1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

In re: "Army vet disarmed of his AR and 1911 by cop"

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by CoyoteSix, Apr 22, 2013.

  1. Billy Shears

    Billy Shears Participating Member

    Mar 16, 2008
    I agree completely. I see a lot of people on this board operating on the assumption that seeing people carrying openly will "desensitize" people to open carry an gun ownership, getting them used to it, and convincing them that armed citizens are just ordinary joes. I don't think that is a good assumption, for the most part. I recently posted some letters to the editor from my local paper, where the response by one woman to an open carrier was open contempt. She described the carrier as a "pathetic loser." The letters that came in in response to hers were generally in agreement. They writers thought the open carrier was being foolish, immature, and "confrontational." That may not be the correct assumption about most gun owners, but that is the assumption non-gun owners seem to be making when they see someone carrying openly. Too many people here are making the mistake of not seeing the other person's point of view. Lots of non-gun owners wonder why we think we need guns at all. When they see someone carrying openly, they see (whether correctly or not) a mall ninja. Again, I don't think this perception is fair, but they have it, and that is the reality. It is not helpful to ignore reality.

    When they see an open carrier, it doesn't say to them "this is just an ordinary guy carrying, and he's not hurting anybody, so maybe I need to rethink my position on this issue." Instead it rubs their noses in an issue they don't even think about the vast majority of the time, and elicits an emotional response, rather than a rational one -- "holy ****! That guy's got a gun!" And it doesn't matter that the open carrier isn't hurting anybody. As I said, they are thinking emotionally, not rationally. And thanks to such people, open carry got banned recently in California and Florida. California you, as the bleeding hear liberal "left coast", you could excuse as an exception, but Florida is the birthplace of "shall issue." That's a loss we can't afford to ignore.
  2. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Dec 24, 2002
    Forestburg, Texas
    Open carry could be beneficial to help make the concept more common to the general populace, but as noted, it probably won't work that way very well, certainly not by some of the in-your-face attitudes shown by some open carriers.

    If Grisham and others thinks that Grisham was standing up for his rights by arguing with the cops as he did was a good and patriotic thing to do to make a statement of some sort, then they are all basically wrong. He wanted to debate the law with the officers. Now I don't know about the rest of you, but from the various busts I have seen, debating such law by the arrestees is usually met with indifference, placation, sarcasm, sometimes arguing back, etc. by the arresting officers. The officers never turn them loose, especially when told they don't understand the law.

    Grisham is military intel. He knows how the process works. He knows you don't argue with the MP or a private about the tasks they are undertaking. You address concerns to the higher authority that applies that oversees the frontline functionaries enforcing the laws (be they . He also knows that people don't talk themselves out of getting arrested.

    Instead, he very well may have been able to exercise his right to remain silent, keep the attitude in check, go through the proper legal process, hopefully be found completely innocent of any problem, and have a court decision behind him to bolster open carry.

    You don't argue with the cops about what you think is the legality or the constitutionality of a given law. It might make for a good show on a Youtube video, but if found guilty of any of the charges, then Grisham just looks like another angry person not willing to operate within the law to open carry. That does NOT benefit anybody supporting our cause.

    As for the comments about cougars, Temple is within the range for cougars and cougars have been found in nearby counties. However, if truly concern for their safety was such a big deal from such a low level threat, I would have expected Grisham and his boy to be wearing all sorts of other safety gear for their protection. The AR15 wasn't going to make them high vis. to help them keep from being hit by cars...a much more realistic threat about which one should have concerns when walking down the road.
  3. SuperNaut

    SuperNaut Senior Member

    Jun 19, 2006
    SLC, Utah

    I've made my feelings clear on Political OC, but I think that it was obviously entirely for the camera. If his goal was to "make a statement" then he reached his goal.

    Not saying I like it, just saying...
  4. Averageman

    Averageman Participating Member

    Oct 26, 2009
    I can't help but find it ironic that so many of you are so deeply concerned about what others think about your RKBA.
    At what point you either decide to or not to OC should be your right as long as all laws about your actions with the weapon are in the clear.
    There are many people out there that are offended just because you own a legal weapon, you aren't going to "win them over" my continuing to compromise your rights and perhaps your safety in order for them to feel good.
    I would think that if our history of the last 50 years in America has shown us anything it is that the only way to win acceptance is to exersize the rights you want to keep and be very hard on those who wish to take them.

Share This Page