Snowflakes guide to dealing with open carriers

[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.

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

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?

[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.

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.