing with open carriers:


Notice scary gun.
Convince yourself the open carrier has bad intentions and might shoot the joint up.
Cause a scene and/or pull the fire alarm so people run for the hills resulting in police response.
Watch as open carrier is shot by responding police or hauled away in cuffs for making a terroristic threat.
Earn bonus points for live streaming and selling your footage to fake news source.



Instead, the chain of events in states where OC is enumerated within the state constitution as a right will more likely read:



Notice scary gun.
Convince yourself the open carrier has bad intentions and might shoot the joint up.
Cause a scene and/or pull the fire alarm so people run for the hills resulting in police response.
Get hauled away in cuffs for making a false report/alarm and/or inducing panic.
Earn bonus points for live streaming and selling your footage to fake news source which will hopefully generate enough income to pay your retainer and any fines you might incur.


We have lots of OC-ers here (Ohio) even in the metro areas. Rarely do we see problems, but when it does it is usually due to improperly-posted NGZ signage.

I think that it is a mistake to classify all whom OC to be brainless, macho, testosterone-filled chest-thumping attention seekers who endanger our CC legislation as many who OC simply are not.

[Zincwarrior]

Instead, the chain of events in states where OC is enumerated within the state constitution as a right will more likely read:



Notice scary gun.
Convince yourself the open carrier has bad intentions and might shoot the joint up.
Cause a scene and/or pull the fire alarm so people run for the hills resulting in police response.
Get hauled away in cuffs for making a false report/alarm and/or inducing panic.
Earn bonus points for live streaming and selling your footage to fake news source which will hopefully generate enough income to pay your retainer and any fines you might incur.


We have lots of OC-ers here (Ohio) even in the metro areas. Rarely do we see problems, but when it does it is usually due to improperly-posted NGZ signage.

I think that it is a mistake to classify all whom OC to be brainless, macho, testosterone-filled chest-thumping attention seekers who endanger our CC legislation as many who OC simply are not.

While there is always a statistical chance, the odds of being arrested on false charges in the example above are likely astronomically low, given current conditions.*

*This opinion is based on absolutely nothing. On the positive this piece of cake I am eating tells me I am 100% right!

[Trukinjp13]

Zincwarrior

Yes I have seen open carry with long guns by Leo. But no, not urban. Country environment.

I was referring to a pistol though. I should have been more clear I am sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

Zincwarrior

Yes I have seen open carry with long guns by Leo. But no, not urban. Country environment.

I was referring to a pistol though. I should have been more clear I am sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am just referring to Open Carry of long guns, per the OP. Ihave seen lots of OC in rural environments of both types, and some OC of handguns in an urban environment. But someone out of place carrying a long gun in a city? Nope.

[Old Man Winter]

That's an overly simplistic and inaccurate answer.

It's a very simplistic answer. We can't expect people who struggle to keep their face out of a screen for more than 30 seconds to have good situational awareness or understand violence indicators, let alone apply that knowledge to their daily grind. There's nothing inaccurate about any part of the statement I made.


Instead, the chain of events in states where OC is enumerated within the state constitution as a right will more likely read:


Notice scary gun.
Convince yourself the open carrier has bad intentions and might shoot the joint up.
Cause a scene and/or pull the fire alarm so people run for the hills resulting in police response.
Get hauled away in cuffs for making a false report/alarm and/or inducing panic.
Earn bonus points for live streaming and selling your footage to fake news source which will hopefully generate enough income to pay your retainer and any fines you might incur.



I don't see many people getting hassled over #4. See something, say something combined with current climate on this subject.


I am just referring to Open Carry of long guns, per the OP. Ihave seen lots of OC in rural environments of both types, and some OC of handguns in an urban environment. But someone out of place carrying a long gun in a city? Nope.

As I mentioned in another thread, when I'm in the Colorado Springs area I see open carry of handguns, shotguns, and rifles to include AR-15's. People don't get bent about it so it must happen with some frequency. I have seen clowns carrying AR-15's slung in a Walmart supercenter. I'm told by a family member who is retired LE that it's not uncommon to see that in the area. I specifically recall seeing examples of long gun carry in the Walmart, BassPro shops, the grocery store, and the hardware store during my trips out there.

[Zincwarrior]

As I mentioned in another thread, when I'm in the Colorado Springs area I see open carry of handguns, shotguns, and rifles to include AR-15's. People don't get bent about it so it must happen with some frequency. I have seen clowns carrying AR-15's slung in a Walmart supercenter. I'm told by a family member who is retired LE that it's not uncommon to see that in the area. I specifically recall seeing examples of long gun carry in the Walmart, BassPro shops, the grocery store, and the hardware store during my trips out there.

I imagine that reception might be different in Austin or San Antonio right now.

[Borderland]

If you OC a SA rifle somebody is going to stop you.

It might be the Po Po or a citizen but you can bet your ass there will be an interdiction.

If you don't believe me go to your local Walmart with a SA rifle and prove me wrong.

Be sure to wear your camo and plate vest for additional scare factor.

Good luck. Report back if you're able.

[jetfire]

The linked article came across my radar from something a buddy responded to via Instagram.

https://medium.com/@SarahWoodwriter/heres-the-one-question-guns-everywhere-advocates-can-never-answer-ever-661a1aa46ab2

For those that don't want to click the link, the author asked the question: How do we discern a person who is open carrying from a person about to open fire?

Well, not having the business end of the firearm pointed at you is a pretty clear indicator between someone open carrying and a person about to open fire.

While she’s at it maybe she can ask the following questions as well:


How do we discern a person who is driving from a person who is driving drunk before they hit us head on?
If we see John Wick open carrying a pencil, is he gonna sign his name or stab a mf'er in the neck with it?
Will god forgive those of us who ditched the 45acp for 9mm?

She then tweets out the following: "If I see some white dude open carrying a rifle, or for that matter, any gun, I’m going to assume you are hostile and police intervention is needed. How are we as citizens supposed to know the difference between a domestic terrorist and a wannabe vigilante with a small dick?"

Perhaps this lady is worked up because some white dude with a small dick left her unsatisfied? Regardless, I'll be watching to see if crying wolf around open carriers becomes a tactic used by freedom haters after the Missouri Walmart moron was charged with a terroristic threat.

Snowflakes guide to dealing with open carriers:


Notice scary gun.
Convince yourself the open carrier has bad intentions and might shoot the joint up.
Cause a scene and/or pull the fire alarm so people run for the hills resulting in police response.
Watch as open carrier is shot by responding police or hauled away in cuffs for making a terroristic threat.
Earn bonus points for live streaming and selling your footage to fake news source.


Guess I’m a snowflake then, because if I see some retard walking around an urban or sub-urban area with a long gun, the first thing I’m going to do is get myself to a position of advantage and observation while I call 911. Open carry of long guns has never been normal in developed areas, so yeah if there is a dude walking around with a slung AR I’m going to assume that he’s going to be an active shooter until he proves otherwise.

[Old Man Winter]

Guess I’m a snowflake then, because if I see some retard walking around an urban or sub-urban area with a long gun, the first thing I’m going to do is get myself to a position of advantage and observation while I call 911. Open carry of long guns has never been normal in developed areas, so yeah if there is a dude walking around with a slung AR I’m going to assume that he’s going to be an active shooter until he proves otherwise.

Are you gonna do the same for somebody open carrying a handgun? She clearly states: "open carrying a rifle, or for that matter, any gun".

[jetfire]

Are you gonna do the same for somebody open carrying a handgun? She clearly states: "open carrying a rifle, or for that matter, any gun".

Nah, people open carrying handguns probably aren’t active shooters, they’re just dumb assholes. Luckily open carry is generally illegal in Florida and it appears it is thankfully going to stay that way.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The only thing OC accomplished in San Antonio was a slew of 30.07 signs along with places adding 30.06 signs for a set. Defending idiots who posture with tactical so called gear is idiotic. No reason to spare the words.

[HeavyDuty]

I know this will piss some people off, but at this point I’d be perfectly ok with OC going away. Not because it’s inherently a problem, but because there are too many idiots out there trying to make a “statement.”

41259

[JDT2020]

I understand that “open carry“ is protected as a constitutional right. However, as tactically stupid that open carry is, I feel pretty confident that the majority of these “open carry“ groups that run around causing trouble are actually anti-Second Amendment/pro-gun control groups. I’m have to agree with what another member posted earlier in saying that these open carry groups are going to ruin it for everyone.

[Hambo]

[QUOTE=36trap;915317]There's nothing inaccurate about any part of the statement I made.[QUOTE]

If nothing else, you're confident.

[Mjolnir]

As stated elsewhere

- if you’re open carrying a rifle and your plate Carrier doesn’t say “police” “sheriff” or “swat” and you’re not dressed like nor behaving in a manner consistent with those jobs - I’m likely to toast you also.



I’ve said it before - open carry is fucking weird. And since we think so and are so reactive to it, how can we blame others for not being alarmed ?

If open carry is “weird” I think you may need an intervention.

It may not be many people’s choice but if it’s legal what’s it to you - or me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

Nah, people open carrying handguns probably aren’t active shooters, they’re just dumb assholes. Luckily open carry is generally illegal in Florida and it appears it is thankfully going to stay that way.

This is the snobbish attitude that will sink us all.

It’s no different than the hunters versus black rifle folks and the Shotgunners versus rifle owners.

It’s STUPID.

Carry however the Hades you wish - just be legal and be safe.

Open Carry both legal and lawful in many areas. That’s THEIR prerogative.

We have yahoos concealed carrying, open carrying, taking classes,... you name it.

I support AMERICANS who support AMERICAN VALUES.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

I know this will piss some people off, but at this point I’d be perfectly ok with OC going away. Not because it’s inherently a problem, but because there are too many idiots out there trying to make a “statement.”

41259

Yeah, force everyone to beg for Gov’t PERMISSION for an inalienable right.

Brilliant...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190813/00a26c8beb3373d4e88d946fce958899.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeavyDuty]

Yeah, force everyone to beg for Gov’t PERMISSION for an inalienable right.

Brilliant...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190813/00a26c8beb3373d4e88d946fce958899.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, cause restrictions to all of our rights because you “need” to be able to carry an AR and wear a plate carrier when you go to Walmart... brilliant.

This isn’t about simple OC, it’s about the turkeys who cross the line into intimidation.

[Zincwarrior]

If open carry is “weird” I think you may need an intervention.

It may not be many people’s choice but if it’s legal what’s it to you - or me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is legal to drive a car. It is not legal to then drive that car in a threatening manner. There are many instances where open carrying a rifle is not being threatening. Wearing tacticool clothing and carrying it into Walmart at low ready is the definitive example of NOT one of them.

[hufnagel]

It's time we nut the fuck up and start having Gun Pride parades, and get in peoples faces like the Gays did, and still do.

[BillSWPA]

If open carry is “weird” I think you may need an intervention.

It may not be many people’s choice but if it’s legal what’s it to you - or me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A crowbar is legal to purchase and to carry down the street. Carrying one at 2:00 am behind a closed business will result in a Terry stop, despite the fact that it is legal.

Context matters. Someone open carrying a long gun into my very gun-friendly church is not going to go well. Just because it is legal does not make it a good idea.

If we are going to actually succeed in advancing our rights, the first step is not presenting ourselves to the general public as a bunch of idiots. Everyone open carrying a long gun reflects badly not just on themselves, but on the rest of us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Amen to that, Brother!

The great ironic event with be if Tactical Timmy in his gear enters the mall at the same time that Rampage Ronald in the same gear does. Tactical Timmy goes down in blaze of concealed carrier gun fire.

I propose OS - open sex. The Supreme Court in their wisdom has abolished freedom restraining laws about sexual activity between adults. However, we still suffer under laws that only allow concealed sex. It should be the case that to educate people about sexual practices and desensitize them about the stigma of various sexual acts, that sex in public be allowed. One should be able to engage in sexual acts on the front lawn, in the mall and in places of worship. In fact, wait until the school bus stops in your neighborhood to educate and desensitize the children.

Muh rights! Freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution. Since laws against sexual representations in media have been struck down, it is time to strike down the concealed sex laws. If you see on the TV, cinema or electronic devices, you can do it on the front lawn!

What do you all think?

As far as a parade - given what they have looked like in the past and the small numbers, I'd pass on that idea. I think I was more effective as a communicator when I wore a jacket and tie to testify to the TX Legislature on campus carry and then got on most of the major TV stations in the state and in the papers. If I were dressed as Tac Timmy, I doubt the message would be seen as legit.

[Yung]

If we are going to actually succeed in advancing our rights, the first step is not presenting ourselves to the general public as a bunch of idiots. Everyone open carrying a long gun reflects badly not just on themselves, but on the rest of us.


I do not hunt and I never grew up in a rural environment, so I am curious if there is any context for long guns at all so that I do not risk treading on a different American's toes by agreeing with you. Or, an argument could be made for mandatory casing laws for everyone whether in the city or in the country.

It is also a potential of confusion I don't often see addressed in these open carry discussions whether someone even acknowledges handgun carry as a right, which is an important distinction to make when concessions are already on some people's minds.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Having grown up in an urban environment and then moving to states with a more outdoors paradigm, there is a difference between the casual display of long arms in rural environs or on the way to such and the cos play folks we see now.

In my 50 years in the latter two environments, I never saw a cos player until the recent OC displays. Why wasn't the need for such evident before now?

[Yung]

It's time we nut the fuck up and start having Gun Pride parades, and get in peoples faces like the Gays did, and still do.

I think the 2A community could pull something like that off safely and tastefully. I think something like that was done not that long ago in Illinois, actually.

[Zincwarrior]

As far as a parade - given what they have looked like in the past and the small numbers, I'd pass on that idea. I think I was more effective as a communicator when I wore a jacket and tie to testify to the TX Legislature on campus carry and then got on most of the major TV stations in the state and in the papers. If I were dressed as Tac Timmy, I doubt the message would be seen as legit.

