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

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AABEN

    AABEN Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,091
    Location:
    Priceton IN
    Where do you get your info?? There has been more CC per mints put out in the 6 years than in a long time. OB has been the caws of it all. All he has been the best gun salesman seance he has been in office. That is why it is hard to find some caliber of ammo and also powder and primers
     
  2. Superlite27

    Superlite27 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2007
    Messages:
    712
    What is the difference between voluntarily not participating in a right, and not even having the right in the first place?

    In both instances, the right is not being exercised.

    Where I am, it is perfectly legal to openly carry. However, you're telling me it's a bad idea to do so because I might have that freedom taken away.

    Well then, it isn't really free then, is it?

    What's the point of a right if its free exercise will result in its removal?

    There would be no point in having it in the first place.
     
  3. smogmage

    smogmage Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Messages:
    108
    Location:
    The Gun Shine State
    Wow, superlight said it better than I did. Bravo!
     
  4. BigBore44

    BigBore44 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    4,252
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    This is a very good thread. Frank and Superlite need a TV show.

    Frank, you believe that OC should be legal. But OC as an exercise of the 2A Right might not be a good idea from the "public eyes" standpoint. But Frank, what is the difference in exercising the right "because it's our right", and exercising it as a purely tactical means of defense, in the public's eyes?

    I completely agree that we should always be polite and courteous, but the true antis don't care if we're polite or courteous. They just care that we have a gun.
     
  5. M-Cameron

    M-Cameron member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,865
    I don't think anyone is telling you not to exercise your rights......if you OC continue to do so...... Just don't be obnoxious about doing it( not directed you, I mean in general).

    Like it or not, guns are a sore subject in America right now...people will look for any excuse to further restrict rights, and a bit of discretion isn't a bad thing.

    If you live in an area where OC is somewhat common, then sure, strap on a pistol and go about your day.

    However don't be obnoxious about It and sling an AK over your back and go shopping like it I perfectly normal...... Lets face it, carrying a rifle in a well settled/ urban area has never been normal.


    Do you think Dr. King would have been successful in the civil rights movement if he just came out and said " hey, it my right to speak, I don't care what y'all think, I'm gonna do it anyways, the hell with all if y'all!".....?

    I'm going to guess not, he had to show restraint, be civil, polite, and at times show a great amount of discretion in order for anyone to take him seriously.
     
  6. Superlite27

    Superlite27 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2007
    Messages:
    712
    I'm not saying I disagree with those who believe that OC has the potential to degrade our rights through bad public perception. I see my opponent's point, and don't disagree with it.

    There are many who are "incited" to become more active against gun rights by the sight of openly carried firearms.

    However, there are many who are encouraged to become firearm rights supporters through the very same method.

    As I said above, "out of sight, out of mind". If we keep our rights out of sight, the majority of people won't voluntarily think about them.

    This is true for BOTH those who support them, and oppose them.

    Simply looking at the negative and refusing to exercise your rights because they may be more actively opposed by those wishing to take them away fails to account for the folks who notice and are more likely to become active in support of them. Additionally, it also achieves the same ends as those who oppose them wish in the first place: You not enjoying a right you possess.
     
  7. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,355
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Nonetheless, that is reality, whether it makes sense to you or not. I've given some examples of restrictions which have indeed been imposed because the body politic did not like the way certain folks exercised their rights to do things that were, at the time, perfectly legal.

    And for examples of First Amendment rights thus restricted, consider noise abatement laws and laws requiring permits for public assemblies or parades.

    Perhaps in an alternate universe, but here the courts have for a very long time recognized that government may regulate (to a limited extent and subject to certain standards) constitutionally protected rights.

    The scope and extent of permissible regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment is reasonably well understood, because we have by now a large body of case law on the subject. Second Amendment jurisprudence is still in its infancy, but Heller and McDonald both hinted that some regulation of rights protected by the Second Amendment will be sustained.

    I don't know. But more to the point, neither do you.

