Ummm...people have been attacked...and even killed by cougar in the middle of the day...
In re: "Army vet disarmed of his AR and 1911 by cop"
- Thread starter CoyoteSix
- Start date
- Status
Ummm...people have been attacked...and even killed by cougar in the middle of the day...
r1derbike
Member
Couldn't help but think that the above reminded me of Newtonian Law, but as unrelated references!
AR has no OC, and if it did, I wouldn't carry in places that would instill fear in the populace (i.e. theaters, if allowed). I wouldn't OC at all, unless on my property. I wouldn't do this out of fear of exercising my right to do so. I'd do this out of respect for the fears of the public, given current events.
If and when AR passes OC, I would let others gauge public acceptance and tolerance over time, then make a personal decision to follow suit, or not.
Presently we have CC; no harm, no foul.
zxcvbob
Member
There's pumas in the cravasses...
Lonestar11
Member
I wouldn't argue that point, but please site any daytime Cougar attacks in Waco, TX.
Averageman
Member
http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/txwildlifeservices/files/2011/08/MountainLionsInTexas.pdf
Distribution The Mountain Lion has the widest distribution of any wild cat, from Canada to South America. Formerly distributed throughout North America, the Mountain Lion is now found mostly in the remote areas of the western U.S., as well as western Canada and much of Mexico. A small population still exists in southern Florida, where the species is considered endangered.
In Texas, the Mountain Lion is found throughout the Trans-Pecos, as well as the brushlands of south Texas and portions of the Hill Country. Sighting and kill reports indicate that Mountain Lions now occur in more counties than they did 10 years ago and appear to be expanding their range into central Texas.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/mlion/
http://cougarrewilding.org/CougarNews/?p=5452
Local couple spot mountain lion near Onion Creek in Buda
Posted by Wes Ferguson on Apr 23rd, 2012
A local woman says that she and her husband saw a mountain lion in Buda earlier this month. The large wild cats have been moving into Central Texas, according to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
Distribution The Mountain Lion has the widest distribution of any wild cat, from Canada to South America. Formerly distributed throughout North America, the Mountain Lion is now found mostly in the remote areas of the western U.S., as well as western Canada and much of Mexico. A small population still exists in southern Florida, where the species is considered endangered.
In Texas, the Mountain Lion is found throughout the Trans-Pecos, as well as the brushlands of south Texas and portions of the Hill Country. Sighting and kill reports indicate that Mountain Lions now occur in more counties than they did 10 years ago and appear to be expanding their range into central Texas.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/mlion/
http://cougarrewilding.org/CougarNews/?p=5452
Local couple spot mountain lion near Onion Creek in Buda
Posted by Wes Ferguson on Apr 23rd, 2012
A local woman says that she and her husband saw a mountain lion in Buda earlier this month. The large wild cats have been moving into Central Texas, according to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
Skylerbone
Member
Iowa DNR refuses to acknowledge the presence of mountain lions in the state despite multiple full-color trailcam pictures sent by land owners throughout the State and at least one attack on a 14 yr. old hunter who fought off the cat by striking it repeatedly. Officially the "unknown" animal was headed West, having gotten lost in its migration, though pictures had it headed East...
JohnBT
Member
Is his defense going to be that there were big cats in the neighborhood and he was hunting over bait (an unarmed Boy Scout)?
alsaqr
Member
Cougars sometimes frequent Denim and Diamonds in Temple, TX.
targetshooter22
Member
As a rule I think open carry doesn't help gun owners' political or social causes. I think it stirs the other side up and makes them all activated and inclined to act on their foolish, immature, and irrational fears.
The exception to this rule for me is purely in the sporting/rural sense. Sometimes when hunting upland game, it's just easier to leave the 22 pistol on than to take it off. Never been in big bear (or cat) country, I suppose if I was, I might be inclined to OC something appropriate for the mission.
The exception to this rule for me is purely in the sporting/rural sense. Sometimes when hunting upland game, it's just easier to leave the 22 pistol on than to take it off. Never been in big bear (or cat) country, I suppose if I was, I might be inclined to OC something appropriate for the mission.
Ok I've been somewhat active on this thread, and have read every post at least twice. We already know, as I pointed out, that until we do the "live societal research" and see what the perceptions are of OC, no one has a clue whether "as a majority" we are perceived positively or negatively. My belief (not based on facts) is that the determining factor will be how we interact with the public. If we are polite, courteous, respectful, and chivalrous, I think the outcome will be, by in large, positive. Sam1911 said that we should let only the gun be the only thing that someone has something negative to say about us. I believe this to be an excellent idea. I think it will take effort on our part not to get heated when someone, or a lot of someones make negative comments about it. But kill them with kindness and respect. Don't call them "sheep". This doesn't help our cause at all.
