Strange, the thought never entered my mind. I just assume their mentally retarded reprobates.
Strange, the thought never entered my mind. I just assume their mentally retarded reprobates.
We may lose and we may win, but we will never be here again.......
I have posted this more articulately on other forums at other times . I will try to paraphrase from memory.
A certain subset of those who own guns want to enjoy the perception of respect (and capability perhaps) that goes with being perceived as a member of law enforcement and or the military. They think that open carrying gives them that because some may perceive them to be of those two service professions.
I would note that no reputable trainer of note recommends OC is CC is an option.
I would also note that just because something is legal does not make it wise or just.
I have the right to walk on a dark downtown street dressed in a suit made of 5 dollars bills.
I just should not be surprised when I come to in the gutter- naked, with the metal taste of blood in my mouth.
Well said^^^. I think they enjoy the looks, the attention, sometimes the bit of intimidation that comes with this.Originally Posted by vcdgrips
They want to LARP and Sheepdog around the general populace, yet they always seem to be rolling with SERPA's and Uncle Mike's sausage sack's. Yep, real Pro's, Yo.
"And for a regular dude I’m maybe okay...but what I learned is if there’s a door, I’m going out it not in it"-Duke
"Just because a girl sleeps with her brother doesn't mean she's easy..."-Blues
I think that's what bugs me most about them. If they want to know what it's like to have to wear forty pounds of shit and have people want to shoot them, sign up for the test or enlist.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
Attention whores. "Auditors". People with very little social skill.
Dim bulbs who consider themselves deep thinkers.
There is an interesting paradigm of technical rights and common sense. In San Antonio, you are legally dressed in you just cover your butt hole and genitals. A guy used to wear a flesh colored thong and then bicycle around Alamo Heights (richy rich area), causing calls of a naked man to the law. However, he was legal and having fun shocking people (he was ill and killed himself later).
Thus, one could dress like that and park in the local branch library parking lot when the school bus arrives with little kids for reading hours (my local library does that). Said nude simulator could sling his modern sporting rifle and stroll up to the bus to say HI! to the kids. Now would you call the law and/or challenge him or might even shoot him.
It's his RIGHTS!
We had a debate at work (and you can find similar ones in the press, the Atlantic had a good one) on telling young women not to go to frat or team parties and get drunk as you may be sexually assaulted. Rape prevention classes were offered and even more intensive SD training was suggested. This caused an outrage from some. The women had the right to go to such and get drunk. To teach them to defend themselves was excusing male aggression and promoting a paradigm of violence. Males should be taught not to rape as the solution.
Of course, with my daughter and wife they had a different view and thought that idiotic.
So, there are the 'rights' folks vs. the pragmatic folks. The ideal vs. the reality.
If the fireman actually shot this guy, and I were on a jury if the fireman was charged - reasonable doubt would rule for me. It was reasonable to see this man as a threat.
My kid worked at Starbucks and I might stop in. If the Chipolte twins stopped by - I would not jump up and say :Three years for the 2nd Amend. Might say something different.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I have the right to wear a bikini, or cut my lawn in a swastika design, doesn't make either a good idea. As such, it's my opinion that most OC people going to Starbucks and Target are driven by the potential drama and conflict. Or, alternatively, to gain some sort of social acceptance or notoriety within a certain social group.
I was eating in the local burger joint. Two Helotes cops were eating there also (that a SA burb). The typical fat guy with a POS holster flopping under his fat roll came in. Mr. OC had to go over the law to chat. They were polite but when he left, if looks could kill!
That’s right: freedom to do or say something doesn’t mean freedom from consequences for the doing or saying; just freedom from legal consequences.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
If they truly wanted to :educate" people, concealed carry would be far better.
If the first thing someone learns about you is that you carry a gun, anything else they see or learn will be colored by what the think they know about the fact that you carry a gun. Any chance to educate is lost.
If they get to know you first, and come to see you as a reasonable, sensible, knowledgeable person, and then, after you decide that you can trust them with this knowledge, they learn that you carry a gun, you now have the chance to educate them.
Reply With Quote