    Again, I've shown that people have lost freedoms by exercising rights in ways found to be obnoxious enough by enough people. Whether that is a real risk where you are depends. What constitutes "obnoxious enough" also depends on where you are and how folks there feel about things.

    You might have had some experiences that lead you to believe that your conduct open carrying will be viewed as benign by most folks where you are. But limited personal experience is not solid evidence of broad, local public perception. At best you're guessing. Making your personal choice based on such guessing is one thing.

    But if the purpose of the exercise is to influence public opinion in a positive way in support of the RKBA, guessing isn't good enough. There is a lot at stake, and some ground has already been lost by poor guessing.

    Perhaps, but you're still just guessing. And unless you can start to put numbers to each side of that conjecture, it's an inadequate baisis upon which to make strategic decisions.
     
  8. smogmage

    smogmage Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Messages:
    108
    Location:
    The Gun Shine State
    I do believe the three of us agree to see both sides of the issue. However I take a far more libertarian point of view, one I believe the founders of this great country would have taken.

    I've watched police in Quincy Mass openly harass a citizen exercising his first amendment rights and stating a Quincy Ordinance requiring a permit for gatherings of more than four people, while trying to box him into a situation where he was standing next to three people so they could arrest him.

    "The Right of the people to Assemble" is in the 1st. It doesn't say more than four and you need our permission. My point is the courts have slowly eroded what our freedoms really meant by opening them up to one "curtailing circumstance" after the other. Then you have opportunistic abuse of those infringements and down the rabbit hole we go.
     
  9. BigBore44

    BigBore44 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    4,252
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    M-Cameron,
    I don't typically open carry. Only when I coming out from a trip to the woods and going to get a Gatorade or something on the way home.

    My point was not to say we should always open carry. Especially an AK or AR for a trip to the grocery store. But I can promise one thing. If there is a guy carrying open in a grocery store or mall and the SHTF, everyone who saw that guy carrying will wish they could find him, or will pray he shows up to save the day.

    Now this guy who had his AR slung for his hike with his son? I see absolutely no reason to even stop him. The problem is people see this stuff happen on the news and they fail to understand the demographics and geography of where they really are. Stuff like this doesn't happen in RURAL America. And people should think about where they live. But we get so caught up in "The News" that we forget those things. When I see a man walking a country road with an AR, AK, bolt rifle, shotgun, whatever, I wave as I drive by. Usually it's in response to him waving and smiling first. I could care less that he had a gun. It's his right. God I love rural America. So much less stress. Such a simpler way of life.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2013
  10. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,355
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    This is not about ideology. This is about achieving real results in the real world.

    And why do you believe this?

    One problem is the implied assumption that they all intended exactly the same thing.

    Fifty-five delegates attended the Constitutional Convention in 1786-87. Thirty-nine signed the proposed Constitution. Thirteen left without signing, and three refused to sign. There was then a bitter fight over ratification by the States. And it indeed looked like the Constitution would fail ratification until the Massachusetts Compromise was hashed out -- giving us the Bill of Rights after the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights.

    The Constitution came forth out of a political maelstrom. How can we possibly imagine that all of the thirty-nine Founders who signed the proposed Constitution intended the same thing? And how can we possibly imagine that every delegate who voted to ratify the Constitution in each state or commonwealth assembly intended exactly the same thing?

    We of course have some records of what some of the key figures might have intended, but projecting their intentions on the rest of the Founders might well be a stretch.

    And while the Founders aren't here to fully explain the depth and breadth of their intentions and expectations, they did leave us an amazing legacy -- The Constitution of the United States of America. And from the Constitution, we can infer that they intended us to have, among other things:

    • A system of checks and balances achieved through a separation of powers among the Congress (legislative), the President (executive) and the Courts (judicial);

    • Of these three branches of government, the legislative was most directly subject to the influence of the body politic, and the judicial was the least subject to the direct influence of the body politic;

    • Judicial power vested in a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress might establish, and this judicial power would extend to all cases arising under, among other things, the Constitution and the laws of the United States;

    • A Constitution that could be changed, albeit with difficulty.