I wrote in a previous post that those who OC are the face of 2A/RKBA supporters and should act as ambassadors. Frank said we should all be ambassadors. That's true. But those that truely CC aren't going to be scrutinized to the degree that OCers are. That doesn't give the CCers the right to be "insert plural negative noun here" either. It just means that the OCers are held to a higher standard because the public will focus on the gun first, and the character of the man or woman second. Just the opposite for CCers.
I wrote in a previous post that those who OC are the face of 2A/RKBA supporters and should act as ambassadors. Frank said we should all be ambassadors. That's true. But those that truely CC aren't going to be scrutinized to the degree that OCers are. That doesn't give the CCers the right to be "insert plural negative noun here" either. It just means that the OCers are held to a higher standard because the public will focus on the gun first, and the character of the man or woman second. Just the opposite for CCers.
Lonestar,
We don't have to cite daytime attacks in Waco Tx. All you need is ONE incident where a daytime attack occurred in the Western Hemisphere for it to be a legitimate cause for concern. And there are incidents of that.
Show me one incident before 911 that Muslim hijackers hijacked 3 commercial airlines and flew 2 into skyscrapers, killing thousands of Americans? But it damn sure happened didn't it?
We don't have to cite daytime attacks in Waco Tx. All you need is ONE incident where a daytime attack occurred in the Western Hemisphere for it to be a legitimate cause for concern. And there are incidents of that.
Show me one incident before 911 that Muslim hijackers hijacked 3 commercial airlines and flew 2 into skyscrapers, killing thousands of Americans? But it damn sure happened didn't it?
Lonestar11
Member
BigBore44,
You are correct, I would not argue against your point with you, but based upon the rest of the facts stated, I still think it was a poor excuse. As I originally stated, the manner in which he was carrying the AR and his attitude were the real problems.
You are correct, I would not argue against your point with you, but based upon the rest of the facts stated, I still think it was a poor excuse. As I originally stated, the manner in which he was carrying the AR and his attitude were the real problems.
Who cares what his attitude was....he can't be arrested for attitude.
Maybe he was just mirroring the attitude of the cops.
The way he was carrying thr gun was perfectly fine as well.
I don't know many people who enjoy being harassed for walking around minding their own business.
His excuse for carrying the gun is no more bogus than their excuse for arresting him....big difference is, he doesn't owe anyone an excuse...they do.
Maybe he was just mirroring the attitude of the cops.
The way he was carrying thr gun was perfectly fine as well.
I don't know many people who enjoy being harassed for walking around minding their own business.
His excuse for carrying the gun is no more bogus than their excuse for arresting him....big difference is, he doesn't owe anyone an excuse...they do.
lloveless
Member
OC can be a positive or a negative depending on the context. PR is a very big thing. Choosing your "audience" to OC to will depend on whether your experience will have a positive or negative impact on the RKBA movement. Just as choosing your attire when CC, you must consider where you are going when you OC. In other words. When you OC are you going to go to the post office, court house to pick up tags, pay land tax? If you OC in those places I can pretty much guarantee a visit with an LEO. If you CC in these places, and you act polite and professional, you will get a pass, unless they have metal scanners.
ll
ll
I fully respect anyone's right to carry for self defense, but I think this could depend on the area you live in. Where I'm from, few people would much care about open carry. In some urban areas, legal or not, it would alarm people. As a matter of personal preference, I'd rather not offend or frighten people who are less comfortable with guns than I am.
Others have every right to disagree.
Others have every right to disagree.
Infidel4life11
Member
In the current state our beloved country is in. I think openly carrying in public isnt smart. Here's the way I see it.
You got the professional, like most of us here, who carry our side arm in a smart holster and it is just a part of our daily carry like a cell phone. We don't draw attention to it, we aren't touching it or holding on to it. We are quiet, trained, professionals. Advocates of guns, carrying, and the 2A. I spark up awesome conversations everywhere I go when I'm OC'ing, everybody wants to talk shop when they see me. I've met more new friends and training partners OC'ing in the last 2 years than I have in the last 10 as a Military/LE.
On the other side of the spectrum you have to older unkept person carrying a WWII or Viet Nam service weapon or the younger "columbine" person who again is unkept trench coat, thigh holster hanging below their knee and an AK or AR low slung flying all over the place. Without weapons the "perception" of these types of people aren't welcome to begin with and you throw semi-autos and an attitude with it, it just helps the sheep and gun grabbers with their case.