A large parade of well dressed individuals with signs supporting the Second Amendment would be nice, but they would have to be well dressed and groomed, without stupid Tshirts and hats, without tactical timmy bling, and unarmed except with copies of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the populace I have seen at protests tended to be the opposite of that.

[the Schwartz]

It is legal to drive a car. It is not legal to then drive that car in a threatening manner. There are many instances where open carrying a rifle is not being threatening. Wearing tacticool clothing and carrying it into Walmart at low ready is the definitive example of NOT one of them.

Your perception of what is "threatening" is problematic at best. In locales where OC, and for that matter CC, is legal and often (now) a constitutionally-defined right, the exercise of that right regardless of whether a long gun or pistol is carried constitutes neither a threat (unless you "project") nor a violation of the law.

Just a few years ago, we had a police officer in a nearby jurisdiction contact a citizen who was legally OC-ing (it's a constitutional right here in Ohio) pistol after he refused to disarm when a passing motorcyclist demanded that he do so. Shortly upon making contact with the citizen who was OC-ing, the police officer decided to arrest the citizen who was OC-ing on a charge of inducing panic. Unfortunately, the officer who stated that he perceived the citizen as a threat could not articulate any threat to himself by the armed citizen other than the fact that the armed citizen had an openly carried (holstered) pistol on his hip. In order for the charge of inducing panic to actually apply in such an instance, the armed citizen would have had to have been engaged in a prior, predicate criminal offense that was the cause of panic leading to the secondary offense of inducing panic. Obviously, the exercise of one's rights, no matter how we might feel about them, does not constitute a criminal offense. The final outcome of this unfortunate circumstance is that the officer was severely reprimanded by the department and is still in the process of defending himself against civil litigation and significant financial penalty due to the false arrest that he made that day. Since then, the department has performed several "in service" training sessions in order to remedy their lack of training in that particular realm of constitutional law.

While I rarely open carry these days, and then only with a pistol, the division and animus (like calling those who OC "dumb assholes", etc.) serves only to show just how childish some of our number can be (name-calling) while simultaneously giving those who would love to do away completely with the Second Amendment even more ground than they already have.

[the Schwartz]

A large parade of well dressed individuals with signs supporting the Second Amendment would be nice, but they would have to be well dressed and groomed, without stupid Tshirts and hats, without tactical timmy bling, and unarmed except with copies of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the populace I have seen at protests tended to be the opposite of that.

I wish that were the case. In a perfect world, it would be just like that. Unfortunately, just as with any other cause, we are burdened with the actions of those on both sides (OC and CC) that cause more difficulty for us than we need.

[Old Man Winter]

Nah, people open carrying handguns probably aren’t active shooters, they’re just dumb assholes. Luckily open carry is generally illegal in Florida and it appears it is thankfully going to stay that way.

The overwhelming majority of active shooter incidents have been carried out with handguns as the primary or only weapon. Some of the most high profile mass shootings in recent memory have been carried out with handguns in states where open carry is legal.


The only thing OC accomplished in San Antonio was a slew of 30.07 signs along with places adding 30.06 signs for a set. Defending idiots who posture with tactical so called gear is idiotic. No reason to spare the words.

It has nothing to do with defending the "idiots". It's about defending the law. Work to change the law if you don't agree with it. Those signs were going up whether tactical timmy showed his face or not.


Yeah, cause restrictions to all of our rights because you “need” to be able to carry an AR and wear a plate carrier when you go to Walmart... brilliant.

This isn’t about simple OC, it’s about the turkeys who cross the line into intimidation.

You're right, some people open carry for the intimidation factor. If you expect other people to have the same sense of acceptable behavior as you, you're gonna be disappointed. Our society is full of examples where the actions of a few have caused problems for many. That's never going to change.


It is legal to drive a car. It is not legal to then drive that car in a threatening manner. There are many instances where open carrying a rifle is not being threatening. Wearing tacticool clothing and carrying it into Walmart at low ready is the definitive example of NOT one of them.

Let's face it, most people are threatened by someone carrying a gun, any gun. Look at how uniformed law enforcement officers are treated throughout this country. We see examples where they're asked to leave a business or simply refused service because they're wearing a gun. Open carry laws are not intended for hunting or being in the woods with little chance of encountering people. Like it or not, being a tacti-fool isn't against the law. Society probably doesn't have enough jail cells to lock up every person that wears tacti-fool clothing.


If we are going to actually succeed in advancing our rights, the first step is not presenting ourselves to the general public as a bunch of idiots. Everyone open carrying a long gun reflects badly not just on themselves, but on the rest of us.

Advancing our rights? Our rights have been eroded because too many people think there's something to advance. Our "gun" rights are god given and constitutionally protected yet we've allowed them to be stripped away and watered down. You're correct, open carrying a long gun does reflect poorly on everyone but expecting other people to have the same sense of acceptable behavior is never gonna happen.

[Mjolnir]

A crowbar is legal to purchase and to carry down the street. Carrying one at 2:00 am behind a closed business will result in a Terry stop, despite the fact that it is legal.

Context matters. Someone open carrying a long gun into my very gun-friendly church is not going to go well. Just because it is legal does not make it a good idea.

If we are going to actually succeed in advancing our rights, the first step is not presenting ourselves to the general public as a bunch of idiots. Everyone open carrying a long gun reflects badly not just on themselves, but on the rest of us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can try to twist this into anything you like.

You should not be threatened by a person minding his business with a firearm holstered in his hip.

You now wish to create specific circumstances, blah, blah, blah.

That was not what we were discussing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WobblyPossum]

Several posters have already explained the problem with how a lot of OC people choose to carry their rifles. When you walk around with a rifle slung behind your back, it’s a lot less threatening to everyone than when you walk around with the rifle slung in front of you with your hands on it in a “patrol ready” manner. The crow bar example was perfect because the context and circumstances around the OCing of a long gun are very important. If you’re OCing a rifle, wearing an orange vest, during deer season, most people can understand the decision. If you’re OCing a rifle in an already aggressive looking manner such as the patrol ready position I mentioned above, you’re walking into a location that has been targeted by mass shooters recently like a Walmart, and you’re wearing a load bearing vest or actual body armor like numerous recent mass shooters have worn, a reasonable person would be concerned that you’re about to go mass shooter. Yes, the action of OCing a long gun is legal but in the context of recent events, the manner the weapon is carried, the manner in which the OCer is attired, and the location in which the OCing is being done, the OCer might be detained and people will investigate.

A few people have already mentioned that walking around in an urban area and openly carrying a long gun hasn’t been socially acceptable for a long, long time. That’s not going to change. Honestly, I’m not sure it should and I’m pretty close to a second amendment absolutist.

[Totem Polar]

I propose OS - open sex.

What do you all think?


Actually, I think that the “OS movement" made *massive* strides forward in the late 70s, 80s, and 90s by choosing attractive, well-dressed representatives to do the "normalizing" of sexual activity in front of mainstream American audiences, of all ages.

Hollywood would not have been so successful if their chosen poster children were fat old guys with neck beards, camo t-shirts from Cabelas, and Crocks on their feet.

Fact.
;)

Seriously, I have heard eyeball-to-eyeball from the old generation of jazz pioneers that they always wore suits and ties to legitimize the art in the eyes if a mainstream audience.

100 thousand well-dressed open carriers engaged in a march in any major city would open some eyes. A dude in wal-mart in a polo probably won’t.

That’s the thing about image problems; the image is the problem.

JMO.

[Yung]

In case I haven't pointed it out before, every annual meeting of members for the Arizona Citizens Defense League is an open-carry friendly event, whether in Phoenix or in Tucson. Everyone is well-dressed and minds their manners.

With the exception of a handful of members and sometimes a guest, everyone is also a old retired white guy or gal.

[Joe in PNG]

There's a big difference between a normie reacting with "these people carry guns" and "THESE people carry GUNS!?!"

One helps us, the other "frightens the horses" and causes people to vote against us.

[Zincwarrior]

Your perception of what is "threatening" is problematic at best. In locales where OC, and for that matter CC, is legal and often (now) a constitutionally-defined right, the exercise of that right regardless of whether a long gun or pistol is carried constitutes neither a threat (unless you "project") nor a violation of the law.
https://s2.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/B1IuItk6BmbDI_io.vleLA--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3c9MzQxO3E9NzU7c209MTtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/walmart-scare-missiouri-rt-jt-190812_hpEmbed_9x16_608.jpg

So your view is that someone dressed like this, with ammunition, walking into a Walmart is not problematic and won't result in police or more exuberant CLHers arresting (or doing other more perment things) this individual?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It has nothing to do with defending the "idiots". It's about defending the law. Work to change the law if you don't agree with it. Those signs were going up whether tactical timmy showed his face or not.

No, when the OC law was proposed, the 30.07 signs were an integral part of it. 30.06 existed before. When OC passed major locations put up the new 30.07 signs. Places that did not have 30.06 signs put them up along with 30.07 for a loss.

[the Schwartz]

https://s2.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/B1IuItk6BmbDI_io.vleLA--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3c9MzQxO3E9NzU7c209MTtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/walmart-scare-missiouri-rt-jt-190812_hpEmbed_9x16_608.jpg

So your view is that someone dressed like this, with ammunition, walking into a Walmart is not problematic and won't result in police or more exuberant CLHers arresting (or doing other more perment things) this individual?

I never said that it was a good idea. ;)

Good question, but perhaps a more relevant question is "problematic" for whom? Because, honestly it won't be a problem for me; I'm simply heading for the closest door upon seeing this sort of thing (if/while I have the chance), if not for the potential threat suggested by such provocative behavior, but also for the (overly-exuberant) response of others (some of whom legally CC) and my desire to not be present when either side decides that it is time to lay down a field of suppressive fire to save us all. :rolleyes:

Depending upon the laws in any particular jurisdiction, this sort of behavior (or display) may not necessarily constitute a criminal offense. Sure, presenting oneself in such a manner is certainly in "poor taste", but until the subject commits a violation (other than the fashion-statement violation of copying the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' look) there is no cause to act with force. An individual walking into a WalMart (or other large department store chain) is surely going to be subject to an elevated level of scrutiny by those around him, but those around him (being engaged in that scrutiny) are not free to respond preemptively with lethal force if all he is does is walk around, shopping for pool supplies while looking like an "A-Team" extra. To do so would likely guarantee them a spot on the local, if not national, nightly news and a need to retain serious legal counsel for felonious assault or perhaps murder.

Then there are those who'll habitually over-react by "dissolving into the shadows" and getting themselves to a (ninja-like) position of advantage and observation :rolleyes: while calling 9-1-1 to report what may, or may not, be a crime. If a shooting is truly imminent, the smart money is on getting out of the building before any shooting starts (a.k.a.-- "de-assing the threat area") as opposed to sticking around and likely contributing to the "body count". There is no need for "forward observers" in these situations; especially unsupported, non-LE types with delusions that they'll be ignored by the shooter as they "call in" and "track" the shooter's actions during the incident. Better to call 9-1-1 after leaving the perceived threat area.

There is a lot of stupidity being exhibited these days by lots of people. I can't stop it, but I can chose to be where they aren't or, if they appear unexpectedly, move with a certain amount of intent/purpose to the nearest exit.

[Cypher]

I remember several years ago multiple posters on a radical leftist site called Democratic Underground advocated SWATTING any open carrier they happened to see.

The suggestion was to tell the police they were waving the gun around or pointing at people or anything it took to get the cops to show up and slap the carrier down.

I have no problem believing those people still have the same plan.

[Old Man Winter]

No, when the OC law was proposed, the 30.07 signs were an integral part of it. 30.06 existed before. When OC passed major locations put up the new 30.07 signs. Places that did not have 30.06 signs put them up along with 30.07 for a loss.

Maybe I'm not tracking correctly but it seems like you're confirming what I said. Open carry passed which triggered businesses to put up 30.07 signs and 30.06 signs in some cases. It sure looks like this happened because open carry passed and not because tactical timmy came along and scared everyone.

[BillSWPA]

Maybe I'm not tracking correctly but it seems like you're confirming what I said. Open carry passed which triggered businesses to put up 30.07 signs and 30.06 signs in some cases. It sure looks like this happened because open carry passed and not because tactical timmy came along and scared everyone.

There are multiple businesses that asked people to stop bringing in guns specifically because open carriers showed up and scared the other customers. That is an undeniable, unmitigated setback.

Responding to others in this thread:

We had an incident locally wherein a gun was stolen from an open carrier. When I posted about it in another thread, one of our police officer participants responded that he sees 6 or more such incidents annually in his duty location. There’s the so-called deterrence. Police use retention holsters for a reason, and open carriers need to consider that issue.

If someone wants to “normalize” open carry, at least have the good sense to dress business casual or nicer to reduce the fear factor. I am not saying this is a good idea, but it is the least stupid way to do something stupid. That is unfortunately not the majority of open carriers.

On the past 2 weeks I was on multiple locations with “no guns” policies with no issues because my gun was concealed. How would an open carrier have fared?

How many friends do you think my kids would have if I was the weird dad who open carried. A select group knows I carry concealed.

So why again does open carry make sense?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Actually, some open carry long arms types before the bill (like the Chipolte twins) pushed the 30.07s when they came out. They were prancing around and trying to make a statement to local law about the already legal carry of long arms. They pushed the fact that state law allowed such and voided city laws. That was legit but the instances, increased the number of 30.06 and 7s. 30.06s were a clever design. Originally, concealed carry could be banned by any old sign, like a ghostbusters. Thus, many places banned concealed carry and that was disruptive of carry. So in the next iteration, the TSRA got the large obnoxious 30.06 passed with very strict requirements. The idea was that the sign was so obnoxious that many places wouldn't use them. That turned out to be true. The Ghost busters signs were taken down or ignored. Then, with the long arm Tactical Timmys prancing around before OC passed and their displays on the local news, quite a few businesses conflated Long Arm and handgun OC and found that the 30.07 signs (big like the 06s) were tolerable and up they went. Plus, as I said, many added 06s to 07s. A net loss.