    Nonetheless, it is what it is.

    And indeed the Founding Fathers did in the Constitution assign the judicial power of the United States to the federal courts and authorize the federal courts to exercise that judicial power in, among other things, cases arising under the Constitution (Article III, Sections 1 and 2). Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what that meant.
     
  11. DeathByCactus

    DeathByCactus Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    245
    Yes, you are an anti... Everyone is an anti on some level. Most people are anti against fully automatic weapons being able to be bought with no background checks, no regulation, no consequences (or maybe I am wrong and we should be modeling our country after Somalia). My point was I just don't want to open carry myself. As I stated, I am not out to tell someone what to do as long as they are following the law. What other gun owners want to do with their guns, even if I don't agree with it, is not my business unless I or society deem them a threat.

    Have I ever tried open carry? Yes, I open carry when I hunt. No, I would not open carry anywhere else really. For the most part I dwell in the city, I don't go a block without seeing police where I live. I agree draw time would be much faster though than my concealed pocket carry. Still, I'd rather not in populated areas, I don't want my children thinking that in this great country we need to run around with guns on our hips everywhere we go. I also note this is somewhat hypocritical as I do actively carry my pocket pistol almost everywhere I go. I just prefer the walk quietly and carry a big stick approach. I am fast enough with the practice drills I run.

    Is it my call? Never said it was. But I have a right to have my own voice and vote same as anyone else.

    If the law doesn't prohibit it... Then that is great for you. Like I said, it's not my choice, but if that is your thing then I advise you to do your thing. From a personal stand point though, I don't see what anyone is accomplishing by running around with a semi-auto and 30 rounds of firepower strapped to their chest. Which is the main reference in what I am referring too.

    Extreme force... I'd shoot him in the chest a lot (to be blunt), if I felt my life or the lives of my family was in imminent danger. In fairness to your argument, I should have stated with extreme hostility. Starting with, "Get the hell away from my family." However, I have reason to believe that most people who walk around with ar-15's strapped to their chest on a leisurely walk should understand that some people would want nothing to do with them and in turn expect no problems from walking on by. (I am not getting into crazy what if situations).

    It's a tough line to walk really. Guns will thankfully always be a part of our society. Everyone has a different view on what should or should not be allowed, as with any hobby. There are some things I support and some things I oppose. Labeling someone an anti is to say the least, hypocritical on everyone's part.

    I guess you are right, I am an anti though. I need to become more used to accepting that. I have become 'anti-militarization' of the shooting world. A lot of this decision didn't come from liberals or PETA... but from watching gun owners become more radical over the years. Out of fear.

    Also, last I checked as with most amendments in the constitution, they are vague and left to the interpretation of society. For flexibility to adapt to changing times. I support the second amendment. I just hope that people can find a balance and live in moderation.

    IE, open carry your pistol? Cool deal... but why is that idiot open carrying a shotgun on his back and front loaded ak-47 to the grocery store?
     
  12. smogmage

    smogmage Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Messages:
    108
    Location:
    The Gun Shine State
    I infer their intentions quite clearly. When Franklin declared a Constitutional Republic if we can keep it, he meant exactly that. A consensus was reached and we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, in which the role of the government is to protect the Rights of the Individuals against the wishes and whims of the folly majority.

    We are losing, if we haven't already lost that Constitutional Republic already and have morphed into a Democracy; which the founders never intended us to be. Now by majority mob vote, property and Rights are stolen from the minority. Democracy never lasts. Eventually as the majority has discovered in the last election, they can vote themselves money. And so the scales of power tip till there is no more minority to plunder from. An Oligarchy will rise and freedom will be lost.

    "It is what it is" Has got to be one of my most despised phrases every since I first encountered it during training with Military members. It's synonymous with, "the situation is wrong, we know it but we can't change it."

