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

Open carry is setting us back. IMO

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by G.A.Pster, Apr 21, 2010.

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

    Dashunde Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    96
    Not bad at all Navy. I'd call that respectable. You look like a [edit: off duty] cop. :D

    But I still say its not a good idea in my locale.

    You should care... they vote. Every single one that gets upset is just another that can join and fund the anti's.
    Like it or not, our gun laws are subject to voter scrutiny in many places every few years.



    I'm referencing a guns ability to attract attention to itself due to its size. I have a few 1911's and CC them when its cold out. Navy's picture whould take on a very different persona if he were sporting a USP Mark 23 or 6" Magnum.
    The only level of upset I have here is a sense of concern that some seem hellbent to do harm to our cause through uncompromisingly ranting about 2A, and seemingly relishing any opportunity to rub raw the on-the-fencers and anti's alike.

    Right. You pretty much nailed my perspective on it.
    I dont think OC should ever be used as a opportunity to "show off" a gun like its a diamond ring, a chromed out Harley or a gold tooth (haha).
    And under NO circumstances should it EVER be used in ANY way that is intimidating or bully'ish. I'm referring to those BarnyBadA$$ who would cut in line with a GFYS attitude and dare anyone to say anything because they're obviously packing. We all know the the type, the one that should be be dropped with a zapper and have their gun taken down and parts scattered amongst the nearby trash cans and water ways.
    Well ok, I got carried away with that, but you get the point.. :)
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2010
  2. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    Hmmm... I was trying to look like a Second Amendment supporter.
     
  3. Big Boy

    Big Boy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    394
    Location:
    Missouri
    That pic is exactly what the average OC'er looks like. I don't understand where all of this paranoia is coming from.
     
  4. basicblur

    basicblur Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,637
    Location:
    VA
    Guess I’ll have to wade into this one!

    First off, OC is not really for me (prefer CC), but I support it 100%. There are times I have OCed, or more accurately, discreet carried (but by law it was still OC). ‘Course, trying to figure out a criminal mind AFA OC being safer/more dangerous is probably an exercise in futility? I like keeping mine hidden, but there was the case in GA recently where some guys were going to rob a restaurant, but decided to wait until the OCers left (think a waitress called the cops and they were apprehended). How many of these cases do we not know about because the BGs just left?

    Lots of folks seem to be guilty of painting with a broad brush and hanging “that guy” around the OC movement’s neck. These are probably the same folks that (rightfully) whine when anti-2nd folks try to hang someone like Cho around all gun owners’ necks. Any group/movement is going to have some folks who need to be taken aside and given a few pointers on how to put the best foot forward for any movement.

    AFA the Starbucks brooha, Starbucks did the right thing by not getting involved, and OCers should support them for that and not try to push the company further (and by not pushing, I don’t mean not OCing). I don’t know that they are being pressured by the OC movement, as this seems to have been started by the antis trying to drag Starbucks into it.

    I’m also wondering if the OC debate is often split between hunters/non-hunters. I know not all hunters feel that way, but I used to have folks at work often state they had no problem with guns, but why do you need that handgun/AR?

    FWIW, I see the recent NSSF industry survey has shown what a lot of us have known for some time (but politicians/SCOTUS/hunters) don’t seem to be aware of:
    1. The majority of guns purchased are for SD/target shooting
    2. The most popular rifle in the U.S. is the AR-15

    You might want to check out this video (VCDL Picnic Featured on Nightline) as a primer on how to help desensitize the public to OC?
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2010
  5. Stevepwns

    Stevepwns Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    Dashunde Im curiuos to know where you live, you give an opinion of someone that lives in a big city, your opinion also gives me the impression your a liberal who only see's danger when it comes to guns( I hope Im wrong ). It really boils down to being able protect yourself in any given situation. The places you see in you head of caos are 3rd world countrys with no law or order. Ive been to some of those places and those places the problems arent the guns. Its the people holding them, they would fight like they do even if they didnt have guns. I dont know you and again I hope Im wrong but your opinion seems to be based on a lack of knowladge and a baised opinion of guns in general. Just because we want to carry openly doesnt mean we want to run around shooting them. You really should open your mind to whats REALLY going on in our country, open carry states have less crime, those where guns are either banned or highly regulated the crime is uncontrollable. Thats fact not opinion.
     
  6. Dashunde

    Dashunde Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    96
    Good Grief.. Dont confuse me for my wife.
    I live in a very wealthy western suburb of St. Louis were the Lexus-driving soccer moms number in the thousands. There's also a lot of Volvo's here too, thats rarely a good sign.
    (I'm not particularly deep-pocketed, so clearly the riff-raff can sneak in on occasion)
    I ccw everyday - even my wife and family dont really know that I carry, but they do know I'm a gun nut.
    I guess you could say I'm liberal-minded in the sense that I'm generally a live-n-let-live guy, but I do have what I consider reasonable expectations of decency, class and courtesy. I usually exhibit common sense and come down in the middle on most issues. I love my guns and my smoke rolling diesel truck and I'm solidly Republican on money issues, but I also think a woman has a right to choose and that we shouldnt be making many decisions based on religion.
    I definitely dislike any form of anti-American and think those who sling mud on our country should be slung out on their asses. Same for liberal judges who try to legislate from the bench. I'm not a fan of reading Spanish everywhere and I'm way past nausiated by the costs of illegals, the futile "war on drugs", and Obama's Presidency (so far).
    I figure citizens should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesnt effect anyone else, but at the same time I dont want to see gays kissin in public, young girls dressing with their butts hangin out (where are their damn parents anyway??), young men who cant pull their pants up, and non-uniformed people walking around with visible guns hanging out.
    And fyi... my wife is a much better person than I am... lol.

    Those states you speak of are highly regulated due to bureaucrats/legislators trying to control crime by controlling the guns. We already know that doesnt work.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2010
  7. bigfatdave

    bigfatdave Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,961
    Location:
    Near Camp Perry
    ,
    These two statements don't go together, you know.

    And your message is diluted by the awful spelling, is English not your first language?
     
  8. Nick5182

    Nick5182 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    583
    Location:
    Iowa
    My dad is former LEO and an ex-BATF firearms instructor and although he is pro 2A, he's against open carry. He feels that it gives away the element of surprise in a defensive situation. Even though he carries a weapon, he feels at a disadvantage if it's in plain view for the public to see.
     
  9. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    It's pretty hard to deter crime using the element of surprise. That's why LEO open carry - as a deterrent. If the element of surprise is so important, than I would suggest this - let's take the guns away from 1/2 of the cops, and the other 1/2 conceal theirs. That way the bad guy won't know which cops are armed and which aren't and the all important element of surprise will now be on the cop's side, right? :scrutiny:

    And it will have another added benefit too. It is also claimed that people who are known to be carrying a gun are shot first and their guns taken from them, so my plan would also eliminate 1/2 of that threat too! If there was only 50% chance that a cop was carrying a gun, that would lower the criminal's desire to shoot them to take their gun, right?

    Oh... heck, and a third benefit would be that more people would feel comfortable around cops if they didn't see their guns, because people carrying guns are scary, right?

    AND! Wouldn't it make the Brady Campaign happy, too, to have 1/2 of LEO's guns off the streets? Isn't that what they say the problem is? Guns on the streets?

    Oh, oh... and think of the budget savings only having to buy guns and ammo for 1/2 of the cops!

    What a plan, I just don't see any down sides to it!
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2010
  10. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    12,160
    Location:
    DFW Area
    It's a right in that they can't deny you a permit unless you have done something illegal.

    Rights can be taxed. You have the right to earn an income and to own real estate, but you will have to pay the government taxes in order to legally exercise either of those rights. You have the right to own a business but not without paying taxes.

    Rights can be regulated via permits. You have a right to develop and build on your own land, but in some circumstances you may be required to purchase a permit to do so and get approval.

    Besides, are you really saying that, based on principle, you would stop open carrying if it required a permit? Because it's no longer a right and you refuse to pay and petition the government for the privilege to carry?

    What you wrote has a nice ring to it and I understand the point you're trying to get across, but that kind of rhetoric isn't really constructive.
     
  11. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    Really? Tell that to the residents of California, Iowa (soon to change), New York, Connecticut, Maryland and Alabama. In those states, citizens are at the mercy of their local sheriff as to who gets a permit and who doesn't. And then there are other states that make the process incredibly difficult, requiring the sign-off from local mental hospitals and multiple references in order to obtain a permit.

    I open carry about 95% of the time because, in Washington state, it is exercising a RIGHT for which no permit is required. I also have a Washington state CPL, which gives me the PRIVILEGE of concealing the gun if I want to, and also gives me the PRIVILEGE to carry my gun loaded in a vehicle. What I will not do is ever claim that I am exercising my right to carry when I am under the conditions that require the permit to carry. In those circumstances, I am exercising a PRIVILEGE that I have paid the government a fee to in order to obtain membership into an elite group of people.

    The problem is that too many pro-gun people around here consider it exercising their RIGHT to carry a gun that they are only capable of carrying because they have paid the state a fee for permission. And too many pro-gun people around here are perfectly OK with being required to obtain the government's permission in order to carry.

    What about the citizen that simply cannot afford to pay for the training some states require to obtain a permit and cannot afford to pay for the permit? What about their rights in states that require a permit to carry at all such as Texas, Oklahoma, New York, etc. I guess they are just S.O.L. aren't they?

    There are too many pro-gun people around here who are only willing to call a spade a heart for fear of offending the anti-gun crowd and aren't willing to stand up and call a spade a spade.
     
  12. JoeSlomo

    JoeSlomo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    803

    Not much more to say about that imo.

    Respect.
     
  13. Dashunde

    Dashunde Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    96
    Yes they do.
    I believe everyone has the right to do those things, I simply said I don’t like to see it.
    It could also be broken down by actions that do or do not represent behavior, manners, decency, or public image.

    Yep, I misspelled "nauseated", and intentionally dropped a "g" here and there, I’m also not much for using apostrophes. Good of you to notice all of that and point it out, too bad your spell checker doesn’t help you much with reading comprehension.

    Navy, we are not cops nor are we supposed to individually act as crime deterrents, to OC like a LEO automatically makes citizens obstacles and targets who don’t wear vests.
    And why is it not sinking in that cops are shot at all the time for simply being in the way of the criminal's objective?
    Read up on Cookie Thornton if you have any doubts about whether or not you and your visible gun would be targeted first.

    Your mistaken if you think that visible gun on your hip will deter a motivated criminal… your just offering up a free spare gun.
    And while I'm thinking about it, how many of you OC'ers are properly trained in defending your holstered firearm?

    The untrained should not carry. Period.
    Under the circumstances you describe the chances are high that they can't afford practice ammo either.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2010
  14. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    I very much beg to differ with you, my friend. I WILL deter every crime that might be potentially committed against me that is possible! So what you are saying is you would rather be a victim who has to defend himself against a crime in progress rather than a hardened target that just isn't worth it.

    You very obviously have a different brand of criminals in your area than criminals that are in my area. I guess the criminals around here are smarter. They see a hardened target that has the capability of shooting and killing them and the criminals around here simply go down the street one block, or wait five minutes for the threat to pass and then they attack the next target that comes along that is not visibly armed. So let's see - advantage to criminal - greatly reducing the chances of getting shot; disadvantage - they have to walk one block down the road or wait five minutes.

    It is just plain foolish to think that a criminal is going to risk getting shot at, and all the attention that draws, in order to get a couple credit cards from a wallet, or a couple hundred bucks out of a cash register when 95% of the other targets in very close proximity are visibly unarmed.

    So- from that point of view, I would like to thank you and the other concealed carriers out there. Because you are of great benefit to me. You are increasing the number of visibly unarmed targets out there and making it easier for the criminal to decide to leave me and my gun alone. Thank you! And, if you should get the opportunity to test your element of surprise, I hope it works out well for you. Please aim accurately, and I hope you can deal with the aftermath of shooting a person. For me, I'll take the odds that the criminal will just move on by me because they don't particularly care for gunfights.

    And here it is. Only the trained, only the elite should be able to protect themselves, according to you. I am sure glad I live in America. And I am glad that your way of thinking is still the minority in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave - whether or not they are trained.
     
  15. mrokern

    mrokern Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Messages:
    166
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I'm was going to stay out of this one, but there are two issues I have to comment on. For the record, I'm very pro-OC. It doesn't mean I always do it...heck, I rarely do it. But I have my own reasons for both OC and CC, and they are just that: my reasons.

    The first was the assertion that the 2A was vaguely worded. Wrong. If you actually study the history and writings around the creation of it, you'll find that the founders were anything but vague. The current mess is nothing more than activist judges not being able to understand proper English writing from the 1700s. The 2A supports the citizenry, plain and simple.

    The second issue is the comment that the untrained should not carry. Every set of statistics I've ever seen shows that there is zero difference between states where more intensive training (e.g. Minnesota) is required and states where no permit (e.g. Alaska) is required. The 2A doesn't apply only to those who have the money to go to Gunsite, or even to my permit classes (full disclosure, I am a MN Permit to Carry instructor). I teach my classes because the law says a class is required. I charge to cover my time and costs...this is a passion, not a job.

    Is it a personal responsibility to educate oneself as to proper operation and safe use of a firearm? Absolutely. Does that require large amounts of cash? Of course not. To require otherwise is to restrict a right that belongs to ALL Americans, and that is simply not constitutional or moral.

    -Mark
     
  16. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,232
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "The untrained should not carry. Period."

    Do you believe that training should be required prior to exercising 1st Amendment rights?

    Of course you don't. So why require it for the 2nd Amendment rights?

    John
     
  17. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    Actually, John, he never stated that training should be required. He just doesn't like being around people carrying guns who don't meet his "standards." And he has every right to feel that way. He also has every right to go somewhere else if he doesn't like being around armed Americans.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page