Now some folks said: I'll boycott a store with an 07. If that happened, no one noticed. My local seafood restaurant put up an 07. I asked the manager, whom I knew if there was feedback. She said that two old coots had hissy fits but no others. NO change in business. The major supermarket change is 07 and jammed packed everyday. Two other major grocery stores that had no signs went 06 and 07.

Thus, you see O7s in lots of places. It has a negative impact. Mommy, why can't we carry a gun. Well, Billy - they are dangerous. Since the number of signs dramatically increased with the 07s from the previous number of 06s, it is a PR loss.

[the Schwartz]

There are multiple businesses that asked people to stop bringing in guns specifically because open carriers showed up and scared the other customers. That is an undeniable, unmitigated setback.

Responding to others in this thread:

We had an incident locally wherein a gun was stolen from an open carrier. When I posted about it in another thread, one of our police officer participants responded that he sees 6 or more such incidents annually in his duty location. There’s the so-called deterrence. Police use retention holsters for a reason, and open carriers need to consider that issue.

If someone wants to “normalize” open carry, at least have the good sense to dress business casual or nicer to reduce the fear factor. I am not saying this is a good idea, but it is the least stupid way to do something stupid. That is unfortunately not the majority of open carriers.

On the past 2 weeks I was on multiple locations with “no guns” policies with no issues because my gun was concealed. How would an open carrier have fared?

How many friends do you think my kids would have if I was the weird dad who open carried. A select group knows I carry concealed.

So why again does open carry make sense?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why does any substantive part (the right to keep and bear arms) of the Second Amendment make sense? Historically, bearing arms, be it openly or concealed, is part of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Are we now to discard those pieces of it that we disagree with or no longer personally have a use for simply because of those reasons or because they make us uncomfortable? That's a rather slippery slope in it's own right.

Back in mid-2008, while dressed in summer business-casual clothing, I took advantage of my constitutional right to OC during a late afternoon walk with my wife and infant son (whom I was pushing in his stroller) because it was warm enough that I didn't want to bother with a cover garment that would make me sweat more than I cared for. As I pushed my 6-month old son with my wife at my side through our upper middle-class neighborhood, my wife and I talked and laughed as we walked along and we were even greeted by and said hello to numerous residents who never seemed to notice the small pistol holstered in my side. About 30 minutes into our stroll, we heard the sound of racing engines and within 30 seconds of that, had a young, female officer emerged, visibly trembling, from her marked vehicle at which time she leveled her service sidearm at me as I pushed my little one along in his stroller. Keeping my hands both visible and open without movement, I asked why she was making contact with me and my family. Her response was that she'd been dispatched to respond to a "man with a gun" at my location, but past that could not articulate an actual offense or cause for covering me and my family with her service sidearm.

It was not until a more senior officer from that same municipality arrived that she finally lowered her pistol and after being addressed by him (he knew me from prior work together in a nearby LE agency) skulked off very angrily.

A rather detailed letter copied to the Chief of that particular department in addition to the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Mayor and Village Council brought immediate responses indicating that the response of the female officer was sub-standard and that an in-service training program would implemented for all personnel to correct the obvious deficiencies noted in the officer's conduct. Later, I came to find out that the "man with a gun" call was phoned in to the involved deparment by a Federal Air Marshall as he stood in his living room watching us pass his residence.

I wonder...

What part of what I was doing threatened anyone?

Was it the three-wheel jogging stroller?

Was it my infant son snoozing away the afternoon as he bumped along in his stroller along the sidewalk while his parents chatted and laughed with one another?

Perhaps it was the color of my summer-weight dress pants (Dockers) or my neatly tucked polo that caused him concern?

The fact is that there are those who are damaging the cause (Second Amendment, OC, CC, etc.) simply because it is not looked favorably upon by them.

Why should we give up anything just because some do not like it?

[BillSWPA]

Why does any substantive part (the right to keep and bear arms) of the Second Amendment make sense? Historically, bearing arms, be it openly or concealed, is part of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Are we now to discard those pieces of it that we disagree with or no longer personally have a use for simply because of those reasons or because they make us uncomfortable? That's a rather slippery slope in it's own right.

Back in mid-2008, while dressed in summer business-casual clothing, I took advantage of my constitutional right to OC during a late afternoon walk with my wife and infant son (whom I was pushing in his stroller) because it was warm enough that I didn't want to bother with a cover garment that would make me sweat more than I cared for. As I pushed my 6-month old son with my wife at my side through our upper middle-class neighborhood, my wife and I talked and laughed as we walked along and we were even greeted by and said hello to numerous residents who never seemed to notice the small pistol holstered in my side. About 30 minutes into our stroll, we heard the sound of racing engines and within 30 seconds of that, had a young, female officer emerged, visibly trembling, from her marked vehicle at which time she leveled her service sidearm at me as I pushed my little one along in his stroller. Keeping my hands both visible and open without movement, I asked why she was making contact with me and my family. Her response was that she'd been dispatched to respond to a "man with a gun" at my location, but past that could not articulate an actual offense or cause for covering me and my family with her service sidearm.

It was not until a more senior officer from that same municipality arrived that she finally lowered her pistol and after being addressed by him (he knew me from prior work together in a nearby LE agency) skulked off very angrily.

A rather detailed letter copied to the Chief of that particular department in addition to the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Mayor and Village Council brought immediate responses indicating that the response of the female officer was sub-standard and that an in-service training program would implemented for all personnel to correct the obvious deficiencies noted in the officer's conduct. Later, I came to find out that the "man with a gun" call was phoned in to the involved deparment by a Federal Air Marshall as he stood in his living room watching us pass his residence.

I wonder...

What part of what I was doing threatened anyone?

Was it the three-wheel jogging stroller?

Was it my infant son snoozing away the afternoon as he bumped along in his stroller along the sidewalk while his parents chatted and laughed with one another?

Perhaps it was the color of my summer-weight dress pants (Dockers) that caused him concern?

The fact is that there are those who are damaging the cause (Second Amendment, OC, CC, etc.) simply because it is not looked favorably upon by them.

Why should we give up anything just because some do not like it?

I have written for many, many hours in multiple threads on this forum about the second amendment as applied to various issues, and how to best advance second amendment rights, mostly on the issue of bump stocks (which has a lot of parallels to open carry in terms of the effect of our approach to our rights).

Focusing on the theoretical basis of the second amendment is a sure way to lose ground.

To advance those rights, you need to focus on the concerns of your audience.

The family that just read about two active shooters and then sees an open carrier walk in to the store where they are shopping or restaurant where they are eating doesn't give a rat's *** about your second amendment theory. They want to know what keeps them safe.

When someone finds out that I carry a gun, they have already known me, and learned that I am a responsible, reasonable person. They have interacted with me several times, and never saw the gun. I now have the chance to talk to them, invite them shooting, and bring them to our side, something I have successfully done multiple times.

When someone sees you open carrying, they have already prejudged you based on what they think they know about guns. Any chance you may have had to bring then over to our way of thinking has already been lost before you speak your first word. All you accomplished was to create another voter who now more strongly supports gun control, and another business that will put up a no guns sign.

How does any of that support your second amendment theories?

[Mjolnir]

Yeah, cause restrictions to all of our rights because you “need” to be able to carry an AR and wear a plate carrier when you go to Walmart... brilliant.

This isn’t about simple OC, it’s about the turkeys who cross the line into intimidation.

Try to follow.

The OP did not say ANYTHING about carrying a carbine in public.

And to be honest, I’m not alarmed about that, either. It should not bother TRUE Americans but I admit they are rather hard to find nowadays no matter where you look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

I never got the carrying carbine around thing.

Some of those folks may not be whom we think they are.

Just something to consider.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WobblyPossum]

Try to follow.

The OP did not say ANYTHING about carrying a carbine in public.

And to be honest, I’m not alarmed about that, either. It should not bother TRUE Americans but I admit they are rather hard to find nowadays no matter where you look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, because other members disagree with you about whether the open carrying of carbines in public is a good idea or not, they aren't "TRUE" Americans? That's totally the level of discourse I expect on this forum. :rolleyes:

[StraitR]

I know this will piss some people off, but at this point I’d be perfectly ok with OC going away. Not because it’s inherently a problem, but because there are too many idiots out there trying to make a “statement.”

If some variation of national red flag laws pass, OC will go away by attrition.

[HeavyDuty]

Try to follow.

The OP did not say ANYTHING about carrying a carbine in public.

And to be honest, I’m not alarmed about that, either. It should not bother TRUE Americans but I admit they are rather hard to find nowadays no matter where you look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow. Welcome to my ignore list, bro.

[the Schwartz]

I have written for many, many hours in multiple threads on this forum about the second amendment as applied to various issues, and how to best advance second amendment rights, mostly on the issue of bump stocks (which has a lot of parallels to open carry in terms of the effect of our approach to our rights).

Focusing on the theoretical basis of the second amendment is a sure way to lose ground.

To advance those rights, you need to focus on the concerns of your audience.

The family that just read about two active shooters and then sees an open carrier walk in to the store where they are shopping or restaurant where they are eating doesn't give a rat's *** about your second amendment theory. They want to know what keeps them safe.

When someone finds out that I carry a gun, they have already known me, and learned that I am a responsible, reasonable person. They have interacted with me several times, and never saw the gun. I now have the chance to talk to them, invite them shooting, and bring them to our side, something I have successfully done multiple times.

When someone sees you open carrying, they have already prejudged you based on what they think they know about guns. Any chance you may have had to bring then over to our way of thinking has already been lost before you speak your first word. All you accomplished was to create another voter who now more strongly supports gun control, and another business that will put up a no guns sign.

How does any of that support your second amendment theories?

You sound like many of those who have all but given up on standing up for our constitutional rights. Appeasement does not work with incrementalists (Left/Democrats). If we give up OC to appease them this time, then what will they ask for next because, believe me you, there will be a "next time".

My experience is far from theoretical; it consists of actual experience and application. The ''voter'' that you accuse me of pushing towards more strongly supporting gun control (What? You can read minds, too?) learned that his understanding of the law as it has existed since its inclusion in the state constitution is incorrect. You can mark that down as one more citizen who learned that his perception does not reflect reality and is now that much better educated in that regard. Open carry is the law here (and in many other regions). Coupled with the efforts by state level organizations like OFCC, situations like mine and the other one that I described as occurring in a nearby municipality (mentioned elsewhere in this thread involving the false arrest of a lawful OC-er) serve to put such agencies and their deficient practices on notice. That is practical application, not theory.

Spending many, many hours in multiple threads on this forum writing about the second amendment as applied to various issues is no more than time wasted theorizing to an audience that will probably not include legislators positioned to give consideration to that prose.

So, now that I have answered your question, how about answering my mine?

Why should we give up anything just because some do not like it?

[WOLFIE]

If some variation of national red flag laws pass, OC will go away by attrition.

If a red flag law is passed, it is possible that police may be instructed to investigate OC incidents (as part of the new law).

[the Schwartz]

If some variation of national red flag laws pass, OC will go away by attrition.


If a red flag law is passed, it is possible that police may be instructed to investigate OC incidents (as part of the new law).

OK, so they investigate.

Then, the actual attrition will be suffered by those who violate OC law by behaving poorly or by engaging in provocative (self-endangering) behavior that draws the notice of the investigators.

[BillSWPA]

You sound like many of those who have all but given up on standing up for our constitutional rights. Appeasement does not work with incrementalists (Left/Democrats). If we give up OC to appease them this time, then what will they ask for next because, believe me you, there will be a "next time".

My experience is far from theoretical; it consists of actual experience and application. The ''voter'' that you accuse me of pushing towards more strongly supporting gun control (What? You can read minds, too?) learned that his understanding of the law as it has existed since its inclusion in the state constitution is incorrect. You can mark that down as one more citizen who learned that his perception does not reflect reality and is now that much better educated in that regard. Open carry is the law here (and in many other regions). Coupled with the efforts by state level organizations like OFCC, situations like mine and the other one that I described as occurring in a nearby municipality (mentioned elsewhere in another thread; false arrest of a lawful OC-er) serve to put such agencies and their deficient practices on notice. That is practical application, not theory.

Spending many, many hours in multiple threads on this forum writing about the second amendment as applied to various issues is no more than time wasted theorizing to an audience that will probably not include legislators positioned to give consideration to that prose.

So, now that I have answered your question, how about answering my mine?

Why should we give up anything just because some do not like it?

Please show me where I have ever advocated appeasement. That is simply false.

I mentioned my other posting so that you could see what I said there if you actually wanted to learn.

In case you have not noticed, we have a wide variety of views on second amendment issues among voters in this country. Some are dead set on one side or the other. Others don't really care one way or another, but want to be safe. Those are the persuadable people - the people who could, perhaps, be brought to accept that gun control does not work, and perhaps even accept open carry if the approach is handled intelligently. Walking around wearing a gun at people (which is what you are doing whether you realize it or not) does not win friends.

If we are going to persuade them, that means making our approach in a manner that is sympathetic to their concerns. Wearing a gun at them does the exact opposite.

It means making arguments based on what will keep them safe. It also means not making arguments that cannot reasonably be supported by genuine concern for safety (yes, that means giving up on bump stocks - not out of appeasement, but out of a recognition that as soon as we start arguing that bump stocks are important, we are no longer discussing the safety of our audience and have lost our credibility as well as our ability to win arguments for assault rifles, standard capacity magazines, concealed carry, or perhaps even open carry, etc.). As soon as people perceive you as focused on something other than safety, you lose.

I have carried concealed for almost every day since January of 1996. As compared to open carry:

1) I am able to go into places with "no guns" polices (where otherwise legal) without causing a confrontation.

2) I am not setting myself up as a target to those who would like my gun. Open carry may deter low level predators but it attracts high level predators. If you are open carrying without a security holster, you risk arming the bad guys, which fails to keep good people safe.

3) I will be better positioned to respond to an emergency while the threat, which has spotted your gun, is shooting you.

4) As I type this, I am concealing a 10+1 shot 9mm in summer business casual attire, with accuracy comparable to a service pistol. I have not given up defensive capability.

5) I am positioning myself to win over persuadable people, while you alienate them.

6) I am demonstrating to people that they can go armed without becoming the neighborhood pariah.

What exactly have I given up?

My rights?

As a practical matter, your "rights" are exactly what the legislatures and the courts say they are. If you want rights, you have to persuade the lawmakers and the courts that protecting those rights is the correct thing to do. That means if you are arguing that the second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, be prepared to provide a way to jump off the slippery slope long before they reach bump stocks. It also means that you demonstrate responsibility in exercising those rights. Responsibility includes not causing public alarm. Responsibility means not providing a free gun to any criminal who can sneak up behind you and grab it, or hit you over the head and grab it.

I don't have to read minds to know the affect that open carriers have had. We need only to look at the previously neutral businesses that started prohibiting guns after open carriers started visiting, or the places where open carry was once legal but was later banned due to the conduct of people open carrying. Even you described a negative interaction with the police. I have had exactly zero negative interactions with the police over my gun.

You are not the first to accuse me of being an appeaser, and will not be the last. The world is full of people who talk about their "rights" while exercising them in a way that is sure to destroy those rights. I am not willing to give up any of my rights, which is why I am careful about how I define and exercise my rights.

[the Schwartz]

Please show me where I have ever advocated appeasement. That is simply false.

I mentioned my other posting so that you could see what I said there if you actually wanted to learn.

In case you have not noticed, we have a wide variety of views on second amendment issues among voters in this country. Some are dead set on one side or the other. Others don't really care one way or another, but want to be safe. Those are the persuadable people - the people who could, perhaps, be brought to accept that gun control does not work, and perhaps even accept open carry if the approach is handled intelligently. Walking around wearing a gun at people (which is what you are doing whether you realize it or not) does not win friends.

If we are going to persuade them, that means making our approach in a manner that is sympathetic to their concerns. Wearing a gun at them does the exact opposite.

It means making arguments based on what will keep them safe. It also means not making arguments that cannot reasonably be supported by genuine concern for safety (yes, that means giving up on bump stocks - not out of appeasement, but out of a recognition that as soon as we start arguing that bump stocks are important, we are no longer discussing the safety of our audience and have lost our credibility as well as our ability to win arguments for assault rifles, standard capacity magazines, concealed carry, or perhaps even open carry, etc.). As soon as people perceive you as focused on something other than safety, you lose.

I have carried concealed for almost every day since January of 1996. As compared to open carry:

1) I am able to go into places with "no guns" polices (where otherwise legal) without causing a confrontation.

2) I am not setting myself up as a target to those who would like my gun. Open carry may deter low level predators but it attracts high level predators. If you are open carrying without a security holster, you risk arming the bad guys, which fails to keep good people safe.

3) I will be better positioned to respond to an emergency while the threat, which has spotted your gun, is shooting you.

4) As I type this, I am concealing a 10+1 shot 9mm in summer business casual attire, with accuracy comparable to a service pistol. I have not given up defensive capability.

5) I am positioning myself to win over persuadable people, while you alienate them.

6) I am demonstrating to people that they can go armed without becoming the neighborhood pariah.

What exactly have I given up?

My rights)?

As a practical matter, your "rights" are exactly what the legislatures and the courts say they are. If you want rights, you have to persuade the lawmakers and the courts that protecting those rights is the correct thing to do. That means if you are arguing that the second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, be prepared to provide a way to jump off the slippery slope long before they reach bump stocks. It also means that you demonstrate responsibility in exercising those rights. Responsibility includes not causing public alarm. Responsibility means not providing a free gun to any criminal who can sneak up behind you and grab it, or hit you over the head and grab it.

I don't have to read minds to know the affect that open carriers have had. We need only to look at the previously neutral businesses that started prohibiting guns after open carriers started visiting, or the places where open carry was once legal but was later banned due to the conduct of people open carrying. Even you described a negative interaction with the police. I have had exactly zero negative interactions with the police over my gun.

You are not the first to accuse me of being an appeaser, and will not be the last. The world is full of people who talk about their "rights" while exercising them in a way that is sure to destroy those rights. I am not willing to give up any of my rights, which is why I am careful about how I define and exercise my rights.

Oh, good Heavens. :rolleyes:

"Wearing a gun at people"? Really? Do get ahold of yourself. :cool:

I looked up "Brandishing a Firearm" (O.R.C. 2941.145) but could find no mention of such a statute in Title 29. Can you show me where under Title 29 such an offense (Wearing a Gun At People) is enumerated?

Such emotionally-overwrought jargon and supposition signals to those who would do away with our rights, starting with but not limited to the Second Amendment, that we as gun owners are now finally ready to rollover and appease them and their every next whim. These same folks, by the way, will never change their anti-2A position. Slippery slope, indeed. Your language above is the very embodiment of appeasement: "give in" one more time and use their ridiculous emotionally-charged terms to frame and (re)define the issues; bend to their manipulative tactic of demanding "safety" in a free society where by definition none can ever be ensured and worst of all, enact additional "feel-good" laws that will never prevent crimes. Laws, as I am sure you know, don't prevent crimes; they only describe prohibited acts. It is all "bread and circuses"...

Of course, you may also "gloss over" my experience with the police as being "negative". Yet, as a direct result of that contact, department-wide training resulted in the re-education of those officers regarding the significance of O.R.C. 9.68 much as the other case (elsewhere in this thread) in the nearby municipality did. You may not like it, but that is a good thing. As for O.R.C. 9.68, there is little chance that the right to bear arms (openly) will ever be struck from it, even in the present climate.

So now, here you sit in front of your computer with a concealed firearm with full defensive capability per 4.).

Are you suggesting that an attempt to disarm you might come from your PC? :D

[Mjolnir]

So, because other members disagree with you about whether the open carrying of carbines in public is a good idea or not, they aren't "TRUE" Americans? That's totally the level of discourse I expect on this forum. :rolleyes:

Does his view resonate with the Founders?

Yes or no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[peterb]

Does his view resonate with the Founders?

Yes or no.


I’m guessing that the “city folk” of that time would not have been upset at the sight of a rifle, but still would have said the equivalent of “WTF?” if a random dude was going into stores at the low ready.

As far as I know, across time and cultures there have always been social norms about where, when and how it was appropriate to carry weapons.

[Mjolnir]

I’m guessing that the “city folk” of that time would not have been upset at the sight of a rifle, but still would have said the equivalent of “WTF?” if a random dude was going into stores at the low ready.

As far as I know, across time and cultures there have always been social norms about where, when and how it was appropriate to carry weapons.

And here we go again.... Open Carry is GENERALLY pistols is it not?

I’ve not seen any waking in my city with a long fun but I’ve seen plenty with a PISTOL on their side.

Context


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hambo]

You sound like...

You sound like you're jerking off your ego.

It's pretty safe to say that people on a gun board aren't going to be the ones who burn down gun rights. If we keep this up, not just here, but all over the web, when extinction comes we'll be just as unaware of why it happened as the dinosaurs were.

[Zincwarrior]

And here we go again.... Open Carry is GENERALLY pistols is it not?

I’ve not seen any waking in my city with a long fun but I’ve seen plenty with a PISTOL on their side.

Context


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In Texas there are far more people open carrying long guns in rural environments. You're ignoring the entire hunting sport.

[BillSWPA]

Does his view resonate with the Founders?

Yes or no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does this view resonate with reality today? Yes or no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

Oh, good Heavens. :rolleyes:

"Wearing a gun at people"? Really? Do get ahold of yourself. :cool:

I looked up "Brandishing a Firearm" (O.R.C. 2941.145) but could find no mention of such a statute in Title 29. Can you show me where under Title 29 such an offense (Wearing a Gun At People) is enumerated?

Such emotionally-overwrought jargon and supposition signals to those who would do away with our rights, starting with but not limited to the Second Amendment, that we as gun owners are now finally ready to rollover and appease them and their every next whim. These same folks, by the way, will never change their anti-2A position. Slippery slope, indeed. Your language above is the very embodiment of appeasement: "give in" one more time and use their ridiculous emotionally-charged terms to frame and (re)define the issues; bend to their manipulative tactic of demanding "safety" in a free society where by definition none can ever be ensured and worst of all, enact additional "feel-good" laws that will never prevent crimes. Laws, as I am sure you know, don't prevent crimes; they only describe prohibited acts. It is all "bread and circuses"...

Of course, you may also "gloss over" my experience with the police as being "negative". Yet, as a direct result of that contact, department-wide training resulted in the re-education of those officers regarding the significance of O.R.C. 9.68 much as the other case (elsewhere in this thread) in the nearby municipality did. You may not like it, but that is a good thing. As for O.R.C. 9.68, there is little chance that the right to bear arms (openly) will ever be struck from it, even in the present climate.

So now, here you sit in front of your computer with a concealed firearm with full defensive capability per 4.).

Are you suggesting that an attempt to disarm you might come from your PC? :D

Let’s look at the track record.

Concealed carry started in a very small number of states and has now spread to 40.

Open carry has caused previously neutral businesses to request that guns not be brought in, or to post signs banning open carry or perhaps all carry. Open carry has also caused at least one state to further restrict gun carry.

Whose path has the better track record?

We will not lose our rights because of anti-gunners. We will lose them because of the way certain gun owners choose to “exercise” those rights.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

For those who are interested in the signage in TX, where TRUE AMERICANS are fare and few between - check out https://www.texas3006.com/map.php

It's a map of banned spots. You can expand to go to the micro level and see the number of joint 06 and 07 signs.

BTW, saying you have to open carry because it is hot out, is BS. It has been 100 degrees or more for several days here (and has in the past), a light weight t-shirt and cover shirt easily covers without discomfort up to a Glock 17 and an extra mag. I usually carry a 26 as it is more comfy for size - but heat isn't the issue. Magellan fishing shirts work just fine.

[Zincwarrior]

For those who are interested in the signage in TX, where TRUE AMERICANS are fare and few between - check out https://www.texas3006.com/map.php

It's a map of banned spots. You can expand to go to the micro level and see the number of joint 06 and 07 signs.

BTW, saying you have to open carry because it is hot out, is BS. It has been 100 degrees or more for several days here (and has in the past), a light weight t-shirt and cover shirt easily covers without discomfort up to a Glock 17 and an extra mag. I usually carry a 26 as it is more comfy for size - but heat isn't the issue. Magellan fishing shirts work just fine.

106 in Austin yesterday. Hawaiian shirt mafia!

I ran into my first .30-06 after OC was passed, along with a .30-07. At one point there was discussion that a company was selling or giving signs to leaseholders.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

06s were rare until OC passed. For example, Whole Foods and Sprouts didn't have signage until OC passed.

Interesting, most of us argue for an extra mag when carrying a semi. The OC folks I've seen here don't do that. Suggests their knowledge and skill level is a touch suspect.

[Zincwarrior]

06s were rare until OC passed. For example, Whole Foods and Sprouts didn't have signage until OC passed.

Interesting, most of us argue for an extra mag when carrying a semi. The OC folks I've seen here don't do that. Suggests their knowledge and skill level is a touch suspect.

Uncle Mike's holsters on sagging belts don't help.

[the Schwartz]

Let’s look at the track record.

Nope, let's look at the fact set instead.

Here, in this post you've introduced the idea of "responsible exercise" of rights (in this case, OC) and even more tellingly, the offense of "causing public alarm" which in Ohio (where this occurred) is correctly charged as Inducing Panic O.R.C. 2917.31.


It also means that you demonstrate responsibility in exercising those rights. Responsibility includes not causing public alarm.

To the issue of responsibly exercising a right, in what way was I not ''responsibly'' exercising my constitutional right to OC that summer day in mid-2008, as I pushed my son's stroller along (dressed in summer-weight business-casual clothing) while my wife and I conversed and laughed? I was not under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. I was not engaged in a domestic dispute or other public disturbance. I was not yelling, threatening others passing by, lurking in anyone's bushes or jumping out in front of passing cars. I was not loitering or trespassing on anyone's property. I was not in an area where the possession of a firearm was statutorily prohibited like a church, synagogue, police station, court house, Federal facility or school or, for that matter, a business with prohibitive/restrictive signage. So what part of what I was doing was not "responsible" in the exercise of my right to OC?

Then, on to the matter of "causing public alarm" properly correctly charged as Inducing Panic O.R.C. 2917.31.

Looking at the elements of the law itself:

2917.31 Inducing panic.
(A) No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:
(1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;
(2) Threatening to commit any offense of violence;
(3) Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.