    I refuse to accept that for an answer and I will be the change I wish to seek.
     
  13. 316SS

    316SS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    591
    For better, or more likely for worse, libertarians will always have a crisis of self-promotion because convincing others that we are right is antithetical to the philosophy.
     
  14. Skylerbone

    Skylerbone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,932
    Location:
    Hawkeye East
    It's been many years but I recall wearing a tuxedo to every prom I attended. It was not mandatory but rather both customary and appropriate. I could have dyed my hair orange, shaved it to a Mohawk and grabbed a Ramones t-shirt but I would be a fool to believe that people would not have stared, whispered or disapproved of my dress including those six or seven hundred of my classmates who knew me.

    There are not simply pro and anti sentiments out there. Any non-owner of firearms cannot simply be labeled as the opposition nor can all owners be counted in favor of unlimited or unregulated rights. Libertarian thought may be a fine thing in principle but society will always dictate what is acceptable for its members and translate those sentiments to law.

    For all those who OC with dozens or hundreds of stories of positive encounters with the curious, ask yourself how many thousands of silent onlookers may or may not have approved of your display before dismissing how negative the choice may be. As Mr. Ettin has written, no solid data has accompanied either side.

    Just as likely they will be thinking they saw the perpetrator. Billions of brains out there and none of us can predict what any of them may or may not be thinking.

    Shall I then have the Right, given my greater freedom to obtain and view pornography, to display such material on my automobile? Can I host movie night at a public school and show X-rated material? There have always been limits and many are based on an appropriate audience.
     
  15. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,355
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Let us know how it works out.

    But remember that rhetoric is no substitute for facts or knowledge or ability. If we can actually succeed in restoring to any meaningful extent the RKBA it will be the result of the efforts of those who understand and can work effectively in the political system and the legal system and can effectively influence public opinion.
     
  16. Billy Shears

    Billy Shears Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,004
    Gerry Brown, in 2011, signed a law to make OC illegal in California also, and this seems to have been done at least partly in response to local California news stations doing stories on open carriers and their youtube videos in that state.

    The people who OC for political reasons never like to admit that their actions may have exactly the opposite effect they intended; nobody ever likes to admit being wrong, and it’s embarrassing to take a very public stand and have it backfire. But that’s precisely what happens sometimes. Practicing OC, if it’s done confrontationally, doesn’t get people more familiar, and thus more comfortable with firearms and those who carry them. It scares people. Whether that fear is rational or not is really beside the point, from a practical perspective. What matters is that scared people are exactly the ones who pass laws to make what scares them illegal.

    I fully agree that people who are scared of the sight of guns are irrational. I also agree that police officers who don't know the the law are ignorant. However being rude and confrontational isn't going to change those things. It’s just going to scare people.

    In abstract, yes. And perhaps that is how it should, ideally be in reality. However, in actual reality, the sanitation worker, court clerk, or school lunch lady doesn’t have a badge, gun, radio to summon as much back up as needed, and the power to lock your ass up. Does that mean that the cop wasn’t perhaps abusing his power? No, not at all. Does that mean the citizen might not have a case for suing that officer, department, and city for false arrest, and win? Again, no. But never forget, cops are just people – not only do they not all have photographic memories (and thus may be ignorant of this or that detailed point of any particular law), they also react emotionally just like anyone else and respond to stimuli just like anyone else. In other words, when you piss one off, he’s going to try to find a way to make life unpleasant for you too. Now if he’s unprofessional – which some cops unfortunately are – that means he may overreact, as the cop in this video apparently did. If he’s professional, that may simply means he’s no longer going to extend the benefit of doubt, give you that break, and let you off with that warning he was planning to let you off with a moment earlier, if you are, in fact, breaking some law. So don’t provoke him. That doesn’t mean licking his boots; it just means being courteous and respectful, and not losing your own temper and shooting your mouth off.