Concealed carry has the same issues and the same types of people. Everyone who carries has to understand you have a responsibility not a right. You have the responsibility to represent all of us well. You have the responsibility for the safety of everyone around you to enclude the bad guy. You have the responsibility to follow everyone wishes when it comes to your gun, if the business or person doesn't want your gun rather it's posted or not, then they don't want your business or all your carrying friends business. You have the responsibility to shut the hell up, not make a scene, and avoid confrontation when it comes to your gun. And if you can't have a meal without an alcoholic drink then you can't have a meal with your carry.
I wish everyone that is legally able and intelligent would carry a gun. But that my friends would be a perfect world.
You got the professional, like most of us here, who carry our side arm in a smart holster and it is just a part of our daily carry like a cell phone. We don't draw attention to it, we aren't touching it or holding on to it. We are quiet, trained, professionals. Advocates of guns, carrying, and the 2A. I spark up awesome conversations everywhere I go when I'm OC'ing, everybody wants to talk shop when they see me. I've met more new friends and training partners OC'ing in the last 2 years than I have in the last 10 as a Military/LE.
On the other side of the spectrum you have to older unkept person carrying a WWII or Viet Nam service weapon or the younger "columbine" person who again is unkept trench coat, thigh holster hanging below their knee and an AK or AR low slung flying all over the place. Without weapons the "perception" of these types of people aren't welcome to begin with and you throw semi-autos and an attitude with it, it just helps the sheep and gun grabbers with their case.
Concealed carry has the same issues and the same types of people. Everyone who carries has to understand you have a responsibility not a right. You have the responsibility to represent all of us well. You have the responsibility for the safety of everyone around you to enclude the bad guy. You have the responsibility to follow everyone wishes when it comes to your gun, if the business or person doesn't want your gun rather it's posted or not, then they don't want your business or all your carrying friends business. You have the responsibility to shut the hell up, not make a scene, and avoid confrontation when it comes to your gun. And if you can't have a meal without an alcoholic drink then you can't have a meal with your carry.
I wish everyone that is legally able and intelligent would carry a gun. But that my friends would be a perfect world.
I think the main root of this is mainly ignored. Politicians and documents don't command every single aspect of our lives every day. Think about one thing most everyone uses every day: Money.
I'll show you my reasoning.
Situation 1
Concerned citizen: "Hello, 911 there is a man with a gun"
911: "We are sending someone there now"
Police: "We got a call about MWAG, i.d. Weapon check etc. Etc.
Oc'r: "blah blah rights blah" (referenced from every YouTube video of OC'r)
Everyone goes away unscathed, OC'r post video , blogs etc.
Situation 2
CC: "MWAG"
911: "Its legal here, even though you don't see it every day, we aren't sending any units"
CC: "But, but....?"
OC'r: Goes about his day and manages not to go "Sinaloa" at the shopping center.
Situation 3 (possible but not probable)
CC: "MWAG"
911: "it's legal, we can't send anyone."
Oc'r: Kills or injures 1 or more people.
Victims families: "This could have been prevented"
Lawyer: "...I see you guys are hurt and need some help, oh this is my wife Sue."
Lawyer: (Cross examination of Police Official): "Well bud, it appears that a call was made about this individual, but apparently your department doesn't feel that a citizens concerns even merit just one officer to check...AND BECAUSE OF YOUR GROSS NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF TRAINING AND DISREGARD FOR THE COMMUNITY X AMOUNT OF PEOPLE ARE DEAD."
Police official: "We believe we made the right call and there is nothing we could have done until a crime was commited..."
Lawyer: "So if you were at work and your wife called and said a man was parading an ASSAULT RIFLE down your street, you would sit idley by and do nothing...is that what you're saying?" *tugging on the heart strings of every bleeding heart*
Civil court judge: "X amount of dollars awarded". Paid by the criminal, the city, the entities property of which it happened. A financial blow and a public shaming for all involved.
Even though most people realize having a cop check will probably not prevent anything. It's not hard to lie, "Just excercising my rights bro..."
Maybe it's not about the Constitution, BoR, liberal governments and an oppresive militaristic police force, maybe it's all just a case of CYA.
I'll show you my reasoning.
Situation 1
Concerned citizen: "Hello, 911 there is a man with a gun"
911: "We are sending someone there now"
Police: "We got a call about MWAG, i.d. Weapon check etc. Etc.