I was not engaged in conduct that satisfies the elements in section 1. (I was not screaming "Fire!", "Flood!", "Tornado!" or initiating/circulating reports of some non-existent impending disaster or catastrophe)

I was not engaged in conduct that satisfies the elements in section 2. (I was not threatening anyone with violence or the commission of any offense of violence)

I was not engaged in conduct that satisfies the elements in section 3. (I committed no predicate/underlying offense that satisfies the degree of culpability known as "reckless disregard" that resulted in serious public inconvenience or alarm)

More to my point is this: Although you and others might be "offended", "scared" or "annoyed" by the lawful, and yes, ''responsible'' exercise of my constitutional right to carry a firearm openly on public street or sidewalk, the mere exercise of one's constitutional rights does not result in an instant offense that would support the closest possible section of O.R.C. 2917.31A(3). Their ignorance (and possibly yours though I do not think you are stupid by any stretch) of the law and the constitutional right to bear arms (O.R.C. 9.68) does not satisfy adequately the element of "causing public alarm" by the commission of an offense since no offense was committed...unless you would now have us believe that the mere exercise of a constitutional right is a criminal offense.

Here is a scathing opinion issued by the 6th Appeals in a very similar case: http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0092p-06.pdf

I'd argue that the emotionally-driven knee-jerk reactions seen in this thread (and elsewhere) to such lawful instances of OC are just what the anti-2A crowd is looking for.

Honestly, Bill, I have enjoyed this debate. While I am certain that your interests lie in preserving our rights, appeasement/groveling to the "snowflakes" will not work as the "other side" has no other objective but to eliminate the second amendment in every possible sense. We cannot negotiate with an enemy whose sole intent is the destruction of our state and national constitutions. I suppose that we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Best,

Chuck

[Baldanders]

Oh my.

I'm going to quote myself here: "social norms are a thing."

In the "wild west," virtually all towns/cities made everyone relinquish their firearms while in the limits of said town or city. And somehow, the West managed to have a lower murder rate than the big cities back East.

Not that they got all the derringers, pepperbox pistols, etc. Folks had the brains to conceal their guns.

If you think "gun control" just popped up out of nowhere in the late 20th Century, advanced by a bunch of commies, you need a broader sense of history, not just the True American Ayn Randish version.

If you live somewhere where open carry is normalized, go for it if you wish.

If you don't, you aren't normalizing shit by being a tactical peacock.

I live in a rural county where deer hunting is the biggest recreational activity, and it's rare to see someone with a pistol on his hip, and toting an AR at the Food Lion would not go down well.

[the Schwartz]

You sound like you're jerking off your ego.

It's pretty safe to say that people on a gun board aren't going to be the ones who burn down gun rights. If we keep this up, not just here, but all over the web, when extinction comes we'll be just as unaware of why it happened as the dinosaurs were.

How about contributing something other than insult?

You can fuss about "keeping this up" and feeding the "other side", but engaging in insult is exactly the sort of material that the anti's (who I am sure do look at this board and other gun boards) are looking for.

[the Schwartz]

BTW, saying you have to open carry because it is hot out, is BS.

Perhaps in your state and in your opinion; neither of which apply here.

In actuality, there is no need to explain the lawful exercise of one's rights to anyone.

[Mjolnir]

In Texas there are far more people open carrying long guns in rural environments. You're ignoring the entire hunting sport.

Wen I’m in rural parts of Louisiana I don’t think twice about people walking with long guns or pistols.

Again, context.

We used to walk in our neighborhoods with air rifles and .22 LR shooting critters in the ditches.

All neighbors weren’t the same (indifference, usually) as we didn’t shoot dogs or cats or birds or squirrels. Our target was frogs and rats.

And this was suburbia.

I don’t fear weapons and I don’t fear humans with weapons, generally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

Does this view resonate with reality today? Yes or no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’ll fit in just swell...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190814/906440ceeb76ccdb8148494d2e097e4a.gif


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

Wen I’m in rural parts of Louisiana I don’t think twice about people walking with long guns or pistols.

Again, context.

We used to walk in our neighborhoods with air rifles and .22 LR shooting critters in the ditches.

All neighbors weren’t the same (indifference, usually) as we didn’t shoot dogs or cats or birds or squirrels. Our target was frogs and rats.

And this was suburbia.

I don’t fear weapons and I don’t fear humans with weapons, generally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same here. How many times have you seen someone walk into a grocery with a rifle?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/23/d2/a2/23d2a28ea390de5b215068d45b0bf994.jpg

[blues]

And yet another thread to throw onto the ignore list...

[hufnagel]

Since carry is effectively illegal in my state, never. :D

[whomever]

"In actuality, there is no need to explain the lawful exercise of one's rights to anyone."

The problem is, I don't think the Supreme Court has really addressed the question of whether I have a right to walk into a Walmart with a rifle, armor, etc. In fact, they haven't even decided whether I have a right to a CCW at all. You (and I) have an opinion on what the 2nd Amendment says about carry, but there are exactly 9 (well, 5) opinions that matter. And they will be deciding those questions sometime in the next few years.

When they do so, they will be aware of Mr. rifle-and-body-armor-in-the-Walmart. My sense is that his image won't help nudge the decision in the direction you and I would prefer.

FWIW, I think some gun people take the wrong lesson from the more out-there gay rights parades. Gay marriage etc didn't happen, IMHO, because of parades of guys wearing leather jockstraps and naught else; it happened in spite of those, because once gays came out of the closet on the 80's/90's, it turned out that a heckuva lot of people found out they knew someone who was both A)a nice person and B)gay.

For another example, look up the old photos of the civil rights era in the 60's. The kids sitting at the lunch counter are wearing their Sunday best, not pants at half mast and backwards hats. Or any of a number of pics of MLK marching somewhere, probably on his way to meet some firehoses and police dogs. He's wearing a suit and tie. Again, the message was 'we're nice nonthreatening people who are just like you except we're Black/gay/whatever'.

When people see Mr. AR-n-armor in the supermarket, I don't think they are thinking 'he's just like us but with a rifle' or 'I can empathize with him'.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In my state it is 100 degrees. I am out and about concealed. Many males are wearing untucked light weight shirts.

[Mjolnir]

"In actuality, there is no need to explain the lawful exercise of one's rights to anyone."

The problem is, I don't think the Supreme Court has really addressed the question of whether I have a right to walk into a Walmart with a rifle, armor, etc. In fact, they haven't even decided whether I have a right to a CCW at all. You (and I) have an opinion on what the 2nd Amendment says about carry, but there are exactly 9 (well, 5) opinions that matter. And they will be deciding those questions sometime in the next few years.

When they do so, they will be aware of Mr. rifle-and-body-armor-in-the-Walmart. My sense is that his image won't help nudge the decision in the direction you and I would prefer.

FWIW, I think some gun people take the wrong lesson from the more out-there gay rights parades. Gay marriage etc didn't happen, IMHO, because of parades of guys wearing leather jockstraps and naught else; it happened in spite of those, because once gays came out of the closet on the 80's/90's, it turned out that a heckuva lot of people found out they knew someone who was both A)a nice person and B)gay.

For another example, look up the old photos of the civil rights era in the 60's. The kids sitting at the lunch counter are wearing their Sunday best, not pants at half mast and backwards hats. Or any of a number of pics of MLK marching somewhere, probably on his way to meet some firehoses and police dogs. He's wearing a suit and tie. Again, the message was 'we're nice nonthreatening people who are just like you except we're Black/gay/whatever'.

When people see Mr. AR-n-armor in the supermarket, I don't think they are thinking 'he's just like us but with a rifle' or 'I can empathize with him'.

U run s massive risk trying on the SC to “interpret” what is LAWFUL. That opens the door for reinterpreting what our Founders meant (and wrote in plain English).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

Same here. How many times have you seen someone walk into a grocery with a rifle?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/23/d2/a2/23d2a28ea390de5b215068d45b0bf994.jpg

Never.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

In my state it is 100 degrees. I am out and about concealed. Many males are wearing untucked light weight shirts.

incorrect. In our state the air is on fire. :cool: And men are wearing untucked shirts etc.

[Cypher]

incorrect. In our state the air is on fire. :cool: And men are wearing untucked shirts etc.

When I was stationed in San Antonio I wore BDUs (T shirt with over shirt) every day and I survived.

[Yung]

I'm in Arizona. I wear Dickies pants and Dickies work shirts with a Dickies cotton undershirt (yes Duke, I know) and Red Wing boots seven days a week. I am usually guaranteed to be outside without shade for three or four shifts a month.

That said, it could be 75 degrees out and I would die of heatstroke instantly if humidity went above, say a quarter.

[the Schwartz]

U run s massive risk trying on the SC to “interpret” what is LAWFUL. That opens the door for reinterpreting what our Founders meant (and wrote in plain English).

Spoken like a true originalist. Glad to share that with you (and many others here).

Whining (e.g.: that the exercise of our rights for whatever reason we so choose is "B.S.") as others have is simply childish and forwards no legitimate argument.

I'd expected a better constructed argument than that, but am not surprised by the descent into less than adult behavior given the nature of the topic.

Unfortunately, there are those who wish to treat the US Constitution as a living document to be altered whenever the wind changes direction not realizing that if we "gut the works", we completely change the very nature of the document.

[Cypher]

You can't compromise with people who's stated intent is to disarm you. I think open carry is stupid but if we give it up they'll just go after something else.

[Mjolnir]

Spoken like a true originalist. Glad to share that with you (and many others here).

Whining (e.g.: that the exercise of our rights for whatever reason we so choose is "B.S.") is childish and forwards no legitimate argument.

I'd expected a better constructed argument than that, but am not surprised by the descent into less than adult behavior given the nature of the topic.

Unfortunately, there are those who wish to treat the US Constitution as a living document to be altered whenever the wind changes direction not realizing that if we "gut the works", we completely change the very nature of the document.

I won’t bother trying to insult you back but I will make this statement:

I take it you just love all the interpretations by those “august men in black robes”.

I still think we’d be much better off referring to the writings of the Founders.

NO ONE reads them yet the quote “interpretation”.

Technocrats are a thing. (Reference Brzezinski, and maybe decay in Hell).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

You can't compromise with people who's stated intent is to disarm you. I think open carry is stupid but if we give it up they'll just go after something else.

One can argue for the right, but not utilize it.

[the Schwartz]

I won’t bother trying to insult you back but I will make this statement:

I take it you just love all the interpretations by those “august men in black robes”.

I still think we’d be much better off referring to the writings of the Founders.

NO ONE reads them yet the quote “interpretation”.

Technocrats are a thing. (Reference Brzezinski, and maybe decay in Hell).

Not meant as an insult but as a compliment to you. Sorry that you chose to take it that way since I, too, am an originalist.

ETA: The way that I worded it sounded better in my head, but once I typed it...well...damn it, it just didn't come out right. Mea culpa.

[OMWAG]

The writer ought to be ashamed. She has made a substantial errors in the first paragraph:

The gun debate isn’t new. It’s been going on for as long as anyone can remember. One side of the debate wants reasonable restrictions and regulations to make all of society safer, and the other side believes having a gun in every hand will make society safer.


The gun debate has been going on for before any person living can remember. That debate began in Europe when monarchs wanted to assure the people were unarmed. I do not remember that, but I know it happened. So she makes cute attempt to say the debate has raged on for a long time. So what? "Reasonable restrictions" she writes. Reasonable means "(of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible" or "as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate." She fails to either qualify or quantify her position. about being reasonable. That is not only an empirical failure, but it is also just bad writing.

Her supposition that "the other side believes having a gun in every hand will make society safer" is intentionally misleading. The position that armed citizens assure a safe society is the basis of the Second Amendment, and there are numerous writings by Washington, Adams, Monroe, Jefferson, Franklin and other Framers of the Constitution that clearly prove it is not delusional people who think guns make us safer. The writer again fails to understand why there is a Second Amendment. I think she also fails to understand the First Amendment. The right of free speech presuppose that you will use it responsibly, just like the right to keep and bear arms presupposes that arms will be used responsibly.

To answer her question of how do you know an open carrier is not going to shoot people. Fact is you do not. That is why you ought to carry a gun because you do not know and you should be prepared in case y0u face that predicament. On last thing before I end this rant. I do believe that all of us have an obligation regardless of how we carry to not do so in a manner that does not lead people to become frightened. Openly wearing tactical gear, ballistic armor, extra mags, a rifle and a pistol in a Walmart right after the Walmart mass shooting was irresponsible. I respect the mans right to do so, but i think it was bad judgement. If I had seen him in that Walmart I would have had a hand on my concealed gun. I am not afreid of guns. Most people are.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting article on Greg Ellifritz's site. What to do when you see the cos play guy? One take away point - back packs may signal evil intent. Greg says call the cops. To engage is a complex decision.

True Americans would not call the law seeing such a fellow walking towards a bar, school, market, synagogue, church, mosque, Sikh temple, library, hospital, etc.

[Old Man Winter]

In actuality, there is no need to explain the lawful exercise of one's rights to anyone.

This! ^^^^^^^^^^

[/End thread]

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It is a naive statement as exercise of rights is not and has not been absolute. Constraints on speech or the practice of religion are well known. Libel laws exist, and your religious claim doesn't not allow you to marry children.

Some gun folks claim the RKBA is absolute with no restrictions. That is only a misguided interpretation of the real legal situation. A given situation is ambiguous - walking into a synagogue in Nazi regalia and a Modern Sporting Rifle cos play outfit - is that lawful exercise or making a threat?

Again, lawful exercise and acting like an imbecile is hard for some to understand.

[Bart Carter]

...In the "wild west," virtually all towns/cities made everyone relinquish their firearms while in the limits of said town or city. And somehow, the West managed to have a lower murder rate than the big cities back East...

Could it be that towns in the "wild west" didn't care about the 2nd and there was no real recourse avenue for the citizens?

[the Schwartz]

It is a naive statement as exercise of rights is not and has not been absolute. Constraints on speech or the practice of religion are well known. Libel laws exist, and your religious claim doesn't not allow you to marry children.

Some gun folks claim the RKBA is absolute with no restrictions. That is only a misguided interpretation of the real legal situation. A given situation is ambiguous - walking into a synagogue in Nazi regalia and a Modern Sporting Rifle cos play outfit - is that lawful exercise or making a threat?

Again, lawful exercise and acting like an imbecile is hard for some to understand.

Simplistically constructed "straw man" arguments are hardly compelling when one is trying to make a point unless that point is that one has no point.

For those not knowing what a "straw man" argument is, it is defined as:


A straw man argument is a commonly encountered informal fallacy that relies upon giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not actually presented by that opponent.

[Cypher]

Could it be that towns in the "wild west" didn't care about the 2nd and there was no real recourse avenue for the citizens?

Most of the books I've read indicate that the ordinances were either ignored or very selectively enforced.

[the Schwartz]

Most of the books I've read indicate that the ordinances were either ignored or very selectively enforced.

Just like NYC today! :D








Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The Schwartz - your post is the one with no point. People pontificate absolutist statements and then their arguments seize up when faced with the reality of implications of an absolutist pontification.

Is this OC argument, common sense seems to outrage some who proclaim their ability to justify stupid actions and display behaviors just because they may be technically legal. They think the technical legal makes the actions appropriate.

I am unimpressed by your inability to deal with the concepts.


In actuality, there is no need to explain the lawful exercise of one's rights to anyone.

If your so-called lawful exercise scares people, you can demean them (as in not being a True American) or you can enter in a discussion of why your lawful exercise in a good thing to do.

[Old Man Winter]

It is a naive statement as exercise of rights is not and has not been absolute. Constraints on speech or the practice of religion are well known. Libel laws exist, and your religious claim doesn't not allow you to marry children.

Some gun folks claim the RKBA is absolute with no restrictions. That is only a misguided interpretation of the real legal situation. A given situation is ambiguous - walking into a synagogue in Nazi regalia and a Modern Sporting Rifle cos play outfit - is that lawful exercise or making a threat?

Again, lawful exercise and acting like an imbecile is hard for some to understand.

I believe the difference is understood clearly and you can frame it a million different ways. Bottom line; There's a law on paper that states a person may open carry within these criteria. Doesn't matter if you or I think it's ridiculous. Doesn't matter if tactical timmy shows up and causes problems for every one else. Doesn't matter if a fence sitter gets turned off and becomes anti-gun. It's the law as written and last I knew this is still a nation of laws. Don't like the law, work to change it. You're pissin' into a strong headwind if you think it's possible to bring all gun owners to your position on this. Some won't just because. Some won't because they believe they are within their lawful right to do so. Many others don't care enough to get involved either way.

[Malamute]

In the "wild west," virtually all towns/cities made everyone relinquish their firearms while in the limits of said town or city. And somehow, the West managed to have a lower murder rate than the big cities back East...

.

I dont believe it was anything near universal. Its known that some particular trouble spots resorted to that, and we know of them because it was unusual. Interestingly, in Texas, some large ranches, and perhaps some towns had more restrictions than most western states and towns.

When visiting Tombstone in the 1980s, it was pointed out that it was the only town in the state of Az that had restrictions on carrying arms in town, the restriction inposed by Mr Earp when he was involved with LE in the 1880s. I believe the state legislature later passed the preemption laws, negating that restriction in Tombstone.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Doesn't matter if tactical timmy shows up and causes problems for every one else. Doesn't matter if a fence sitter gets turned off and becomes anti-gun.

Well, thanks for clarifying your lack of concern for other people. Not a moral position for most people.

[Cypher]

When visiting Tombstone in the 1980s, it was pointed out that it was the only town in the state of Az that had restrictions on carrying arms in town, the restriction inposed by Mr Earp when he was involved with LE in the 1880s. I believe the state legislature later passed the preemption laws, negating that restriction in Tombstone.

Doc Holliday carried arms in Tombstone with impunity the entire time that ordinance was in effect.

[Cypher]

Don't like the law, work to change it.

And if Tactical Timmy walks in to Walmart in full LBE just a couple more times that very likely to be exactly what happens.

[the Schwartz]

The Schwartz - your post is the one with no point. People pontificate absolutist statements and then their arguments seize up when faced with the reality of implications of an absolutist pontification.

Oh my, you've invoked the 2nd grade debate standard of, "I'm rubber; you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you." Wow.

I have not taken a position of absolutism; mine is that of originalism. There is a big difference.


Is this OC argument, common sense seems to outrage some who proclaim their ability to justify stupid actions and display behaviors just because they may be technically legal. They think the technical legal makes the actions appropriate.

So, using the two examples that I have actually offered in this thread of a person pushing their kid in a stroller or walking their dog while openly carrying a holstered pistol (see linked opinion from the 6th Appeals Ohio, a page or two back) while in compliance with all laws is stupid(?), offensive(?), scary(?), criminal conduct(?) or all of the above(?) just because you say so? Upon what authority do you assume the right to establish such fiat?

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0092p-06.pdf


I am unimpressed by your inability to deal with the concepts.

Oh my, a thinly veiled, seething "appeal to authority"...because everyone must impress you; the "smartest guy in the room"? Please. :rolleyes:


If your so-called lawful exercise scares people, you can demean them (as in not being a True American) or you can enter in a discussion of why your lawful exercise in a good thing to do.

Perhaps in your state and in your opinion; neither of which apply here.

I have never gone about demeaning people or threatening them with crimes of violence, or said that lawful purpose is an absolute. I'll not be bothered with false accusations.

[Zincwarrior]

Well, thanks for clarifying your lack of concern for other people. Not a moral position for most people.
It definitely matters when they make it illegal.

[BehindBlueI's]

Could it be that towns in the "wild west" didn't care about the 2nd and there was no real recourse avenue for the citizens?

Prior to "incorporation" the BoR only applied to the federal Gov't.

[Old Man Winter]

Well, thanks for clarifying your lack of concern for other people. Not a moral position for most people.

What I laid out is reality and has nothing to do with morals or lack of concern for other people. It's about respecting the law as written. It's about respecting someone's lawful right to do something even if I disagree with it.


And if Tactical Timmy walks in to Walmart in full LBE just a couple more times that very likely to be exactly what happens.

The actions of a few have always impacted the many. In a perfect world tactical timmy would recognize the consequences of their actions and and make a different choice for the greater good but I think we all know that's not going to happen.


It definitely matters when they make it illegal.

How do you convince all the tactical timmy's and all the people who feel they're lawfully exercising their rights to come stand in a different box? This thread demonstrates gun owners don't share the same opinion on the subject. Overall, I feel we've been able to have a civil discussion. Outside of P-F I believe we'll discover significantly more opinions and the discussion won't be very civil.

[Baldanders]

Perhaps in your state and in your opinion; neither of which apply here.

In actuality, there is no need to explain the lawful exercise of one's rights to anyone.

Unless they have law enforcement powers and haul you in, with a different interpretation of your legal rights. Unless you are planning on armed resistance.

Rights are ideas that have to be defended with words. (E.g. Onerous and unconstitutional literacy tests for voting didn't evaporate because black folks remained silent. It took debate.) Last I checked, that's how we muddle through in a democracy. It beats the other options.

Even if God exists and has endowed us with a right to be armed, I see no evidence He is coming to kick the ass of those who violate our rights, and ditto for the Constitution--without human action, it's only paper.

BTW, my statement on Wild West towns could have been clearer-- I wasn't supporting gun control, just pointing out it has a long history in the U.S., something that usually is ignored by folks who think "originalism" is somehow a way to call "case closed" on any discussion.

We live in a society. (Thatcher was wrong, it's no more a "fiction" than fiat currency or national identity.)

"No man is an island."

When I told my Dad once "I don't like politics," he (political science major) responded "politics are just how groups of people come to a decision. If you have more than one person, you can't avoid politics."

If you want to see your views prevail, you must be part of the discussion. And you must be convincing.

Ideological purity counts for jack in terms of results.

[Cypher]

As I mentioned in another thread, when I'm in the Colorado Springs area I see open carry of handguns, shotguns, and rifles to include AR-15's. People don't get bent about it so it must happen with some frequency. I have seen clowns carrying AR-15's slung in a Walmart supercenter. I'm told by a family member who is retired LE that it's not uncommon to see that in the area. I specifically recall seeing examples of long gun carry in the Walmart, BassPro shops, the grocery store, and the hardware store during my trips out there.

I've lived in Colorado Springs since August of 1992. Open carry of a handgun isn't uncommon but I've never seen anyone open carrying a long gun. I heard one call on the police scanner for a guy carrying a shotgun and there was an idiot named Donald Ortega who carried a canary yellow shotgun with a smiley face on it to three city council meetings before the city council banned open carry in all city buildings.

So I'm curious where you're seeing all these folks open carry long guns

[Old Man Winter]

So I'm curious where you're seeing all these folks open carry long guns

It says right in the text you quoted where I encountered it.

[Cypher]

It says right in the text you quoted where I encountered it.

Specifically which Walmart supercenter

[Baldanders]

One last thought, if the idea of the OP was to change the hive consensus that OC is often a piss poor choice, the title "A Snowflake's guide to open carry" was a piss poor title choice.

But if you were virtue signaling to the no-compromise Real Americans who know anyone who varies from the literal meaning of the God-given Constitution (a proposition just as difficult as a singular literal Bible interpretation) is a commie, mission accomplished!

Me, I'm just being an ass as usual. "I contradict myself? So I contradict myself. I contain multitudes."

Actually arguing to shift opinion is tough. Too tough for me today, evidently.

[Old Man Winter]

Specifically which Walmart supercenter

I'm gonna say it was the one on 8th street. Coming down on 24, I recall it wasn't far off the highway or very far into the Springs.

[Old Man Winter]

One last thought, if the idea of the OP was to change the hive consensus that OC is often a piss poor choice, the title "A Snowflake's guide to open carry" was a piss poor title choice.

But if you were virtue signaling to the no-compromise Real Americans who know anyone who varies from the literal meaning of the God-given Constitution (a proposition just as difficult as a singular literal Bible interpretation) is a commie, mission accomplished!

Me, I'm just being an ass as usual. "I contradict myself? So I contradict myself. I contain multitudes."

Actually arguing to shift opinion is tough. Too tough for me today, evidently.

Originally I was going to post this in the Missouri Walmart thread as it was related to the charge given to the guy involved. Rather than mix it in to that conversation, I started another. The idea was to show how some people intend to come at open carry. The conversation went where it went.

[Baldanders]

Originally I was going to post this in the Missouri Walmart thread as it was related to the charge given to the guy involved. Rather than mix it in to that conversation, I started another. The idea was to show how some people intend to come at open carry. The conversation went where it went.

I don't doubt your intention, but using the word "snowflake" certainly has a connotation that OC is the manly thing to do. Many P-Fers are not fond of OC (even if they see it as a right) so I think I'm not far off in seeing that as a connotation that most of us would pick up on without reading anything beyond the thread title. I can see how you intended it to be more of a joke.

Back to that intention vs. perception thing...

[Mjolnir]

Yeah, cause restrictions to all of our rights because you “need” to be able to carry an AR and wear a plate carrier when you go to Walmart... brilliant.

This isn’t about simple OC, it’s about the turkeys who cross the line into intimidation.

You fail to comprehend that it’s RIGHTS not NEEDS.

You sound like a bureaucrat.

Why are you intimidated?

There are people that can kill us both bare-handed. You drive alongside them and walk alongside them and are clueless of their abilities - and sometimes their thoughts...

You don’t NEED the house you live in.

You don’t NEED the guns you own.

You don’t NEED the horsepower your car produces.

And you DON’T need the income you have.

See where that leads you?

Maybe you do and maybe you don’t.

It matters not.

As long as folks think as you do we will lose.

Remember your words.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

Unless they have law enforcement powers and haul you in, with a different interpretation of your legal rights. Unless you are planning on armed resistance.

Rights are ideas that have to be defended with words. (E.g. Onerous and unconstitutional literacy tests for voting didn't evaporate because black folks remained silent. It took debate.) Last I checked, that's how we muddle through in a democracy. It beats the other options.

Even if God exists and has endowed us with a right to be armed, I see no evidence He is coming to kick the ass of those who violate our rights, and ditto for the Constitution--without human action, it's only paper.

BTW, my statement on Wild West towns could have been clearer-- I wasn't supporting gun control, just pointing out it has a long history in the U.S., something that usually is ignored by folks who think "originalism" is somehow a way to call "case closed" on any discussion.

We live in a society. (Thatcher was wrong, it's no more a "fiction" than fiat currency or national identity.)

"No man is an island."

When I told my Dad once "I don't like politics," he (political science major) responded "politics are just how groups of people come to a decision. If you have more than one person, you can't avoid politics."

If you want to see your views prevail, you must be part of the discussion. And you must be convincing.

Ideological purity counts for jack in terms of results.

This may come across as nit picky but it really isn’t and it’s very germane: the type of government we have is a Republic not a Democracy. They are diametrically opposed.

To put a finer point on it we have a constitutionally-limited Republic.

A Democracy is little more than mob rule. And the way many here are talking here we’d be effectively disarmed in a decade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jetfire]

Try to follow.

The OP did not say ANYTHING about carrying a carbine in public.

And to be honest, I’m not alarmed about that, either. It should not bother TRUE Americans but I admit they are rather hard to find nowadays no matter where you look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Holy crap, an actual no-true Scotsman fallacy in the wild!

[WobblyPossum]

It seems to me like a lot of us are talking past each other. I think everyone in this thread is in agreement that open carrying is a right protected by the second amendment. The people saying that open carrying at other people is bad aren’t arguing for legislation infringing on the right to open carry. We are merely saying that, by choosing to exercise their right to open carry in an irresponsible manner, open carriers are going to lead to the government infringing on even more of our rights. It’s already happened several times in the last few years: the Open Carry Texas people leading to the widespread adoption of 30.07 and 30.06 signs by local businesses, open carry demonstrators in California leading to open carry being outlawed in the state, etc.

No one in this thread is arguing for anyone’s rights to be infringed on or limited in any way. Some of us are just saying that if we don’t police our own, we’re all going to suffer for it because a great many of our fellow citizens are getting pissed off and they’re going to start contacting their representatives. They will be asking their representatives to “do something” about the morons wearing “tactical” equipment and open carrying into the places they shop and eat.

[Mjolnir]

It seems to me like a lot of us are talking past each other. I think everyone in this thread is in agreement that open carrying is a right protected by the second amendment. The people saying that open carrying at other people is bad aren’t arguing for legislation infringing on the right to open carry. We are merely saying that, by choosing to exercise their right to open carry in an irresponsible manner, open carriers are going to lead to the government infringing on even more of our rights. It’s already happened several times in the last few years: the Open Carry Texas people leading to the widespread adoption of 30.07 and 30.06 signs by local businesses, open carry demonstrators in California leading to open carry being outlawed in the state, etc.

No one in this thread is arguing for anyone’s rights to be infringed on or limited in any way. Some of us are just saying that if we don’t police our own, we’re all going to suffer for it because a great many of our fellow citizens are getting pissed off and they’re going to start contacting their representatives. They will be asking their representatives to “do something” about the morons wearing “tactical” equipment and open carrying into the places they shop and eat.

They are going to infringe no matter what we do. They want a disarmed populace.

Sounds like some are trying to blame others for our lack of comprehending what we are facing.

That said, carrying carbines and rifles draw a lot of attention.

We need to remember what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment (a States Militia - Organized and Unorganized; we are the latter).

I think we’d be better served educating our fellow citizens as opposed to whinging while grouping every single person who chooses to carry a pistol openly as some egotistical clown.

But that’s just me; I’m no one with any special powers that any other person does not also possess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cypher]

They are going to infringe no matter what we do. They want a disarmed populace.

That's the headline

[Baldanders]

This may come across as nit picky but it really isn’t and it’s very germane: the type of government we have is a Republic not a Democracy. They are diametrically opposed.

To put a finer point on it we have a constitutionally-limited Republic.

A Democracy is little more than mob rule. And the way many here are talking here we’d be effectively disarmed in a decade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nit picky -- representative democracy is still democracy, and it is the most common form of government called democracy. And not germane.

The fact the social mores have an impact on what we can do in public hardly constitutes mob rule.

I suggest you Google some of the images of fine outstanding white families gathering to picnic while watching black men get lynched in the early 20th century U.S. if you want to see what mobs overwhelming the rule of law looks like.

Thinking that "the way many are talking here we'd be effectively disarmed in a decade" borders on delusional.

In my thread on "limits of the second amendment" the MOST restrictive view anyone had was "we should be able to own anything that an infantry platoon would have." If P-Fers controlled the public debate on firearms, I think we would see a much more heavily armed citizenry in ten years. And better trained, as well.

Purists such as yourself seem to think there is some platonic form of "rights," which can be accessed and acted upon without any regard for living in a community, and by individuals without depending on any other people.

Ayn Rand was a fool. "United we stand, divided we fall," and all that.

[psalms144.1]

While I was priveledged to work at USSOCOM, senior SOF leaders frequently and repeatedly talked about the need in SOF environments for "culturally attuned engagement."

I think we're really at that point WRT OC (ESPECIALLY OC of semiautomatic long guns while wearing tactical gear that might be or resemble body armor) in crowded urban settings. I think we "gun people" over romanticize firearms and their carriage. While it may be true that MOST "pioneers" had firearms, they were GENERALLY carried for hunting, and for the defense of a camp or homestead from wild life and two-legged predators. Wide spread carry of firearms in urban settings was not, in my understanding, common in ANY modern, western culture after the advent of the industrial revolution (and probably for a long while before that). Even as far back as the Dark Ages, widespread carriage of REAL arms was not typical in all but a very few societies (norse cultures being an exception). Even back then, most folk who were called up for military service took whatever they owned into the field with them - hunting bows, wood axes, etc. Only professoinal warriors (todays equivalent being Police and active duty military, generally) would routinely openly carry weapons and armor in public.

Yet, today, OC advocates and "activists" want to wear what I'd wear to hit a house on a planned operation to stroll into Wally World, then get up in arms when there's general outcry against doing that. Why? Just because you, the "1 percenter" or whatever hooah thing you call yourself think it's appropriate?

I don't wear a Speedo to go to WM, though it doesn't violate any laws or statutes (though it should!) - because it's out of step with modern culture norms, and would be upsetting to those around me (except those who like the look of very pale grizzly bears). In fact, no one objects to WM posting "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs - though that impinges on my freedom of expression!

If you live someplace where full kit and a patrol ready AR is the NORM, then great - carry on! If you're wearing same as a "statement" to folks who you are just going to upset, you're probably doing it wrong. 28 CFR Section 0.85 legally defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." While just wearing a rifle at someone is not NECESSARILY as use of force, it's damned near. If you want to know how close to a legal use of force it is, research your local jurisdictions definition of assault - the THREAT of harm is usually enough to trigger the charge. And while YOU don't think your AR at patrol ready is a threat, lots of the folks your trying to "convince" about your position do...

Now, before you get the tar and feathers out, I'm generally regarded as the Liberace of Gun Queers in my Federal Law Enforcement agency, and I've got PLENTY of weapons that I'd be happy to fast rope into Mogadishu with - along with all the tactical timmy kit you could ever ask for. And I use it when I train, when I hit the range in my spare time, and when I perform my duties. But I don't wear it to the office every day (it's safely stashed where I can access it in a hurry if I need to), and I don't wear it into the local store if I stop for a bottle of water on the way home from the range. Why? Because I don't NEED to, and doing so might not be well received by those around me.

But, I'm sure that these arguments will continue to fall on deaf ears. I'm not trying to take away your rights, I'm trying to conserve them through culturally attuned engagement - which means acting in a way that is NOT offensive to the community you're trying to influence.

[WobblyPossum]

Everything I was thinking but wasn’t articulate enough to write up.

This was an excellent summary of what several of us were trying to get across throughout the course of this thread.

[TGS]

While I was priveledged to work at USSOCOM, senior SOF leaders frequently and repeatedly talked about the need in SOF environments for "culturally attuned engagement."

I think we're really at that point WRT OC (ESPECIALLY OC of semiautomatic long guns while wearing tactical gear that might be or resemble body armor) in crowded urban settings. I think we "gun people" over romanticize firearms and their carriage. While it may be true that MOST "pioneers" had firearms, they were GENERALLY carried for hunting, and for the defense of a camp or homestead from wild life and two-legged predators. Wide spread carry of firearms in urban settings was not, in my understanding, common in ANY modern, western culture after the advent of the industrial revolution (and probably for a long while before that). Even as far back as the Dark Ages, widespread carriage of REAL arms was not typical in all but a very few societies (norse cultures being an exception). Even back then, most folk who were called up for military service took whatever they owned into the field with them - hunting bows, wood axes, etc. Only professoinal warriors (todays equivalent being Police and active duty military, generally) would routinely openly carry weapons and armor in public.

Yet, today, OC advocates and "activists" want to wear what I'd wear to hit a house on a planned operation to stroll into Wally World, then get up in arms when there's general outcry against doing that. Why? Just because you, the "1 percenter" or whatever hooah thing you call yourself think it's appropriate?

I don't wear a Speedo to go to WM, though it doesn't violate any laws or statutes (though it should!) - because it's out of step with modern culture norms, and would be upsetting to those around me (except those who like the look of very pale grizzly bears). In fact, no one objects to WM posting "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs - though that impinges on my freedom of expression!

If you live someplace where full kit and a patrol ready AR is the NORM, then great - carry on! If you're wearing same as a "statement" to folks who you are just going to upset, you're probably doing it wrong. 28 CFR Section 0.85 legally defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." While just wearing a rifle at someone is not NECESSARILY as use of force, it's damned near. If you want to know how close to a legal use of force it is, research your local jurisdictions definition of assault - the THREAT of harm is usually enough to trigger the charge. And while YOU don't think your AR at patrol ready is a threat, lots of the folks your trying to "convince" about your position do...

Now, before you get the tar and feathers out, I'm generally regarded as the Liberace of Gun Queers in my Federal Law Enforcement agency, and I've got PLENTY of weapons that I'd be happy to fast rope into Mogadishu with - along with all the tactical timmy kit you could ever ask for. And I use it when I train, when I hit the range in my spare time, and when I perform my duties. But I don't wear it to the office every day (it's safely stashed where I can access it in a hurry if I need to), and I don't wear it into the local store if I stop for a bottle of water on the way home from the range. Why? Because I don't NEED to, and doing so might not be well received by those around me.

But, I'm sure that these arguments will continue to fall on deaf ears. I'm not trying to take away your rights, I'm trying to conserve them through culturally attuned engagement - which means acting in a way that is NOT offensive to the community you're trying to influence.

A reasoned approach.

https://i.imgflip.com/383vmf.jpg (https://imgflip.com/i/383vmf)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)

[Mjolnir]

Nit picky -- representative democracy is still democracy, and it is the most common form of government called democracy. And not germane.

The fact the social mores have an impact on what we can do in public hardly constitutes mob rule.

I suggest you Google some of the images of fine outstanding white families gathering to picnic while watching black men get lynched in the early 20th century U.S. if you want to see what mobs overwhelming the rule of law looks like.

Thinking that "the way many are talking here we'd be effectively disarmed in a decade" borders on delusional.

In my thread on "limits of the second amendment" the MOST restrictive view anyone had was "we should be able to own anything that an infantry platoon would have." If P-Fers controlled the public debate on firearms, I think we would see a much more heavily armed citizenry in ten years. And better trained, as well.

Purists such as yourself seem to think there is some platonic form of "rights," which can be accessed and acted upon without any regard for living in a community, and by individuals without depending on any other people.

Ayn Rand was a fool. "United we stand, divided we fall," and all that.

We will have to agree to disagree strongly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

That's the headline

Many here refuse to get it.

Better to bicker and blame “the other guy” because he wears his pistol openly.

We will fully deserve what is to come.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I fail to see why thinking OC should be legal but not preferring it to practical concerns and thinking that esp. OC of Modern Sporting Rifles with a Cos play outfit isn't a good idea will lead to gun banning? Explain that. Empirically, TX support of gun rights had been very strong before the passing of the OC law. As pointed out, the OC law and some Cos play types led to more restricted locations.

[TGS]

We will fully deserve what is to come.

No kidding! We keep saying don't act retarded, and people keep acting retarded.

[RJ]

While I was priveledged to work at USSOCOM, senior SOF leaders frequently and repeatedly talked about the need in SOF environments for "culturally attuned engagement."

I think we're really at that point WRT OC (ESPECIALLY OC of semiautomatic long guns while wearing tactical gear that might be or resemble body armor) in crowded urban settings. I think we "gun people" over romanticize firearms and their carriage. While it may be true that MOST "pioneers" had firearms, they were GENERALLY carried for hunting, and for the defense of a camp or homestead from wild life and two-legged predators. Wide spread carry of firearms in urban settings was not, in my understanding, common in ANY modern, western culture after the advent of the industrial revolution (and probably for a long while before that). Even as far back as the Dark Ages, widespread carriage of REAL arms was not typical in all but a very few societies (norse cultures being an exception). Even back then, most folk who were called up for military service took whatever they owned into the field with them - hunting bows, wood axes, etc. Only professoinal warriors (todays equivalent being Police and active duty military, generally) would routinely openly carry weapons and armor in public.

Yet, today, OC advocates and "activists" want to wear what I'd wear to hit a house on a planned operation to stroll into Wally World, then get up in arms when there's general outcry against doing that. Why? Just because you, the "1 percenter" or whatever hooah thing you call yourself think it's appropriate?

I don't wear a Speedo to go to WM, though it doesn't violate any laws or statutes (though it should!) - because it's out of step with modern culture norms, and would be upsetting to those around me (except those who like the look of very pale grizzly bears). In fact, no one objects to WM posting "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs - though that impinges on my freedom of expression!

If you live someplace where full kit and a patrol ready AR is the NORM, then great - carry on! If you're wearing same as a "statement" to folks who you are just going to upset, you're probably doing it wrong. 28 CFR Section 0.85 legally defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." While just wearing a rifle at someone is not NECESSARILY as use of force, it's damned near. If you want to know how close to a legal use of force it is, research your local jurisdictions definition of assault - the THREAT of harm is usually enough to trigger the charge. And while YOU don't think your AR at patrol ready is a threat, lots of the folks your trying to "convince" about your position do...

Now, before you get the tar and feathers out, I'm generally regarded as the Liberace of Gun Queers in my Federal Law Enforcement agency, and I've got PLENTY of weapons that I'd be happy to fast rope into Mogadishu with - along with all the tactical timmy kit you could ever ask for. And I use it when I train, when I hit the range in my spare time, and when I perform my duties. But I don't wear it to the office every day (it's safely stashed where I can access it in a hurry if I need to), and I don't wear it into the local store if I stop for a bottle of water on the way home from the range. Why? Because I don't NEED to, and doing so might not be well received by those around me.

But, I'm sure that these arguments will continue to fall on deaf ears. I'm not trying to take away your rights, I'm trying to conserve them through culturally attuned engagement - which means acting in a way that is NOT offensive to the community you're trying to influence.

My faith in this thread is restored.

Way better than anything I could ever dream of coming up with.

Slow clap.

[the Schwartz]

No kidding! We keep saying don't act retarded, and people keep acting retarded.

That's 'cause you can't keep people from "stupiding".

It's a Darwinian (self-elimination) process (walking into Wally World dressed up like an "A-Team" extra), so I expect that the "over-reactive" CC sorts will keep that population under control.