    Read Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” People – everyone, not just cops – are motivated partly by a desire to feel important. Freud put it just after the sex drive as a motivator. When a cop, in a position of authority, catches you breaking some minor law, he can gratify he’s desire to feel important in one of two ways: by exerting his authority, or by being magnanimous. If you are rude or belligerent, you make it almost a certainty that he will do the former. If you are polite and respectful, and admit any wrongdoing (if you are, in fact, doing something wrong) you make it far more likely that he will get his feeling of importance by being magnanimous.

    If this vet had simply been less confrontational, the whole thing might have turned out very differently.

    Yes, yes, as someone will no doubt chime in to tell me, we have our rights, and we should be able to to exercise them however we want without having to worry about such things. You know what? I should be able to walk through the south Bronx after midnight with a pocket full of C-notes, without having to worry about being robbed and maybe put in the hospital for my trouble too. Now welcome to the real world.


    What we’re telling you is that rights which get exercised irresponsibly do tend to get taken away. We’ve shown examples where this has happened. Open carry, when it’s done (and I remain convinced that CC is tactically better the vast majority of the time), should be done for defense, not political reasons. As far as the civil rights rationale goes, carrying a gun openly where it is against the law, is advocating for change and pushing people to recognize other's civil rights, just like the 1960s Civil Rights activists, who deliberately broke unjust laws, and were willing to go to jail for it as way of protesting and raising public awareness. Doing it in an area where it's allowed, even if it’s not common, is usually just grandstanding.
     
  17. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,962
    Location:
    Central PA
    To be absolutely fair and balanced, though, it would be best to point out that desensitization is a proven scientific and sociological phenomenon. Be the first to do something and you get noticed. Far more often than not, if you're the first to do something out of "the ordinary" you will be noticed negatively. People do not like "the unusual."

    But in time, jeans with a jacket become acceptable dinner wear, longer hair and an earring become unobjectionable -- even on your doctor, two men can hold hands in public without being beaten up, and heck, maybe even black people can sit wherever they want to on the bus. And you can walk in a public place with a slung or holstered firearm without going for a ride in a squad car.

    Be the change you want to see? Yeah, sounds right to me. It is indeed a risk. Some folks will NOT like it. Some folks will try to bring political heat on you and on us if you do. They'll either succeed or fail. A right you cannot exercise is vapid. A right exercised frequently, commonly, and openly becomes unexceptional and increasingly less objectionable.

    Pick your battles, pick your moments, be on your best behavior? Yes, of course, always. But years from now we will be thanking the polite but bold folks who broke ground for us. (And we'll have forgotten the blowhard few who came too close to "ruining" it for us.)
     
  18. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,962
    Location:
    Central PA
    :rolleyes: Funny!

    Sometimes it is, of course, but "usually?" Open carrying where lawful is "USUALLY" just grandstanding? You just cast an AWFUL lot of folks, including many members here, in a light I'm sure you'll agree you should not have.

    I'm sure most of us here know what you meant, unfortunately, you said what you said.
     
  19. jon_in_wv

    jon_in_wv Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,816
    I don't feel those who would harm me have a right to know I'm armed. The idea they AMY come across someone who is armed is a good deterrent for them to keep their hands off everyone.
     
  20. Billy Shears

    Billy Shears Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,004
    I meant exactly what I said. I made it clear enough from the context of the entire post (and I expect most people here are intelligent enough to get it -- I certainly hope so), that I am primarily referring to people who open carry for political reasons, as much or more than defensive ones. If you live in an area where CC is permitted, and you can qualify for a permit (which is the majority of states now), and you choose to go most places carrying openly, you are grandstanding. You want people to know you are armed. Now if there is no concealed carry where you live, or you can't qualify for CC, but can for OC, or you are simply so cash strapped that you can't afford the permit (unlikely, if you can afford the gun and practice ammo in the first place), that's another thing. It's also another thing if you're outdoors, working on a ranch, hunting, etc. etc.