Oc'r: "blah blah rights blah" (referenced from every YouTube video of OC'r)
Everyone goes away unscathed, OC'r post video , blogs etc.
Situation 2
CC: "MWAG"
911: "Its legal here, even though you don't see it every day, we aren't sending any units"
CC: "But, but....?"
OC'r: Goes about his day and manages not to go "Sinaloa" at the shopping center.
Situation 3 (possible but not probable)
CC: "MWAG"
911: "it's legal, we can't send anyone."
Oc'r: Kills or injures 1 or more people.
Victims families: "This could have been prevented"
Lawyer: "...I see you guys are hurt and need some help, oh this is my wife Sue."
Lawyer: (Cross examination of Police Official): "Well bud, it appears that a call was made about this individual, but apparently your department doesn't feel that a citizens concerns even merit just one officer to check...AND BECAUSE OF YOUR GROSS NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF TRAINING AND DISREGARD FOR THE COMMUNITY X AMOUNT OF PEOPLE ARE DEAD."
Police official: "We believe we made the right call and there is nothing we could have done until a crime was commited..."
Lawyer: "So if you were at work and your wife called and said a man was parading an ASSAULT RIFLE down your street, you would sit idley by and do nothing...is that what you're saying?" *tugging on the heart strings of every bleeding heart*
Civil court judge: "X amount of dollars awarded". Paid by the criminal, the city, the entities property of which it happened. A financial blow and a public shaming for all involved.
Even though most people realize having a cop check will probably not prevent anything. It's not hard to lie, "Just excercising my rights bro..."
Maybe it's not about the Constitution, BoR, liberal governments and an oppresive militaristic police force, maybe it's all just a case of CYA.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
I get what you're saying, but
They make belt-holsters for cell-phones, so they're more easily accessible and don't take up room in your pockets. Here in Texas (at least) most folks outside the most urbanized areas carry a pocket knife, the clip frequently visible over the pants pocket. They don't always get used much, but they are there for the utility they give over bare fingers. In Ohio, I've gotten some funny looks for this habit, but never a MWAK call. I don't see how a gun is any different, other than a lack of public exposure and education. How many 911-callers even know open-carry is legal when they phone in these bogus tips? Are they reprimanded or punished like other frivolous callers? Heck, I'd call in a MWAG here in Texas if I saw some dude strapped with six-guns in town, but that's only because I know OC is prohibited, and that posted laws are to be obeyed.
I wouldn't go around telling non-gunnies we're "quiet, trained, professionals" either. It's bad enough they think we're evil and stupid; we don't need them thinking we're evil and competent. It's the "evil" perception that needs correcting, not their opinion on the wisdumb of our actions.
On a lighter note, what professionals don't love showing off their fancy cell phones and other toys? It's hilarious that we expect more of a right to bear a device used invariably to throw mindless drivel back and forth, than to posses a tool that may be critical to the preservation of our very lives. Methinks it isn't a fair trade...
TCB
They make belt-holsters for cell-phones, so they're more easily accessible and don't take up room in your pockets. Here in Texas (at least) most folks outside the most urbanized areas carry a pocket knife, the clip frequently visible over the pants pocket. They don't always get used much, but they are there for the utility they give over bare fingers. In Ohio, I've gotten some funny looks for this habit, but never a MWAK call. I don't see how a gun is any different, other than a lack of public exposure and education. How many 911-callers even know open-carry is legal when they phone in these bogus tips? Are they reprimanded or punished like other frivolous callers? Heck, I'd call in a MWAG here in Texas if I saw some dude strapped with six-guns in town, but that's only because I know OC is prohibited, and that posted laws are to be obeyed.
I wouldn't go around telling non-gunnies we're "quiet, trained, professionals" either. It's bad enough they think we're evil and stupid; we don't need them thinking we're evil and competent. It's the "evil" perception that needs correcting, not their opinion on the wisdumb of our actions.
On a lighter note, what professionals don't love showing off their fancy cell phones and other toys? It's hilarious that we expect more of a right to bear a device used invariably to throw mindless drivel back and forth, than to posses a tool that may be critical to the preservation of our very lives. Methinks it isn't a fair trade...
Man, I'd settle for "Is he doing anything else besides being a MWAG?" I don't think the operators even ask in these situations, and officers frequently get sent in with no idea what to expect (case in point the subject of this thread).
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. The problem is, stupid, unecessary CYA leads to only one logical conclusion--the abolition of all freedom. Dictators exist to C-their own-A
TCB
Last edited:
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
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.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
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.
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.
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...
Averageman
Member
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.
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.
- Status