I am not a fan, or practitioner, of either activity, but there are those who seem to think it a "necessary" pursuit.

I am not my brother's keeper.

[Baldanders]

We will have to agree to disagree strongly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Out of curiosity, is there a community, online or otherwise, where you don't think the discourse doesn't show many members whose opinions will lead to disarmament in a decade?

Is there any group whose beliefs you feel mirror your own to the point where you feel you could trust them to act in the public sphere in a way consistent with your own beliefs on 2A issues?

If the answer is "yes" to either, who?

[Mjolnir]

Out of curiosity, is there a community, online or otherwise, where you don't think the discourse doesn't show many members whose opinions will lead to disarmament in a decade?

Is there any group whose beliefs you feel mirror your own to the point where you feel you could trust them to act in the public sphere in a way consistent with your own beliefs on 2A issues?

If the answer is "yes" to either, who?

Brother, please try to stop, read carefully then RESEARCH what I’m saying.

And Gun Owners of America pretty much mirrors my take on the firearm issue.

Do they call this nation what it is - a Republic not a Democracy? I dunno. The implications are huge between the two but it’s not taught nowadays and all of our government officials call it “a democracy.”

I try to be as strict an interpretationist of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights and to do that requires one TO READ THE DEBATES & THEIR LETTERS CONCERNING WHY THEY DID WHAT THEY DID.

Not sure I adequately answered your question, though. [emoji2375]

I’ll apologize before you respond.

[emoji38]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jetfire]

And Gun Owners of America pretty much mirrors my take on the firearm issue.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So your take on the firearms issue is that you should never actually accomplish anything, but make sure to send loud press releases about how you’ll never compromise?

Because that’s all GOA does. Oh and put money in the Pratt’s family pockets. People who support GOA aren’t to be taken seriously, because GOA isn’t to be taken seriously. They have never passed a significant piece of legislation or been lead counsel on a significant court case. You are better off lighting your money on fucking fire and saying “gun rights” three times in the mirror than you are donating to GOA.

[scjbash]

If you OC a SA rifle somebody is going to stop you.

It might be the Po Po or a citizen but you can bet your ass there will be an interdiction.

If you don't believe me go to your local Walmart with a SA rifle and prove me wrong.

Be sure to wear your camo and plate vest for additional scare factor.

Good luck. Report back if you're able.

SA rifle?

[Old Man Winter]

SA rifle?

Semi-Auto

[scjbash]

Semi-Auto

Thanks. With asinine terms like modern sporting rifle floating around I thought maybe I was missing something.

[Baldanders]

Brother, please try to stop, read carefully then RESEARCH what I’m saying.

And Gun Owners of America pretty much mirrors my take on the firearm issue.

Do they call this nation what it is - a Republic not a Democracy? I dunno. The implications are huge between the two but it’s not taught nowadays and all of our government officials call it “a democracy.”

I try to be as strict an interpretationist of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights and to do that requires one TO READ THE DEBATES & THEIR LETTERS CONCERNING WHY THEY DID WHAT THEY DID.

Not sure I adequately answered your question, though. [emoji2375]

I’ll apologize before you respond.

[emoji38]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, just curious. That is what I was looking for.

Since you`ve done the research, any good souces where the Founders actually talk about their views on public display of firearms by citizens, not just ownership?

Most of my reading on the 2a has been focused on Supreme Court cases in the early 20th century where the key litmus test was "does this weapon have a legitimate military use" for it to be protected by the 2a, which is an interesting inversion of the debate today.

I have my doubts that a strict reading of the Constitution has much to offer us on support for self defense against our fellow citizens (while I certainly believe in that as a right, but I view the Bill of Rights as a hard guarantee of certain rights, not a brake on rights of any type, and just because it's not listed doesn't mean it's not a right) but I'm open to having my mind changed. I find myself more moved by tight analysis of the text, keeping in mind the usage of the time (critical for the 2nd A more than any other, IMO), then analysis of the intentions of the Founders, as they were hardly monolithic in their opinions.

[Borderland]

And if Tactical Timmy walks in to Walmart in full LBE just a couple more times that very likely to be exactly what happens.

Oh yeah. It's going to change all right.

You might as well throw a rattlesnake into the checkout line at Walmart and yell that snake harmless, just don't pay any attention to it.

I really don't like all of the new gun control laws we have to deal with here but people want to feel safe so they get passed. It's much easier to pass a bunch of gun control laws than to figure out how we got like this, shooting up schools and Walmarts. OC everywhere you want if you actually believe it will change anything. It won't. Take a look at some of the nat'l polls if you don't believe me. Even Donald Trump is calling for more gun control. AWB/UBC/ERPO, it's all going to change.

[Mjolnir]

No, just curious. That is what I was looking for.

Since you`ve done the research, any good souces where the Founders actually talk about their views on public display of firearms by citizens, not just ownership?

Most of my reading on the 2a has been focused on Supreme Court cases in the early 20th century where the key litmus test was "does this weapon have a legitimate military use" for it to be protected by the 2a, which is an interesting inversion of the debate today.

I have my doubts that a strict reading of the Constitution has much to offer us on support for self defense against our fellow citizens (while I certainly believe in that as a right, but I view the Bill of Rights as a hard guarantee of certain rights, not a brake on rights of any type, and just because it's not listed doesn't mean it's not a right) but I'm open to having my mind changed. I find myself more moved by tight analysis of the text, keeping in mind the usage of the time (critical for the 2nd A more than any other, IMO), then analysis of the intentions of the Founders, as they were hardly monolithic in their opinions.

I have stored the Constitutional Debates - not the Federalist’s and Anti-Federalist’s Papers (both of which are of value and I side with the Anti-Federalists to a large degree). Also Thomas Paine’s materials are invaluable.

As to DISPLAY of weaponry I don’t recall ever running across that. In the frontier? Yes. Inside Philadelphia proper? Probably frowned upon if you parades around with a musket.

I think INTENT is critical and I concur that the carbine carriers are somewhat suspect some of the time. Others who do it are well-meaning but the way LE is trained and conditioned today I would not recommend it to anyone.

If one were to choose to carry open/OWB I would suggest that they dress like plainclothes LE.

When I moved home from MI and finally changed my plates and DL I OC’d until my permit arrived in the mail (three days).

I wore my Glock in a Safariland retention holster, starched Polo shirt, clean jeans and casual shoes.

I’m clean cut all the time so everyone assumed I was a police officer.

I’d walk into, say, Barnes & Noble and address the officer that was in the store: “Good afternoon, sister! How’s your day?”

Some stores don’t have no carry policies and if they did and did not have a sign I walked in as I would walk thru my home.

In short, draw no attention to yourself and when you do draw attention the details are “correct”: Black Guy, clean cut, polished shoes, Glock, retention holster... must be a cop on break.

Any odd behavior and it’s a potential 9-1-1 call: “Black man with a gun...”

People either avoided contact with me or “came out of their way” to speak to me.

Talk to the children; pet the dog. Be way you SHOULD be, in short.

That, however, is not usually what I see online of people open carrying.

I am of the opinion that the carbines should be kept out of sight as they are emergency tools to turn defense into offense.

That said, our population has been carefully groomed to fear them. They should not because it’s OUR nation to defend not the military. Baton Rouge Metro is “mine” not Trump’s. He assists but I have skin (bone and blood - and history) in the game. That attitude is seriously lacking today.

Sorry for the rambling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Borderland]

I've seen a lot of discussion about what the constitution safeguards but not much about states rights.

Generally I believe the BOR guarantees the federal gov't can't keep a person from walking down the street with a firearm openly displayed. Although there are some federal restrictions on which firearms those might be (NFA) I see nothing that would keep a person from the open carry of any legal firearm. There isn't even any objection by the fed to carrying a concealed weapon. That's as it should be, more or less, regarding the constitution.

Now we come to the real restrictions and what the state constitutions say. States are all over the board with restrictions and they've past the test of time as constitutional. I believe this is the correct judicial interpretation as the BOR only guarantees that the federal gov't can't restrict ones RKBA. States can and do whatever the hell they want and they do that because they have the power to do that. That's also in the constitution. The only time I've seen the SC step in was when the state totally restricted one from owning, not carrying, a firearm for self defense.

I see a time in the not too distant future where semi-auto rifles will become NFA items like SBR's, with a stamp, fee and extensive BC to even purchase one. More federal hoops to jump thru. Not banned, just restricted. Those in the wild will have to be licenced. Of course a lot of people won't do that, they haven't in the past, but the law will be there nonetheless. You pays your money and takes your chances as in all things you do.

[WobblyPossum]

I've seen a lot of discussion about what the constitution safeguards but not much about states rights.

Generally I believe the BOR guarantees the federal gov't can't keep a person from walking down the street with a firearm openly displayed. Although there are some federal restrictions on which firearms those might be (NFA) I see nothing that would keep a person from the open carry of any legal firearm. There isn't even any objection by the fed to carrying a concealed weapon. That's as it should be, more or less, regarding the constitution.

Now we come to the real restrictions and what the state constitutions say. States are all over the board with restrictions and they've past the test of time as constitutional. I believe this is the correct judicial interpretation as the BOR only guarantees that the federal gov't can't restrict ones RKBA. States can and do whatever the hell they want and they do that because they have the power to do that. That's also in the constitution. The only time I've seen the SC step in was when the state totally restricted one from owning, not carrying, a firearm for self defense.

I see a time in the not too distant future where semi-auto rifles will become NFA items like SBR's, with a stamp, fee and extensive BC to even purchase one. More federal hoops to jump thru. Not banned, just restricted. Those in the wild will have to be licenced. Of course a lot of people won't do that, they haven't in the past, but the law will be there nonetheless. You pays your money and takes your chances as in all things you do.

Initially, the BoR did only apply to the federal government, however numerous Supreme Court cases have incorporated those rights to the states through the 14th Amendment.

[Borderland]

Initially, the BoR did only apply to the federal government, however numerous Supreme Court cases have incorporated those rights to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Yes, for some things that they shouldn't have IMO, but so far I don't think anyone has used 14A to effectively argue for or against states rights when it comes to their ability to regulate firearms. There was some talk about using 14A to restrict a states right to restrict firearms like they did with SSM but that's going to be a stretch. I don't think the SC will buy any of that, at least they haven't shown any desire to put it up to a vote..... yet. It may be coming however. A strong argument will be made by the states that they have a right to protect the public as they see fit with the resources they have.

My feeling is you don't want the SC deciding any of this because once they do it's set in concrete for a very long time. Any negative decision will just encourage the states to load us up with more restrictions. We have enough as it is. Just my opinion. I'm not a constitutional attorney.

[the Schwartz]

I've seen a lot of discussion about what the constitution safeguards but not much about states rights.

Generally I believe the BOR guarantees the federal gov't can't keep a person from walking down the street with a firearm openly displayed. Although there are some federal restrictions on which firearms those might be (NFA) I see nothing that would keep a person from the open carry of any legal firearm. There isn't even any objection by the fed to carrying a concealed weapon. That's as it should be, more or less, regarding the constitution.

Now we come to the real restrictions and what the state constitutions say. States are all over the board with restrictions and they've past the test of time as constitutional. I believe this is the correct judicial interpretation as the BOR only guarantees that the federal gov't can't restrict ones RKBA. States can and do whatever the hell they want and they do that because they have the power to do that. That's also in the constitution. The only time I've seen the SC step in was when the state totally restricted one from owning, not carrying, a firearm for self defense.

I see a time in the not too distant future where semi-auto rifles will become NFA items like SBR's, with a stamp, fee and extensive BC to even purchase one. More federal hoops to jump thru. Not banned, just restricted. Those in the wild will have to be licenced. Of course a lot of people won't do that, they haven't in the past, but the law will be there nonetheless. You pays your money and takes your chances as in all things you do.

So do I [that the BOR guarantees the federal gov't can't keep a person from walking down the street with a firearm openly displayed], however we're still gonna see a lot of stupid behavior from a minority of those who choose to OC. That will result in the Darwinian process of reduction of those folks over the long term through various means.

While I have no problem with those who OC in a civil manner, dressed in normal "nice" clothing (ie: business casual or better, which my personal standard), even then, there are those who still have a problem with OC under those constraints.

I don't like being grouped in with those ("Tactical Tommy") sorts, but that is the nature of the "low-information types" that seem to apply the perspective across the board to all who elect to OC (whether it is a constitutional right or a privilege gained through licensure).

[Mjolnir]

So your take on the firearms issue is that you should never actually accomplish anything, but make sure to send loud press releases about how you’ll never compromise?

Because that’s all GOA does. Oh and put money in the Pratt’s family pockets. People who support GOA aren’t to be taken seriously, because GOA isn’t to be taken seriously. They have never passed a significant piece of legislation or been lead counsel on a significant court case. You are better off lighting your money on fucking fire and saying “gun rights” three times in the mirror than you are donating to GOA.

The you and all ten (10) who liked your post can continue to compromise your way to no weapons at all - because... that’s their stated goal. I

I take it all of you are truly enjoying these trying times. It will get “better” for y’all; much, much “better”.

Cheers!
[emoji482]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jetfire]

The you and all ten (10) who liked your post can continue to compromise your way to no weapons at all - because... that’s their stated goal. I

I take it all of you are truly enjoying these trying times. It will get “better” for y’all; much, much “better”.

Cheers!
[emoji482]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said any of that. I said that donating to GOA is as effective as lighting your money on fire and saying “gun rights” into the mirror three times.

There are plenty of pro-gun organizations that do actually accomplish things that you could give your money to. SAF, for example was the lead counsel on the Heller case. The Firearms Policy Foundation also accomplishes actual stuff. Those would be reasonable alternatives to NRA.

Donating to GOA is just pointless.