    But most places where people will be your primary threat, it makes a lot more sense to carry concealed, and you draw less attention to yourself. If you choose to OC in these places, and you can CC... Well, as I said, you are inviting that attention.

    Again, there are some times and places where OC makes sense, tactically. For most people, most of the time, CC would be wiser. If you carry OC, you should be doing it for a logical, self defense-related reason. If you are not carrying for such a reason, I stand by my assertion that you are mainly grandstanding.
     
  21. 316SS

    316SS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    591
    I live in California, where OC is illegal (in many places). I have a CCW. I would like the choice of open carry, for many reasons, none of them political. I guess I have a hankerin' for some grandstanding. :rolleyes:
     
  22. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,962
    Location:
    Central PA
    So, "it's more comfortable," "It's too hot for an over-garment," "I like the advantage of a faster draw," "my defensive philosophy is 'deterrent' rather than 'element of surprise," or simply "I prefer..." all fail in your grand opinion that open carriers are just grandstanding?

    Wow. Glad we don't charge extra for double-wide opinions 'round here.

    :D

    (You do realize, don't you, that MOST people who carry concealed are just too cowardly to carry openly, right? I mean, sometimes the law makes them conceal, but where it's not against the law to carry openly, most of the time when folks choose to conceal their guns anyway it is because they are afraid and ashamed. And ugly.)


    See what I did there? ;)
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2013
  23. M-Cameron

    M-Cameron member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,865
    I don't think that us an entirely fair statement.....people do OC for reasons other than attention.

    Lets assume for a minute we live in a 'gun owners utopia' where there are no gun law and the entire population is indifferent to OC.

    I know for a fact I would OC most of the time.....

    Why? ........ Comfort.

    It's no secret CC can be a pain.....literally.

    You need to find the right sized gun, the right holster, the right clothes, and even then it's still not the greatest experience.

    With OC, you can carry a full sized pistol comfortably and you just need to toss it on your belt and go.

    Ide imagine I would still CC when going into the city or crowded areas, or in a more formal setting...


    Now lets assume we are no longer in ' gun utopia'..... But we live In a place with few gun laws and OC I at least somewhat common( stares like AZ, VT, AK)

    It's not hard to see why people who can OC do..... It doesn't make OC right for every situation, but that doesn't mean those that do are 'grandstanding'
     
  24. Billy Shears

    Billy Shears Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,004
    I carry full-size Browning Hi Power most of the time. Concealed. I don't find it uncomfortable in the slightest. I also don't find having to sweep my jacket or other garment aside slows my draw to any significant degree.

    I am utterly unconvinced that open carriers are all that much deterrent, if any. And I prefer not to show my hole card.

    We don't live in a gun owner's utopia. We never have, and never will. Even in the days when you could buy them through the mail and there were literally no restrictions, a man carrying openly on the streets of Boston or Charleston or St. Louis, who wasn't a law enforcement official or security guard of some sort was so uncommon a sight as to be, essentially, a freak. If open carriers haven't become common in this country in hundreds of years, I find the argument that carrying openly will persuade more people to do it, and make it more common and accepted to be highly unrealistic, to say the least.

    Again, just to clarify: if you're reasons for OC are self defense-related, fine. I may not agree that you're thinking is sound, but fine, it's your choice. On the other hand, if any part of your thinking is along the lines of "this is my right and I'm going to exercise it!" then I stand by my point: you are grandstanding. It would be different if you went and carried where it wasn't legal, in order to stand up for the exercise of a right that is being infringed, but if you are doing it where it is already legal, just to make a statement, rather than for self defense reasons... Yeah. Grandstanding.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2013
  25. Sam Cade

    Sam Cade Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,227
    Location:
    Rural Kentucky, surrounded by Amish
    How common is common?

    There was a guy OCing at the TSC this morning.

    I stopped at Wal-Mart for some sundries on the way back and not counting the city cop getting breakfast there were 5 folks that I saw in the store OCing.

    This was in Bowling Green KY, population 60k.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice