Do you think people should be allowed to carry guns in public?

Status
Not open for further replies.
How many of those people have had a traffic accident in the past 10 years?, If they can't control a car, what makes anyone think they will do better with a loaded gun in a crowded store? Their right doesn't include endangering my life by carrying a loaded gun in a busy store. If they have a loaded holstered weapon that's ok, but not a loaded weapon that is in a sling over a shoulder, where anyone can pull the trigger or have it catch on the multitude of things that can fire it, too many things can go wrong. This is way over what's safe in a public place.
What's to stop some little kid from running up and pulling the trigger while the guy is trying on a pair of pants. it's stupid.
 
How many of those people have had a traffic accident in the past 10 years?, If they can't control a car, what makes anyone think they will do better with a loaded gun in a crowded store? Their right doesn't include endangering my life by carrying a loaded gun in a busy store. If they have a loaded holstered weapon that's ok, but not a loaded weapon that is in a sling over a shoulder, where anyone can pull the trigger or have it catch on the multitude of things that can fire it, too many things can go wrong. This is way over what's safe in a public place.

What's to stop some little kid from running up and pulling the trigger while the guy is trying on a pair of pants. it's stupid.


I know you won't like my answer but my Right to carry whatever and wherever I want supersedes your "non right" to not be scared.
I'm not trying to be a jerk with my post but if people are scared of openly carried guns then how will open carry ever be accepted as normal?
If we lose the open carry option, what makes you think that concealed carry won't be next?
The antis do not want us armed.... Period.
They will continue until they disarm us all. If we don't stand together on this then "we" are in big trouble!
What would you bet that MDA is not ALREADY trolling gun forums? Looking for "ammunition" to use against us?
 
No problemo......

Nothin' like watching 5 or more youngesters carrying their .22's down the road after school, tending their traps/snares or just hunting......folks carrying rifles all the time, everywhere, in and out of town, its comforting :D
 
How many of those people have had a traffic accident in the past 10 years?, If they can't control a car, what makes anyone think they will do better with a loaded gun in a crowded store? Their right doesn't include endangering my life by carrying a loaded gun in a busy store. If they have a loaded holstered weapon that's ok, but not a loaded weapon that is in a sling over a shoulder, where anyone can pull the trigger or have it catch on the multitude of things that can fire it, too many things can go wrong.

Lots can, and does, go wrong with pistol carry, too, OC or CC. As with cars, at some point you do have to defer to your faith in your fellow man to not take the absolute course of action every moment of every day. The highly unlikely circumstance of a kid firing a person's slung (and if responsibly carried, empty) rifle is not the best reason to claim the long-gun's presence in a Kmart is unwarranted and inappropriate. I'll defer to those more experienced with daily rifle carry for those reasons.

What about a scabbarded rifle? I think a very lightweight carbine in a trigger-covering scabbard actually could make for a fairly practical daily-carry longarm, which would have some place in civil society were you out for a tourist or shopping expedition. When short barrel rifles/shotguns are unrestricted in a few years, the line between rifle and handgun will become even more blurred than it is already; keep that in mind. A VZ61 Skorpion folder SBR is both more practical and smaller/lighter a weapon than a Desert Eagle, despite being a "rifle" (and a machinegun in original form, but we'll cross that bridge much later)

TCB
 
I have a suspicion that Keith Olbermann wont be sharing the results on television...If the poll doesnt line up with their thinking they probably toss it until they get one that does..


(forgive me if Ive confused Olbermann with the wrong channel, they all kind of blend together.)


Olbermann got fired from MSNBC years ago. He's back working for ESPN now.
 
plexreticle, if we don't vote and the antis get the majority, then MSNBC will make sure to mention it.

They won't mention it no matter how it ends up, win or lose, it's a hot topic poll to generate site traffic. You're basically being trolled.

If it makes you feel better go for it, personally I don't like being manipulated and I don't like to help MSNBC generate advertising revenue.
 
Addressing why someone would want to carry a rifle loaded, openly, is the real issue. And speculating that some out of control or simply curious child could reach out and pull the trigger isn't unlikely.

That is exactly why the average reasonable person DOESN'T OC more. There IS a risk, and if everyone did OC with a loaded weapon at all times, then the rate of negligent discharges would go up. As said, the issue already exists for holstered pistol carriers - there are concrete floors and shattered porcelain to point to.

What I would ask is this: have the proponents of OC of rifles gone thru Basic Training? If there is something you learn in the military, it's that having to carry a rifle 24/7 for weeks on end isn't all that fun or such a great idea. It's easy to say it's our absolute right - I get that - it's a PITA to execute, and that's why most people with common sense tend to avoid it.

DUH.

Any number of things can and do happen in a crowd of people carrying long arms, some of which entail losing control of the slung weapon and striking the person behind you between the eyes, getting struck upside the head when your team buddy switches shoulders out of fatigue, getting it hung up by the sling in doorknobs, banging yourself in the head (ah ha, civilian, no helmets!), knees, etc., getting into and out of vehicles, ad infinitum.

You don't just start carrying a slung rifle with no disregard of it's literal impact on the people around you. And if you do, they will quickly inform you in very specific terms about how your cranial function seems to emulate your colon and what it must contain.

In the military, there are very specific conditions and rules about when you carry loaded, precisely to reduce death, reports, and letters to the parents. If trained combat veterans still make mistakes about the rules, how will untrained and mostly posturing wannabes learn other than by mistake?

Don't we do that enough with Driver's Ed? A lot of local courses shut down and it's no longer taught here. I don't think it helped the accident rate one bit.

Now hand a loaded rifle to someone who normally never carries one, ever, other than a few days hunting, or a controlled situation at a range. (Don't try to insert your situation here, I'm trying to make a point.)

Again, the main concern with the CCW crowd is safe carry all day long - holsters that don't let the weapon shift or fall out, don't let the safety disengage, that won't snag the trigger, that cover the trigger adequately. The focus of the draw and getting it on target is, for the beginner, learning not how soon you get your finger on the trigger, but how late you delay it - to prevent shooting yourself. (Score another one why the MSR is actually safer in public than civilian guns.)

Adding a scabbard for rifle carry? At first, I laughed, but on second thought, not a bad idea. It's a "concealment" device, like a day planner tho, and defeats the principle of "Open" carry. So, maybe just a Kydex trigger guard shield would be in order. At least for those who have considerately practiced and have some actual knowledge of how difficult it is to carry a long arm with the public.

That experience should be reflected in the scars around their ears and eyes from all the unprotected front sights that some affect. Score another reason why the military requires certain features - those little ears aren't there to protect the sight blade only, they also protect YOU and YOUR BUDDIES from IT.

Seeing that the average guy doesn't think ahead, it's not the kid pulling the trigger I'm worried about so much as one brushing up against a tactical toothed compensator and having ten stitches in their head from the incident. Glad I won't be the OC proponent who has to deal with an outraged mother in his face and the EMT's, cops, and management pressing their demands.

You wonder why Target asked OC to keep out? Same reason Klingons can't bring in axes and swords OC. Lets take a breath and consider being considerate to the rest of the public - which is why the poll is right on the subject of our Rights, but actual practice is that we recognize the unintended consequences. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Guns slipping off shoulders and banging heads, adult or child, are not welcome, same as shooting the toilet in the men's room.
 
I don't believe that a government or law making entity should ever have any say, as to how we carry. The 2A is supposed to promise that. But over the last 5 years or so there has been a pretty big positive swing in that respect.

I've been very fortunate over the years in that I have often worked for pro type companies that allowed me to carry, not all were sporting good stores or gun shops either. Some asked that we CC, but sometimes that's just more appropriate anyway, with consideration to clientele.

GS
 
I voted: still 88% for the carrying of fiearms in public.

Personally makes for a much more polite society if I were asked.
 
They won't mention it no matter how it ends up, win or lose, it's a hot topic poll to generate site traffic. You're basically being trolled.

If it makes you feel better go for it, personally I don't like being manipulated and I don't like to help MSNBC generate advertising revenue.

Aaaaaand that's about the long and the short of it.



You win the Internet for the day, cookies all around.
 
Jessica Smith:
To dispel this all too common myth about the second amendment, one need only examine the language and context of it and apply the tiniest smidgen of logic. Like so:

The framers were abundantly clear that the purpose of the second amendment is as a check upon the government, to deny the state a monopoly on armed force. As such, to suggest that the very government that check is intended for should be in any way allowed to "regulate" said check upon itself is moronic. This isn't meant as an insult, it is meant only to point out the absurdity of such an idea and is why I encourage people to actually read and research and study what they want to talk about BEFORE TALKING ABOUT IT---even before forming an opinion.

When you analyze the language and the context of the second amendment and the intentions of our founding fathers in penning and adopting it, it becomes abundantly clear that any government regulation of the militia (literally meaning all people capable of bearing arms) or of their keeping and bearing of said arms is prohibited.*

Seemed to be quite a few good replies. I like this one alot. She goes on to cite http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm as the source of her wisdon. Good read.
 
UPDATE on poll

They can't figure it out!

MSNBC Shell-Shocked by Lopsided Response
The liberal network MSNBC was definitely not counting on this kind of a response when they sponsored a poll on open carry on their website.

The poll, which only allows users to vote once, asked whether or not people thought guns should be able to be carried in public.

With more than 99,000 votes tallied, the surprising results reveal that 88% of respondents say “Yes".


http://therighttobear.com/msnbc-shell-shocked-by-lopsided-response-to-gun-poll/
 
Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy View Post
When you say "allowed," it's like one must pass a law to say it may be done. That is not freedom. Freedom demands that no law is required to allow it, and no law can be written to prohibit it. "Shall not be infringed," says it all.

This.

Like another poll that asks:

"Do you believe that the constitution gives you the right to have a gun?"

The correct answer to both questions is NO...but that would make it appear that the majority is against carrying. Answering YES suggests that the majority agrees that our RKBA is a privilege "allowed" by the state rather than a right that is guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Privileges can be voided with a stroke of the pen. Rights can't...but with polls of this sort, you're damned if ya do and damned if ya don't. There just isn't a good answer.
 
I absolutely love how they say "allowed" as if it is a given that someone has the right to allow or disallow. Why do so many buy into the premise in the first place?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top